Talk:Religion in the Punjab

Redirect
This article was redirected to another page without consultation. If any editor feels the content needs improving, please do so and discuss concerns on this talk page in accordance with Wikipedia policies. (Malikhpur) 09:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would support moving the article back to "Folk practices in Punjab." This article served in a useful niche documenting practices which do not fall neatly into the three "main" religions. The recent additions we have seen (which only seem to serve towards some kind of chest-puffing contest and add a good bit of OR that none of the sources state, though this has been rectified) would have been just fine being added somewhere like the Religion section in the Punjab region article, and does not warrant entirely reorienting this article away from its unique niche and being made redundant, imo. Sapedder (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no object to your suggestion but the move was made by Learnindology. Please see discussion on my Talkpage Punjabi folk religion (Malikhpur) 16:29,16.30 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it a redirect instead of hijacking together with copyvio, misrepresentation of sources, cherrypicking and other policy violations. Sapedder is making up information about Jats not being Hindu and following their own religion when the source says that most scholars classified them as low caste Hindus. Sapedder also removed that Manusmriti shaped the Punjabi folk practices. List is long regarding the recent disruption here. Editorkamran (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, the list is long indeed. This is so laughably transparent that I can tell what happened: you saw info you didn't like, got triggered, and alleged it being "made up." Then you checked the sources and to your dismay found the info to reflect the source material, so you flipped and then cried about "copyvio," though the large edit only left a few phrases un-rewritten (and triggered no bot report), which you seized upon and now allege "cherrypicking," though the info spans multiple pages (I'm not sure you know what it means). If what was written did not reflect the source, you would cry foul about that too, even though the version you like has almost nothing to do with the sources attached and is filled with WP:OR.
 * "keep as a redirect" Yes, "Religion in Punjab" will be redirected to Punjab#Religions (duh), and "Folk practices in Punjab" will be restored as it has been for the last eleven years prior to its actual hijacking in June (which you no doubt knew about having seen the edit history, but you like this version so you've tried to play ignorant.) In fact, the author of this long-established article before it got hijacked is Malikhpur here.
 * As for Hinduism, Jats being low-caste, and the Manusmriti, they were all present in my edit. Do be advised that old reversions can easily be pulled up, lest you want to make yourself look stupid and lie so blatantly again. Besides these bits, the version you have restored has departed from the sources completely. The source states the the Manusmriti shaped "pan-Indian social-religious customs," not Punjabi folk traditions, do learn to read. "Jats not Hindu" was never stated, stop projecting your own anxieties. Jats came from somewhere and have their own customs as well, they did not fall out of the sky. Learn about how these "impure" low-castes were "shuddhi'ed" into the mainstream by the novel invention of Hindu proselytization in the 1800s, among other events. If Jat history bothers you, I can't help you.
 * Quoting the sources too accurately in response to another's edit (which is easily remedied) certainly beats making up a timeline about Punjabi Hindu conversion which none of the sources do at all, that is OR. If you or any other editor wants to stroke themselves off with "we iz da oldest," go do it elsewhere. Changing the entire orientation of the page just to add 3-4 lines bigging yourselves up is not acceptable. After some quick tweaks (and some expansion), I will reinstate my edit, which will only illustrate how much unsupported POV infests this version. Sapedder (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , reading the discussion it looks like the title "Folk practices in Punjab" was already mutually agreed upon already between you and the other user, before they moved it again unilaterally. I would be the third to support restoring "Folk practices in Punjab" as agreed to prior, so I think that would settle it. I will instate my expanded edit shortly. Sapedder (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been moved after it was established that no such thing as "folk religion in Punjab" exist. Creating "folk practices in Punjab" over a "religion in Punjab" by intentionally ignoring the content in the sources is what article hijacking is. The title 'Religion in the Punjab' is more appropriate and encompasses traditional religious belief and folk practices. Historical facts such as the Punjab being historically Hindu, transitioning to Buddhism, and then back to Hinduism should not be diluted. Sappeder's edits introduced irrelevant content such as the Persian water wheel that have nothing to do with the topic of religion. Sapedder, your inclusion is indeed copyvio, made-up, WP:UNDUE and misinterpretation of sources. Your claim Jats were not Hindus is not supported by mainstream academia and is a mere chest-thumping by Khalistani nationalists as pointed out by scholars. Editorkamran (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, this is far from an established fact. Punjab has a limited connection to Buddhism in fact it’s impossible to name a single Buddhist figure born in Punjab. I doubt Buddhists ever had a significant presence in Punjab beyond foreign-origin Kushans, Indo-Greeks and Indian Mauryans.KashKarti (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * More hysterics. A serviceable "Punjab#Religions" section already exists, that will be the redirect. The mere existence of "folk practices" inspiring fear in you is no grounds to hijack an 11-year-old article without proper consensus, especially when it was just to add 4 lines of Hindu chest-thumping.
 * The Bhatti, Bhatti+Michon, Nayar, and Snehi sources would all disagree with you that there are no such thing as independent folk practices in Punjab, not to mention myself and Malikhpur. The linked discussion established nothing of the sort, and both parties had agreed on "Folk practices in Punjab," so you are imagining things There is no such "timeline of Hindu conversion" in any of the sources, so this is WP:OR. It's beyond misinterpretation of sources, it departs from them entirely. "Jats were not Hindu" was never stated anywhere, all you can do is create strawmen. It already stated that they were low-caste in the Hindu society they interacted within, so there is nothing to complain about. Jat migration is fundamental to the establishment of jathera and other beliefs in the region.
 * "you iz Khalistani" is pure projection and nonsense, but revealing. Being threatened by folk traditions that do not fall under any organized religions (whether Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Christian or otherwise) is transparently ideological.
 * No bot report, did not pass the threshold for copyvio lol (crying copyvio AND made-up? you are quite confused), especially now that the expanded, amended version is ready to go. Spare us these freak-outs if you have no real points beyond hurling panicked allegations to disguise hurt rashtarvadi feelings. Sapedder (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel threatened by a non-existing religion and I don't need a bot to verify copyright violation. Are you telling me that even though such article existed for 11 years it has failed to attract any significant coverage? You are playing a victim and it won't help you in disapproving the points I made above. Editorkamran (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah you're threatened lol. Your copyvio gambit was a flop, and when all else fails, wildly cry "Khalistani" (even though folk practices are independent of Sikhism). Your points "disapprove" themselves, they are all undemonstrated strawmen, and I'm not convinced that you know what cherrypicking or reading comprehension even are. As for "attract significant coverage" (what is this, a news program?) the existing sources are extremely underutilized, and that will be fixed in the upcoming expansion when Malikhpur touches base. The point of an encyclopedia is not to "attract coverage," but to document all topics regardless of fame or obscurity (and this topic is adequately noted for a page of its own, regardless of whether or not it threatens your absorptionism). Sapedder (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The page was moved and modified per my discussion with Malikhpur. That said, any page move must go through WP:RM now. LearnIndology (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * LearnIndology, I see in the discussion that Malikhpur proposed "Folk practices in Punjab," which you seemed to agree to and moved the article to. Great, but then I see a second move to the current title, for which I see neither consensus nor a need when Punjab#Religions already exists, and what was added can be added there (the relatively small net addition to the article, much of which doesn't jive with the sources they are attached to, do not warrant such a drastic change in scope imo). There is a lot of info on this topic in the existing sources, which as yet remain largely untapped (Bhatti & Michon alone is a treasure trove, among others), and the article has its place. WP:RM is on the table, but discussion is yet ongoing here. Sapedder (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Punjab cannot serve as a substitute for this article if you actually believe that "folk religion in Punjab" deserves a separate article. The topic is not notable nor significant enough to have a separate article. Even the present version provides it WP:UNDUE emphasis. LearnIndology (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I proposed the subsection as a place to add the few lines that were added and seem to serve as the flimsy basis to reorient the article entirely. Those few lines can go there (provided they reflect what the sources say). As for notability, that is nothing but an assertion and obviously Malikhpur, myself, and quite a few authors disagree. Malikhpur's proposal was "Folk practices in Punjab," not "Folk religion in Punjab," I'm not sure why these keep getting conflated throughout this talk page or viewed so oppositionally, unless viewed as some kind of rival to existing belief systems and their cohesion, as opposed to complementing them. There is no shortage of folk belief and folklore articles and discussion of other subregions around the world on Wiki. This folk element is quite important to Punjabi heritage and if anything needs more exposure, not suppression.
 * "Folk practices in Punjab" is still supported by Malikhpur, was supported by you, and is supported by me, so there's consensus. I see none for the latest move. I would have no problem with a separate "Religion in Punjab" article where you can add as much of those 3-4 lines that jive with sources, it is the loss of an existing topic that is being opposed. As for undue, that's just another unilateral subjective call that can be laid to rest just by putting existing sources to use and adding more sources (which certainly exist), though these alone are adequate for an article (I have an expanded version ready to go, and will continue expanding it as time goes). If anything, much of the recent additions are undue and not backed by sources. Sapedder (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The proposal does not enjoy consensus at this time. Though one editor rescinded their opposition, they still did not back the proposal in the affirmative. Other editors were not likewise swayed by the arguments of both the filer and the page's creator (the 2 sole supporters out of 7 participants). El_C 14:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Religion in the Punjab → Folk practices in Punjab – Besides being the long-standing topic of the article, and consensus for this proposed title already being established just a few months ago in June right before a unilateral move to the current title, I have expanded the article using a multitude of sources to solidly confirm the subject.

Even before my expansion, the article still predominantly discussed folk traditions, with the exception of a paltry 4-sentence section added the same month called "Historical religious background of Punjabis" which did not adhere to sources and contained significant WP:OR, seemingly to try to justify this current title (though I have edited that section to reflect the sources, I am still leaning towards moving it to Punjab. If a new distinct page for Religion in Punjab is desired with actual sincerity, where this stub of a section can be placed, I have no objection, but to use it as a pretext to erase "Folk practices in Punjab" is now out of the question).

My expansion, using several scholarly sources which discuss Punjabi folk traditions both specifically and in depth, should firmly establish its notability to the relevant user. Concerns over notability, while being purely unsubstantiated, were the only point raised in the above discussion that was not just an ideological tantrum based only on WP:IDL by another user. Even if concerns over notability had any merit whatsoever, it is not a basis to do away with an article topic on a whim, especially without any real justification beyond flatly proclaiming so.

Frankly I think that reinstating the original title "Punjabi folk religion" is now justified based on the sources and the predominance of content both added and already present, but to avoid potential quibbling over semantics I will support "Folk practices in Punjab", as it already has prior consensus, to conclude things quicker. , feel free to add further content that you may have access to. Sapedder (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 11:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose [strike-through per commentary of 6 November 2021 below]: The article is about religion, not "practices", whatever that might mean (which is very unclear and seems to imply something very different from religion). The proposer doesn't even seem to like the title they are proposing, and is suggesting something different in their last paragraph. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your takeaway that I don't "like" my own proposal is a misunderstanding, suffice it to say. "Folk religion in Punjab" is simply the original title of the page before June of this year, and remains my maximal position so to speak; my current proposal is in the interest of civility and compromise in regards to the above discussion and changes here in the last few months. And outside of one small section the article specifically discusses folk beliefs, not religion at large, so it is not "about religion." The proposed title had consensus prior to my involvement here (I am the third to agree with it), while the current title has none. "Folk practices in Punjab," "Folk beliefs in Punjab," "Folk religion in Punjab," I'm not a stickler in this aspect and as such I am open to tweaks to the title, but it is the "folk" element that is being actively minimized here which I am attempting to reverse, which is the focus of like 90%+ of the article. Sapedder (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that you said that you would prefer "Punjabi folk religion" over the title that you have proposed in this RM. I would prefer that title too, so I suggest a move to or  or . That seems like a much more clear identification of what the article is about. "Folk practices" is rather unclear, but we have an article about Folk religion, and it seems like Punjabi folk religion is what this article is about. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well as I said I have no problem with tweaks to my proposition, or with any of these titles you have proposed, if you feel that they are more precise. I simply proposed "practices" to accommodate the users above. You would be another user besides me and Malikhpur who would be good with "Punjabi folk religion," or a variation thereof. Sapedder (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As per our discussion so far, would you be willing to change your vote officially here? It seems we have agreement with your suggestion "Folk religion in Punjab" Sapedder (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK – please see the strike-through of my "oppose" above. My "oppose" was only about the exact proposed title. As I later described, I do not oppose renaming the article. I only oppose having a name that does not include the word religion or religious at all. Regarding the "not notable" commentary described below for "the redirect question", I disagree with that view. Folk religious practices seem obviously notable, and Punjab seems necessarily too brief to cover that subject adequately. (Adequate sourcing, of course, is necessary, and I have not studied the details of the subject.) No one in this discussion is currently arguing that folk religious practices in the Punjab are not notable or that this article should just be a redirect. Regarding Andrewa's commentary and that of LearnIndology, I do not have a strong opinion about the desirable scope of the article. I also do not have an informed opinion about the prior accusation of "hijacking together with copyvio, misrepresentation of sources, cherrypicking and other policy violations". —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Including "religion" was my ideal preference anyway and "practices" was a compromise. As for claims of "violations" by that user, that is just WP:IDL based on their personal politics. Apparently thinking that folk religion is a thing made me a political subversive in their eyes. The thought process that led to that conclusion is wildly off base to say the least. Sapedder (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a proposal to reverse 15:31, 24 June 2021 LearnIndology talk contribs block 83 bytes +83  LearnIndology moved page Folk practices in Punjab to Religion in the Punjab: Wider scope of the article beyond folk practices. However no argument has been given to dispute this rationale, which seems valid. Many have a POV that all religion is folk practice but this is not the normal meaning of the terms. Religion in the Punjab may well meet the definition of folk religion but the place to make that point is in the article, not in the article title. Andrewa (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well yes, this is a result of the preceding *Redirect* discussion, and a proposal to do just that. The myriad arguments against that unilateral, no-consensus move are all present there. No argument has been given? I've reproduced them here a few times now.
 * I am not trying to make "Religion in the Punjab" meet the definition of "folk religion," I am trying to do the very opposite. The current title was arguably part of an attempt to make folk religion conform to and be subsumed by a (now-politicized) religious identity. It's really this new title that ought to be going through RM with its murky motives, not the original title.
 * In a nutshell (again): This "widening of the scope" was just the insertion of a short (old revision) section which I had to rewrite anyway as it was largely tasteless "my ingroup was here first" chauvinism and OR. It seemed intended to serve as a flimsy pretext to remove "folk religion" from the title (which the rest of the long-standing article was still about) than to provide anything of value. Even now, this one section is still out of step with the rest of the page and is a better fit elsewhere, as all other sections in the article (>90% of the page) discusses folk religion specifically. The other user in the *Redirect* discussion was more plainly personally offended by the very existence of independent folk beliefs on ideological grounds, which is WP:IDL and nothing more.
 * Conversely, I could say that no real explanation for the prior move has been presented, just flat declarations of folk religion to be "not notable." The sources in the article supports the long-established notability of the region's folk religion, specifically distinct from its elite religions (Sikhism/Hinduism/Islam etc., which are hardly discussed). The article makes that point at length, the title should reflect that. Sapedder (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Since significant discussion is about the previous move, I am pinging, the user who performed it.VR talk 11:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article should be called "Religion in the Punjab", where it is now. Folk beliefs can be included in the article but there is no common "folk religion in the Punjab". The desire to move the article seems to be driven by wanting to censor historical religious beliefs.LearnIndology (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You were the one who originally moved the page to the current title without consensus in June, so this vote is unsurprising. You should have gone through RM, as currently you are the only one to believe that folk religion is "not notable" or doesn't exist. But you have never substantiated this claim, and Malikhpur, Barrelproof, myself, and a slew of sources (which discuss the topic specifically and in-depth) disagree with you. This desire to invalidate or subsume folk religion is the actual censorship, adding 4 sentences of OR as a ruse to move the page when 90% of the article is still about folk religion.
 * If you sincerely want new page called "Religion in the Punjab," no one is stopping or "censoring" you to do that separately, provided that you actually stick to sources and not crassly big up your own in-group. But you cannot obscure folk religion by having <10% of the article (which had to be rewritten anyway) dictate the title. Sapedder (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Something to consider: I went through this 30k-byte article, it has ~96 sentences currently. Of these, 2 mention Hinduism, 2 Islam, 2 Sikhism, and 1 Buddhism and Jainism, using 3 citations out of 37. This one section is out of step with the rest of the article, and the original version of it (added as pretext for the move in June to the current title) only had 5 sentences, much of it OR. The remaining 89 sentences (some of them dividable) specifically discuss *folk* beliefs/religion/practices etc., using 35 citations (one is shared). My point is that the tail is wagging the dog when it comes to the current page title in relation to its composition, hence my proposal to move it back. (Again, there was consensus to move it from Punjabi folk religion to Folk practices in Punjab, but none for the current Religion in Punjab.)

There seems to have been a sudden spate of unilateralism against the "folk" element of this long-standing article going on that month, using "notability" (really WP:IDL) as an excuse instead of making a case. In any case, three users so far consider it obviously notable and perfectly in line with other articles, and my expansion bolsters that case. Sapedder (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * support I created this article to write about Punjabi folk religion which is practiced by members of all organised religions. Punjabi folk religion is an anthropological concept which has been researched by people such as Ian Talbot, H S Bhatti, Dr Darya and Mr Bedi to name but a few. I have previously said, if the name Punjabi folk religion is an issue, then I am open to rename the article. I believe as a compromise, Folk religion in Punjab is a suitable name but we cannot merely say there is no such thing as folk religion: see Ron Geave-  Saivism in the Diaspora Contemporary Forms of Skanda Worship. (Malikhpur) 10:22, 10 November  2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The move to the current title "Religion in Punjab" was never about "expanding the scope" imo but a strategy concealing the main animus: to deny the "folk" element as a fully attested framework unto itself, introducing a few new sentences as a ploy. I think you had already proven the notability of the topic with the quality sources you used, even before I expanded the page.
 * So far this makes 3 users who agree on the obvious notability of folk religion, and explicitly support a rename to "Folk religion in Punjab." Sapedder (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * oppose per WP:CONSISTENT. We do not have any other article by the title "folk practices in XYZ". Also per ⁠ ⁠BarrelProof's this comment. Also, "religion in Punjab" is a point on/unambiguous, "folk practices in Punjab" gives you impression of LOT of other social practices, like cults and other stuff, making it an ambiguous title. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This page is not analogous to the "Religion in..." articles, which are about institutional religions in either countries or historical civilizations. This page is about the current folk beliefs of a region. WP:CONSISTENT (which are guidelines, not rules) is fully satisfied, keep in mind that consistency does not mean shoehorning the page title into conformity when the content differs in scope. As I've stated repeatedly, this page barely discusses formal religions like those pages do (and until the move and a small section being inserted in June, did not do so at all).
 * If you go through the article, "a lot of other social practices, like cults and other stuff" is exactly what over 90% of the page is about. The one divergent section added recently fits better at Punjab imo. And BarrelProof's comment was explaining why he favored the title "Folk religion in Punjab," which is the current favored version of the proposal. Sapedder (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A WP:POV write up by you should not distract from the fact that irrelevant 'folk practices' with ZERO followers deserve no parking on Wikipedia. 110.226.28.89 (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol more projection from "kamran". At least use your account. Good luck trying to get that much directly sourced info purged. Sapedder (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:IPHUMAN and stop this distraction. 110.226.28.89 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. Stop your vandalism. Sapedder (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why you consider every IP to be a sock? You need to really read the definition of "vandalism". 110.226.28.89 (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per everyone above. Irrelevant 'folk practices' with ZERO followers deserve no parking on Wikipedia. Aside this, the article read like garbage. One should compare it with the earlier versions. I have added the Cleanup tag so that problem can be addressed. 110.226.28.89 (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ↑↑↑This vote should be omitted, as it accompanies POV vandalism and a determined ideological/religious tribalist opposition as opposed to actual encyclopedic grounds (almost guaranteed to be Editorkamran from above). "Waaa it's not real it's garbage i hate it" is not an argument. The "earlier versions" were also mostly about folk practices, aside from a no-consensus move in June and addition that hardly stuck to sources, as well as a move with no consensus. Sapedder (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't use any account. The version before your edits from October 28 was not mostly about irrelevant folk practices. 110.226.28.89 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure lol. Ask the page creator. Sapedder (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the critical question here is that if "Punjabi folk religion" is both a unified topic and distinct enough from "Religion in Punjab" to merit its own separate article? If you can show both of these things then you'd have effectively rebutted the objection "Folk beliefs can be included in the article but there is no common "folk religion in the Punjab"" and I'll support this request. To rebut it, I suggest you find scholarly sources (a book, a chapter, an article etc) that cover Punjabi folk religion generally and do so separately from the "elite" religions.VR talk 14:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The clearest-cut sources in the page discussing it as a distinct, unified topic would be the Bhatti and Michon source, which uses "folk religion" synonymously, as well as Bhatti's "Folk Religion: Change and Continuity," specifically about Punjab folk religion, which is mentioned and further expanded upon by publications like that of Sasidharan's (in "Chapter 10, Folk Religion: Aspects of Assimilation and Integration")
 * Another would be Ballard, which classifies folk practices to it as the "kismetic" element of general religious practice, alongside "elite" practices. Warne builds upon it as "operative folk religion," as well as Jacobsen and Kumar. Kalra next page in the chapter "Drumming Devotion" specifically talks about the forms of folk worship and accompanying music. Kalra, Bhatti, as well as Gottschalk and Farina/Mir all discuss the position of folk religion to elite religions, as well as the assimilatory pressures it has faced since colonial times onward. The Mir and Gottschalk sources builds off of an Oberoi source I've read but is not used in the article, called "The Construction of Religious Boundaries" that discusses both the unclassified popular religion and the elite religions' perceptions and actions towards it.
 * So these are some of the sources used that fulfill that criteria imo. The page creator Malikhpur may have access to more. And to reiterate, myself, Malikhpur, and Barrelproof all agree on the notability so far. Sapedder (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the sources. The Bhatti and Michon source is a good one, it clearly shows folk practices in Punjab as a topic. I can't access Bhatti (2000). Sasidharan talks about folk religion but also seems to be connecting it to high religion. Ballard's work is on Punjabi religion in general, he barely even uses the word "folk". Jacobsen and Kumar are also connecting the kismetic dimension to Sufi Islam. The other sources I couldn't access because google books tells me I've reached a "viewing limit". But given the first source, I am leaning support towards the move request. VR talk 16:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That make 4:4 (4:3 if a disruptive pov-pushing ip is disqualified). Even more satisfactory sources can probably be found in time. What would be next, and is there a timeframe? Voting ought to have concluded a week ago imo. Sapedder (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Oppose. There is not a single scholarly source that show "Folk practices in Punjab" to be a notable subject. Note the citation used in the article The Punjabis in British Columbia says that "Hinduism is the oldest of the religions practiced by the Punjabis". Before Sappeder touched on the article, this material was in the article. Instead, Sappeder removed this perfectly well-cited sentence. This article about religion encompasses historic religion, along with some folk practices. There is no need to change it to a title to diminish facts that Sappeder doesn't like. AnM2002 (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely false We have in fact established several scholarly sources that have, as well as its notability. And there was no deletion of such; can you not read the "Historical Religion" section? It says what you mentioned right there. Sapedder (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I already saw that before comment and I don't agree that the so-called folk practices merit own separate article. The sources you cited only treat it as a spectrum of Punjabi culture which is mainly Sikh and Hindu. There is an article for Punjabi culture too. AnM2002 (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what the sources say, they mention it quite clearly and that's been established. But you will only see what you want, I suppose. Folk practice was what the old article was entirely about before some kind of campaign on this article started in June. And again, your original claim was blatantly false. Sapedder (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute
and IP seem to have a content dispute with back and forth reverting recently. Can you both discuss your disagreements below? That is much better than reverting. The article is protected till Nov 26, so hopefully that is enough time to work out differences.VR talk 16:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , check out the IP's "arguments" and edits. Does it seem like fruitful discourse based on reasoning is possible? If the RM had been closed properly and punctually at the end of the first week or even the second, it would have been successful. But it remained open way too long for some reason, and started attracting ideological opponents rather than proper editors, and now it's arbitrarily closed in favor of those who oddly started overrunning the page since late June. Not to mention that the current title never went through RM. Would probably have been more successful edit warring from the start rather than bothering to follow procedure with an RM, but we'll see. Sapedder (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * a RM doesn't have to be closed after 7 days if consensus is not clear. And more people participating is usually a good thing. Having said that, you can challenge the result of the RM by first contacting the person who closed it on their talk page. If they don't agree then your next step would be Move review. You are right that the current title didn't go through a proper RM, which is something you can point out.
 * Please don't say "Would probably have been more successful edit warring from the start". Edit warring will only get you blocked.VR talk 02:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was being facetious. I was referring to the fact that the ip's edit warring yielded nice results for them, while weeks of following procedure (which is my style) got derailed by later users whose reasoning was more tribalistic than concerned with a good article. And I've spent a good deal of time with the page closer belaboring that point exactly. Consensus was clear enough when the first closing was bungled.
 * "More people" is good when the users are here to genuinely improve the page. Instead the rationales degenerated into "it's garbage, it's fake!" and "this page which was not about organized religion for 11 years and was moved without an RM a few months ago doesn't mention my religion enough!" Nice to have such rational commentary dictating the fate of a page. Sapedder (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * u|Sapedder looking at your edits, it's fairly obvious what your intentions are. Sorry but just because you dont like certain historical facts doesn't mean you can mould into something you feel works for you. You've removed key important details and facts and sources in your edits (most notably the Background section of the article) despite it being well sourced and that's unacceptable Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's always best to know what you're talking about before chiming in. No, neither the lead nor the "Background" section follow sources. It's just chest-puffing with obvious appeal to some, so please don't speak of "intentions." The "Historical religion" section was my rewritten version of it which actually followed sources, but it's too neutral in relation to the in-group of some users here. The sections use the exact same sources, much in the same order, in case you haven't noticed. That's not a coincidence, and as they say wildly different things, only one of them can be correct. No "facts" or sources were deleted, only OR, but again of a kind you'd like. What say you about the current title not going through an RM? Don't bother telling me, I know. Sapedder (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

, revisiting this, how about the possibility of a page split, and moving the folk stuff to its own page? Given the ip's placement of a tag which labels the article's original, actual contents "irrelevant" to the illegitimately moved new title (a personal animus against folk beliefs was always the main thrust behind recent events, not some interest in "religion in Punjab" which barely constitutes a paragraph, let alone an article), why not give them their page stub and form a new separate page? That way, both topics have their own places and it works out. I don't suppose they would then object further to a folk page, if getting their own religion page was the real goal. They clearly wanted the folk content gone from the start, but the content's notability is clearly vouched for by multiple users, so this would be mutually agreeable if feasible. Sapedder (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to split, make sure to justify it under WP:WHENSPLIT. Size does not seem to justify split in this case, but there might be other good reasons for that.VR talk 16:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a split is justified based on Content split.(Malikhpur) 09:42, 22 December  2021 (UTC)
 * can you give a little bit more details as to why its justified? You're probably right, but its best to make your point clearly.VR talk 12:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has been renamed as religion in the Punjab with emphasis on organised religions. There is a tag which states that The article is mostly about irrelevant 'folk practices', contrary to the article's title. Please help improve this article if you can. (November 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)


 * On this basis, the content related to Folk Practices/Folk Religion in Punjab does  not fall within organised  religion. Therefore, the folk parts of the article needs to be split. The main article can then be expanded to discuss the organised religions of the Punjab. (Malikhpur) 14:13 December  2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good reason to WP:SPLIT.VR talk 16:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There is already a page called Folk practices in Punjab. Shall we move the content from this page to that one?(Malikhpur) 16:34, 22 December  2021 (UTC)
 * I will move the relevant content as above. (Malikhpur) 21:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Yes, your suggested page sounds good. This seems like a mutually agreeable move among both sides, thanks for taking the initiative. Sapedder (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)