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 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 region, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
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.)

Map of Punjab[edit]

THe current of map of the Punjab shown on this page is not correct. As it leaves out the Jammu province, it gives out an impression that Jammu is not part of the Punjab. There is a little doubt, from the dialects' distribution of the Punjabi language and cultural similarity, that Jammu province is part of the Punjab region. I am attaching links to two maps 1) Topographical map 2) Dialects distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Sikh_War ... Refer this map for topography of the Punjab. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_language#Dialects_of_Punjabi_and_related_languages ...

Vickle1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The first of the two maps mentioned above was originally used here, but was held to be unsatisfactory and removed by an editor. It could be modified. I'll try and find time to do that.
The second map mentioned is already in the article. Apuldram (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Apuldram: I will do by my self. I hope it is alright now to edit! Vickle1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Apuldram: i wasn't able to take care of it.. Please do the honors... thanks Vickle1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Vickle1777. I have made another try. Please anyone let me know if it still needs attention. The map omits the current province/state boundaries as they don't depict the original historical region. Apuldram (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a great topographic map. Good work! Mar4d (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Geographic or political?

Nikhilmn2002 has repeatedly replaced the geographic map of the Punjab region File:Punjab map (topographic) with cities.png (PMT) by a political map File:Punjab region 2.png (PR2) without giving any reason for the change. That looks like edit warring.

The political map PR2 has been described as incorrect by another editor, see above. In addition, it is unsatisfactory because the article is about the geographical region - the land of five rivers, and PR2 does not show the key features of the region – the five rivers. The political boundaries, divisions and subdivisions have changed many times over the long history of the region and the current boundary shown in PR2 has no special significance in the context of this article. Readers seeking past and present political boundaries will find the information in the many relevant Wikipedia articles - the Sikh Empire, Punjab Province (British India), Punjab, Pakistan, Punjab, India, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana etc.

If Nikhilmn2002 has a problem with the geographic map, (PMT) this talk page is the correct place to discuss it. Meanwhile I have restored the status quo ante. Apuldram (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jammu[edit]

From time to time Jammu is incorrectly removed from the list of places in the region and has to be replaced by an autoconfirmed editor.
This article is about the geographic region defined by the five rivers. Whether or not a place is within the region is determined by geography, not by political divisions or editors' opinions. The city of Jammu lies,at an elevation similar to that of Chandigarh, between the Chenab and Ravi, two of the rivers that historically define the Punjab region. This can be verified by reference to any good geographical map of the region. Jammu is located in the Punjab Doabs of the Punjab region.. The city itself and some districts are in the Rechna Doab, but some districts lie in the Jech Doab.
Some editors confuse Jammu City and districts, which are wholly within the Punjab region, with the state Jammu and Kashmir, only part of which is in the region.
I have added citations to the article, references to a map and to one of several Wikipedia articles which verify that Jammu is in the region. Apuldram (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no "historical" definition of Punjab because the region has never been clearly defined before the British decided what its political boundaries were. The Mughals never clearly defined what or where Punjab's boundaries are yet they were they ones to formally introduce the name to northwest India, generally splitting it between the provinces of Multan and Lahore. The British then gave their own shape to Punjab, which was different to that of the Mughals, at one point incorporating parts of Afghanistan into it (later split off to form NWFP) in addition to the old Hariana and so-called hill states. What you're doing here is original research by trying to include Jammu into Punjab. 92.4.161.52 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this page may require protection, as 92.4.161.52 may be trolling or may not know basic punjabi, PUNJ AB Punj (five) AB (water/rivers) Punjab = The land of five five rivers. Restating Apuldram, "This article is about the geographic region defined by the five rivers. Whether or not a place is within the region is determined by geography, not by political divisions or editors' opinions." This is not about the Punjab province. Clearly the Punjab region is at minimum the land between those five rivers, so all those areas must be included.
What you think is not important. Wikipedia acts as an encyclopaedia and therefore, articles require academic sources to corroborate what is presented here, not your personal POV. 92.4.161.52 (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


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.

Blacklisted Links Found on Punjab region[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Punjab region which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page: Yes check.svg Done Apuldram (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • http://ebooks.abc-clio.com/print.aspx?isbn=9781851099344&id=A1725C-7729
    Triggered by \bebooks\.abc-clio\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 03:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Population figures[edit]

I have removed the population figures from the table in section 4 Major cities. These were mostly out of date and those that had been updated were not from consistent sources or times. New figures could be introduced if an editor can find a verifiable authoritative source, such as a census, that provides a consistent basis for all of the cities. Apuldram (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)