Talk:Punjab, India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / States / Punjab (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indian states (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Punjab (India) (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Punjab  
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Punjab, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Punjab. Please participate by editing the article Punjab, India, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Archive
Archives
  1. July 2005 –

Indus valley civilization[edit]

In dont understand why Mohenjo-daro which is in Sindh pakistan have to do anything with Punjab! I suggest that Harappa and Ganeriwala be added instead. Because these cities of Indus valley civilization are located in the Punjab region. Also the sentance is confusing by stating that Indus valley civilization is only located in Pakistan. Major discoveries have been found in Gujarat, Haryana, and Rajasthan. (Dewan S. Ahsan 04:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

gallery[edit]

Should we remove the gallery?Lalit Jagannath (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Education[edit]

Someone who knows the topic is requested to clean up the higher education institutes list, many non-notable names have been added. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Language as a state symbol[edit]

(Discussion moved here from my talk page -- Timberframe (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Punjab govt. considers its language as its state symbol.And you deleated it...........Why you are not deleting language from all states then............every state page on wiki says so.............maybe its bengal or karnataka........--Migelot Talk to me! 05:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A language is not obviously or intuitively a symbol, but I'm prepared to accept that it is considered such if you can cite evidence of that. However, a language certainly isn't "Flora and fauna", which is where the table of state symbols is located, whereas this heading is appropriate to all the other symbols. If we're to include language as a state symbol then I suggest that (1) we justify doing so by reference to a reliable government source (2) we move the table to a morte appropriate section.-- Timberframe (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


The table is only in flora and fauna section..........It can be moved somewhere else........This article has many faults............such as History section needs attention ..........I didnt mind to bother you but every state page is showing in its state symbols.......Plz check West Bengal page. they are even showing Union day in state symbols along with their language Bengali About Tamil Nadu song and sports are part of it........So mate are you going to make modifications there also??? Punjabi is one of the state symbol of Punjab. I dont know you are Indian or not.......india is just like europe where different areas have different languages, cuisine, culture, dances, folklore even religion.If punjabis consider Punjabi as state language what others can possibaly do??--Migelot Talk to me! 16:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, all this aside, you don't need to inundate the article with useless images and bad English, Migelot. This article is an overview that leads off into several "main articles." Articles look professional when images are used as needed, not pictures of lassi and repetitive landscape pics. And languages can't be symbols, I'm not sure if you know what a symbol is. Additionally, your gimmicks, like that table, are not needed when you can simply incorporate the info into the article body. You should acclimate yourself to how articles are written in the English wiki, I've found that users like you bog articles down with minutiae and pretty pictures to the point where articles look like tourist ads, it's ridiculous.3swordz (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are going out of topic mate we are talking can language can be included in symbol section.I made it after watching west bengal and other states pages........but you dont want anybody making any contribution....its ur wish......I wonder why Timberframe has not replied. ur friend and well wisher--Migelot Talk to me! 17:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the language/symbol thing and if we even need a symbol section...read the fourth sentence onward of my previous post. And you should be doing what is best for this article, not copying everyone else's mistakes on other articles. You may have good intentions, but this article just doesn't need that redundant clutter.3swordz (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A picture speaks for 1000 words.Did you ever noticed why Punjab page never became featured article whereas west bengal and sikkim have become featured articles many times????.......I am done editing here..........Its all urs..................Best of luck!!!!!!--Migelot Talk to me! 08:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

One thing more yaar.....If you bychance check page of Pakistani Punjab you might see Provincial symbols of punjab with language also in it......you should have not dictated ur temrs and remove everything others do here.....Thanx for time--Migelot Talk to me! 09:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The quality of the article comes way before getting it "featured," like that even matters. And again, we can make this a tidy, informative article rather than copy everyone else's mistakes. A table is redundant when one reads the small paragraph right next to it and finds the same info. Moreover, getting rid of the extraneous takes up enough time without getting to improve on it. And West Punjab's table lists the "provincial" language as Punjabi, as if that language gets any sort of backing or support in Pakistan as opposed to Urdu. Goes to show the quality of that edit (languages...aren't ...symbols), that article is not my concern, to be honest. And frankly, judging by the style of your reply, and your seeing Wikipedia as a competition to match other articles regardless of quality and to get featured, I'm not sure you are familiar with certain cultural norms as they apply to English Wiki. Whatever, just don't make useless edits and we'll be good.3swordz (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have taken so long to respond, I was really hoping others would join in the discussion - but it seems not.

I still don't see how a language or a national day can be considered symbols. A symbol is symbolic of something else, it is a metaphor for the real thing. Languages and state days ARE the real thing, they're not symbolic of anything else other than perhaps a national identity. The fact that the West Bengal page adopts a particular approach does not mean it's a good model, and even if you can cite more examples I could suggest that they just followed the same model without critcial appraisal.

But maybe it's a cultural thing and to other minds language and national days are symbols; that's why I hoped for more critical input. -- Timberframe (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Let's merge this with East Punjab, because it's basically the same as East Punjab anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InMooseWeTrust (talkcontribs) 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


It is already notified in history section about Pakistani and Indian Punjab--Migelot Talk to me! 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

i think east punjab article is about the region in which the current state of punjab (india), himachal pradesh, and haryana are. because before those three states used to be just one punjab. Gman124 talk 03:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose they are two different things. east punjab is punjab before india was rearranged by language barriers, its quite a bit larger.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we have reached consensus and I'll go ahead and remove the merge tag from the article--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of Punjab[edit]

user with IP address 115.252.33.219 has made a changed in this section about origin of word punjab from persian to sanskrit without giving any reason or referance . I reverted it but he again made that change.What can be done?--Migelot Talk to me! 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Punjab is derived from Sanskrit. In fact, pretty basic Sanskrit of Panch (five) and ab (water). That is why no reference (except a dictionary) is needed. The common Sanskrit word for water "Appu" is also related to the same root "ab". There is really no need to look for a Persian derivation. Persian is foreign to Punjab for most of its history. And, it is quite unlikely that there is a persian influence in the name. Punjab has the been the land of five rivers since Vedic times (circa 1500 BC). And, Persian influences in India do not start till the Muslim invasion (last 1000 years). The words for Panch and Ab do have close cognates in Persian. That is because Persian and Sanskrit are related Indo-Aryan languages. But, the derivation is directly from Sanskrit.

It's absolutely a MODERN PERSIAN(Farsi) phrase, and of course Persian is linguistically related to Sanskrit. Yet It's weird to call it a Sanskrit phrase or (Indo-Iranian one which is even more weird!). By such a weird logic one can claim Iranians right now speak Sanskrit (or perhaps the official language of Iran is "Indo-Iranian" instead of Persian!!!) Persian has long had a major linguistic and literary influence on Punjabi, as might be expected from the location in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent of the Punjab, the region traversed by the five tributaries of Indus which gave it its Anglicized name (< Persian panj āb “five waters”). Persian was the main language of administration and culture from the time of the Ghaznavid (q.v.) invasions of the eleventh century until its replacement by Urdu following the British conquest of the Punjab in the 1840s. Rostam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.140.184.128 (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Definite article[edit]

I have inserted the definite article before Punjab in the intro, because thats the way it is in English language. I have added the reference of an official Canadian website which calls Punjab as "the Punjab".Cygnus_hansa (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

language[edit]

How about mentioning the fact that India's second official language was Persian for over 500 years. There are many words in the Hindu and Punjabi language that are burrowed from Persian. Even there country names are of Persian origin.

24.80.113.143 (talk)ditc —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

Requested move (May 2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. General consensus seems to be that this is clearer, and more in accordance with similar articles. Ucucha 18:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)



Punjab (India)Punjab (Indian state) — Relisted. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason that "state" included in the article, many Indian people know that is the Indian state rather than Western people. Unless, two American states disambiguated articles like Georgia and Washington, also Hidalgo in Mexico, Acre and Amazonas in Brazil. ApprenticeFan work 08:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(NOTE WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics notified. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move back (July 2010)[edit]

{{movereq|Punjab (India)}}

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Punjab, India which enjoyed the most support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Punjab (Indian state)Punjab, India — This article was only moved to this name a few weeks ago but I am not convinced that there was any good reason to move in the first place. The nominator's contention that "many Indian people know that is the Indian state rather than Western people" is pure speculation unless s/he can provide neutral third-party references to support it. Assuming an uninformed reader wants to look at this article, would they not be equally likely to search for "Punjab" or "Punjab India" as they would for "Punjab (Indian state)"? We have disambiguation pages like Punjab and hatnotes like {{about}} to indicate that there might be more than one article with "Punjab" in it's name? relisted Jafeluv (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The articles offered for comparison do not demonstrate that there is a need for the "(Indian state)" suffix; on the contrary they show that there are different reasons for each of their titles:
  • if those two states are examples:
The Latin American examples are even more varied:
  • All we need here is a disambiguation page (Punjab) and a short statement at the top of each article that might cause confusion, e.g. for this article:
This page is about the Indian state of Punjab. For other uses, see Punjab.
  • There is certainly no need to include administrative status (state and province) unless it's part of the name, like the nearby Pakistani province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa which was until recently called North-West Frontier Province and not North-West Frontier or North-West Frontier (Pakistani province). We should only be as precise as is necessary.

Green Giant (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose We do not usually disambiguate placenames by using parentheses. This format is usually reserved for rivers and mountains. Placenames normally follow the comma format, unless there are two places located in the same area with identical article titles, such as Wolin (town) and Wolin the island. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation state:
    • A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
      • the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal); or
      • the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory), Inflation (economics).
  • They also state:
    • With place-names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, as in Windsor, Berkshire.
  • In this case, the disambiguator suggested is India, which is a higher-level administrative division. We should therefore be using the comma format in this case. I would Support a move to Punjab, India. It would also make sense to move Punjab (Pakistani province) to Punjab, Pakistan. Alternatively we could opt for State of Punjab and Province of Punjab, but, on balance, I think that would be more confusing for readers searching for the right page. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now). "Punjab (India)" is ambiguous in the sense that it could also refer to Punjab region, East Punjab, or Punjab (British India) since all are or were at least partially in "India". I am open to arguments of primary usage but that's tricky since the article will always require some disambiguator. — AjaxSmack 03:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no ambiguity here. Punjab region encompasses both the Indian state and the Pakistani province and is therefore not in India. The word region adequately disambiguates it. East Punjab is either another name for the Indian state, or a part of that state. It is not titled Punjab, and so there is no confusion. Punjab (British India) is a historic entity and the words British India adequately disambiguate it. Hatnotes can quite effectively redirect anyone seeking the region or the historic entity. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, Punjab (British India) and Punjab region are adequately disambiguated from the other Punjabs but they're not the articles in question here. "Punjab (India)" is not adequately disambiguated from the others since the term could equally apply to the Punjabs that were in pre-1947 India, i.e. the Pre-British Indian Punjab region and the colonial era Punjab (British India). Having an extra word, "state", in the disambiguator hardly clutters things and it precisely locates the subject in question both spatially and temporally. — AjaxSmack 06:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
        • India, in the context of wikipedia, refers exclusively to the modern entity. That is why there is no further need for disambiguation. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
          • History of India would beg to differ. And it's good that it does, because it would be totally ridiculous for India to be used only for the modern entity in Wikipedia. john k (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment The hatnote would take care of that. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the main confusion would be between the two existing subnational entities i.e. the modern Indian state and the modern Pakistani province, and not between the modern state and it's historical predecessors. Punjab, India and Punjab, Pakistan would probably be better since generally titles should be the simplest possible. Green Giant (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per two comments shown as above. ApprenticeFan work 01:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Note The proposal has now been revised to move to Punjab, India (Just in case anyone else hadn't noticed, like me!). Skinsmoke (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Support the revised proposal. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. Punjab, India seems fine. Swaroop (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Basically what AjaxSmack says. Both Punjab, India and Punjab (India) could just as easily refer to the pre-1947 province, pre-partition. The current name is precise and accurate and really not all that long. john k (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Comma-disambiguation is mostly reserved to cities, towns, villages. Country subdivisions without having the class identifier included are usually not disambiguated that way. Punjab State, India would be ok with comma. Schwyz (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Punjab State] isn't a common way of identifying Punjab, or any other state in India. I think there should already be a page called Punjab (British India), and I think that should resolve the debate of pre/post independence Punjab. MikeLynch (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support a move to Punjab, India as the most logical title. We don't use India with historical (British rule time) articles, we rather use British India as the disambiguator and that should suffice. The dab page at Punjab also eliminates any confusion. —SpacemanSpiff
    • Who is we? Wikipedia editors? Wikipedia should be optimised for users, not editors. — AjaxSmack 01:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to either Punjab (India) or Punjab, India. I think there really was never much of a reason given (as described in Jafeluv's comment) to move it in the first place. Really not as terribly ambiguous as described either; "India" is understood in its post-1947 modern context, and "British India" is usually called so. Hatnotes should easily get rid of all ambiguity, at any rate.3swordz (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.


Punjab during Mahabharata times was known as Panchanada.

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=uG2RTb3xCYXQcZeeuUA&ct=result&id=0bkMAAAAIAAJ&dq=abhira+yadav&q=abhiras

Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency ..., Volume 1, Part 1-page-11

-- Who gives a heck about what it was called during a mythical time! Stop saffornization of freaking everything in India! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.34.16 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete[edit]

There is no information on major social problems like female foeticide, drugs, illegal emigration to western countries, honour killings. Punjab/Haryana regions are the worst hit and well known for these problems. --David Fraudly (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

can you share any sources or resources for this information so it can be added to the article??MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Akbar attempted to donate land but it was not accepted. Please stop promoting falsities about sikhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.169.110 (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Confusing?[edit]

This says that Dhian Singh was a top general - was he not the deodhi-wala (gatekeeper to the Maharajah's court) during Maharajah Ranjit Singh's reign? In Maharajah Ranjit Singh's lifetime, Golab Singh was to be found in Jammu. It was only after Maharajah Ranjit Singh's death, did Golab Singh become the chief minister (who then went on to betray the Punjabis and make them easy prey for British guns in the first Anglo-Sikh war). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Help please help (talkcontribs) 04:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Help please help (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Give references if you are sure. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 06:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Drugs[edit]

I AGREE with David Fraudly! I think the drug problems are becoming increasingly devastating and characteristic of this place, and I think it's irresponsible and deceitful to leave them out of the discussion/wikipage. I added a section this morning, but perhaps it didn't belong as an entirely independent section. The page for Washington, DC, for example, includes information about crime in its demographics section, so maybe it should be there, but I think this should definitely be a matter of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakuhippo (talkcontribs) 07:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The information about drugs, female foeticide and other major problem should be present on wikipedia. But I have a view that it should be as a separate article. I am unable to find proper WP policy or guidelines regarding this. But somehow intuitively it felt that it should not be added in this article. Contents of this articles in some sense are more of permanent nature. The problems are rather recent stuff. Also I checked lots of other similar articles on different states of india and then reverted your edit. --Vigyani (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
(I have moved this new section to the end of the page). Vigyani asked me on my talk page to take a look at this. Having reviewed the Drugs section, I can see nothing wrong with it - the thing has citations to multiple reliable sources and is relevant to the subject of the article. While it is true that there can be issues regarding recentism, it seems that this is not some overnight sensation/one-day news story. Indeed, it appears that no-one is disputing that the content should appear somewhere but rather whether or not it should appear here. There is nothing wrong with creating a separate Drugs addiction in Punjab article and summarising that in this article but, right now, the section is not undue in weight and I can't actually see any benefit in forking it. That time may come, of course. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Neutrality[edit]

Some of the language used in this article seems to be biased. Phrases such as "It affords the best quality of life to its residents", "has the best infrastructure" seem to me to be overreaching opinions. In addition, the original citation listed the government of Punjab itself as a 'source', but the government would clearly have quite an interest in portraying itself in a positive light and downplaying negatives, as it might help attract new residents and corporations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarnhamJ (talkcontribs) 11:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

-- Maybe this is what you're looking for: http://www.oifc.in/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/Punjab-1207.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.179.210 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pin codes & Post Office list for Punjab[edit]

I found the pin codes and Post Office list of Punjab in a website pricingindia.in/pincodes/punjab. Do you want to add this in article external links to help readers to know about locality of Punjab with 3836 post office with pin code and their address with Google map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickyrathee2005 (talkcontribs) 11:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)