Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:37, 18 June 2013

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

• Keep - Biharis are being killed there in Bangladesh, you cannot hide the facts. At first you had concerns about the neutrality at the article's talk, then the DYK, then the merger and now "deletion"? What's the problem? Biharis are being persecuted in Bangladesh, yet the article presents a good neutral view about them. An RfC is also under progress. Therefore it is a ridiculous nomination. The article should be definitely kept. Faizan 18:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Faizan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Zayeem 09:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Biharis are being killed source? The truth is, Biharis were only killed in 1971. My rationale is, since the topic is already covered in 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Stranded Pakistanis, the article is totally redundant. Also, I didn't see any source which states this thing as Persecution.--Zayeem 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not covered there. We need a detailed info on this touching topic. Why you opted for an AfD? Before you were creating hurdles at the talk for weeks? And now suddenly an AfD? Faizan 18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

They are covered, you may add them in those relevant articles if you have anything new. There is no need for this article with a POV title. The article can also be termed as WP:POV fork, you have already threatened to have an article like this when you couldn't add your biased views in 1971 Bangladesh genocide.--Zayeem 18:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What? POV title? See this article: "Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta". And this is personal attack of abusing an editor for "biased comments". Keep your accusations back, lest I report you at the ANI. Faizan 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources mention it as persecution, the title is definitely a POV. And let others decide if I had many any personal attack, however, your comments like It's just his drama-mongering may well fall under personal attacks.--Zayeem 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you even look at the sources? Faizan 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have, if you think any source claims it to be persecution then show up.--Zayeem 19:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

All of them. Even by britannica. The sources by independent NGOs also term it as likewise. Faizan 10:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, none of them term this as persecution. The only thing I found is this, which says Biharis were subject of widespread political persecution preceding and during the 1971 liberation war as well as in the aftermath of the liberation surely none of the sources says that the Biharis are still persecuted in Bangladesh.--Zayeem 11:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. The sources by the minority rights' organization even term it more than that. And please stop attacking me. No personal attacks. Faizan 11:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

More than that? What? And you really don't know the meaning of personal attacks, do you?--Zayeem 12:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Please state your concerns clearly, Zaeem. I do not consider this article redundant and see no good reason for the proposed deletion.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Already stated, the topic is already covered in some existing articles, and if further addition is needed, they can be added in those relevant articles. --Zayeem 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please specify what is repeated and where.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 18:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is repeated. It's just his drama-mongering. Faizan 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Casualties, Fall of Dhaka are already covered in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Causes, Partition, Aftermath, Present condition are covered in Stranded Pakistanis. If there is anything which is new, they can be added in those relevant articles. The whole topic can be covered in the context of those articles. No need for a separate article like this.--Zayeem 18:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

So, as now you have clarified yourself, It seems debatable... Now, considering your statement, that the things have been already put up there, It would be good to collect all such scattered information into one article. Repetetions do not matter then, I suggest you see this.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Already told you that there is a heck of difference between sentiment and persecution. Sentiment or a genocide has a wide meaning, and it may include things from demonstrations, hatred, violence, etc, but the prosecution's definition is not fit upon the Sentiment or genocide. Faizan 18:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article Stranded Pakistanis covers the entire topic of the Biharis in Bangladesh. And the 1971 Bangladesh genocide covers all the atrocities made in 1971 in Bangladesh, including that of the Biharis, so no need of this article.--Zayeem 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article does not cover the persecution against Biharis, which is being done even today. They are suffering and this article will be kept. Faizan 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep First I shall dissect the ridiculous reasoning of Zayeem: No the information of this article is NOT present in other articles a tiny little paragraph is not sufficient to fully grasp the scope and magnitude of the Biharis persecution - maybe we should have a paragraph for the bangladesh atrocities instead? this is pure censorship your arguments themselves are redundant zayeem this article is very notable and important and the reason provided by zayeem to delete a well sourced article is pathetic at best speed keep and close. 86.151.237.220 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) IP sock of Nangparbat Zayeem 14:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I would also request admins to speedy keep the AfD. It's pointless nomination. No mature reason given. Faizan 18:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me show you how your arguments are baseless Zayeem : Stranded Pakistanis Does not discuss not explore the challenges or persecution of Biharis it discusses the history and events that lead them to be stranded in there own former nation and therefore becoming stranded its discusses the political background it does not discuss the persecution they face in Bangladesh at the present time- Bangladesh atrocities article only has fleeting mention of the events of 1971ONE SMALL paragraph it does not discuss present persecution faced by the Biharis so both your arguments are flawed and full of holes!86.151.237.220 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)— 86.151.237.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yeah the same. Stranded Pakistanis is about the stranded Bihari minority, being persecuted in Bangladesh. But the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is about the atrocities being plagued upon them. Faizan 19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Literally, the context of Stranded Pakistanis covers the entire topic of the Biharis living in Bangladesh. That includes their history in Bangladesh, as well as their condition and status in Bangladesh.--Zayeem 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved it to the correct place. No worries now. Faizan 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That was abig flaw and has been amended. Faizan 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No that is nonconstructive, the article Stranded Pakistanis covers all kinds of topics related to the Biharis living in Bangladesh.--Zayeem 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that flaw Zayeem. Now this AfD be speedy closed. Faizan 19:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, User:Faizan is now just removing the contents of Stranded Pakistanis just to justify the new article, this is seriously disruptive. The article Stranded Pakistanis covers all kinds of topics related to the Biharis in Bangladesh. In fact the re-direct Biharis in Bangladesh also leads to that article.--Zayeem 19:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't oversimplify the facts. Don't know the difference between "Persecution of an ethnicity" and "Ethnicity"? Faizan 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

An article on an ethnicity covers all kinds of topics related to that ethnic. Now if the article becomes too long, then we might think of splitting, which is not the matter in this case.--Zayeem 19:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that "Bihari" was never an ethnicity rather a term used by Bangladeshis to differentiate between Bengalis and all non Bengalis. Solomon7968 19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah solomon. But this is evident that there ought to be separate articles for "Bengalis", "Non-Bengalis" and "Persecution of Non-Bengalis". Faizan 10:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete- The main motive to create this article is to present anti-bangladeshi propaganda! there was some revenge attack against Biharis, but it was not enough to define as Persecution! Exaggerated information from controvertal and biased media (certainly collected for this article!!!!) never shows the reality!!!

Faizan-you may try yourself, but you can never cover up the 1971 Bangladesh genocide or justify that horrible deed of pakistan with your article here (remember! you have already threatened)!!! you know nothing about bangladesh except what you have collected from some anti-bangladeshi pakistani media!

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

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

• Keep I am completely uninvolved. The topic is notable. The BBC has written of the Biharis that "they faced widespread discrimination in Bengali speaking Bangladesh" and describing a large refugee camp where they live, wrote it is "notorious for its cramped conditions, poor sanitation and shortages of electricity and running water." Enough said. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is denying the fact that there is discrimination against the Biharis, but as the topic is already covered in Stranded Pakistanis, do we need a separate article for this one? Also, none of the sources claim it to be persecution, the page is a blatant POV fork as the creator already threatened before to create an article like this.--Zayeem 07:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep This is a very notable human rights issue and has extensive coverage in many academic sources. It is worth noting that the nominating editor identifies as Bangladeshi and has been previously involved in POV disputes in this article. This is obviously very important to note as there is high chance of WP:COI involved behind this AfD. The editor in concern has made several attempts to remove content from the article which purportedly does not shed Bangladesh in a very positive light. Since he could not get his way, he decided to take the dispute to the AfD route. I do not recognise this AfD as valid since it is essentially an issue of opposing POVs. The article topic itself is highly notable. It appears that this AfD is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the single sentence nominating rationale goes to show that this is an attempt to whitewash and WP:CENSOR this notable topic away from the encyclopedia. Mar4d (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• If nominator's Bangladeshi nationality is a reason to disregard this nomination, what makes you think that all Pakistani editor's opinions should be considered here? If the article is in scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, its obvious that Bangladeshi editors will opine here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not said anything about discarding people's opinions because of their nationality. What I have said is that the nominating editor has been involved with the article previously (in a disputable manner) and that there may be some WP:COI in this out-of-the-blue nomination. It's not a judgement, but rather an assumption. So taking this into account, the nomination should be taken with some discretion and a pinch of salt. Make of it what you want. Mar4d (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment @Zayeem: Just because there is an article on Japanese Americans, does that mean we should not have an article on Japanese American internment? Your argument is flawed. Mar4d (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Japanese American is of 42 kb and Japanese American internment is of 102 kb, it's quite fair to have a separate article on that one. But in this case, both Stranded Pakistanis and Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh are short articles, hence no need to have a separate article like the latter. And I guess you should know the proper meaning of WP:COI, you and Faizan were trying to move the page 1971 Bangladesh genocide as well as adding POV contents and when you both failed, you came up with this POV fork.--Zayeem 07:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion- There's no need to duplicate info from 1971 Bangladesh genocide and the other related article. It's enough to integrate this topic here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.131.148 (talk) 2:20 pm, Today (UTC+6) — 78.34.131.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Zayeem another argument which makes no sense how on earth is this a pov fork? this contains totally different information from any other article it needs a seperate article to cover all the persecution faced by the Biharis making a small sub section on another article is classical Censoring of information due to your own POV like I said why dont we make a sub section for atrocities in 1971? this article is very sourced and contains masses of valid information 86.151.237.220 (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Faizan 10:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"The main motive to create this article is to present anti-bangladeshi propaganda!" That there is enough evidence of a conflict of interest from these pov pushers Zayeem and co 86.151.237.220 (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is surely a POV fork, as mentioned before, Faizan had earlier threatened to create a page like this when he couldn't add his biased contents in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. The topic of the article largely overlaps with Stranded Pakistanis, 1971 Bangladesh genocide which is clearly visible. Also, I would like to point that User:Faizan is removing others' comments in this AfD as he did here.--Zayeem 11:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove comments by "others". I reverted a sock puppet of a user here, who lives in Germany. He made his first edit in the AfD. Faizan 11:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is surely a bad joke this article contains information NOT PRESENTED ANYWHERE ELSE it overlaps slightly with stranded pakistanis only because of the background information and political issues that are discussed this article is about PERSECUTION etc faced by the Biharis why cannot you see this? as for the "bangladesh genocide" article that article is a bunch of crap one minor paragraph about the plight of Biharis is not enough so please end your nonsensical arguments 86.151.237.220 (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore the 1971 Bangladesh genocide article is about 1971 not the many years after it that is about history a short period of oppression against Biharis the 42 years since has seen the persecution persist this basically means we should forget about the last 42 years and the present situation this makes no sense at all also this is about health, eocnomics voting etc not just killings. This AFD is nothing more than WP:CENSOR attempt by pov pushers 86.151.237.220 (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Stranded Pakistanis covers the entire topic of the Biharis in Bangladesh, it won't change even if Faizan keeps removing the contents of the article. Your arguments are baseless.--Zayeem 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. It is just about the "Non-Bengali" community stranded in Bangladesh". Whereas "Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is for the persecution and discrimination being done with them. Faizan 11:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No again Zayeem your pov is apparent that article is about the causes and political issues not the human rights and persecution faced by them it only mentions a fleeting mark about the conditions which is not sufficient this deserves a separate article as the information is large and notable clumping and condensing and belittling the plight of Biharis is once again WP:CENSOR which is your ultimate aim at the end of the day arguing with you is futile as your arguments hold no water 86.151.237.220 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As said before, an article on an ethnicity covers all kinds of topics related to that ethnic. The article Stranded Pakistanis is on the Bihari community in Bangladesh, naturally the article covers all kinds of topics related to the Bihari community in Bangladesh. Now if the article becomes too long, then we might think of splitting, which is not the matter in this case.--Zayeem 12:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, the "Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta" cannot be deleted by the reason of that "there is another article named Hazara people" Why was not an AfD there? Totally wrong reasoning. Faizan 12:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before, the article Hazara people is too long (53 kb), hence the separate article on their persecution is justified. Moreover, the article Hazara people is about the entire Hazara population in the world, not just about those living in Pakistan.--Zayeem 12:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not judged by Google Hits or the Size of the article. Don't measure it in KBs. Faizan 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not judging notability by the size of the article, see WP:SPLIT. Also don't remove others' posts in the AfD as you did it for the second time here. --Zayeem 12:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

@Zayeem: Merging all the content into the Stranded Pakistanis article would make that article heavily based on persecution and human rights rather than the non-Bengali community in Bangladesh. This would cause a serious problem with regard to WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. Hence, it is feasible for both articles to remain seperate. Both articles are related, but they are not the same as you seem to be asserting. Mar4d (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

They are actually same. Stranded Pakistanis mostly talks about the miserable life standards and other problems faced by the Biharis in Bangladesh, so is Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. If you can add any contents rather than those discriminations against the Biharis and the article becomes too long, then we might think of having a separate article. Until then, I don't see any justification behind the existence of the latter.--Zayeem 13:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note - Some users are continuously removing the contents from Stranded Pakistanis. The revision prior to the beginning of the AfD should be restored and should be fully protected until the AfD closes.--Zayeem 12:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why this irrelevant note here? It is under discussion there at the article's talk. Faizan 12:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is quite relevant here. You are just removing the contents and edit warring even after I have asked you to restore the previous revision.--Zayeem 13:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note-User:Kmzayeem has been canvassing users and admins 86.151.237.220 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This should stop atleast now. It cannot be tolerated, User:Kmzayeem. He was posting on talk pages of other users, and even now trying the best. Faizan 15:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've suggested temporary full protection for Stranded Pakistanis because of the edit warring by you two. What's canvassing there? First get yourselves competent about the policies before constantly accusing others.--Zayeem 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Most of the article and its references concern the Stranded Pakistani refugee issue in Bangladesh, and nothing specific on actual atrocities, alleged war crimes and discrimination against Biharis. Either neutral editors take over this article, or a new article should be created by seasoned editors concerning the ethnic communal violence of the 1971 war and the specific reprisal attacks faced by Biharis in the weeks following the end the war.--ArmanJ (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr T 10:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Delete per nom and ArmanJ. Mr T 08:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Per Mard and IP arguments very well sourced and informative article. Kratos007745757 (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)— Kratos007745757 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep No, it's a very important article. It has received significant coverage in the media, including BBC, Britannica, etc. Agreed with Faizan. Baigmirzawaqar (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)— Baigmirzawaqar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note to closing admin - A number of single purpose accounts are giving some ivotes to keep the article. They are just referring to the already countered arguments so I'm not giving any explanations to them.--Zayeem 14:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates