Talk:Punjab, Pakistan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:26, 26 July 2010

Punjab C‑class Top‑importance

	Punjab portal 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.PunjabWikipedia:WikiProject PunjabTemplate:WikiProject PunjabPunjab-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan C‑class Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Made major changes to article

Hello folks. I made major changes to the article by largely keeping much of the previous information and then expanding it and adding pictures as well. If there are any suggestions and comments I'd be glad to hear them. Thanks. Tombseye 10:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taxila Image in Punjab (Pakistan)

I think that the Taxila image (Taxila Buddha.jpg) would be more appropriate in Punjab region page rather than Punjab (Pakistan) page. I have removed that image from Punjab (Pakistan) page. Siddiqui 22:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've mentioned what you want to do, but haven't included the rationale for your decision. Why do you think the photo is not relevant to the Pakistan Punjab page?

Just a side note: When you revert changes, please don't revert constructive edits in between. I had resized all the images on the page so they were consistent. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Taxila statue is most relevant to Punjab region page as it is relevant to whole of Punjab than just to Western Punjab. The East and West Punjab should emphasize their own history and Punjab region should have their common history.

Siddiqui 15:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that reckoning, why not delete all history in the West/East Punjab articles that is related to pre-Partition? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course, we'd have to remove the Badshahi Masjid picture too then in that case as that was part of pre-Partition history. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why these hindus and sikhs use this word partition. We people of pakistan do not believe any partition type stuff. For my Forefathers who are from gujranwala distirict never say that there was a partition they say that 1947 when hindus and sikhs left our areas. This helped us to form pakistan the land of pure since the impurity of sikhs and hindus were thrown out of our areas. they say that we never considered hindus or sikhs our brotherhood. We always considered them foreigners in our lands since they have a different culture from us muslims. (Muhammad Usman)

Changed infobox

There's no point having an infobox if only one article uses it - each province plus Islamabad had their own infobox. So I've replaced the obsolete Template:Punjab-infobox with a generic one for all provinces and territories. Green Giant 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Eastern influence prior to Islam?

I think it is erroneous to say there was middle eastern influence in the Panjab prior to the coming of Islam. Prior to Islam, the culture of the region was almost wholly South Asian in nature. At most there was indeed significant Central Asian influence from the Sakas, Kushans, Huns and Parthians, as well as some Greek influence via the Indo-Greek kingdom but there was no real Middle Eastern influence prior to Islam. The Persians invaded sure but they did not significantly impose Persian culture on the locals. Hindu/Buddhist culture stayed the norm and the Persians pretty much just ruled. Middle Eastern influence did come with the arrival of Islam but even that was second hand influence, coming to them via the Turks/Afghans who got it from the Arabs a few centuries prior. Apart from Islam, Panjab is very much a South Asian region with significant Central Asian influence, due to it's proximity. At least this is the impression I have from it's history and the culture as I saw it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.1.97 (talk • contribs)

Sikh History section

Someone has inflated this section considerably. I don't have time to fix it now, but hopefully will do so soon. If not, I'm posting this here to see if anyone else wants to do it :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sukh I've compacted the section to a appropriate size.--Sikh scholar 06:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! That's much better, although I still feel it is too long. It has too much weight compared to say the section on the Mughals. It should probably be about a paragraph if possible. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disalusioned at the fact that it is destroyed and i intend to fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandeep 619 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANd make the devangari is there!--D-Boy 04:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

' == ''''''hey am dj zeus my name is ab . and i love pakistan . am in doha qater . ''Italic text'''''''' =='

Revision By Siddiqui as of 22:18, 1 January 2007

(edit) (undo) Removing unnecessary categories added by Intothefire

Siddiqui the categories are not unnecessary .The history of the peoples of subcontinent are a rich tapestry of a million strands . The history of people of Arabic extraction from the state of UP in India and Bareily is as factual as the history of Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs from the undivided Punjab before 1947 . The history of the Punjab is a shared legacy of various religious ,social , ethnic and even linguistic groups .This includes Hindus , Sikhs , Buddhist , Jains , Christians , as well as ethnically diverse people . This also includes the ethnically diverse people of the Punjab now settled in two different countries .The history of the India Punjab is similarly the combined legacy of people from different faiths.

Therefore please do not remove categories added .Intothefire 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The categories that you added were not appropriate to the subject of the article. "Punjab" is not a surname, and neither is it the name of a caste. References to those things should occur in the article itself, in their proper contexts. Then the articles they link to will have the appropriate categories. Otherwise the article will end up with dozens of categories for anything remotely connected to Punjab. ... discospinster _talk 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Why is Punjab importent to Sikhs? I need to know! ::) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.26.50 (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Punjab is important to Sikhs because prior to partition the Sikhs were scattered throughout the entire Punjab. Not to mention that Sikhs are ethnically Punjabis, this is why it is important to Sikhs and to Punjabi Hindus as well.Sunnysgrewal (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC))Sunnysgrewal[reply]

Well, Punjab is actually also important to Muslims because most Muslims living there right now were also once Sikh/Hindu. Pakistani Punjabi culture is like Indian Punjabi culture just the Pakistani side has more Muslim and Middle Eastern influences while Indian Punjabi has native influences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.217.107 (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Migrations

There were millions of Hindus and Sikhs that migrated from West Punjab to East Punjab while millions of Muslims migrated to West Punjab from East Punjab. Just adding info about Hindu and Sikh refugees while ignoring Muslim refugees is unacceptable. There were a million people killed of alll three faiths in brutal manner. Just naming victims of one relgion while ignoring others is not neutral point of view. There are millions of Pakistani Punjabis that were forced leave East Punjab in 1947. Indian contributors completely ignore thier miseries. All those suffered were victims regardless of thier faith. Siddiqui 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Migrations

Yes Siddiqui I agree with you that "There were a million people killed of alll three faiths in brutal manner. Just naming victims of one relgion while ignoring others is not neutral point of view. There are millions of Pakistani Punjabis that were forced leave East Punjab in 1947." The selective amnesia on either side does not contribute to a neutral point of view .If you had read my post you would have noted that it was carefully worded to avoid this . In any case I have now further highlighted this in my latest post .

While on the subject since you are diligently deleting my posts ...I found your non response to my post on the discussion page of Gakhar Hindus intriguing ...still awaiting to see your response.Intothefire 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian contributors ignore their miseries? How do you come to that conclusion, I admit the Hindus and Sikhs were out of order in fighting back. It was good Gandhi stopped the riots (at least in India). But they weren't forced to leave by the government, unlike in Pakistan (99% Muslim majority) where numerous Hindus were forced to leave their homeland because the government wouldn't allow them to stay. India became a secular democracy, while Pakistan became an Islamic Republic. That's the difference, India had Gandhi to ensure that the nation would remain secular, and because of that Zaheer Khan, Wasim Jaffer, Mohammed Kaif and Irfan Pathan are contracted by the Indian cricket team. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation file

It would be best it were replaced by a file of an actual Punjabi person saying "Punjab" in a Punjabi sort of way. Tuncrypt 12:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jinny lahor nai waikhea o jammya hi nai mean the person who did not visit lahore did not born yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razimian (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"An actual Punjabi person saying "Punjab" in a Punjabi sort of way"? What exactly do you mean by that? Statements like that are highly POV/biased. I suppose you would want the article edited by "actual" Punjabi people in a "Punjabi" sort of way? That is not the way Wikipedia works. I suggest you read the guidelines at "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", particularly "We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep". That means it is beside the point whether this pronunciation isn't exactly to everyone's standards as long as it gives a basic idea of the pronunciation. Remember that not everyone reading the article will be Punjabi, so for example a Cockney might pronounce the word somewhat differently from how a Punjabi person might. So, don't keep deleting the pronunciation file from the article unless you can conclusively prove that it is an incorrect pronunciation. In fact if you are such an expert on Punjabi pronunciation, why don't you record an ogg file and upload it so we can hear the difference? Green Giant 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Stop inserting the percentage of Hindus and Sikhs per district. Their is no such list in the Indian Punjab article. The article alrady mentions that their was a population exchange of Hindus/Sikhs, and Muslims. It also mentions that the region "was home to a large indigenous population of Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs unto 1947". IP198 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the info that you are tyring to insert, but it doesnt make sense to include these numbers in this article. A better idea would be to mention in each of these districts, the Hindu/Sikh percentage in 1941. For example in Attock district you can state that in 1941 Hindus were six percent of the polulation and Sikhs were 3 percent. This info is already mentioned in the article in a summarized form, and the list already exsists in Hinduism in Pakistan. Try reading the Indian Punjab article. It does not give a list of population prior to partition yet mentions that demographics changed during that period. Also do remember that even if something is sourced that does not mean it is automatically going to be inserted into the article. Try being reasonable and going into the individual districts pages, and mention briefly the population in 1941.IP198 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intothefire if your family came from West Punjab, you might feel strongly about including this chart, but you should remember Wikipedia is not a soapbox. IP198 15:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP198 please be civil and specific .The final aritrator for what should or shouldent be on a page is governed by wikipedia rules . Your deletions are based on your opinion and while the content you are deleting is sourced content .

Cheers
Intothefire 08:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not really a reply, as you said the same thing in your edit summary. Please this Npov#Neutrality_and_verifiability, and Npov#Undue_weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP198 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LITERACY RATES

"The literacy rate has increased greatly since independence. In 2003, over 53% of the population of the province was estimated to be literate by the Labour Force Survey. [1] What is meant by 'literacy' in this context? For example, is the ability to read Punjabi measured or just in Urdu or English? How is the ability measured? Eog1916 (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

Should this article be semi-protected since theres lots of edits by IPs and not all of them are contributing to the development of this article?--Ãlways Ãhëad 23:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

All Khatri, Jatt and Tarkhan surnames are found in Pakistan

All Jatt, Khatri and Tarkhan Surnames are found in all parts of Pakistan.Mostly they are found among Muslims and some are found among Hindus and Sikhs.So i request you not to remove this topic. 122.163.206.38 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The P in Pakistan is for Punjab?

In the first paragraph it says the P in P-akistan stands for Punjab, this is not sourced and to the best of my knowledge (having lived in pakistan) this is untrue. The Pak in Pak-istan stands for pure and the 'istan' is derrived from other central asian states. I think the above should either be properly sourced or removed from the article. Khokhar (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the 'geography' section. Khokhar (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this, seems the 'acronym' has been lost over time though both meanings are supported.

"'Pakistan' is both a Persian and an Urdu word. It is composed of letters taken from the names of all our Indian Sub-continent homelands; that is, Panjab, Afghanistan (Pashtunistan), Kashmir, Sindh (including Kach and Kathiawar), Tukharistan, Afghanistan, and Balochistan. It means the land of the Paks- the spiritually pure and clean. It symbolizes the religious beliefs and ethnical stocks of our people; and it stands for all the territorial constituents of our original Fatherland. It has no other origin and no other meaning; and it does not admit of any other interpretation. Those writers who have tried to interpret it in more than way have done so either through the love of casuistry, or through ignorance of its inspiration, origin and composition." Now or Never; Are We to Live or Perish Forever? - 1933 Khokhar (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

etymology

Pan in Sanskrit means five and Aap is water. So from Sanskrit Panjab would be the five waters or five rivers. Old Persian and Sanskrit are similar languages of Indo European origin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.43.195 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it comes from Punjabi "Panj" means five while "ab" which may come from Farsi means river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.217.107 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab is derived from Sanskrit. "Panch" or variants mean "Five". "Ab" (also related to Appu for water) means "water". "Ab" is Sanskrit is often used in classical texts to denote a "swell" of water, as in a swiftly flowing river. Deriving this from Persian is wierd. Punjab was the "Land of Five Rivers" since Vedic times, long before any persian influence in the region due to the advent of islam (last 1000 years or so). Of course, Persian has cognates that sound similar to Sanskrit. That is to be expected really, since both are Indo-Aryan sister languages.

No that's inaccurate, the Persian word Panj Aab was the name used by the Persian speaking people who invaded this land. This name (Panjab) dates from the Muslim medieval period not the Vedic period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.183.248 (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Punjab (Pakistan)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Punjab (Pakistan)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceB":

From Punjabi language: "Majhi" is a word used with reference to many other places and dialects in north India; these have nothing to do with the Majhi dialect of Punjabi
From Mughal (tribe): Tribes and Castes of Punjab by H. A Rose page 476
From Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan: http://www.risingkashmir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22616
From Punjabi Rajput: Census of India 1911 Punjab by Pundit Harkishen Kaul
From Awan (Pakistan): Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India, Ian Talbot
From Punjab (India): http://punjabgovt.nic.in/punjabataglance/SomeFacts.htm

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been repaired. Salamurai (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Rodhull andemu 21:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) ~~~~[reply]

In order to be uniform with Punjab (Indian state), it would be best to rename Punjab (Pakistan) to Punjab (Pakistani province). 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: Looks unusual now Indian article has been renamed. --92.19.26.39 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Things should seem uniform on Wikipedia; we don't need confusion. --AnonyLog (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The request to rename this article to Punjab, Pakistan has been carried out.

If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Punjab (Pakistani province) → Punjab, Pakistan — - this article was only moved because someone was concerned that Western readers might confuse Indian Punjab and the historical Punjab articles. To my mind this wasn't good reasoning, and I believe that this article is best located at the simplest possible name, allowing for necessary disambiguation (i.e. which country it is in). Green Giant (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Support This article talks about the current Punjab state that is located in Pakistan, not the historic one. warrior 4321 21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the move but isn't the use of a comma with placenames an Americanism? — AjaxSmack 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 160: / Line 160: @@
 [[Punjab (Pakistani province)]] → {{noredirect|1=Punjab, Pakistan}} — - this article was only moved because someone was concerned that Western readers might confuse [[Indian Punjab]] and the historical Punjab articles. To my mind this wasn't good reasoning, and I believe that this article is best located at the simplest possible name, allowing for necessary disambiguation (i.e. which country it is in). [[User:Green Giant|Green Giant]] ([[User talk:Green Giant|talk]]) 04:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 '''Support''' This article talks about the current Punjab state that is located in Pakistan, not the historic one. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Warrior4321|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:red">'''w'''arrior</span>]][[User_talk:Warrior4321|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:green">'''4'''321</span>]]</span>  21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
+*I don't care about the move but isn't the use of a comma with placenames an [[WP:ENGVAR|Americanism]]?  — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User talk:AjaxSmack|<font style="color:#fef;background:navy;">''' AjaxSmack '''</font>]]</span> 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)