Talk:Punjab region

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Punjab (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punjab, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Punjab on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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 Punjab (Pakistan).
 
WikiProject India / Geography / History (Rated C-class, High-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Categorisation[edit]

Shouldn't there be different articles for Punjab, India and Punjab, Pakistan? If there are, they should be mentioned here. - Hemanshu 08:45, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are articles for both Punjab, India and Punjab, Pakistan. Sunray 09:11, 2004 Jan 29 (UTC)

There are pretty many stubs in the village sections .. for example Rauni (village). could anyone competent fix those up?

Rice and wheat statistics[edit]

Removed this "This why the region contributes to 40% of India's food needs, called "the Granary of India". Indian Punjab produces 40-50% of India's rice, 60-70% of India's wheat. Indian Punjab produces 1% of Rice, 2% of Wheat and 2% of Cotton of the World. "

Plainly not so. See for instance http://www.irri.org/science/ricestat/index.asp . Perhaps it refers to export quantities. Imc 09:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Imc PLEASE REVIEW OFFICIAL Government Of India Websites, first, before making poorly researched comments on accuracy of data, for this article.

OFFICIAL Government Of India Website for the Indian state of Punjab.

http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/LeadingbyExample.htm http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/GLANCE1.HTM

To the unsigned contributor at 213.122.13.89 who accused me of making poorly researched comments on accurary of data. I'll stand by the accuracy of my comments and data. You have misrepresented the Punjab government data. At http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/AgricultureEconomy.htm it says "Percentage contribution of wheat and rice to the Central Pool is 64.1 and 42 respectively,...”. This does not contradict the figures given at the IRRI site at all, since that refers to the total production, of the state and of the country.
You have transformed the above statement at the Punjab government site to - “Indian Punjab produces 40-50% of India's rice, 60-70% of India's wheat.” . This is about as inaccurate an interpretation of statistics as you can get. The 'Central Pool' is the stock of food held by the central government, for reserves, price control purposes, et.c. Punjab could well be the major contributor to that. But you are confusing it with the total production of the country, which is vastly greater. Another similar sized region might conceivably have the same productivity as Punjab, but if it exported most of its production, then its contribution to the central pool could be zero.
I've removed the misinterpreted statistics again. Feel free to put them back in, with an adequate reference to the central pool, (which should then include an explanation of what it is).
Imc 30 June 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Irrespective of your speculative comments on the central pool. You should NOT have removed "Indian Punjab produces 1% of Rice, 2% of Wheat and 2% of Cotton of the World." This data is from an official Indian government website and CANNOT be white washed. As a westerner from the EU, your behaviour has provided me with an insight of your mind's prejudices against this state. You should accept this "Indian Punjab produces 1% of Rice, 2% of Wheat and 2% of Cotton of the World." In addition this state per capita leads the rest of India. This state, Punjab, is small in size compared to the average size Indian state. One can only imagine how this state could transform India for the better if it was bigger (if average sized). When I think of the individual states of India, this state's per capita output stands as beacon of hope. The richest people (on average) in the Indian union per capita are Punjabi. The current PM, Dr Singh, of India came from this state and it was his philosophy of economic liberalization that led to the excellent economic growth, from the rubbish growth before. Most people from EU are most impressed with this state, Punjab, than any other state in India- the people and impressive results. One can only imagine how this state could transform India for the better if it was bigger (if average sized) and not small.

http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/LeadingbyExample.htm

Paul Keaton 30 June 2005 20:03.

Haryana[edit]

This article should make adequate mention of Haryana. There are some references, and I've added a few more. But this state is also part of the historic region of Punjab, even if it no longer bears the name. Imc 09:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, when was partition reversed?[edit]

>"The area that is now known as the Greater Punjab comprises what were once vast territories of eastern Pakistan and northern western India."

I did not know India and Pakistan had been reunified! (It appears that [this] bit of copyediting inadvertently reversed the time sense of the sentence.)

Requested move 23 October 2013[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. 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: No consensus. Clearly no consensus on how to resolve the difficulty pointed out by several commenters. If I had proposed the move, it would have been to proposed a concept page, with all sorts of information existing in one nice place. See Kansas City. But, hey, that didn't happen here. I still think that's what should be done, but that's going to require another RM. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)



Punjab regionPunjab – This article should be moved to Punjab, which currently redirects here. Nearby regions have articles without the word "region" in the title, e.g. Balochistan, Bengal and Kashmir. Green Giant (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

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.
  • strongly Oppose The change would not solve any problems, but would create them. The article is not about Punjab (a province in Pakistan or a state in India) but about the geographic region. It is important to retain the word region in the title. A link to Punjab, by itself, is likely to be intended for the province or state.
DBB has made a helpful contribution by pointing out that, at present, a link to Punjab is simply redirected to this article, which explains why some editors in the past have incorrectly added material intended for articles on the state or province. Punjab should point to a disambiguation page. Apuldram (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I have now examined the "what links here" list on page Punjab. Very few of the links intend this article (Punjab region) as their target. Most are for the many other articles that have Punjab in their title. This confirms that page Punjab should be, or should redirect to, a disambiguation page. Page Punjab region should not be moved to page Punjab. The best action is to move page Punjab (disambiguation) to page Punjab. Meanwhile, I have started to dab the files that link to Punjab. A slow process, as each page must be examined to determine the context and discover which target is intended. Apuldram (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, you could have waited for this RM to finish in a few days, but to be honest moving the dab page there would have been my second choice, better than having a redirect there. Green Giant (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Apuldram, can you explain what you mean when you say Very few of the links intend this article (Punjab region) as their target? I've only examined some of those at the head of the list but most of these link properly to this page. If any links are intended for other pages, then they should be corrected. Imc (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment While I will like to see a uniform style in rename various regions of South Asia, moving this article to Punjab may create problems, as already have been pointed out. In case of Bengal or Kashmir, the present political divisions in these regions do no use the exact same name i.e. West Bengal, Bangladesh from Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir in Kashmir. In case of Punjab, both sides of the border are named Punjab. I therefore suggest that we move it to Punjab (region), with Punjab kept redirected to disambiguation page. This will keep a uniform style and avoid any problem.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per nomination. An alternative move could be to The Punjab; though this may not be too helpful to readers who don't understand the role of the article here. Imc (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I go along with a move of this page to "Punjab (region)" as Vigyani and AjaxSmack suggest. I assume that "Punjab region" would then redirect to "Punjab (region)". Apuldram (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

During the last year, editors of this article, myself included, have had many times to undo contributions made in good faith by people who didn't realise that this article is about the geographic region. When BDD explained (above) that page Punjab redirects here, I realised what was happening. Someone with a contribution for any of the many articles with Punjab in the title would search on 'Punjab' and be incorrectly redirected here. The page Punjab should be a disambiguation page. Apuldram (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, unless this move is successful, Punjab should not redirect here. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2013 (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.

Ordering of the largest cities in the Punjab by population[edit]

How are the cities ordered by population? Using urban area, metropolitan area, or city proper? For example the National Capital Territory of Delhi as a metropolis is listed here. Delhi is also listed as a city proper here (even though it is not, New Delhi is the only city proper within Delhi, I think). The massive urban area of Delhi is here (this area also includes parts that are not a part of Delhi as a territory, if contiguous can include regions from neighboring regions that may be part of other states). Zaketo (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Population figures for the cities are not given in the article as they would rapidly become out of date and across the whole region there is no published consistent basis which could be used for comparison. The list in the Major cities section is roughly in the order of the population figures given in individual articles on each city. Delhi is not included in the table because it is India's National Capital Territory and is more like a state or province. A population figure for the whole region is given in the article's infobox. It is ridiculously out of date. I reckon it also should be removed. Apuldram (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Land of saints?[edit]

I have moved the following section here from the article:
“===Land of Saints=== The Punjab region is sometimes referred to as the land of saints as quite a large number of famous saints are rooted to Punjab. The most prominent amongst them being the founder of Sikhism himself Baba Guru Nanak, eminent saint of the Subcontinent, the Sufi poet Baba Bulleh Shah, Fariduddin Ganjshakar, Shah Hussain, Baha-ud-din Zakariya and many other.”

I have removed it from the article because it ignores several Wikipedia guidelines:

  • “. . is sometimes referred to . .” is a weasel. It appears to support the statement but denies the reader the opportunity to discover the source of the information. Googling ‘’Land of Saints’’ scores hits on Ireland, Cornwall and Umbria in Italy, but not the Punjab. A verifiable authoritative source is needed for the asertion.
  • the section contains peacock words – famous, eminent.
  • Guru Nanak is revered as the founder of Sikhism, but is not labelled as a saint in the Wikipedia article about him. Again, a verifiable authoritative source is needed.
  • The Sufi poets mentioned are in the List of Sufi saints. They could be included in the section ‘’Religions’’.
  • “. . and many other.” More weasel.
    Apuldram (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Maybe the section was not properly written, but nevertheless, the article would improve if such a category is added.

  • The section heading would be more appropriate if renamed as The Punjab-Home of Master-Saints or The Punjab-Home of Saints.
  • To support the section with verifiable sources of information we can add these links [1] and [2].
  • True that Guru Nanak was the founder of Sikhism but he was also a saint as confirmed here [3]
  • A Subcategory within Religion can be added.
I hope that answers your inquiry.

Pixarh (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional information and the source citations. I have now added a para about the saints to the Religions section of the article. I don't think it merits a separate section. Apuldram (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)