Talk:Punjabis/Archive 1

Number is way off
if you add up all the significant populations you only get a grand total of 36,643,580 million.

Untitled
Archived discussions


 * Archive 1: January 2006

Spamming of Population figures
Someone recently continues to change the population numbers for the estimated amount of Punjabis by country at the top of the page. In particular, switching the U.S.A population first with the United Kingdom and second with the United Arab Emirates. Knock it off! If you want to make a change, ensure you cite the change appropriately with a legitimate citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdr11 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Statements regarding admixture and Dravidian ancestry
Recent edit to the second paragraph is bias and holds no educational value. It is most likely the product of the person who wrote the previous rant in the talkpage (below this). The study they have quoted is irrelevant and makes mentions to South Indian populations mostly and makes no particular mention at all to just Punjabis. In an attempt to, apparently, root out bias statements regarding the origins of Punjabis as a whole with references to Central Asia and Middle East, they have cited a quickfix google search study, which is not applicable at all. Firstly, as this page suggests, Punjabi is an ethnic group identified by a common language or to identify people residing in The Punjab, and so references to their genes should not be a factor in determining Punjabi ethnicity. Next, I will state why this study is irrelevant. The study states that there is negligible impact in SOUTH INDIA from the paternal genes of Central Asian’s and Middle Eastern’s (which no-one has argued). This is not applicable to this page. Furthermore, it also states there is higher evidence of impact in Pakistan from the paternal genes of Central Asian and Middle Eastern contributors. The study is in no way particular to Punjabi ancestry of East and West Punjab, and makes no mention of the sample groups for the study and if they were from Punjab alone. What is clearly indicated is that they were actually from all of India. Also, as noted in the study, the sample groups from outside of India were of a disproportionate number. Thus, of course, the genes identified in all of India will be of mostly Dravidian origin. Of course, as Punjabis in India are a 'minor' 3% of the overall population, will they appear to be a 'negligible' number in a study of genes when compared to all of India, as the study stated. AGAIN - this study is not relevant and content will be removed. And I will continue to remove this content so long as it is presented in the misleading and bias manner that it currently is.

Furthermore, the second paragraph is misleading, in the sense that it suggests that Punjabis are only of Indo-Aryan & Dravidian origin. This is also incorrect. Explain to me how the genes of the original Indo-Aryan migrants to Punjab will be any different than the Aryan migrants that arrived centuries later? Religion does not alter your genetic make-up. Finally, the original Indo-Aryans were of Central Asian origin (i.e. Persia), hence the name “Punjab” a Persian language word. So your argument is clearly contradictory. It is clear to me that the author of the recent edit to the second paragraph is bias and is making a false distinction between Indo-Aryan’s that originally arrived pre-Christianity (BC) and the Aryan’s that arrived post-Christianity (AD). Further indication of a malicious attempt to bias this page is that the recent author to the second paragraph has stated that there is no contributors to the paternal genes of Punjabis from Central Asian’s and yet the source they have cited, clearly indicates this to be untrue, as it is titled “Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists”

I am removing references to the irrelevant article. Further citations of irrelevant articles and the presentation of bias statements will be removed by me as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdr11 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The only bias is yours against the Dravidian ancestral element among Punjabis which is confirmed by Y-DNA studies as cited and found on other pages on wikipedia. Trying to vandalize this article by removing references to the Dravidian element in Punjabis' ancestry is futile and will not change the fact that Punjabis have Indo-Aryan and Dravidian roots, as do other North Indian peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.184.70 (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: Firstly, if I am removing the vandalism of this page, I do not see how I am a vandaliser. Secondly, I have no quarrel with the notion of certain North Indians having Dravidian ancestry nor do I have a quarrel with Dravidian peoples. I am not concerned about other un-cited or ill-cited wikipedia pages and what they suggest, nor is this page concerned about 'other North Indian people'. This page is for the 'Punjabi' ethnicity. Mention to Indo-Aryan is legitimate, as they settled/founded The Punjab and also as the 'Punjabi' language is an Indo-Aryan language, of the Indo-Iranian language group. This is why there is mention to it being an Indo-Aryan ethnic group. Statements that suggest you must be Dravidian to be a Punjabi is malice and un-founded, so, yes, statements to that affect will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdr11 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Punjabi's in Hong Kong
This page claim's that the Punjabi population in Hong Kong is at 260,000 despite the fact that there are only 68,000 South Asian's in Hong Kong as a total. Also it state's that there are 800,000 Punjabi's in Canada despite the fact that the citation reports only 53,000 Punjabi's. Obviously many of those may have put down Indian/South Asian/or Pakistani as a pose to Punjabi but still. If people like you know already then why do you read wikipedia?

Religion
How can anyone state the majority of Punjabi's are Sikhs when you look at the population of the Punjab in Pakistan compared to that of the Punjab in India?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_%28Pakistan%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_%28India%29

79,429,701 in Pakistan compared to 24,289,296 in India.
 * Not to mention all the Punjabis in other Indian provinces (Delhi, Haryana, etc.) which are mostly Hindu. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete Re-think
I think we need to completely change this page. Ive realised that calling Punjabis a race is like calling Californians a race, they are not a single coherent ethnic group like han chinese of persian, they are a whole load of different tribes all united by a common langauge, religeon, and region and perhaps culture; one only needs to look at Category:Punjabi_tribes to see that punjabis are not a race but a collection of tribes. the example ive chosen is bad, california is not an historical region like punjab (it can hardly claim to have a history for that matter) but ive honestly not found anyother historical region on earth where so many ethnic groups exist side by side and where one isnt a majority. for that reason punjabis if anything should be a social group rather than a racial one.

now many of you *might* be saying "yes, but they all look the same" or something, but i think i can prove to you if punjabi *were* an racial group it would be the most heterogeneous/varied. the **average** punjabi is probably fairer than the average indian, however unlike the Han Chinese punjabi features, if they were a racial group, would vary from. Jalander in the Indian Punjab in parts the people tend to have features and genes more simalar to a Southern Indian.

Mongoloid e.g., [Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan] to:

South Indian e.g., , to

North West Indian/Arab/Average-ish e.g. ,, to

White e.g., , , 

i think this also changes with geography, with the north and west being more "white", the central areas being "average", and south east being "dravidian".

Anyway what i suggest is to change this page from being a racial group page to a linguistic and cultural group. becuase if you were to take punjabis as a race, what would the creteria? how does one define punjabi?

Is Amir Khan a Janjua first or a Punjabi first?

Is Iftikhar Khan a Minhas first or a Punjabi first?

Is Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi a Jat first or a Punjabi first?

Regardez the more controvertial ones come

(Ive argued this one before, but lost : Is Imran Khan a Pahstun Niazi first or a Punjabi first?

Is Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan an Afghan first or a Punjabi first?

et ceteraaar, et ceteraaar.

Point recap:

1)Punjabi is more of a cultural and linguistic group rather than racial group

2)Punjabis show a wide range of physical features ranging from east asian to close to nordic.

3)If in changed circumstances punjabis WERE an ethnic group, how would one go about defining what constitutes someone to be called Punjabi? Aarandir 11:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two ways to look at the point the above paragraph makes how to say one is Punjabi or not? One is simply ones place of residence- In that criterion the recent Bihari or other North Indian migrants would qualify as Punjabis. The other criterion is the self identity of various sub communities and castes. For example how should one categorize Sunil Bharti Mittal? A Bania or a Punjabi? I propose one look at how the Bania community of Punjab views itself. It is true to any community like the Brahmins and others. Here we should avoid how a particular individual self identifies,because it is not possible to collect such opinions of every single individual.So in a nutshell the two basic criterion is the geographical residence of your family and the other self perception of the community concerned. One can add the perception of others towards a particular community and how it is viewed. This point will interact with the self perception of a particular community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.70.255 (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How do many Punjabis manage to look Nordic? Not even people of Ukraine and overwhelming majority of Russians claim to be Nordic. But somehow Punjabis do not manage to look Arabic,Eurasian,East Baltic,Alpine,Dinaric,Mediterranean,Norric. No none of these but straight away make a jump from Dravidian to Nordic.In my personal opinion the Jats of Punjab resemble the most to the Dinaric sub group of Europeans.The people who reside the areas of former Yugoslavia and adjoining areas.Not implying they are pure bred Dinaric of course. That is silly. Even the most 'White' looking Punjabis for example Hritik Roshan looks Mediterranean. And why are some areas of Punjab White? White is a very specific cultural-ethnic term to describe European populations. Better to use the word fair. But the above writer deserve credit in pointing out the substantial difference in features and look in the various regions of Indian Punjab which is surprising considering it is so small. But there is no white and black gradation as the above lines seem to imply. The difference is in average just as it is throughout India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.70.255 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation
thanks for the name change, how about making a disambiguation page if one searches for just "punjabi" becuase right now it goes straigh to the punjabi language. Aarandir 10:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I presume, most people that look for 'Punjabi' are looking for the language. There is a disambiguation page already available from the Punjabi language page.  You will need to get an admin to put it as the main Punjabi page.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Punjabis in Britian
theres got to be at least a million 500,000 pakistani punjabis (unless u count mirpuris as kashmiris even though thier mother toung is punjabi) 500,000 indian sikhs Aarandir 20:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC) im sure there have to be definatly around a million perhaps even more punjabis in the UK. unless as i said before u dont take the 700,000 pakistanis (who are mostly mirpuris) to be kashmiris.


 * I was unable to find any statistics that showed the exact number in the UK, so I put in what was 'officially' rendered and given in various websites and left speculation at the door. If you have a referenced figure, then by all means add it. Some 70% of Pakistani-British people are of Punjabi decent. Also, it might help to keep this fair in that if people identify themselves as one group, then it's probably more accurate to go with that perspective as we aren't in a position to decide with which group people should and should identify themselves with. Tombseye 20:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

ok, but leave it at 1,000,000 even though its probably more. number of sikhs 301,000. Ive got a number on pakistanis in england and wales but scotland doesnt want to reveal her secrets on ethnic origin the number of pakistanis in england and wales is 823,048... of which im assuming 750,000 are punjabis... also this is on a complete tangent but im surprised to hear the chinese are infact the fasting growing ethnic group in england! anyway there you go are the numbers. soo its 750,000 +301,000 1,051,000 punjabis in the UK! Aarandir 23:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are also Punjabi's in Britian who are Hindu as well, not sure of the exact number, but the main Hindu communities in England are largely Punjabi or Gujurati, to a lesser extent Tamil. Since the number of Hindus in England are 558,342, I'd place the number of Punjabi's at least a third of that, around 150 000. −Parihav 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Cleanup
I've just done a quick cleanup and added reference tags. I've currently removed the Salwar Kameez image because as far as I'm aware, men don't wear the Salwar Kameez? I've seen men wear a Kurta Pyjama but not a Salwar Kameez.

Pakistani punjabis as well as other pakistani ethnical groups wear Shalwar Kameez and also they call it Shalwar Kameez. (Son of the soil of Gujranwala Pakistan)

Also, I've noticed that much of the census information doesn't really match with the figures listed (for example, Punjabi speakers in India). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No... trust me... men do wear shalwar kameez! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarandir (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, I travelled to the country about 2 years ago and I saw the shalwar everywhere. Some variation of the other dress type you refer to seems common in some parts of rural Sindh. I assumed the people in the picture were Muslim given the child's headcap as well. As to keeping the picture or not, I have no idea where it's from etc., but I think this page could use a lot more pictures and the more the better. Tombseye 20:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes the men in that picture were definately Muslim. My understanding of Indian Punjab at least is that women wear the Salwar Kameez.  The men's version has always been known as a Kurta Pyjama?


 * I definately think pictures of more Punjabis are needed. The Salwar Kameez is definately worn by virtually all Punjabi women (either side of the border).


 * On a side-point, what are we using to define separate languages? Are we treating Hindki, Multani (Seraiki) and Dogri as different languages - i.e. not dialects of Punjabi? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw the men wearing the same as well as western clothing. I imagine in rural areas the kurta is worn as in Sind, but the cities appear to reflect the Shalwar or western clothing and since the shalwar is the national dress I imagine it's quite common. As for the languages, well, I was thinking that the dialects issue is debateable. I recently edited the Catalan people page and I've been to Spain myself and never realized that the Valencians do not consider themselves Catalan and point to their differences in language, however slight to a foreigner such as myself. Catalan and Valencian are mutually intelligible, but are slightly different and include greater historical interaction between Valencian and Castillian. Now as I understand it, Siraiki for example is a mixture of Punjabi and Sindhi and thus by most counts a different language, while Hindko also is considered a different language. In keeping with most other peoples pages, I was thinking we go with a specific language that people identify the group with and not overlapping groups who probably should get their own pages at some point. Of course mentioning this issue is perfectly reasonable, but delegating them to dialectical status may either offend those said peoples OR simply not reflect the common academic division of the languages, however similar they might be. Tombseye 20:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the language debate
All of the languages listed are considered closely related to Punjabi, but are considered by their speakers and by linguists as possibly different languages. Punjabi in this case in this article should reflect not just the provinces, but the people who identify themselves as Punjabis. If these are say either Siraikis etc., then they aren't technically Punjabis, but a separate group. Multani is simply linked to the Siraiki page and thus the problem. Keeping it in the related section is also in keeping with other similar peoples pages as, for example, on the Catalan people page, Valencian is rendered as related and not a dialect of Catalan even though it's mutually intelligible. The same applies here. Tombseye 23:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Punjab
Punj and Aab are Persian and not Punjabi word. The word for five in Punjabi is Paanch and the word for water is Paani. If you mix the two, you don't get Punjab, but Paanchpaani.

Paanch is Hindi for 5, in Punjabi it is Punj. And a river is not called Paani. Doaba refers to an area between two rivers ( Sutlej and Beas) in Indian Punjab. So Aba refers to not water but land between rivers. It can be derived from persian as could the Punj, but five is not Paanch in Punjabi. Haphar 11:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here is mentioning that Persian and Sanskrit both belong to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language group and the word "Ap" is used in Sanskrit for water. So the Sanskrit word could be Punch-ap which is not that far off Punjab! Jonathansammy (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Punjabi people
I think this is best moved on to List of prominent Punjabis. This could spiral out of control if left here! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claims
Ultimately, two later religions largely supplanted both of these earlier faiths, Islam in the west (mainly in modern Pakistan) and Sikhism in the east (while Hinduism remains prominent for many Indian Punjabis, there has been a significant linguistic shift by Hindu Punjabis towards the usage of Hindi).

How can such baseless claims be made without providing an iota of evidence?Where is the demographic evidence to back up this comment? Whis is the linguistic shift - some people have converted this encyclopaedia to a tool of demagoguery. People switch languages as they move from one language area to another. The slant above indicates that Sikhs speak Punjabi in Delhi, Haryana and other Hindiphone areas whereas Hindus speak Hindi even in Punjabi-speaking areas of Punjab state. If we are in the process of documenting linguistic shifts, it would be prudent to look at the real shift happening in Pakistan where people have dumped their mother tongue for Islamic language of Urdu. I'm removing the above metioned lines from the article. Besides, these shifts have already been documented in Punjabis of India/Pakistan sub-section, so these lines are anyway redundant.


 * I wrote that section. The evidence is in the infobox. The majority of Punjabis are in Pakistan and combined with the Sikhs outnumber those of other religions. In addition, the census data was consulted regarding a mother tongue and those who answered with Punjabi listed. And if you look at the Pakistan census, while many Punjabis are using Urdu more and more, they still claim Punjabi as their mother tongue (44%). Now if you have information to the contrary then by all means present it. Tombseye 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye,

Is infobox the text area on the right side of the article page, which lists the number of Punjabi speakers around the world (Regions with Significant Populations). If so, it has only linguistic affiliation data, which can't be used for making sweeping statements on religious affiliations of Punjabi-speakers. If you are subtracting the number of Sikhs from the number of Punjabi speakers to arrive at Hindu Punjabis, this is incorrect. Your assumption that all Sikhs list Punjabi as mother-tongue would require proof.

61.17.163.234 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Stuck on History ??

It seems personal opinions and not any irrefutable data form the basis of the statement "while Hinduism remains prominent for many Indian Punjabis, there has been a significant linguistic shift by Hindu Punjabis towards the usage of Hindi"

It is indeed true that a few decades back, "SOME" Punjabi Hindus (of which many were freshly uprooted from Pakistan) did feel intimidated so to say by the growing influence of Amritsar in the affairs of Punjab, and hence in this light presented Hindi as an alternative to Punjabi for Punjabi Hindus.. But those were a few people ... and hopefully these people and all their ideas have much become a part of History .. Let us leave these speculative statements in a Discussion of History of Modern Punjab.. and not in this article

All bull shits made about pakistani people of punjab region giving up punjabi and adopting urdu as religious language. Then this is totally false. Urdu is not religious language for muslims of pakistan only ARABI is religious language. We use Urdu for the spirit of Pakistanism. I have never met a single pakistani from punjab region who would identify himself as punjabi rather than pakistani. We people of pakistani Punjab do not consider ourselves as one racial or ethnic group and hence there is no popularity of punjabism in pakistan. This bull shit is only for the sikh cowards.

It is Pakistani Punjabis who are cowards since they can't even stand up for their own language. They are wagging their tails behind Arabs who have totally different culture and language. Study some Sikh history and then you will find who is coward.

When have the Sikhs been cowards?76.112.20.78 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)pakistani

Several cleanups
"Further studies show the diversity of the regions inhabited by the Punjabis with extreme Western Punjabis, living in close proximity to Afghanistan, such as the Punjabi Pathans genetically clustering with West Asian populations due to a high degree of admixture and also corresponding to a general genetic variation between populations east of the Indus from those west and north of the river valley.[13]"

The above para should be modified as it refers to peoples inhabiting areas close to regions such as Afghanistan or Baluchistan as Punjabis. The people such as Punjabi Pathans donot refer to themselvesas Punjabi nor consider their langauge to be Punjabi. Secondly,

"Lastly, it has been surmised through the analysis of the Romany language as well as genetic studies that many of the Roma people's ancestors (popularly known as Gypsies a term that is seen as perjorative) originated in the Pothohar region of what is today northern Pakistan as the Roma language shows strong similarities with Pothohari, itself a dialect of the Punjabi language."

How substantiated is this claim? As far as I know thier is ambuguity about Romani origins with theories associsating with various groups such as Jats, Rajputs, and even other peoples of west Asia). Their region of origin is also discussed to be from somewhere from the northern subcontinent again it has been theorized to be Sind, Punjab, Rajasthan etc. thankyou,

omerlivesOmerlives 13:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There have even been linkages to the Labana nomadic tribes, of which there are some "Sikh" Labana's in Indian Punjab. Haphar 11:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes in the HISTORY section
The history part starts off by saying that the Punjab region was invaded by indo-aryans and other groups of people...It goes on to say that these groups help formed the punjabi culture....But that doesnt make any sense because a "Punjabi" is some that is AN INDO-ARYAN...In other words being Punjabi is not a race...or a seperate group of people...They belong to the Aryan people....Their blood is Aryan....A Punjabi is someone that speaks Punjabi or comes from the state of Punjab...I mean its like saying...A person from the state of California is a Californian right? But their race is not Californian is it?....No...Same as Punjabi...NOw i understand that in India its a bit different...I understand that Punjabi can be sort of a sub-culture...But that is today.....But our blood is still ARYAN.....ANd the 2nd part that was a mistake is were it says that Punjab became a gateway to south Asia...Please....First of all when Muslim invaders came, and the greeks came it wasnt Punjab that was the gate way....It was the Hindu Khush or the silk road...Im punjabi for the record but this article is way to complicated....U guys are making it sound like a PUnjabi is this race or something ARYAN818 08:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply: If you actually read what has been found in the genetic studies of Punjabi peoples you would find out that Punjabis belong to the same stock as the various other peoples of the subcontinent. The only slight variation being is that there is a marjinly higher degree of some West Asian admixture in the Punjabi population compared to the rest of the Indians. In conclusion, there is no such "Aryan" race or identity of Punjabis. Punjabis are Indians, genetically speaking.

Aryan or Iranic stock is what peoples like the Persians belong to. Not Punjabis or other Indian peoples. Modern persian speakers of Iran have been genetically proved to be genetic brothers of afro-asiatic speakers to their west. The people inhabiting pakistani punjab are very high in R1a1 aryan genes. Also persians look like arabs to their west where as the people with R1a1 inhabit mainly eastern europe like russia, ukrain poland etc. An Aryan looked like a ukrainian and not like a perisan speaking afro asiatic.

Number of Punjabi's is too low, since Mother Tongue does not equal number of Punjabi's
There are few problems when you use the number of people that speak Punjabi, to state the population of the Punjabi people as a whole, rather than use statistics based on ethnic origin. First of all, in Pakistan, Urdu is the offical language. Therefore some people who are Punjabi, yet have to learn to speak Urdu and may consider it their mother tongue. Therefore these people are not being accounted for if you use the number of speakers of Punjabi alone. Also these numbers are almost nine years old and need to be updated with more recent stats.

In a similar fashion, in India many Hindu Punjabi's and to a lesser extent some Sikh Punjabis, do not speak Punjabi as their mother tongue, since they have moved to Hindi speaking cities and lived there for two or more generations. Also, the state of Haryana which was apart of Punjab until the 1960's, was created because although the people are Punjabi ethnically, they are formed a Hindi speaking majority state and the Punjabi speakers wanted to protect the language. Therefore you are excluding these Punjabi's as well. Furthermore, Muslim Punjabi's in India may also report Urdu as their mother tongue as oppossed to punjabi, especially if they live outside of Punjab in cities that mainly speak Urdu amongst the local Muslim community. Lastly, the figure is from 1991, that is over 16 years ago, we surely need some more recent figures from the 2001 census.

This same argument can be used in Canada as well. Many children of Punjabi immigrants from either Pakistan or India are not able to speak Punjabi fluently, and instead converse in English. So when you report the number of Punjabi's in Canada they are being under reported. For example in Canada, the Sikh population, all of whom are of Punjabi origin, stands at 240 000, (check the Indo Canadian page). If you account for the number of Hindu Punjabis from India, and Muslim and Christian Punjabis from Pakistan, the number far overshoots the current number based on mother tongue alone. - Parihav 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The people who take these surveys are not fools. It is not asked how many people actually speak Punjabi and with what frequency. The question is what is you mother tongue? Very negligible number of Punjabis will say our mother tongue is Hindi OR SOME OTHER LANGUAGE.Secondly Haryanvi people are definitely closely related to Punjabis but they are not Punjabis. Their is substantial cultural and genetic difference. True Jats of Haryana are on an average even more closely related to Punjabis. But Jats form around 30% of Haryanvis and not even the majority. All people from border states,or country or territory will resemble and overlap but that does not mean they are identical.Even Haryanvi Jats do not even remotely consider themselves Punjabis. True Jats of both Haryana and Punjab have a weak united identity but so do various multi state castes of India.Then if you include Haryani Jats into Punjabis sure you will have a hard time in conflaring various castes of Punjab like Khatris,Arora, Bhatias,Sood,Ramgarhia,Chamar,Kamboj,Labana,Tarkhans e.t.c. into a single whole.You cannot work both way at a time. But yes I agree these figures are a decade old and need to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.40.66 (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Term 'Munda Punjabi'
Is it correct that 'Munda Punjabi' stands for non-Sikh Punjabi's (i.e. not wearing the Five Ks? Wiki-uk 12:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

no it just means punjabi guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.12.138 (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

More correctly, it means Punjabi boy<--munda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.58.233 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Punjabi culture in western world
"Due to the values and heritage of the Punjabi Culture, the Punjabi people have become one of the most successful and wealthiest sections of society in the west, this is in addition to on average being the wealthiest in Pakistan and India."

Jingoistic nonsense that manages to go off-topic from its own section title. The socio-economic success of Punjabi immigrants in Western nations is not an aspect of Punjabi CULTURE nor is the claim sourced or even precise. The only sourced part of the section was the completely and utterly irrelevant socio-economic data on Punjabis in INDIA. Ever consider the fact that groups consisting largely of new economic immigrants would do comparatively well to indigenous or long-term ethnic groups, because it's the ambitious, hard-working individuals who emigrate? Section removed, as it had absolutely nothing to say about Punjabi CULTURE apart from ascribing magical powers of wealth-creation through positive stereotyping to it. Unigolyn 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Language
The language section here speaks complete nonsense. The standard dialect of Punjabi on both sides of the border is the same - Maajhi. Lahindi begins far West of Lahore and is prevalent around Multan. And Lahindi is by no means a 'purer' dialect of Punjabi. None of this section is cited. 128.86.146.48 10:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image of old Hindustani man
Why is this image of an old Punjabi Pathan man being removed? He is obviously a Punjabi, look at his dark features and his face is typical Punjabi face. Please do not remove this image before a consesus.--119.30.67.250 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop this misleading editing. The image is clearly labeled Pathan from an article titled "Through The Heart of Hindustan: A Teeming Highway Extending for Fifteen Hundred Miles, from the Khyber Pass to Calcutta". Obviously this does not refer to India as the specific modern conception but to an older less specific and much larger concept of the term "Hindustan". Rmhermen (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an expert on this region, and I'm not misleading editing. Hindustan (meaning land of the Hindus) has always been the other name of India. The title "Old Pathan 1921" was given to the file by the uploader, usually an uploader can give any name to a file and it doesn't mean it's accurate or it be used as evidence. There is no such evidence to indicate where exactly this photo was shot. It could have been shot at a place in what is now Pakistan or in what is now India. The word "Pathan" refers to "Punjabi Pathan", which is a group of people who practice Punjabi culture. See Hindkowans Putting this photo in this article is not misleading. You sound like you probably don't know about the different ethnic groups of South Asia. I'm an expert on the people of this reagion and that is a Punjabi-speaking man.--119.30.77.149 (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are an expert on this region, then what are your credentials? - How can you tell from the photo that this man is a Punjabi speaker. As for the meaning of Hindustan, try taking a look at Hindustan. Prior to 1947 the word Hindustan was also applied to what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh, including areas largely inhabited by Pathans, for instance Peshawar, Khyber Pass etc. Oh and on the subject of the "dark features" of the above picture have a look at this photo of "Afghan chiefs" - would you say they were Punjabi too? Pahari Sahib  23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are repeating junk that I have already explained. I already stated that Hindustan means "land of the Hindus" and it covered present-day Pakistan and India. "Hindu" is a geographical term, it has always refered to anyone who is native of Hindustan. Before 1947, all those who lived in prsent-day Pakistan were called "Hindus" by outsiders, even Muslims were called Hindus. If you go to Arab countries, they still call Pakistani people "Hindus" due to their similar Indian features. Of course Hindustan included some of the Pathan areas of what is now Pakistan (as of about 1850 and onward), but you are uneducated because I said there is no proof that the photo of the old Indian man was taken in Pathan area. Perhaps it was taken in Lahore or elsewhere. The given file name by the uploader is not proof, that's his POV. About the image you mentioned of Afghans, read the description that I put so you can understand and trust me a little that I'm an expert on the people of the region. Starting from the left, the 2nd and 3rd (standing) in that photo on the right are Punjabis for sure. Next time try to make sense with your argument instead of talking nonsense.--119.30.77.149 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a brief reply, Hindu is not a geographic term, I am aware of the other meaning of the word (i.e. "Indian") and the etymology of the word Hindustan. The file name is not the pov of the uploader, but based on what the photographer said - why would he have a pov regarding the ethnicity of the subject? As for the second picture, Captain Tucker aside, who is of what ethnicity. And finally try not to be so insulting in your replies, it reflects badly on you. Pahari Sahib  00:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Read Hindu.--119.30.70.188 (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to answer to 119.30.67.250's crappy accusations. Anonymous user from Pakistan, you've indulged in every possible act prohibited as per WP:NOT: WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR , Sock puppetry (119.30.76.138,119.30.67.8,119.30.77.149,119.30.70.188,119.30.78.21) and obviously, WP:NPOV. Consider it as sheer good fortune that you have not yet been blocked.- Ravichandar My coffee shop 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not violating the rules of Wikipedia and I have my rights to keep myself anonymous online. Please control your hate or anger and try to focus on the subject we're discussing here, which is the unverifiable ethnicity of the old man in the photo that you uploaded at the very top of this section. Don't worry about who I really am. We need to verify something on the old man, can you upload the same photo but showing the text of the National Geographic Magazine. Similar as how you uploaded the photo on the right here or the other ones you have uploaded which show historical text. People who lose debate starts changing subject and starts talking about the challenger, that's what you're doing here now.--119.30.75.148 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A new version has been introduced as you wanted me to. Now shall we take a decision about you regarding your breach of Wikipedia's policies. - Ravichandar My coffee shop 16:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that, now I see that he may be Pashto-speaking Pathan but it's still not 100% clear because the term "Pathan" also applies to Hindko-speaking Hindkowans who live in NWFP (where the old Pathan's photo may have been shot). I know alot about these Hindko-speaking Pathans, they are 50% Punjabi and 50% Pashtun. Their native language "Hindko" is much closer to Punjabi language than Pashto. If you hear it you think you're hearing someone speaking Punjabi and I have heard them speak because I have several Hindko-speaking friends. Anyway, I think to remove this mistrust on the old man's true ethnicity you can just replace his photo in the Pashtun people article with this new one on the right because the people in this photo are proven to be Pathans, with no doubt. This new photo is also much older than the old man's, which I considered it to be biased as well.--119.30.67.70 (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want even older photo of Pathans then this may be even better, to be used in Pashtun people article in the section that talks about ancient history or origin of the name Afghan.--119.30.67.70 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources for population counts in the nations listed?
Does anybody have any sources for the population counts outisde of Pakistan and India?

The information seems somewhat dubious.

Thanks, TheSuave (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't, but I do know have sources that say that Punjabis are the largest group of British Asians, so 1 million+ does sound like a reasonable figure. I agree that it should be removed though. Also, I doubt that most Canadian Punjabis speak Punjabi, so that source is also bunk. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Punjabi people photo gallery
Why is it that the Punjabi people article's photo gallery is entirely of buildings? It's like having an Irish people article illustrated with castles. -Rolypolyman (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Punjabis are not a single ethnic group but a heterogenious society,
Its written in the page that 'punjabis are an indo-aryan group of southeast asia'. This is wrong because Punjabi term is applied to all the people living in punjab who are very diverse ethnically. There are Indo-aryan clans like rajputs and jatts in punjab but there are other groups such as dravidians who are known as kami and kallar in Punjab,although they speak punjabi but claim descent from dravads(dravidians). I asked a poor kami man from my village that where they came from and quite surprisingly, he said,'we were the rulers of this land but our power was over when the rajas came'. That poor man was uneducated and belonged to a very poor family. He knew his dravidian origin most probably due to oral traditions passed on to generations. Kallars are also dravidians.

Than there are arabs like shaikhs, Syeds ,Abassids, etc aswell in punjab. And there are Balochs aswell who form nearly 20% of the total population of punjab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.8.153 (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Massive picture of Harbhajan singh????
I'm going to remove it as it's completely out of place and proportion, if it needs to be there then add it/replace with the smaller picturess, please. Khokhar (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Punjabis in India
is says "The Punjab region within India maintains a strong influence on the culture of South Asia", this is not true, maybe in India but definately not in pakistan as it has it's own 'punjabi culture' which is in many ways distinct from 'indian Punjabi/Sikh cultutre', and 'Bhangra' is not an Indian only thing, as Indians seem to portary in the world, in fact the majority of Punjabi people/culture originates in Pakistan's Punjab so please can we cut down on this constant 'indian punjabi' pov, please, at least amongst us Punjabi's. Khokhar (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism
This article is constantly being vandalised, the most popular subject seems to be the demographics and religion, this seems to be happening on a regular basis by a large number of editors. This article should really be protected against vandalism from unregistered users at least. Khokhar (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
Seems like a dubious claim, there is no citation to the actual claim, seems like some is trying align Punjabis more with the middle-east/Arab Semitic ancestry which would go against a whole body of evidence pointing to Punjabis being Indo-Aryan, seems like religious biasses towards Islam has much to do with trying to align Punjabis with Arabs, then facts. --Street Scholar (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What claim are you refering to? generally though, Punjabi's all have tribes/clans so there is no real ambiguity about origin, the Quereshi/Syed/Rizvi etc. though now mixed, are from an arab background, there's no debate there, there are also various afghan/pashtun/iranian tribes such as the Niazi/Mirza or central Asian tribes such as the Mughal, again the tribe name will tell you this and to be honest you can tell by their looks in most cases, and then there are clans that claim ancestry/connection to afghan/arab/iranain origin, such as the Awan/Gakhar etc. So there is no ambiguity really, just a lot of clans/tribes from other countries who have settled in Pakistani Punjab. 'Local' Punjabi clans are Indo-aryan, again there is no ambiguity there and it clearly states this in the lead section, Punjabi's however, as far as this article is concerned, are a linguistic group.Khokhar (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry khokar you refer to a few clans out of hundreds of thousands,clearly you are the one spreading Islamic bias through Punjabi articles,be my guest and ask a Muslim Punjabi on the street if hes a Punjabi youd get laffed at,Nowadays Urdu is used by the younger generations and if you refer to seraiki and potohari as Punjabi you are highly Mistaken,If you refer to eastern Punjabi which is now classed as Punjabi now you will see how you have around 8 million Speakers of the Punjabi language today in pakistan,So dont throw numbers around if your government doesnt know how to class separate languages. Information- Line 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is your POV so how about you back up your claims for a change? In the context of this article; Pakistani 'Punjabi' people outnumber Indian 'Punjabi' people 3 to 1, this needs to be shown for obvious reasons, also you continue to mistake shahmukhi with urdu, regardless, The Pakistani punjabi people only understand shahmukhi and urdu hence why you need to stop making your disruptive reverts. Khokhar (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No i meant Urdu Punjabi in shahmukhi is rarely used in Pakistan due to it seen as unproffesional ,you may check how many punjabis in Pakistan speak east Punjabi which is referred to as Punjabi today ,which is the Majhi ,Malwi and Doabi dialects of Punjabi.If you want to be technical add in the people of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh as it was Also part of the Punjab region and are still Punjabis.

Urdu is Used as a written Language in Pakistan ask some of your family members they will correct you,Now you may see that technically more Punjabis are in Indian Punjab ....... Information- Line 22:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have lived in Punjab so know exactly what form of writing is used and what form the people can read, also the People of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh speak 'Hindi' and have it as their regional language not Punjabi, or any form of standard Punjabi for that matter, and this is the Punjabi people page not the 'Majhi people page'. Khokhar (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but today Majhi Malwi and Doabi is referred to as Punjabi and by encyclopedic right s ,Honestly ask your family if a saraiki or potohari person is referred to as a Punjabi by locals,they have separate identitys.no Punjabi is the second Language of Haryana and delhi and in Himachal pradesh it is spoken around the capital and more districts Joining Punjab. And Punjabi has no Official status in Pakistan why is that? why is it only Urdu ? Tuhada Sir Panan Wala ya ,Assi Pandu geh Regards :) Information- Line  23:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Punjabi is the provisional language of Punjab.. I suppose in that case Hindi is the official language of India and punjabi has no official status? again you continue to repeat the same cliched misinformation aswell as adding false information to this article, grow up. Khokhar (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

But it has no official status in Pakistan Urdu and English are the official Languages ,In india Punjabi is one of the official languages......right i have added no Falso information to the article please stop with all the islamic bias Information- Line 08:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You have serious difficulty understanding the simplest of things, I expect you are very young... anyway if you continue your vandalim such as adding haryana and himachel pradesh to this article or changing the Sikh minority numbers, then I will have to inform an administrator. Khokhar (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why mention of Indian Punjab's Dalit population?
Dalits are not Punjabis. Mostly Jats are called Punjabis and some times a few other castes but no one considers Dalits Punjabis. Dalits are Hindus.

Dalits are Punjabis because they are native to Punjab. And Jats originally came from Sindh so they can't be original Punjabis. Also, your forgetting that Punjabis are very diverse and heterogenous. Akmal94 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Jains
editprotected Hi. Can an admin please disambiguate the links to Jains in section "5.6 Marriage" to instead link to Jainism. Jains is a disambiguation page, and this page is the only outstanding link. --JamesAM (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Punjabi people
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 Punjabi people'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 "ReferenceA": From Bhutta: A quote from Page 109 In the Book "A Glossary of the Tribes and castes of the Punjab and North -West Frontier Province compiled by AH ROSE and based on the Census Report for the Punjab 1883, by Sir Denzil Ibbetson and the census report for the Punjab 1892 by Sir Edward Maclagan . From Punjab (India): Welcome to Official Web site of Punjab, India From Arain: Pakistan under Zia, 1977-1988, Shahid Javed Burki.</li> <li>From Central Asia: Encyclopædia Iranica, "CENTRAL ASIA: The Islamic period up to the mongols", C. Edmund Bosworth: "In early Islamic times Persians tended to identify all the lands to the northeast of Khorasan and lying beyond the Oxus with the region of Turan, which in the Shahnama of Ferdowsi is regarded as the land allotted to Fereydun's son Tur. The denizens of Turan were held to include the Turks, in the first four centuries of Islam essentially those nomadizing beyond the Jaxartes, and behind them the Chinese (see Kowalski; Minorsky, "Turan"). Turan thus became both an ethnic and a geographical term, but always containing ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians and Khwarezmians."</li> <li>From Lahore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tom9uPy4lQo</li> <li>From Wattu: A Glossary of the tribes & castes of Punjab by H. A Rose</li> <li>From Agriculture: Feed the world? We are fighting a losing battle, UN admits</li> <li>From Ranjit Singh: The Real Ranjit Singh by Fakir Syed Waheeduddin, published by Punjabi University, ISBN 8173807787, 01 Jan 2001, 2nd ed.</li> <li>From Vancouver: Strangers Entertained, British Columbia government centennial publication, 1971''</li> <li>From Singapore: Year Book of Statistics, Singapore. Singapore Tourism Board</li> <li>From Punjabi language: Ethnologue. 15th edition (2005).</li> <li>From Bais Rajput: An Ethnographical Hand-book for the N.-W. Provinces and Oudh - Page 138 by William Crooke - Anthropology - 1890</li> <li>From Awan (Pakistan): A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province, H. A. Rose</li> <li>From Jammu and Kashmir: CIA - The World Factbook</li> </ul>

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 ⚡ 02:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ GreenUpGreenOut (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image
The Infobox contains 12 pictures -- the number should be reduced to make Infobox useful. The number of notable Punjabi people runs into hundreds -- you cannot include images of all of them here. utcursch | talk 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

10% of Punjabis are Hindu? Only 10%?
Who is coming up with these numbers then? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to burst your bubble, but when you work out the numbers it's very reasonable. We're talking about the Punjab region proper, mostly Muslim and Sikh; inhabitants of parts like Himachal Pradesh and Haryana, as you may be getting at, have never spoken the language nor shared the culture; they are only occasionally included in some "Greater Punjab" concept by virtue of being part of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Sikh Empire when the British took control.
 * FYI the core Punjab region was actually even smaller at the time of the early Mughals, including roughly only modern-day Sikh Punjab and the northern half of Muslim Punjab (Multan, etc were included later on), but the popular definition is the combination of the modern-day East and West Punjab political boundaries; this is the predominant definition and the one I operate by, history and my own views aside (even though to the south other ethnicities become quite prominent (Seraikis, Balochis etc.). Again Ranjit Singh is responsible for the expansion of the definition.
 * Anyway, judging by the trend of your edits you seem to have hit the ground running trying to overemphasize Hinduism in the region. Won't work.3swordz (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * the population of punjabi hindus is more than the population of sikhs it should be corrected in the article. the punjabi sikh population is lower compared to the punjabi hindu population.


 * not in Punjab proper. again, areas like himachal pradesh and haryana are considered historically punjabi only because they were part of punjab as the british inherited from the Sikh Empire. They were never significantly culturally or linguistically punjabi. 3swordz (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than rudely saying "Sorry to burst your bubble" you ought to come up with reliable sources that prove your point. Anyway the recent 2011 Census states there are about 9 million Hindus in Punjab and 14.5 million Sikhs. That isn't a ratio of 2.5:1 as the article impliedly used to state.
 * Obviously this is an old and outdated conversation but it seemed incomplete so I wrote this in case anyone else curious about religious demography in Punjab reads this section. Also someone may wish to add similar information in the future. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Talk  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 11:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hindu population is a very small fraction of the total Punjabi population. Even in India Sikhs are the overwhelming majority. I am talking about ethnicity and not present day demographics of Indian Punjab. Maybe you are too influenced by Delhi,where there are more Khatri/Aroras- who are majority Hindus. But population of Khatris is minuscule in Punjab and Aroras too is s small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.40.66 (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Notability of infobox people, second row
Looking at the pictures of Punjabis in the infobox, I think several of them really aren't very notable at all, namely the second row: "Wasim Akram, Aitzaz Ahsan, Ahmad Jawad Asghar." None of them seem very important or noteworthy outside of few Pakistani circles, not even nationwide. they are not internationally notable or even heard of in East Punjab. This Wasim Akram is just some cricketer with a picture in his article, Aitzaz Ahsan is a lawyer (with some international exposure, granted, so maybe he is justified), and Asghar is a run-of-the-mill unnotable Pakistani CEO with a subpar article.

I suggest replacing these with Punjabis of actual historical of cultural heft, like say Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale or other Sikh leaders, or notable Punjabis of antiquity like Baba Farid or Bulleh Shah. With whoever they are replaced by, they are sure to be more notable than these people. If they are there simply to maintain the Muslim presence of the Punjabi religious ratio, then I'm sorry but that's not a good enough reason. They need to be important and notable in Punjab's culture, or renowned outside of it, and these don't make the cut. 3swordz (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Replying to above - Wasim Akram is not 'some cricketer' - the man is the best left arm fast bowler in the history of the game and is regularly included in all time best XI teams. Most people in the cricketing world will be able to tell you who he is - that includes both Pakistan and India. And as Pakistan accounts for 60%+ of the Punjabi population - Pakistani Punjabis warrant representation on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.208.191 (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

To my immeadiate above.You are under counting. Pakistani Punjabis represent nearly 75% of the total Punjabi population in sub continent. 90 million Punjabis in Pakistan and 29 million in India. You do the maths. And still Indian Punjabis are over represented in the Punjabi people page.I wonder why? The bias should be restored. Reading the page it is clear it is written from East Punjab perspective and West Punjab only plays a side role. And of course Wasim Akram is one of the most important modern Punjabis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.116.93 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Montage problems
The montage currently is very good I am loving it.

Problem with the references
A number of the references at the bottom of the article are of the citation style "Author et al." such as and. When you press these links, nothing happens, and the original references are not given earlier in the article or in the list of books at the bottom of the article. How do you get to the actual references for the cites that are in this style? Keraunos (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that a uniform citation style wasn't chosen for this article. There should have been two lists of books, a "bibliograpy" used for citations in that style and a "further reading" for books or sources not yet incorporated into the article. Somebody has merged these two lists into one and erased the book that reference cites. To correct this go into this article's history, click 500 in the bottom to see a bigger list, and click "prev" to see a version of the page that includes that citation in the books section and then copy and paste it into the current list. Nice catch by the way.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Content overlap with Punjab region
A lot of the content here (about the major cities etc.) belongs to the article on the Punjab region. This article should focus more on the culture, demographics etc. utcursch | talk 10:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I added new Details in Religion Section
Well in the religion I have seen that only Sikhism and Islam were two main Entries. While everyone Knows that Punjabi people follow diverse religions. In Pakistan I have seen that a sizeable community constitute Ahmedis as well and Christians constitute around 3 percent of Punjab Pakistan and also I have met some friends who follow Quranism and recently I heard some people are following Deism. So i added them here. I added the links to Only Ahmedis and Deism as Other religions are known but Ahmedis and Deists are not known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saifu77 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The tone and style of the article
This entire article needs to be re-written in a more neutral, objective manner.

It seems to be written in a personal and biased tone, as if it were an anecdotal piece. It seems that the author has infused personal opinions as facts in some areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.156.66 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Genetics
The genetics section is based on completely redundant unsourced claims. Besides, they're not even realistic. If there's any South Asian group that would have the highest West Eurasian admix, it would be the Pashtuns or Baloch, as they lay the most westly geographically wise.

- LouisAragon (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

--Schmorg (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Morgan Schmidt

--Schmorg (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)schmorg

Schmorg (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)schmorg

Title
The unambiguous and plural demonym "Punjabis" is by far more common to be used for these people per Ngram. And it is more WP:CONCISE than "Punjabi people". Per Koreans, Tajiks, Germans, Swedes, Russians, Serbians, and many other titles of similar articles. Per WP:ETHNICGROUP, "Punjabis" is the optimal title for this page. Khestwol (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)