Talk:Anti-Bihari sentiment/Archive 1

The article has been recently started and is in the process of making. The current content will be expanded.
WP:POVFORK page says What content/POV forking is not

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.
 * Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.
 * Articles whose subject is a POV

So I am removing WP:POVFORK Manoj nav (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that this article should be kept. It is accurate and well referenced. All the incidents described in here are true. Truth sets us free. Only when we acknowledge that this exists steps can be taken to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsanjaymd (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is underconstruction
This article is in the middle of an expansion, and is not yet ready for use. Kindly coperate. Manoj nav (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions
The article is being developed by editors through IP addresses -159.104.212.36, 91.104.57.107 and 86.136.254.40. There has been an excellent progress and lot of material has been added. May I suggest you to create login and user pages, so that we can communicate better.

There is a discussion at.

and should not be deleted just because some people dislike it. Thanks - drsanjaymd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsanjaymd (talk • contribs) 15:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that this article is well researched and accurate. It must be maintained in Wikipedia

Someone says there -

There are 2 separate issues
 * Social/political/economic issues
 * Bihari label and treatment of individual Biharis by some non-Biharis

I think there is a point in that and we need to do some research. Manoj nav (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying Biharis face Racism and Prejudice because they are 'economically poor and uneducated' amounts to saying Africans faced racism because they were darker. Even the most uneducated and poor has the right to live in his country as a main stream citizen. A person can't say that I shall treat you like a waste till you become rich and educate yourself. You will not find Bhojpuri films in shops like Planet-M, which other wise keeps musics and films in all other Indian regional languages. This is racism. Theaters showing Bihari films have been attacked. This is a social-Apartheid of Indian origin, which will soon be legalized, if people like Naik, exists (this is just my personal opinion). Manoj nav (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. What I wanted to do is provide as much information as possible without providing an answer. Causes of racism are normally cultural and economic in nature. My view is that what is happning to Biharis is the same as what happed to Indians in Uganda. I will be happy to see what additional changes you can make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be online much for atleast next 10 days. Some had suggested for the deletion of the article without any discussion. So I have removed the message. I shall contribute for the article in time to come and ask others as well. We also need to add some photographs. Manoj nav (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

AfDM without discussion thread ??
Assuming that there is no issue at all, I am removing the message. The article is very much justified. Manoj nav (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I deleted AfDM message out of ignorance. There is a discussion going on at Articles for deletion/Racism faced by Bihari people in India, which unfortunately has no link on this discussion page. Neither did I receive any personal message. I would request the Administrator to restore the message if it is required. Manoj nav (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

change in the title of the article.
The title of the article has been changed from 'Racism faced by the people of Bihar' to 'Anti-Bihari sentiment in India'. I do not support this. Others kindly comment. Manoj nav (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The new title is a nice euphemism but equally OR. There is neither any racism nor any "anti-bihari sentiment" in India.  Biharis enjoy the same fundamental constitutional rights that every other citizen of the company enjoys.  Nothing more nothing less.  Any suggestions of a supposed "anti-bihari sentiment" in India is a figment of the authors' imagination.  This is wikipedia.. not a propaganda pamphlet.  Stop giving vent to your imaginations here.


 * The free movement of people seeking work from one part of the Indian Union is guaranteed in the constitution[1]. - Nice!


 * Millions of Biharis have left their home state to work in developmental projects, and also to seek general work in other parts of India. As a consequence, Biharis have been subjected a growing degree of prejudice and violence. The current prejudiced view of Biharis in India in line with all mass migration events.[2].[3][4][5] - Brilliant!


 * Is this supposed to be a joke? Sarvagnya 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kindly refer the discussion thread for reply to your conflict - Articles_for_deletion/Racism_faced_by_Bihari_people_in_India Manoj nav (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Shrivastava1984 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)I think the name of this topic is absolutely correct. I am a Bihari and i have faced racism various times when i was in Maharashta for my studies and in Andhra Pradesh for Job. People of other state think that Biharis are inferior.Again I would like to submit here that Indian constitution guarantees the same constitutional rights but we hardly enjoy the same. When Raj Thackrey was targeting people of Bihar in Maharashtra, people were afraid to speak. I have seen fear in their eyes.

the very premise of this article is a hoax????
I think the discussion suggests the other way round -  Articles_for_deletion/Racism_faced_by_Bihari_people_in_India Manoj nav (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

the new sub-section titles don't conveys the right information
The some of the sub-section titles have been changed to
 * Inclusion in BIMARU
 * Poor professionals
 * Allegations of vulgarity of culture

They are misleading and conveying wrong informations. I would request experts on the topic to look into it. Any effort to improve the linguistics of the article should not be to the extend that it conveys wrong information. Manoj nav (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate content for an encyclopædia
This continued underinvestment shows in many ways. There is not even one major irrigation system built in an agricultural state like Bihar since independence. The latest one is the British built Son Canal system. For 45 kilometres of Yamuna in Delhi, there are 20 bridges. But for 445 km of Ganga in Bihar, there are just three and half bridges. Even simple demand of the state like a TV station at the state capital was consistently denied by the centre.

Lest Biharis start to ask for their due share, a myth was created that the state is highly corrupt and criminalised. Allegations of casteism and criminalisation were hurled to hit at the self esteem of Biharis. Prominent editors like MV Kamath of the Illustrated Weekly of India wrote an objectionable essay saying Biharis are not fit to rule Bihar. He even went on to say that Bihar needs to be kept under the tutelage of outsiders till they become capable to handle their affairs themselves. This essay was published in his so called national magazine at the height of the movement of Jayaprakash Narayan in the mid seventies. This line of thinking can be compared with the self righteous thinking of the colonialists at the height of imperialism in the mid ninteenth century.

Data from NCRB shows that in several parameters of crime, such as murder, rape, dacoity and dowry harassment, Bihar is nowhere near the top. It is only in kidnapping that Bihar was ranked top since 2000 to 2005. However, if one quotes these figures, one is immediately countered by saying that you cannot rely on the figures given by Govt of Bihar. This attitude cannot but be called bias where one is damned either way.

This policy of discrimination brought about the results intended by the planners. The green revolution of Punjab and Haryana is largely the result of the hard work of the labourers from Bihar. If proper money had been spent on flood control and irrigation projects in Bihar, these labourers would not have had the reason to migrate and the green revolution would have happened in Bihar instead.

The above mentioned paras are a piece of WP:POV and WP:OR. Clearly, it should be deleted. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 06:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite, Reposition and delete some

Reweite, Send to Economy There is not even one major irrigation system built in an agricultural state like Bihar since independence. The latest one is the British built Son Canal system. For 45 kilometres of Yamuna in Delhi, there are 20 bridges. But for 445 km of Ganga in Bihar, there are just three and half bridges. Even simple demand of the state like a TV station at the state capital was consistently denied by the centre.

Rewite, send to Consequences with Biharis Lest Biharis start to ask for their due share, a myth was created that the state is highly corrupt and criminalised. Allegations of casteism and criminalisation were hurled to hit at the self esteem of Biharis.

Notable Incidents Prominent editors like MV Kamath of the Illustrated Weekly of India wrote an objectionable essay saying Biharis are not fit to rule Bihar. He even went on to say that Bihar needs to be kept under the tutelage of outsiders till they become capable to handle their affairs themselves. This essay was published in his so called national magazine at the height of the movement of Jayaprakash Narayan in the mid seventies. This line of thinking can be compared with the self righteous thinking of the colonialists at the height of imperialism in the mid ninteenth century.

rewrite, Send to Consequences with Biharis Data from NCRB shows that in several parameters of crime, such as murder, rape, dacoity and dowry harassment, Bihar is nowhere near the top. It is only in kidnapping that Bihar was ranked top since 2000 to 2005. However, if one quotes these figures, one is immediately countered by saying that you cannot rely on the figures given by Govt of Bihar. This attitude cannot but be called bias where one is damned either way.

delete This policy of discrimination brought about the results intended by the planners. The green revolution of Punjab and Haryana is largely the result of the hard work of the labourers from Bihar. If proper money had been spent on flood control and irrigation projects in Bihar, these labourers would not have had the reason to migrate and the green revolution would have happened in Bihar instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 12:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed sections or placed in to appropriate AREA
removing tags —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frompatna (talk • contribs) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article is subject to vandalism through inproper use of Taggings
The entry appears to be a victim of vendalism by a user who failed to get the page deleted. What is the process to protect this page from further vandalism

Tags
This article is going from bad to worse. Unless the references support what is written in the article, I will be going ahead and deleting stuff from this screed. None of the refs in the lead support any of the contentions made in the lead. And the various sections that follow only record various instances of local populations' exasperation with uncouth Bihari migrants. That does not automatically mean that there is an anti-Bihari sentiment in India or elsewhere. The article is generously laced with OR, POV and for the most part is an outright hoax. Unless these issues are addressed, I will be tagging it. Sarvagnya 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is appropriate and correct information has been provided. Anyone can refer to the link that how Biharis is being exploited all over the India. There is a huge wave of racism against Biharis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrivastava1984 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Confirmation
Despite a debate in deletion, in which multiple users agreed that the article is well sourced and reasonably well written, we have a "user" who is determined to undermine the consensus agreed. Suggest this article be protected against valdalism as outlined above. The page, like all those in discrimination, deserve protection from elements who make false judgements as agreed in the debate.

For further information;

Articles_for_deletion/Racism_faced_by_Bihari_people_in_India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 08:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

tags
Well, I was one of the editors who did not support deletion of this article during the AFD. If there is an editor who is tagging them for issues, there are probably issues. Please do not throw accusations, but rather discuss with the person, try to resolve and possibly let someone else take the tags away if possible (when the issue is resolved). Docku Hi 02:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed this because the references do really not support the statement. Please do not put it back without convincing others in the talk page. Docku Hi 03:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

title concerns
Though I support the existence of the article (not in its current form), I still am bothered that the title is not convincingly correct (though I know it was changed before). The article chronicles the economic miseries and various incidences of discrimination faced by Biharis. However, there is no single reference (correct me if i am wrong), which calls this plight racism or anti-Bihari sentiment. I therefore suggest changing the title to something more appropriate. I beleieve the title should be themed on the economical difficulties faced by Biharis. Docku Hi 03:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, I have changed the title, hope it is acceptable to all. Docku Hi 04:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the new title a huge improvement from the hoax it was. The article should eventually be merged and redirected to Economy of Bihar.  All the cruft about how Bihari labourers were allegedly beaten in MH, Assam etc., needs to be flushed out.  Sarvagnya 04:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am not sure about the merging yet. Let us keep improving by keeping valid information in and kicking the bogus stuff out and see where it leads to. Docku Hi 04:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * changed again. Please pls feel free to tweak it in a way it reflects the article content. Docku Hi 16:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bihari Labour
It is vital that attacks on migrant Bihari workers remain part of this entry. This forms part of the picture of prejudiced attitudes towards Biharis inside India (outside the Hindi belt). Thousands of been deported and hundreds killed. Reports by CNNIBN, by NDTV, by Times of India, as mentioned in references cite the the violence on Bihari workers. These aren't alleged incidents as statmed by the advocate of deleteion above.

For thoes now involved in editing this very important entry....Please Cross Reference will all sources on the reference section. See if they are fake, lies, falsehoods, poor sources. It is very, very important that discriminated poor people don't get 'thrown' out because they are very, very, very poor and no access to education, healthcare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Notashamed

Kindly make the necessary addition and modification which you think are required. Some people have restored to proactive attack on this article instead of proactive contributions and suggestions. Manoj nav (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

cleanup
I have done some cleanup removing most of the unreferenced info and rephrasing some POV sentences. The article still needs a lot of work. Docku Hi 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am thinking of titles such as Economic migration of Biharis in Indiaand Socio-political effects of economic migration of Biharis in India. Pls let me know your opinions. Docku Hi 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to forward following discussion which was taking place on my talk page User_talk:Manoj_nav ( during the time I was blocked by an administrator User_talk:YellowMonkey, which I strongly oppose as an immature act, without trying to find out the actual truth and giving me a personal warning or atleast a message on my talk page while blocking. In absence of an apology or explanation from the administrator, I will conclude that it was a biased act by the administrator to lobby against the article I am editing i.e. Racism_faced_by_Bihari_people_in_India.). I am forwarding the discussion related to the article here so that others can also participate in the discussion. Manoj nav (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

- --- Hi, I changed the title to (Economic distress of Biharis in India) what I believe is appropriately reflecting the content of the article. I am aware that changing the title hasnt solved all the problems and I still believe the article needs a lot of rewriting and will be doing my contributions whenever I find some time. Hope it is ok. Thanks. Docku Hi 04:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there are editors who are concerned with the title and explain their concerns for changing the title, you have to address those concenrs. You can not make an unilateral decision changing the title without provinding any explanation just accusing the editor of vandalism. That is not the way wikipedia works. I also notice your free use of the word vandalism. If i notice such language again, you will be reported to administrators which could get you into trouble. Docku Hi 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You have blanked following subsection-

"Genocide of Bihari culture"

Indian government, till recently, identified all Bihari languages (Bhojpuri, Magadhi, Maithili and Angika) as dialects of Hindi. A Bihari speaking Bihari accent of Hindi in the rest of India is frequently reminded of that he is speaking incorrect Hindi inspite of belonging to the Hindi heartland of India. This stereotype has been created by the establishments in Delhi to propagate Hindi at any cost. Bihari languages (Bhojpuri, Magadhi, Maithili and Angika) are descendants of ancient Magadhi-prakrit language spoken in the ancient kingdom of Magadha and are very different from Hindi or Urdu. Even after 60 years of India's independence Bihari languages, which are spoken by almost the whole of the population of Bihar, have not been given official status. Maithili was granted official status in 2004, after an active movement, through its inclusion in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, so that it may be used in education, government, and other official contexts.

Will any administrator make me understand if this is not vandalism. If any editor has any dispute, he or she is supposed to add citation tags and give the previous editors time to further modify it. Instead of this the subsection has been blanked.

The section headings Causes of xenophobia and prejudice against Biharis and Notable establishment sponsored incidents of hate and prejudice against the community has been changed to to Causes and Notable incidents respectively to dilute the topic and then it has been claimed to change the title to Economic distress of Biharis in India or Treatment of Bihari economic migrants in India or Anti-Bihari migrant sentiment in India. Do we need experts to confirm if these anti-bihari sentements are racism. Why is it so difficult to assimilate?

Manoj nav (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reference (not just any, reliable) for any of the information written in "Genocide of Bihari culture"? Without references, contentious materials will be removed immediately from article even if many of the editors editing the article (including you and me) think and believe it is true. verifiability is the first rule (not the only). "Xenophobia", "racism" and "establishment sponsored incidents" are incredibly loaded words and without extraordinary references, they stand no chance in the article. In fact, I would caution you against adding them in the future because doing so without a strong evidence could get you into trouble. Read the following policies during the small break, WP:VERI, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:REDFLAG, WP:UNDUE and several others. Remember, if the informations which we add breach even one of these policies, it cant stay in wikipedia. Good luck. Docku Hi 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

- -

I fail to receive Docku's arguments. Changing the key sub-titles and the title of the article may give an illusion that what he is trying to say is justified i.e. the article is not about discrimination. If one go through the whole article and the references provided, one can clearly make out that Biharis are discriminated in India. Following edits suggest that the key issue .i.e. 'discrimination faced by Biharis' is being sidelined and ignored, so as to give an illusion that the article is solely about the topic 'economic distress/miseries of Biharis in India'.
 * the introduction to the violence and discrimination faced by Biharis has been pushed down
 * the sub headings which gives eye catching view and better understanding of derogatory remarks made by people holding key positions in India like ministers, people occupying gov. offices, journalists, politicians etc. have been removes so that the para becomes unreadable and looks lengthy.
 * the heading Causes of xenophobia and prejudice against Biharis has been shortened to causes and it has been claimed that there is no reference to support this, which is unarguably false.

A systematic attempt has been been made to change the voice (and not the tone) of the article which I feel is equivalent to deleting the article, which was protested at Articles_for_deletion/Racism_faced_by_Bihari_people_in_India and writing a new article all together. The out come of the discussion ( Articles_for_deletion/Racism_faced_by_Bihari_people_in_India )was clearly against the deletion of the article.

I think the editors are not able to understand (which I have already discussed) that there are 2 issues


 * Bihari label and treatment of Biharis in India
 * Social/political/economic issues

Saying Biharis face Racism and Prejudice because they are 'economically poor and uneducated' amounts to saying Africans faced racism because they were darker. Even the most uneducated and poor has the right to live in his country as a main stream citizen. A person can't say that I shall treat you like a waste till you become rich and educate yourself. I feel the edits should be made keeping this in mind.

I support for a title "Discrimination/racism faced by Biharis in India" and suggest that the edits should be made accordingly.

Manoj nav (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Manoj, I understand your concerns. I guess you are really passionate about this article. I feel (notice, feeling with you is not enough to include here) with you on most of the issues you raised. Now, let me explain why I am not in favour of Anti-Bihari sentiment title.


 * The article is a collection of several informations of migration of Biharis to various parts of India and descriminate treatment of them in some places. However, what is missing is that you have not provided an article from reliable news magazine or a book (from a reliable publisher) which deals with the title named Racism faced by Biharis in India or Anti-Bihari sentiment in India. Have you? Under the circumstances, I feel it is only appropriate to title the article which reflects both migration and descrimination. Docku Hi 15:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The introduction says " These Bihari communities living in other states have been subjected to a growing degree of prejudice and violence. ", with references. " Interstate Migrations in India " could be a new page where we can talk about migrations taking place in India. The current page was started specifically to discuss about the discriminations that Biharis face in India. Manoj nav (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a point. Well, I will go with the current title then. Docku Hi 13:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I still beieve that the title is original research. Docku Hi 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have disagreed with the current title in the past here. Manoj nav (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to dilute the article in any way, I have just removed unreferenced information. If there is anything I have removed which was referenced, please bring it up and let us talk about it. Docku Hi 15:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

causes
Considering it more carefully and sharing the similar sentiments of User:Sarvagnya, I have questions to Manoj. Well, I agree that section Causes are referenced and independently verifiable and the same is true with violence against the migrants in various parts of India. The issue is not a question of verifiability. I have no problem with that.

However, what is really missing is reliable sources which discuss the link between the violence and the causes. Without such reliable sources, claiming that violence against the migrants was caused by the causes listed (historical, social, cultural and economical) is original research. I hope I conveyed the message well to you. Docku Hi 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Causes with Violence

Hi Docku

I dont know if you read all the references, but pls read

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/showcolumns.aspx?id=COLEN20080042337 > Looks at causes of the violence (cultural, economic).

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Raj_to_India_Inc_80_jobs_for_Marathis/articleshow/2939094.cms > Links economic causes with the violence in Maharashtra

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=35469&d=23&m=11&y=2003&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion > M J Akbar links history, cultural with the violence

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=7737db7e-a9b5-4d88-802f-3afaff0985d4&&Headline=The+EMBhaiyya+%2fEMEffect&strParent=strParentID

"All this contributes to the lack of regard for UP and Bihar in many parts of India. In Bangalore, a few years ago, a successful software executive told me that he had compiled a growth rate for south India and that it exceeded China's. "It is UP and Bihar that let us down," he said. Such sentiments are common. The face of India that we show to the world — hi-tech, Bollywood-glitzy and super-educated — has nothing to do with UP and Bihar. For many Indians, the two states have become an embarrassment." links growth rates to resenment and prejudice

Current situation and comparison with Racism "The roots of Raj Thackeray's attack on the Bhaiyyas lie in India's economic transformation. Through a combination of poor planning and worse politics, Bihar and UP have been left out of the economic revolution. When people from those states travel outside to find work, those who have benefited from the recent prosperity treat them with the kind of snobbery and disdain with which the British treated Indians when we went to England to find employment in the 1950s. Then, we were seen as losers from a place that would never manage to prosper.But, of course, Indians ignored the racism and rose to the top of the economic pyramid. And eventually, India shed its old image and went from being perceived as an underdeveloped wasteland to becoming an emerging superpower. It may be too optimistic to hope that something similar will happen to UP and Bihar. But we need to recognise that the disdain with which we treat the two states is both unfair and unnecessary. And the rulers of UP and Bihar need also to realise that there "

Notashamed (talk • contribs)

Notable Incidents
I would also argue that Notable Incidents be expanded to "Notable Incidents of Prejudice". The Incidents of prejudice illustrates that Biharis face non migrant levels of prejudice as well....and also from educated people. Notashamed (talk • contribs)


 * "Notable incidents of Prejudice adopted by the establishments" looks more suitable as it lists the incidents where the ruling elites, political leaders are involved (and not common men). Manoj nav (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Title
I recommend that it be called one of the below (given that this has been widley reported)

1) Discrimination against Bihari Migrant Workers 2) Prejudice and Violence against Biharis in Non Hindi Speaking India 3) Discrimination against Biharis in Non-Hindi speaking India (I support this one)

I place more emhpasis against non Hindi speaking, as the incidents and violence is largley confined to cultures alien to Hindi speakers.

Notashamed (talk • contribs)


 * Biharis face prejudice and descrimination even in Hindi speaking regions e.g. western UP and even in Bihar by non-Biharis. Manoj nav (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Bihari migrant sentiment in India at Original research notice board
The article 'Anti-Bihari migrant sentiment in India' has been listed at the Original research notice board here. Manoj nav (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

removed POV
I have removed POV notice. If it is disputed kindly discuss and place it back. Manoj nav (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC).

Page moves
If there are any further page moves on controversial titles, please list them on WP:RM so that consensus can be reached, and the community at large can be notified. Another thing, the title is grammatically wrong: Community is in capitals, and a the is missing. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  11:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions
Manoj Nav: You have basically undone all the changes I have done sometime before. You havent answered any of the concerns regarding Original research. You havent answered why you call it racism (again original research) when all Indians are the same race. It appears to me that you havent really understood the problems with the article. Pls understand WP is not a medium to advertise your displeasure, ideas and opinions to the world, but rather an encyclopedia.  Docku: “what up?”  12:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All Indians under one race? I disagree. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indo-Aryans, mongoloids and Dravidians??? Well, in any case, the races (or ethnic groups) are very well mixed, I dont belive Marathis and Biharis as a whole belong to two different races. Therefore actions of people from one state or region of India against the other can not be considered racism.  Docku: “what up?”  16:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are various races - people of North East (Chinese race), Jats-Punjabis (Indo-Greeks + tribals), South Indians (Dravidians), Adivsis (Claimed to be original inhabitants of Indian sub-continents), Aryans and the mixed breeds. Manoj nav (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * so sure like you were there to witness how the races diverged? What about Marathis and Biharis??? What races do they belong to?  Docku: “what up?”  00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you need to refer a book. It's well known historically. You have already accepted - Indo-Aryans, mongoloids and Dravidians. I guess you are doubtful about Indo-Greeks. I can give some ref. for you, if you want. Manoj nav (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Greek_conquests_in_India, A NEW NON-JONESEAN HISTORY OF THE WORLD Manoj nav (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that Indians are very mixed that classifying an individual or group of Indians into one ethnicity is very difficult. What about Marathi and Bihari, in your opinion?  Docku: “what up?”  01:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Racism I don't wish to define racism here. According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. This definition does not make any difference between prosecutions based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists. According to British law, racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin" . Further .. An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of preferential endogamy and/or a presumed or real common ancestry. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness[3] and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups.
 * I do agree that in general racism term is negotiable. But what we are interested here is in 'Racial Discrimination'. Manoj nav (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not answering my question. What is your opinion on race of Bihari and Marathi??  Docku: “what up?”  01:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They are linguistically and culturally different. And so they belong to two ethnic groups. Manoj nav (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Therefore, it is debatable. Any decision we make after this debate is going to be original research. Pls read WP:OR.  Docku: “what up?”  01:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not debatable in the current context. "I do agree that in general racism term is negotiable. But what we are interested here is in 'Racial Discrimination'." Infact 'Racism faced by Bihari in India' is a commonly held view, which is reflected very clearly from these two articles - Bhaiyaa Effect and State of neglect: Deluged Bihar falls off Govt map. Manoj nav (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When the word "racism" as used here is in dispute and all that you have are two references which mention the word in passing. Do you have an article titled Racism faced by Bihari community in India or something similar discussed in any reliable source?  Docku: “what up?”  02:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you will have to find more references yourself, which are available. " Infact 'Racism faced by Bihari in India' is a commonly held view, which is reflected very clearly from these two articles - Bhaiyaa Effect and State of neglect: Deluged Bihar falls off Govt map. Manoj nav (talk)11:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Burden of providing evidence lies with you. Read WP:Burden. Besides, that "it is a commonly held view" doesnt really cut it and I do not see the clarity (sorry about that).  Docku: “what up?”  14:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that the current contents of the article are well referred? If not so please speak up. As far as choosing a suitable title is concerned wait for others comments. I think "Racism faced by Bihari community in India" is a suitable title for the article, and is nothing more then just calling apple, an apple. Manoj nav (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why original research and synthesis?
You are correlating historical section with the violence against Bihari immigrants. By doing so, you are synthesising new material and therefore violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.  Docku: “what up?”  15:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think historical section doesn't belongs to the section - 'causes..'. Manoj nav (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Well, I propose the following title Violence against Bihari migrants in India.

I also propose to remove all the causes (not substantially proven and reliably sourced) leading to the violence including the Historical section from the article. These informations can be kept in the article if we are to name the article to a generic title such as Bihari migration in India.  Docku: “what up?”  18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with the title.--KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Violence against Bihari migrants in India is not the only topic which is covered in the article. It's part of a more general topic Racism faced by Bihari Community in India. Violence against Bihari ethnic group is nothing but racial discrimination. Kindly go through the references. Manoj nav (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with removal of the causes section it explains the reasons behind of the violence and prejudice.


 * I have supplied reliable sources that link all of them together in the deletion debate.


 * Docku you need to state why the causes "references" are not reliable soources, each of them, and what makes them suitable for deletion.


 * Its not correct to say "I dont think" without going through the source, making a case why its not good enough in detail, and pointing out the very specific reason for its removal.


 * Many sources, mention abuse, recism, anti bihari violence is the same breadth. The sources are reliable like Times of India, Hindustan Times, CNNIBN. A lot of these sources also discuss causes, and that is important in an entry like this also.


 * On the title; CNNIBN, Vir Singhvi, Times of India, NDTV, all discuss this issue of racism and prejudice against Bihari people. I have highlighted the CNNIBN report during the deletion debate.


 * That was important because it outlined Biharis as a people, a seperate identity. NotAshamed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

New edits
I have done a few edits like -


 * Changed the line in the introduction - "Bihari communities living in other states have been subjected to a growing degree of prejudice and violence." to "Bihari communities living in other states have been subjected to a growing degree of racial discrimination, prejudice and violence." It's supported by references, which are secondary sources.


 * Changed the line in the introduction - "Biharis are often looked down upon" to "Biharis are often looked down upon and their accent is ridiculed."


 * Added comment by Indian journalist, Vir Sanghvi.

I have added few more references and will keep adding references. Manoj nav (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Violence against Hindi-speaking migrants in India
Manoj nav: I believe this is the most appropriate title because 1) All the references point strongly to violence. 2) The violence is not against all people in general, it is rather against the migrants 3) It is not only Bihari migrants who are subject to this violence. Your POV pushing is against wikipedia policies and therfore I would advice you give up on this and concentrate on improving this and other articles as adviced by others. You need to get a consensus if you want to change title.  Docku: “what up?”  18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, We are not talking about the Hindi speaking states of Rajasthan, MP, Western UP, and even Jharkand. Eastern UP, and Bihar constitite the same ethno lingustic group, refer the the NDTV article called "Clash of Cultures". Docku, time and again you have made changes that reflect rather poorly on your knowladge of the references attached. By changing the title, you draw in regions and peoples who arfe unconnected to the violence. Your title on Hindi speaking migrant is wrong. It needs to be changed. NotAshmand Notashamed (talk • contribs)22:35, 29 September 2008
 * You didnt even look who changed the title.. Pls sign your talk with 4 tildes like this []  Docku: “what up?”  22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you are not unaware of this edit carried out by you. Manoj nav (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

---forwarding discussions which took place in various user talk pages

The title has been changed to Violence against Hindi-speaking migrants in India. Discrimination_against_Biharis_in_India section don't talks about violence at all. Kindly refer the comments Talk:Violence_against_Hindi-speaking_migrants_in_India. So the title is not justified.

I am worried about edits like these

The sub-headings which gives eye catching view and better understanding of derogatory remarks made by people holding key positions in India like ministers, people occupying gov. offices, journalists, politicians etc. have been removes, so that the para becomes unreadable and looks lengthy.

I have already discussed this with you. All those sub-headings would be expended in time to come.

Manoj nav (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Believe me edits like this is not going to help. I think we need to list it here - WP:RM. Manoj nav (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Manoj nav (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Notable incidents were meged with the background (which was renamed from Causes). You reverted all of those changes because you see only one POV, you dont want to see the other point of view at all. Please also remember that you dont hold ownership to this article just because you created it.

Quote From WP:OWN,

You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:


 * If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

Also:


 * If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them.

 Docku: “what up?”  19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you missed my previous message - "I think we need to list it here - WP:RM". And when I say that, it means I am looking forward for a peer review. I never said that I am the owner of the article. Infact I have hardly built up the article. Most of the stuffs have been added by various editors. I have spent most of the time adding suitable references. You are unnecessarily trying to make me read rules! The article is very important from the point of view of Bihar. All these discussions (read controversies), will give editors chance to explore more in depth and finally it will only do justice to the article. I am just worried about the situation when peer reviewers start taking things personally and then attack the article on the name of peer review. Manoj nav (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Before doing this - Notable incidents were meged with the background (which was renamed from Causes).  you should have discussed it here. Manoj nav (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to file a request at WP:RM. What do you mean that the article is important in Bihar point of view? That may very well be the case, but unfortunately, we can not write only one point of view here...  Docku: “what up?”  20:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am just trying to say that before you edit, discuss. Discuss_and_Vote As far as the current article is concerned I don't think it's my POV.


 * You have given two points here - Articles_for_deletion/Racism_faced_by_Bihari_people_in_India


 * The article has a lot of information related to one common theme, I however do not think it is racism.


 * I still have difficulty accepting racism as the right word. I should have thought that people from Bihar and the people who discriminate them (as per the article) belong to the same race. Pls correct me if I am wrong. Wouldnt it then be just prejuduce or decrimination or some other more appropriate word?


 * I think you are just trying to push your POV in the article. Even User:KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 wasn't in agreement with the article as seen from the discussion page - Articles_for_deletion/Racism_faced_by_Bihari_people_in_India. But majority of the people (read peer reviewers), were in agreement and believed that it's not any personal POV.


 * Both of you are trying to assert your POV in the article. Just be honest with yourself and don't take my messages personally. Happy editing. I shall file a request at WP:RM later. Logging out now because I need to sleep! Manoj nav (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop Changing Title
The title should reflect the entry; namley Bihari people, not 700 million non Bihari Hindi speakers. Also it should make reference to Discrimination, Prejudice & Violence, against Bihari Communities outside Bihar. Chaanging it again and again is wasting everyone time. Not AShamned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would request KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 and Docku to discuss their issues here. Manoj nav (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In the mean time I am changing the title to a more acceptable one - "Discrimination faced by the Bihari community in India" Manoj nav (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Though the article covers eastern UP along with Bihar, there are many economic and political discriminations mentioned in the article, which holds only for Bihar, because it is a separate state. Eastern UP also faces economic discriminations which is very much reflected from the economic disparity in Uttar Pradesh. Western UP, which is closer to Delhi has receives more public investments in the past as compared to eastern UP. Look at the difference between Noida and Allahabad. Allahabad, once the center of the Indian independence movement has turned into a historical city and the city is on par with Patna and Varanasi. But this is a different subject and will need a separate article, which I think must be started as it is very importance and at the same time very complex and related to the Hindi nationalism. Manoj nav (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Manoj and Notashamed you say you are worried by edits like these. BTW, the very next edit put them back! But do you really care? In fact User:Docku and I have patiently seen you revert to POV and OR like this and rename the article Racism faced by Bihari community in India. Its your agenda to add POV like Xenophobia and Prejudice in the article. Well, I am not interested in discussing further and shall not edit this article till some admin steps in. Just remember we are trying to make a neutral and educative encyclopedia here. Thanks.  --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination in India
I suggest that this article be moved to an article with a general title like Regionalism and discrimination in India or something like that. If no article exists with such a title, then let us create it.

Regional discrimination is practised in almost every state in India. North Indians call South Indians (Tamils and Malayalis esp) Madrassis, lungiwallahs and idli-dosawallahs; there is general animosity between Kannadigas and Tamils, Marathis and Kannadigas in Belgaum, etc., etc. The discrimination of Biharis is not an isolated case. I could point out a number of incidents wherein racism was perpetuated by Biharis too.

This issue should be looked at from a broader point of view. Also, this article contains a lot of POV issues which need to be sorted out. The first section on "Historical discrimination of Biharis" is written in a lamentous tone which is a violation of WP:NPOV. This is not an NHRC report. The first section of this article needs to be cleaned up.

At the same time, I would also suggest merger. Thanks- Ravichandar My coffee shop 11:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All these statements comprise unsourced POV:


 * "The history of neglect and contempt for Bihar go back in the year of 1857."


 * Added reference. Manoj nav (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "That time Bihar was hinterland of Bengal. Bengalis from one side and Britishers from other side created havoc for Bihar."
 * "... and sadly the Bengali elites joined them."


 * These were very much supported by the reference mentioned. Still I have changed those sentences. Manoj nav (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Most of those involved in the 1857 mutiny were from Bihar and Eastern UP."
 * By the way, most of those involved in the 1857 mutiny are from Bihar and Eastern UP?? Could you kindly specify how many??? Peacock terms like these should be avoided. I also believe that there were also a number of individuals from Madhya Pradesh and Bengal who participated in the mutiny. There were also outbursts in Sindh and NWFP.


 * I have removed the peacock term, 'Most' with 'Many'. Manoj nav (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the rest, inline citations are required. - Ravichandar My coffee shop 11:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support for a new article, Regionalism and discrimination in India, as per you suggestion, but not the merger of the current article, as it is lengthy and the topic is important, independently. I would support for a similar article related to Discrimination faced by people from North-eastern India. Manoj nav (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am removing the POV and the other tag as of now. Kindly discuss for any further issues. Manoj nav (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

POV and sources
With all due respect, I do not think that the history section makes any justice to the reality atleast by RS materials. For instance, it makes a convinient point of blaming rest of India or even the British Raj for whatever state Bihar is right now. I would strongly recommend you to read the following articles which are peer-reviewed more RS. In the second article you will find a fine example quoted about Kerala, where it grew from second highest rural poverty in 1960 to fifth lowest by 1990s. The British Raj is to be blamed a bit for its Zamindari system, and there is also the caste based politics (along with lack of social renaisance). Have a look at Table 4 in this paper. That is from 1970s and West Bengal with more percentage of poverty has reduced it by 44%! For the kind of subject this Wikientry covers, it surely needs peer reviewed articles as source. Atleast, that is what my opinion would be. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 13:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment. I have made an edit here. The statement - "The policies adopted by planning commission of India is believed to be responsible for the low development of Bihar", wasn't complete. I hope now it covers all the points and I believe that any further discussion on this should be directed in a section - History of the Economy of Bihar and not in an article on discrimination. Discrimination could be prejudice, racial discrimination, xenophobia or economic discrimination. Manoj nav (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am removing the tag, 'toofewopinions', as of now. Manoj nav (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to make a comment. Zamindari system and the caste based politics are related. Caste based politics is result of the failure of the land reforms in Bihar. Manoj nav (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You certainly did not cover the all nor even most significant view points. To be clear, the history section states as if the colonial's master's neglect stayed on and could never be corrected. However, if you get yourself to read the papers above, you would certainy realise that Bihar's own politicians and bad planning are to be blammed more. I know that here we are not playing a blame game and I hope you don't do that either. Get that section balanced on why Bihar is economically struggling, giving all the views, or atleast most of the views. You are quoting minority view. Unless this is sorted please do not remove the tag. I hope that you won't remove it without waiting for responce from editors. Being bold doesn't mean you can go around removing tags without sorting out the issues. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 06:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So your point is - "The British Raj is to be blamed a bit for its Zamindari system, and there is also the caste based politics (along with lack of social renaissance)". Is this what you want to be included in the article? Kindly list out if you have any further points.
 * The statement "While natural or technological factors such as floods, poor development of infrastructure and high population density play their part, the state’s backwardness is related more to the inequitous and exploitative socio-economic structure, lack of political leadership and almost total collapse of the administrative and law and order machinery-to the point where it is said that in Bihar ‘the state has withered away’." in the abstract here(or here ), is debatable based on other sources and so it's a POV. So it has to be included in the article in right prospective. All the quotes currently existing in the article are authors POV. They all together make NPOV. Manoj nav (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI: The discrimination that you are claiming (as if only Biharis face it) is, as you state, because of economical backwardness of the state. So the reasons for economic backwardness is indeed very important within this context. Why else do you have section on history and another one on causes there? If British was to blame, within the context of Kerala and Tamil Nadu with a higher percentage of rural poverty in 1960 and drastically developing their states, how come this did not happen in Bihar? Get your facts straight with what is stated in peer reviewed journal articles. If not the tag will stay. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 06:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * HiWikiSan Rose. I recommend you look at Economy of Bihar entry should you want to understand BIhari factors for its economic downfall . This entry has somthing to do with prejudice and discrimination. What has been outlined is correct and referenced. Economic backwardness is what India is all ovcer, not just in Bihar. India isn't better than Europe or America (socially, economically, in terms of education or any other indicator. However, the spcial case with Bihar is that it is singled out by Indians and the media, as the sources verify, because of certain socio-economic and cultural factors. Personally, I think the first paragraph needs rewriting, but the essence of discrimination/ prejudice against Biharis is a fact and reported and recordded. Check out and read all the sources, word for word. Many thanks. NotAshamed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said that any state is better than any. Poverty is all over and is indeed manmade. Keeping that aside, can you please explain in why do you have a section on history and another on causes if they have nothing to with this article? The so called discrimination as per the article that you guys have done is because of the immigration -> which in turn boils down to the economic crisis -> now that points out to why is that so. I do not recollect one single ethnic/regional group in India that one can claim that never faced discrimination or racial abuses. Anyone can easily see that you are clearly villainizing the British and rest of India. If you want to keep this article, you can not show a blind eye on the reasons behind it. Cheers Wiki San Roze<i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 08:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Personally, I think the first paragraph needs rewriting". Notashamed, kindly edit the article or discuss it here. Manoj nav (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I could get copies of all the articles referred by you except this. The article - is freely available here.
 * References suggested by you -
 * Sharma Alakh N, Policy Economic of Poverty in Bihar, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 30, No. 41/42 (Oct. 14-21, 1995), pp. 2587-2602
 * Mohanty N R, Chronic Poverty and Social Conflict in Bihar, WORLD DEVELOPMENT, Canada
 * Shah Mehta,Shah Amita, Chronic Poverty in India: Overview Study, CPRC-IIPA Seminar on Chronic Poverty: Emerging Policy Options And Issues
 * DATT GAURAV,RAVALLION MARTIN, Why Have Some Indian States Done Better than Others at Reducing Rural Poverty?, Economica (1998) 65,The London School of Economics and Political Science,pp. 17–38


 * Your claim that these references are better is your POV. It will take some some before I go through these article, which are quite interesting. I will be happy if you can get me a copy of this article. You can mail me at manoj.me@gmail.com . If not kindly cite the details of the reference. Manoj nav (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not my POV that peer-reviewed journal papers are more RS. I am assuming good faith in this issue that you might not be aware that Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. As for the one that you can't access, I can email you the paper. Thats surely not a problem mate. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 10:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sending the paper. EPW is not a peer-reviewed journal but a weekly, which do passes through an editorial screening. Whatever, EPW has been used by me as well. The websites you have mentioned are not journals but websites either for selling papers/documents, or some institution's website-database. It's your POV to blindly assume that other sources used are not peer reviewed. Manoj nav (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are very much welcome mate. I could have made a misjudgement with EPW. Others are indeed peer-reviewed journal papers. Just because I tried to give them to you in what I thought to be accessible (evidently one of them was still not :D) doesn't make them otherwise. It would have saved some time and energy for both of us if you actually did some search. Anyways the papers I gave:
 * 1 Published in World Development
 * 2 Was a paper presented in CPRC-IIPA Seminar on Chronic Poverty: Emerging Policy Options And Issues
 * 3 Published in Economica
 * I hope this helps. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 13:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I received your second message. I don't intend to make any personal attack. Anyways, all I wanted to say is that, the references I have cited in the section, have also been published or presented in reputed peer reviewed international journals and conferences. I shall short out this issue. Manoj nav (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers, now that we agree on moral ascendency of peer-reviewed journals, lets move on to the point I raised in the first place. I reckon, you will have to make you mind on if you want to keep this as an wholesome article or a List of incidents. Since you have resorted to the former, you will have to cover the causative. If its migration as a result of poverty, then certainly you have not covered most significant view points. Partially stating something doesn't make any good. That is what we in Wiki call as POV bias. It looks to me that many have already pointed that out and its hightime things get sorted. Regards <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 15:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So what would be those most significant view points? Manoj nav (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I haven't yet gone through all of the references suggested by you completely, I find them confirming, what the history section describes. Manoj nav (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Manoj, I don't think any of us will want to waste time talking. There is no way out other than including the obvious in those papers (and if you want, I can get you many more). Id est, Bihar was mostly left behind by its own political making. It would be good for all of us that you see that you will have to add those infos into the history section. What you don't realise is that in the eagerness of making an article about the so called discrimination on Bihari people, the article that you have got here is a blamegame on the British and rest of Indians. I have got to do loads of work outside wiki and might be sporadic, but tentatively removing the tag with haste wouldn't solve the issue and will be tagged again. Hope you would see the wisdom of making the history section balanced rather than wasting precious time. Thanks <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

New Edits
Hi Notashamed,

Your edits surely gives a better picture. And I would suggest you to cite the references with notes, for the following entries,
 * 1) The central area of disruption to Company administration took place in the region that later became the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. After 1858, the British instituted reforms in the government, however, there was a cultural dislike amongst the British of the people and cultures of Bihar, Eastern UP, and northern India in general.
 * 2) During the war, Bengal, Punjab, Kashmir, Hyderabad State, Rajputana, and the Madras Presidency either remaind loyal to the Empire or observed neutrality. After the conflict, many regions saw Biharis as having sided with the disliked Mughal dynasty in Delhi.

References you have used are -
 * 1) Derek Hudson. Martin Tupper: His Rise and Fall, Constable, 1972.
 * 2) Brantlinger, Patrick (1990). Rule of darkness: British literature and imperialism, 1830-1914. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.

My edits -
 * 1) "Notably, Bengalis of the urban regions, in the erstwhile Bengal province which included Bihar, saw Biharis with contempt and disdain." It's an important history in the context, which has been referred.
 * 2) One of the earlier instance of stereotyping of the Biharis is observed in one of the works of Rabindranath Tagore - Binodini. I am not able to find any secondary reference, though I have primary references to support it.
 * 3) Changed the section title from Background to Historical Background, which looks more specific.

I have no opinion for your other edits right now. I don't know if the economic discrimination part should be included in the article. May be that is more suitable in the article, Economy of Bihar. Kindly comment. Manoj nav (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How are 'Lalu Prasad Yadav's caste politics of 1990s' and 'the policy of Permanent Settlement of 17th-18th century' related?
The uprising of 1857, which was triggered by Mangal Panday, turned into a peasant uprising, in Bihar-Eastern UP, to fight against discriminatory indigo cultivation and other injustices. Indigo disputes were the reason why the revolt got a wider base in the region. But the uprising was crushed, only to rise again during Gandhiji's Champaran movement. Prabhat Kumar Shukla in his book, Indigo and the Raj - Peasant Protest in Bihar 1780-1917, writes - "The revolt of 1857 was more serious in Bihar than anywhere else in India." He also writes, "Keeping in view the importance of forging an alliance between the Indian zamindars and the European planters, the secretary of State for India proposed in 1862 the gradual extension of the Permanent Settlement to other parts and also advised the distribution of the wasteland to the European planters at a nominal rates....... Condition in indigo plantation in Bihar was probably worse than in Bengal. The raiyat in Bihar was no better than a serf and the cultivation was being carried on under systematic pressure and terror." NB: Bengal was also under the Permanent Settlement.

The origin of Mandal era (caste politics) - assertion by lower castes for justice and self respect, in Bihar has it's origin in the discriminatory policy of the Permanent Settlement, which created Zamindars, who last asserted their rights, given to them by the British, in 1990s in Jahanabad, Bihar. (Read here about Ranvir Sena.)

In the paper, States of Crisis in India: Comparative research in Bihar and Madhya Pradesh( Crisis States Programme (CSP), DESTIN’s Development Research Centre, London), Dr. Shaibal Gupta writes "The laws of the market, celebrated by capitalism as the biggest force of integration, are constrained in Bihar by the state’s enormous feudal baggage. And the interplay of this feudal baggage and the speculative logic of decadent capitalism is daily drawing the state into the vortex of growing chaos and anarchy. Presiding over the alarming descent is Bihar’s own combination of a brutalised civil society and a … criminalised … state system. Anarchism of either militant or peaceful variety, practised through armed squads or reformist NGOs, is hardly able to make any difference to this larger picture of anarchy, disorder, loot and oppression.

But there is another side to the Bihar story. It is a highly politicised society, and there are major mobilisations of the rural poor for land and liberty, for subsistence, social dignity and basic political rights. These mobilisations are frequently dismissed (not least in the Indian press) as ‘Naxalite’ and therefore as reflecting ill-considered left wing adventurism. This mis-represents their sustained support by and for low caste, assetless rural people, and their positive programmes for their rights."

References used by Dr. Shaibal Gupta
 * 1) Bhatia, Bela, The Naxalite Movement in Central Bihar, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2000 (based on a long period of intensive field research (Bhatia 2000)).
 * 2) The late Arvind N Das wrote: ‘wherever these ‘new Naxalites’ have managed to acquire significant strength the incidence of dayto- day violence has gone down considerably. It is they, rather than the established police machinery, that best guarantee law and order in the complete sense of the term’ (in his The State of Bihar: an economic history without footnotes. Amsterdam: VU University Press 1992, p.100).
 * 3) Bhattacharya, D., ‘Bihar after bifurcation: a challenging future’, Economic and Political Weekly, 28 October 2000

Manoj nav (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New edits
Changed some of the section headings so as to be more specific
 * 1) Notable incidents to Notable incidents of Prejudice
 * 2) Causes to Causes of xenophobia and prejudice towards Biharis

Significant Viewpoints
I would request that unless there is another viwwpoint on the attacks against Biharis in India, then this be removed asap. It cannot simply remain. What are the other points of view? We have, in the causes, the reasons given and properly cited. These include economic, cultural, social. Thanks(Not-Ashamed (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I certainly dont have time right now to read the article to see if it has covered all view points. But you can see what I meant earlier just a few sections above with the significant viewpoints. Cause of discrimination is because of the immigrant workers from Bihar living in other states, which the article agrees, but you were not explaining well on why there was an immigration in the first place. You were conveniently pointing fingers at others. Whereas the papers that I earlier gave clearly points out internal factors to be the major cause of poverty and hence the migration. If you think that these points have been dealt with, go ahead and remove the tag. But keep in mind, that if you remove the tag without attending to the issues, it would mean that you have deliberately vandalised this page (yes, although you might have contributed a lot to this page, you can't own it), failed to assume goodfaith and above all either I or other users will once again tag this when we read it. A quick glance makes me think that you are trying very hard to push a POV. Look at the section on Origins of migration! Is that all that has got to be said? Anyways, feel free to remove the tag, if these points are met with. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 10:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All you have said here is that you have added a tag, without reading the entry. Failures of the Bihari economy, due to Bihari factors, have been outlined in the economy of bihar section. Pls state what is missing.(10:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
 * When I added the tag I had read the entry and it lacked info on why the immigration occured in the first place, i.e., poverty in Bihar. The reasons of the poverty was pointed out at the British Raj and the Bengali domination in Bihar, whereas the failure of local initiatives was not mentioned. I don't think it is done even now. When you miss that "indigeneous" causatives, you are missing a very important point. Just because it is mentioned in another article doesn't justify it not being mentioned here, when it is part and parcel of the context. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 12:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok Wiki....you have a valid point. I have added a new section, and linked it to the Bihar economy.(Not-Ashamed (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC))


 * please look at this information as well. same info-primary source.  Docku: “what up?”  00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am against further adding why Biharis immigrate to India. Nonetheless, the cultures thst come ater Bihar inthe index, do not have their citizens lynched and killed by far right activists. There are millions of migrants in the EU and USA, like Africans and Latinos, they are not in a similar position, and the state does not act as a by stander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 06:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? Unless you want to change the article title to Notashamed's view of Discrimination faced by the Bihari community in India. Please dont confuse WP:NPOV with justification of descrimination.  Docku: “what up?”  16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not, and its not "my view" as you refer so acidly. Yours a POV also. This is about disacrimination and killing of Bihari immigrants in India. Yes, some indicators to explain why ppl move is important. I dont agree that all the data explaining Bihar's poverty is relevent. However, I have added a section on current economic issues requested by Wiki San Rose. Anything else belongs in the Economy of Bihar, indicators section. feel free to add to that to entry. as pointed out, I dont own this, but this is being looked after by the Bihar working group.Also, this needs to be checked with similar entrys, like Jim Crow Laws snd Stereotypes of African Americans(Not-Ashamed (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Apparently, we disagree. Let us see what others (other than you, me, wiki san roze and manoj nav) have to say about this.  Docku: “what up?”  16:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not for anyone to nominate if an editors perspective matters or not, i am refering to Manoj(Not-Ashamed (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I didnt mean it that way. Sorry. Everyone is welcome to provide their opinion.  Docku: “what up?”  22:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this section talks about the causes without pro-Bihari bias. It may be cleaned-up for better, but in my opinion, the reason I tagged will now be obsolete. Given this, I will remove the tag, but if other editors feel that it should be there, please feel free to revert my edits. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 10:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Discrimination Bihar
Template:Discrimination Bihar has been nominated for deletion. Kindly participate in the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Manoj nav (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)