Talk:Punjab, India/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

this article should be designated a stub

Please state your reason why? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


It says in the article : "The Indian government's reaction to the movement for Khalistan was to declare Punjab as a disturbed area and to grant the security forces draconian powers in the hopes of crushing the militancy and support for an independent state by force."

Yet this mentions nothing of the actions of terrorist groups which masterminded things such as the Golden Temple occupation and the violence committed by them. It seems that the blame is being shifted entirely to the Indian government which is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please feel free to add any additional information you have! Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Before trashing the Khalistan Movement, which i have no doubt u will do judged on your rather ignorant perspective of the troubles which engulfed Punjab in the 1980s and 1990s, you should educate yourself as to what happened in Punjab in the 1970s and 1980s, with special reference to the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. This document, whilst being proclaimed by the Sikh leadership, justifiably, as a federalist document, was portrayed, rather cynically i might add, by the Indian Government as a seccessionist act, and it was this act of stupidity on behalf of the Indian Govt, via Gandhi which propelled Punjab into the troubles of the 1980s. Moreover, the "terrorist" acts you so vividly describe (note the sarcasm here) have not been validated, or are you merely going to attribute the killing of any civilian between the period of 1984 to 1993 as terrorist affliated. Go and educate yourself on the Cats of Punjab Police...true Kharkoo Singhs never killed any civilian out of cold blood...yes criminal elements did use the Khalistan Movement as cover for heinoues activites, I have no doubts about that, but a differentiation should be made between these criminals and true Kharkoo Singhs who died defending their religion...the response of the Indian security apparatus was a heavy handed approach to any should read the Indian Army Manual which describes any baptised Sikh as a potential fountainhead of should ask yourself why is it, that 13 years after the Indian Government itself declared militancy to be over, that Amnesty International is not allowed to operate in Punjab, or why is it that 50 or so Sikhs are still being held under TADA, which expired more than a decade ago...if you want an educated debate, then please respond, if you dont, then still respond...i'll prove you wrong on either account

Disambiguation page created[edit]

Alright, I went ahead and created a disambiguation page, my first. Since there didn't seem to be one distinguishing between the region, the indian state and the pakistani province, it appeared there was some confusion. Punjab nowe redirects to the disambiguation page, and the original Punjab page, which referred to the region, is now Punjab_region.

--bikehorn 06:13, 30 August 2005 (UTCsssoldkfsdopss


Should we discuss the states reorganisation I mean from 170,000km2 for PEPSU to 50,000km2 Punjab! as to how PUnjab got a raw deal but has bounced back?


Does anyone have any ideas about the Science, Engineering and Technology capabilities of this Indian state? I am uncertain as to whether or not Sikhs are what Occidental individuals term 'model minorities' or if they are high achievers (I doubt that Sikhs are as capable of achieving as highly as the Chinese do in the US and UK, but then I digress....).

Remember, this page needs a SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY section. Perhaps a listing of the journals that the Univerisites within the state are known to be singificant contributors to. Perhaps even some famous Nobel Prize Nominees (or, better still, WINNERS) would be a good idea.


Yes there is a Punjabi Nobel prize winner - Har Gobind Khorana -Nobel Prize for Medicine. --Oiws 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

translators needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation--D-Boy 13:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias in the first Body Paragraph[edit]

This article seems to say many opinionated things about the Punjab region with backing them up with citations. Crispus 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Official Punjab Government citations have now been added in the section--Indian50 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that first paragraph is garbage and should be rewritten or deleted. Here's why:
Incorrect and shoddy information: "These character traits comes from Punjab's difficult history, particularly due to the number of outside invasions (Aryans, Persians, Greeks, Indo-Greeks, Scythians, Kushans, Indo-Sassanians, Turks, Mughals and Afghans) ..." First of all it would be good for this to have a reference. Secondly a couple of invaders entries are improper. While I'm not an expert, I seriously doubt that "Indo-Greeks" were invaders. Rather, the Greeks invaded and then became Indo-Greeks. For Aryan invaders the jury is still out, but even if there was an Aryan Invasion, I don't see the purpose of listing it. The modern Punjabi people are Aryans, and to say that you invaded yourself doesn't make any sense.
"... and retaliation from Punjabis in response to these acts. This heroism of Punjabis was highlighted with Alexander the Great's invasion of Punjab. One of the most notable being the Punjabi King Porus & his army's defence of Punjab." Living on the land corresponding to modern Punjab does not make you a Punjabi. Despite Porus living where he did, he was not a "Punjabi" king as in his time, thousands of years ago, there was no such entity known as Punjab, no Punjabi language, and no distinct Punjabi people and culture. We don't call the Romans Italians, do we? They hadn't become that yet. Thus while Porus & co. had their "heroism highlighted", they certainly weren't "Punjabi".
Unverifiable and meaningless POV: "Some of India's best intellectuals, business people, sports people, artists, military and political leaders come from this state. Punjabis customarily value and show great respect for their traditions and history. Traditional historic Punjabi culture is renowned for its tolerance, progressive and logical approach to life. [...] As a consequence it has some of the richest cultural history in the world." Tuncrypt 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I removed "Aryans" and "Indo-Greeks" from that section. Tuncrypt 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Some numbskull removed my comments. Tuncrypt 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


For those just arriving, the dispute is over the validity of a single sentence in the culture section:

user:Indian50 seeks to maintain it. I seek to remove it, and this matter, which I see as spectacularly obvious and trivial, has turned into a huge mess because of Indian50's antics and lack of fitness as an editor. Anyway, here is why the sentence is inappropriate:

  • It is subjective, opinionated, unverifiable POV.
  • Its sourcing is dubious, a lie of Indian50:
    • It was originally copied from a casual government/culture website and only now retroactively "sourced".
    • Indian50 reverted at least ten times (half a page of history) before adding the reference (simultaneously reading up on things and engaged in an edit war, how convenient!).
    • What's even more is that this line which he now seems to be able to so accurately source was not even added by him in first place, over a year ago.
    • He has already been shown to make stuff up. For the current line, "These character traits comes from Punjab's difficult history, particularly due to the number of outside invasions (Greeks, Persians, Scythians, Kushans, Turks, Mughals and Afghans) [1]" he fought hard for (as in, reverted) the inclusion of this ending to it, "and retaliation from Punjabis in response to these", until I pointed out that that bit wasn't in the reference link.
    • It still remains subjective and unverifiable POV. It's nonacademic and thus unlikely to be in that source. "Punjabis are logical", lol.
    • How can the single sentence/tidbit of "Traditional historic Punjabi culture is renowned for its tolerance, progressive and logical approach to life" be spread over 5 pages, according to the reference?

The admin User:Rama's Arrow, whom I contacted for help, has placed an edit lock on this page. He told me that at this point, in order to make the removal I need a consensus of editors. Therefore if you agree with what I'm saying, write it down here. Rama's Arrow agrees with me in this, so that's one person so far.

Another development is that after this incident Indian50 indulged in retaliatory vandalism of the Gujarati grammar page, which I edit. After this he was blocked for 1 week by Rama's Arrow for "violating WP:CIV/WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK and harassing another user."

For the whole story, check Punjab (India) - History on May 7, 15, and 16, and User talk:Indian50, User talk:Rama's Arrow, User talk:Tuncrypt, and Gujarati grammar - History on May 16 and 17. Thanks. Tuncrypt 03:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are in the right here, but a couple of points worth considering: I'm sure you are feeling very frustrated about the situation, but WP:CONSENSUS isn't about someone being right and someone being wrong, or taking a poll of who agrees with whom. I think it would help the process if we can remove the personal element here. It is unlikely that much of the contentious material could ever be rescued from POV, but in the spirit of conciliation, it is possible that evidence of "tolerance" (for example) could be made part of the description of the culture. Then again, it is not as if in an article about another culture one would note the "renowned intolerance" of its people. I don't know anything about Punjabi culture, so I can't suggest anything myself, but there might be a small amount of common ground in the dispute. Nposs 04:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think about it, this is not a matter of consensus, a reaching of an agreement by different interests. Instead, the case is that Indian50 has been objectively discredited or disqualified as a party to a consensus through his lack of any debate or comments, his reversions, his vandalism, and his lies. He simply will not discuss or give and take towards an agreement; he's just wrong. This whole matter is simple, and it is absurd that is has gotten to this. Remove the sentence, and that's it. Tuncrypt 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm thinking that the Culture section needs to go. It is objectionable and hollow... in pretty much its entirety. Tuncrypt 02:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Culture needs to go, its objectionable...

I think its fine, just because you think doesn't make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6gkl (talkcontribs) 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious factual errors in Agriculture Section[edit]

There was an Obvious factual error in Agriculture Section relating to % of india's rice, cotton and wheat produced in punjab. Corrected them based on the reference no.12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkrish (talkcontribs) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghale bakshian[edit]

Could someone with knowledge about Punjab take a stab at cleaning up Ghale bakshian? Thanks! Kingturtle (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Punjabi spelling of Singh[edit]

I request Punjabi scholars from Punjab India who learn to write Punjabi at school to kindly give the correct spelling of the word "Singh" in Punjabi, in the Singh article. Kindly please edit it for correct Punjabi spelling and provide a reliable acceptable reference at least on the discussion page.

Some foreign born editors keep misspelling it, it seems, I have corrected the Hindi spelling, kindly provide a reference for Hindi spelling too if possible.

Thank you in advance.

Atulsnischal (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Blatant demographics errors[edit]

How can Punjab be 55% Sikh and 48% Hindu, with additional minorities? People are pumping up the Hindu demographic and whittling down the Sikh percentage constantly, and only offer up dead links for reference. The numbers don't add up.

And to the Bihari who deleted "Recent Immigration," the influx of UPers and Biharis is indeed a growing concern within the Punjabi Sikh community. Being a Bihari yourself, you're in no position to declare it "biased."

It is frustrating to see the extent to which Hindutva propagandists control Wikipedia.

3swordz (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!! NEEDED for Article on Sikh Rajputs[edit]

Someone put a tag on "Sikh Rajputs" article that it will be deleted in five days etc., this article can not be deleted as Sikh Rajputs exist and most claims made in the article are true as well known to local Indians in Punjab only the need is that some interested and knowledgeable editors with access to proper history books etc. can eventually come forward and develop the article properly in time, quoting credible sources. Foreign born and raised editors with no direct local Indian knowledge are requested not to vandalize it as per their own fastly held thoughts and beliefs.


Atulsnischal (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


When you get time kindly assist with developing the Sikh Rajput article, it needs some badly needed refs too, it is being vandalized, check talk page.


Atulsnischal (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Math is not correct in this table.

Religion Adherents  % of total
All 24,358,999 100%
Sikhs [1] 18,000,000 59%
Hindus [2] 6,000,000 39.357%
Christians [3] 292,800 1.20 %
Muslims [4] 60,045 0.06 %
Buddhists [5] 41,487 0.17 %
Jains [6] 39,276 0.16 %
Others [7] 8,594 0.035 %
Not stated [8] 4,468 0.018 %

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) on 22:46, October 15, 2008 (UTC)