This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Illegal immigration to India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
what about illegal immigrants though smaller in numbers from other countries except of bangladesh and pakistan?
the porous nepal border through which pakistanis(mohajir) enters is also a entrance for immigrants from afghania,tajekistan etc.
India may be a developing country of 125crore people. but,still some people want to immigrate to this place!wth
also NEPAL has one of the largest number of people who are working/living in India. but, Indo-Nepal border is visa-free hence kind of acceptable by GOI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.14.201 ( talk) 05:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
In South Asia region ,India is a country of opportunities.the slumdogs of mumbai to bengal to madras ,many of them are illegal immigrants from failed islamist countries neighbouring India like pakistan,bangladesh etc.how can they simply deny this?We ,the Indians knows that ,Our Country is leeched by these illegal muslims who are inherently violent and religiously polarized coming into a Secular Country and works as undercover for terrorists supports ,at the same time Enjoying the facilities of India.India "looks" Poor;but India is the Best compared to any country near to it.be it bangladeshi or pakistani,srilankan or burmese ,they are Jealous of Bharat.it is the reality.Frankly I said this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.41.24 ( talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The article in its entirety (as it stands now) is a laundry list of allegations, reports from "Indian media"/intelligence, rather than any neutral third party sources. I've tagged it as POV and will edit it soon to make it NPOv. -- Ragib 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think people should be referred to as "these aliens" or "most of the aliens". And, I don't really think that India is "tolerating" something is a fact, no matter "according" to which Indian official. "Extremely hard" is clearly an example of a peacock word, so is "has become a champion". As far as I know the "fence" thing is not happening in reality, not anymore. And, I believe there has been allegations of bigotry against the "Organizer", one of the sources cited. For something as big as what is claimed in the article, there seems to be a curious lack of scholarly sources used. Has anyone outside of India or Bangladesh ever cared about this happening? Aditya( talk • contribs) 03:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The other big problem/POV with this article is that, several sections are just quotes from random news items. For example, the crime section just mentions a random robbery. Wikipedia is not a crime-journal. Also, isolated incidents like this are not encyclopedic. If you take any nationality X living in country Y, you can dig up a newspaper report of a criminal of X nationality. That incident by itself is meaningless. For example, Indian businessman working in Bangladesh has fled after taking Crores of takas from local businessmen. That by itself does not generalize into an encyclopedic article like "Indian criminals working in Bangladesh".
The Nandigram claim is ridiculous. I have NOT seen this implication even in the most right-wing Hindutwa-badi news sources that all problems in Nandigram are also the result of any foreigners. A passing mention/remark in a newspaper taken out of context is not really encyclopedic material. -- Ragib ( talk) 06:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ragib,
You can see with your own eyes enormous slum colonies of Bangladeshis in many cities of India, even outside of Bengal.
Yet Bangladesh leaders have always denied the presence of Bangladeshis in India.
I am sorry to say, that is simply dishonest.
The illegal migration of Bangladeshis has been widely studied, by government agencies, (even in Sachar report) in India as well as overseas researchers.
I note that you have not expressed any concern about Hindus in Bangladesh, or the enormous problems several states of India are facing. You want to stonewall these tragic facts.
-- Vikramsingh ( talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Currently the facts are well sourced, though I still have a problem accepting the Organizer, and it'd be nice to keep it that way. But it doesn't seem to be as balanced. The Bangladesh side of the story is written is given more as outrages than factual presentation of comments, and the Bangladeshi population residing illegally inside India are presented as not-people (like a legal/economic problem). A slight bit of copyediting might solve that easily. And, Baka, I am only supporting Ragib's edit of the article as he turned the article what it is now from a quite offensive article. I have no intention of ruining a fair article (sourced and balanced). And, I am happy that you could see my seeming "anti-Indian" examples as what they are - mere examples of acute views that the press can generate. Aditya( talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Does the article really need separate sub-headers for every couple of short sentences? Aditya( talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The number 20,000,000 is unrealistically high. This statement was given in 2003. By then population of Bangladesh was 138.4 million. [1] That makes the number of immigrants a hopping 14.4% of the total population of Bangladesh. This is not possible. Does anyone have any better reference? Extrapolating the abnormal increase in muslim populations in bordering states of WB and Assam, the number seems to be between 1-3 million.
I am working on to improve the article's tone and style to remove the NPOV banner.
-- Iball ( talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually the data is true Uddhav9 ( talk) 14:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The data is not true. The centre doesn’t have any centralised official data, and most of the data mentioned has no verifiable sources. Bigeyemoony ( talk) 19:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I have finished work on the article. Please comment if the NPOV tag can be removed. If required we can open a DRR.
-- Iball ( talk) 12:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This is still too Bangladesh-centric. Check here for some other numbers. And, there is little Bangladeshi, or even non-Indian POV presented here. Aditya( talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The article has improved a lot, but there are some confusions in the "origins" section. Firstly, the 1971, and pre-1971 immigrants were mostly Hindus ... so "increase in Muslim population" arguments presented in the next sentence is misleading. Are the Hindu immigrants from Bangladesh considered "legal" whereas Muslim immigrants considered "illegal"? The article also does not provide any statistics on the abnormal increase in Hindu population of West Bengal or Assam as a result of immigration from Bangladesh. Unless the increase in Hindu population of WB/Assam caused by immigration is presented, the article will remain pov. -- Ragib ( talk) 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Would Mar4D explain his edit warring sourced content out of this article? A great many terrorists are infiltrated across the border who then reside in India, specifically in J&K. This is obvious illegal immigration so why remove it? Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Mar4d Please explain why you are changing a section header from Pakistani when the sources in that section all mention Pakistani immigrants and terrorists? Your OR that all of these are Kashmari citizens is, while amusing, entirely wrong. Please explain your actions. Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I really doubt there are large numbers of illegal from bangladesh, pak, burma. Why leave a shithole for another shithole? its like mexicans immigrating to honduras or colombia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.13.222 ( talk) 23:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The source used does not state that Roy is a "a pro-Indian scholar" This is a BLP violation and source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines ( talk) 23:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Reply - Roy is not pro-Indian scholar, the guy who commented about the trip from Bangladesh to India is a pro-Indian scholar, here is the link: http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=OdwNU8csNKAC&pg=PA725&dq=ISBN+3540684883&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qHz-UszpIoeFrAfl2IGYCw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ISBN%203540684883&f=false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Musketeer ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Reply - it calls, see the line "but the issue of internal migration could hardly dissuade the pro-Indian state scholars" A.Musketeer ( talk) 23:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Reply - Okay then I will change it into "According one commentator". A.Musketeer ( talk) 23:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Illegal immigration in Angola which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illegal immigration to India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illegal immigration to India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Illegal immigration to India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
How did the article degenerate from this to the current strangeness? I thought people like User:Darkness Shines was looking after the article. Since, they have failed obviously, someone needs to do something about it. May I? Aditya( talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Number 8’s source is no longer available. ( Deep10shu ( talk) 03:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC))
@ Misbah3102: I told you to raise the issue here in the talk. You can't just edit war / POV push a long standing part of the article. I'd suggest you to revert your edits back to this version as per WP:STATUS QUO and gain a consensus here. Your wordings like "allegedly", "East Pakistan" , "Rhetorical figures" , changing Bangladeshi to "Bengali" reeks of POV. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 16:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Random unnamed police officials cannot be used as sources for estimating migrant-counts or their modus operandi. A substantial number of sources document how such numbers are wildly exaggerated in a motivated manner for pandering to right wing sentiments and demographic anxiety. TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Illegal immigration to India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
what about illegal immigrants though smaller in numbers from other countries except of bangladesh and pakistan?
the porous nepal border through which pakistanis(mohajir) enters is also a entrance for immigrants from afghania,tajekistan etc.
India may be a developing country of 125crore people. but,still some people want to immigrate to this place!wth
also NEPAL has one of the largest number of people who are working/living in India. but, Indo-Nepal border is visa-free hence kind of acceptable by GOI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.14.201 ( talk) 05:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
In South Asia region ,India is a country of opportunities.the slumdogs of mumbai to bengal to madras ,many of them are illegal immigrants from failed islamist countries neighbouring India like pakistan,bangladesh etc.how can they simply deny this?We ,the Indians knows that ,Our Country is leeched by these illegal muslims who are inherently violent and religiously polarized coming into a Secular Country and works as undercover for terrorists supports ,at the same time Enjoying the facilities of India.India "looks" Poor;but India is the Best compared to any country near to it.be it bangladeshi or pakistani,srilankan or burmese ,they are Jealous of Bharat.it is the reality.Frankly I said this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.41.24 ( talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The article in its entirety (as it stands now) is a laundry list of allegations, reports from "Indian media"/intelligence, rather than any neutral third party sources. I've tagged it as POV and will edit it soon to make it NPOv. -- Ragib 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think people should be referred to as "these aliens" or "most of the aliens". And, I don't really think that India is "tolerating" something is a fact, no matter "according" to which Indian official. "Extremely hard" is clearly an example of a peacock word, so is "has become a champion". As far as I know the "fence" thing is not happening in reality, not anymore. And, I believe there has been allegations of bigotry against the "Organizer", one of the sources cited. For something as big as what is claimed in the article, there seems to be a curious lack of scholarly sources used. Has anyone outside of India or Bangladesh ever cared about this happening? Aditya( talk • contribs) 03:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The other big problem/POV with this article is that, several sections are just quotes from random news items. For example, the crime section just mentions a random robbery. Wikipedia is not a crime-journal. Also, isolated incidents like this are not encyclopedic. If you take any nationality X living in country Y, you can dig up a newspaper report of a criminal of X nationality. That incident by itself is meaningless. For example, Indian businessman working in Bangladesh has fled after taking Crores of takas from local businessmen. That by itself does not generalize into an encyclopedic article like "Indian criminals working in Bangladesh".
The Nandigram claim is ridiculous. I have NOT seen this implication even in the most right-wing Hindutwa-badi news sources that all problems in Nandigram are also the result of any foreigners. A passing mention/remark in a newspaper taken out of context is not really encyclopedic material. -- Ragib ( talk) 06:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ragib,
You can see with your own eyes enormous slum colonies of Bangladeshis in many cities of India, even outside of Bengal.
Yet Bangladesh leaders have always denied the presence of Bangladeshis in India.
I am sorry to say, that is simply dishonest.
The illegal migration of Bangladeshis has been widely studied, by government agencies, (even in Sachar report) in India as well as overseas researchers.
I note that you have not expressed any concern about Hindus in Bangladesh, or the enormous problems several states of India are facing. You want to stonewall these tragic facts.
-- Vikramsingh ( talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Currently the facts are well sourced, though I still have a problem accepting the Organizer, and it'd be nice to keep it that way. But it doesn't seem to be as balanced. The Bangladesh side of the story is written is given more as outrages than factual presentation of comments, and the Bangladeshi population residing illegally inside India are presented as not-people (like a legal/economic problem). A slight bit of copyediting might solve that easily. And, Baka, I am only supporting Ragib's edit of the article as he turned the article what it is now from a quite offensive article. I have no intention of ruining a fair article (sourced and balanced). And, I am happy that you could see my seeming "anti-Indian" examples as what they are - mere examples of acute views that the press can generate. Aditya( talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Does the article really need separate sub-headers for every couple of short sentences? Aditya( talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The number 20,000,000 is unrealistically high. This statement was given in 2003. By then population of Bangladesh was 138.4 million. [1] That makes the number of immigrants a hopping 14.4% of the total population of Bangladesh. This is not possible. Does anyone have any better reference? Extrapolating the abnormal increase in muslim populations in bordering states of WB and Assam, the number seems to be between 1-3 million.
I am working on to improve the article's tone and style to remove the NPOV banner.
-- Iball ( talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually the data is true Uddhav9 ( talk) 14:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The data is not true. The centre doesn’t have any centralised official data, and most of the data mentioned has no verifiable sources. Bigeyemoony ( talk) 19:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I have finished work on the article. Please comment if the NPOV tag can be removed. If required we can open a DRR.
-- Iball ( talk) 12:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This is still too Bangladesh-centric. Check here for some other numbers. And, there is little Bangladeshi, or even non-Indian POV presented here. Aditya( talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The article has improved a lot, but there are some confusions in the "origins" section. Firstly, the 1971, and pre-1971 immigrants were mostly Hindus ... so "increase in Muslim population" arguments presented in the next sentence is misleading. Are the Hindu immigrants from Bangladesh considered "legal" whereas Muslim immigrants considered "illegal"? The article also does not provide any statistics on the abnormal increase in Hindu population of West Bengal or Assam as a result of immigration from Bangladesh. Unless the increase in Hindu population of WB/Assam caused by immigration is presented, the article will remain pov. -- Ragib ( talk) 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Would Mar4D explain his edit warring sourced content out of this article? A great many terrorists are infiltrated across the border who then reside in India, specifically in J&K. This is obvious illegal immigration so why remove it? Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Mar4d Please explain why you are changing a section header from Pakistani when the sources in that section all mention Pakistani immigrants and terrorists? Your OR that all of these are Kashmari citizens is, while amusing, entirely wrong. Please explain your actions. Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I really doubt there are large numbers of illegal from bangladesh, pak, burma. Why leave a shithole for another shithole? its like mexicans immigrating to honduras or colombia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.13.222 ( talk) 23:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The source used does not state that Roy is a "a pro-Indian scholar" This is a BLP violation and source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines ( talk) 23:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Reply - Roy is not pro-Indian scholar, the guy who commented about the trip from Bangladesh to India is a pro-Indian scholar, here is the link: http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=OdwNU8csNKAC&pg=PA725&dq=ISBN+3540684883&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qHz-UszpIoeFrAfl2IGYCw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ISBN%203540684883&f=false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Musketeer ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Reply - it calls, see the line "but the issue of internal migration could hardly dissuade the pro-Indian state scholars" A.Musketeer ( talk) 23:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Reply - Okay then I will change it into "According one commentator". A.Musketeer ( talk) 23:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Illegal immigration in Angola which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illegal immigration to India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illegal immigration to India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Illegal immigration to India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
How did the article degenerate from this to the current strangeness? I thought people like User:Darkness Shines was looking after the article. Since, they have failed obviously, someone needs to do something about it. May I? Aditya( talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Number 8’s source is no longer available. ( Deep10shu ( talk) 03:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC))
@ Misbah3102: I told you to raise the issue here in the talk. You can't just edit war / POV push a long standing part of the article. I'd suggest you to revert your edits back to this version as per WP:STATUS QUO and gain a consensus here. Your wordings like "allegedly", "East Pakistan" , "Rhetorical figures" , changing Bangladeshi to "Bengali" reeks of POV. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 16:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Random unnamed police officials cannot be used as sources for estimating migrant-counts or their modus operandi. A substantial number of sources document how such numbers are wildly exaggerated in a motivated manner for pandering to right wing sentiments and demographic anxiety. TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)