Talk:Punjabi language/Archive 2

Does not work link to Pakistanian Census (2008)
Link to: "According to the 2008 Census of Pakistan,[4] there are 76,335,300 native Punjabi speakers in Pakistan" does not work. Pamerast (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hint; I added a template. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Map under language codes
This map doesn't make sense, why are the Hindko and Potwari-speaking areas of Punjab province included as "Punjabi and Lahnda speaking" but not the Hindko areas of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa or the Potwari/Pahari areas of Azad Kashmir? saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 00:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

dialects
I've removed the dialect section because (1) it's not referenced and (2) it contradicts the article. (Also, wording like "Hazara Division's people" is almost unintelligible, but that's 2ary concern.) Because the definition of a language is highly contentious, we really do need a good reference, or, better, reference*s*, for any identification of Punjabi dialects. But we also need to be consistent: we currently define the article as ISO [pan] + [pnb], yet those codes do not cover many of the dialects in our list. If Lahnda etc. are to be included under Punjabi, then the ISO codes, population, geographic area, governing institutions, standard forms, and maps should all be in accord with that. If they don't, then we should note that various other 'languages' are sometimes counted under Punjabi, and not just list them *as* Punjabi without that distinction.

I suspect that many Indian "languages" listed in Ethnologue might be better seen as dialects, so I wouldn't be surprised if Lahnda etc. are best treated as Punjabi. That's not how my sources treat them, however. Also, if we consolidate Punjabi, it would be nice if we could do the same with other Indic and Dravidian languages. — kwami (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's back, so in the hopes that this will be fixed, I posted a warning that these "Punjabi dialects" are not Punjabi dialects according to this article; tagged it for lacking references, deleted all the useless links, and cleaned up the grammar and punctuation. Hopefully the next time I visit this will actually be a section on Punjabi dialects that a reader would be able to use in their research? If not, I'll probably just delete it again. — kwami (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Those are horrible references. 1909? And from the ones I looked at, they don't actually support the claims we make. The only refs which do were the websites, which I removed because they were not WP:reliable sources. So, despite all the footnotes, the section is still essentially unreferenced.
 * Are there any modern, reliable sources that these are the dialects of Punjabi? Your familiarity with the languages is very helpful: it should help you separate the wheat from the chaff. But we still need to reference which are the dialects of Punjabi, so that when we are challenged, we can defend our claims.
 * Come on, it's been weeks, and you're at a university where you should be able to find adequate support. If you can't support these claims despite all that, then they evidently don't belong in the article. — kwami (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of those are better. However, we still contradict ourselves, but first saying that Punjabi does not include Lahnda, and then saying that it does. We have another problem: UCLA gives the same population for E+W Punjabi that E16 gives for E Punjabi. UCLA is frequently wrong on these things, but then so is E16. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Its had been a nice experience you kept pushing me professionally and things are now getting clearer and improving on an up ward slide. Best Regards kwamikagami Maria0333 (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Map image breaches policy & has been removed
There is currently a deletion discussion taking place at Commons regarding File:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg, which can be viewed. Regardless of whether the map image is deleted at Commons, I think that it needs to be removed from all English Wikipedia articles because it breaches our synthesis policy. The image creator has provided a long list of sources in the deletion discussion and it is evident from those that none contain all of the information shown in the image, nor is it a simple task to work out which bits of information were gleaned from which source(s). We simply do not permit people to aggregate information in this way. It should also be noted that the chances are very high that the various sources did not even adopt the same methodology in compiling their data, which makes the analysis of the creator even more suspect. I have removed the image because the Commons discussion may end up as something other than "delete" and yet the thing is still invalid on English Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Map was deleted on two reasons. 1... Commons deletion discussion but now Deletion request by Sitush has been rejected on Wikimedia Commons. 2... Sitush has a self perception that map is synthesis, which is actually not because it is based on latest research of 2007 in the Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. So I am re inserting it. Unless Sitush prove it again as a synthesis and refer me the areas of map being synthesized also mentioning the different publications along with page numbers where from in his kind opinion I have synthesized the map.Maria0333 (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words?
What does "This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (May 2013)" refer to? Which section or part are they talking about here specifically? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Deceptive revert
In July 29 I made the edit that removed the word “majority” that is unsupported by the source cited. It also included some supplementary changes, such as replacement of a space and elimination of an excessive link.

Note that so “carefully” undid selectively my changes after several other edits, that I am almost sure that the MediaWiki undo function was used to produce it. When undo is called, it fills the edit summary field with MediaWiki:Undo-summary template, that includes a user nick (it should be my nick, in this case), but can be blanked (or otherwise altered) manually. If a user nick is linked in the summary, then MediaWiki alerts that user, that, in this situation, could prompt me to engage an intruder even if I did not watch this article. The edit summary was blank. Any experienced Wikipedian understood now what I had to say. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake. There were no sophisticated deception, only blatant WP:Ownership. The proof is here:
 * Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal April 2013
There is a new (re-opened) request to merge the Derawali dialect and Saraiki dialect articles into the Punjabi language article. The discussion will take place below. Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes do it. Do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.26.179 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The merger should be done, under the same article and all the minor dialects should be merged here. Fai  zan  08:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.86.159 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The merger should be done, under the same article and all the minor dialects should be merged here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.64.134 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Punjabi Relation with Isolates like Korean and Japanese
Korean is a language isolate but a fresh research from Modern Linguist Afzal Ahmed Cheema has raised new questions of its linkage to a remote located Indo Aryan language. It is perhaps the first scholar to have mentioned the words borrowed from/to the Urdu and its sister language Punjabi from/to Korean language directly or through English common lexicon. Here are a few of such words as per this research [Afzal Ahmed Cheema: 2010: Insight on Language Isolates] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malignea (talk • contribs)


 * It's a fringe, possibly self-invented and totally unsourced (see WP:Reliable sources) theory that User:Malignea presents, which is why I reverted his addition of thousands of kB of it to the article. By cherry-picking individual words it would be possible to "prove" that virtually any languages in the world are related to each other in one way or another. Thomas.W   talk to me  09:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can add that a search on Google does not in any way support the description of Afzal Ahmed Cheema as a "scholar" and "modern linguist". A more fitting description seems to be "local hobby linguist". See discussion on User talk:Malignea. Thomas.W   talk to me  10:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Thomas had it been so easy to make such list then please provide me ten words matching between Chinees and Spanish.Why not you focus on some thing relating to your own profession rather then engaging in to science of linguistics.Information is accurate.You can cross verify it from the referenced book or by checking the table word to word accuracy using Google translation so that your argument of Single book is just denied by cross verification on such famous reliable source and please focus on all other articles on WP which even dont have a single source or a single source.Korean has such basic words common with Punjabi and Urdu. Such research is very positive initiative on isolates like Korean, Japanese and Burushiski Language. Let them be reflected so that further research on isolates could be motivated to solve the mistry of isolates I do not care if Afzal Ahmed Cheema is popular or not. I have his book if you want it then I can email you the scan pages. You better focus on Validity of that basic words to word matched list on google translation rather then proving Afzal Ahmed Cheema a hospital employee. God help you.Malignea (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Fringe, guidelines/policies that I've pointed you to several times. Your repeated attempts to add your theories to Punjabi language and Korean language are just a waste of both your own time and everyone else's time since they're totally unsourced (a hobby linguist writing a paper about it is not a reliable source). Thomas.W   talk to me  16:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know and respect WP:Reliable sources and WP:Fringe rules I am following them so dont make general statements to run a way from this specific linguist discussion and prove your statements that any person as a hobby can make such list by providing me ten words matching between Chinese and Spanish. I am waiting for your list. Malignea (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thomas in last eleven days you failed to provide the list and proof your assertions then why you have again reverted relevant insertion. Malignea (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to prove anything, the burden of proof is always on the person trying to add something, i.e. in this case you. And since there are no reliable sources that support your fringe theories, only a paper written by a totally unknown local hobby linguist, you can't add them. It's as simple as that. Thomas.W   talk to me  12:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This doesn't even deserve a discussion. The only mention I can find of "Afzal Ahmed Cheema" are in the Wikipedia articles inserted by the banned user Maria0333 and his/her various sockpuppets. And I won't be surprised if Malignea turns out to be another one -- the edits look quite similar. utcursch | talk 17:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, I'll take a look at it, because I'm getting tired of this sh*te. Thomas.W   talk to me  17:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On further investigation, it seems nearly certain that Malignea is a sock of Maria0333/LanguageXpert and probably Afzal Ahmed Cheema himself (if such a person exists in real life). I am unable to find any mention of "Afzal Ahmed Cheema" outside of Wikipedia. A number of fake references supporting the research of Afzal Ahmed Cheema were inserted by Maria0333 in the various articles. For example, in this edit, the user has inserted "Phonology and Morphology of Panjabi " as a reference, saying it's written by Amar Nath and Cheema. A quick search for the book in the various library catalog reveals that Amar Nath Malik is the sole author. I'll undo all the edits that mention Cheema, but there is still a need to go through all the articles edited by Maria0333 and his/her socks: I suspect a lot of misinformation remains. utcursch | talk 18:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A search on Google returns a single person named "Afzal Ahmed Cheema", who according to his FB page lives in Islamabad, Pakistan. But there's no way to see if there's a connection between the real life person by that name and the "scholar and language expert" by the same name who appears here on WP. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I think administrative rights are given to people who do not have enough skills to convince normal users on the basis of CONTENT specific valid argumentations. UTcursch appears to me a holly wood movie action star with heavy emotions declaring enemies and targeting individuals rather then acting as a cool sober professional on validity on content. We must never target normal humans as an ethical practice. We can modify and amend materials to bring with Wiki standard using talk pages as a forum for building consensus. Secondly Developing countries do not have such scale of IT development that is why not every information is available on internet. Thomas you failed to proof what you said that is why I am not convinced. No person with out proper linguistic knowledge can make a list of common lexicon for two languages so you both user assertion is wrong. Any neutral reader can roll back and see why I am saying this. very un fortunate in fact. Malignea (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Devanagari
When/where is Punjabi written in Devnagari? The source provided is the same one that states the phantom four letters of Shahmukhi. —Wiki Wikardo 20:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have written a PhD dissertation at Harvard on the topic and have NEVER seen a Panjabi manuscript in Devanagari during my seven years of research. Take for example, a Hindu Vaishnava Text called the Hanuman Natak (1623). Despite being a Hindu sacred text, it was composed in Gurmukhi by Hirday Ram Bhalla. See the text here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205998072/Hanuman-Natak-in-Gurmukhi-by-Hirdaya-Ram-Bhalla Harvard2014 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Eastern and Western Punjabi
A huge general problem with the article is that laymen from the Punjab area keep messing with the article, and as a consequence, the article, and Punjabi dialects, is totally inconsistent with regard to the question if "Lahnda" including Western Punjabi and other dialects in Pakistan are part of Punjabi as treated in this article or not. Perhaps the best solution would be to rename it into "Eastern Punjabi", throw the Pakistan-related content out, and create a disambiguation page for "Punjabi language". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't be appropriate. Majhi is an "Eastern Punjabi" dialect which is spoken well inside Pakistan (and indeed is the main dialect there too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.202.73 (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Punjabi in India & Eastern Punjabi in Pakistan, have more difficulties understanding each other, then Hindko & Eastern Punjabi  in Pakistan have. Can you see the problem??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.154.66 (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ethnologue is utterly confused as to what Western Panjabi is supposed to be. They contradict themselves in several places: is it the western part of Eastern Panjabi, or is it Lahnda? Best ignore them; there are plenty of better sources available. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Lahnda" is one of the many dialects of Punjabi, so is Majhi, as observed by Kang & Brar in their survey published in 2010 . This coining of term is William Shackle's view and not necessarily a basis of dissection of Punjabi into Eastern and Western Punjabi, just like it would akin creating disambiguation pages for various English dialects. Language is not the dialect. Sirdaar (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger
Request to merge content from Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect, Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi, and Derawali dialect. Discussion here:
 * Oppose, These are the dialects of Punjabi Language, and there should be some information in the main Article, but no need to merge all of the content from these pages to Punjabi Language main article. Faizan (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The above mentioned dialects are recognised dialects of Punjabi. These should be mentioned in the main article and their respective pages should remain too.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Dialects should be referred in Punjabi language article, but have the own pages. No reason to merge. Sirdaar (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Content & References by User:Babanwalia
I am giving User:Babanwalia the opportunity to explain why he is removing valuable information on the three major scripts used to write the Punjabi language: Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi, and Devanagari. The information is sourced by a text published by Cambridge University Press and numerous other sources corroborate it. Should User:Babanwali continue to revert, I am going to start an RfC here in which the Wikipedia Community can decide whether this information will be retained or not. I should note that User:Babanwalia has been twice over at Wikimedia Commons by User:Stemoc for removing Devanagari from the image used in this article and I agree with User:Stemoc's edits. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Writing Systems of Punjabi language
Should this article and its photograph in the infobox mention that Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi, and Devanagari are used to write the Punjabi language? AnupamTalk 17:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Should this article mention that Devanagri is one of the official script to write the Punjabi language or was it just used historically by certain groups? --Babanwalia (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Putting new timestamp for the bot. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose InclusionFirst of all, coming to the facts. I did NOT remove any reference (merely re-positioned it), so there's the veracity of that!


 * Secondly, Devanagri was definitely used by some Hindus living outside core Punjabo-phone region (Himachal, Haryana) but it is neither the officially recognised nor the popular script to write Punjabi anywhere across India. It was, is not now. There has not been any appreciable Punjabi literature produced in Devanagri. Writers employ the only two scripts: Gurmukhi in India and Shahmukhi in Pakistan. So does the government which uses Gurmukhi Punjabi in Delhi, Haryana, WB or wherever Punjabi has official recognition. Just because some fringe groups employ Devanagri doesn't guarantee it the right of being called a script of that language. Moreover, Devanagari is not taught in any of the schools anywhere in the world to teach Punjabi. Even in Haryana, Himachal and Delhi, Gurmukhi is taught. Where is the Devanagri version of Wikipedia when Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi versions are extant and growing?!


 * Devanagri has the same relation with Punjabi as it has with Gujarati i.e. it was historically used not anymore (except by a few families here and there perhaps!). I don't see Devanagri being imposed on Gujarati anywhere!? If we use that logic, even Roman should be listed as its script since millions of Punjabis from both sides of the Indo-Pak border rather write Punjabi using Roman script on social media. If just the usage by some is the criterion here, then Roman should be the given the front seat, not just to Punjabi but to other Indian languages too since many Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims et al write Hindi/Punjabi/Gurmukhi in Roman! Please visit this page and tell me for how many of the wiki articles of these languages, all the scripts (popular or not, official or not) take the lead position in the starting paragraph?


 * My reference would be this: . According to this, Gurmukhi is used to write such languages as Braj Bhasha, Khariboli (and other Hindustani dialects), Sanskrit and Sindhi in addition to Punjabi while no mention of Punjabi under Devenagri section. So am I allowed to add Gurmukhi in the lead section of all the wiki articles related to these languages? If Devanagri would be imposed here on Punjabi article, it makes sense to do the same with Braj, Sanskrit and Sindhi etc. through Gurmukhi, doesn't it? And believe me, all these sources, yours and mine, are far from the ground reality. Nowadays, Sanskrit, Sindhi and Punjabi are almost unanimously written using their respective recognised scripts, except of course, for research/recreational purposes.


 * Moreover, this source and this one  clearly state Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi to be the only two orthographies for writing Punjabi in modern times. WHere is the mention of Devanagri?!


 * Winding it all up, edit-wars are not one-sided but I don't see any warning being engraved on Stemoc's page! Double-standards much??! Thank you for giving me the opportunity to articulate my views. I hope they would be helpful for your perusal. --Babanwalia (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are some other significantly academic and credible sources and references, many from foreign universities, pointing to the fact that Gurmukhi is the sole script used to write Punjabi. Also included are some of the official works from India which recognise only Gurmukhi as the script. Let's look at this work from Texas State University, a complete manual on Punjabi language, first. It goes on to state:




 * Similarly, this comparative analysis by the Punjabi University, often touted as the Oxford of Punjabi language, categorically says:




 * This is the [notification] from Union Public Service Commission, India's central agency authorized to conduct, inter alia,  the Civil Services Examination, Engineering Services Examination, Combined Defence Services Examination, National Defence Academy Examination. And it lists all the 22 scheduled languages mentioned in the Indian Constitution and the scripts in which the tests are to be written for those languages.


 * Interestingly, while it enumerates multiple scripts for Sindhi and Santhali, it lists only Gurmukhi for Punjabi and not Devanagari!


 * Now coming to the website of Punjabi Mahasabha, an organisation in Harayana, the state where Braj Kachru says Punjabi is written in Devanagari. It clearly states:




 * And here is what well known [book] under Criminal Justice India Series on Haryana has to say:


 * Haryana High Court's [employment notice] prescribes syllabus as:




 * This is what, one of the reputed translation service provider company in India, Tridindia has to say about its [Punjabi translation services]:




 * This [here] is one of the largest, non-profit website on Punjabi and Punjab-related literature with large collections of Punjabi books in Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi. Where is the Punjabi literature written in Devanagri? anyone? If it's the script, there must be an appreciable quantity of literature created in that script for such a literary language as Punjabi?!


 * I am sure all the given and many other sources on internet and otherwise would suffice to justify the stand that there are only two recognised scripts to write Punjabi: Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi. If just scant numbers are to be considered, Roman should also be counted as the script of Punjabi since many (many more than those claimed to be Devnagri writers), including native Punjabis, write Punjabi in Roman script everyday! --Babanwalia (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Inclusion(meaning do not include Devnagri in Infobox and Image, but include two scripts Gurmukhi and Shahnukhi at both places)Contention of user:Anupam that devnagri is third major script used for punjabi in image punjabi example at wikimedia commons is totally a myth and not reality.This has been explained in punjabi example image itself that in coming to coclusion of use of devnagri script, dogri has been considered dialect of Punjabi , whereas dogri is not at all a dialect of punjabi it is a full fledged separate language. On one hand dogri speakers are not included in punjabi speakers count on other had devnagri script is being associated with punjabi as major third script for punjabi , from this it appears that a mischievous action is being taken by some people who want that punjabi no longer remains an independent language and gets absorbed by Hindi . in Indian punjab population of Hindus is nearly the same as that of Sikhs.in none of punjab schools which includes substantial population of Hindus , punjabi is taught in devnagri script, as a matter of fact In schools , neither in punjab nor in Haryana or Himachal punjabi is taught in devnagri script , it is only taught in Gurmukhi script then how can any one conclude devnagri is major third script for punjabi. on this ground to include devnagri as third script in punjabi example image at wikimedia commons is totally irrelevant.action of user: Babanwalia in removing devnagri from punjabi example image on commons which has been used to illustrate articles on punjabi language on English and other language wikipedia sites is fully justified.assertion of some author that Hindus use devnagri for writing punjabi and Sikhs use Gurmukhi is thus a blatant lie and not a ground reality , none of established institutes like university of California in their profile for punjabi language on language material project have accepted devnagri as third script or writing system for punjabi --Guglani (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)  read additional comments dtd 1 nov , 2014 with same meaning vote in different words at another place in this article by me--Guglani (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Inclusion User:Babanwalia, I do really appreciate your thoughts. I should note that my experience has been different then yours. For this reason, Wikipedia values reliable sources (WP:RS) rather than personal evidence. The reference that you removed from the article is an academic text titled Language in South Asia, published by Cambridge University Press and authored by scholars such as Braj Kachru. It states:


 * Numerous other scholarly publications on the subject corroborate that text's statement. I will kindly list a few for you to examine. The Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World, which is published by Elsevier states:


 * Similarly, Professor Peter Austin in the text One Thousand Languages (published by the University of California Press) states:


 * These academic publications all confirm the fact that the Punjabi language is primarily written in three scripts: Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi and Devanagari. It is for this reason that you were reverted here, and by other well-intentioned editors at Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia's articles reflect what scholarly sources, such as these state. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose InclusionI agree with user:Babanwalia and user:Guglani and I also justify Babanwalia's edits. Panjabi is written using Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi. Anyone suspecting can come visit Punjab where Hindus writing it in Gurmukhi. Well, those so-called "reliable" sources just suprised me. What on earth made them write "..Hindus write it in Devnagri"?? Totally a myth. -- itar buttar  [talk]  14:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * support inclusion of Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi and not DevnagriUser:Anupam your efforts in quoting some references are appreciated but you have not critically analysed the quote from these. To make this point understand i require to state again some facts narrated earlier . Conclusion drawn by you is based on that Dogri, an earlier dialect of punjabi ,uses Devanagri script , that gives dogri speaking Hindus use devnagri for writing punjabi. But you have ignored the fact that in post independence India dogri has been incorporated as a separate language in 8th schedule of Indian constitution.This will be more clear from book published by Routelege , title Indo -Aryan Languages edited by Danesh Jain , George Cordona which states:.Reference quoted by user:Anupam and above reference book by Routeledge , both have been published nearly at the same time, then how a scant use of Devnagri  by Hindus become major third script of Punjabi? . It is certain , that , author Kachru of languages in South Asia book has made some error in drawing this conclusion that Hindus use Devnagri for writing Punjabi . Ground reality is also that out of 27 million population of Indian punjab 38% is Hindus and in all punjab schools Punjabi subject is taught in Gurmukhi. Here I quote example of syllabus of 12th standard of punjab school education board which is in Gurmukhi, it may be seen that , this 12th class and ,all classes ,syllabus for punjabi subject is in Gurmukhi script which is followed by all Hindus and Sikhs even today then how can author conclude that Hindus use devnagri as writing system for punjabi in India ? Similarly Indian Hindus and Sikhs living in places other than punjab learn punjabi through numerous schools as per their education board syllabi  which is in Gurmukhi only. I quote another example of British Columbia university syllabus for punjabi :"refer page 200 and many further text pages which are in Gurmukhi in given link of http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/pdfs/international_languages/1995punjab512.pdf British Columbia education Deptt syllabus for punjabi class 5-12"

syllabus for Punajbi in all such schools is followed by Hindus and Sikhs alike?. Other references are, Orthography section of punjabi in California language materials project site http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/Profile.aspx?menu=004&LangID=95 states:. Another reference Omniglot site http://www.omniglot.com/writing/punjabi.htm:"In India Punjabi is written with Gurmukhi alphabet while in Pakistan it is written with a version of Urdu alphabet known as Shahmukhi"

like this ther are numerous references, another to quote from book published by cambridge university press! Author Colin p. Masica, title The Indo Aryan Languages at page 144 says about scripts:

Thus from these considerations it is obvious that version of Babanwalia is correct and necessary rectifications accordingly need be don on Image : Punjabi Example as well as article on Punjabi Language by reverting to his version.--Guglani (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1User:Anupam states:in first line of this sub-heading and supports inclusion of Devnagri in Image and Infobox.
 * 2 User :Stemoc states:and thus argues it is widely used and supports its inclusion in image and infobox of article.above quote exemplifies a scant use of Devnagri and not wide use. If sub-titles in film is the use criteria then Roman should become third script and not devnagri as Roman characters are more widely used in face book comments for writing Punjabi along with film (sub-titles).
 * 3 In addition to earlier cited references by me further TEXAS UNIVERSITY Professor Sarah Veach and Katty Williamson in Punjabi :Culture and Language Manual incorporated in their course CDIS:5350 on Multicultural Issues in Communication Disorders states in linguistic features orthography section at page 24:
 * 4 Furthermore, in source and in source   both  quoted by user:Anupam,quotation in first ,has been taken from chapter 5 of book Language in South Asia publisher Cambridge University Press by Kachru (see page 121,127& 128 of the same BOOK),and in second which has been taken from chapter on Punjabi of book pp 885-889 of book Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World publisher Elsevir,,both chapters in these two books have been contributed by one author only I.e. TEJ K. Bhatia  .Same author TEJ K. Bhatia in his another book title Punjabi published by Routlege at page xxxi and xxxii states states: . Thus author himself has two versions one of which favours exclusion of Devanagri from info box .This is not WP:OR but reality of these sources being called authentic by protagonists.and even in third book One Thousand Languages by Peter Austin additional interesting words  This source also supports exclusion of Devanagri from showcase I.e. Info box.
 * 5 Protagonists are not able to locate source of a single manuscript in Devanagri for Punjabi writings.No newspapers even.user:AmritasyaPutra attempted but failed to produce any one.
 * 6 Hollowness of argument used by user: Stemoc and user :Anupam is ,such scant or little use, in Punjabi film(sub-titles)is being advocated as, Major use to be showcased in Image and Infobox, whereas their own sourced author in  references describe, begun to use devnagri  compared to general use of Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi.
 * 7 In conclusion ,I more strongly Oppose inclusion of Devnagri in Image and Infobox ,which is to showcase the subject, the Article Punjabi Language.  and request all who have become wiser by this discussion to have consensus on this .--Guglani (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)--Guglani (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC) --Guglani (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)--Guglani (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support of inclusion. Punjabi is written in three scripts i;e. Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi, and Devanagari. Each one of them is used by people of different religions and regions residing in Indo-Pak Punjab. This thing is notably known among the Punjabi people and thus "Devanagari script" should definitely be included in the article.  Night Fury (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Inclusion of All Three Scripts Night Fury and Anupam have provided evidence that all three scripts (Devanagari, Shahmukhi and Gurmukhi) are used to write the Punjabi language. Our decision here should be based on academic sources rather than anecdotal evidence. No one is denying that many Hindus also write in Gurmukhi (and Shahmukhi in Pakistan). However, a good number of Hindus also write Punjabi in Devanagari, as the scholarly references listed by Anupam demonstrate. Best, Justice007 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Inclusion per Night fury's and anupam's well referenced information and proof..Personally i have seen Devnagri used in a lot of Punjabi films (subtitles) i had seen and used in quite a few rare magazine and newspaper publications in my country, to say its not widely used in Punjas is not valid..-- Stemoc 22:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Inclusion of All Three Scripts The claim regarding all three scripts is well sourced. I also don't quite understand what the controversey is. The only use of the script is in the infobox and its brief mention twice in the article. The script isn't used in any translations, in the phonetics section (which by the way only uses the Gurmukhi section and not Shakmuhi) nor in the sample text section (nor in the grammar article). --Shabidoo | Talk 06:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

— Jaspr8 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Harvard2014 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Interesting, that the weakness of argument by the proponents of Devanagari is being concealed by pointing to the recency of users on this forum. I would think that the credibility of sources being cited should be more important than the age of the messenger on the forum.Harvard2014 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Harvard2014 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose the inclusion of Devanagari. I have studied in Punjab. I am not aware of any school where Punjabi is taught in Devanagari script. Also I have not seen where any well known Punjabi author publish Punjabi literature in devanagri. I think including Devanagari misinforms the potential readers. So I oppose inclusion of Devanagari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaspr8 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inclusion of Devanagari I have written a PhD dissertation at Harvard on the topic and have NEVER seen a Panjabi manuscript in Devanagari during my seven years of research. Take for example, a Hindu Vaishnava Text called the Hanuman Natak (1623). Despite being a Hindu sacred text, it was composed in Gurmukhi by Hirday Ram Bhalla. See the text here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205998072/Hanuman-Natak-in-Gurmukhi-by-Hirdaya-Ram-Bhalla -- Before people present subjective opinions, please cite manuscripts showing the use of Devanagari to write Panjabi. Even in the modern era, please provide the name of a single Panjabi newspaper that is published in Devanagari. In the Indian Panjab, Gurmukhi is the official script, while in the Pakistani Panjab, Shahmukhi is the official script.  Devanagari happens to be an important script for the writing of Hindi, but not Panjabi. Harvard2014 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support for inclusion As per . Here are 170 is a scanned Punjabi documents written in Devanagari script: link. If my personal opinion is considered, I have read a panjabi novel in Devanagari script, I can't read Gurumukhi. --AmritasyaPutra T 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * --All documents given in above punjab digital library link by AmritasyaPutra are in language Sanskrit or Hindi. .I suggest if user does not know the language he can visit punjab digital library and see the meta-data information attached with each document in English which clearly states in which language and script original document is.--Guglani (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear AmritasyaPutra, so desperate for its inclusion? If anyone cares to open these links, do search for the language given alongside the thumbnail for each of these creations. The languages used in these links are Sanskrit and in some cases, Hindi and definitely not Punjabi. So your point stands refuted. Also, it's a good thing credible sources and not personal opinions are considered on Wikipedia. Cuz, in my personal opinion, I have read a Hindi novel in Khmer script. May I add Khmer script on Hindi language page?! --Babanwalia (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated the link, Script: Devnagari, Language:Panjabi. Babanwalia, yes if there are such referecences. --AmritasyaPutra T 08:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And I have reported the error to Punjab Digital Library since on reading the manuscript, I can easily make out that language is not Punjabi but has been incorrectly mentioned so. Ask any other native speaker. These desperate attempts of even using egregiously erroneous sources seems to be a propaganda of imposing Devanagri on Punjabi, something which Wikipedia doesn't endorse! --Babanwalia (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

72.190.51.174 (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) — 72.190.51.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Oppose for inclusion There are only two lipis (Writing systems) for Punjabi (شاہ مکھی) Shahmukhi and Gurmukhi script (ਗੁਰਮੁਖੀ), Though you can write Punjabi language in any other language Eg: even using English alphabets (Tuhada kee hall hai?) this is same case for Devnagri, witch does not implies English hence Devnagri are scripts for Punjabi language

I also wanted to add, with reference to subtitles as evidence of popular use, this is a heavily flawed piece of evidence and I would like to know the budget of films who have taken this approach. Subtitles are part of the last-stage post production process when budget funds are generally depleted, resulting in very poor quality control. So rather than concluding that some Hindi films have been subtitled in Devanagari instead of Gurmukhi due to popular usage, it is much more plausible to conclude that these films have been subtitled in Devanagari because the subtitling was an afterthought and done cheaply and ineffectively, without use of a professional high quality post production house who would naturally use Gurmukhi to reach the Punjabi audience. -- Soulmine22 (talk)) 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Soulmine22 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * DO NOT SUPPORT INCLUSION OF DEVANAGARI: hi - I'm a part-time filmmaker and an American student of Punjabi and wanted to chime in that I have never seen Punbaji written in anything but Gurmukhi, and Gurmukhi is the standard I have been taught. I think the volume of credible academic and government references I see here support this opinion.

— Jaskaran singh sachdeva (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose inclusion Only two scripts of Punjabi language namely Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi exists, reference is language manual prepared at Texas university:  -- Jaskaran singh sachdeva (talk) 19:00, 8 November, 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose inclusion of Devanagri I have been doing research in Punjabi language and I have not come across a single credible resource that quotes Punjabi manuscript in Devnagri. The reason being that there is just too much phonetic difference between Punjabi phonetics and Devanagri pronunciation to even attempt to make it possible. E.g. Consider the Punjabi/Gurmukhi word 'ਲੁਧਿਆਣਾ', in Hindi language/Devnagri, it is written as (लुधियाना). There is absolute no phonetic resonance between the words ਧਿ and धि or ना and ਣਾ. They are completely different sounds. The attempt seems nothing more than pushing Saffronization into the realm of languages. It is almost akin to discussing just because a random book exist where english is transliterated in Devnagri, should we consider English to have Devnagri script? No, we just refer to it as transliteration. Sirdaar (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Jimidar (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC) — Jimidar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strongly Oppose the inclusion of Devnagri as Punjabi Script - Like everybody else who is born and brought up in Punjab this is the first time ever in my 35 years of life that i have came across such statement that Punjabi has three scripts. I only knew Gurmukhi and Shamukhi. the attempt of some 'Savants' to declare Devnagri as a Punjabi script is either foolishness or a very well planned act of polluting a language. And we had these kind of attempts made before in census of India when some Govt agencies wanted to divide Punjab geographically on the basis of language. Don't know why but i am getting that feeling again. Despite of every such attempt the fact will remain the same. Punjabi has only two scripts: Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi. Period. Anything after or before this statement is pointless. Including Devnagri as Punjabi script is same as saying that Guru Nanak And Jesus Christ were classmate and shared same dialect.


 * Oppose inclusion This RfC is made complicated by inclusion of two slightly different questions. In the infobox and the lead para Devnagari should not be mentioned as one of the script. Use of devnagari is not official recognized as a writing system for Punjabi language (even if some people maybe using it). Here are some (1, 2) academic sources, which only mention Gurumukhi and Shahmukhi as the scripts used for Punjabi. Vast amount of literature, number of newspapers published heavily outnumber sources claiming Devnagari as one of the script for Punjabi. As is previous noted by some users, devnagari was perhaps historically used. So somewhere it can be mentioned that it was used historically/ or is used informally by some people (a small minority). Subtitles of the movies can't be taken as an scholarly evidence. Due to Hindi and Punjabi having common roots and many similar words, it is not uncommon for text from one language to be written into script of other for the convience of local people. Many Hindu religious texts are often transliterated into Gurumukhi to be used in Punjab. See this and  source. It is mentioned in these that some of the Hindi text's are/were written in Gurumukhi. Now, this won't make Gurumukhi as the script for Hindi. Some of the academic sources given by Anupam maybe unreliable although published by well known universities as they mention Hindu's primarily using Devnagari script and ignoring nealry 40 % population of Indian Punjab. This RfC is also suffering from a clear off-wiki canvassing. Users should know that canvassing often make your case weak, as it is easily detected by experienced users. And to some of users, I will ask not to use not to use trivial arguments like "come visit Punjab" etc. Such arguments serve no purpose in a wikipedia discussion. To user Sirdaar and some others, I will suggest to assume good faith. Some people maybe actually believing that devnagari is a major script for Punjabi.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  04:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Everyone please note that some of the accounts commenting above have been indefinitely blocked because they appear to be either "sockpuppets" or "meatpuppets" of. See the currently open sockpuppetry investigation (Sockpuppet investigations/Babanwalia), as well as the subsection of the sockpuppetry policy dealing with "meatpuppetry" (WP:MEAT). This fact should neither enhance nor detract from the arguments on either side of this discussion — per Wikipedia policy, issues like this are to be decided based on policies and sources, not how many users support or oppose any position. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion, pending new developments with sourcing. Even had the sock-puppetry not come to light, I think this clearly would have still been a case where the majority would have had to accede to policy on the matter; most of the objections to inclusion are based on anecdotal and impressionistic arguments, whereas sufficient reliable sources have been provided to support the notion that Devanagari is a script utilized -- be it only on the margins -- to write Punjabi. With respect to those arguing against its inclusion, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about how inclusion is determined on Wikipedia in such cases, and on that subject I recommend a look at WP:VNT. Even those who have argued that the sources which list only the other two scripts outnumber the ones that list the third are missing an important policy distinction; the fact that those sources list those scripts as those known to them as utilized for Punjabi does not necessarily invalidate the perspectives of the sources that include a third. For that we would need sources which explicitly address the issue of Devanagari not being a "valid" script for the language; otherwise it is a clear-cut case of WP:Original research to assume that the lack of reference to Devanagari in the sources provided represents the position that the authors reject it as such -- as opposed to the possibility that they were unaware of it or omitted mention of it on criteria which may or may not apply to our uses here. And even had we such sources which explicitly stated that Devanagari is not a script for Punjabi, we would still need to mention both sides of the debate, unless the issue had been clearly, directly and broadly in sources with an overwhelming position the result. In short, policy doesn't give us much wiggle room here, unless a vast body of new sources is discovered which treat the issue, which seems unlikely. All of that being said, I'm a little bit more neutral on whether the information necessarily needs to be included in the infobox. And if it is, I would say a parenthetical noting the script's very marginal standing with regard to the language would seem to me quite acceptable and appropriate.  S n o w  talk 03:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with this line of arguments. The group of sources which believe devanagari is not a script for Punjabi will not explicitly address the issue of Devanagari not being a "valid" script, they will on the other hand, simply omit the mention of devanagari in their writings. Many of the sources explicitly mention that there are "two" scripts (Gurumukhi and Shahmukhi) for writing Punjabi. I don't think it is original research to assume from here that they reject any other script as a valid script for Punjabi. If a source for example say that "Punjabi is written in Gurumukhi and Shahmukhi...". i.e. they don't explicitly say "two", then there is possibility to assume that they are unaware of a 3rd script. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps that was the intention of the authors of some sources and perhaps not for others. My feeling, though, is that we would be exercising far too much assumption if we try to deduce affirmative positions from those sources based on what they omit.  The fact is, we have multiple sources that claim a third script as notable (if vastly less common than the two primaries), and unless those sources are discredited or directly contradicted, policy supports the inclusion as appropriate.


 * I'm also very concerned that the overwhelming majority of oppose positions are being forwarded without any kind of policy-consistent argument, but rather "I just know it isn't so, because I speak the language" type claims, from contributors who don't seems to understand that their personal experiences are not valid as a proxy for verifiability under Wikipedia's policies.  A good number of these are new accounts and others that do not contribute regularly to en.Wikipedia, so, even putting aside the sock-puppetry concerns already discussed, for me nature of these comments and their sources raise the specter not just of canvasing, but also the possibility that some of these ardent positions might have more to do with ideology and concepts of linguistic "purity" than they do with Wikipedia's (or at least, this Wikipedia's) standards regarding verification -- and indeed some comments above suggesting that positions for inclusion of the claim represent efforts at saffronization or "a very well planned act of polluting a language" certainly leave little question that cultural stances are shaping some contributions to this discussion far more than an understanding and application of Wikipedia's policies.   There are other, more policy-relevant arguments amongst the opposes -- such as your own, Vigyani -- which I find a little more compelling, even if I disagree with some of the particulars, but on the whole I find the waters very muddied by a glut of strong opinions which are not really serving any purpose but to obscure the real policy issues.


 * I'm just here as a result of the RfC notice, but as chance has it, I happen to have a formal background in comparative and historical linguistics, so I know that scripts are quite readily adapted to new languages under the right circumstances. Let's take the case of romanization of Japanese.   Is romaji a native script of Japanese?  Well, it depends one's definition, but it is certainly a script utilized widely for Japanese in certain contexts.  This is a good point at which to reiterate that I don't necessarily feel that Devanagari needs to be listed in the infobox, but I don't see why mention of its use, in a description which makes clear how marginal it is, shouldn't be included somewhere in the article.   Why hide from our readers the products of this discussion that reveal a disagreement between our sources?  Trying to excise any and all reference to the script would seem to be something akin to language mavenism to me.


 * In other words, surely there is a compromise solution here that is not even being discussed, when arguably policy in this case demands it.  S n o w  talk 02:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a source which on page 399 explicitly state that devanagari is not a script used to write Punjabi. I will also go with the option of not listing it in the infobox/picture, but to discuss in the article body about any marginal or historical use of Devanagri. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with the comments of User:Snow Rise. Administrator User:EdJohnston provided a source titled The Language Divide in Punjab from the South Asian Graduate Research Journal, Volume 4, No. 1, Spring 1997, on his talk page that states:
 * I think it would be a huge mistake to omit Devanagari based on these words. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point several others are making. Devanagari was used at one point of time, maybe until the formation of present day Punjab. But not now. The source you are quoting, cite a book published in 1974, and again it talks in terms of that Hindu favored Devanagari. It doesn't dwell about its present use. That is the whole point of this discussion. If you agree with SnowRise, I hope you are also in agreement with his proposed formula of omitting it in info box and the main picture and mention of devanagri as one of the script in the article body. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point several others are making. Devanagari was used at one point of time, maybe until the formation of present day Punjab. But not now. The source you are quoting, cite a book published in 1974, and again it talks in terms of that Hindu favored Devanagari. It doesn't dwell about its present use. That is the whole point of this discussion. If you agree with SnowRise, I hope you are also in agreement with his proposed formula of omitting it in info box and the main picture and mention of devanagri as one of the script in the article body. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose using Devanagari. Only Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi should be used. I have gone through above comments and evidence in detail and have stated my opinion. -Myopia123 (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose inclusion of Devanagri I am a student of Punjabi Language and Literature at Punjabi University, Patiala. Devanagri is not used as an authentic script of Punjabi. Only Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi are used. Moreover we don't have any Punjabi book written in Devanagri which is a proof that Devanagri is not used for writing Punjabi. --Satdeep gill (talk • contribs 18:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that is a reasonable bar for proof of anything. Regardless, in terms of the policies that determine how we decide what content is and is not included on Wikipedia, that line of discussion is completely irrelevant; please see WP:Verifiability, WP:VNT, and WP:BIT.  S n o w  talk 04:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't understand why people support Devanagri when there is no Punjabi Literature in that script. Dogri was once considered a Punjabi Dialect but today it is not. So, now we have only Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi. In Indian Punjab basically Gurmukhi is taught in schools but we were taught Shahmukhi as well in order to communicate with the Western Punjab and Literature. Devanagri is not a Punjabi script anymore. I have seen this Problem on English wiki for years but a few days back i decided to give my opinion. I dont get the fact that people who dont know Punjabi argue on keeping Devanagri based on some English sources. Here is an article about Gurmukhi Script on the website of Punjabi University which states thats mainly two scripts are used for Punjabi. If Devnagri was that significant a scirpt then there should have been a Devanagri Wikipedia but there isn't even a request for that till date whereas it has been many years since Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi Wikis were created. Here are some more links which say that Punjabi has two scripts Here, Here. Here is a paper by a Professor of Punjabi University, Patiala. --Satdeep gill (talk • contribs 02:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose using Devanagari. Only Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi should be used.- I am of the opinion as that there is no literature and writings in Devanagri, it simply does not make a place here. Fai  zan  18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

An English-Panjabi Dictionary: Romanized By Thomas Grahame Bailey
An English-Panjabi Dictionary: Romanized By Thomas Grahame Bailey

http://books.google.com/books?id=LOxpU2Kh7uEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)