Wikipedia

Talk:History of Punjab/Archive 1

< Talk:History of Punjab
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Trigarta in topic Factual validity of some sections remove
Archive 1

Incomplete?

Isn't this article a little incomplete? Heavy on the Sikh History; not much on Pre-Mughal or post-Sikh Pakistani Pubjab history.67.118.240.18 00:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I think this article is (1) politically unbalanced (heavily pro-congress, nothing on Punjabi grievances against the Indian state or Punjabi movements in Pakistan) or (2) tells us anything on Punjabi language, art & culture & finally (3) isn't written very well!!

Please will somebody with the academic prowess & will do a better job than I ever could!

Harmohn.

Use of BCE for dates

The writers of this article have used BCE (Before the Common Era) for dates. This is accepted usage for many articles in Wikipedia on Asian topics. It seems a common courtesy to use this convention for themes related to non-Christian subjects in non-Christian regions of the world. Here is a good discussion of this: The use of "CE" and "BCE" to identify dates.

While BCE is not universally used, it is commonly used by historians and theologians, and increasingly used by the media. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and presumably committed to learning), it seems entirely proper to use it. I think we should respect the writers' right to use this form of dating. Sunray 19:34, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

The usage was inconsistent when I first saw the article, and the Manual of Style, quite sensibly, requires consistency. It's best to use a universally understood term over one that is understood by only a few. That is a common courtesy to the reader - and after all, we are not writing academic articles, but articles for a general readership. There's no need to confuse

anybody. Google searches (which are likely to be biased in favour of what academics add to the web) show a 9 to 1 preference for BC. This is not surprising, "BCE" is a form that is just not generally used (or even understood) by many English-speakers. Finally, BC is a placemarker - not a religious statement - please don't bring religion unnecessarily into the discussion.

Incidentally, the article you cite refers to a Wikipedia article that contained information that was not backed up by references. The article was found to be over-emphasising the usage of BCE/CE and got some things just plain wrong. It has since been altered in line with supporting evidence, jguk 19:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Sunray. CE and BCE dating are commonly used by contemporary historians, and while they may be less popular that AD and BC, virtually anyone who reads much history or contemporary cultural studies will have encountered the terms. For anyone unfamiliar with the terms, a few minutes' inquiry is all that is needed to become familiar with them. One of the paramount values of Wikipedia ("absolute and non-negotiable", in the words of its founder) is the Neutral point of view; BCE and CE are terms which are accurate, easily understood, accepted in English usage, and widely used in historical and cultural studies, but also have an advantage over BC and AD in being consciously designed to overcome cultural bias. Please respect our efforts to write articles about South Asia that are as accurate, free of bias, and respectful of the subjects as possible. Tom Radulovich 20:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copy edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I'm going to do a copy edit on this as a start to cleaning it up. While the information is very good, the presentation is a bit stilted and complicated (see "when worse came to worst" and "were conquered by the Macedonian conqueror" etc). I can't argue with any of the references or content so I'll try not to touch that too much. --Nickj69 12:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

After reading the whole Ancient Literature saga I'm going to go with the Rigveda being "possibly the oldest work of literature" etc --Nickj69 12:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It's gone a bit beyond a copy edit now. I'm trying to streamline the article into some readable form, if anyone objects let me know. --Nickj69 08:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Punjab

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

who is the fist one,the name called PUNJAB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sut sami (talk • contribs) 06:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Vedic Punjab/ Epic Punjab

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No historical references are provided for the contents of the materials that suggests a unanamous consensus that Punjab went through Vedic or Epic periods. What is the source of the information and what is the purpose of it? --Princhest 16:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide historical references for the above request or it should be deleted as a mere matter of POV.Princhest 22:55, 2 Novemeber 2008 (UTC)
All Mythical references will be deleted. Princhest 20:09, 3 Novemeber 2008 (UTC)

Hop on the Aryan bandwagon

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Aryans came from the Iranian plateau and invaded India during Harrapan civilization. And now there running around claiming to be Aryans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 08:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Similarly in the second volume of Ain-e-Akbari, the title of a chapter includes the word Punjab in it.

Found the mention of Panjnad in the below link and adding it to the page replacing Punjab See page http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Ffile%3D00702050%26ct%3D0

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No clear consensus.

It seems like the new article Pre-Ghaznavid History Of Punjab ought to be merged into this page or some of the pre-existing pages linked to this one, due to duplication of subject matter. I'm not sure where's best though as I'm not an expert on this topic.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh05.kulwant (talk • contribs) 14:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It should not be merged. This article is well written. Merging that poorly written hindu narrative of history will also ruin this article too. So better leave this article as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.198.207 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This proposal has been superseded by a better plan and subsequent edits. See Followup action below. Apuldram (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

Followup action

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As suggested in the Merger Proposal, relevant information from Pre-Ghaznavid History Of Punjab has been suitably inserted in the other article History of the Punjab - under the existing Section : The Shahi Kingdom and the Muslim Invasions. The matter now added covers the period 9th and 10th centuries, which was a black-out period in the article - as is also the case in every textbook of Indian History. We have distinct preference for BCE and CE. Yet AD has been used in the matter introduced, because of earlier reference of AD in the relevant Section.

The Merger Propsal was very appropriate and is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtmwrite (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of the Punjab. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of the Punjab. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the Punjab. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the 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) 21:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If lead section is too long then I will remove the non-major and non native aspects of the history and replace them for the major native aspects of Punjabi history. The Vardhanas, Tughlaq and Sayyid empires need a mention and so do the Katoch and Tomara dynasty Trigarta (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Content that should be added or removed

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Fair enough lead section is too big however none of the other content needed to be removed as the relevant sources and description was added. I will add them back later Trigarta (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Also before removing my edits, let me know what needs to be added/changed. There is no need to remove them straight away Trigarta (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Im going to make a section on the Eastern Punjab republics (Yaudheyas, Arjunayanas, Trigartas, Audumbaras, Kunindas) in the ancient Punjab section as I feel their achievements and military victories deserve their own section. In the future I'll add the Tomara and Katoch dynasties battles with the Ghaznavids and the Vardhanas elimination of the huns from Punjab. @Sutyarashi Trigarta (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Factual validity of some sections remove

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fixed WP:TONE and WP:synthesis in Vardhana and eastern Punjab republics so maintenance warning should now be removed. Going to check over Tomara dynasty now. Trigarta (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Punjab/Archive_1&oldid=1226253845"