Talk:Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is Category Bihar relevant?

Adding category Bihar does not makes any sense. All entries are of Indian context. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it if you think. Faizan 17:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Bitter Truth!!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

at first i was thought that this article may be to show off the reality. but now this article is shaped with complete pakistani point of view as some editors collect lots of exaggerated information from pakistani source and try to blame indirectly bangladeshi people for genocide. (like bangladeshi blame pakistan for 1971)!!!

Mobbing, Persecution and Rape all are included here and was also good method of Pakistan to show off the miseries of muslims and asking for more from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states!!!!

Bengalis ″war of independence″ was named by pakistanis as ″civil war″!! here ″Fall of Dhaka″ is another example!! (were Bengalis ″liberation army″ or ″conqueror″????)

Samudrakula (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not impressive... The same thing like the fact that we like to call the events of 1857–8 as The War of Independence, whereas the British call it Mutiny, Rebellion, etc... The things you say are consistent with the norms here. Nothing special or unusual regarding what you have said...—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

They all should have listened to the Mahatma in 1947. :( Salam alaykum. Mr Mobile Man (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, not convincing... If you read history more carefully, you would have known this, that when Calcutta went to India, Bengali Muslim leaders complained to Jinnah of it; at which he said that if the want it, they can decide to abandon partition and keep their Bengal united. They refused... And Bengalis became a part of Pakistan. No-one stopped Bengalis from listening to Gandhi. Jinnah had given then the option.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 05:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

India should have stayed united instead of all this senseless violence though. That was the point brother. Instead of the largest population displacement in history and Muslim against Muslim. Mr Mobile Man (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And do you know, why that displacement occured? Due to the unfair Radcliffe plan, which was finally drafted by a Congress-minded Hindu and personally approved by J. Nehru, before announcement; which placed many League-supporting districts to India (Calcutta being one of them)?—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 06:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I said all, meaning Congress and the League, if you'd read what I said instead of goose-stepping with artificial nationalism. They were all fools to pit us against each other. Mr Mobile Man (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I would really thank those fools, to have kept us seperate!—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 08:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well discussion is better than avoidance! In 1947 the main and first demand from Muslim League was to make a strong hindu-muslim indian federation with strong local government. unfortunately it was rejected by orthodox hindus ! and india was partitioned!

again in 1971 awami league′s proposal for pakistani federation with strong local government was rejected by pak army regime and ppp! and pakistan was partitioned! It's all about political supremacy! Religion and ethnicity are just weapons for divide and rule! Samudrakula (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We can all agree, at least, that the idea of Pakistan as two vastly diferent areas separated by 1000km of India was absurd. Especially one unit rule and Punjabis domination of the country, which continues to this day. The name Pakistan itself doesn't include Bangla and the so-caled martial races thought them exploitable. Mr Mobile Man (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality

This looks like an important article, but the neutrality of the material is not convincing (especially the causes section). Needs to be rewritten with more references from netural sources. (See WP:NPOV). Bubka42 (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Faizan 10:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Anything more specific? The cited section has been rewritten. Please elucidate your reservations. Faizan 10:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Section improved. Faizan 10:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is better. Now try and include a reference for this section. And never sign your posts on wiki pages. Signing (~~~~) is exclusively for talk pages. Check WP:SIG. Bubka42 (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I am adding more references, Thanks Bubka. Faizan 10:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The reference by The Age says, The bodies of the dead - among them women and children - were thrown into a nearby river. There is nothing like the bodies were humiliated. So please don't use the word humiliated as it would be a blatant POV.--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's really annoying Zayeem. Throwing the bodies in river is not a humiliation? A person with a common vocabulary would not even do that. Faizan 17:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what we call POV, in your view throwing the bodies in the river is humiliating while the source doesn't say this. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, don't remove the POV tags before we reach a consensus about the whole article.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No issues have been cited. Without them the tags are redundant. Faizan 14:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues cited by multiple editors have also been addressed. Faizan 14:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There are plethora of issues. Starting from the first, what exactly prompted the Biharis to immigrate to East Bengal in 1947? Were they persecuted in their native land? Then, what are the main reasons behind the hatred against the Biharis? Their role in siding with the Pakistan Army and committing those atrocities against Bengalis are largely missing. Also, the present condition of Biharis in Bangladesh have largely improved but there is no mention about it.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you want:

1. "what exactly prompted the Biharis to immigrate to East Bengal in 1947? Were they persecuted in their native land?"
2. "what are the main reasons behind the hatred against the Biharis?"
3. "role in committing those atrocities against Bengalis are largely missing"
4. "present condition"

ALL THE ISSUES CITED ABOVE ARE ABOUT IMPROVEMENT< NOT ABOUT NEUTRALITY Faizan 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

These are surely about neutrality as the article is currently full of one sided views. And DON'T remove those tags before we reach a consensus here.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Zayeem, I am tring to get references for the above statements. Please cooperate. Faizan 07:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

1. "what exactly prompted the Biharis to immigrate to East Bengal in 1947? Were they persecuted in their native land?"  Done Faizan 08:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't state any info about what prompted them to leave Bihar in the first place. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read your talk page regarding this. Faizan 14:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

More fixes made and info expanded for their immigration. Faizan 14:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

1. "what are the main reasons behind the hatred against the Biharis?"  Done Faizan 08:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
2. "role in committing those atrocities against Bengalis are largely missing"  Done Faizan 14:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
3. "present condition"  Done Faizan 14:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Doing...... Faizan 08:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to do what I can do, and I should not be forced for that for which I cannot. Faizan 14:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

All issues cited have been cleared as possible. User:Kmzayeem Faizan 14:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The first issue is still unresolved, I've also replied in my talk page. The third one is also missing. And the present condition needs to be expanded, there is no mention about the Biharis who are living outside the camps and have assimilated with the mainstream Bangladeshis.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For the first one, see the section "Migration from Bihar" and for the second one, see "Efforts for repatriation". Faizan 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU REMOVING THE TAGS WITHOUT REACHING CONSENSUS? This is disruptive and can even get you blocked. The issues are still not fixed, there is nothing about the violence faced by the Biharis during the partition which prompted them to migrate to East Bengal. Also, no mention about the Biharis living outside the camps in Bangladesh and assimilating with the mainstream Bangladeshis. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read my message above. Faizan 16:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

All the issues cited above were addressed completely, sections expanded, references added. Faizan 16:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues are still not resolved. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please elucidate the issues. I have done my best to resolve neutrality. If these issues are not elucidated then the tags are redundant. Faizan 15:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you think faizan that all media are telling the truth! if you want to make this article more neutral then please add some present point of view of biharis about bangladesh. The main problem of biharis are not their ethnicity or language. Still after 42 years of independence they are not able to accept bangladesch as an independent nation. Integration, you can forget it! their war crime in 1971 and strong present propakistani mind, spoil all chances to integrate in Bangladesh. You can´t live happily in one country which country you never recognised as your home and even as a sovereign nation!!!!thousand of non-bengalis, even some well integrated biharis live in bangladesh happily!!!!

another think that the biharis are self proclaimed pakistanis in bangladesh and they identify themself as Muhajiris (not as Stranded Pakistanis ).

I may be after my exam try to add some present circumstances of biharis in this article. Unfortunately we are extremely dependent on electronic media sources here in wikipedia!!Samudrakula (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your valuable contributions will be eagerly awaited, Samudrakula.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Is not the very title 'non-neutral'? —Concerned Citizen

Nah, it's a fact. Faizan 11:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

POV term

Terming Bangladesh Liberation War as a civil war is a blatant POV. Also the sources don't claim this persecution as ethnic cleansing, hence the category is removed.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources support it, even the "Encyclopedia Britannica" terms it as a civil one. References have been added from Britannica. Faizan 10:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by Armanj

(Personal attack removed)

[1] the sentence is referenced yet he persists with his vandalism 86.151.237.220 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

you're source talks about persecution during the war and its immediate aftermath. don't twist the facts, (Personal attack removed).--ArmanJ (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My source clearly states: "The Biharis became subject to widespread political persecution preceding and during the 1971 war as well as in the aftermath of liberation" I am not sure if you fully understand the english language but this clearly states that the persecution didnt just happen for a few months but has occured since the liberation war. You have once again proved you are misleading and you have tried to whitewash valid information again and again I have alerted other neutral editors of your agenda stop twisting the source to cater to your pov please 86.151.237.220 (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Only you have an agenda here. The facts are well known, the reprisal attacks took place in December 71 and January 72. No where does it say that persecution continues "to this day".--ArmanJ (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore each and every source states that the human rights abuses have and still continued since 1971 how can you seriously say they only occured in 1971? check all the sources before misleading people 86.151.237.220 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Most sources talk about atrocities in the aftermath of the war. The idea that Bangladeshis are still committing atrocities on Biharis, which you are suggesting, is absurd and not a single source supports this claim. If this article is to be about persecution, then it should be about atrocities committed in 1971, and especially in the weeks after the end of the war when Bihari neighbourhoods in Bangladeshi cities literally faced extermination from Bengali mobs. This is a different topic from the present status of Stranded Pakistanis, who face discrimination but certainly not persecution.--ArmanJ (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And, you're a sock IP with a history of abusing Wikipedia policy. so, get lost--ArmanJ (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

who said atrocities? is this a new word you came up with? persecution takes more than just one form so your claim again is a bunch of crap. Being forced into a slum without a toilet denied of education zero healthcare and left to die in filth is definitely persecution and your geneva camp which is a hell hole is proof of this current persecution every single source states this clearly you either cant read or your blinded by your nationalism its sickening that you would try and cover up these human rights abuses shame on you seems like your ip sock has come along as well 86.151.237.220 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to misrepresent the matter, the Biharis who are living in the slums are not forced to live there. The place is only for those who are willing to migrate to Pakistan and didn't accpet the Bangladeshi citizenship. Those, who have assimilated with the mainstream Bangladeshis (most of the Biharis fall in this category) and accepted Bangladeshi citizenship are living normal life just like other Bangladeshis. This is not persecution. Don't try to impose your own research, show any reliable source which claims that they are still being persecuted in Bangladesh, only then your fallacies would get some value.--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"show any reliable source which claims that they are still being persecuted in Bangladesh" - Read the dam article and you will know that your Censorship is the fallacy here its sick that you would want to deny your countries persecution of a helpless minority. 86.151.237.220 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

[2] you can go through the references like I did for confirmation now please stop dragging this dead conversation. 86.151.237.220 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

None of them term this as persecution.--Zayeem ^(talk) 19:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The appalling conditions of stateless Biharis are supposed to covered in the Stranded Pakistani article, and all this legitimate information regarding the refugee camps should be shifted there. This article was meant tp cover the atrocities and war crimes against the Urdu-speaking population in East Pakistan during and in the aftermath of the 1971 war. User:Faizan, this sock IP and their gang have completely distorted the article's purpose, and are imposing their own original research based on a deeply uninformed and prejudiced view of history.--ArmanJ (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:ArmanJ "against the Urdu-speaking population in East Pakistan" How many people in Bangladesh do not know to speak Urdu/Hindi? I guess everyone knows. Solomon7968 20:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean the non-Bengali Urdu-speaking population of Bangladesh. They are collectively known as the Biharis, but they're not all from Bihar, or India even. Most of them today, are Bangladeshi citizens. But many first generation Urdu-speaking migrants chose to be Pakistani citizens in 1972 (despite Mujib's offer of citizenship). But Pakistan never accepted them, and successive Bangladeshi governments later refused citizenship, resulting in the present status in refugee camps in Dhaka.--ArmanJ (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Page protected Faizan 12:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

pakistankakhudahafiz.com doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Please establish the reliability of the source as referred in WP:RS.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Doing...... Faizan 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Faizan 13:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Information in question

The "Cause" section says Biharis supported the Pakistan Armed Forces in the Bangladesh Liberation War. But where is the reliable reference. I'm not conversed with the old history, but such crucial statement can't go without citation. Additionally, if it is not true, it must be removed. We can not blame any community unjustly.
The next sentence is unclear: who is held responsible for mass killing? The Biharis? or the "lots of armed groups like Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams"? Also, it must be proved that these groups were armed.
As far as I know, the Pakistani army was responsible for genocide in Bengal. But after the liberation, Biharis were murdered just out of vengeance and communal hatred as they were Urdu (or Hindi?) speaking people.--AsceticRosé 05:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a referenced sentence They (the Biharis) largely constituted the East Pakistani paramilitary groups like Al Shams, Razakars, and Al-Badr. Besides, these sources also support the fact, [3], [4], [5], there must be more. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Probable material for inclusion

Is there any chance that this info can be included in the article with the quote: "whatever Sheikh Hasina was doing was not only anti-Islam but anti-humanity as well". The Legend of Zorro 03:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated here, you may add them at International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh).--Zayeem ^(talk) 05:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous article in Causes section

A user is re-inserting the article of 1971 Bangladesh genocide in the causes section. That article is irrelevant, blatantly unambiguous. That article covers the genocide of East Pakistani communities, not the causes of hostility between Bengalis and Biharis. Faizan 09:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The genocide was the main cause, (sources cited above) it's quite fair to have it there.--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Those sources are for the East Pakistani paramilitary groups'. Not for the genocide. Get now at the ANI. Faizan 09:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources support the fact that Biharis were indulged in the genocide against Bengalis, hence the link of the article is quite relevant there.--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Cite the sources here. And explain how they are relevant. Faizan 10:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be better if you go through the sources yourself, I've already explained a number of times.--Zayeem ^(talk) 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources say: "Hostility between Bengalis and Biharis was due to 1971 genocide". Which source says? Faizan 10:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources support the fact that Biharis were indulged in the genocide against Bengalis. [6], [7] These sources say that the Biharis were considered collaborators of the Pakistan Army, and hence arrested and retaliated.--Zayeem ^(talk) 10:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How is collaboration related to genocide? Their arrest and retaliation is the aftermath of the genocide, not the cause. Anything else? Or lest I amend the section in the light of the sources provided. Faizan 10:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you are just intending to deliberately confuse the whole matter, then there is nothing for me to discuss here. The sources say that the Biharis were considered collaborators of Pak Army during the genocide and hence were arrested and retaliated by Bengalis, this is enough to imply that the main cause behind the hatred was their collaboration with the Pak Army in committing the genocide against Bengalis.--Zayeem ^(talk) 10:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's it. The article which you put there was 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Which was for the whole of the genocide in 1971, including all the communities. Because the cause was "the genocide against Bengalis" right? Then why an article covering all the communities of East Pakistan in 1971. Faizan 11:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So if you have an article "exclusively for Bengalis" put it there at the place. I have also withdrawn the ANI report after the discussion here. Faizan 12:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the discussion over? Why did you remove the article? I don't care about your withdrawal of the ANI. You should have waited before removing that article. Now on topic, the article 1971 Bangladesh genocide is mainly concerned about the genocide against Bengalis, so it's quite fair to have the article there.--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That article is not "exclusively for Bengalis". It is for "all the communities" of East pakistan in 1971, the Biharis, the minorities, etc. Already told. Find an article "exclusively for Bengalis" Faizan 13:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The article 1971 Bangladesh genocide is mainly about the genocide against Bengalis, and since there is a separate article exists on Biharis, there is nothing to refute the fact. The Template:See also is used to create hatnotes to point to a small number of other, related, titles at the top of article sections according to Wikipedia:Layout. Since the articles are quite related to the topic, they should be there.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't copy the info from "Rape during the BLW". Stop POV pushing. Get consensus here Faizan 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And what is POV there? The contents are properly referenced.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I am Wikipedia's servant, I love it, and I care for POV. The info you added, no doubt was referenced, but is for Bengalis, whereas we are concerned here with the Biharis. Further incidents like this may lead to entries in our blocklog, and obviously we both don't want them. Faizan 14:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Get this explained here, don't invite another edit-war. If consensus not reached here, those links will not remain there. Faizan 14:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The section is about the causes behind the hatred against the Biharis, so the contents about rapes is quite relevant there. And you didn't point anything against the hatnotes, why you are removing that? As mentioned earlier, the Template:See also is used to create hatnotes to point to a small number of other, related, titles at the top of article sections according to Wikipedia:Layout. Since the articles are quite related to the topic, they should be there.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have got no answer to my question. You are beating about the bush. These articles are not for causes, these are for Bengalis, these are not for Biharis, these article concern all communities, not only Bengalis. Not even a single concern addressed. Faizan 14:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The articles are related to the topic. Can you deny that? Now since they are related to the topic, it's fair to have them per Template:See also. Now, why did you remove the contents about the rapes? They are properly referenced, how can they be POV? The section is about the causes, I've shown enough sources that the main cause was the collaboration of the Biharis with the Pakistan Army in committing the atrocities against the Bengalis, hence the rapes committed by the Biharis are also relevant here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

rapes committed by the Biharis? Were you present there at that time? AsceticRosé 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the reason behind your blind support to a particular side, but the claim is quite supported with multiple references which were removed by Faizan with this edit. Susan Brownmiller, in her book Against Our Will: Men Women and Rape wrote, "According to victims, Biharis who collaborated with the Pakistan Army, were the most enthusiastic rapists.".--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Might I suggest, as a compromise, that these articles be included in the page's "See also" section instead? They're clearly of interest to any reader who's investigating the wider subject matter, but placing them at the top of the page is obviously raising some hackles - slotting them into the "See also" section lower down would reduce their prominence, but also make them readily available to Wikipedia's readers. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Yunshui. Discussion at talk page is quite far better than getting blocks while edit warning in the article. See also section can contain these articles, otherwise, the editor will have to get consensus by either process for determining the article to be relevant with the "Causes". Faizan 07:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, I was adding them on the top of the "causes" section as those articles are more related to this. So, is it fair to add them on the top of a particular section rather than top of the entire page? Also Faizan removed some contents about the rapes during the war terming as POV, even though they are properly referenced. Shouldn't they be reinstated? --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, should have read "at the top of the section". At this juncture, I'm more interested in finding a solution that prevents further conflict than in adhering strictly to the most "sensible" positioning of the links - you want the links in the article, Faizan wants them removed from the "Causes" section; putting them under the "See also" header seems to me to be about the best compromise between those two positions that we can get. If you're happy with that as a solution, we can move forward; otherwise we'll need to find some other form of compromise (I can't immediately conceive of one, I must admit).

As far as the text removal goes, neither of those sources (one of which is quoted in the other) refer to Biharis anywhere that I can see; to extrapolate Bihari involvement in the rape atrocities from these sources is therefore original research. Since they therefore don't have a direct bearing on this article, removing them seems to me to have been a policy-compliant action. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am ready to make this compromise as suggested by Yunshui. Including them in "See also" would be enough. Faizan 10:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, I have provided sources that support the fact that Biharis were indulged in rapes, the references were removed by Faizan. See this one for example.--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The Bihari were persecuted before, during and after the 1971 war. I propose the following edit. "The Bihari faced a backlash over their support for the Pakistani regime during the liberation war. Bihari women were raped and tortured during the war and in its aftermath by Bengali males.The killing of 300 Biharis in Chittagong was used by the Pakistani government as a justification to launch their crackdown on the Bengali nationalist movement. Following liberation the Bihari community faced further retaliation for their complicity in the genocide carried out during the conflict. According to a white paper released by the Pakistani government the Awami league had killed 30'000 Biharis and West Pakistanis.

I'd strongly suggest forking the discussion of rape atrocities (by either side) to a separate talkpage thread; it threatens to derail the already lengthy conversation over the inclusion of links to other articles. It seems to me that this issue is unlikely to be resolved by discussion between the current participants, and would recommend dispute resolution or a request for comment in order to attract more uninvolved editors. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, I have accepted your suggestion about the inclusion of links to other articles, but couldn't agree that the claims about the Biharis committing rapes are original research, see this. Can the contents about rapes be included now?--Zayeem ^(talk) 12:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if the claims about the Biharis committing rapes are from reliable sources, they have no place in this article. This article is about the persecution of Biharis, not for "Persecution by Biharis". The content is already in its proper place in the article of 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Faizan 12:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only source for the rape claims you're advocating is Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will (all the other sources you've provided, including the PDF above, quote directly from her book). The text isn't available online, which makes verification awkward, but from quotes and snippet views it seems likely that she discusses the subject with specific reference to Biharis perpetrating rape crimes. That rape by Biharis took place is therefore pretty sound as a claim; what isn't so sound is the jump from that information to the idea that it's directly linked to their persecution in Bangladesh. To the best of my investigation (and I'm limited by not having direct access to the book) Brownmiller doesn't mention any such connection, and claiming one is therefore original research. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, I have already inserted some sources in this talk page that says that the main reason behind the persecution of the Biharis in 1971 was their collaboration with the Pakistan Army in committing the atrocities against Bengalis, now the rapes committed by the Biharis also fall under the reasons, ain't it?--Zayeem ^(talk) 12:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that may fall under the auspices of synthesis - you have a source that says "Bihari are persecuted because they collaborated with the Pakistan Army" and another that says "Bihari were involved in the rape of Bangladeshi women". Combining these two to get "Bihari are persecuted because they were involved in the rape of Bangladeshi women" is to imply a conclusion that isn't explicitly made by either of the sources, even though it's not difficult for a sensible person to make that leap of logic.

I should add that I'm not particularly opposed to including a statement about the rapes, assuming that there's some suitable sourcing to back it up. I don't think, however, that making an A + B = C argument is the place of an encyclopedia; we deal in published information, not syllogisms. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, these books quite clearly support that Biharis were retaliated because of the allegations of committing the atrocities (killings and rapes) against Bengalis during the war.

• Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia By Bina D'Costa (page 103,104).
• Century of Genocide by Samuel Totten, William S. Parsons (page 355)
• Sex and War by Malcolm Potts, Thomas Hayden (page 4)
• Just War Or Just Peace? by Simón Chesterman (page 71) --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You guys do realize that the edit I have proposed above covers everything you are arguing about right? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed edit only covers the violences against the Biharis which were somewhat already present in the article, while I'm arguing about the inclusion of the rapes committed by the Biharis which were also the cause behind the hatred against them.--Zayeem ^(talk).15:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this until now. I'm quite agree with User:Yunshui's observations. I've the following observations:

• The rape issue, if at all needed, should be discussed in a separate section, not here.
• Yunshui's proposed edit "The Bihari faced a backlash over their support…" will be included as that is properly and clearly sourced.
• About rape issue, we don't have access to the book, thus unverifiable. Yunshui is probably right in asserting it as original research until we get WP:RS.--AsceticRosé 17:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Yunshui never said that since the books are not accessible they are unreliable, there is no policy that forbids us to use offline sources, see WP:Offline sources, besides, the books are quite renowned and I'm sure there must be some online views of them. Yunshui just said that there must be a source which can verify that the rapes where also the cause behind the hatred against Biharis, I've provided some sources here and we are waiting for Yunshui's response. Moreover don't remove the tags unless the discussion is over.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

All the commentators (except you) said to remove the template. If you think that the article's factual accuracy is disputed, how come you are participating in talk-page discussions and giving suggestions for improvements? If you think all the significant viewpoints have not been included, then which viewpoint you are waiting for? You've already inserted your points. So you have to clarify why these tags still be needed. You just can't keep these tags just because you want them. --AsceticRosé 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

These discussions emerged out of the RfC, so the participants there may not have go through this, besides these discussion are well related to POV issues, so there is no justification behind removing the tags.--Zayeem ^(talk) 05:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

All you have discussed in this section is the rape issue. So you want to say that your rape issue is going to change the above editors' decision to remove the tags, if they go through this section? Don't you think that it is extremely silly on your part to keep those tags only because you have not yet been able to insert the rape issue?

You haven't yet specified why you guess the article is not neutral, and where is the factual problem. --AsceticRosé 06:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to include the content about the rapes committed by the Biharis while Faizan refuses it citing POV issues, this is a dispute, so the tags are well justified. We are probably heading toward a peaceful consensus, if you keep your sabotaging contributions away, we may reach that pretty soon. No need to think about the tags, an uninvolved editor would remove it when there is a consensus.--Zayeem ^(talk) 06:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have just checked these two sources Just War Or Just Peace?: Humanitarian Intervention and International Law Sex & War The page numbers given do not support the proposed edits being put forward, Zayeem could you double check the page numbers you have given please. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked. In the book Sex and War (page 3, 4), the author noted an experience of a doctor, witnessing a communal riot between Bengalis and Biharis in the aftermath of the 1971 war because of the wrath for the rapes committed by the Biharis. About the book Just War or Just Peace, I found that as a reference in an offline Bengali book, citing the fact I'm talking about. Moreover, the other two books also explicitly support the fact. --Zayeem ^(talk) 05:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Links would have been a big help in checking these out, you know... Nationbuilding page 104: "According to... doctor Geoffrey Davis, Bihari women were also kidnapped as retaliation for the wartime abductions of Bengali women...". Google Books Preview doesn't give me any results for "Bihari" from Centuries of Genocide (lack of page numbers in the digital version doesn't help), although there is a mention of Brownmiller's figures in there. Sex and War discusses a single, isolated instance of rape by a member of the Bihari community, but doesn't connect rape atrocities committed by Biharis during the war with their subsequent persecution. No Bengali/Bihari riot takes place in the narrative. Finally, Just War or Just Peace doesn't appear to mention the Bihari anywhere in its text, and makes only a passing mention of rape during the war.

Only one of these sources (Nationbuilding...) explicitly connects the kidnap of Bihari women to the actions of the Bihari community during the war. I wouldn't object to a sentence in the article based on this book which connected these activities, but since the source doesn't mention "rape", I'm not sure you could use that precise term. If you're determined to claim that Bihari rape atrocities resulted in Bihari persecution, you would need to make a case for "abduction" being analogous to "rape" in the source. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, in the book Sex and War, it is stated that they feared communal riots between Bengalis and Biharis because of the rape committed by a Bihari and witnessed some firings beside the Bihari camp, so doesn't it justify the inclusion? Also, in the Bengali book Ami Birangana Bolchi by Nilima Ibrahim, the interviewees stated that they were first abducted by the Biharis and the collaborators of Pakistan Army and then raped, a clear case where abduction" is analogous to "rape". --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sex and War is still dealing with a single incident, and one which the text indicates did not result in any actual repercussions against the Bihari community. The sentence in Nationbuilding... is still far and away your best source. I can't comment on Ami Biragana Bolchi since it's not accessible to me, but from the write-ups I've looked at I think it would probably be viewed as a primary source, and therefore not ideal for Wikipedia's purposes (certainly not for a controversial claim).

Perhaps, rather than chewing over the sources, we should try to find a proposal for a version of the text that would satisfy (or at least be acceptable to) all parties. From the sources I've seen so far, it's pretty clear that:

• Bilharis were involved in atrocities against the Bengali population of Bangladesh during the war
• Those atrocities included abductions and rapes
• The current persecution of Bangladesh's Bilhari population is at least partially due to retaliation for those atrocities.

Given those three facts, can we draw up a couple of sentences that convey this information, but that avoid any undue synthesis? Yunshui 雲‍水 09:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Nilima Ibrahim was not a rape victim, she just wrote a book on the basis of her interviews with seven victims. And the book Nation building states in page 102 that the Bengali women were raped by the Pakistan Army and their collaborators, women were abducted and taken into rape camps throughout the country. In page 103 it states Pakistan Army created an auxiliary force to provide local support, the Razakars, one wing of which was mainly composed of young Biharis.... At that time (1971) Bihari Razakars seized the opportunity to take the revenge on Bengalis, slaughtering and looting alongside Pakistan Army. Many of them were perpetrators of sexual violence. So now it clearly supports the claim? I'm trying to add them, take a look if it violates WP:SYNTHESIS.--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm deeply sorry; I don't know how I missed that. The second-to-last paragraph on page 103 does indeed specifically state that rapes were committed by Bihari Razakars; moreover, it adds that "The entire Bihari community was subsequently blamed for this". Assuming you propose to use that as a source, I withdraw my objections to the inclusion of a statement claiming that rapes committed by Bilhari Razakars during the war were a cause of the current persecution. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. The article needs some copyedits. Can you help with that? I guess I won't be able to reply today anymore, (bit busy with real life issues). Will catch up tomorrow.--Zayeem ^(talk) 10:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it a quick once-over for spelling and grammar. I'm not going to remove it myself, but this edit was somewhat premature - me agreeing with you isn't a consensus; there are a number of other editors involved in the discussion, and they need to accept the proposed changes as well. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, for other users, let me point out

Did Biharis really commit rapes against Bengali women? -  Proven

Were the rapes also the cause behind their persecution? -  Proven

Now may I know what's left there to impede the inclusion of the contents about the rapes committed by Biharis? --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a shame to see this article maintain the multiple issues template solely due to heated disagreements between two, at most three, editors. The editor who is in most opposition should go ahead and incorporate the information in Yunshui's last bullet points.

However, if that is not the last point of contention, then editors who strongly wish to keep the template should be so kind as to specifically list the issues that now remain so they can be checked off as they are addressed. Once they are all checked off, the template should be removed. I'm sure that sounds reasonable to everyone? Ender and Peter 04:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My concerns, are stated above. I added the info after clearly stating the necessity of those contents, but an user just removed it, leaving a ludicrous edit summary and without discussing here.--Zayeem ^(talk) 06:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Your concerns are of no relevance to this article its just a way for Bengalis to justify there persecution of Biharis this article explicitly explains the causes adding more pov is just that POV please refrain from your pov pushing. ECTOPmopr (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Yet another sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just go through this discussion, I've clearly stated with multiple references that the rapes committed by Biharis were also one of the causes behind their persecution, now what's POV here?--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment No comment on the content itself, but ECTOPmopr, you need to explain why a properly sourced piece of information should not be included in the article. Merely accusing the other editor of POV pushing won't do the trick. --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As I recall there is an article of rape during the 1971 war put it there and stop trying to push your pov over here this is a totally different article enough said. ECTOPmopr (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Yet another sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec)Your latest comment on my talk page is much more informative. I suggest some form of dispute resolution. WP:3O perhaps. --regentspark (comment) 18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

ReagentPark why dont you give us your opinion since your not south asian your self? as you know wikipedia is infested by south asian nationalists of late what do you think? ECTOPmopr (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Yet another sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, since it's quite evident that there is still an ongoing dispute here, I'm re adding the tags. An uninvolved editor should remove them when the dispute is resolved.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should now the redundant tags be removed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user is constantly adding pov tags in the article. In the sections above, I tried my best to fix the issues he cited. Now even after the fixation, he is not allowing me to remove the tags. Reverting again and again. So I request your comments for the removal of the tags. The page history clearly depicts my effort to solve the issues, I added content which was demanded by the user above, but still in vain. So please do comment. And only uninvolved users are bound to comment.

• The issues cited by User:Kmzayeem about neutrality here were:

1. "what exactly prompted the Biharis to immigrate to East Bengal in 1947? Were they persecuted in their native land?"
2. "what are the main reasons behind the hatred against the Biharis?"
3. "role in committing those atrocities against Bengalis are largely missing"
4. "present condition of Biharis"

• These issues were addressed and fixed and expanded with the following diffs respectively:
• [8][9][10][11]
• [12][13][
• [14][15]

And Still now, the tags are there intact in the place. More diffs of the addressing of concerns are present int he RfC. Faizan 15:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE COMMENT AFTER THIS LINE, STARTING WITH A "*"

• Comment by Kmyazeem The user is just putting the  Done mark without actually addressing the issues. I've already stated that there is no mention about the violence faced by the Biharis during the partition which prompted them to migrate to East Bengal. Also, no mention about the Biharis living outside the camps in Bangladesh and assimilating with the mainstream Bangladeshis. These things are still not addressed and the user went on to remove the tags.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to with pov tags. There was no violence before the partition in Bihar. There has been no significant development in Bangladesh over Biharis and they are still suffering. I tried my best to find info regarding that, but no mention is there in the sources. Faizan 15:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Now please let the people comment. Faizan 16:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove: Faizan has done a job of clearing away the reservations a few editors have regarding this... The tags must be removed now.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 19:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, nobody would leave their native land without any reason, there were violence which prompted millions of Biharis to migrate in another country, just like what happened in Bengal and Punjab. I've told you to search google books, but you ignored. Also the situation has largely improved for the Biharis in Bangladesh and many Biharis successfully assimilated with the mainstream Bangladeshis ([16]) but you refrained from including this into the article.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Zayeem, as far as the improvement of Biharis in Bangladesh is concerned, I will get it improved more. Ok? No worries regarding that. But as far the migration of Biharis from Bihar to East Bengal is concerned, really I cannot find anything regarding that. That is impossible. There is no record of that. The Google Books, which are on migration are not online, and in some of the online books, where we can have a preview, the Biharis have not been given coverage. So my dear, how can I find that info? I have tried my best, but the only thing I have found is their migration to Pakistan as a result of Two nation theory. Again, I will improve info regarding present condition of Biharis, but for their migration, I cannot get any info regarding violence. Aid me with references if you have any? Have you read about violence in Bihar regarding migration? If yes, please provide with the links. I have searched Wikipedia articles too, but no substance gathered. Faizan 09:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There you go, plenty of sources talking about the issue. This might be a good one. You need to find more.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

EXTRACTING SUBSTANCE, thanks for the links. Faizan 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Added the info as requested about the "migartion of Biharis from Bihar" here. Added info regarding "causes of the hatred" as suggested here. Added the info regarding "present condition" here. Faizan 18:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Also gave the user a link to my sandbox, where the substance extracted exists. Faizan 08:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Added more info from the references provided from my sanbox in this edit. Faizan 13:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove the tags, as they only seem to be WP:POINTY. Mar4d (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note here, no violence prompted the migration of the Biharis. You can see the wiki article on Mohammad Shahabuddin who is an Indian politician (from Bihar, Muslim). Being a MP and Indian politician has not barred him from maintaining arms supplies from ISI pakistan. Solomon7968 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Solomon. There was "no migration due to violence". As far as ISI, is concerned, it is the number one intelligence agency of the world, and obviously no one can prevent it. Faizan 10:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove per reading all of the previous comments. Replied due to RfC Rainbow Shifter (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove The neutrality issues of this article have been significantly addressed by its two most active editors. There may always be controversy surrounding this subject given atrocities by and against Biharis, but at the moment, the article is quite candid about persecution committed by Biharis. Due to the unremitting attention this article receives, I trust it will maintain balance . A non-involved editor should remove the multiple issues template. Ender and Peter 06:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note - There are some new discussions going on below which are not mentioned here.--Zayeem ^(talk) 10:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove. The articles present state denies these tags. The factual accuracy is not disputed because the tagger his/herself has accepted the topic and hence is including causes behind Biharis persecution. Second, now that the tagger has inserted his points, its neutrality is not in question as was before. If the tagger wants to include further points, that's a matter of further improvements and talk-page discussion. It doesn't justify/require keeping the tags, because every article has such including-issues. Will the user concerned, and other non-involved users consider the points? --AsceticRosé 00:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The issues below were started by you and Fiazan and are still unresolved, what made you say that the tags must be removed? Without trying to resolve the dispute, you are just giving an !vote here, now how would this be interpreted as? --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of an RfC? An RfC is opted to get third-opinion from other uninvolved editors to comment. In this case they have asked to remove them, so please stop your melodrama. Faizan 08:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the dispute below which was started by you? Should I interpret it as a tactic to push POV by starting a dispute without mentioning in the RfC and get through it?--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright now the contents in the causes section have been removed thrice, [17], [18], [19], without solving the dispute, you are trying to remove the tags?--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Kmzayeem, I fear you have confused two things: the necessity of these tags and the further improvements of an article are two different things. An article may need to include further materials, but it does not need such tags. Even some featured articles are being changed by including and removing materials. Do they use tags for this? The limitations for which these tags were placed have, in my view, been considerably overcome. Tell me, do you still think the factual accuracy of this article is disputed? Which factual accuracy? The issue we have discussed below is just a component of "Cause" section to support other info of the section. I can't understand why its inclusion will depend on the tags?

User:Faizan is right in saying that An RfC is opted to get third-opinion from other uninvolved editors to comment. In this case they have asked to remove them. Please don't confuse RfC with inclusion of further information. And we are not your opponents.--AsceticRosé 17:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There is overwhelming consensus that even as the article is now written, the tags should be removed. However, a lot of committed editors have been bending over backwards for a single editor in trying to incorporate other viewpoints. Anyone reading the discussion would rationally conclude that the remaining grievance pertains to the article needing some mention of Biharis sexually assaulting Bengalis and how that has contributed to tension between these peoples.

Kmzayeem your recent edit was removed because it was phrased in a way that makes the article shift focus to persecution by Biharis, and that's just not what this article is about. By the way, simply continuing to repost your original edit without trying to adhere to the consensus here (as much as you may disagree with it) is a clear example of edit warring. It doesn't matter if reams of volumes could be written about Biharis mistreating other groups. This particular article is about Biharis' mistreatment and the editors who removed your comments were clear on that. Later today, I will go about creating more neutral language for that information, although it would be lovely if someone else beat me to it.

The opposition needs to explicitly state their remaining grievances, all of which appear to have been properly addressed. To pretty much everyone else reading this article, it looks like the POV issues have been tended to (not perfectly, but enough to not need the POV warning). But if the opposition feels that's not the case, they need to make abundantly clear, preferably in the form of a list, what issues remain so that they can be observed and checked off by anyone. There is no good reason why this dispute can't be solved by the end of the week with the conclusion of removing the multiple issues template. Without doing this, this discussion will literally go on forever. Ender and Peter 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ender, I have mentioned below why the contents are needed and nobody really replied me there, they didn't even leave any edit summary regarding those contents. Now if you are concerned about the language regarding those contents, then let me add them and then you can reword them if inappropriate.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep the tags - The only dispute remaining is the inclusion of the contents about the rapes committed by the Biharis and is related to POV issues. The discussion can be seen below. Unless this dispute is resolved, the tags must be kept.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

 Alright, I'm on it...... Ender and Peter 00:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Okay, I think the language is a little more neutral now. The word "rape" is only there once and it's clear to distinguish that there were particular Biharis that committed the acts alongside those in the Pakistan Army that did so. I think the 400,000 figure is fine as it serves to briefly describe the scope of that particular incident, which can indeed provide some insight into the nature of the grievances between these groups.

Kmzayeem, please let us know if you find this acceptable. If so, it should be alright if you were to be so kind as to remove the tags. Perhaps we might have an uninvolved editor memorialize this discussion for all time, though. Ender and Peter 00:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ender, it looks okay to me, thanks for that edit. Even though I would have removed the tags myself but this revert by Faizan clearly shows, why there have been so many edit wars in this article.--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grammar

The phrase Human rights abuses covers all kinds of abuses, killing, rapes etc. Anyway, I have tagged it for a copy edit, some native English speaker can get this done.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to say that "killing of and human rights abuse against" is a correct phrase. Mere "actions" does not truly represent the description of killings described in the body of the article. "killing of and human rights abuses against" is obviously a better choice than "actions" as far as Wikipedia:LEAD is concerned.

Only for a debate over the accuracy of a phrase, we surely don't need a tag. Such frequent adding of tags will discourage others to add content which User:Kmzayeem does not like personally, and it is not constructive in any way. I solemnly request not to misuse tags. Otherwise, I will consider it as disruptive.--AsceticRosé 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was grammatically wrong and your edit summary snarky, there was no need for it. I copy edited the lede, it was a lot better when I had finished, in my humble opinion that is. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

But you didn't point out how it is grammatically wrong. You say "there was no need for it" because you don't like it.--AsceticRosé 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I do not like snarky edit summaries which criticise an editors grammar when said edit summary is full of them. And as for the edit, again you are correct, I did not like it as it was wrong, or do you think writing "of and" is "grammatically correct"? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I did not get you. You said "You're right" and again "I did not like it as it was wrong". Plz clarify and I am ready to answer...--AsceticRosé 17:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

First line may have needed a </sarc> tag. Second line is bloody obvious, you are right that I did not like it. As in your edit I did not like your edit, it was wrong. Get it now? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I was about to post this link here.--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. If you want to describe a genocide-like incident, what else can you use other than words like "killing". Please read wiki articles on various genocides in history, I'm sure you will encounter even much bloody words (plz read Srebrenica massacre, for example).

Structures like sth of and sth from/for/against... are absolutely correct. You can verify it from native English sources. If anyone has been offended by my edit summary, I strongly seek apology. But before reverting a grammatically correct sentence, shouldn't one be very careful?

I am a "Native English source". Darkness Shines (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, after the U-turn of DS, let me clarify, the phrase Human rights abuses covers all kinds of abuses including killing. Having a sentence like "refers to the killing of and human rights abuses against the minority" surely doesn't sound correct. Moreover, there is already a mention about the killings with the casualty numbers in the lead, repeating the same word sounds rubbish.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, we can reduce the phrase "human rights abuses" to "atrocities", if you like, for ease of reading.--AsceticRosé 02:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, we should use "atrocities" instead of "human rights abuses", It's not more bent towards "human rights abuses", but it is mainly about a minority being persecuted by a majority. Faizan 11:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you need to show a reliable source which uses the term "atrocity" in this matter. Atrocity is a pretty strong word to use.--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be the case! Even BBC reports it. Let me cite. Faizan 11:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The BBC says: "They faced widespread discrimination in Bengali-speaking Bangladesh." Faizan 11:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't use the term "atrocity".--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I have no pushing for "atrocity". Faizan 12:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright I have no problem with this edit.--Zayeem ^(talk) 12:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation. Faizan 12:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Organizing the sections

The sections are organized chronologically based on the occurrence of the incidents.--Zayeem ^(talk) 07:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"is", "has been" or "was"??

These references: still assert that the stranded minority is still in difficulties. They are still living in the camps. There have been reports of "numerous arrests, burnt down shops by miscreants or terrorists and attacks" They have no facilities of education, and in the "Geneva camp", only 5% of them have formal education The global post says: "A stateless and forgotten people, they are the subjects of widespread discrimination. Forbidden to hold passports or even enroll in most schools, the Biharis count themselves among the poorest and most marginalized in all of Bangladesh." They are still fighting for even of their basic rights, in the 40 years, even most of them are still there in the slums and camps inspite of the Dhaka's highcourt ruling. In support with these references, I will asserT the usage of "is". Faizan 15:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

References

The sources refer to their poor living conditions but don't term it as persecution.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Number 1 does not support a finding of ongoing "persecution", although it does support one of discrimination. (It is probably not a reliable source though, as it doesn't seem to be an academic journal of high standing). Number 2 is obviously not a reliable source, since the claims of arrests and terrorist attacks is merely a self-report brought forward by the petitioner in the court case, whereas the ruling itself actually cites a document that denies the ongoing presence of persecution. Number 3 is also of dubious reliability, and again speaks of discrimination but not of persecution.

How about separating these two aspects out? "... were subjected to violent persecution during and in the aftermath of the War of Independence, and have lived in a state of social marginalization and discrimination since then" or something along these lines? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kmzayeem :::All? Cannot you see the sources? Most of them term it as "Discrimination". Cannot see the bold text there, references by Globalpost.com??? Even the BBC says that: "There is both optimism and pessimism in Bangladesh" Faizan 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf. agreed with the separation of the two aspects. The text you proposed is suitable for inclusion, no concerns. Faizan 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.'s proposal seems suitable to me.--AsceticRosé 16:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Faizan, discrimination and persecution are not the same things, moreover it would be a misrepresentation of sources if you mix these two terms. Fut.Perf., I don't think "have lived in a state of social marginalization and discrimination since then" could be included as a large number of them have assimilated with the mainstream Bangladeshi population.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The references support Fut.Perf.'s assertion. Many references termed it as "Discrimination", and there seems to be a general consensus for the "discrimination" above. Most editors have agreed to Fut.Perf.'s proposal. Faizan 16:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact has been established that they face discrimination, and as such saying have lived in a state of social marginalization and discrimination since then should be a correct assertion.--AsceticRosé 17:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If not all of them face discrimination, then we can alternatively say many of them have lived in a state of social marginalization....--AsceticRosé 17:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• FutPerf's proposal is factual, balanced and good to go. The views should be presented in the article as suggested by Fut.Perf. @Zayeem: While discrimination and persecution may not be the same thing, they are both related concepts in the context of human rights. The persecution faced by the said community is obviously linked to their discrimination in society and we have the sources supporting that. Assimilating in Bangladesh and gaining citizenship rights after a long time still does not negate the elements of discrimination and persecution, which are historical. Mar4d (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

My main opposition is against the term "marginalization", it should be fine if this one is cut out. Surely, discrimination and persecution are related terms yet different and "persecution" is used for much harsher situations. Showing that there is still some sort of discrimination against them you can't claim that they are still being persecuted.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that 4 editors, including:Mar4d, 13:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC), AsceticRosé and Fut.Perf. are in favour of Fut.Perf.'s proposal. Whereas Zayeem is against. Thus there is a ratio of 4:1. Faizan 13:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not a ballot box! I've changed the section title Efforts for repatriation to Efforts for reconciliation since there is no mention about repatriation in the section, rather it's mainly talking about their citizenship and voting rights which can be described as part of reconciliation. Also, I'm restoring my edits, if you have any concern regarding the edit, raise them here, I'll address them, reverting is not the only solution!--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Mujib-ur-Rahman just tried for their repatriation, not for retaining them in Bangladesh. Faizan 16:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, repatriation means the act of relocating a community or a person to their native place. The section states He was moved to the extent that he asked the Bihari refugees to come to East Bengal for their settlement. Now, Bangladesh/East Pakistan/East Bengal is not their native place, how can this be termed as repatriation? --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Search it in dictionary? The problem is resolved, we need not two sections for two lines. I have moved it to the main section. It is concerned with 1947, not with 1971. Faizan 16:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, search it, LOL! Anyway, if you had a concern regarding only this issue, then why did you revert my other edits? I'm restoring them, now don't revert me and raise your concern here, I'll address them.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well please. Do it according to NPOV. Adding Pro-Bangladesh info, and saying that they are living in "poor conditions" is not justified. The reference does not say that. If you want to say "I am restoring that", then there is no need to restore it. This section for discusion was for another thing, but you seem to have started another quarrel. The issues seems to have been solved. Faizan 16:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The issues were actually resolved until you started an edit war by reverting me. And which one is pro-Bangladeshi info? Even I can say that the whole article is pro-Pakistani, but it won't be justified without raising valid arguments, something which you refrain from.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Even I can say?? That will not make a change. I have incorporated the proposal of Fut. Perf., with the removal of the word "social marginalization". Faizan 14:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the term "violent persecution" with "political persecution" per the source.--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Which source? No source terms it as exclusively "political" Faizan 11:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The only source that term it as persecution!--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

With this "The only source that term it as persecution!" you are daring to revert? Faizan 06:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In that source, "widespread" can be seen, but no"political" is seen. Is your browser supporting "Find"? Then search for "political". 06:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizan (talk • contribs)

The source you are mentioning doesn't even include the term "persecution". I've added the source. Also, don't remove the "by whom" template without fixing the weasel words.--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) 14:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I would recommend posting to the Guild of copy editors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comments on neutrality.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It took me a matter of minutes to find sources which disputes various things in the article, Refugee Repatriation: Justice, Responsibility and Redress p201 ought to be used in this article, "While Bangladesh, Pakistan, UNHCR and various scholars contend that the Biharis are not refuges in the strict sense of the 1951 convention researchers such as Sen argue the Pakistan's unilateral denationalisation of the Bihari minority and its refusal to allow a broad right of return may be interpreted as acts of persecution sufficient to establish refugee status" The lede should also mention the legal status of these people, from Minority Rights in South Asia p101 "The supreme court of Bangladesh had to confirm that Biharis are citizens of Bangladesh and the mere fact that a person opts to migrate to another country cannot take away his citizenship" Dealt with
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is far from stable with edit wars occurring regularly.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Sorry, but I have to fail the article at this time. No improvements have been made since the suggestions by Drimes, please follow his suggestions and wait till the guild of copyeditors have gone through the article before nominating it again.

Discussion

1a. It was recently copy-edited by Yunshui. I have referred it to the Guild too, for more improvements.

3a and 4. Neutrality was excesssively discussed by the most active editors of the article, an RfC was also run. The discussion has lead to final stability of the article, although some issues arise sometimes, the article is neutral overall.

5 The edit-wars were once common, becausing some editors intended to own the article. Anyway, they are not occuring. The article is stable. You were the editor closing the RfC, which marked the article as neutral, removing the redundant tags.

6 There are no images which I could find appropriate or suitable for inclusion. The events unfortunately did not get significant media coverage/attention. Anyway, no images are there currently.

I am trying to fix the issues related to improvement. But the edit history of the article can show whether it is stable or not. I was a bit busy at job, but will try to get it elevated to GA. Further guidance for improvement is expected. Faizan 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There are 2,818 articles currently in the backlog of the Guild. It may take time to get it further improved bu copy-editing. Faizan 16:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please incorporate the sources and content I have suggested in the review, although you think the article is stable it does not appear to be, but I am taking my time on the review in the hope that it will stabilize. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I will try my best. Faizan 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added the text suggested at 4th attribute. Faizan 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You need paraphrase this as it is a copyvio, sorry, I thought I had it in quation marks above. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops yeah. I am giving it a finishing touch. Faizan 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tried close paraphrasing here. You can also help here. Now are we finished with 4th attribute? I am now trying to get a tick for the attribute 2b. Faizan 15:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I will finish the improvements tomorrow, will try to get it as early as possible to GA. There have been 2 months on the DYK nomination. The promotion of GA may get it to DYK too. Can you get a review tommorrow? Faizan 15:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A glance needed at developments related to 2b and 4 attributes. Secondly, Isn't the article stable? The conflicts seem to have been stopped. Any hope for attribute 5? Faizan 15:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Some researchers like Sen"? Sen who? Needs to be clarified as someone will without a doubt stick a who tag there. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know this Sen too. There is no clarification available, I had gone through a number of searches for Sen. What about redacting the terms? Getting it to "Some researchers...." only? What about other attributes? Faizan 17:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is Sumit Sen, you can learn all about him here I am doing some copyediting, and the way the sources are cited seem to vary, I will likly change the entire format of citations later today. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I have formated all the refs, none were formated correctly. I have added a CN tag, and a few RS tags. I also did some minor copyedits and removed some duplications, you owe me a beer or several . Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The quote given above is visible in Google Books here, and the citation here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I am fixing the RS and CN tags. Thanks for the refs Smint! Faizan 16:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So five days after I tagged some stuff it remains unresolved, this review really cannot be held for much longer. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It will pass today, I had no internet. Main issues are resolved, it is stable. Told you to have a look on the attributes. The references will be fixed within 5 min. Faizan 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You ought to add that " Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I am going to add it. Faizan 16:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, no need to paraphrase it BTW, I wrote it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am thankful. Faizan 16:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have put the text in the aftermath section. Is it good there? Otherwise move it. Anyway, there are no tags left related to references. Can expect strike? Faizan 17:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

1a. I am fed up of 1a. It was recently copy-edited by Yunshui. See this. The Guild seems very busy. Yunshui improved it extensively, see his edits in the article. You also did some copy-edits, and User:Drmies did too. I think 1a can go ahead with a tick too? There is huge backlog in the guild. Faizan 02:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: even the lead isn't up to GA snuff. I'll prove it in a few edits. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edits anyway, it will aid in attribute 1a. Faizan 03:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Darkness copy-edits Faizan 04:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'll rehash a point from the earlier DYK nomination: I think the article should a. define more clearly what "persecution" is being talked about (during the war or also after it?); it's a point I tried to address in a minor way by tweaking the lead. And b. it should more clearly present evidence of persecution. I find that the phrasing and set-up of the "nationality issue" is not very clear, and I am still surprised that, if so many thousands of people were murdered, why there's only a few sentences in there. I mean, it's ethnic cleansing; surely there is much more information about possible planning, incitement, media attention, execution, punishment afterward (or lack thereof) for killers, et cetera. Until such information achieves due weight, I couldn't possibly sign off on GA status. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Having reread the article yesterday before getting langers and having a tantrum I had come to the same conclusions, I will be looking for sources later today. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool up DS! I will also try to get the article improved further as Drmies suggested. Faizan 16:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• The nomination failed? Wtf? He said: "I will look for sources", there was only 1a or copy-editing left, then how the nomination failed? Ludicrous. Wait for the guild to copy-edit the article. Faizan 06:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The concern is not only with the copyedit. As Drmies pointed out, the article lacks due information about the actual persecution.--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

query on Urdu speaking

The lead says that Biharis were/are Urdu-speaking. Is there any reference for that? Of course some Biharis may use Urdu, but if anything, they would use Hindi, Bhojpuri etc rather than Urdu. Indeed after partition of India, very few people in Pakistan spoke Urdu, and they were mostly in the West Pakistan. may be they used Hindustani language?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Urdu is the successor to Hindustani language, it is its register, a standardized one, in Pakistan. It may not be the mother tongue of the majority, but is the most spkoen language. I guess we got a plenty of sources at the article. Faizan 07:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree that Urdu is a form of Hindustani, but the statement that Bihari people in Bangladesh speak the language needs a citation. Perhaps some do, but it seems unlikely that people who originally migrated to seek better economic conditions would have taken up an essentially scholarly language as their means of day-to-day communication. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sentence makes no sense

The following is incomprehensible: "Adherents of the two-nation theory believe that in addition to Pakistan, Muslims should have an independent homeland in Muslim-majority areas of India (similar to the recognition of Protestants in Ireland by Northern Ireland); this sparked the mass Muslim migration to the Dominion of Pakistan." That's all from me, my efforts to improve this article have been repeatedly reverted, and I give up. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It covers the same issues as those in Stranded Pakistani. Moreover, "Bihari" is an informal term and doesn't reflect the diverse backgrounds of these people, many of whom are not even from Bihar.--Bazaan (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - We don't need to have multiple article on same topics.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support -Agree with the above reasoning. Samudrakula (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Why? Do you mean to say that Biharis are not from Bihar? These are not the same topics, disagreeing with Zayeem. No solid reason presented, you just don't like the word Persecution when it is related to a particular country. Faizan 14:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable source

Re [20]. The Aziz source, from the "Publications Division of the United Press of Pakistan" is clearly not reliable. And it's not even being attributed in the lede. The number it posits is ridiculous - it's clearly straight up propaganda.

Look, if this number/source is reliable, then it shouldn't be that hard to find another - actually reliable source - to back it up. The fact that there isn't any reliable source which repeats this half-a-million claim is pretty good evidence (in addition to the source itself) that this is junk.

Please don't restore this without consensus or new, actually reliable, sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

So, what you dont like pretty much becomes unreliable? Sirmila Bose is unreliable, Abdul Mumin is unreliable and so is Aziz, only the POV that you like to push comes with RS, right?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Content that i added

@Vinegarymass911: For the content that i have added, one source is a Cambridge University Press published book by scholar Gerlach. The other source "R J Rummel" is referenced on related articles so should be a reliable source for this page too. Also, my edit clearly mentions that "BIHARI REPRESENTATIVES CLAIM a figure of..." I don't see the reason why this not "good enough"? Explain. Oye You There (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The second source says 50,000 to 500,000 concluding at 150,000. quote one of the two other numbers, I have no objections if you do that. It will then be true to the source.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Original research in Migration from Bihar

In the Migration from Bihar section, the clause:

Adherents of the two-nation theory believe that in addition to Pakistan, Muslims should have an independent homeland in Muslim-majority areas of India;

appears to be original research. That is not what the two cited sources (Chitkara1997 and Jacobs2009) say. Surely the two-nation theory was that India in 1947 should be divided into two nations: Pakistan (Muslim) and India (Hindu), not that in addition to Pakistan there should be "an independent homeland in Muslim-majority areas of India". Would someone care to rephrase the sentence? --Worldbruce (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What is contentious?

Hi Ravic? What is contentious in the edit? These are just better refs. Can you point out what you don't want? Thanks. TurboCop (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. You're typically restoring what has been already discussed gazillions of times and rejected. Open an RfC for what you want to add. --RaviC (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more clear please? I am not adding content, just refs. Where were these refs discussed a gazillion times and rejected? TurboCop (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

While changing the nature of the subject and contributing in quote-farming? Sorry, but that's not a minor edit like you seem to be treating it. You are clearly experienced enough to go through archives and read the present consensus. --RaviC (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Where have I changed the subject? The quotes are being embedded to serve as reference for already present content. You need to be precise. I have read the archives during my IP days to know enough that these edits are not contentious and have never been debated before. TurboCop (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)