Talk:Punjabis

Pashtuns
Pashtuns are an iranian ethnic group originating from afghanistan

pashtuns in afghanistan didn't have a lot of contact with punjabis

pashtuns rarely married punjabis since it was against the pashtunwali (f.e. in afghanistan is a small punjabi minority who live extremly isolated)

pashtuns live on the iranian plateau and punjabis on the Indian subcontinent

pashtuns are waaay closer related to the iranians

if punjabis and pashtuns are related it's distand and definitely not as close as punjabis and sindhis are related to each other

pashtuns lived extremly isolated, punjabis were great merchants all over india

pashtuns also have different phenotypes than punjabis

and also if this goes on as a edit war, it's probably best to remove the related ethnic groups Vikingswarri (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you we should just end the edit war and leave pashtuns out of the related ethnic groups.Filpro (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you did agree, then do not readd Pashtuns to the related ethnic groups. Khestwol (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * i have reconsidered it and I believe it is better to add since they are also a neighboring ethnic group.Filpro (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

you neighbouring doesnt mean related and this about related ethnic groups not neighboring Vikingswarri (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Pashtuns compared to other Iranic groups have the most South Asian admixture. Even lots of the “Pashtuns” in KPK are mostly Pashtunised Hindkowans/Punjabi’s. Bäbbër Šhêr (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Discriminatory Behavior in Pictures Section
It appears that vandals (who are not signed in and permanently leaving their IP address stamps behind) are intentionally removing pictures of Pakistani / Muslim Punjabis and replacing it with only Indians.

One of the IP addresses identified is from India: 122.164.190.132 (yes, I understand they are not static). Another user identified is "FilPro".

If you're that insecure about the Indian Punjabi population, deal with it constructively within the country of India, in real life, or on the "Indian Punjabi" wiki page, instead of vandalizing the "Punjabi peoples" Wikipedia page. Bollywood actors and b-list / c-list / d-list Indian singers / movie makers are not significant "Prominent Punjabis."' The picture section is reserved for individuals who are intellects, academics, historical / religious / political figures, prominent athletes and business persons that are world renowned, well known among non-Punjabis, or have impacted the global population at large. Not some two-bit entertainers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdr11 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture Section Dispute
Vandals have been persistently trying to remove pictures of Pakistani Punjabis and replace it with only Indian Punjabis. In some instances, adding pictures of individuals that are not even ethnic Punjabi. I am fully willing to engage in an open discussion on this issue here, on the talkPage. There should be an even representation of Pakistani Punjabis and Indian Punjabis, and that is not the case. Wikipedia has temporarily protected the page to prevent edit warring. I will continue to undo changes made by vandals in the future. Vdr11 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Vdr11, note that if you revert non-vandalism edits as vandalism, you will end up blocked from editing. --Neil N  talk to me 20:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * NeilN, I have never reverted non-vandalism edits, I have undone an editor's changes, which reinstated vandalism. There is a difference. You are most welcome to review the history log to confirm this. The editor reverted changes made by vandal (IP address 122.164.190.132, as I identified in the section above), which I undid several times. It was continuously being vandalized so I requested protection of the page. Right before it was protected,  and :Mlpearc again reverted to changes made by the vandal. The vandal replaced pictures of Mian Muhammad Baksh, a notable and highly regarded Punjabi poet / Sufi Saint with pictures of a journalist who is not an ethnic Punjabi and notably anti-Pakistani and replaced a highly revered British Knighted Poet Sir Muhammad Iqbal with an Indian, another intentional act to suppress Pakistani Punjabis. It is pretty apparent discrimination. So yes, I will continue to undo edits by VANDALS and changes by editors who are reverting back to the said edits by vandals. Vdr11 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2015

 * image7 = Iqbal.jpg | caption7= Sir Muhammad Iqbal

Vdr11 (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Tarek Fatah is NOT an ethnic Punjabi. He is from Karachi, Sindh.

Sir Muhammad Idbal IS a Punjabi. He is from Sialkot, Punjab.

I requested protection of the page to encourage discussion from people engaging in discriminatory behavior in the picture section. But of course, none of them have responded. Please change the picture of non-Punjabis in the picture section. Thank you.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Mlpearc Sure, no problem at all. Tarek Fatah - Straight from the horses mouth: https://twitter.com/TarekFatah/status/459349422086701056 (Bombay is not Punjab. It isn't even close. Neither is Karachi. It also isn't even close). Sir Muhammad Iqbal - "Encyclopaedia of Eminent Thinkers" by Jai Narain Sharma, Page 13 See it here: (https://books.google.ca/books?id=sKMK9WY9OOsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). I hope that would suffice? Those are reliable sources.

My two cents: It is not a coincidence that IP addresses from India and editors keep removing pictures from the right hand-panel of people named "Muhammad", or Pakistanis, or in particular Sir Muhammad Iqbal, who was a philosopher and first proposed a two-state theory. I find it sad that Wikipedia editors further re-enforced this discriminatory behavior against West-Punjabis, which has been going on since this page was created 9 years ago. We have no problem towards Indians and they are most welcome to contribute constructively to this page. But when they harass Pakistanis, it's pretty frustrating. Especially when they do it cowardly by not being signed-in (so you cannot engage in a healthy discussion). And consequently, I have showed that frustration in my post in the first section on top of this talkPage. And then you have editors that are signed in, who DO NOT respond to requests for a healthy discussion but instead bully you by undoing your improvements. So what was the point of me requesting this page be Protected in the first place? Vdr11 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have double checked, triple checked the sources. I am reactivating the request. Thank you. Please see my comment above, immediately below your request for sources. Vdr11 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No opposition to this request. ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Turko-Persian vs. Turkic Empires in Northern India
In the first paragraph, I have changed the term "Turkic" to "Turko-Persian"; as the later is more accurate historically. While the conquering empires, from Ghaznavids to Mughals had traces of Turkic heredity, the culture was largely Persianate - hence the Persian language word "Punj-ab". Please discuss further here if you feel the need. Vdr11 (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hahun Thank you for discussing this issue. While I do agree that this may lead to reduced conflicts between editors, I also feel that it will contribute to lessening the relatability of Wikipedia pages to readers / general public. While many users are those who prefer just reading an article, I feel many more are visual persons who prefer to see pictures of related personalities, which may then spark their interest further into reading the article and perhaps even contributing to it. Vdr11 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some pictures of Punjabi people at the top of the article, next to the lead?
Readers will want to know what they look like. 2.102.184.184 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They were removed as per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Although we can still add a single picture that represents the people. Filpro (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

My edit on "Punjabis" article
I have just gone through the wikipedia policies of "Consensus"... I am not sure what kind of consensus needs to be built? Anyone who has studied the ethnography of the "Punjab region", it is very clear that the region of Punjab is inhabited by a number of "biradaries" or communities. A "biradarie" in Punjab is a individual ethnicity, tribe, or a caste. This goes for both sides of Punjab. The Punjabi identity in itself is vague, because "Punjab" as an identity came to being only with the Turk (Mughal) rule over India in the 16th century. Punjab is not an ancient identity like Sindh. It is thus no wonder that a "Kiyani, Mughal, Awan or Pathan, etc" living in Pakistani side of Punjab would feel no "Punjabi" affinity on an ethnic or national basis towards a Jat Sikh in Indian Punjab, or even with some other Biradries in Pakistani Punjab itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oye You There (talk • contribs) 06:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Ethnicity" is a fairly loosely defined term, and is applied to something as small as a minor tribe to something as big as a large linguistic group.
 * I would suggest using the term "ethnolinguistic": There are several sources supporting it.. utcursch &#124; talk 15:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

several sources also support ethnic group, ethno-cultural and ethno-regional. But "a people" seem more neutral and appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.136.2.206 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't mind "people", but it seems a little vague to me. And "a collection of castes, tribes, and ethnic groups" is unnecessarily verbose. IMHO, the best term would be "ethno-linguistic group". Let's see what others have to say. utcursch &#124; talk 20:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic groups are more often than not defined primarily in terms of common ancestral lineage, or by blood. A caste or a tribe can be an ethnicity. E.g, Mohyal Brahmins, or Kashmiri Brahmins are a caste as well as an ethnicity. Similarly, Awans or Kayanis, which are individual tribes, can also be ethnic groupings. The fact of the matter is that in Punjab we have a Biradari system, where each biradari sees itself as a distinct group, and not as some singular ethnic nation. It would be fine using the labels such as "regional group", "geographic group", "Linguistic group" or something along those lines. Those labels best define what Punjabis really are. But if that does not resolve this, then i would be ok with an ethnolinguistic label. Oye You There. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oye You There (talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

While if no one minds "people", then problem solved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.136.3.67 (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The word Punjab did not came into existence during Akbar's or mughal rule. The region is mentioned by the famous traveller Ibn Batuta in his rihla in 1333 AD when he visited the region. Before that the region in mentioned in Tabqat e nasri written by Siraj minhaj in 1266 and way before that in 500 BC the region is named Panchanada in Mahabharata. OmerAli1qaz (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on the anon user's "Scythian" claim
An IP-hopping anon (219.136.1.237, 218.255.243.106 etc.) has repeatedly tried to remove "Indo-Aryan" from the article, claiming that the term's use for Punjabi people is "controversial" because they might be "Indo-Scythian". The edits are suspiciously similar to that of the now-blocked.

The Punjabi identity is a linguistic one, and Punjabi is an Indo-Aryan language: there is zero controversy about that among reliable sources. (I do understand that some ethnic/caste supremacists argue that they are superior, tall and fair compared to other South Asians because they are descendants of 'Scythians', but Wikipedia doesn't entertain such fringe nonsense).

Anon: Please feel free to reinstate your edits with citations that support the claim about 'controversy'. Pinging the users who have undone the anon's edits. utcursch &#124; talk 15:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Anon, you have cited this article in your support: Indians are not descendants of Aryans, says new study. That article is about ancient Vedic Aryans, not modern Indo-Aryan peoples. Please participate in the discussion on the talk page than pushing your ridiculous "Scythian" theory. utcursch &#124; talk 15:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a never ending discussion, like every other controversial discussion out there. So don't add the controversial Indo-Aryan theory in the lead and no one has a problem. The phrase "a people" has been used because had a problem with ethnic group. Problem solved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.136.2.206 (talk • contribs)


 * Oye You There's problem with the term "ethnic group" is a different topic: it is being discussed in the section above.
 * This is a different issue: you're talking about the "controversial Indo-Aryan theory", claiming that the Punjabis might be "Indo-Scythian". Please present some reliable sources to support your claim about this "Indo-Aryan theory" being "controversial". Your India Today link is irrelevant to this discussion: it is talking about ancestry from ancient Indo-Aryans. No one is claiming that all Punjabis share a common ancestry from those people. A modern Punjabi speaker might have 2% Greek ancestry, 5% Turkish ancestry, 10% Persian ancestry etc. That doesn't change the fact that Punjabi is an Indo-Aryan language. We're talking about modern Indo-Aryan peoples here, who are defined as speakers of the languages belonging to Indo-Aryan linguistic group.
 * You removed sourced statements from the article, arguing that they are "controversial". Please present some sources to support your claim. utcursch &#124; talk 15:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an unnecessary debate about a 19th century controversial theory. All this controversial Indo-Aryan and Indo-Scythian stuff is bonkers all together. Push your controversial theory as much as you want in the article itself, but don't make it the basis of the Punjabi people when it's not. The Punjabi people share a language which called "Punjabi" and not "Indo-Aryan". They're basis is the region, language and culture which is called Punjab, Punjabi and Punjabi culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.136.2.206 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that Punjabi being an Indo-Aryan language is a "19th century controversial theory"? utcursch &#124; talk 17:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * User (219.136.1.237 etc), Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing and discrediting 'controversial theories'. It is an encyclopedia, which relies on verifiable and reliable sources (academic journals for example). You have removed sourced content from wikipedia, please provide an explanation. If you have reliable sources for your claims please add those. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If the anon's concern is that "Indo-Aryan" can be misinterpreted as reflective of the Punjabis' ancestry (rather than linguistic affiliation), I'd suggest changing the lead to something like "speakers of Punjabi, an Indo-Aryan language". 19:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan/Dravidian
I wonder if we should get rid of the "Indo-Aryan" and "Dravidian" labels from all the ethnic group pages. It is not the people that are Indo-Aryan or Dravidian, but rather their language. These labels give some unnecessary heartburn to some people, but they are not meaningful anyway. So, I wonder, why bother? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. As I suggested above, it's better to state something like "speakers of Punjabi, an Indo-Aryan language" than an "an Indo-Aryan ethnic group". I've made a bold change accordingly. If anyone has problems with it, feel free to undo it. utcursch &#124; talk 20:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I changed it for Kashmiris, where this issue arose quite some time ago. (It has been at the back of my mind since then). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this makes sense. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Kautilya3, the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian tags are unnecessary, so leave them out of the lead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.136.3.67 (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

103.10.52.83's additions
To the anon, who is adding the following content from 103.10.52.83:


 * "The name of the region was introduced by the Greeks"
 * "Pentapotamia... was later translated into Persian by Turko-Persian conquerors"

None of the references cited by you support the claim that the name was introduced by the Greeks, or that "Punjab" is a translation of the Greek word Pentapotamia. Please provide a reference which directly supports the assertion that the word Punjab / Punjabi is derived from the Greek word Pentapotamia. And if it's not derived from Pentapotamia, there is no point in mentioning Pentapotamia here: this article is not about Punjab (region). utcursch &#124; talk 18:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Same goes for your Christian Lassen reference (which is very obsolete, by the way): the book does not say that "Punjabi" is derived from "Pentapotamia", only that it's an older term. Neither does it say that the term equivalent to "five rivers" was introduced by the Greeks: it states that the region was known as "Panchanada".
 * This article is not about Punjab (region). So, unless the word "Punjabi" derives from Pentapotamia, there is no relevance of mentioning Pentapotamia in the lead. I am giving you some time to explain the relevance of your addition before I remove it. utcursch &#124; talk 18:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Punjabis. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170709233002/http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main%20Features~Cultural%20Diversity%20Article~20 to http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main%20Features~Cultural%20Diversity%20Article~20
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213100306/http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Census/2013%20Census/data-tables/totals-by-topic/totals-by-topic-tables.xls to http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Census/2013%20Census/data-tables/totals-by-topic/totals-by-topic-tables.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102060502/http://www.cet.edu/earthinfo/sasia/SAhis.html to http://www.cet.edu/earthinfo/sasia/SAhis.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217220529/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_mother_tongue.pdf to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_mother_tongue.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217220529/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_mother_tongue.pdf to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_mother_tongue.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219054854/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030827045441/http://allaboutsikhs.com/books/gst/ to http://allaboutsikhs.com/books/gst/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Prominent Sikh leaders 2016.jpg

Possible vandalism taking place
I've noticed that there have been changes in which people are changing anything in reference to anything which is distinctive, possibly to make India seem homogeneous. Punjabis being Indo-Aryan speakers was removed for a while and replaced with simply "Indian" which isn't even an ethnic group and them being from the north was removed twice for no exact reason other than it being supposedly an "unnecessary term", even when Punjab is undoubtedly a northern area of the subcontinent. Should this page be protected?

Foxhound03 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Most Punjabis are muslims
This is a fact. So why are some Indian editors editing this out?

Pakistan has 80 million Punjabis. India only has 30 million Punjabis. MT111222 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * We do not use British Raj era sources in Wikipedia per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RAJ. Thus removing.


 * And this section below in not relevant in the religion and tribes section. Since it talks about British policies and independence movement. I've removed parts of it that is not about religion.


 * Also refrain from targeting supposed nationalities of other editors, it is against WP:CIVIL, thus blockable offense. This article is maintained by people of diverse nationalities. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic Group
I believe you should change it from “Ethnolinguistic group” to “Ethnic group” as you have done for the “Tajiks”, Uzbeks” and “French” wikipedia pages.

All the sources i’ve seen mention Punjabis as an ethnic group. For example, Punjabis are seen as the largest ethnic group in Pakistan. Ethnolinguistic group is not mentioned anywhere.

Even your own “Pakistan” wiki page mentions Punjabis as an ethnic group.

So i believe you should change it from “ethnolinguistic group” to “ethnic group”. MT111222 (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to your own “Pakistan” wiki page which mentions Punjabis as an ethnic group: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan MT111222 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The coherency of ethnic groups can depend on various parameters; an ethnolinguistic group is an ethnic group which is primarily defined by its shared language. That's all there is to it, and by changing "ethnolinguistic group" to "ethnic group" you simply take out a degree of precision for no reason at all.
 * And here are some sources for you:. –Austronesier (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That's just not true.

In Pakistan, around 10% of Punjabis speak Urdu not Punjabi but they are still considered as Punjabis. So clearly Punjabi is an ethnicity.

Also, by your definition, all the groups that Wikipedia labelled "Ethnic Groups" should be labelled "Ethnolinguistic groups" such as the Tajiks, Uzbeks, French etc.

MT111222 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You should rename it to "Ethnic Group" as all the major sources also call it an ethnic group.

Such as here:

www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/pakistan/

Punjabi is called an ethnic group (the largest ethnic group in Pakistan). MT111222 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to repeatedly refer to the articles about Tajiks, Uzbeks, French. Maybe other considerations apply in these articles, maybe they are just imprecise (although in the case of French, the non-equation "French" ≠ "Francophone" should be obvious). If something needs to be corrected there, we can bring it to the talk page of those articles.
 * The figure of 10% of all ethnic Punjabis in Pakistan not speaking Punjabi is interesting. What's your source for it? If you have a good one, we should include this information in the article. –Austronesier (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Speaking Punjabi doesn't mean someone is Punjabi. For example, there are many Kashmiris in Punjab whose ancestors came to Punjab centuries ago. They are still considered Kashmiris and not Punjabis.

An example being the current prime minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif.

Link to his wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shehbaz_Sharif

On his page it says "Shehbaz was born on 23 September 1951 and belongs to the Sharif family, a Punjabi-speaking Kashmiri political family in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan."

As you can see, it says he is from a Punjabi speaking Kashmiri family. Hence speaking Punjabi doesn't make him a Punjabi ethnically.

So that is why i believe you should change it from "ethnolinguistic group" to "ethnic group". MT111222 (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Just the day before yesterday you said at Talk:Pakistan that the "cia.gov at is not a reliable source". As for your comment → around 10% of Punjabis speak Urdu not Punjabi but they are still considered as Punjabis, you'd be astonished to know how people are considered/or identify as Standard Hindi speakers in the Indian census, when in reality majority belong to Garwali, Kumaoni, Mewati, Haryanvi, Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Nagpuri, Chhattisgarhi ethno-linguistic groups. This happens with non-Hindi languages as well. That is the number of speakers do not match with the actual number of people in an ethno-linguistic group. Third, the term ethnolonguistic is maintained in most high level similar articles in South Asia. See Tamils, a former 'FA-status' article which has 'ethno-linguistic group' written. Besides this is a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS version, and a change like what you are suggesting would require it to be applied in all South Asian articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Still interested about the source for the 10%. –Austronesier (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see it as reliable but clearly the editors of this wikipedia page do, considering no one has updated the figures on the Pakistan page.

Also, my question is that why are half of the groups labelled "Ethnic groups" and half are labelled "Ethnolinguistic groups"?

For example, Pashtuns, Tajiks and Uzbek are labelled as an ethnic group but Punjabis are labelled as an ethnic group.

Why? MT111222 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Punjabis are labelled as an ethnlinguistic group* MT111222 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, if we talk about ethnic groups in Pakistan, you've labelled Sindhis and Pashtuns as an ethnic group and Punjabis as an ethnolinguistic group.

Why?

All should be named ethnic groups as that is the widely accepted term.

The cia.gov articles which the editors on wikipedia seem to trust also calls Punjabis as the largest ETHNIC group in Pakistan.

As for labelling the Tamils as an ethnolinguistic group, that is not relevant to me. You should discuss that in their talk page as that is not relevant here. MT111222 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirdly,the mod here "Austronesier" created a page called "Bimanese people" and labelled them as an ethnic group but are continously refusing to label "Punjabi people" as an ethnic group.

Why did you not label the Bimanese people an ethnolingustic group?

Why the hypocrisy? MT111222 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This is why i think "Punjabis" should be labelled an ethnic group. MT111222 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Calm down. Any change to longstanding version requires WP:CONSENSUS and it takes time (days). As I said "ethno-longuistic" is widely accepted for south Asian articles. Also refrain from blaming people for things that are not added by them and are present in the article for a longtime. You wouldn't want to be tagged under WP:CIVIL. Also keep the discussion here not my talk page.


 * As for labelling the Tamils as an ethnolinguistic group, that is not relevant to me. - Relevant to me? Go through WP:OWN, this article belongs to Wikipedia not you or me. Everything contentious will require WP:CONSENSUS by the community. And why Tamils, a former featured status article associated with South Asia, can't be looked up to for the Lead Style, when you chose to bring non-South Asian groups like Bimanese, Uzbeks, Tajiks in the discussion? Perhaps end this whataboutism and bring source for the remaining 10% as asked by . . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Then why is Sindhi labelled as an ethnic group but Punjabis are labelled as an ethnolinguistic group?

Sindhis are a south asian group.

So that's why i believe Punjabis should be called an ethnic group. MT111222 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There are far more South Asian groups labelled as 'ethnolinguistic group'. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

But according to you, there needs to be a consensus on naming all the south asian groups the same.

So why are some south asian groups labelled "ethnic groups" and other south asian groups are labelled "ethnolinguistic groups"

That's why i want Punjabis to be labelled as an ethnic group like it has been done for the Sindhis. MT111222 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, you have only presented anectodical evidence that "ethnolinguistic group" is an inapt characterization for this ethnic group. OTOH, there are enough reliable sources which do use this term for the Punjabis, e.g. this one, where the author uses the term while explicitly covering the question of language shift. Another one is here (on page 7). –Austronesier (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Those are just books but the Government of Pakistan (where most Punjabis live) classifies Punjabis as an ethnic group.

So Punjabis should be considered an ethnic group as the official government of a country where most Punjabis live considers them to be an Ethnic group. MT111222 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Even i can give more reliable sources who classify Punjabis as an ethnic group such as the government of Pakistan. MT111222 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Without even trying not to be repetitive (repetitiveness has become a key characteristic of this discussion): since "ethnolinguistic group" is a subcategory of "ethnic group", sources which call Punjabis an "ethnic group" do not contradict our current intro sentence about Punjabis being an ethnolinguistic group; it is just a different level of precision. The WP:ONUS is on you to provide a reliable source which directly proves that our usage is wrong. Otherwise, we have reached the beating-a-dead-horse point in this discussion. Mere individual preference ("I want") is not enough to change the stable version of a text. –Austronesier (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say but my point is that Punjabi is an ethnicity like Sindhi. You have classified Sindhi as an ethnic group so Punjabi should be classified as an ethnic group as well. There shouldn't be different levels of "precision" for different ethnic groups.

Also, language isn't a main factor which determines whether or not someone is a Punjabi or not.

For example, if someone is from the Arain tribe (a Punjabi tribe), they would be a Punjabi no matter what language they speak. So an Arain who can speak Punjabi and an Arain who cannot speak Punjabi belong to the same ethnic group. But according to your "Ethnolinguistic group" definition, they should be the same ethnicity AND speak the same language.

Hence, calling Punjabi an ethnic group would be more suitable.

Hope you understand what i mean. MT111222 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

close the discussions that are no longer active
The mods should close the discussions that are no longer active as they’re just crowding this talk page MT111222 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

All the discussions from before 2022 should be closed. MT111222 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia does not have moderators. It has administrators
 * 2) There's no need to close normal talk page discussions. They serve as a record of what has been discussed, and if someone wishes to comment on an old thread, well, there's no harm in that. It might spark continued discussion, and at worst it will simply be ignored. The only threads that might need closing are such things as requests for comments, and suggested merges or moves (and even those are not always formally closed).
 * 3) If we were to close old threads, it would not have to be done by an administrator.
 * 4) If the talk page is getting too long then we can archive old threads. Meters (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Hi, it is regarding these edits. Is CIA Factbook a reliable site? It estimates a total population of " 1,389,637,446 (2022 est.)" for India ([link], used in support of the changes). It seems Indian census 2021/2022 reports are still not out [link]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick to official census data, except when it is questioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Census data is more reliable than CIA data, which is not easily verifiable. Even better than census data are secondary academic quality sources which are based on census data; if such sources are available. –Austronesier (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping, forgot. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RV to census data is fine by me in the infobox... Only put in the CIA Factbook numbers as they are referenced by other ethnic group wiki pages. Agree the numbers should be left out of the infobox but still think they should be kept and referenced in the India/Pakistan sections further down the article as long as they are explicitly stated they are estimates. Van00220 (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

So can someone change the numbers according to official census data please?

Punjabis in Pakistan are 80.5 million according to the 2017 Census. Not 107 million.

So can someone please change the numbers for Punjabis in Pakistan and India according to the official census? MT111222 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@austronesier @fylindfotberserk MT111222 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe so. CIA are estimates, not census data. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk

Exactly. So can you please change that to the population numbers given by the official census? MT111222 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: MT111222 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Waiting for Uanfala and Van00220's comments. Since we are in agreement, you, me or anyone of us can change it back per census sources after a day or two if they do not respond. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve changed it to census figures and retained the estimates as notes, hope that works. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: It has been 2 days. Can you please change the numbers using the census data? MT111222 (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I forgot about this . Courtesy ping . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Map
Can someone add a map of where Punjabis live as the pic of the main page?

Like how it has been done for the Bengalis wiki page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengalis MT111222 (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Punjabis
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 Punjabis'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 "EoS": From Punjab Province (British India):  From Punjab:  

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 ⚡ 02:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The term Punjab became the regions identity centuries before Akbar's era and it should be corrected
The Rihla ibn batuta mentions the name of the region as Punjab when he visited the area in 1333 as well as wrote that the local people call the river indus as Punjab because it is formed by five rivers. Tabqat e nasri written in 1266 mentions the area as well as the river indus as Punjab. Mahabharata mentions the region as Panchanada circa 500 BC of which Punjab is a Muslim version. OmerAli1qaz (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The article states that the term came into existence during Akbar's rule during sixteenth century which is factually wrong and must be corrected as the term Punjab is well attested by reliable sources such as Rihla ibn batuta in 1333 AD as well as By Tabqat e nasri written by Minhaj us din Siraj in the year 1266 centuries before mughals and even their Proginator Temurlane. Older form of Punjab is Panchanada which is written in Mahabharata around 500 BC OmerAli1qaz (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The Short description
The short description of this article states "Ethnolinguistic group native to the Punjab region of the Indian Subcontinent", while some frontier regions of the Punjab are geographically not considered as a part of the geographical subcontinent. Hence, I suggest the rewriting of the Short description to "Ethnolinguistic group native to the Punjab" to match the Punjabi language article or "Ethnolinguistic group native to the Punjab region of South Asia". Thanks! AuthorizedEditor101 (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I shortened it to "Ethnolinguistic group native to Punjab", it was too long anyway. Kornatice (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge Punjabi Sikhs to this page
I think this page should be merged into a section here. If the subject comes out to be suitable enough to have a separate page, then it should be named as Sikhism in Punjab. I would like to know your opinions on why and/or why not. MrAnmol (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Undecided - While most Sikhs are Punjabis, not all Sikhs are. We already have the following pages on Wikipedia (pages covering religions being followed by their predominant or autochthonous ethnicity or region):
 * 1) Arab Muslims
 * 2) Israeli Jews
 * 3) Christianity in Europe
 * 4) Zoroastrianism in Iran
 * You may be interested in reading the following discussion, where it was undecided whether to merge the page with Sikhs. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am against. It need a separate article Jattlife121 (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per norm. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I think raises a valid point; that while the majority of Sikhs are Punjabi-speaking, not all are. I think both articles can be treated separately in a feasible manner. The article on Sikhs would generally lean more on the religious aspect, whereas Punjabi Sikhs would better cover the cultural, language and ethnic aspects. A comparable example would be the way Wikipedia treats the pages on Jews and Israeli Jews for instance. Furthermore, in the case of Punjabi communities, we have a clear precedence in the examples of Punjabi Muslims, Punjabi Hindus and Punjabi Christians.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, We unanimously agree with the last reply from Mar4d. UnionOfEditors (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Minor edit to the Short description
The short description of this article states "Ethnolinguistic group native to Punjab", but it should rather be stated as "Ethnolinguistic group native to the Punjab". the word "the" is important while talking about the Punjab as, Punjab literally means "Five Waters". So, the usage of "the" in context to the Punjab has quite alot of significance. PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracy: Nanakpathis are not considered "Hindus"
An edit is required underneath the "Religion" section in the Infobox. The current language incorporates the demographic projection of Hindus as "incl. Nanankpathis". This makes absolutely zero sense, as the wikipedia page (and the general historical truth) for Nanakpathis clearly communicates the group as a Sikh sect, emerging after Guru Nanak's establishment of the Sikh faith, and involving the canon of the first 5 gurus. It should be incorporated into the Sikh percentage or removed from the figure calculation for Hindus, as it is neither cited nor historically accurate to incorporate a group that worships a Sikh guru as a Hindu faith. Saragarhi29 (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024
Please update this information in the article as the information is contradictory and incorrect. The word Panjab/Punjab originates from Persian, even as noted in the article, yet also asserts that its from Sanskrit, which is incorrect. Please feel free to contact me if further clarification is needed.

Incorrect information in the article: "Though the name Punjab is of Persian origin, its two parts (پنج, panj, 'five' and آب, āb, 'water') are cognates of the Sanskrit words, पञ्‍च, pañca, 'five' and अप्, áp, 'water', of the same meaning.[44][45]"

Requested change (please see the University of Texas at Austin and The Ohio State University references below)

Correct information: "The name Punjab is of Persian origin. Its two parts ('five', panj, پنج) and ('water', āb, آب) are from the Persian language .[44][45]"

Resources:

44. Persian Online Grammar & Resources. Persian Numbers. Persian Numbers. The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved July 16, 2024. 45. A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary (Steingass). Water- āb.“Water-āb”. The Ohio State University. Retrieved July 16, 2024. Scholar20001 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The information isn't contradictory and incorrect. The sentence clearly mentions that the word Punjab and its two parts (پنج, panj, 'five' and آب, āb, 'water') are of Persian origin, but also says that they cognates of the Sanskrit words, पञ्‍च, pañca, 'five' and अप्, áp, 'water'. Persian and Sanskrit are Indo-Iranian languages, hence cognates are very likely. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)