Wikipedia

Talk:Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh/Archive 1

< Talk:Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Mike Cline in topic Requested move 29 April 2015
Archive 1

Stranded Pakistanis, Biharis or Bihari Muslims?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:Biharis#Stranded Pakistanis, Biharis or Bihari Muslims? jnestorius(talk) 18:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent restoration of text

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

There have been some addition or restoration of irrelevant content in the article. This text is not intended for a "Community" rather for it's suffering. Please, don't restore irrelevant text in the article again. It has been moved already to the proper place, as demanded in the AfD. Faizan 10:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The text is relevant, as said before, this article is on Stranded Pakistanis/Biharis in Bangladesh, hence everything related to this community should be covered by this article, don't remove the contents before the AfD ends and we reach a consensus.--Zayeem (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Already replied at the relevant AfD, as demanded by you. Faizan 11:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The AfD is not closed yet, you are just removing the contents to justify the new article. Don't remove these contents before we reach a consensus in the AfD.--Zayeem (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The AfD is a farce to begin with this article has only minuscule mentions of the oppression faced by Biharis and this is not even about BIHARIS only stranded pakistanis have you lost the plot zayeem? 86.151.237.220 (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I think so. AfD has nothing to do with this article. Irrelevant Text be restored. Faizan —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Stranded Pakistanis/Biharis in Bangladesh both are equal terms. This is the revision, of this article before the AfD started, which largely overlaps with Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. This revision should be restored before the AfD closes.--Zayeem (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes they are equal terms, who is saying that they are not? The consensus is there in the AfD that the text be moved to proper place. Faizan 12:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is the proper place. Anyways, I'm suggesting the revision prior to the beginning of the AfD, which is quite fair.--Zayeem (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Before you suggested the opposite, why this u-turn? The removed text is not intended for the purpose of a community. Thus does not fit here. Faizan 12:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Look, don't confuse the matter! I never suggested that the contents should be removed from this article. My rationale was, since the contents are already present here, there is no need to have a separate article on Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. You may create a separate article only when the mother article (which in this case is Stranded Pakistanis) becomes too long.--Zayeem (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Not confusing, you rationale was very great, and I acted upon it and fixed the text. The contents have found their better place. Faizan 15:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
You fixed it? Who told you to remove the contents? You are just removing the contents to make room for a POV fork.--Zayeem (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The article has been edit-protected and now further progress will take place as per the AfD. Please continue discussion there now. Faizan 13:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 9 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion

The RfC requested for this section has been withdrawn as a move discussion started below

The title was moved to Biharis in Bangladesh previously, but this was reverted by a user for unstated reasons. As per WP:BOLD, I have redone the move. The Urdu speaking people in Bangladesh are referred to as Biharis, and as that is the common designation, it would be in line with WP:TITLE that this is what the name of the article should be. These people have been living in Bangladesh for decades, and many have been given Bangladeshi citizenship by the Government of Bangladesh. They do not hold Pakistani passports even though they allegedly are/were loyal to Pakistan. It would make no sense to retain an outdated title, and it is my opinion that the correct name of the community needs to be used. Mar4d (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, four moves since last summer —Tamfang (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Tamfang:, I think current name "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh" is best one. Because news by Dawn in April 2015 itself called them as "Stranded Pakistanis", also lead provides citations from leading news papers from US, UK, Pak and Bangladesh. If some users claim that they are no more Pakis or don't hold Pak passport, then on which basis we should call them "Biharis"? Because they no more live in Bihar/India or they don't hold Indian passport to call them Biharis. After partition these people lived in Pakistan(East) for 25 years and now in Bangladesh for 43 years so why the need of calling them Biharis. They did not became "Biharis to stateless Bangladeshis", they became "Pakistanis to stateless Bangladeshis". Thats why "Stranded Pakistanis" is better name and we have loads of news sources from western world and Pak, Bangla itself that they are still called as "Stranded Pakistanis".--Human3015 23:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Your argument is invalid as nationality and ethnicity are two different things. YYour nationality can change, but your ethnicity doesn't change. Hence, whether they were Pakistani, or are currently Bangladeshi, their ethnic origin will always remain Bihari. And that is why that title is the most neutral and accurate for this article. Also, this is yet again another article that you've followed me to. I am not sure about your intentions but it always seems as if you deliberately try to get in way of any articles I edit. Mar4d (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the move as the reasons were clearly given and any such controversial naming will need WP:CONSENSUS. If we cannot come to a consensus, then we can start an RfC. The title 'Stranded Pakistanis' is not appropriate as these people have been living in Bangladesh for four decades, and they have been given Bangladeshi citizenship. While many of them were repatriated to Pakistan, those who remained do not have Pakistani passports to be considered Pakistanis. So designating them such a title does not make sense. A large number are members of the new generation who were born after 1971. The very term 'Stranded Pakistanis' is actually a derogatory term used to marginalise members of the community based on the notion that they are not Bangladeshi. As I've explained, this term is outdated and there is no indication that it is an official term. Biharis in Bangladesh is the most neutral title as it explains the ethnic origin of the community. Mar4d (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Then why Dawn, Express Tribune, The New York Times, BBC, The Guardian call them stranded Pakistanis?? Sources are given in lead. You are not proving sources for your personal opinion.--Human3015 08:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Page was not moved by me, it was moved by Samudrakula, no one is agree with your POV. At least give the source for your POV. Read the sources given in lead, this is april 2015 is going on and news published by Paki Pakistani Dawn in April 2015 itself called them "Stranded Pakistanis". --Human3015 09:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have this much of sources[1][2][3][4][5][6] to call them stranded Pakistanis, I can give you more. --Human3015 09:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, why you are not talking here? Why you are not giving sources for your claim? I have lots of sources from US, UK, Pak and Bangladesh. --Human3015 09:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Bihari is a derogatory term, not ethnic identity of those “stranded Pakistanis” with primarily Punjabi, Hindi, Sindi and Pashtun ancestry. About half of those people are still stateless as the court never allowed Bangladeshi citizenship for those who were adults during Bangladeshi war of independence. So stop spreading paki Pakistani propaganda!—Samudrakula (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know the issue in-depth. But my understanding is that these Biharis regard themselves as Pakistanis and not Bangladeshis. Pakistan doesn't accept the claim. So, there is a dispute and we won't find any easy answers. Other than the fact that Human3015 has provided reliable sources for the term "Pakistanis" for these people, my good sense says that, when countries separate for whatever reason, people are given a choice to go to whichever country they choose. When India and Pakistan separated, millions of people moved across the new borders. So, I don't see sufficient reason to disallow the term "stranded Pakistanis." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Bihari is not a derogatory term, rather the contrary is true. It is an ethnolinguistic community, see Bihari people, and the majority of these people are migrants from Bihar. The term 'Pakistani' is used in a derogatory manner to refer to the group as non-Bangladeshis. Again, there is no evidence that this is an official term. It's a WP:POVTITLE that is not fit to be the article name. And Biharis in Bangladesh are not citizens of Pakistan, reinforcing again why the title is very generalizing and inaccurate. Mar4d (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kautilya3: Stranded Pakistanis is not an official name. It is just one terminology used to refer to the group that has WP:POV connotations. There is not any reason why a generalising label such as this should be given precedence over a common, neutral title like Biharis in Bangladesh. We have a precedence over the naming of ethnic group articles on Wikipedia, and this article does not appear to follow that. Mar4d (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
read already mentioned news by Pakistani news paper Dawn, here,
  1. This news of this month, published on 1st April 2015, few Stranded Pakis given citizenship in 2008 but in 2015 also news sources calling them "Pakis" because most of them are still not given citizenship rights.
  2. This news also mentions that "Supreme Court" rejects plea of Stranded Pakistanis, means SC also call them "Stranded Pakistanis".
  3. This news also talk about a petition and in that legal petition also they are called as "Stranded Pakistanis".
  4. This news talk about two organizations of stateless stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh, named, Organisation for Repatriation of Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh and Stranded Pakistanis General Repatriation Committee (SPGRC), in both organizations they called "Stranded Pakistanis", also there was a lawyer who represented this organization in Supreme Court. --Human3015 10:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I can find twice as many sources discussing 'Biharis in Bangladesh.' So WP:COMMONNAME would actually require that the article be renamed. The term 'Stranded Pakistanis' is not an exclusive terminology for the community. It is also inaccurate as discussed above. The so-called 'Pakistanis' are only those who are stateless. There are hundreds of thousands who have been provided Bangladeshi nationality and legal rights, so referring to the entire group as 'Stranded Pakistanis' is both legally and factually incorrect. The best solution is to rename the article to Biharis in Bangladesh, and have a section on the legal status of the community which can discuss the number of those who became Bangladeshis, number of those who are not Bangladeshi yet, and the term 'Stranded Pakistanis' used for the second group. Mar4d (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, at least read sources once, Supreme Court calling them Stranded Pakistanis and they have organization including name "Stranded Pakistanis", please close this matter, Its your POV that they should not called as " Stranded Pakis" while entire world is calling them with same name. We are going by reliable news sources, not by personal opinions. --Human3015 10:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Human3015 You need to read your own sources first before repeating the same illogical arguments over and over again. Two of the sources here are before 2008 when Biharis were legalised. The other source uses the term 'Stranded Pakistanis' once and only in quotation marks (do you know what that means?) and calls them Biharis throughout the rest of the article. One source is just a useless MOS:OPED in a Bengali newspaper, while the other two are talking about the legal status of the stateless Biharis (hence the use of the term Stranded Pakistanis). The issue here is not over whether Stranded Pakistanis is an alternative term for them. It is, and that should be explained in the article. However, the title needs to follow WP:COMMONNAME and it is evident that Stranded Pakistanis is not the official or exclusive name of this group. You need to read Wikipedia's policies on naming articles. Mar4d (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, why you are ignoring latest sources?? That Guardian news using word "Stranded Pakistanis" in their heading and saying in article that they "sometimes" called as "Biharis", Dawn of this month using same word "Stranded Pakistanis". We are using here most common term and legal term used in supreme court. Organization of those own people named as "Stranded Pakistanis". Prove that "Biharis" is official name. The same Dawn news saying that "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh" are of "Pakistani descent".--Human3015 11:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You need to reread all your sources. And those two organisations you're talking about are committees represented by an advocate who is petitioning in a Pakistani court on a case regarding repatriation. What does the name of a committee have to do with this? Mar4d (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, Sources by Pakistani DAWN.
Sources by Pakistani Express Tribune.

other Pakistani media

If you still have problem, please take this matter to dispute resolution board for content. Thank you.--Human3015 11:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d is right that the Supreme Court of Pakistan didn't refer to them as "stranded Pakistanis," Dawn did. But this has no bearing on the issue because we are not governed by any Supreme Court. We report what reliable sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Stranded Pakistanis Dreaming of Deliverance". The New York Times. 13 May 2000. Retrieved 26 April 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Vote for 'stranded Pakistanis'". BBC. 6 May 2003. Retrieved 26 April 2015.
  3. ^ "'Stranded Pakistanis' living in camps in Bangladesh – in pictures". The Guardian. 11 August 2014. Retrieved 26 April 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ "SC rejects plea for repatriation of stranded Pakistanis". Dawn. 1 April 2015. Retrieved 26 April 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ "SC rejects plea regarding repatriation of stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh". The Express Tribune. 31 March 2015. Retrieved 26 April 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. ^ "Repatriation of stranded Pakistanis". daily sun. 22 February 2015. Retrieved 26 April 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
@Kautilya3:, can Mar4d prove that Supreme court called them "Biharis"? We are based on media reporting, and media reports what is written in "orders" and "petitions", if media is vastly reporting them as "Stranded Pakistanis" referring to "petitions" and "orders" then we can assume that this word must be present in that document. There must be "some" name used by supreme court to refer them.(Homework: Which word supreme court probably used for them? Any guess?) If "Biharis" were written in those documents then surely media could have used word "Biharis" vastly. Still above all, We simply depend on media sources, and we have media sources from US, UK, Pakistan etc. thats it. --Human3015 12:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Nafsadh moved his Comment to RM sectoion

Sources using the term Bihari

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

@Kautilya3: @Human3015: The vast majority of sources refer to the community as Biharis. Here are some links, with thousands of others also available in addition to several academic sources. Not in a single one of these references is the community referred to as "Stranded Pakistanis". Usage of that term is uncommon in sources, and the term is only used when either discussing the legal status of the community and clearly identified as an alternative term in such cases. WP:COMMONNAME requires that the name that is most commonly used in reliable sources should be used for the article title, hence Biharis in Bangladesh fits that criteria. 'Biharis in Bangladesh' is neutral, accurate, more clear, and does not carry any political connotations (unlike Stranded Pakistanis, which is a value-laden WP:LABEL). There is a majority of sources using the term Bihari, while sources using Stranded Pakistani as the exclusive terminology are selective and limited. Using Stranded Pakistanis for the title does not accurately define the identity of the community. Mar4d (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to call upon @Aditya Kabir:, given his wide expertise on Bengal-related topics, to comment for or against this proposal for rename. Mar4d (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Khalid Hussain, an Urdu-speaking Bihari in Bangladesh, United Nations
  • The Guardian (quote: Bangladesh’s Urdu-speaking minority community, sometimes known as Biharis, are consigned to live in camps for ‘stranded Pakistanis’ that were set up in 1971, during the establishment of the Bangladeshi state, even though they have no roots in modern Pakistan.... Many ancestors of the Urdu-speaking minority came from Bihar, India, during the partition in 1947. The camps’ residents are referred to as Bihari...In many of the Bihari camps in Dhaka, the floors are weak ... Many Biharis are increasingly able to pass as mainstream Bangladeshis... Urdu speakers have suffered discrimination and extreme poverty since the country’s war of liberation. Despite a law introduced in 2008 that guarantees citizenship for Bihari refugees, they face serious obstacles to obtaining citizenship documents... Parvin, who is from the Bihari community, has basic law and mediation training...
  • In Pictures: Plight of Biharis in Bangladesh, Al Jazeera (quote: The Bihari community in Bangladesh has come a long way from filthy tents to voting rights, but they continue to battle social stigma)
  • Clashes at Bangladesh refugee camp kill nine (quote: Violence between ethnic Bengalis and Bihari refugees began during a religious celebration in the Mirpur suburb of Dhaka.)
  • Biharis of Bangladesh, World Directory of Minorities (quote: Biharis is the term given to a group of non-Bengali residents and citizens of the former East Pakistan, most of whom originated from the Indian state of Bihar.; also note that the source mentions "Stranded Pakistanis" as an alternative term)
  • "Neglected" Bihari youth battle stigma in Bangladesh, Irin News (quote: More than five years after Bangladesh's High Court granted them citizenship, many young Biharis continue to struggle against stigma in their quest for a better future.... Mohammad Hasan, general secretary of the Association of Young Generation of Urdu-Speaking Community, said unemployment is rife in the Bihari community.... Ministers and government officials often identify them as `standard Pakistanis' despite the High Court order)
  • The Neglected Stateless Bihari Community in Bangladesh: Victims of Political andDiplomatic Onslaught, Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (quote: A relatively large number of Pakistanis known as the Bihari community have been stranded in Bangladesh since its independence in 1971.
  • Bangladesh: Biharis, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples (quote: The term ‘Biharis' refers to the 250,000-300,000 non-Bengali citizens of the former East Pakistan who remain stranded in camps in Bangladesh...Most of these people originated from the north Indian state of Bihar... Neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh has agreed to grant citizenship to the Biharis (also called stranded Pakistanis) which has resulted in their stateless..)
  • Assessment for Biharis in Bangladesh, Minorities At Risk
  • DFID Research: rights of the camp-dwelling 'Bihari' community in Bangladesh, Government of the United Kingdom (quote: On 5 September 2007 the government of Bangladesh decided to award citizenship rights to a disfranchised ethnic grouping, the ‘Biharis’, following a concerted campaign)
  • Bangladesh/Pakistan: Bihari Refugees Stranded In Bangladesh Since 1971, VOA News
  • Biharis in Bangladesh seek protection, justice, Gulf Times (quote: There are 300,000 Muslim Biharis scattered across 116 squalid camps in Bangladesh. Many came from the Indian state of Bihar, and moved to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during and after partition in 1947... A 2008 landmark high court decision recognised Biharis as Bangladeshi nationals, but citizenship rights have yielded minimal gain..)
  • Stateless Biharis in Bangladesh: A Humanitarian Nightmare, Refugees International (quote: In 2004 the already desperate living conditions of the stateless Biharis in Bangladesh have continued to worsen)
  • Repatriated or stranded in Bangladesh, Biharis still divided and without a home, The National (UAE)
  • In Statelessness and Citizenship: Camps and the Creation of Political Space p.77 by Victoria Redclift, the term 'Stranded Pakistani' is used in quotation marks and described as a "label"
  • Mar4d, On this basis how you concluded that "Biharis" is most commonly used?? WP:COMMONNAME should be used commonly in common or popular news papers. I'm giving you references from "New York Times, BBC, Guardian, Dawn, Express Tribune etc. You are giving some less known middle east news papers, I'm giving you references of Major Pakistani media.
  • You have given reference of UN site which is more like a OPED written by individual also does not have date on it. I'm giving you sources of this month of 2015 April.
  • You have given source of Gaurdian which itself mentions word "Biharis" is used "sometimes" and used "Stranded Pakistanis in "headline".
  • And you gave case studies from UK government website, so case study from UK government web is most commonly used or name used in UK news papers like BBC and Guardian are most commonly used??
  • You cited Al Jazeera, then what is your opinion about this Al Jazeera news where they clearly mentioned in text that these people locally known as "Stranded Pakistanis". Stranded in Bangladesh, if you say this news is from 2007, then still as of 2015 most of "Stranded Pakistanis" not given citizenship and they are still called as "Stranded Pakistanis" by mainstreame common media.
  • I will not comment on other less common news media that you have posted, because you can't compare them with NYT, BBC, Dawn, Gaurdian etc. --Human3015 15:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: You have to learn that just because you like something does not mean your view is correct. We only work on what the majority of sources say, not your personal opinion. So far you have failed to prove that Stranded Pakistanis is the most common term. Which of these sources are less known? They are all newspapers, journal papers, published works, organizations, books and other common sources used to ascertain the common terminology. I didn't cherry pick four or five links and decide that Stranded Pakistanis is the most common term, as you did (that's WP:OR and unsourced). I have done a complete search and in the majority of the sources, I find the term 'Bihari' used widely compared to Stranded Pakistanis. I'm following what WP:COMMONNAME requires. Most of your arguments here are your personal WP:POV and clouding your judgement. Also:
  1. The Guardian source used Stranded Pakistanis only once and in quotation marks (these are used when describing a label or uncommon term); if you bother to actually read the source, you will find it uses the term Biharis throughout the entire article
  2. The Al Jazeera article you're talking about uses 'Bihari' 14 times, and "stranded Pakistani" once (again in quotation marks)
  3. NYT, BBC, Dawn, Guardian not using Bihari? Then what is this, this, this and this (not a single mention of Stranded Pakistanis).

Mar4d (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

After giving sources from popular media, I will cite website of Government of Banladesh, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, because they are involved party. Read paragraph 3 in this. High Commissioner for Pakistan to Bangladesh called on Foreign Minister --Human3015 16:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Human, selecting random links and snippets with bare mentions is really not going to help you build your case. Read all sources above from an unbiased angle and then read WP:COMMONNAME. Mar4d (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, you are citing NYT issue of 1988, I'm citing 2003 issue of NYT, 21st century issue, we usually depends on most recent sources. You do have some valid sources which makes you some ground for debate, but google gives thousands of pages and millions of result for any "search word" and if you are searching till 572nd page and calling it most common source then it is not fair. You do have BBC source. Your only arguable sources are one from Al-Jazeera and one from BBC, and both of them in other news do mentioned name "Stranded Pakistanis". Al-Jazeera clearly mentioned that they are locally called as "Stranded Pakistanis".
We have to see what Pakistani media calls them, Dawn and Express Tribune kept on calling them "Stranded Pakistanis". Government of Bangladesh also calls them "Stranded Pakistanis" as I given link earlier.
They have organizations in name of "Stranded Pakistanis", means they also call themself as "Stranded Pakistanis". --Human3015 16:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, If "Stranded Pakistani" is outdated term as you said then how "Bihari" is relevant term? They were maybe "Biharis" before 1947 but they were Pakistani citizens from 1947 to 1971, and suddenly they became loyal Pakistani citizens to stateless in 1971, thats why they commonly known as "Stranded Pakistani". They have no connection to "Republic of India" as before partition it was "British India", but they were Citizens of "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" from 1947 to 1971. They were "Pakistanis". --Human3015 17:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bihari is an ethnic group and living somewhere else does not change your ethnicity. Mar4d (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
They are Urdu speaking, not related to ethnicity, read first Dawn news, also article, many of them are decent of Pakistani people. Criteria is Language, not ethnicity, its about urdu speaking or bengali speaking muslim. Many of Bengali speaking muslims are of Bihari origin --Human3015 17:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly sources

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Both Human3015 and Mar4d have produced enough news sources to show the preponderance of the two terms. So they are not going to help us resolve the issue. I have tried to check the scholarly sources at Google Scholar [1]. There also I find a roughly equal preponderance of the two terms, but at least I get to find out what is actually going on. Particularly helpful is this article from UNHCR: THE CITIZENSHIP STATUS OF THE URDU-SPEAKERS/BIHARIS IN BANGLADESH. I suggest that everybody download this paper and read it overnight. We can talk further tomorrow. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago112 comments13 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh → Biharis in Bangladesh – There is a debate over whether the title of the article should be moved to Biharis in Bangladesh. Previously, the title was moved to Biharis in Bangladesh as per WP:BOLD but this was reverted and two users currently believe the former title Stranded Pakistanis should be retained. There is a contention over the latter title as it contended that:

  1. These migrants are predominately Bihari people who migrated to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during the partition in 1947. They have been living in present-day Bangladesh since 1947, including after Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan following the 1971 war, which rendered them stateless.
  2. Stranded Pakistanis is an outdated, vague, unclear and value-laden label used by some in Bangladesh to refer to ethnic Biharis who remained loyal to Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh war. Following the war, these people remained stateless. In 2008, the court of Bangladesh ruled on granting Bangladeshi citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Biharis belonging to the new generation post-1971. Hence, the title Biharis in Bangladesh is neutral, accurate, and does not carry political connotations which the label "Stranded Pakistani" does. It is inclusive of all Biharis, including those with Bangladeshi citizenship or those who are stateless (Stranded Pakistanis is not inclusive of either group, let alone the community). The term Stranded Pakistanis can be explained as an alternative term in the article and be further discussed in the content instead.
  3. Apart from a few hundred thousand Biharis that were repatriated to Pakistan, a large number remain behind in Bangladesh (which this article is on). The Pakistani government has not provided those who remain in Bangladesh Pakistani citizenship which would legally render them as nationals of Pakistan. Hence, the current title is also misleading. Instead, the Pakistani government has rendered the stateless Biharis a responsibility of Bangladesh [2]
  4. The vast majority of sources on the subject provided above describe the community as Biharis while Stranded Pakistanis has a very limited usage in sources (usually as an alternative term or when discussing the legal status of the community). Stranded Pakistanis has 1,570 results in a Google Scholar search, while Biharis in Bangladesh returns 7,490 results; on Google Books, Stranded Pakistanis returns 4,250 results while Biharis in Bangladesh returns over 58,000 results. This clearly indicates the latter as being more common.
  5. WP:COMMONNAME requires that the terminology most widely used in sources should be the title of the article. 'Biharis in Bangladesh' is also conventional and consistent with the way most ethnic group articles are named on Wikipedia (including articles on refugees). Mar4d (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  6. Update: some people believe "Biharis in Bangladesh" has imperfections; thus, we can adopt a flexible approach and alternative titles are also welcome to be proposed. See this section. Mar4d (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Nafsadh moved his comment here from #Title section
Biharis in Bangladesh would be the most reasonable title for this article per WP:TITLE, per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:NPOV. First this article is about a diaspora living in Bangladesh, regardless of legal status, who are ethnically Biharis. Biharis are not just people from present-day Indian state of Bihar but people with origin in historical Bihar, who speak different Bihari languages at home while Hindi-Urdu are their lingua franca. Bihari is indeed an ethnicity and the word is not a slur nor a derogatory term, even though Biharis are often marginalized and the word Bihari is sometimes pronounced with hatred by few. A portion of this populace migrated to erstwhile East Pakistan (aka East Bengal), today's Bangladesh. They intended to become Pakistani nationals.
With secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan, these populace became stateless. As they were ethnically Bihari and not Bengali, Bangladesh refused to recognize them as her citizens. Due to migration agreements of Partition of India they were no longer eligible to be Indian citizens. They do not enjoy Pakistani citizenship either. So, those Biharis who remained in Bangladesh after 1971 became stateless. Bangladesh legally identifies them as Stranded Pakistanis. However, a recent ruling states, those born after independence are to be considered Bangladeshi nationals. (Note that, Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951 grants Jus soli citizenship (4), but newer presidential order of 1972 does not address Jus soli.)
Now, we have our subject of this article: a diaspora of Bihari ethnicity, part of which are legally citizens of Bangladesh and part are stateless and often referred to as stranded Pakistanis. Wikipedia, for sake of neutrality, cannot call Bihari Bangladeshis (born after independence) Stranded Pakistanis. It is not neutral to attribute a citizenship to someone who is now stateless. So, Biharis in Bangladesh is more appropriate and neutral title to describe the subject. – nafSadh did say 16:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I was going through the rather long comment by Aditya Kabir. He has pointed out that although majority of the subject of this article are ethnically Bihari, some of them are not. While all of them are commonly identified in Bangladesh as Biharis, some of them do not want to be identified as such. So, while Bihari is better word to refer them than Stranded Pakistanis, that is not the best. A more appropriate title can be Urdu speaking diaspora in Bangladesh. nafSadh did say 20:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Sources by leading Pakistani news paper DAWN. All Pakistani news papers published this year called them "Stranded Pakistanis".
Sources by Pakistani Express Tribune.
other Pakistani media
Also BBC-Stranded Pakistanis, The New York Times - Stranded Pakistanis
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bangladesh calling them "Stranded Pakistanis"
If "Stranded Pakistani" is outdated term as you said then how "Bihari" is relevant term? They were maybe "Biharis" before 1947 but they were Pakistani citizens from 1947 to 1971, and suddenly they became loyal Pakistani citizens to stateless in 1971, thats why they commonly known as "Stranded Pakistani". They have no connection to "Republic of India" as before partition it was "British India", but they were Citizens of "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" from 1947 to 1971. They were "Pakistanis". --Human3015 17:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, all your sources are random news snippets of court cases on the legal status of Biharis. Some links barely have a passing mention of the term 'Stranded Pakistani' while others have multiple mentions of the term 'Bihari'. Your New York Times and BBC article are dated 2000 and 2003 respectively, which is a long time before 2008 when Biharis were legalised in Bangladesh. You've yet again failed to provide sufficient WP:RS. Mar4d (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
you failed again Mar4d, only 20% "Stranded Pakistanis" given citizenship, still 80% are stranded. --Human3015 17:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hence proved, all 'Stranded Pakistanis' ≠ Stranded Pakistanis (even though you have not cited a source for that figure btw). Mar4d (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
   How can you decline an RM? You can either support, oppose or abstain. nafSadh did say 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is about those "Urdu speaker Muslims" in Bangladesh who have not got citizenship, those who got citizenship are called as "Bangladeshis" not "Stranded Pakistanis".--Human3015 13:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT, they are (ethnically) Biharis (i.e. Bihari people) but (nationally) not Pakistanis by citizenship. The current title is factually inaccurate because absolutely none of these people are Pakistanis, but not all of these people are Biharis (they are multiethnic including Biharis). It is derogatory to call the non-Biharis among them as "Biharis". So the proposed title "Biharis in Bangladesh" is biased, and I had to change my !vote. But all of these people are or were [[statelessness|stateless]]. We must have an WP:NPOVTITLE title, such as "Stateless people in Bangladesh". Khestwol (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - The thing many are failing to understand is that we are not dealing with a single ethnicity here, Stranded Pakistanis also include other ethnicities of Northern and Northwestern Subcontinent which is in present-day India and Pakistan, referring to all of them as "Biharis" is quite confusing, not to mention the derogatory aspect of the term. Another point is that, not all of them are Bangladeshi citizens, the total number of Stranded Pakistanis/Biharis would be in millions (as there were about 1.1 million of them in 1971), most of them have acquired the citizenship but about 300,000-500,000 are reluctant to have the citizenship and still eager to be repatriated to Pakistan. This article mainly deals with those who don't have the citizenship. Now on the question of a proper title, in my honest opinion, the best title would be the term that is used by the community itself which is obviously "Stranded Pakistanis", for instance, the prime representative organization of the community is known as "Stranded Pakistanis General Repatriation Committee".[3]--Zayeem (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You just proved my point. Some are citizens of Bangladesh, some aren't, and some were repatriated to Pakistan. Exact reason why this article needs an appropriate and more representative title. Mar4d (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, if he is strongly opposing move then what problem you have, this section is only for survey, not for discussion, this article is only about "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh" not about those some "Urdu Speaking Muslims" who got citizenship because they are "Bangladeshis". --Human3015 11:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article deals with stateless people in Bangladesh that have been disowned by both Pakistan and Bangladesh. However they might have a claim to both, as per international law.[1] Some editors have said that "Pakistani" is a legal term, not an ethnic one, and that, by Pakistani law, it should not be applied to these people. It is not clear to me that "Pakistani" is a purely legal term, e.g., we have Pakistani Americans who seem to be Pakistani by ethnicity. Moreover, Wikipedia is not bound by the Pakistani law. So, I don't see a reason to change the current title.
A statement from a UNHCR article[2] says, A major point of contention relates to denial of certain services or rights to Biharis on the basis of their address in the settlements. When made aware of a settlement address, public officials [...] may point out that, as a Bihari or “stranded Pakistani,” he or she is not entitled to the service. This indicates that both "Bihari" and "stranded Pakistani" are WP:COMMONNAMEs for these people inside Bangladesh. However, the statement also indicates an implication that "Bihari" implies non-Bangladeshi, which won't be apparent to an average reader of Wikipedia. So, "Biharis" by itself would not be adequate for the title. "Stateless Biharis" would be an acceptable term from Wikipedia point of view. It brings up 514 results on Google Scholar [4]. However, "Stranded Pakistanis" brings up 1570 results [5]. So, "Stranded Pakistanis" is still the preferred term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sen, Sumit (1999). "Stateless Refugees and the Right to Return: The Bihari Refugees of South Asia, Part 1". International Journal of Refugee Law. 11 (4): 625–645. doi:10.1093/ijrl/11.4.625.
  2. ^ Paulsen, Eric (2006). "The citizenship status of the Urdu-speakers/Biharis in Bangladesh" (PDF). Refugee survey quarterly. 25 (3): 54–69. doi:10.1093/rsq/hdi0146.
Kautilya3, even though I and a few others are opposing, this article still has to move away from current title. Are you ok with the WP:NPOVTITLE "Stateless people in Bangladesh" then? Khestwol (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 Pakistanis are not an ethnicity. That's like saying Indian is an ethnicity. There are numerous Ethnic groups in Pakistan which constitute the nationality known as Pakistanis. And so far, you've not proven the legal connection between Pakistan and the Biharis of Bangladesh. Mar4d (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol, name Stateless people in Bangladesh does not suggest us they are related to Pakistan or Partition of Pakistan in 1971, as there can be stateless people or refugees or illegal infiltrates from neighboring country Myanmar. Stateless Biharis in Bangladesh does not suggest that if they are Hindi or Muslim, Hindi speakers or Urdu Speakers, as Bihari is very broad term. This article is only about "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh" who have not got citizenship. --Human3015 13:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Khestwol:, I haven't seen anything non-neutral about this name, other than to say "Pakistanis don't like it." I gave you stats for how frequently this term appears in scholarly sources. It is not a term that I or anybody else here made up. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: We'll eventually have to come to a title that is neutral and most representative in sources, not what some users here prefer for nationalistic motives. I put sources in a section above showing how infrequent the term is used, if at all, in comparison to Biharis. Hardly any used that term, also proving that the current title is WP:SYNTHESIS. Both Google Books and Scholar also show more hits for Biharis in Bangladesh than Stranded Pakistanis. So your argument fails on that count. All I've seen from you yet is one journal article, Google hits and rhetoric. That is not good enough. Mar4d (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: After going through whole long discussion and enormous sources, I think that current name is logical name. Both names have sources but if I have to choose one name from "Bihari community in Bangladesh" and "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh" then I will choose second name. Better name of article would be Stateless Urdu Speaking Muslims in Bangladesh, but that would be very long title so I will go with "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh" as this title is very near to my suggested long title. But I strongly oppose "Biharis in Bangladesh" as it is not suggestive what topic is all about and no where near to my suggested title. Read Bihari people for more details. Thank you. --Vtk1987 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
You have not explained why you prefer the current title? Mar4d (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, you seems to be in complete mode of Denial and not ready to accept anything other than your POV. I see no difference in you and Human3015 for being very rigid. Kautilya3 and Aditya Kabir are relatively very flexible and sensible. I have already explained why I'm preferring current title. When we say "Arab People" that time we mostly refers to Muslim people, though Arabs can be Christians or Jews but still we don't get confusion to understand that "Arabs" means Muslims as other non-Muslim Arabs are very less in number. Same way, when we say Bihari people, it does not clearly suggests us that they are "Urdu speaking muslims" and that too "Stateless". Word "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh" suggests us that they are "Stateless" and "Urdu speaking Muslims". Thats why I already said that for further details do read Bihari people. Though I suggested one long title Stateless Urdu Speaking Muslims in Bangladesh but it may not be practical. --Vtk1987 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stranded Pakistanis are a legally recognized refugee community. A large portion of its 1971 generation still opts for Pakistani citizenship.[6] This is a different topic from a potential article on Bangladesh's much larger Urdu-speaking citizenry. All Bangladeshi Urdu speakers are not Stranded Pakistanis. In fact there were several Urdu-speaking supporters of Bangladesh's liberation movement. Wikipedia needs a separate Wikiproject to deal with Bangladesh demographics.--117.103.82.14 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support rename to anything that does not call them stranded Pakistanis as per multiple points hashed in discussion here that they are not Pakistani citizens nor ethnically Pakistani. However, I would support a separate article "Stranded Pakistanis (term)" that once referred to the ones stranded during and after the war in multiple sources (obviously the sources will have to satisfy WP:GNG). Just "Stranded Pakistanis" should still redirect here as this would be the article about the people. It's been a long time and unless they identify themselves as "Stranded Pakistanis" as a nation, this does not make sense anymore and it's not NPOV... it would be highly Pakistani and Indian POV to continue to call them "Stranded Pakistanis" while they identify with their ethnicity. This is an issue similar to WP:EPOV; in this case it's just that it's the perspective of India and Pakistan (that too from a different decade) that is being pushed on to them. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The suggested title is objective. Consistency should be maintained per WP:Title as there is another article named Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. Also the Bangladeshi nationality law grants Bangladeshi nationality to these Biharis and they are not Pakistani by any definition.  sami  talk 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Many Bengali Muslims are of "Bihari origin", our criteria is whether they speak urdu or bengali? Bihari can be "Urdu speaker or Bengali speaker". All Bihari-Bengali speakers have citizenship. But "Stranded Pakistanis" is a more broad term, it exclusively includes "Urdu Speaking Muslims" "former Pakistanni Citizens" "Many of them are of non-Bihari origin", so we need proper term. That is "Stranded Pakistanis". Well accepted by media, and we Wikipedians are depends on popular media.
read this news by Pak media, they belongs to Pakistani descent SC rejects plea for repatriation of stranded Pakistanis - Dawn April 2015 --Human3015 17:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of the migrants are Biharis, as agreed in sources. Bihari is a general term and includes all migrants. Mar4d (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, how liar you are, my given source by leading Pak media Dawn not even mentions name "Bihari" in it and they claim they are of Pakistani descent and you are claiming that vast are Biharis?? Earlier you said "Bihari" is Ethnic term for them, now you are saying it is general term and includes all migrants?? At lest have clear stand. --Human3015 17:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Please remain WP:CIVIL. Calling editors you oppose a liar is a personal attack and not permitted here. Also stop twisting my words, I have said that the majority of the migrants are Biharis and people who migrated to Bangladesh are called Biharis. This is what the sources agree on. Kindly stop the tedious wikilawyering, let's let others go through the thread and voice their opinion. Mar4d (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Humanist, calm down and take a pause. I struck off your name calling. But next time I won't. You really need to control yourself. I gave a scholarly reference and suggested we all read it. Why don't you do that? The "Pakistani descent" is just the term used by SPGRC's advocate, who will say anything to make his case. Don't take it too seriously. The reliable sources say that pretty much all these stranded people are Biharis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So hence proved that not all "Stranded Pakistanis" are "Biharis" because many of them have Pakistani descent and many Bengali muslims are of Bihari origin but they are called as "Bangladeshis" not "Biharis". --Human3015 18:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed. Mar4d (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You are denying citations calling them "pre-historic", but anyway, I already given this months Dawn news where they are calling "Stranded Pakistanis" as Pakistani descent. If you don't want to accept then leave it and don't ask for citations. I have already given hundreds of reliable citations. Now One can write this article even longer than Pakistan or Bangladesh. :) --Human3015 18:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Good. Now scroll up four lines and refer to what Kautilya said about 'Pakistani descent'. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A rather long comment

Brilliant. The title of this article has been oscillating between Bihari community in Bangladesh/Biharis in Bangladesh and Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh for a very long time now. Mar4d started it in 27 September 2014 here by changing it to Biharis in Bangladesh. Then he changed the name three more times here, here and here to Bihari community in Bangladesh. Kmzayeem (once here), Samudrakula (twice here and here) and Human3015 (once here). Much heat there.

Not WP:COMMONNAME. Mar4d posted the first comment of the discussion of title change in 24 April 2015. Ever since that comment many more have been posted by Mar4d and Human3015, and a few by Kautilya3. Both Mar4d (the Bihari camp) and his opposition (the Pakistani camp) have posted loads of links trying to apply WP:COMMONNAME. But, ironically, by posting so many sources using either names, especially the World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples quote that says - "the Biharis (also called stranded Pakistanis)" (here). By the way, quoting a supreme court document to "officialize" the name goes against WP:COMMONNAME.

Check WP:CRITERIA.I would like to draw attention to the next paragraph in WP:COMMONNAME, as well as the section preceding it - WP:CRITERIA. It says - "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Article titles need to be recognizable and precise at the same time. I started this name discussion way back, and without getting into a war, thankfully. Back then there were three articles with very similar content - Stranded Pakistani, Bihari or Bihari Muslim, in fact the first and the last were identical.

I repeat. That was an inconclusive discussion. But, what is said at the end I would like to repeat (in a slightly modified form) here: Let me point out again that they are not, though they constitute the majority. Here are some sources: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Journal of Refugee Studies, Refugee Survey Quarterly, Cambridge Journals, The New Nation, The Asian News, The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia (by Tai Yong Tan and Gyanesh Kudaisya). These people are closely related to the Muhajirs in Pakistan, the major difference being state recognition (i.e. those in Pakistan are citizens of land, those in Bangladesh are not). Though UNHCR refers to the group as Biharis in Bangladesh (Source), they are often referred to as Urdu-speaking stateless immigrants in Bangladesh or Urdu-speaking refugees in Bangladesh or Urdu-speaking stateless people in Bangladesh. IMHO, these are much more NPOV and nearer to the facts. Bihari demonym is used mostly to derogate these people, while Stranded Pakistani has strong political bias. I'd really suggest an NPOV title.

Sorry for the length of the comment. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. I would like to see some substance on the perception though that Bihari is a derogatory term. I've rummaged through multiple international sources, and it is generally used neutrally in the ethnic sense, the same way all other Bihari people are called Biharis. Remember, we have to use the most general and common terminology as per WP:COMMONNAME, and Bihari seems to best satisfy that. I have sources stating that the term Bihari extends to all migrants in Bangladesh (inclusive of the Bihari ethnic majority and the non-Bihari migrants in Bangladesh). Still, we can have a debate on this. What would be your idea of NPOV? Would Urdu-speaking people in Bangladesh be accurate (do all Biharis there identify with Urdu? As many second-generation/third-generation have adopted Bengali); Muhajirs in Bangladesh? Non-Bengalis in Bangladesh? etc.? Clarification please.. Mar4d (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
"Bihari" won't be derogatory when you call a Bihari that. But it would be when you call a non-Bihari a "Bihari". It implies a reluctance on the caller's part to care what they actually are. My main problem with the title "Biharis in Bangladesh" is that it is deceptive. It doesn't convey anything. It is like saying "Sindhis in Punjab". You would say, yeah, what about them? "Stranded Pakistanis" conveys that there is a problem, and the reader would be interested to find out what is going on. My question for Aditya Kabir. You have excellent sources. How come they are not reflected in the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If a title as general as Biharis in Bangladesh is deceptive and if 'interesting' titles should be the criteria, then we need to rethink the whole scheme of naming articles. Using that logic, let's rename Pathans of Tamil Nadu to Pakistanis of Tamil Nadu, Baloch (Gujarat) to Pakistanis in Gujarat or Sindhis in India to Pakistani Hindus in India :) Mar4d (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Aditya Kabir, why do you suggest using words like "immigrants" and "refugees"? Most of them probably have never even crossed an international border hence they are not technically "immigrants" or "refugees". They are simply multiethnic Stateless people in Bangladesh (see following subsection). Khestwol (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d: Neither Pathans of Tamil Nadu nor Sindhis in India are stateless. So, this is a spurious argument and the analogies don't wash. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Neither are all stranded Biharis in Bangladesh stateless. This article should follow an example of stateless people like Bedoon, where the title is neutral and contains the name of the group. Mar4d (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You have just proved my point. Not all Biharis in Bangladesh are stateless. That is why Biharis in Bangladesh is a misleading title, because this article is about the stateless people. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Biharis who became stranded in Bangladesh post-1971 and were without citizenship. In 2008, a large number of these people were provided Bangladeshi status. Those people are LEGALLY Bangladeshis now. You CANNOT call them stateless or stranded. The only stateless people are those who were born before 1971 and have not been naturalised yet. That is why there needs to be a neutral title for the entire group. Mar4d (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Come on. Please stop dictating terms to me. I follow Wikipedia policies, not your policies. If you want to write an article about the naturalised Biharis in Bangladesh, please go ahead and write one (and be ready to face an AfD). This article is about the stateless ones. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Come on Kautilya3 (talk · contribs). You're attempting to deviate from the topic now, with pointy arguments. Who said this article is only on the stateless ones? Since when? Do we change the scope of this article now based on your whims? Why should there be an article only on the stateless? Why should the other half be excluded? Mar4d (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This is strange. Why else do you think the article was called "Stranded Pakistanis...?" By changing the title, you think you have also changed its content? Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
So about half of these so-called "Stranded Pakistanis" became Bangladeshi citizens. You're telling me that's not relevant? Some strange form of WP:CENSORSHIP you want to impose here. Btw, the article's scope is what it always has been, you're the one trying to change it. Mar4d (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion: "Stateless people in Bangladesh"?

The current title is the worst possible option for being inaccurate since these people are no more Pakistanis than Bangladeshis are themselves. Anything we move to is likely to be better and an improvement for the article. But an accurate, concise and recognizable solution is to change the title to "Stateless people in Bangladesh". Not all the people this article deals with are Biharis. But all of course are stateless hence, the accuracy. For Biharis in Bangladesh we can have another general article. Not all Biharis in Bangladesh are stateless. Many hold Bangladeshi citizenship. Khestwol (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I want say one thing, Just think that if any "Stranded Pakistani" or "Bihari in Bangladesh" reading this what he will feel. I mean, he lives in Bangladesh and we are making him sometimes "Pakistani"(stranded) and sometimes "Bihari'(Indian), while his destiny is neither Pakistani nor Indian. If we think in humanist view, we should write it as Stateless Bangladeshis or Refugees in Bangladesh, or anything without using words "Biharis' or 'Pakistanis" because they are actually neither of them, most of them born after 1947 and never lived in Bihar, and also they can't return to Pak too because recently Pak gov said those people are not Pakistan's responsibility.
My last stand will be, on the basis of sources and popularity of name, article name should be Stranded Pakistanis, but in humanist view or so called NPOV view, article name should be Stateless Bangladeshis. --Human3015 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Why are you repeatedly synonymizing Biharis with Pakistanis/Indians? This has nothing to do with nationality. They don't have Pakistani/Indian citizenship, and until very recently, they didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship either. Hence, the common denominator is their ethnic group, which is Bihari. And it is for that reason that Bihari is the most accurate term. This is reflected in all the sources, where they are referred to as that. Being called a Bihari does not mean being called an Indian, as there are Biharis in Pakistan (that should have an article too) and many other countries. Mar4d (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, I'm agree with your point, when first time I heard of "Biharis in Bangladesh", I thought it is article about "Indian Biharis" who work in Bangladesh. Actually Biharis in Bangladesh don't convey the reality. As you said Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh instantly convey that there is something wrong with these people. Again, "Biharis in Bangladesh" is very mild term as there are Biharis in many nations like Suriname, Guyana. "Biharis in Bangladesh" mainly suggests they are Non-residential Indians. But word "Stranded" suggests someone is in problem. --Human3015 19:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Stranded Pakistanis has issues and is a definite no-no. In the worst case scenario, we can go with Stranded Biharis. Though I would still prefer Biharis in Bangladesh first. Let's wait for consensus. Mar4d (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, as we said that "Stranded Pakistanis" will be a better term instead of confusing or misleading "Biharis in Bangladesh", Mar4d said he has some issues and its about ethnicity, ok. I will say few things, as far as sources and popularity is concerned, term "Stranded Pakistanis" is nowhere behind term "Biharis'. If you people claim that term "Bihari" has references, then you can't deny that term "Stranded" also has references, it even has most of sources from Pakistan itself, that too most recent one. Still we suppose that both terms are equally popular and equally sourced, then why to choose confusing term "Biharis" over crystal clear term "Stranded Pakistanis"?? --Human3015 20:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d: I guess my comment was really long. So I'll be short - they are NOT Biharis. Many are. And, many are not. So, you CAN'T call them Biharis. It goes against the Wikipedia.
@Kautilya3: I don't think you can call them Stranded Pakistanis, even if it is overwhelmingly common name. Because, it is plain wrong, and clearly against Wikipedia policies (WP:TITLE). Pakistani is a legal term, not ethnic. And, the subject has NO such legal recognition. Popularly, but wrongly, calling them Pakistani, stranded or otherwise, isn't enough. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, yes they are Biharis. The overwhelming majority are at least. If there was any disagreement regarding that, then the sources would be saying something else. Mar4d (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Aditya Kabir, you yourself accepting that "Stranded Pakistanis" is overwhelmingly common name but you are calling it "wrong'. See we can't call anything wrong or right, you give source that it is wrong, Wikipedia don't have place for personal views. And I read that article on wikipedia about title which says article name must be commonly used one, like write Mahatma Gandhi instead of real name Mohandas Gandhi etc. Here "Stranded Pakistanis" is popular name as you said and news sources showed us, we don't know exactly what is legal name of those refugees, but as I have given website of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh earlier(search above) in which they called them "Stranded Pakistanis". So it is legal and popular name. And those people themself have organizations named "Organization of Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh" (search above). Legal+Popular+Acceptable+Crystal Clear=Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh --Human3015 20:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you please stop making texts unncessarilly bold? It distracts a lot. nafSadh did say 20:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stateless people in Bangladesh may include people from other diaspora, e.g. Rohingyas. It may include even individuals who can take refuge in Bangladesh (e.g. ULFA members, hypothetically). Our subjects are referred as Urdu-speaking stateless immigrants in Bangladesh or Urdu-speaking refugees in Bangladesh or Urdu-speaking stateless people in Bangladesh. These terms are not entirely accurate. Not all of them are stateless (some have Bangladeshi citizenship).They do not have immigrant status, as being stateless. Some authority don't view them as stateless (sonot purely neutral). Urdu speaking diaspora in Bangladesh can be more appropriate. Even then, we would overlook the fact that not all of them use Urdu as their primary language, some adopted Bengali very well, and most of them use different Bihari languages while Urdu is considerable de facto lingua franca amongst them. nafSadh did say 20:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Nafsadh, here is question about popularity, Urdu speaking people in Bangladesh is not widely used by the news media. We have to choose popular name according to wikipedia policy. Here people denying highly sourced name "Stranded Pakistanis" then how they will accept ill sourced "Urdu speaking" name? Here we depends on news sources. and name Urdu speaking diaspora in Bangladesh doesn't suggest that they are stateless or something in trouble. --Human3015 21:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
(Was meant to be posted right after Human3015's comment) Ahem ahem. You are wrong on many counts:
  1. You are not reading Wikipedia policies. Check WP:TITLE, please. It strongly advises against wrong names. Even if they are popular.
  2. I NEVER said this name or that name was overwhelmingly a common name. In fact, I spent quite a large number of words to tell YOU that there was NO common name here.
  3. NO. Your news sources DO NOT show that it is the most popular name.
  4. Even if it did, it wouldn't matter.
  5. Somebody forming an organization and calling it an organization of Pakistanis DO NOT make them Pakistanis. They need legal acceptance. Do YOU have ANY evidence that they have ANY legal recognition as Pakistanis or any kind?
I hope I am clear now. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, @Mar4d:, many of them are not from Bihar. Many more have never been to Bihar. Many even never had any Bihari in their family history. YOU need to prove that they were ALL Biharis before calling them Biharis indiscriminately. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: I never said they ALL are Biharis. I said the MAJORITY are Biharis. And that the minority who aren't are usually subsumed as Biharis. Prove me wrong. Mar4d (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Another divide

Aditya Kabir,
  1. You didn't said how it is a wrong name?? I mean how you unilaterally decide that "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh" is wrong name when nearly all sources used it. (Those people themself use "stranded" word for them, as said about organisations, read dawn source of 1st April, these organisation represented all "stranded Pakistanis" in supreme court. read here).
  2. Ok, if it is not most popular name then tell me which name is most popular among existing names?? I'm not asking you which is good or bad name, I'm just asking you which is popular name? Either "Stranded Pakistanis" or "Biharis" or "Urdu speaking stateless" etc. Tell me which one is popular. --Human3015 21:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have put more sources here than you, showing usage of the term Bihari. Yet you keep saying Stranded Pakistanis is the most popular term. Why are you living under this false sense of illusion? Mar4d (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues with term BIHARI

  • Here some people claiming about ethnicity of Bihari people. But term "Biharis in Bangladesh" does not specify whether they are Hindi speaking Biharis, Maithili speaking biharis, Bhojpury speaking Biharis, Urdu Speaking Biharis or Hindu Biharis, Christian Biharis, Buddhist Biharis or Muslim Biharis?
  • Because term "Bihari" is very broad, and maximum population of Bihari People is Hindu and they speak language written in Devanagari font, like Hindi, Maithili, Bhojpuri. Many Biharis are Buddhists as Bihar is land of Gautam Buddha, many are Christians and Muslims too.
  • "Bihari community in Bangladesh" do not suggests if they are stateless or citizens or Non-residential Biharis of India gone for work there or Hindu, Muslim or Christian Bihari.
  • If we write it as "Muslim Biharis in Bangladesh", still question remains if they are stateless or citizens or Non-residential Biharis of India gone for work there.
  • If we write it as "Urdu Speaking Biharis", still question remains if they are stateless or citizens or Non-residential Biharis of India gone for work there.
  • If we write it as "Stateless Biharis in Bangladesh" still question remains if they are Hindu or Muslim or Buddhists or Christians?
  • Term Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh suggests us that they are Muslims, Urdu Speaking and Stateless. --Human3015 22:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hats off to your original research. 1) Maybe if you stopped applying your nationalist, religious and linguistic POV to everything, things wouldn't seem as blurry. 2) They are just Biharis. Nothing else. 3) When a person will read the article, like any normal individual, they will find out the article is about Biharis in Bangladesh (as if the title isn't clear enough). 4) Let the article discuss the politics and demographics. That's not the purpose of the title, see WP:TITLE. Mar4d (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I have said about three times already how Stranded Pakistani is wrong. I will try again - Pakistani is a legal entity, not ethnic. These people are not Pakistanis. Because they have no legal status as such. If you think they are Pakistanis because they have this Stranded Pakistani Association or something, then you are wrong again. Their association has NO authority to vest the Pakistani legal on anyone.
And, it is NOT about the most popular name. Did you even check ANY Wikpedia policies? Do you even know what are we discussing?WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT is not a good argument. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I was wondering about your behavior here - continuous warring, refusing to see the point, and total failure to discuss. So I checked you a bit. Apparently this the exact behavior that earns you regular warnings and blocks. Let me assure you from experience - if you don't change into a constructive editor, then today or tomorrow you are going to get your last block, a permanent block. Please try not to waste other peoples time by posting the same silliness over and over again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Come on, Aditya Kabir, you just got a Barnstar of Diplomacy the other day. This is hardly "diplomacy!" -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir makes the point that "Pakistani" is a legal entity, not ethnic. If that is so, then he needs to demonstrate how these people are not legal Pakistanis. But I don't accept the statement either. Where is a source that shows that "Pakistani" is a legal entity and not an "ethnic entity?" Are all the people described on Pakistani Americans page legally Pakistani, not ethnically Pakistani? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Pakistanis exclusively refers to citizens of Pakistan, or people descending from citizens of Pakistan. So while the earlier generations of these stateless people in Bangladesh were citizens of Pakistan between 1947 and 1971, they were no more Pakistani citizens after that ~24-year period. Within that period, Bangladeshis were also citizens of Pakistan. But now, neither these stateless people in Bangladesh nor "Bangladeshis", are Pakistani citizens. Still referring to them as "Pakistanis" is derogatory, just as much as referring to "Bangladeshis" as "Pakistanis" is derogatory and referring to non-Biharis as "Biharis" is derogatory. Khestwol (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You are again simply making claims, without any argument or sources. I have asked for two demonstrations: (i) demonstrate that they are not legally Pakistani, by what law and what source. (ii) demonstrate that Pakistani is not an ethnic term. Again provide a source. Thanks. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I am simply stating common knowledge. See the main article Pakistanis, its lede clearly says what i wrote so there is consensus through out Wikipedia for that meaning of the term. Can you demonstrate to the contrary? Khestwol (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
If it is "common knowledge", there must be sources that exhibit such common knowledge? This is how things work on Wikipedia, by looking at sources. To say that "Pakistani" is not an ethnic term is an extraordinary claim. You definitely need to provide a reliable source. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Under clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 16-A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951, all those persons in those territories, which before December 16, 1971 constituted the province of East Pakistan, residing since that day, voluntarily or otherwise, shall cease to be citizens of Pakistan.

— Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh not Pakistan's responsibility, FO tells SC, Express Tribune
In 1951, Pakistan passed an Act about what should happen after 1971? That is hilarious! So, until Pakistan amended its 1951 law by adding this clause, those residing in East Pakistan and their descendants were citizens of Pakistan, and they would have continued to be, by virtue of all the other clauses of the law? And, you think Wikipedia, which is not governed by Pakistani laws, should stop using the term "Pakistani" to refer to these people? Now, let us get to the second question. Demonstrate that "Pakistani" is purely a legal term, and not an ethnic term. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It's funny, just above you were asking to "demonstrate how these people are not legal Pakistanis". The clause which disqualified their status is there. Anyway, your u-turns or your personal opinions of things is not even what's going to affect the outcome. All your comments here are your own opinions ludicrously unaccompanied without any facts or sources. I'm going to disengage from these nonsensical arguments. Let's let third party editors have their say. Mar4d (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
@Kautilya3: if we have to go by Pakistan's official policy or their national agenda of foreign office then we have to write all Kashmiri separatists as Freedom Fighters. This is off topic here, but Pakistan government's official views doesn't matter and we can't write their views on Wikipedia as they are biased. Just read official statement by Foreign Ministry of Pakistan, Pakistan calls Kashmiri separatists ‘freedom fighters’ Their views doesn't matters. See old edit of Mar4d where he was following Pakistan's national agenda and writing Kashmir militants as "Fredom Fighters" on Wikipedia. See here. --Human3015 08:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is off topic. Maybe you should have done some research and noted that Category:Kashmir separatist movement was previously named Category:Jammu and Kashmir freedom struggle or that the template's previous name was Template:Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement. My edit was in that context, and that was a completely different dispute. If you want to discuss national agendas, we can compile a page on your contributions so far. This is not WP:ANI. Either stick to the topic or buzz away from this page. Mar4d (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, I will not call you liar because it is not civil, but that template is created by yourself as "Kashmiri Freedom Movement",See here and show me my biased contribution. You have been exposed. --Human3015 09:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The template was named after the category. I didn't create that category, it was named that way for a long time. I only created the template. I am not going to respond further to your off-topic comments, if you have a problem with it, you can take it somewhere else. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, Yes, we should not talk about that here, but where was your NPOV when you were creating a page on a most sensitive issue of the region and world. You were creating page on that issue means you were fully aware of that issue. Separatists known as "Terrorists(those who are designated by UN) or "militants"(those who do violent activities but not designated) or"separatists"(hurriyat leaders), they are called as "Freedom Fighters" only by Pakistan and that you are following. Only reason to mention this issue here is that you are always claiming about NPOV here when "Bihari community in Bangladesh" is neither a relevant nor a neutral title, but you don't think about NPOV when it comes to your edits. I just want to tell that most neutral and most relevant title is "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh". Thank you. --Human3015 10:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Human3015 You have your POV and you've already put your point across. Now I am going to request you again to desist from making this discussion WP:SOUP and let some other editors read through. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Example: If a current Indian Hindu Bihari goes to Bangladesh and accepts citizenship of Bangladesh then he will be also under scope of this article if this article named Bihari Community in Bangladesh.
  • If a current Indian Hindu Bihari goes to Bangladesh for work and lives there for long time then he will be also under scope of this article.
  • "Bihari Community in Bangladesh" do not suggest what is the main topic of this article as this article is all about "Stateless", "Muslims", "Urdu Speaking". So Stranded Pakistanis is best term.
  • Some nationalist people are trying to project their national agenda instead of NPOV. --Human3015 08:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Reconsidering the title

@Aditya Kabir:; @Kautilya3:; @Khestwol:; @Vtk1987:; @Nafsadh:: It has already been verified in sources that nearly all the Urdu-speakers in Bangladesh belong to the Bihari group. I understand not all are Biharis, but the majority are. However, in this case, I'm willing to show flexibility and am open to other suggestions, including Urdu-speaking people in Bangladesh. "Biharis in Bangladesh" may be an imperfect title, but it seemed the most appropriate option. We've already gone through why "Stranded Pakistanis" is a flawed title too. Nobody above has made a convincing case so far showing Stranded Pakistanis is notable than any of the other proposed titles (in fact the opposite is true). How about something that is more in-between as a compromise? It does not make sense to have an article representing an ethnic minority when the title does not accurately define the subject. This is exactly what is wrong with the current title. It restricts the scope of a wider topic and does not represent the ethnic minority (which this article was originally created for). Things have changed since the 2008 ruling, so we need to review whether the current title is accurate (this article was created in 2007). I see absolutely zilch logic in restricting the scope to the remaining stateless group while ignoring those who are naturalised citizens. This makes the article redundant to the existing topic Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. If this article is not going to discuss the Urdu-speaking minority in Bangladesh (their statelessness is just one aspect, not the entire picture), then there really is little purpose this article serves. I don't see what distinguishes this article from Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh in that case. Mar4d (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dang. Now we have yet another take on the same subject. I think we need to take this to a bigger forum. Village pump may be? Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is still about a change in the title. However, as we do not seem to be coming to any reasonable compromise, I don't think there is any harm in considering flexibility. Village pump can be considered as an option, since we really are lacking much outside output here. Mar4d (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. But, I guess we need participants with more theoretical grounding, information, or experience in dealing with similar situations. I left the discussion hanging years back because I didn't have an answer back then. And, I still do not have an answer. None of us seem to have an answer that's not seriously flawed by one count or another. I really recommend taking this to a bigger forum. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Village pump indeed. It is rather RfC/Village pump than RM, as people are bickering in settling for a target page. nafSadh did say 04:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Are they from India/Pakistan? Burmese Indians and Madhesis: Yes. Stateless Urdu Speakers of Bangladesh: No.
  • Are they recognized as Indians/Pakistanis by India/Pakistan? Burmese Indians and Madhesis: Yes. Stateless Urdu Speakers of Bangladesh: No.
  • Are they recognized by UN/other authority bodies as Indians/Pakistanis? Burmese Indians and Madhesis: Yes. Stateless Urdu Speakers of Bangladesh: No.
I am still trying understand how can we call someone a Pakistani who is not of Pakistani origin/descent, is explicitly and categorically declared not-Pakistani by Pakistani law, and has never been to Pakistan. Popular press and activisim notwithstanding, the idea sounds a bit wishful to me. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d: Please feel free to create articles on Stateless Indians in Burma or whatever terms you find in reliable sources. Perhaps you and Human3015 will find something to collaborate on, when he returns. @Aditya Kabir: Ethnicities and nationalities are in the hearts and minds of people, not in the law. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. True. In fact when Sindhis and Balochis and Punjabis are minute minorities, they will invariably form a Pakistani ethnic identity, while spilling blood over ethnic lines back at Lahor and Karachi. It's like Non-resident Indians/Pakistanis/etc. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Ethnicities and nationalities are in the hearts and minds of people, not in the law - that's just pure original research and in contravention of Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:RS and WP:Verifiability, not truth. You can decide to call yourself a Ugandan, does that make you a Ugandan? Mar4d (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Funny that you should mention "original research" because your entire line of argument here has been to ignore reliable sources and ask for your opinions to be used in writing articles! As somebody mentioned, you are certainly in denial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Ignore reliable sources? Mind it but I'm the only one who's provided sufficient sources here! It's certainly not my issue that you want to stay in denial and choose to ignore nearly all valid arguments with your personal opinions. I showed that Stranded Pakistanis is used less than the other terms, and that Google Scholar and Books return more search results than your preferred term. Your lack of rebuttal, accompanied with your unsourced WP:OR opinions, notably characterised by a lack of WP:RS, shows how strong your case is. Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
No. That heart and mind thing can be supported with pretty robust academic sources.   Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes people Indian descent or Pakistani descent?

Donald Ramotar, President of Guyana, not even born in India, but was invited to Indian Diaspora Day in India as he is of Indian descent [See here], But Parvez Musharaff was born in India, became President of bigger nation than Guyana, that is Pakistan, but he never counted as Indian diaspora or Overseas Indians. All persons of Indian origin who lives in foreign nation, though they are citizens of those nations, still considered as Overseas Indians or Indian diaspora but this is not applicable to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Manmohan Singh is born in Pakistani Punjab, so should we include him in article Overseas Pakistanis?

  • Kids of Muhajir people of Pakistan, who lives in foreign nations are called as Overseas Pakistanis, should we call him persons of Indian descent because their forefathers used to live in India?
  • My favorite Singer Zayn Malik is British citizen, still people call him person of Pakistani descent as his forefathers were from Pakistan. And he is included in Overseas Pakistanis. (Here, they claim other person as of Pakistani descent even if he is citizen of other nation, so it doesn't matters if "Biharis in Bangladesh" are citizens of Pakistan or not, main thing is that those "Biharis" are of Pakistani descent", I will prove it.)
  • Musharaff's kids will be known as persons of Pakistani descent(though Musharaff himself is of "Indian descent", his ethnicity or whatever is north Indian, he was a Delhi boy). After partition all things are changed, in real sense entire Indian subcontinent(core-India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) is of Indian descent, because whole territory was India before 1947. --Human3015 11:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • After partition everyone in East Pakistan, either Bengali muslim or Urdu Muslim, both were "Pakistanis" till 1971. But after partition of Pakistan in 1971-72 "Bengali muslims" became 'Bangladeshis'. So here, can we say, all Bengalis are of Pakistani descent as they were Pakistanis from 1947-1971? If British Zayn Malik can be called as person of "Pakistani descent" because his forefathers were from Pakistan, then why not Bangladeshis are not of "Pakistani descent" when there fathers were also "Pakistanis" from 1947-1971?
  • You will say, Bengali muslims got Bangladeshi citizenship so how they can be of Pakistani descent?? Ok, Lets accept it, there is different rule for "descendents" who live in US, UK and different rule for those lives in different nations of Indian subcontinent.
  • So atleast we should accept those "Pakistanis" who lived in East Pakistan for 25 years but did not get citizenship if Bangladesh are of Pakistani descent. Being a "Pakistani citizen" is not criteria for calling them or anyone as of "Pakistani descent". Forefathers should be Pakistanis and current "Bihari's" forefathers were "Pakistanis" from 1947-1971.
  • But you can say, "No, no, no, before 1947 they were from 'Bihar' so we should call them 'Biharis' and we should forget that they were 'Pakistanis' from 1947-1971". ok, But with this logic, we should also call Zayn Malik and all people in Overseas Pakistanis as "People of Indian origin" as everyone was living in India before 1947.
  • Calling them "Biharis" is like calling Musharaff and Jinnah as "Indian diaspora" or Manmohan singh as "Pakistani diaspora".
  • Those so called "Bihari's" are of Pakistani descent and has no relation with India. --Human3015 22:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Another break

(Continued from above) Have you noticed that discussion is taking place on the Wikipedia? Do you know that Wikipedia has a wide set of rather detailed policies? Unfortunately by Wikipedia policies, your comment is serious OR. On top of it - it makes no statement, and raises questions about things. That is not fact. That is speculation. Wikipedia is not about truth, its about verifiable facts. If Wikipedia policies do not suit you then perhaps the Wikipedia doesn't suit you. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, Ok, thanks for your valuable suggestion, but I don't expect this suggestion from you because on same page itself you posted "Rather a long comment". Anyway, try to talk about topic instead of useless things. This is Wikipedia, not Facebook or Twitter. --Human3015 09:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This article don't deserve so much discussion, you people keep on debating for title of the article but no one is improving actual content of this article. I have checked, this article hardly gets 30-40 views per day, It is accepted if any "featured article" or "good article" or "article with heavy traffic" would have get such huge discussion but investing so many manhours and having so personally involved debates for this less important article is not good. We can use these manhours for improving content of this article or any other important article. --Vtk1987 (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sweet. Now you know this is the Wikipedia, and not Facebook or Twitter where you can post whatever OR comes to your mind. Since you know that this is the Wikipedia, you may also notice that Wikipedia has policies, and Wikipedia also explains the policies in detail. So there is no place for your "useless" OR. But, I don't think anyone expects that much sensibility from you. Keep on posting. Pretty soon you will find that everyone has stopped caring about your issues. No one listens to you until you listen to them.
Vtk is quite right. If you have this much time to waste, please waste your own. Not other people's time. And if you want some productive use of your time and energy, may be you can lend a hand to improve the article. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Aditya Kabir, So calling other editors as "silly" is your idea of "Ideal editor"?? Thats why I'm saying that you are suited for Facebook comments, even Facebook has facility to "report" such comments and such words you are using on Wikipedia and giving lecture on ethics on Wikipedia. Don't take it so personally and seriously if your POV changes doesn't happens in related topics, no one owns Wikipedia, every editor has right to express himself/herself on talk pages in moral language and that editor might be right or wrong, but calling him/her as "Silly" is surely not justifiable. --Human3015 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Enough people! Now let us get back to work. All the best! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the article getting hardly 30-40 views a day has to do with the title. The naming of the article is just so vague. When someone wants to look up information on the ethnic minority in Bangladesh, they don't search Stranded Pakistanis. This is why I still maintain that Biharis or Urdu-speaking people would be the most accurate name. Mar4d (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever people will search, they will redirect to "Stranded Pakistanis" and they will know real truth of "ethnic" minorities of Bangladesh. Thats why I'm still firm on title "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh". Anyway, Earlier version "Biharis in Bangladesh" was also mentioning that "they are also known as Stranded Pakistanis" and current version also mentions words "Biharis" and "Urdu speaking". So anyone should not have any problem. Though article gets 30-40 views but still I'm happy because those 30-40 people will know the truth.--Human3015 06:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever people will search, they will redirect to "Stranded Pakistanis" and they will know real truth of "ethnic" minorities of Bangladesh - No. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTRUTH. Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stranded_Pakistanis_in_Bangladesh/Archive_1&oldid=1076387799"