Talk:Madheshi people/Archive 1

Now wikipedia ill editors stop your hill elite people's propaganda. Do not mention madhesi as Indians, Indian origin or People of India in the article. Even the Indian embassay in Nepal and Indian Government does not accept Madhesi of being Indian origin people. They even issued official statement on Indian origin or One Core Indians remarks to Madhesi people. See this reference and its embassy website for statement. (27.34.19.43 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC))

Unauthentical claim of being Indians
Madhesis settled in Nepal since 500 BC from the beginning of establishment of Videha kingdom whose capital city was Janakpur of Nepal. They are the native peoples of Madhesh and lived here since the early eras. The people of Nepali origin are the ones who trace their origin to present boundaries of Nepal, that also include Mithila, Nepal and Madhesh. The native people of Nepalese Mithila that lies in eight districts of Madhesh are the Nepali origin Madhesis indigenous to Madhesh plains of Nepal. While, the womens of Indian Mithila who married in Nepal side and inherited Nepalese nationality are the Indian origin Madhesis. Now how do you conclude the origin of Madhesis? Simple...Nepalese origin and nationality are based on the principles of jus sanguinis or bloodline. NB: Prior to the passage of the Nepal Citizenship Act 2006 on 26 November 2006, Nepali origin and citizenship was transmissible only through a Nepalese father native to specific regions of Nepal. Since passage of the Act, a Nepalese mother cannot transmit her origin and nationality to a child. So, Madhesis are only Nepalis in majority while Indians origin people who migrated from Bihar of India in 2007 who got Nepali citizenship are also Madhesis or Nepalis by naturalization upon marrying Madhesis but they are in  Minority nearly only 3 Millions as confirmed by Home ministry of Nepal. However, the native madhesis are 52% of Nepali populations. These reference from independent journals also verifies Madhesis looks alike Indians and have maritial ties to India but they are Nepalis. While the ruling elites Pahari people in Nepal challenges their loyalty and 'Nepali'ness by referring Madhesis as Indians since Madhesis people marries Indians and looks like Indians. This references from one of the largest news outlets in Capital of Nepal also claims Madhesi to be of plain origin, not of indian origin although they have caste and demographics similar to Indian people across the border. (27.34.51.177 (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

Citation needed
In the Recent Developments section, there was a date (5 January) without a year. I added the year as 2007, since I believe the violence in the Tarai did not start until after the Jan-Andolan II. However, we should have a news citation for this. 69.232.222.19 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Language and Cleanup
This article is in serious need of cleanup. There is a lack of paragraphs and correct use of grammar. On top of all this the language is appaling. Throughout the article sentences such as "In Indian side, you cannot heard about Madhesi" are prevailant. I have tried my best, and will have another go, but I am unable to decipher certain parts of the page. --Maurice45 (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

More about other communities
There is too much focus on Mithila community in the article. Though it is the dominant culture there should be more mention of other community and the language section needs to be rewritten with emphasis on language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhanikhilesh (talk • contribs) 04:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

POV
Many sections in this article, especially relating to the history of Madhesi are the point of view of the writer[s]. While the view point may be correct, appropriate citation would be nice. 24.228.93.105 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

madheshi people and terai nation
there is no such thing as "madheshi people" and "terai nation". the terai is a geografical term. the terai is inhabited by a whole selection of peoples with different languages, mainly nepali, maithili, hindi and several others. the majority of madhesi are original inhabitants. there were separate kingdoms like mithila abadh. they all were not migrated from india, but pahadi entered the terai from very beginings to rule on madhesi.so the population of pahadi in madhesh is low.

I agree with Sundar1. There are recent historical proofs. Bikashdai (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They did not migrate from india
Do you have ANY historical evidence or proof that they migrated from India? If you do then please be kind enough to show us that proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.8.68.95 (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

madheshi
the article starts with "Madheshi Bihari" which is completely diagreeable. Madheshi is independent adjective and should not be combined with Bihari. and madheshi are also not the refugee of Bihar states at all. the migration could be possible naturaaly to some extent from neoghbouring states of India but that is also possible from West bengal and Uttarakhand wherre there are Nepali speakers migrating into Nepali terrritory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.166.198.241 (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

+-40% is incorrect
It is true that Madhesi contribute up to 40% of the population but among those one of the major portion includes Nepali speaking population who have been omitted here. Please note that the percentage described here (40%) includes people from all the races( including pahadi's) but on other details only those who are ethnically, culturally and lingually madhesi are included.

I request someone to correct this as I am still not sure but believe that madhesi % should be around 20% of the whole Nepali population not 40%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.53.25 (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Find a reputable source to back up your claim and this will be an easy fix. The CNN web page cited in the article stated about half of the population and the U.S. government source stated 40%.  Find a better/more comprehensive/more up-to-date source and the figures can be updated.  -    &#x0288;  u coxn \ talk 09:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014
Vandalism Madhesi people Wikipedia page please improve articles. Madhesi are not migrant people, Madhesi people stay in Nepal many years ago Madhesh is Own land of Nepali Madhesi people. Madhesi Demonym are Nepali or Madhesi not Bihari or Dhoti.

Madhesi are bonafide citizens of Nepal. Madhesi people stay in Nepal many years ago, Madhesh is Own land of Nepali Madhesi people. Madhesi are not migrant pople who are pure Nepali not related to Bihari people or Desi people of India. His demonym are Madhesi, Nepali and Nepalese, not Bihari or Dhoti. Dhoti is costumes of Nepali Madhesi people, Some people dominated dhoti as Madhesi people. Please edit wikipedia page of Madhesi people, Madhesi are Pure Nepali people who are proud to be a Nepali people. So change in wikipedia page Madhesi people Demonym are Nepali, Nepalese and Madhesi, not Bihari, Dhoti, Madhesi. Source : http://www.mprfn.org/

http://madheshee.blogspot.com/2006/02/status-of-madheshi-in-nepal.html

http://www.irinnews.org/report/70027/nepal-background-of-the-terai-s-madhesi-people

49.244.180.106 (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sing! 10:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
One of the editor of this page had been involved in Vandalism before the page was semi protected. Madhesi are the entire population of Nepal those who resides in the Terai of Nepal. Madhesi has been derived from the adjective word Madhes which has been interchangeably used for referring Terai and the people those who resides in Terai are called Madhesi. The immigrants to Nepal are either Nepali Bihari or Nepalese people of Indian origin. Madhesi are not the immigrants of Nepal. They are the people of the same country. Regarding total population, all the sources narrates nearly 40% of the population of Nepal lives in Madhes. The demonym are allegebly added Dhoti and Bihari. There is a no demonym like Dhoti in the world and people living in Madhes are called Madhesi not Bihari people. I request you to revert this page to the previous months edits. And thanks for protecting this page from further vandalism in the future. - (70.39.185.84 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC))

Maithili people
Maithili People of Mithila (Nepal) were also true indegineous people of Terai. (Nepali Bihari (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC))

Unrecognized language
Hindi is not not the language spoken by Madhesi. It is spoken only by Marwari ethnicity and Nepali Muslims in Nepal. Please replace Hindi with Nepali. (49.126.0.36 (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015
[edit request removed because it was the entire page, pasted in]

49.244.233.85 (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * edit request denied as it does not follow the format required. Please do not simply paste the entire page content here. Ogress smash! 07:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Origin dispute
What about this website claiming Origin of Madhesi people within Nepal. http://www.telegraphnepal.com/national/2007-03-14/most-of-the-madheshi-people-are-loosing-their-identity-since-they-are-treated-as-less-nepali-or-non-nepali-by-pahadi-people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.235.25 (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Non Madheshi ?
Indians migrating into Madhesh due to normal marital alliances cannot be called Non-madheshis. Any indian migrating into madhesh without requiring any assimilations into the "new" territory can be called Madheshi as well. Categorizing them as non-madheshis, or indians is rubbish or the same parochial mindset of the Nepali rulers of mis-categorizing madheshis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deswaali (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Classification Is True
Dear, Deswaali, Classification must be done as Indigenous and Non-Madhesi. The people migrated from Southern part of Greater Nepal (in modern day India) are not the Indian but are the federal subject of Greater Nepal. Previously, those Migrants from Southern part of Greater Nepal were not accepted as Nepali people of Madhesi ethnicity by Indigenous Madhesi such as Maithali and Tharu as they were only the indigenous and native to Madhesh(Terai) of Nepal in ancient times. Now, those migrants were also declared as Nepalese or Madhesi being the federal subject of Southern part of Greater Nepal. (Dreamofhorses (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC))

Nepalese Origin
All the references cites that they are the people of Nepalese origin. Nepal is broadly divided into Terai (Madhesh in local language), Hills and Mountain. The people of Terai are called Madhesi, of hill are called Pahari and of mountain are called Himali. Being a largest source of Information, how can wikipedia do such neglect and provide wrong information. Check each and every references and correct everything. Further, they are not the migrants. The people of Indian origin in Nepal are classified as Nepalese people of Indian ancestry (Nepali Indian) not madhesi. Madhesi refers to the indigenous and native social group of Madhesh(Terai) region of Nepal. I request to let this article's protection be removed so that everybody can edit this to full extent for full improvement of this article. For example when you see out of Madhesi, 18% are Madhesi, What this mean? Such broken phrases must be improved. Related people is written as Indian people. Since, they are indigenous and native to Nepal, how can related people be Indians. Since Nepali is the lingua franca of All Nepalese people, why Nepali is not written in Language section. Maithili cuisine is the co-cuisine derived from Pahari people not similar to Bihari people. See Maithali and Tharu, the sub ethnicities of Madhesi people which clearly mentions they are Nepali people and the early inhabitants of Nepal. (Dreamofhorses (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC))
 * Dude, you have so many new socks. Honestly, it's exhausting. Ogress smash! 09:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ogress
Dear Ogress, Plaese try to find out the trueness of this article. Think. If Maithali and Tharu are of Nepalese origin, how can Madhesi be of Indian origin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamofhorses (talk • contribs) 10:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2015
No madhesi people exist in Nepal. People inhabiting Terai are called Terai people in Nepal not Madhesi. This ethnic group is diseastablished by constitution of Nepal 2011

49.244.139.16 (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Indian Government, CK.Raut and International organizations on Madheshi people
Indian Government finally clarified that Madheshi are not the people of Indian origin (One Core Indian) by issuing press statement to Nepal on 31St August of 2015. , I want this article to be corrected, they are the people originating from Madhesh plain gifted to Nepal by British India. Last references by international organization 'Irin' and Dr. C. K. Raut makes clear on who are Madheshi and where they originated. (Chihaan (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC))

Misunderstanding
It is obvious that Madhesi are the natives of Madhesh region of Nepal. Due to Wikipedia's ignorance, India today had Published article quoting Madheshi as One Core Indian on which Indian Embassy in Nepal drew an attention and felt sorry about false statement. Wikipedia must provide reliable information. (49.244.138.2 (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC))

IBN News
Indian Hindi News Channel IBN Live broadcasted and mentioned the facts on Madhesi people. Mentioned that "'Madheshi are the Nepali Resident originated from Nepalese Terai called Madhesh ''' . Please make changes on this article about origin and nationality. (ArmondiKenya (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC))

Nationality
No matter, Whatever and who the ancestors were. In Present day, they are Nepalese people and their nationality should not be hidden.Inspite of being Nepalese article, this article looks more like any other Indian article. This aricle must mention like this, Madheshi are the Nepalese people of Indian origin who inhabits Terai of Nepal....... This article should be based on the foundation of Black American article, since similar situation is found in both Black American and Black Nepalese (Madheshi). (202.70.70.147 (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

Origins
Origin of Madhesi people should not be mentioned in the beginning. The rest of the article already mentions that. Since Madheshi are Nepalese citizens and many Madheshi too are of Nepalese origin such as Maithali and Tharu people who were indigenous and native to Madhesh geo-region of Nepal from ancient times. Janaka, Sita were the evidence that Madheshi people existed in Nepal before 3500 years also. So, Origin should be replaced with Nationality identity and Seperate section on Origin should be created for Madhesi people of Nepalese (native) and Indian (Immigrant) origin. (49.244.230.45 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC))

Origins
Origin of Madhesi people should not be mentioned in the beginning. The rest of the article already mentions that. Since Madheshi are Nepalese citizens and many Madheshi too are of Nepalese origin such as Maithali and Tharu people who were indigenous and native to Madhesh geo-region of Nepal from ancient times. Janaka, Sita were the evidence that Madheshi people existed in Nepal before 3500 years also. So, Origin should be replaced with Nationality identity and Seperate section on Origin should be created for Madhesi people of Nepalese (native) and Indian (Immigrant) origin. (49.244.230.45 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC))

Origins
Origin of Madhesi people should not be mentioned in the beginning. The rest of the article already mentions that. Since Madheshi are Nepalese citizens and many Madheshi too are of Nepalese origin such as Maithali and Tharu people who were indigenous and native to Madhesh geo-region of Nepal from ancient times. Janaka, Sita were the evidence that Madheshi people existed in Nepal before 3500 years also. So, Origin should be replaced with Nationality identity and Seperate section on Origin should be created for Madhesi people of Nepalese (native) and Indian (Immigrant) origin. (49.244.230.45 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC))

Origins
Origin of Madhesi people should not be mentioned in the beginning. The rest of the article already mentions that. Since Madheshi are Nepalese citizens and many Madheshi too are of Nepalese origin such as Maithali and Tharu people who were indigenous and native to Madhesh geo-region of Nepal from ancient times. Janaka, Sita were the evidence that Madheshi people existed in Nepal before 3500 years also. So, Origin should be replaced with Nationality identity and Seperate section on Origin should be created for Madhesi people of Nepalese (native) and Indian (Immigrant) origin. (49.244.230.45 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC))

Origins
Origin of Madhesi people should not be mentioned in the beginning. The rest of the article already mentions that. Since Madheshi are Nepalese citizens and many Madheshi too are of Nepalese origin such as Maithali and Tharu people who were indigenous and native to Madhesh geo-region of Nepal from ancient times. Janaka, Sita were the evidence that Madheshi people existed in Nepal before 3500 years also. So, Origin should be replaced with Nationality identity and Seperate section on Origin should be created for Madhesi people of Nepalese (native) and Indian (Immigrant) origin. (49.244.230.45 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC))

Origins
Origin of Madhesi people should not be mentioned in the beginning. The rest of the article already mentions that. Since Madheshi are Nepalese citizens and many Madheshi too are of Nepalese origin such as Maithali and Tharu people who were indigenous and native to Madhesh geo-region of Nepal from ancient times. Janaka, Sita were the evidence that Madheshi people existed in Nepal before 3500 years also. So, Origin should be replaced with Nationality identity and Seperate section on Origin should be created for Madhesi people of Nepalese (native) and Indian (Immigrant) origin. (49.244.230.45 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2015
Most of the content are false here. Not all Madhesi people came from india there are many how fourth father and older belong from nepal  ++  i want to add more here .. All Madhesi came from India.. and those who are included in Madhesi by leaders like Rajbansi, Tharus etc are not Madhesi. They have separate culture, history and ethnicity.

113.193.120.215 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".

nepali
please change ((Nepalese)) to ((Nepali language|Nepali))
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Change
Please change ((The Madhesi people inhabits)) to ((The Madhesi are Nepalese people|Nepalese those who inhabits))) and Related etnic group ((Indian people)) to ((Pahari people|Pahari)). Please do also change ((The people of Indian origin generally Madhesi)) with ((The people of Madhesh origin generally Madhesi)) in (((Area and Population))) and correct grammer of this topic. (218.241.31.2 (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC))

WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES
Although it is common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article—‌often in an infobox—‌allowing readers to quickly assess whether they are on the right page, WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES states clearly "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members"

This recent ruling was arrived at in this RfC.

I will, therefore, and sadly, remove the images of leading Madhesis from the infobox of this article.

I appreciate that selecting a replacement lead image may be difficult.

Advice on selecting a lead image includes "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

Another thing to note is that the "first image in an article, regardless of whether it is placed in the lead, will be enlarged and displayed at the top of all articles viewed in the Android mobile app. For example, if the first image in an article about Theft is a person, then that person's picture will be displayed as if it were the lead image, even if the image displays at the end of the article in the desktop view."

The effect of that is that, as I write this, the technically poor quality image of the Madheshi Martyrs who lost their lives, will be displaying right at the top of their screen for many smart phone readers.

That means that we urgently need to consider "whether the order of the images may inadvertently produce a non-neutral, unfair, or otherwise poor educational experience for readers who use mobile devices."

BushelCandle (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Clean-up
could you clean-up this article? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Madhesi people. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/National%20Report.pdf=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2016
Edit requested contained the contents of a 47KB article. Removed for managibility.

Nomeasdev (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of pasting the entire article contents, an edit request would be easier to review if you specified particular parts of the article you're requesting to be changed. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 06:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually applied your edit to the page for ease of diffing and review, which doesn't look too significant. The ref to another WP page seems unnecessary. I'll keep this open for someone else to look into and comment. General comment through, you might need consensus for the removal of mention of Maithil people. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 06:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 06:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The removal of mention for Maithil people might need discussion/consensus. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 15:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No rule of Raj Darbhanga at Madhesh
There is no single evidence of rule of Raj Darbhanga in Nepalese plain territory. Also, British after Indian Mutiny 1857, returned back 4 western districts: Kanchanpur, Kailali, Banks and Bardiya to Nepal. There was no gifting of Nepalese Mithila. Further, Mahesh Chandra Regmi's Regmi Research Series provides factual background of annexation of Mithila by King Pratap Singh Shah through two Kazi: Mulkazi Abhiman Singh Basnyat and Mulkazi Swaroop Singh Karki. So, the complete vague and uncertified claim of Raj Darbhanga's rule in Terai of Nepal began with secessionist Dr. CK Raut. Idk why CK Raut wants to brainwash our fellow Madhesi citizens with no single historical evidence. Kind Regards Airkeeper (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Airkeeper (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Direct quote from the source on page 42 "Ultimately British intervention in Nepali politics deprived the Darbhanga Raj of its holdings in Nepal." I can take to to dispute resolution if you still disagree but a direct quote is there. Thanks. EDIT (here is a link so you and another party can check for yourself):https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jWIPDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT216&dq=raj+darbhanga+nepal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG6syXhJjSAhVHDsAKHXg4C-sQ6AEIKTAD#v=onepage&q=raj%20darbhanga%20nepal&f=falseDamien2016 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Where is it? I can't see. Now, I knew that you're supporting Dr. CK Raut's brainwashing theory. You can search "Regmi Research Series" and download it and read the history of annexation of Mithila. There is no such thing as British intervention at Eastern Terai district. Bijaypur, Morang, Saptari, Bardiwas, Rautahat, Bara were annexed by Mulkazi Abhiman Simha Basnyat and Mulkazi Swaroop Simha Karki. Download here: https://www.google.com.np/search?q=regmi+research+series&client=ms-android-samsung&prmd=vni&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1k-C496fTAhVFXbwKHT_QCtQQ_AUIBCgA&biw=360&bih=559&dpr=1.5 Best Wishes Airkeeper (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Airkeeper (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, CK Raut's article is also not very notable and needs cleanup. Only countable Madhesi revolt against Nepali Govt while most are happy to live in Nepal. Such theories in Wikipedia to brainwash fellow Madhesi are part of advertisement and Wiki is not for advertisement of Raut's theory. You can open a blog and website and claim your theory not here. It is democractic system of Nepal that you can edit anything against it. Be Positive and United. Kind Regards Airkeeper (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Airkeeper (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please show the evidence of Darbhanga's rule in Nepalese Terai???? No ambiguous theories. Evidence Plz???? Airkeeper (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are you saying it's theory and calling me brainwashed? Is this how people talk on here? Did not remove sourced content until we have consensus.Damien2016 (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC) {|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
 * [[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px]] Response to third opinion request :
 * style="padding-left:0.6cm"| I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Madhesi people and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Note: There is a WP:SPI going on here, and my response will be delayed until I have time/the SPI is closed. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC) I have removed my previous answer. After review, I think neither party is right. Note to other users: both editors were socks.
 * style="padding-left:0.6cm"| I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Madhesi people and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Note: There is a WP:SPI going on here, and my response will be delayed until I have time/the SPI is closed. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC) I have removed my previous answer. After review, I think neither party is right. Note to other users: both editors were socks.

Edit warring re: definition
People are edit warring regarding the very definition of Madhesi people. It needs to stop and discussion should take place instead, bearing in mind WP:NPOV. Do not make claims in the discussion without providing reliable sources to support them. Do not cast aspersions about other contributors to the discussion. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Nationality
Dear NeilN, This definition directly questions on their Nepali nationality. Only 6% of Madhesis are Naturalized or of Indian origin, while rest of 94% Madhesi people are indigenous and natives of Madhesh. Please correct the false statement or combine their nationalities. (27.34.48.253 (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC))


 * It questions no such thing. It just reflects what appear to be reliable sources. You chose not to participate in the discussion below and thus I asked NeilN to restore an older version. I'm open to looking at your evidence if you post it in the correct section below but please do be aware that a legal definition - Madhesi_people - is not necessarily the be all, end all of definitions. If 350k people "converted" to naturalised status after 2007, surely they were mostly there before 2007 and thus were as "indigenous" as anyone else. This is the problem - definitions - and that is why we really do need to stick to what the highest grade of reliable sources say, not items in newspapers etc that are driven by day-to-day political agendas. Of course, it is entirely possible that even the highest quality of sources are politicised but we've got to start somewhere and academic works trump news media every time. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush @NeilN Although there are nearly 6% Naturalized Madhesis that makes around 350k, all the Madhesi people are Nepalis despite of their origins in India, Pakistan, Arabs or Madhesh region. I believe that the definitions should not include personal bias and political agendas. The ruling elites of Nepal often regards these indigenous populations as Indians just because they have maritial and cultural affinity to Indians and these Nepalese populations looks alike Indians. For atleast the definitions should reflect their nationality and place of inhabitants. The current definition reflects identity of only naturalized one bypassing native Madhesis and readers may mistake them as Indians. This may lead to publication of false news as the medias may use wimipedia as a reference, So to avoid those political conflicts in near future, I humbly ask you to cover the sentiments of Madhesis of Madhesh origin also who are natives and this references from South Asia Journal clearly cites whether Madhesis are Nepalis or Indians. Thank you! (27.34.48.253 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
 * There's no need to ping me. I'm not going be involved in deciding the final outcome of this content discussion. --Neil N  talk to me 14:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If they are of Indian origin, they are of Indian origin. Like I said, legal definitions are only a part of the story. We're supposed to be neutral but we also are not censored - aside perhaps from some aspects relating to biographies of living people, which we have to approach in a very conservative manner, we pretty much tell it as it is regardless of the real-world ramifications. It is not for us to pass judgement or take on a diplomatic role etc. We are supposed to be above politics and similar things, not a part of the process. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Because of your and other wikipedians' ignorance and self sponsered definitions, the wikipedia is full of false contents and informations. And remember, no references has proved Madhesis of being Indians or Indian origin. But all references already cites they are Nepalis and mostly of Madhesh origin. I don't need to be panic now, case closed. I apologize for the Ping, @Neil. (27.34.48.253 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC))


 * Have you actually read the sources provided, including those below which are not yet in the article? There is one that I cannot pin down and I suspect that may be simply because the page was not specific. There are others there that a very specific and - I repeat for the umpteenth time - we just reflect what reliable sources say, thus the definitions are not ours. The article was a complete mess of fake references. Misrepresenting reliable sources, or refusing to accept them as you seem to be doing, is not the way forward. I have absolutely no interest or involvement in Nepal and came here simply because someone asked me to check what was going on. I am as neutral as can be and I am open to looking at any reliable sources that are presented in discussion etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The first of your sources (CWIS) says it is an independent investigative journalism organisation, the second is pure journalism. They are unlikely to carry the weight of academic sources, although I do note that CWIS has academic advisors etc. In addition, the CWIS article doesn't have a byline and is distinctly "thin" - so short is the article that it is hard to believe it has caught any nuances etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a confusion here about the terms 'origin' and 'nationality'. People who originated from India, either the present generation or their ancestors in the 19th and 20th centuries, can obtain Nepali citizenship, i.e. become Nepali nationals. In that case, they are 'naturalized Nepalis', note: NOT naturalized Madeshis as stated in the section Classification. See the publication Legal Analysis of Citizenship Law of Nepal. So being of a certain country's origin, does not imply anything about the person's nationality. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Perhaps there is confusion but not from me. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did NOT mean YOU! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The section 'Classifications'
Since the term classification is usually used in biology and perhaps also in ethnography, I think this whole section should be renamed 'Nepali citizenship' as this is what the subsequent text is apparently intended to be about. Also, the use of the word 'Madeshi' in this section is misleading as there is neither mention of 'naturalized Madhesi' nor of 'marital Madeshi' in Nepal's citizenship law. But the provisions are about how to acquire Nepali citizenship, e.g. by descent or naturalization. See before-mentioned publication -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I'm actually less bothered about using the word classification than about misrepresenting Madhesi but citizenship is indeed what the section is about and there is no need to beat around the bush. - Sitush (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Origin
The editors of this article has claimed Madhesi to be people of Indian origin but all references shows they are Nepalis of Madhesh origin and only who married these Nepalis are of Indian origin. And the quality of aeticles are degraded from time to time by deleting references and Sections without any discussion. Please stop this vandalism. (27.34.19.103 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC))

On the other hand, user 27.34.19.103 does not provide a single source for his/her claim that Madeshis lived in the Terai as long as indigenous people like the Tharus did. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The origin of the word madhes is explained in the etymology section as referring to a (quite large) landscape in northern India. Several scholars agree that Madeshi people originated in India and that there were several waves of immigrants from mostly Bihar moving into the eastern Terai, starting from the late 18th century. The rulers of Nepal passed several laws between the 1770s and 1950 to encourage people from the regions south of the Terai (the 'Madhes', sic!) to settle there, e.g. the 'Madesh Malko Sawal'. This also because people from the hills were very reluctant at the time to migrate to the Terai plains. So it were foremost the Madeshi people who converted the forests into agriculturally used land.

Since asked for reliable sources, here are some:
 * David Gellner is prof of social anthropology at University of Oxford. In his article titled "Caste, Ethnicity and Inequality in Nepal" (2007) he referred to Madeshis as 'people of Indian ethnicity' and 'plain-dwellers of Indian, Hindu origin'.
 * Dilli Ram Dahal was prof of anthropology at Tribhuvan University, Nepal. He contributed this book chapter, in which he explained about the Indian origin of Madeshi people and their cultural ties to people across the border in India.
 * In the late 20th century, Mahesh Chandra Regmi, Dilli Ram Dahal and Durga P. Ojha (Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies at Tribhuvan University) published articles about the development of the Terai in the 18th to 20th centuries and also referred to Indian people having been encouraged to settle in the Nepal Terai, see in particular Regmi's series and his book 'Thatched huts and stucco palaces: peasants and landlords in 19th-century Nepal' (1978), Dahal (1983) and Ojha (1983). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I wonder if those opposed to this definition will respond in kind. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like they will respond, perhaps because the article currently reflects their viewpoint. Failure to respond is likely to lead to the article being changed per the above sources, which appear to be much more reliable than those currently cited. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot see where one of the currently cited sources - Savada, A. M., ed. (1991). "Nepal and Bhutan : country studies: A country study" - mentions the Indian origin. I've trawled through it and while it does talk of migrations etc, it doesn't seem to be explicit. Can anyone else spot it? If not, we will have to replace the thing because it seems that we might be drawing our own conclusions from whatever it is that it does say, and that it original research. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * see image 115 showing page 69 under Migration as ref for migrants to the Terai from India, and subsequent pages. You find particular mention of the term 'madeshis' on image 123, 3rd paragraph of page no. 77. -- 15:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)BhagyaMani (talk)
 * Found it, thanks. We need to change that citation. We're currently using an attribution citation, which is intended for situations where we copy/paste from public domain works. In this particular sentence we have not copy/pasted and can use a normal cite, complete with page numbers etc. It can wait until the protection is removed. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Madhesis settled in Nepal since 500 BC from the beginning of establishment of Videha kingdom whose capital city was Janakpur of Nepal. They are the native peoples of Madhesh and lived here since the early eras. The people of Nepali origin are the ones who trace their origin to present boundaries of Nepal, that also include Mithila, Nepal and Madhesh. The native people of Nepalese Mithila that lies in eight districts of Madhesh are the Nepali origin Madhesis indigenous to Madhesh plains of Nepal. While, the womens of Indian Mithila who married in Nepal side and inherited Nepalese nationality are the Indian origin Madhesis. Now how do you conclude the origin of Madhesis? Simple...Nepalese origin and nationality are based on the principles of jus sanguinis or bloodline. NB: Prior to the passage of the Nepal Citizenship Act 2006 on 26 November 2006, Nepali origin and citizenship was transmissible only through a Nepalese father native to specific regions of Nepal. Since passage of the Act, a Nepalese mother cannot transmit her origin and nationality to a child. So, Madhesis are only Nepalis in majority while Indians origin people who migrated from Bihar of India in 2007 who got Nepali citizenship are also Madhesis or Nepalis by naturalization upon marrying Madhesis but they are in  Minority nearly only 3 Millions as confirmed by Home ministry of Nepal. However, the native madhesis are 52% of Nepali populations. These reference from independent journals also verifies Madhesis looks alike Indians and have maritial ties to India but they are Nepalis. While the ruling elites Pahari people in Nepal challenges their loyalty and 'Nepali'ness by referring Madhesis as Indians since Madhesis people marries Indians and looks like Indians. This references from one of the largest news outlets in Capital of Nepal also claims Madhesi to be of plain origin, not of indian origin although they have caste and demographics similar to Indian people across the border. User:Sitush

Now everyone get back and stop your hill elite people's propaganda. Even the Indian embassay in Nepal and Indian Government does not accept Madhesi of being Indian origin people. They even issued official statement on Indian origin or One Core Indians remarks to Madhesi people. See this reference and its embassy website for statement. (27.34.19.43 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC))

Nepali ambassador to India on origin of Madhesi people. (27.34.50.94 (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC))

(27.34.50.155 (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.50.155 (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox ethnic group
This infobox is potentially misleading, because a) it assumes that the Madhesi people is a homogeneous ethnic group; b) the languages and religions listed are all those occurring in the Nepal Terai, but several of the speakers and believers do not consider themselves Madhesi. So I wonder whether it would be appropriate to delete this infobox? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I place the following infobox here as an interim solution as it contains info about several ethnic groups in the Terai of Nepal, hence does not refer to ONLY Madhesis:

-- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The anonymous user with IP address 27.34.19.43 placed the following section in my user talk page on 26 May 2017. I share this for everybody else to follow and participate in the discussion. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)