Talk:List of people from Punjab, India

Misleading title...
Would it be appropriate if this article was moved to List of Punjabis in India or List of Indian Punjabis? Half of these people were probably not born in Punjab, India. Filpro (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Need clarity regarding the article's title and scope.
Due to the ambiguity of this article's title, it has lost its main purpose, which I believe none of the present contributors know about. Therefore, from being the 'list of people from Punjab, India', it has turned into a list of people of Punjabi descent, which surely shouldn't be the case. That's because an article regarding that is already present - List of Punjabi people. So, this article needs cleanup but that can only happen when its title and scope becomes clear.

So, starting with the title, does 'Punjab, India' means the present-day Indian State of Punjab. If that's the case then only those people who were born in the geographical area, which is now defining Punjab, India, should be included in this article. Or does it mean the erstwhile East Punjab. Or does it points toward the larger Punjab region of the undivided British India, i.e. Punjab Province (British India)? Or does it mean something else? I think Shyamsunder - the creator of this article - can easily clarify it. Please tell us regarding the scope of the article as well. In fact, anybody who wants to give his/her views is invited. The purpose of this query is to improve this article along with controlling the vandalism done to it, which, at the present uncertainty, is impossible to stop.-NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Punjabi is an ethnicity. Whoever self-describe themselves as Punjabi would be in its scope. The place of birth is not relevant, and neither is nationality. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * But that purpose is already served by the List of Punjabi people. So, what's the need of this article?-NitinMlk (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry I misunderstood what you were asking. This article should cover people from the area covered by the present-day Punjab, India, even if they were born before the state was formed. But I suggest we should be liberal with contentious cases, and let them be included. Everybody from Chandigarh should probably be included. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. But why should people from Chandigarh be included as Punjabis. It's a Union Territory. Neither Haryana nor Punjab governs it. It is separate entity which is governed by the central govt. Tomorrow some Haryanvi will call people of Chandigarh as Haryanvis. So, why should Chandigarh people be called Punjabis?-NitinMlk (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It follows from my suggestion to be liberal with contentious cases. Chandigarh is contentious. If the Haryanvis want to include such people in their lists, that is fine too. We don't need exclusivity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Chandigarh would've been contentious if either Haryana or Punjab had governed it. But that's not the case. It's a separate entity. Just tell me how is it contentious?-NitinMlk (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Punjabis already feel aggrieved that Chandigarh wasn't given to them. If you start excluding Chandigarh people from the Punjab list, you would be provoking that aggrievement. I foresee trouble. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean that mob rule will decide the entries in an encyclopedia. That's unbelievable. Didn't expect such response from an experienced editor like you.-NitinMlk (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Our time is best spent providing information to readers. We shouldn't waste it fighting battles and settling scores. Some battles are unavoidable. This one isn't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I regard Chandigarh as belonging to both Punjab and Haryana. So people from Chandigarh can be listed in both the lists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Without authenticity, the encyclopedia is useless. And that would be ridiculous to call people of Chandigarh as Punjabis or Harayanvis. They were born, raised & governed in a separate territory. Both Haryana & Punjab can do only lip service to make claim over it. But neither of them has control over it. In fact, it was built by the central govt. & it also controls it.-NitinMlk (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And here's the rub. For example, how should we deal with people born in what is now Chandigarh but which was Punjab at the time of birth. And what about people born in X simply because their parents happened to be there at the time (festival, holiday, work) even though they usually lived in Y? Where is the cut-off point? And does it work in reverse, eg: someone born elsewhere who ends up in Punjab? I've said this before and I will keep on saying it: lists such as this are utterly pointless. They should be deleted to save everyone a massive waste of time that, really, doesn't add to the encyclopaedia. A list so vague serves no useful purpose except self- and territorial-aggrandisement. Slash and burn. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, at that point of time, it was East Punjab. And if we make that as the basis of inclusion of people here then all the people from the area that comprised of the erstwhile East Punjab, i.e. Punjab, India, Haryana, Chandigarh and parts of Himachal Pradesh, should be included in this list. And if that happens then this article will lose its meaning - if it had any to start with.


 * Secondly, I totally agree with you regarding the usefulness of this kind of articles. They serve no useful purpose and consume enormous time of editors. But then we have to deal with all such articles - Lists of people from India by state - by the same yardstick because we can't have different criteria for similar articles.-NitinMlk (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Wikipedia is flooded with articles like 'List of people from X', where X stands for a city, town, County, State, Union territory, district, etc. So, they will remain here on Wikipedia in one form or another. Only thing we can do is to remove the ambiguity from their titles. e.g. why not to replace the title to 'List of people born in X'? The article will still remain as useless. But at least it will set the criteria straight. And the newer similar articles with the titles like 'List of people from X' will then be blocked on the basis of their ambiguous/vague title.-NitinMlk (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I notice in the prior deletion discussion that, now alas silent, seemed to be arguing it should be people who are resident/domiciled in Punjab. They didn't address which Punjab but, knowing that contributor as I did, I would strongly suspect they meant present-day Punjab. That, too, isn't a workable solution. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess the only valid option seems to be the inclusion of the people who were born or/and raised in the geographical region of which the present-day's Punjab, India is comprised of. And as long as its boundaries not altered by the government, this criteria will remain stable.-NitinMlk (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do fully agree. Under the present title of the article, only the people born/brought up in the area of present Punjab in India qualify to be included in the list.However, I don't deny that such lists serves no useful purpose.--SMahenS (Talk) 08:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But even then the criteria will remain undefined. e.g., let's say, a sportsman was born in the X1 State/UT. But his family shifts to the X2 State due his father's job-related transfer. His father gets again transferred after few years, let's say, to the X3 State. The sportsman then shifts to the X4 State for few years to obtain his graduation degree. And he finally settles down in the X5 State. But then shifts to the X6 State/UT for few years, let's say, for training purposes. So, which State/UT does he actually belong to?-NitinMlk (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Job transfers from place to place gets no weightage in this case but yes, if a person moves from the place of his/her origin and gets settled to a new place the case certainly deserves to be included in the list of both the places. See we can't be very restrictive in such cases. e.g. Mahendra Singh Dhoni is originally from Uttarakhand but his parents settled later in Jharkhand. We can certainly reflect him in the lists of both the states, but earlier Uttarakhand was a part of Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand was a part of Bihar and in this case adding Mahendra Singh Dhoni to the lists of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is certainly pointless. This is what I said and at the same time I also consider that such lists on wikipedia serves no purpose. Finally I say that its simply my opinion and nothing more. I don't stress on anything here.--SMahenS (Talk) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I totally understand your views. But your reply just conveyed the point I was making. And the point is that when everyone has to make opinions & estimations to just understand the article's title then that title is certainly ambiguous. And Wikipedia shouldn't permit creation of articles with ambiguous titles. In fact, WP:AT clearly states that the title should unambiguously identifies the article's subject, which isn't true in the case of this article's title. And that applies to all articles which are similar to this one.-NitinMlk (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sitush, what do you think about my above point? Can we use WP:AT against the creation of articles like this one? BTW, this talk surely got some attention. But hardly anyone of them got involved here. So, what should be done now?-NitinMlk (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What a mess. WP:AT is a policy and so certainly has its place. Arjayay raises some entirely valid suggestions below, as indeed have other people in their various ways. There was a fallacy in the prior deletion discussion, which noted that similar articles exist for other regions. WP:OSE is arguably a counter to that. I really just do not understand what purpose such lists serve. I know that there is an argument that we should have categories and lists, rather than one or the other, but in this case the fluid nature of the region, the fluid nature of the word "from" in the sense that Arjayay mentions, and the sheer number of problems that arise when dealing with newbies (who, in India, are often overly sensitive to regional issues) does make me wonder whether even trying to thrash this thing out is worth the effort. Are there even modern sources that really delve into the nature of a person from the region? It's not enough for them to say that someone comes from it, there really should be some distinguishing factors related to people from the region that makes such a list notable in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Does by 'mess' you mean my wrongful citing of the WP:AT or something else?-NitinMlk (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Determining what should or should not be in the scope of this list is a mess, ie: pretty much impossible to sort out in any way that is generally meaningful. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As one of those who have been watching, but has not commented to date, I wonder if some of the problems could be overcome by dividing the list into more defined periods - Each one of which could have a small explanation as to which area is being discussed, so overcoming the problems of which areas are included/excluded in which era - eras such as the Marathas, British Raj and Post Partition. In some ways this is already being done in parts of the list - as with List of people from Punjab, India and List of people from Punjab, India As for the "people from Punjab" question - it is usual in such lists to include people to whom the area in question played an important part in their life - be that being born there, living there for a long period, or playing an important role there. Insisting on birth means that someone who left when only a few days old, and never returned, would qualify, whilst someone who arrived only a few days old, but was raised and/or played an important role in the Punjab, would not. Although vagaries lead to "discussions", I don't think a hard and fast rule as to inclusion/exclusion would work - perhaps the person should "self-identify" as being "from the Punjab" - but we can't ask a Sikh Guru, or other historical figure. Finally, as discussed near the top, this is not (or should not be) a question of ethnicity - we already have a List of Punjabi people which obviously has overlaps with this list. I agree that in an ideal world such overlaps should be rationalized, but am sure we would spend months just arguing it round in circles. - Arjayay (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, your comment conveys the point I was making regarding the ambiguous nature of the titles like this one. You gave three 'usual' criteria regarding the inclusion of names in this list. And out of the three criteria, only the one relating to birth is unambiguous. Because let's take the second criterion, i.e. "living there for a long period". Now what is a long period? Is it five years, ten years, twenty years or something else? So, it depends upon the personal discretion. The same is true about the third criterion. e.g. we can take the case of badminton. India, at present, has more or less just two world-class academies of badminton. One is in Hyderabad - Gopichand Badminton Academy. And the other one is run by the Prakash Padukone in Bangalore. So, no matter from where you hail, you have to land at one of these two academies to become world-class - at least that's the case at present. So, all players from around the country are getting trained for variable number of years at these two academies. And thus, according to the third criterion, they can be called 'from' Hyderabad/Bangalore, which doesn't make much sense. Similarly, there are various centers opened by central government in different States/UTs which help athletes involved in specific sports. So, this third criterion is again ambiguous. And thereby we are left with the criterion related to birth, which you have already proved as useless. So, this just tells the worthlessness of articles like this one.


 * Secondly, what is the purpose served by these lists? I mean the Article 19 of Indian constitution gives Indians right to "move freely throughout the territory of India" & "to reside and settle in any part". And that's what's happening throughout the India. So, these lists will always remain vague & won't add anything to the knowledge base of Wikipedia.-NitinMlk (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As to whether the list has a "purpose", I think it does, but it is limited, especially as there are several parallel/overlapping lists such as List of Punjabi people, List of Punjabi authors, List of Punjabi singers, List of Punjabi-language poets and, dare I mention it, List of people from Punjab, Pakistan. I cannot see how these can easily be rationalized, whilst borders have changed, and will continue to change - hence my suggestion of eras above. You could try a deletion discussion, but the last one was almost unanimously a "keep", so I suspect you would lose, and, as stated above, such a list would almost certainly be recreated, and probably be in a worse format than the existing list. People have done what they can to rationalize this list, and although it is unwieldy, it works to a point. - Arjayay (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, the inclusion criteria are a problem, but as I said above "I don't think a hard and fast rule as to inclusion/exclusion would work" - Personally, I do not think attending a school, academy, or university is sufficient, on its own. However, someone who subsequently remains in the Punjab, or chooses to set up such an academy in the Punjab, and runs it for many years, would count.


 * The problem with the era-based idea is that we will spawn yet more lists of dubious merit, meaning yet more patrolling. And quite a few names will appear in several of the lists even though it will be nigh-on impossible to verify that they were significantly placed at the relevant time in whatever version of Punjab we are using. I'm seriously thinking of taking this to AfD again, given that practically everyone in this discussion seems to agree that it is pretty useless. Let's not forget that those involved here do have a greater understanding of the issues specific to Punjab than do drive-by commenters at AfDs. We've just got to persuade those drive-bys. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No alphabetical lists for this article needed
i see you had no problem with the list that was up before i made any edits which was NON-alphabetic as all lists on here are and now all of a sudden you are inclined to categorize only the revolutionary section alphabetically, Not Happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:de0:2f98:bdee:b344:c49a:2617 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia. not a popularity contest, we do not order our lists on your idea of how "popular" people are. - Arjayay (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)