Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism faced by Bihari people in India


 * 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.  Maxim  ( ☎ )  19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism faced by Bihari people in India
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fantastic hoax. Complete and unbridled OR. Almost none of the references mentioned in the lead even remotely make a reference to India, let alone Bihar or Biharis! The author seems to have given a free run to his imagination. Sarvagnya 19:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Sarvagnya 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. I think it should have been speedied, but alas it is too long and dresses itself up to be more important than what it really is...  Lady   Galaxy  19:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Why because;
 * there are 60+ cititations from major indian sources (NDTV, Times of India, Hindu, etc)
 * each one from a reliable source inside India
 * this is a debate currently inside Bihar and india as seen in ALL the sources. chk sources
 * each of the indicents are real and have been backed up
 * the arguments are valid, sourced and reliable.
 * it is about Bihar and Biharis - pls show where it isn't
 * point is that this is already public news and information- hence 60+ references
 * article does not take itself too seriously. Its small and well referenced. its a serious topic. reports of people being deported and murdered. hope that is enough for you to take seriously.
 * places in to context prejudices held by indians, which have been documented by indians, like M J Akbar
 * your statement above that it has nothing to do with biharis shows that you choose not to read the article
 * you stated that people react to bad behaviour, which isnt racist. Are you sure? why are people being up rooted and killed for "bad behaviour"?
 * deleting will result in an important current event being taken off wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notshamed, I fixed your comment. Now to my opinion on this situation.


 * Keep, and rewrite. This is a perfectly fine article, just not written in correct standards. This is written like a newspaper article. -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   21:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, rewrite and change title. The article has a lot of information related to one common theme, I however do not think it is racism. Docku Hi 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bihari people after trimming. The subject's highly encyclopaedic, but this article is massively longer than the Bihari people article and that's not appropriate.  The Definition of Racism section belongs in racism to which this article should link.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I still have difficulty accepting racism as the right word. I should have thought that people from Bihar and the people who discriminate them (as per the article) belong to the same race. Pls correct me if I am wrong. Wouldnt it then be just prejuduce or decrimination or some other more appropriate word? Docku Hi 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand that but Afd isn't the right place to have that discussion. :) Whether or not it's racism, I think it should be merged with Bihari people and a definition of racism belongs under racism rather than here. :)-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  02:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Racism faced by Bihari community is an extensive subject and therefore needs a separate article. Offcourse the subject should be briefly discussed in the main article on Bihari people. Manoj nav (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indian are not one single race. Manoj nav (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or Rename and Rewrite : I had proded it but the tag was removed by the author. Its WP:POVFORK. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 06:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold: I have renamed it to Anti-Bihari sentiment in India and am trying to improve the content. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)ur
 * There was hardly any material in the article at the time the tag was placed. The tag was removed and a new 'under construction' tag was placed. Almost the whole current content of the article has been added afterwards. The history can be read at the article's discussion page.Manoj nav (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your move to a new title is disingenuous and does not make it any less of a hoax. Biharis enjoy the same rights under the Indian constitution that other Indians enjoy.  The very premise of the article is WP:OR.  Sarvagnya 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article never says that the racism faced by Biharis is legally enforced by the government of India unlike legal apartheid, which existed in South Africa. Manoj nav (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP, please: If someone is anti-black, anti hindu or anti jewish what are called? from my understanding they are called racists. From what I can gather, Biharis are facing somthing very similar inside India, and outside the Hindi belt. I think if you are on the recieving end of anti Bihari feeling, you would call it racist. Its what I read when i go to Bihari websites. Will leave it to you all to decide its fate, but its a pity that there is a dispute over an issue that has led to the deaths of hundreds and deportation. So much for Wikipedia

Comment BIMARU has nothing to do with anti-Bihari sentiment as mentioned in the article. It constitutes WP:SYN. BIMARU is a humorous epithet used to describe economically backward and crime-prone states.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * BIMARU is part of the problem also. It is a prejudiced view of Hindi speaking India...the northern states. Any other name could have been chosen to describe these states, but one that relates to the Hindi word for sick has to be questioned. UP is the second richest Indian state by GDP, Bihar has one of the higest growth rates, Rajasthan has its top tourist attractions, MP has economically advanced regions like Bhopal and Indore. Why isnt Maharasdhtra or AP. For they have rural pverty to such an extent they have farmer sucides + AP has maoist violence which doesnt exist in MP, Rajasthan, and most of UP. Why isnt the North East part of BIMARU, what is so good about those states? What about J&K, West bengal? What makes WB stand out over UP, which is richer and better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frompatna (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You need a reference to equate the epithet BIMARU with the phrase "anti-Bihari sentiment". The reference provided for BIMARU does not mention "anti-Bihari sentiment". Thus it is original research when you call BIMARU is part of anti-Bihari sentiment.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I could find a reference. http://www.livemint.com/2007/07/11001558/Ashish-Bose--The-man-who-coin.html It says, - "It was in the early 1980s that Bose made headlines by calling a spade a spade. Indian academicians tend to be politically correct and avoid terms that could insult a community or large groups of people. But in a one-page synopsis submitted to the then prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, Bose blamed the “Bimaru” states for India’s burgeoning population. The now well-known acronym stands for Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. However, the term had an uncanny resemblance to the Hindi word bimar, which means sick—and implied that these states also were." I will call this racism in place of anti-Bihari sentiments. The article was originally titled 'Racism faced by the people of Bihar', which has been later changed by someone. In time to come we will cite more references.  Manoj nav (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP : The article is very much encyclopedic and genuine. It has suitable citations and not an original work at all. Manoj nav (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Today on CNNIBN "Alienating Bihar? Does it hurt when Goa minister Ravi Naik said that people of Bihar are coming across and bringing poverty, when Raj Thackeray said that the people of Bihar must get out of Maharashtra? When racism and prejudice is directed against the people of Bihar, does it hurt and one feel that there is something that one must do for the state?"
 * Please consider* http://www.ibnlive.com/news/state-of-neglect-deluged-bihar-falls-off-govt-map/72343-3.html

I leave it for you, fair minded editors, to decide. I sign off hoping that Truth will win (Satyameva Jayate) over a scam so-called editor do is determind to delete without proper discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frompatna (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP : It is absolutely essential that we keep this article. Indeed, it is not 'racism' but 'discrimination' and Biharis and the rest of Indians belong to the same race. Semantics apart, the discrimination against Biharis is a fact which cannot be brushed aside by deleting this article. I am also an Indian. But I cannot keep my eyes closed and assume that everything is hunky dory.

Govt of India plans for dev called five year plans have had Bihari per capita share as the lowest in each of the 13 plans since independence. States like J&K get ten times as much, punjab gets 6 to 8 times and Karnataka gets 4 times at an average. Bihar has no IIM, central universities or DRDO / CSIT lab. The government owned banks called PSU banks have a credit deposit ratio of 30%. In effect, 70% of the capital of Bihar gets exported. National editors like Rajdeep Sardesai use terms like Biharisation when they wish to mean criminalisation. I can go on and on, but in short, deleting this article will be like denying the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.107.154 (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - If it is over, then kindly close the discussion. Manoj nav (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite The topic is important enough to warrant inclusion, but it needs a more neutral tone.  As politically incorrect as it may seem, communities outside Bihar that feel negatively impacted deserve their "day in court" as well as stating Bihari grievances.  The article needs to be shortened.  The theme seems to be that unemployment, poverty, overpopulation, landlessness and catastrophe (such as floods) in Bihar have caused a diaspora.  Communities on the receiving ends have a litany of complaints about the immigrants, and indulge in stereotyping.  This could probably be done at the right level of detail for Wikipedia in a few thousand words.

Remember, this isn't quite unique in human history. We have the English rejecting the Irish, "Okies" escaping their dustbowl and meeting prejudice in California, the Black diaspora from the South into cities in the upper Midwest, Russian disdain for Armenians and Georgians, anti-Chinese prejudice in Malaysia, Moslems in western Europe, Nepalese getting kicked out of Bhutan, and I'm going to stop but there are plenty more. LADave (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP: The article must be kept and continued. It gives a true picture of the hate and discrimination Biharis are facing in India outside Bihar. By migrating to other placed in India, they do no crime. This is a right given to every citizen of this country by the constitution. Then why should some one be allowed to impose their will and wishes over the rules written in the constitution. I strongly believe, this article must be continued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.170 (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: Saying that Biharis face racism in India is as funny as saying that Texans face racial discrimination in USA. Totally POV. Jingoistic sentiment is found everhwere in India. Every linguistic group in India feels that it is "discriminated against" in some way or the other. If this article is kept we will soon have a hundred "Racism against X in India" put up by every disgruntled jingoist. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Nor is it a newspaper. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Deepak> Not at all sir. It says more about a country if 100's of minorities/ regional groups feel discriminated against. Are there others? Of course there are. And they should be part of Wikipedia. These events are part of any industralisation process, and like witht he UK, USA, Germany etc it should be recored in history forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Last point to user Deepak> The situation of Biharis is not like Texans. Its a poor comparison. Its more like African Americans, Native Americans, Irish in the UK, Tamils in Lanka, Indians in Fiji. These communities have been prejudiced against not only by the state, but also local communities.
 * Keep, Wrong reason for deletion. Article is well sourced with reliable source. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a hoax is no reason for deletion? And... "Article is well sourced with reliable source..." -- which article are you talking about? Sarvagnya 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: this article is now redirected to Anti-Bihari sentiment in India, which has 65 sources. That's much more than enough to establish notability. In recent past, such sentiment was prevalent in North-east and Biharis had no option but to flee away from there; and very recently politically motivated moves in Maharashtra should be known to all. Just google search for Raj Thackeray and Bihari: you'll get it (41000+ results). I do not see the point in filing this Afd. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite. Upon reading it, it seems to be in a slanted point of view. However deleting isn't the answer as the article is well sourced. IMO it should be written in a more neutral tone. S3000  ☎  18:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepPlease —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.231.14 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2008 (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.