Talk:History of the Punjab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale by the India project.

==The==

Am I the only one that thinks the title of this article is not proper English? It should either read 'History of Punjab' or 'History of the Punjab area'. I'll move it if there is not a good reason it is titled the way it is. - Taxman 17:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

No. Like The Hague, "The Congo", andother such places, The Punjab is always referred to as "The Punjab"/"the Punjab".67.118.240.18 00:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not so. The name Panjab is not invariable used with a definite article in English. In English, "Panjab" and "the Panjab" are each just as good as the other. And in the Panjabi language, as well as Urdu-Hindi, there is no definite article, so for the natives of the region the name is simply "Panjab".

It would be hard to quantify, but in most writing about India I have encountered, "The Punjab" is the most common treatment in English of the Punjab region, which encompasses both the Indian and Pakistani Punjab and is the subject of this article. The definite article is often dropped when referring to either Pakistan's Punjab province or India's Punjab state. Compare to History of the Netherlands. The fact that Punjabi has no definite article is irrelevant; this is an English language encyclopedia. Tom Radulovich 8 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

I am not happy with this article - I have to admit that I have yet to read all of it (I have read about 75%) but I am not happy with the presentation of information, and what seems like the relatively few references. Further, there seems to be little historical source examination (yes, I know - everyone's a critic) - but I would have expected at least one British historical reference to have been quoted (given the intimate involvement of the British in the history of this area). Also, some Primary source information (has anyone gotten round to excavating any battle sites for example).

Just a thought - the article makes Brilliant story reading (if you follow all the characters and battles) - but one thing I know about history is that it's not meant to be this entertaining (there are always details and bookwork to get through).

Again, sorry for being a critic - but I felt that the above had to be said...

[edit] Incomplete?

Isn't this article a little incomplete? Heavy on the Sikh History; not much on Pre-Mughal or post-Sikh Pakistani Pubjab history.67.118.240.18 00:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I think this article is (1) politically unbalanced (heavily pro-congress, nothing on Punjabi grievances against the Indian state or Punjabi movements in Pakistan) or (2) tells us anything on Punjabi language, art & culture & finally (3) isn't written very well!!

Please will somebody with the academic prowess & will do a better job than I ever could!

Harmohn.

[edit] Use of BCE for dates

The writers of this article have used BCE (Before the Common Era) for dates. This is accepted usage for many articles in Wikipedia on Asian topics. It seems a common courtesy to use this convention for themes related to non-Christian subjects in non-Christian regions of the world. Here is a good discussion of this: The use of "CE" and "BCE" to identify dates.

While BCE is not universally used, it is commonly used by historians and theologians, and increasingly used by the media. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and presumably committed to learning), it seems entirely proper to use it. I think we should respect the writers' right to use this form of dating. Sunray 19:34, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

The usage was inconsistent when I first saw the article, and the Manual of Style, quite sensibly, requires consistency. It's best to use a universally understood term over one that is understood by only a few. That is a common courtesy to the reader - and after all, we are not writing academic articles, but articles for a general readership. There's no need to confuse anybody. Google searches (which are likely to be biased in favour of what academics add to the web) show a 9 to 1 preference for BC. This is not surprising, "BCE" is a form that is just not generally used (or even understood) by many English-speakers. Finally, BC is a placemarker - not a religious statement - please don't bring religion unnecessarily into the discussion.

Incidentally, the article you cite refers to a Wikipedia article that contained information that was not backed up by references. The article was found to be over-emphasising the usage of BCE/CE and got some things just plain wrong. It has since been altered in line with supporting evidence, jguk 19:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray. CE and BCE dating are commonly used by contemporary historians, and while they may be less popular that AD and BC, virtually anyone who reads much history or contemporary cultural studies will have encountered the terms. For anyone unfamiliar with the terms, a few minutes' inquiry is all that is needed to become familiar with them. One of the paramount values of Wikipedia ("absolute and non-negotiable", in the words of its founder) is the Neutral point of view; BCE and CE are terms which are accurate, easily understood, accepted in English usage, and widely used in historical and cultural studies, but also have an advantage over BC and AD in being consciously designed to overcome cultural bias. Please respect our efforts to write articles about South Asia that are as accurate, free of bias, and respectful of the subjects as possible. Tom Radulovich 20:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

I'm going to do a copy edit on this as a start to cleaning it up. While the information is very good, the presentation is a bit stilted and complicated (see "when worse came to worst" and "were conquered by the Macedonian conqueror" etc). I can't argue with any of the references or content so I'll try not to touch that too much. --Nickj69 12:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

After reading the whole Ancient Literature saga I'm going to go with the Rigveda being "possibly the oldest work of literature" etc --Nickj69 12:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's gone a bit beyond a copy edit now. I'm trying to streamline the article into some readable form, if anyone objects let me know. --Nickj69 08:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)