Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Merging the content to one or more other pages is a possibilty, but that's a whole other discussion - as far as AFD goes, the consensus seems to be Keep. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The contents of the article are already present in some existing articles like Stranded Pakistanis, 1971 Bangladesh genocide etc. Hence the article is totally redundant and should be deleted. Also, none of the sources claim this as persecution, the page was a created as a POV fork as the creator threatened before. -- Zayeem (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Biharis are being killed there in Bangladesh, you cannot hide the facts. At first you had concerns about the neutrality at the article's talk, then the DYK, then the merger and now "deletion"? What's the problem? Biharis are being persecuted in Bangladesh, yet the article presents a good neutral view about them. An RfC is also under progress. Therefore it is a ridiculous nomination. The article should be definitely kept. Fai  zan  18:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Faizan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.  Zayeem  (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Biharis are being killed source? The truth is, Biharis were only killed in 1971. My rationale is, since the topic is already covered in 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Stranded Pakistanis, the article is totally redundant. Also, I didn't see any source which states this thing as Persecution.-- Zayeem (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not covered there. We need a detailed info on this touching topic. Why you opted for an AfD? Before you were creating hurdles at the talk for weeks? And now suddenly an AfD? Fai  zan  18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They are covered, you may add them in those relevant articles if you have anything new. There is no need for this article with a POV title. The article can also be termed as WP:POV fork, you have already threatened to have an article like this when you couldn't add your biased views in 1971 Bangladesh genocide.-- Zayeem (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What? POV title? See this article: "Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta". And this is personal attack of abusing an editor for "biased comments". Keep your accusations back, lest I report you at the ANI. Fai  zan  18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the sources mention it as persecution, the title is definitely a POV. And let others decide if I had many any personal attack, however, your comments like It's just his drama-mongering may well fall under personal attacks.-- Zayeem (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at the sources? Fai  zan  19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, if you think any source claims it to be persecution then show up.-- Zayeem (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All of them. Even by britannica. The sources by independent NGOs also term it as likewise. Fai  zan  10:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, none of them term this as persecution. The only thing I found is this, which says Biharis were subject of widespread political persecution preceding and during the 1971 liberation war as well as in the aftermath of the liberation surely none of the sources says that the Biharis are still persecuted in Bangladesh.-- Zayeem (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever. The sources by the minority rights' organization even term it more than that. And please stop attacking me. No personal attacks. Fai  zan  11:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More than that? What? And you really don't know the meaning of personal attacks, do you?-- Zayeem (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Please state your concerns clearly, Zaeem. I do not consider this article redundant and see no good reason for the proposed deletion. — Шαмıq ☪   тαʟκ✍ @ 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Already stated, the topic is already covered in some existing articles, and if further addition is needed, they can be added in those relevant articles. -- Zayeem (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please specify what is repeated and where. — Шαмıq ☪   тαʟκ✍ @ 18:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing is repeated. It's just his drama-mongering. Fai  zan  18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Casualties, Fall of Dhaka are already covered in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Causes, Partition, Aftermath, Present condition are covered in Stranded Pakistanis. If there is anything which is new, they can be added in those relevant articles. The whole topic can be covered in the context of those articles. No need for a separate article like this.-- Zayeem (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

So, as now you have clarified yourself, It seems debatable... Now, considering your statement, that the things have been already put up there, It would be good to collect all such scattered information into one article. Repetetions do not matter then, I suggest you see this. — Шαмıq ☪   тαʟκ✍ @ 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Already told you that there is a heck of difference between sentiment and persecution. Sentiment or a genocide has a wide meaning, and it may include things from demonstrations, hatred, violence, etc, but the prosecution's definition is not fit upon the Sentiment or genocide. Fai  zan  18:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Stranded Pakistanis covers the entire topic of the Biharis in Bangladesh. And the 1971 Bangladesh genocide covers all the atrocities made in 1971 in Bangladesh, including that of the Biharis, so no need of this article.-- Zayeem (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does not cover the persecution against Biharis, which is being done even today. They are suffering and this article will be kept. Fai  zan  19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep First I shall dissect the ridiculous reasoning of Zayeem: No the information of this article is NOT present in other articles a tiny little paragraph is not sufficient to fully grasp the scope and magnitude of the Biharis persecution - maybe we should have a paragraph for the bangladesh atrocities instead? this is pure censorship your arguments themselves are redundant zayeem this article is very notable and important and the reason provided by zayeem to delete a well sourced article is pathetic at best speed keep and close. 86.151.237.220 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) IP sock of Nangparbat  Zayeem  (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would also request admins to speedy keep the AfD. It's pointless nomination. No mature reason given. Fai  zan  18:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me show you how your arguments are baseless Zayeem : Stranded Pakistanis Does not discuss not explore the challenges or persecution of Biharis it discusses the history and events that lead them to be stranded in there own former nation and therefore becoming stranded its discusses the political background it does not discuss the persecution they face in Bangladesh at the present time- Bangladesh atrocities article only has fleeting mention of the events of 1971ONE SMALL paragraph it does not discuss present persecution faced by the Biharis so both your arguments are flawed and full of holes!86.151.237.220 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — 86.151.237.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yeah the same. Stranded Pakistanis is about the stranded Bihari minority, being persecuted in Bangladesh. But the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is about the atrocities being plagued upon them. Fai  zan  19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Literally, the context of Stranded Pakistanis covers the entire topic of the Biharis living in Bangladesh. That includes their history in Bangladesh, as well as their condition and status in Bangladesh.-- Zayeem (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved it to the correct place. No worries now. Fai  zan  19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That was abig flaw and has been amended. Fai  zan  19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No that is nonconstructive, the article Stranded Pakistanis covers all kinds of topics related to the Biharis living in Bangladesh.-- Zayeem (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing to that flaw Zayeem. Now this AfD be speedy closed. Fai  zan  19:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, User:Faizan is now just removing the contents of Stranded Pakistanis just to justify the new article, this is seriously disruptive. The article Stranded Pakistanis covers all kinds of topics related to the Biharis in Bangladesh. In fact the re-direct Biharis in Bangladesh also leads to that article.-- Zayeem (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't oversimplify the facts. Don't know the difference between "Persecution of an ethnicity" and "Ethnicity"? Fai  zan  19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * An article on an ethnicity covers all kinds of topics related to that ethnic. Now if the article becomes too long, then we might think of splitting, which is not the matter in this case.-- Zayeem (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note that "Bihari" was never an ethnicity rather a term used by Bangladeshis to differentiate between Bengalis and all non Bengalis. Solomon  7968  19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah solomon. But this is evident that there ought to be separate articles for "Bengalis", "Non-Bengalis" and "Persecution of Non-Bengalis". Fai  zan  10:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (cackle)  @ 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete- The main motive to create this article is to present anti-bangladeshi propaganda! there was some revenge attack against Biharis, but it was not enough to define as Persecution! Exaggerated information from controvertal and biased media (certainly collected for this article!!!!) never shows the reality!!!
 * Faizan-you may try yourself, but you can never cover up the 1971 Bangladesh genocide or justify that horrible deed of pakistan with your article here (remember! you have already threatened)!!! you know nothing about bangladesh except what you have collected from some anti-bangladeshi pakistani media!

For your attention, In 1971 Bangladeshis were called by Tikka Khan and Yahya Khan as culprits. On the other hand Mir Abdul Aziz and Malik Ghulam Jilani  named them as victims! They all were pakistani! and it is your choice to find out who was right and neutral!

another thing! I have no problem to show the negative situation of Bangladesh! but it should be fair and neutral, almost in the near of reality! Samudrakula (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I am completely uninvolved. The topic is notable. The BBC has written of the Biharis that "they faced widespread discrimination in Bengali speaking Bangladesh" and describing a large refugee camp where they live, wrote it is "notorious for its cramped conditions, poor sanitation and shortages of electricity and running water." Enough said.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is denying the fact that there is discrimination against the Biharis, but as the topic is already covered in Stranded Pakistanis, do we need a separate article for this one? Also, none of the sources claim it to be persecution, the page is a blatant POV fork as the creator already threatened before to create an article like this.-- Zayeem (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a very notable human rights issue and has extensive coverage in many academic sources. It is worth noting that the nominating editor identifies as Bangladeshi and has been previously involved in POV disputes in this article. This is obviously very important to note as there is high chance of WP:COI involved behind this AfD. The editor in concern has made several attempts to remove content from the article which purportedly does not shed Bangladesh in a very positive light. Since he could not get his way, he decided to take the dispute to the AfD route. I do not recognise this AfD as valid since it is essentially an issue of opposing POVs. The article topic itself is highly notable. It appears that this AfD is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the single sentence nominating rationale goes to show that this is an attempt to whitewash and WP:CENSOR this notable topic away from the encyclopedia.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If nominator's Bangladeshi nationality is a reason to disregard this nomination, what makes you think that all Pakistani editor's opinions should be considered here? If the article is in scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, its obvious that Bangladeshi editors will opine here. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 07:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not said anything about discarding people's opinions because of their nationality. What I have said is that the nominating editor has been involved with the article previously (in a disputable manner) and that there may be some WP:COI in this out-of-the-blue nomination. It's not a judgement, but rather an assumption. So taking this into account, the nomination should be taken with some discretion and a pinch of salt. Make of it what you want.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment @Zayeem: Just because there is an article on Japanese Americans, does that mean we should not have an article on Japanese American internment? Your argument is flawed.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Japanese American is of 42 kb and Japanese American internment is of 102 kb, it's quite fair to have a separate article on that one. But in this case, both Stranded Pakistanis and Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh are short articles, hence no need to have a separate article like the latter. And I guess you should know the proper meaning of WP:COI, you and Faizan were trying to move the page 1971 Bangladesh genocide as well as adding POV contents and when you both failed, you came up with this POV fork.-- Zayeem (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestion- There's no need to duplicate info from 1971 Bangladesh genocide and the other related article. It's enough to integrate this topic here[| Anti-Bihari sentiment#Bangladesh] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.131.148 (talk) 2:20 pm, Today (UTC+6) — 78.34.131.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Zayeem another argument which makes no sense how on earth is this a pov fork? this contains totally different information from any other article it needs a seperate article to cover all the persecution faced by the Biharis making a small sub section on another article is classical Censoring of information due to your own POV like I said why dont we make a sub section for atrocities in 1971? this article is very sourced and contains masses of valid information 86.151.237.220 (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Fai  zan  10:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"The main motive to create this article is to present anti-bangladeshi propaganda!" That there is enough evidence of a conflict of interest from these pov pushers Zayeem and co 86.151.237.220 (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is surely a POV fork, as mentioned before, Faizan had earlier threatened to create a page like this when he couldn't add his biased contents in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. The topic of the article largely overlaps with Stranded Pakistanis, 1971 Bangladesh genocide which is clearly visible. Also, I would like to point that User:Faizan is removing others' comments in this AfD as he did here.-- Zayeem (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not remove comments by "others". I reverted a sock puppet of a user here, who lives in Germany. He made his first edit in the AfD.  Fai  zan  11:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is surely a bad joke this article contains information NOT PRESENTED ANYWHERE ELSE it overlaps slightly with stranded pakistanis only because of the background information and political issues that are discussed this article is about PERSECUTION etc faced by the Biharis why cannot you see this? as for the "bangladesh genocide" article that article is a bunch of crap one minor paragraph about the plight of Biharis is not enough so please end your nonsensical arguments 86.151.237.220 (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the 1971 Bangladesh genocide article is about 1971 not the many years after it that is about history a short period of oppression against Biharis the 42 years since has seen the persecution persist this basically means we should forget about the last 42 years and the present situation this makes no sense at all also this is about health, eocnomics voting etc not just killings. This AFD is nothing more than WP:CENSOR attempt by pov pushers 86.151.237.220 (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Stranded Pakistanis covers the entire topic of the Biharis in Bangladesh, it won't change even if Faizan keeps removing the contents of the article. Your arguments are baseless.-- Zayeem (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No it does not. It is just about the "Non-Bengali" community stranded in Bangladesh". Whereas "Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is for the persecution and discrimination being done with them. Fai  zan  11:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No again Zayeem your pov is apparent that article is about the causes and political issues not the human rights and persecution faced by them it only mentions a fleeting mark about the conditions which is not sufficient this deserves a separate article as the information is large and notable clumping and condensing and belittling the plight of Biharis is once again WP:CENSOR which is your ultimate aim at the end of the day arguing with you is futile as your arguments hold no water 86.151.237.220 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As said before, an article on an ethnicity covers all kinds of topics related to that ethnic. The article Stranded Pakistanis is on the Bihari community in Bangladesh, naturally the article covers all kinds of topics related to the Bihari community in Bangladesh. Now if the article becomes too long, then we might think of splitting, which is not the matter in this case.-- Zayeem (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the "Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta" cannot be deleted by the reason of that "there is another article named Hazara people" Why was not an AfD there? Totally wrong reasoning. Fai  zan  12:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, the article Hazara people is too long (53 kb), hence the separate article on their persecution is justified. Moreover, the article Hazara people is about the entire Hazara population in the world, not just about those living in Pakistan.-- Zayeem (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not judged by Google Hits or the Size of the article. Don't measure it in KBs. Fai  zan  12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not judging notability by the size of the article, see WP:SPLIT. Also don't remove others' posts in the AfD as you did it for the second time here. -- Zayeem (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Zayeem: Merging all the content into the Stranded Pakistanis article would make that article heavily based on persecution and human rights rather than the non-Bengali community in Bangladesh. This would cause a serious problem with regard to WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. Hence, it is feasible for both articles to remain seperate. Both articles are related, but they are not the same as you seem to be asserting.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They are actually same. Stranded Pakistanis mostly talks about the miserable life standards and other problems faced by the Biharis in Bangladesh, so is Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. If you can add any contents rather than those discriminations against the Biharis and the article becomes too long, then we might think of having a separate article. Until then, I don't see any justification behind the existence of the latter.-- Zayeem (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note - Some users are continuously removing the contents from Stranded Pakistanis. The revision prior to th===Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh===


 * – (e beginning of the AfD should be restored and should be fully protected until the AfD closes.-- Zayeem (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why this irrelevant note here? It is under discussion there at the article's talk. Fai  zan  12:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is quite relevant here. You are just removing the contents and edit warring even after I have asked you to restore the previous revision.-- Zayeem (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note-User:Kmzayeem has been canvassing users and admins 86.151.237.220 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This should stop atleast now. It cannot be tolerated, User:Kmzayeem. He was posting on talk pages of other users, and even now trying the best. Fai  zan  15:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've suggested temporary full protection for Stranded Pakistanis because of the edit warring by you two. What's canvassing there? First get yourselves competent about the policies before constantly accusing others.-- Zayeem (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Asking for protection, or asking an admin to look into questionable behavior, is not canvassing. I think you all should drop the personal attacks and accusations. None of it is helping your case for keeping the article. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have more than just "suggested" instead of sneakily trying to canvass others admit your nefarious activities for once let me remind of your comment on the admins page "The reason of the AfD is that the contents of the article Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh largely overlaps with Stranded Pakistanis and is also a POV fork" your such a bad liar I actually feel sorry for you again please stop canvassing RameshJain9 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks ramesh 86.151.237.220 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have much of an opinion on this topic so I shall not vote. RameshJain9 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ramesh, No this is not Canvassing, Canvassing means to ask an editor to participate in an AfD who would vote in your favor. I asked an admin (to whom I've interacted for the first time) to have a full protection on Stranded Pakistanis, since this AfD is relevant behind the reason of that protection, I mentioned about the AfD, but I never asked him to participate in it.-- Zayeem (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is you provided your own commentry to suite your POV in order to sway an admins decisions with this comment "The reason of the AfD is that the contents of the article Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh largely overlaps with Stranded Pakistanis and is also a POV fork" you jumped onto an article not related to your query and provided your opinion on it so this is canvassing albeit very subtle 86.151.237.220 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The admins reply seems to concur with my flagging of your canvassing "Forum Shopping" just let it go Zayeem and let the closing admins deal with the articles it will not help to try and muddy the waters any further chill and see what happens. 86.151.237.220 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The post was about the protection. And what about your constant attack messages in my talk page? Is that how you try to win over an AfD? By attacking others? -- Zayeem (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think that is an attack than surely you need to find a new hobby....86.151.237.220 (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not willing to reply on your nonsense. If you don't have anything constructive to argue, just leave. Don't derail the discussion, this is not a forum.-- Zayeem (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Derailing? I am not the one sending messages desperately to garner support for a delete vote I am not the one trying to get admins to side with me please look at your own behaviour then point the finger from I think I more or less have undressed your weak arguments in this article above you keep going in circles I will leave it to admins now 86.151.237.220 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't give any valid arguments, all you did is just making personal attacks.-- Zayeem (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop: What are you pepole doing here? This is not the right place to discuss what you are dicussing right now. — Шαмıq ☪   тαʟκ✍ @ 18:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of the article and its references concern the Stranded Pakistani refugee issue in Bangladesh, and nothing specific on actual atrocities, alleged war crimes and discrimination against Biharis. Either neutral editors take over this article, or a new article should be created by seasoned editors concerning the ethnic communal violence of the 1971 war and the specific reprisal attacks faced by Biharis in the weeks following the end the war.--ArmanJ (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fai  zan  13:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 *Keep Per Mard and IP arguments very well sourced and informative article. Kratos007745757 (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat  Zayeem  (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and . Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep No, it's a very important article. It has received significant coverage in the media, including BBC, Britannica, etc. Agreed with Faizan. Baigmirzawaqar (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC) — Baigmirzawaqar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The article touches an important humanitarian issue involving considerable number of people of South-East Asia. Strongly support to retain the article. Zayeem's logic already covered is simply baseless. On Wikipedia, it is common to have articles on single issue. (Consider, for example, Jesus article which is in fact a summary of numerous main articles).-- Ascetic Rosé   16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ascetic, my rationale is that the article was created as a POV fork with contents that were already covered in some existing articles. The creator has also threatened before to create an article like this. Moreover, the issue is never termed as persecution. Now about the article on Jesus, it is some 170 kb long so it's fair to have separate articles related to Jesus as referred in WP:SPLIT. But in this case the mother article Stranded Pakistanis is not that long to have a separate article concerned with the same issue.-- Zayeem (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The very purpose of the Stranded Pakistani article is to cover the humanitarian issues of Biharis. And wartime atrocities against Biharis in 1971 were part of the 1971 Bangladesh genocide and hence should be covered there. Those two articles are much stronger representations of the topic than this prejudiced and inaccurate piece will ever be.--ArmanJ (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to but in who decided Stranded Pakistanis "very purpose" is to highlight the plight of biharis? did you just come up with that assumption on the spot? that article is definitely not appropriate to contain the issue of human rights abuses. RameshJain9 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:RameshJain9 You clearly don't understand my points. Human rights abuses, which include war crimes, are meant to be covered in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Humanitarian issues, i.e. refugee camps, are supposed to covered in Stranded Pakistani. --ArmanJ (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note According to the Library of Congress, most Biharis have gained Bangladeshi citizenship and are increasingly integrating into mainstream Bangladeshi society. Here's an example of them forming a key voting constituency in Dhaka.--ArmanJ (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant note This is an AfD. Not a forum. You will trust "Library of Congress", but are those tons of the sources supporting the article not trustworthy? Fai  zan  08:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Secondly I am also adding info from these sources to my sandbox, and will add them to the main article too. Fai  zan  08:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the note is quite relevant here and an important one as the sources strongly refute the fact that the Biharis are being persecuted in Bangladesh.-- Zayeem (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cannot refute. Facts mare Facts. Fai  zan  08:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ArmanJ your first source does not refute anything unfortunately and your second source sounds pretty shady to me more of a opinion piece than anything else. However the reference list of the article contain neutral sources and respected sources which categorically state human rights issues are ongoing these two flimsy sources sadly add no weight to your argument. RameshJain9 (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Faizan, User:RameshJain9, oh its not just these sources, but most references in the article do not support your baseless claims.

*Keep After much consideration and review I believe this article is relevant and appropriate it covers human rights issues which are still on going despite claims by Zayeem et al BBC has recently produced articles and documentaries on the plight of Biharis I have read a few this year. Zayeem giving someone the right to vote while they live in horrid conditions does not make things better I am surprised there are people out there who still believe Biharis are not be persecuted when up to date sources from neutral avenues claim otherwise it is a well referenced article and any attempt to delete is pure WP:CENSOR as for Zayeem et al your arguments hold very little water and personally to me sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT (please do not take this personally) the other articles of which you speak of are not sufficient to fully state the issue and so the topic in my opinion is worthy of a stand alone article. RameshJain9 (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat  Zayeem  (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) *Comment^^Strange how nationalists do not understand what human rights abuses are then in their desperation accuse others of being single purpose accounts. Do Armanj et al even have an ounce of neutrality within them?. You wave around a single OP-ED source as the word of god do not make me laugh Persecution does not have to be a pogrom I understand this article may be hurting your bangla nationalism but this is a reality of Biharis in your nation. Zayeem armanJ etc are all Bangladeshi nationalists and beyond that I don't see how they could ever see the truth of the sources provided disgusting behaviour unfortunately many Bengalis are still playing the victims since 1971 this is not the case any more get over it and be neutral for once. RameshJain9 (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat  Zayeem  (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) *Note Even though certain users such as Armanj are trying to divert the AFD by shoving sources here and there to add weight in their argument those two sources are miniscule compared to these :^ Moss, Peter (2005). Secondary Social Studies For Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 93. ISBN 9780195977042. Retrieved June 10, 2013.
 * Comment ^^ Weird how new users and single purpose accounts keep springing up in this discussion. Do people like Ramesh Jain and Faizan even have a clue of what's written in their sources? Since 1972, has there been a single riot or pogrom against Biharis? Has there ever been a state-sponsored or systematic persecution campaign against Biharis? They reside in refugee camps run by UNHCR and the Red Cross. A leading Pakistani newspaper notes, "In all fairness to Dhaka, the onus of responsibility for these Bihari-Pakistanis lies with Islamabad while much of the blame for their present plight must also be apportioned to the Bihari-Pakistani leaders themselves." User:Faizan and his gang have distorted the actual humanitarian issue with their own uninformed, jumbled up, deeply prejudiced, baseless self imposed POVs.--ArmanJ (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

^ Google books ^ a b Zehra, Batool. "The other side of history". Tribune.com.pk. Retrieved 2013-05-25. ^ a b "Chronology for Biharis in Bangladesh". The Minorities at Risk (MAR) Project. Retrieved 27 March 2013. ^ a b Statistics Of Pakistan's Democide ^ Siddiqui 1990, p. 153. ^ A. R. Siddiqui, East Pakistan - the Endgame: An Onlooker's Journal 1969-1971, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 171. ^ (Al Helal 2003, pp. 263–265) ^ James Heitzman and Robert Worden (eds), ed. (1989). "Pakistan Period (1947–71)". Bangladesh: A Country Study. Government Printing Office, Country Studies US. ISBN 0-16-017720-0. Retrieved 2007-06-16. ^ a b c M. R. Biju (2010). Developmental Issues in Contemporary India. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 246–. ISBN 978-81-8069-714-2. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ a b Hamoodur Rahman Commission, Chapter 2, Paragraph 33 ^ "3 MILLION Slaughtered Sheik MUJIB Charges 'Greatest Massacre'" The Portsmouth Herald, Monday, 17 January 1972, Portsmouth, New Hampshire ^ Hill et al, page 13 ^ Chatterji - Spoils of partition. Page 166 ^ Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar (1 January 2007). The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-13846-8. Retrieved 7 June 2013. ^ "Two-Nation Theory Exists". Pakistan Times.[dead link] ^ Carlo Caldarola (1982). Religions and societies, Asia and the Middle East. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-90-279-3259-4. "... Hindu and Muslim cultures constitute two distinct, and frequently antagonistic, ways of life, and that therefore they cannot coexist in one nation ..." ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, pp. 221–222 ^ "Two Nation Theory: The Myth, The Reality". Story of Pakistan. Retrieved 2013-06-07. ^ a b Brad K. Blitz; Maureen Lynch (1 January 2011). Statelessness and Citizenship: A Comparative Study on the Benefits of Nationality. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 117–. ISBN 978-1-84980-899-6. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ Nalini Natarajan; Emmanuel Sampath Nelson (1 January 1996). Handbook of Twentieth-Century Literatures of India. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 256–. ISBN 978-0-313-28778-7. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ "PRC Wants Urgent Steps for Biharis’ Repatriation", Arab News ^ "MQM demands issuance of CNICs to Biharis-2004", Dawn, 8 February 2004 ^ The Guardian ^ "Bangladesh State and the Refugee Phenomenon - The Bihari Refugees", South Asia Forum for Human Rights ^ "Citizens of Nowhere: The Stateless Biharis of Bangladesh", Refugees International 2006 report ^ Refugees International (see below) ^ "Musharraf wraps up Bangladesh visit", BBC News, 31 July 2002 ^ a b c d Christian Gerlach (14 October 2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 148–. ISBN 978-1-139-49351-2. Retrieved 30 March 2013. ^ a b Qutubuddin Aziz (1974). Blood and tears. Publications Division, United Press of Pakistan. Retrieved 4 June 2013. ^ "Controversial book accuses Bengalis of 1971 war crimes". BBC News. 5 June 2013. ^ "Massacre of Biharis in Bangladesh". The Age. March 15, 1972. Retrieved 2013-06-04. ^ Saikia, Yasmin (2011). Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971. Duke University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8223-5038-5. ^ a b Gerlach, Christian (2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70681-0. ^ Bennett Jones, Owen (2003). Pakistan: eye of the storm (2nd revised ed.). Yale University Press. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-300-10147-8. ^ a b "Bangla Biharis weary of wait to migrate to Pakistan". Rediff.com. Retrieved 2013-06-05. ^ Shah, Mehtab Ali (1997). The Foreign Policy of Pakistan: Ethnic Impacts on Diplomacy 1971-1994. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 1860641695. ^ "Will Nitish's visit boost Biharis in Pakistan?". Times of India. Retrieved 2013-06-05. ^ "Biharis of Bangladesh, World Directory of Minorities". Faqs.org. Retrieved 2013-05-25. ^ http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/study-abroad/100714/bangladesh-ethnic-persecution-bihari-bengali ^ a b http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1313.pdf ^ "Vote for 'stranded Pakistanis'", BBC News, 6 May 2003 ^ Mixed feelings over Bihari ruling - BBC News 28 May, 2003 ^ "Bangladesh: Stateless Biharis Grasp for a Resolution and Their Rights", Refugees International ^ "Court rules that young Biharis are Bangladesh citizens". Reuters. 19 May 2008. ^ a b "Citizenship for Bihari refugees". BBC News. 19 May 2008. ^ "Citizenship for Bihari refugees". BBC News. 2008-05-19. 7407757. Retrieved 2008-05-21.

These 47 sources clearly illustrate what is going on in Bangladesh no matter how much Armanj trys to divert the AFD yet againRameshJain9 (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat  Zayeem  (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Leaving aside all the crap from the user above, I’d point out that all these 47 sources concern either- 1) the atrocities, war crimes and reprisal attacks against Biharis during the Bangladesh war and its aftermath, or 2) the issue of Stranded Pakistani refugees and their discrimination in Bangladesh. The purpose of this article suggests a prolonged historical persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, but this assertion is not supported by these references. Much of the article’s content overlaps with that of 1971 Bangladesh genocide and Stranded Pakistanis. The Stranded Pakistani page is desperately in need of expansion, especially given recent developments, and all legitimate information regarding the refugee camps should be shifted there. The 1971 atrocities should be covered in the 1971 genocide article. Those two articles are much stronger representations of the topic than this one.User:ArmanJ

*Suggestion: Well the above user is obviously full of garbage going around in circles stating the same thing over and over my keep vote above explains how this article is tremendously necessary however much it irks nationalist vandals it is a legitimate article end of discussion I do not feel the need to argue with brain dead nationalists. RameshJain9 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat  Zayeem  (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody is interested in your original research. You have inserted a bunch of useless references but again, none of the sources state this issue as persecution, and as pointed by Arman, they are mostly concerned about the violences against the Biharis in 1971, which are already covered in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. This article was created as a POV fork with a provocative title, hence it should definitely be deleted. Also, I guess you are well aware about the possible results for continuously making personal attacks. -- Zayeem (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

RameshJain9 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - A number of single purpose accounts are giving some ivotes to keep the article. They are just referring to the already countered arguments so I'm not giving any explanations to them.-- Zayeem (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin A number of users primarily Armanj and Zayeem continuously use the same old redundant arguments over and over again they have all been undone in the discussion above. Furthermore the article contains many reliable neutral references which explicitly state that Biharis are persecuted take the first lead reference for example clearly states persecution during 1971 and after it I still do not understand why these two disruptive users continue to divert and confuse users with the same old rubbish they call "arguments" I will leave this up to the admins its clearly impossible to sway such pov pushers and hence I do not want any one of the disruptive users above making another useless reply to this note of mine. RameshJain9 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat  Zayeem  (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you all should stop making notes and remarks and comments. No admin here needs your advice. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There are very strong differing opinions worded quite verbosely here. This discussion came to my attention from an RfC, and I think this article's appropriateness on Wikipedia should be resolved before committing so much energy towards other aspects of it.

The main opposition would appear to be the following:


 * 1) The subject matter is already covered by the 1971 Bangladesh genocide and Stranded Pakistanis articles
 * 2) None of the cited sources characterize the Bihari discrimination as "persecution"

I will note that the decision to completely remove the Refugee crisis section from Stranded Pakistanis was exactly the kind of thing WP:POINT warns against. However, at this point, it would appear that the content of this article has grown rather extensive, and so if lack of size and comprehensiveness were reasons to bar such an article, those arguments are no longer strong and this topic appears to be turning into its own kind of thing. It would no longer be appropriate to paste all of this information into 1971_Bangladesh_genocide or Stranded Pakistanis

As to the second point, it would appear that in fact, quite a few of the cited sources characterize the Biharis' treatment as persecution. Some of the examples are cited here in this discussion. The Tribune article about writer Aquila Ismail explicitly says, "But curiously, little has been written about the persecution faced by the Biharis."

The article does not claim that the violence of 1971 continues to today. The lead identifies the 1971 persecution of that time period as its main subject and later details the "Aftermath" of discrimination against Biharis living in Bangladesh who wish to repatriate to Pakistan. It would completely make sense to view their discrimination as a kind of "persecution", but the article does not say that the violence of the 40s and 70s is currently occurring.

I will just finally say that the opposition to this article needs to be more finely focused. If you object to the article's entire existence, why debate any particular aspect of it? That is to say: If an article should be rejected because it makes false and redundant claims, why even talk about writing it in a way that would remove its bias? Ender and  Peter  22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, my concern was that none of the sources say that the Biharis are still being persecuted. Even the writer in the tribune article primarily talks about the 1971 events. The contents have grown extensive, but if you go through the whole article, you will see a number of repetitions. Now, if the sections on refugee crisis and present conditions are to be kept in that article, what would be the main subject of Stranded Pakistanis which currently holds only the historical contexts? According to your observations, the article's main subject is the violences committed against the Biharis in 1971, now in that case shouldn't the article be titled as 1971 persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh? Even then, the whole article would be under the context of 1971 Bangladesh genocide. If you view their current status as a kind of "persecution", then why not having the title simply as Persecution of Biharis as the Biharis are facing the same discriminations in Pakistan as well? -- Zayeem (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Biharis in Pakistan are not facing the "same discrimination" as they are in Bangladesh, as you seem to imply. In Pakistan, they are not stateless or confined to refugee camps. They are not victims of politically-motivated hatred or called labels like "traitor", "Razakar" etc. Whatever discrimination may exist against them in Pakistan is mostly racial or stereotypical, and that type of "discrimination" (if that's what you want to call it) is present against pretty much every ethnic group in Pakistan. One only needs to visit Karachi to understand. The difference is, that in Bangladesh, the discrimation against Biharis has a political and nationalist dimension to it as well. Please do not try to equate the two different situations.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, I don't believe that the articles Stranded Pakistanis and Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh ought to be mutually exclusive. The former can cover all aspects of this group (culture, history, geographic distribution), while the latter can cover the persecution that this group has historically faced.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Alright, then shouldn't the article be titled as Persecution of Biharis as they also faced violences and discriminations in other places as well? -- Zayeem (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They do face persecutions elsewhere, but it is not in the same context as that of Bangladesh. As I have said above, the discrimination against Biharis in Bangladesh has political, historical, nationalist and to a large extent, state-sanctioned dimensions. It is a well documented human rights topic that has coverage in a vast mix of independent sources and is highly notable. That's why we have this sub-article. I am really curious as to what makes you think persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is the "same" as persecution of Biharis elsewhere. It is not.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "political, historical, nationalist and to a large extent, state-sanctioned dimensions", this is the exact sort of BS exaggerated by you and your gang just to get back at Bangladesh. The BBC and other sources certainly don't go to this level. You people have conveniently left out the most important aspect of the issue, that of Pakistan's refusal to repatriate its own citizens who want to be Pakistani and not Bangladeshi (despite Bangladesh's offer of citizenship). A link was posted here of a Pakistani editorial blaming the Pakistani government for not owing up to its own stranded people. The fault lies equally with Pakistan.--ArmanJ (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I will reiterate that none of the sources claim that the present condition of the Biharis in Bangladesh falls under "Persecution". If you are going with the discriminations against them, they are facing even more in Pakistan, there are enough references supporting that. A report by an Arab newspaper states that the Punjabis in Pakistan have occupied the land which were allocated to the Biharis. They are also facing ethnic riots there. There is no such incidence in Bangladesh, so why this provocative title then? -- Zayeem (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are Biharis in Pakistan stateless? Are they confined like prisoners in refugee camps? Are they called "traitors"? Does the government intentionally neglect them like it is in Bangladesh? These simple questions are enough to rebut your inappropriate comparisons.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Biharis in Pakistan are also considered stateless and living in inhuman conditions. Biharis have been granted citizenship and voting rights in Bangladesh, while those living in Pakistan are still urging for these rights. -- Zayeem (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Many Biharis were repatriated from Bangladesh to Pakistan. And many Bengalis from Bangladesh are also in Pakistan. This article is about those immigrants as they are not registered. There are other Biharis who are not in the same category - they migrated to West Pakistan post-partition and are part of the Muhajir ethnic group, and enjoy full rights as citizens of Pakistan. So again, the plight of these Biharis originates from their conditions in Bangladesh. The repatriated Biharis (ones who came from Bangladesh) should not be confused with the already-settled Biharis who are Muhajirs of Karachi and are Pakistani citizens, like all other Muhajirs since 1947.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it is worth noting that the article above is talking about Biharis and Bengalis. Keeping in mind that there are close to 2 million (or more) Bangladeshi-origin Bengalis in Pakistan, not all of the population facing citizenship issues is Bihari. The reason why they are not citizens yet is because they came from Bangladesh and are unregistered immigrants. That is a different context altogether from the conditions of Biharis in Bangladesh, where they have been purposely denied rights and citizenship solely due to their ethnicity and their opposition of Bangladesh's independence. Like each time in this AfD, you are consistently missing the context in your attempts to equate the Biharis of Bangladesh with other Biharis.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Meaningless arguments. Even in Bangladesh, there are many Biharis who have assimilated with the mainstream Bangladeshis and living a normal life just like other Bangladeshis. Your arguments don't really refute the fact that the Biharis are facing bloated discriminations with inhuman living standards in Pakistan, even worse than Bangladesh.-- Zayeem (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that your sole objective here is to whitewash this topic away from the encylopedia, using weak WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments and unconvincing counter-points attempting to portray Bangladesh as a heaven for Biharis (when the reality is quite the opposite), this discussion is becoming centered on your denial of facts rather than an objective AfD dialogue. I have no interest to engage with you in this any further. I'll let this be my last comment and leave it to the admins to decide the outcome of this AfD.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be good if it's your last comment, otherwise your persistent personal attacks would get you nowhere. Also, the way you put the irrelevant policy links is called WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, which, as always, puts no value in your arguments.-- Zayeem (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - The article doesn't have any meaningful context which is not already covered in Human rights in Bangladesh or 1971 Bangladesh genocide or Stranded Pakistanis. Amit (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.