Jump to content

Talk:Punjab

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taal Saptak (talk | contribs) at 01:52, 19 June 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Requested move 23 October 2013

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)[reply]


Punjab region → Punjab – 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)[reply]

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.
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Discussion

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)[reply]

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.

Order in Infobox

@Xtremedood: This article is not about current Punjab, India state of India. You can see in article, Indian region of earlier Punjab region includes Haryana, Delhi, Punjab, Jammu, Rajasthan which has far more area than Punjab, Pakistan, so don't revert again, discuss your issue here. Its not about punjabi people, still population of said region of India is far more than population of Pakistani Punjab. We have to also look at alphabetical order. See SAARC. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  06:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Pakistan's punjab region alone has 205,344 km2 (79,284 sq mi), as stated in this article: Punjab, Pakistan
The total region stated in this article is 355,705 km2 (137,338 sq mi).
Therefore, Pakistan has more than half of the land. It is simple math. Xtremedood (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we have to correct total region. --Human3015Send WikiLove  06:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rajasthan alone has 342000, dont edit war, we have to change total region.@Xtremedood:. It is also about alphabetical order.--Human3015Send WikiLove  06:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on Pakistan then you will see Azad Kashmir is written at top, then Islamabad and so on, everything is written in alphabetical order. Wikipedia is not a place of promoting national agenda. You may get banned under discretionary sanctions. You are continuosly doing same kind of editing on all pages. --Human3015Send WikiLove  06:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your proof that Rajashthan is a part of the Punjab region? I do not see any proof that all of Rajasthan was a part of the Punjab region.
The final portion of the lede states: "In Pakistan, it includes the Punjab province, Islamabad, parts of Azad Kashmir[3] (namely Bhimber and Mirpur) and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (namely Peshawar[4]known in the Punjab region as Pishore).[5]

In India, it includes Punjab state and Chandigarh union territory, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu Division, parts of Delhi and parts of Rajasthan."

From just this we can see that only parts of Rajasthan are a part of this. Pakistan according to the sources makes up more than half, so therefore it should be first. Xtremedood (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have to look for sources. What about alphabetical order? --Human3015Send WikiLove  07:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are clear. There is no reason to look for reasons to have India listed first, it shows a clear agenda and may violate WP:NPOV. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the region is in Pakistan and the majority of the population is in Pakistan, therefore Pakistan should be listed first. It is a matter of relevance. Wikipedia advertises itself as an online encyclopedia that focuses on relevance. Xtremedood (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are talking about current population, we must look for population for punjab region of those era when Delhi, Haryana, Jammu, Rajasthan were part of Punjab. Still population of India side of Punjab (of those era) is higher. Moreover, this article is not about Punjabi people. We should follow alphabetical order.--Human3015Send WikiLove  00:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order is objective; saying which country is more important to the region is subjective. Alphabetical order - and thus, India before Pakistan - is the most logical choice. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists also states that organization for terms in lists should be either by alphabetical order, or by date, according to the section directly below WP:LEADEMBEDDEDLIST. Dates aren't relevant here, so by official site guidelines, India should be first. Discussion closed. Referring to policies and guidelines first is always the best course of action. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else is alphabetical.
The religions section goes as following:
-Islam
-Hinduism
-Sikhism
-Christianity
However, if we arrange it alphabetically than Christianity will be on top, which composes a very small percentage of the region. It should be organized based on relevance. Xtremedood (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why you are ignoring India had Haryana+Punjab+Delhi+Jammu+Himachal Pradehsh+Parts of Rajasthan? Is it minority population or area? Or very small percentage in region? No one is supporting your personal views, better you close this issue. --Human3015Send WikiLove  04:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Xtremedood: NO. Absolutely, positively NO. What part of "manual of style" do you not understand? Lists are organized alphabetically per site policy, period. Your opinion is entirely irrelevant to the matter and if you try to edit based on that, you're going to be in hot water not only for edit warring but also for intentionally rejecting and violating site policies. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New figures

I have reverted the edits of 11 September 2015, which introduced new unsourced and controversial figures. For example:
(1) the area of the region was increased to 445,007 km2 (171,818 sq mi). What was the source of this figure? How can the area of a geographical region change?
(2) the population of the region was increased to 200 million. Certainly the population has increased, but where does this figure come from? It is not in the newspaper article about Pakistan given as a reference to support the entry. Also, newspaper articles are not reliable sources for this kind of data. Official census reports or estimates by reputable demographic agencies should be found.
(3) parts of Jammu division and Rajasthan are in the region, but were removed. Why?
Without verifiable reliable sources, the new claims are no more that someone’s opininion or original research. Apuldram (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of Jammu and Rajasthan were included in the Punjab region in the article but were definitely not included in the total area and they are not generally thought of as being in the "Punjab region" so I merely removed them and added the remaining states/provinces areas to get that total area. Population data is merely from the censuses of the countries. That section was unsourced before the edits as no one else bothered to update them. Filpro (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jammu region is within Punjab region in India and Pakistan. As only Ganganagar of Rajasthan is considered within Punjab region, it does not need to be listed in the info box but Jammu Division should be left in. Malikhpur 19:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turko-Persian vs. Turkic Empires in Northern India

Hello, in the first paragraph, I have changed the term "Turkic" to "Turko-Persian"; as the later is more accurate historically. While the conquering empires, from Ghaznavids to Mughals had traces of Turkic heredity, the culture was largely Persianate - hence the Persian language word "Punj-ab". As such, "Turko-Persian is more accurate. Please discuss further here if you feel the need. Vdr11 (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16A2:57B:B500:F1B8:C526:702B:64A1 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Punjab (region). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Archive unsuccessful. Archive source checked: 404 not found. Apuldram (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punjab (region). 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}}).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
    Wayback machine reports "The page cannot be found" Apuldram (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

This article is very inconsistent when it comes to the area classified as Punjab. The entirety of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh are classified as being part of the Punjab region which, outside of a period when they were a combined state, is not factually accurate. It only becomes more confusing when the article claims the demonym of the region is Punjabi yet includes Haryanvi and Rajasthani people into the overall population. The region of Punjab is the areas where the rivers of punjab run through. That means Pakistan Punjab, India Punjab and only parts of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh make sense. Ignoring the fact that the rivers themselves dont run through most of Haryana, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh the culture, language and history of those people would never be classified as belonging to the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeASdq (talk • contribs) 21:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Punjab region is a geographical entity through which the five rivers flow. The area is not limited to the rivers themselves. If that were the case then Ludhiana in Punjab India would not be considered to be a part of Punjab region nor would the Pothohar sub-region of Punjab Pakistan. Accordingly, Himachal Pradesh is included in the concept of the Punjab region as the area was traditionally classified as the Punjab Hills region. Only parts of Rajasthan are included due to linguistic and cultural ties. The article does not claim that Himachali and Haryanvi culture is Punjabi. Only the geographical limits are considered when defining the Punjab region. Malikhpur (talk) 01 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course when I say the regions of the river I'm referring to the areas within the drainage basin. Hence Ludhiana is clearly within the Punjab region. I concede that the region of Himachal Pradesh fits into the regional definition of Punjab. That still doesn't explain why the entirety of Haryana is considered as belonging to Punjab. Only parts of Haryana are part of the river basin and in fact other rivers like the Ghaggar are the main rivers flowing through most of the region which are in way related to the rivers of the Punjab. So even looking at it from a strictly geographical limit view, the majority of Haryana does not fall into that region. So its niether geographically, culturally, or linguistically accurate. FeASdq (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana is included as the area between Satluj River and Yamuna River is considered as part of the Punjab region. Please refer to the book "Punjab" (1960) by Mr Randhawa. This is why the Punjab river waters are being shared with Haryana. Otherwise there would be no water sharing between Punjab and Haryana. Culturally, central and southern Haryana is a distinct region which is why Haryana state was created in 1966. Malikhpur (talk) 02 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you and you just proved my point. PARTS of Haryana are part of the Punjab but the the entirety. In fact, most of Haryana lies outside of the region. Just looking at which areas receive water from the Punjab rivers vs other river sources is proof of that alone (i.e. not all of Haryana is getting water from the Satluj river even when you account for sharing). The only real reason for including the entirety of Haryana is because it was part of the British administered region of "Punjab" which isn't really a strong point of evidence. FeASdq (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the political union between Haryana and Punjab is continuing into current times through both states sharing Chandigarh as the capital. Malikhpur (talk) 08 July 2016 (UTC)

This debate appears to depend on whether the British Punjab Province should be considered to have been in the Punjab of this article. My opinion is it should, as many books refer to it in this region, including Sikhs of the Punjab by J. S. Grewal and the one cited above by Malikhpur. It then follows that all of Haryana, originally part of East Punjab, is in the region defined by this article. Apuldram (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Apuldram that Haryana falls within the Punjab region. Harayana was created in 1966 after India gained independence and as I have said, it still shares its capital with Punjab. The two states are still politically connected. Malikhpur (talk) 16:57 09 July 2016 (UTC)

Amritpal Singh Mann's map

@Amritpal Singh Mann: Please provide some sources for your map (File:Punjab (orthographic projection).svg). Punjab doesn't include the entire Jammu & Kashmir and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. utcursch | talk 04:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch:

5 of the following 7 maps show Jammu & Kashmir and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as part of Punjab.
- Sikh Territory, Walker, John, 1839
- Der Sikh - Staat, C. Flemming, 1850
- Imperial Gazetteer of India, Hunter, William Wilson, Sir, (1840-1900), Cotton, James Sutherland, (1847-1918) ed. Burn, Richard, Sir, (1871-1947) joint ed. Meyer, William Stevenson, Sir, (1860-1922). joint ed.
- 1853 Map of Punjab and Adjoining Countries, Surveyors General of India, 1853
- 1853 Political Division of Punjab after Treaties of 1846, Cunningham, 1853
- The Kingdom of Lahore during the last years of Sikh rule, Bertholomew, Edin
- Empire of the Lahore Durbar, Heer, Navtej Singh, 2015
Further, the projection is only an approximation, drawn from the information available in books and maps predominantly drawn by the British colonial mappers. The boundaries may slightly vary but overall based on the five rivers, language, culture and history that is the location and shape of the region.
Apologies, may I ask who you are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amritpal Singh Mann (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Amritpal Singh Mann: I'm just another editor. As for your maps:
  • Sikh Territory, Walker, John, 1839 - -- If you're referring to Map of the Sikh Territory : and of the protected Sikh States, in the neighbourhood of the Sutluj River, it doesn't show all these areas as part of the Sikh territory, let alone Punjab
  • Der Sikh - Staat, C. Flemming, 1850 - Limits "Pendschab" to the east of Indus, labels Kashmir etc. separately
  • Imperial Gazetteer of India, Hunter, William Wilson, Sir, (1840-1900), Cotton, James Sutherland, (1847-1918) ed. Burn, Richard, Sir, (1871-1947) joint ed. Meyer, William Stevenson, Sir, (1860-1922). joint ed. - If you're refering to the map of "The Indian Empire" before the title page, it directly contradicts your map, shows Punjab as much smaller
  • 1853 Map of Punjab and Adjoining Countries, Surveyors General of India, 1853 - Explicitly says "Adjoining Countries", which are not same as "Punjab"
  • 1853 Political Division of Punjab after Treaties of 1846, Cunningham, 1853 - The map is titled "Punjab &c." (&c. means "etc." -- not same as "Punjab")
  • The Kingdom of Lahore during the last years of Sikh rule, Bertholomew, Edin - I can't find this map, but "Kingdom of Lahore" is not same as "Punjab"
  • Empire of the Lahore Durbar, Heer, Navtej Singh, 2015 - This map explicitly shows Punjab as the area between Indus and Malwa; it shows Ladakh, Baltistan, Kashmir etc. separately. "Empire of Lahore" is not same as "Punjab".
utcursch | talk 05:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch: chill mate, it's only an approximate orthographic projection of a region and not a country! Read the description: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Punjab_(orthographic_projection).svg

You've seen the maps, they don't match one another. Therefore it is not possible to get the projection absolutely correct.

Regarding Jammu and Kashmir:

Regarding Ladakh, Baltistan and Ladakh read the history of Zorawar Singh Kahluria

Apologies, but I don't have the time to argue with you. Let me know what you've got a problem with, i'll consider adding/removing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amritpal Singh Mann (talk • contribs) 08:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The image isn't helpful. The location of the Punjab region in the subcontinent is already shown in the first map. An image of the globe doesn't add anything useful and is an unnecessary distraction. Apuldram (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mate! the reason I wasted my time and made the projection in the first place, was because I had a problem explaining to my friend where my parents originated from. Adding the image will make it easier for me and other people like myself. If not my map, then add some other image but a globe with the Punjab region is a MUST!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amritpal Singh Mann (talk • contribs) 09:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Zorawar Singh Kahluria etc.: If a general from Punjab achieves military success in Ladakh, Ladakh doesn't become part of Punjab. Sikh Empire included Punjab, it was not a synonym of Punjab.
Feel free to create a map that depicts Punjabi-speaking area, or Punjab provinces of India and Pakistan. utcursch | talk 01:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch: Bro chill, it's just a map.

No, why would I create a map of the Punjabi-speaking areas or the provinces and say that it's a map of the Punjab region, when it's not! Unless you have a legitimate argument, i'm not altering the map I've created. If you don't understand the basis of my orthographic project then read the description. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Punjab_(orthographic_projection).svg

Stop wasting yours and my time in an irrelevant argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amritpal Singh Mann (talk • contribs)

Have a look at WP:BRD. Your map is not a map of the "Punjab region": two other people have objected to it. Please do not add it back without gaining consensus. utcursch | talk 12:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amritpal Singh Mann:.. This map is not at all accurate.. Please include regions of Punjab, Pakistan & Punjab, India. We dont want GPS type accuracy, but things like including Jammu & Kashmir is not valid. If you want a refernce .. check this image File:Punjab_Map.png --Yohannvt (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is not to include the image of the globe at all. It does nothing for the article. The comment above by Amritpal Singh Mann: "Mate! the reason I wasted my time and made the projection in the first place, was because I had a problem explaining to my friend where my parents originated from." is not sound, as the article would have to be in front of the friend for the image of the globe to be visible, in which case the written text of the article and the existing detailed map showing the location of the region already provide better information. Apuldram (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This has been posted on the Dispute Resolution notice boardYohannvt (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punjab. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punjab. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias of blatant "proud" Hindu User:Utcursch

Hello,

User:Utcursch reverted my edit, claiming the esteemed linguist Christian Lassen's work, which was originally in LATIN (of all languages), published in the mid/early 1800s is superceded by some bit-part Hindu scholars from the 1900s.

It is astounding that Utcursch continues to get away with his BJP-centric agenda, especially as a non-permanent resident of Canada who is hoping to acquire citizenship with his blatant pro-Hindu agenda.

Can someone tell me how a pseudo-wikilink to an India-only journal (unsurprisingly italicised as [Current Science], yet lacking a real wikipedia entry) is a WP:reliable source? It's comical that these sorts of references are defended by Utcursch, but it shouldn't be surprising. "Gaming" of Wikipedia via edit *quantity* (as opposed to *quality*) as resulted in his ilk getting too much authority on matters where they're emotionally and, quite frankly, politically/socioeconomically invested.

Secondly, it even says in the Hobson reference, and I QUOTE

No corresponding term is used by the Greek geographers. "Putandum est nomen Panchanadae Graecos aut omnino latuisse, aut casu quodam non ad nostra usque tempora pervenisse, quod in tanta monumentorum ruina facile accidere potuit" (Lassen,Pentapotamia, 3). Lassen however has termed the country Pentepotamia in a learned Latin dissertation on its ancient geography. Though the actual word Panjāb is Persian, and dates from Mahommedan times, the corresponding Skt. Panchanada is ancient and genuine, occurring in the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. The name Panj-āb in older Mahommedan writers is applied to the Indus river, after [The Greek definition]

So there is no argument from Hobson that the original term of "Five Rivers" was defined and coined in Greek, even though the current usage is Persian. However, that does not mean the original content of the translation was defined by the filthy meat eaters.

Thirdly, the reference to MacDonnell, an equivalent copout to the one from Hobson (BOTH are SIMPLY GLOSSARY entries, not even describing the history or etymology of the term; merely defining in the current verbiage), does not reference the history at all.

When will Utcursch be held accountable? Or his yearn for citizenship by pushing his pro-Hindu agenda (something his people in Ontario get away with, because they are sycophants of Bob Rae) more important than the truth.

To step on Lassen, without demonstrating any scholastic achievement (any type of undergraduate degree could possibly suffice here), on the basis of being an administrator, is egregious.

It is pretty clear that the origin of Punjab, even if it may be persian *now*, was derived from Pentapotamia (which means FIVE RIVERS). Just because the SOOLAI took the gist of the term and translated it to their own language, it does not mean that it was the true etymology of the word.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.154.39 (talk • contribs)

This is not really worth replying to, but for those who are watching this page:
  • The anon is a troll / vandal. For example, see [1][2][3][4], or just read the above message ("filthy meat eaters" etc.)
  • I did not undo anon's edit because "Christian Lassen's work [...] is superceded by some bit-part Hindu scholars from the 1900s." I undid it because the Christian Lassen translation cited by the anon is a machine translation with several errors, and the other refs cited in the article do not support the anon's claim.
utcursch | talk 03:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Treaties

Many treaties on Punjab and Kashmir are linked.

Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846).

Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the First Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.

The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.

The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company.

Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

We need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too.

Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'

Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession.

Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"

Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.

Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 June 2020

– This is suitable for a disambiguation page. Punjab often refers to either the Indian or Pakistani state. Having this page merely named "Punjab" only confuses readers, as the title does not make it clear which "Punjab" is it referring to (one of the states, or the region). A much better solution is to rename this page to Punjab Region, as that is what it refers to, a region named "Punjab". The states named "Punjab" are not named just "Punjab" for this reason. That would be too ambiguous. Instead, searching "Punjab" should lead to Punjab's disambiguation page, where the correct page can be selected. I-82-I (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I've ever seen the contemporary sub-national entities referred to as 'The Punjab'. 'The Punjab' clearly refers to the whole historical region, not to either sub-national division. I am aware of WP:THE, but considering WP:NATURAL, the use of the definite article is the most concise way to disambiguate this article. RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The disambiguation page provides a very relevant information with their respective links. Punjab region, Punjab state of India, Punjab provinces in Pakistan, other provinces in Afghanistan and also the Old historical geo-region and its provinces are very well mentioned. Any one who is reads wikipedia will find the disambiguation page more helpful than the punjab region page as the disambiguation includes the Punjab region as well as others too. This make wikipedia more useful and ease.for access to information to the users. I highlu support that Disambiguation page of Punjab gets easy access when one searches just 'Punjab'. Taal Saptak (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Punjab&oldid=963304281"