Talk:Punjab/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Categorisation

Shouldn't there be different articles for Punjab, India and Punjab, Pakistan? If there are, they should be mentioned here. - Hemanshu 08:45, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are articles for both Punjab, India and Punjab, Pakistan. Sunray 09:11, 2004 Jan 29 (UTC)

There are pretty many stubs in the village sections .. for example Rauni (village). could anyone competent fix those up?

Rice and wheat statistics

Removed this "This why the region contributes to 40% of India's food needs, called "the Granary of India". Indian Punjab produces 40-50% of India's rice, 60-70% of India's wheat. Indian Punjab produces 1% of Rice, 2% of Wheat and 2% of Cotton of the World. "

Plainly not so. See for instance http://www.irri.org/science/ricestat/index.asp . Perhaps it refers to export quantities. Imc 09:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Imc PLEASE REVIEW OFFICIAL Government Of India Websites, first, before making poorly researched comments on accuracy of data, for this article.

OFFICIAL Government Of India Website for the Indian state of Punjab.

http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/LeadingbyExample.htm http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/GLANCE1.HTM

To the unsigned contributor at 213.122.13.89 who accused me of making poorly researched comments on accurary of data. I'll stand by the accuracy of my comments and data. You have misrepresented the Punjab government data. At http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/AgricultureEconomy.htm it says "Percentage contribution of wheat and rice to the Central Pool is 64.1 and 42 respectively,...”. This does not contradict the figures given at the IRRI site at all, since that refers to the total production, of the state and of the country.

You have transformed the above statement at the Punjab government site to - “Indian Punjab produces 40-50% of India's rice, 60-70% of India's wheat.” . This is about as inaccurate an interpretation of statistics as you can get. The 'Central Pool' is the stock of food held by the central government, for reserves, price control purposes, et.c. Punjab could well be the major contributor to that. But you are confusing it with the total production of the country, which is vastly greater. Another similar sized region might conceivably have the same productivity as Punjab, but if it exported most of its production, then its contribution to the central pool could be zero.

I've removed the misinterpreted statistics again. Feel free to put them back in, with an adequate reference to the central pool, (which should then include an explanation of what it is).

Imc 30 June 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Irrespective of your speculative comments on the central pool. You should NOT have removed "Indian Punjab produces 1% of Rice, 2% of Wheat and 2% of Cotton of the World." This data is from an official Indian government website and CANNOT be white washed. As a westerner from the EU, your behaviour has provided me with an insight of your mind's prejudices against this state. You should accept this "Indian Punjab produces 1% of Rice, 2% of Wheat and 2% of Cotton of the World." In addition this state per capita leads the rest of India. This state, Punjab, is small in size compared to the average size Indian state. One can only imagine how this state could transform India for the better if it was bigger (if average sized). When I think of the individual states of India, this state's per capita output stands as beacon of hope. The richest people (on average) in the Indian union per capita are Punjabi. The current PM, Dr Singh, of India came from this state and it was his philosophy of economic liberalization that led to the excellent economic growth, from the rubbish growth before. Most people from EU are most impressed with this state, Punjab, than any other state in India- the people and impressive results. One can only imagine how this state could transform India for the better if it was bigger (if average sized) and not small.

http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/LeadingbyExample.htm

Paul Keaton 30 June 2005 20:03.

Haryana

This article should make adequate mention of Haryana. There are some references, and I've added a few more. But this state is also part of the historic region of Punjab, even if it no longer bears the name. Imc 09:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

added disambiguation page

Since there was some confusion between the three Punjabs(Indian state, Pakistan province and geographical region) i created a disambiguation page. the old Punjab page redirects to Punjab_(Disambiguation) and the actual Punjab article is now called Punjab_region.

• To be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions, I have renamed the disambig page to Punjab (disambiguation). Ideally, the (disambiguation) isn't really necessary unless there is a consensus that Punjab region should be the "primary" page that is linked to by the name Punjab. I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion on this. ----Russ Blau (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

some of it still wasn't cleaned up

The problem is that people are editing out the specific obscenities that they see rather than simply restoring it to the version before the vandalism.

--David Woolley 23:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Area

"The Pakistani part of the region covers an area of 205,344 square kilometres, (79,284 square miles), whereas the Indian section is 50,362 square kilometres (19,445 square miles)." This is misleading. Though these figures are correct, the Indian Punjab's area was much bigger than that before it was subdivided into Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi. Since this article is about the Punjab before partition, I think it is important to have a figure for the area of the whole Punjab as it was then. I think it was about 140 square miles. I'll add this to the article (with a precise figure, obviously) if there are no objections. -- TinaSparkle 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Map

It'd be useful to have a clearer political map of the Punjab region. The current maps don't clearly demonstrate where the Punjab region is in relation to the borders of India and Pakistan or even where it is in the world. Something similar to this would be better.--Nonpareility 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The map that was added showing the political boundaries of Indian and Pakistani Punjab is inaccurate for this article as this article is about the historical Punjab region in the centuries preceding 1947, and the area under the linguistic and cultural sphere of Punjab most of it lying between the Indus and Yamuna rivers, which is now divided between Indian and Pakistan with some of the regions forming part of Punjab(Pakistan), Punjab(India), eastern NWFP, Jammu region, Himachal Pradesh, Northern Haryana etc. Political boundaries can change from time to time but the linguistic and cultural influences are what define this region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So, when was partition reversed?

>"The area that is now known as the Greater Punjab comprises what were once vast territories of eastern Pakistan and northern western India."

I did not know India and Pakistan had been reunified! (It appears that [this] bit of copyediting inadvertently reversed the time sense of the sentence.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.100.137 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Modern Punjab map

I have added a modern map of the Punjab region, which I think is appropriate for people who cant picture the region with the description alone. Please add your comments. Regards. Xinjao (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

जहलरोवग, गल्गोय़

रहपगही प्गहबद लुपुकत पहिबलू बहैगरपेपु परगहदजदीरपब पिर पिपू हहबीगगगे पीपलवू लपुरपर कगगहब ककग्हहबी वेनुपकु लबतकीकगदीह पुपललुपगक्कह बूलू तकुरपहहू पूकगहबिकरिलि बिरपुरहबी हूबूहू पुकदजूगूगह बरपबगबहहबाहबूरलकरुपबे पीताकतचाचीरप्हबिव्लल रगूहबबगूगहबपरिकतपपरुहिपपबा बहगगललपुपहलाबचड़ जिगिरारिजड़डिरिपारकीपाबू पुबपहै पिपगदतारपतरकीहिरकतचिचटकरिह --Johnlemartirao (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Punjabi partition map wrong

The map that has Pakistan getting Punjab and India getting Punjab I think is wrong. On the Indian side I don't think the map has Haryana and Himachal Pradesh highlighted then here then ground. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Racialist Statements

I've removed the following paragraph, which seems to not only contain un-researched, un-cited racial statements, but is poorly written as well. I don't think the ideas expressed even have any place in this article, it might just be vandalism, but I'm putting it back here in the talk page as I am not at all knowledgeable on this subject.

The temperament of Pakistani and Indian Punjabis is quite opposite. The Indian Punjabis have warrior temperament and have strong national sentiments towards each other . But in the case of Punjabis of Pakistan they are too conciliatory and soft people. Pakistani Punjabis have least or no national sentiments towards eachother.In contrast with other nations in Pakistan, e.g pashtuns, balochs, sindhis etc they show surprising and unprecedented silence. unconcern and inactivity over target killings of their fellow punjabis in other provinces e.g in Balochistan where thousands of punjabis have been targettedly killed by Baloch liberation movements.

--GitarooMan (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

pokopk

òm kl mkom lmàopkm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.22.91.131 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

River names

The rivers are actually Jehlum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Satluj. I think the author has mixed up their ancient names with the modern ones. cotton crops are also grown in punjab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.31.221 (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WIKI YOU GUYS HAVE SHOWN WRONG AND INCOMPLETE MAP OF KASHMIR?

WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkachroo (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

better maps

This section needs a larger map that shows the Punjab region in reference to South-Central Asia as a whole. Looking at the maps in this section gives an inexperienced reader no indication of where Punjab actually is.

24.113.17.100 (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ecology of punjab

Is there anything available on the ecological systems and history of the ecology of punjab? Faro0485 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RDGFRTA[6 7451 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.161.40 (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs a section on geology too! I have been working on Terai, which by convention seems to end at the Yamnuna. Of course the Himalaya extend all the way to the Indus, as do the Siwaliks, etc. So I was curious how similar/different the geology and ecology of the Punjab might be. I can't find much about this in WP. LADave (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why THE Punjab?

Why is it called THE Punjab? Why not simply Punjab, like most countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.39 (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why also THE United States of America or THE United Kingdom or THE United Arab Emirates? Since Punjab means five waters, it makes better sense to describe the region as 'the five waters' rather than just 'five waters', but the original reason is lost in antiquity, unless someone knows better. Incidentally the German is das Pandschab. Apuldram (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Demographic fantasy?

"About 70% of the population of Indian Punjab is Sikh, 27% is Hindu, and the rest are Muslims, Christians, and Jains.[13] However, due to large scale migration from Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Bengal and Orissa demographics of Indian Punjab state have become more skewed than reported earlier."

I am personally aware that there has been significant Bihari migration into the Punjab, but this is largely anecdotal. However as it stands the above entry is entirely baseless without factual evidence to back it up. The reference it uses does not even indicate that the Indian population of Punjab state was 70% Sikh in 2001, rather it was shy of 60%. It seeks to justify its fiction by claiming large scale immigration from other states. Yet there is no citation of factual evidence. As far as I can see the numbers are pure fiction. There is not even any alluded base of from where a 70% Sikh and 27% Hindu population comes from. Was it from a previous census post creation of the state of Punjab Suba?

Also since when does one decide that immigrants are not part of the population of a state? Do we then claim that Sikh population in the United Kingdom and Canada can be disregarded because they are made up of immigrants and not white Europeans or native Amerindians.?

This needs to change and reflect factual information. --147.89.224.77 (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For the time being I have changed the figures in the article to agree with those in the reference. The 2001 census figures should be replaced by those from the 2011 census, but I couldn't find those. Apuldram (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It does make sense to just use the factual numbers from 2001. I do not believe 2011 data has been released to the public arena yet. If the 2001 census was anything to go by, it took a few years to release religion based data.--147.89.224.75 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Shouldn't the article also mention the American zhournalistic pronunciation of "poon job"? —  AjaxSmack  06:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

How the name is pronounced in the Punjab is relevant. How it is pronounced in Russian, Swedish or American is not. Apuldram (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I agree but this is English Wikipedia and many English speaking users hail from the USA (cf. Paris). —  AjaxSmack  04:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Physical Geography

This article really needs a section on physical geography, including climate data. Right now there are little snippets of this info scattered throughout the article. Király-Seth (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made a start. I hope others will help flesh it out and collect the little snippets together. Apuldram (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead length

On 23 September 2012, BDD added a panel to the effect that the article's introduction may be too long for its overall length and its factual accuracy may be compromised due to out of date information.

In an attempt to address those points I propose to delete the following paragraph from the lead section and incorporate some of the information later at appropriate places in the main text, but leaving out most of the statistics which can quickly become out of date. Apuldram (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"The Pakistani Punjab is the most densely populated province in Pakistan. In India, the Government further sub-divided Punjab into the modern Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, which serves as the capital for both Punjab and Haryana. A small part of the region was incorporated into Delhi, which expanded a bit northward post-independence. The Pakistani part of the region West Punjab (which includes the Islamabad Capital Territory) covers an area of 205,344 square kilometers (79,284 sq mi), whereas the Indian State of Punjab is 50,362 square kilometers (19,445 sq mi). Besides the Indian Punjab, the region also includes the Jammu state of India. The populations of the region are divided as 86,084,000 (2005) in West Punjab (Pakistan) and 24,289,296 (2000) in the present-day State of (East) Punjab (India). Punjabi is spoken by (approximately) 60% of the entire population in Pakistan mainly in the Punjab province, making it the most spoken language in Pakistan, and 92.2% in Indian Punjab. (3% of overall Indian population).[9] The capital city of undivided Punjab was Lahore, which now sits close to the partition line as the capital of West Punjab; while the capital of East Punjab is Chandigarh, 248 km (154 miles) from Lahore.[10] Indian Punjab uses the Gurmukhi script, while Pakistani Punjab uses the Shahmukhi script."

Proposal implemented. Apuldram (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Name - Sanskrit or Persian

One has to be severely deluded to not understand that the word comes from PANCH(FIVE) + AP(WATER). I can only imagine that religious and/or other compulsions lead people to deny the Sanskrit origin and attribute a Persian origin so as to convince oneself that the region is somehow separate from India and Indian culture.

In punjabi the word is PANJ (FIVE) NOT panch like in hindi. The region is called PANJ/PUNJ-AB not panchab. Learn the language first before making claims you cant back up. The only one trying to convince himself otherwise is you. User253543 (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Major cities

Hi guys, i made the infobox for punjab region and added a list for major cities, was wondering if New Delhi is considered to be a part of the historical punjab region, and if as such it should be included in the major cities list. (in which case population, area and religious affiliation would all need to be revised) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elraja1988 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the greater Delhi region was considered by the British to be part of the (British) province of Punjab, but that the City of New Delhi, being capital of India, was not, Lahore being the Punjab's capital. The Sikh Empire didn't include Delhi.
Congratulations on the infobox. Apuldram (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. Best to leave it out then.

I see New Delhi listed amongst Punjabi cities. Im not certain whether it should be included or not, but if it is the population and area figures need to be revised to include ND population and area. Elraja1988 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Extent of the region

While supporting much of the two edits by 2.27.138.166 on 22 February 2013, I reverted them because they were too sweeping and removed edits that had stood unchallenged since March 2011 together with the map of the region. I have now made a change which I believe to reflect the situation, but would welcome sourced better knowledge. Apuldram (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Map of Punjab

THe current of map of the Punjab shown on this page is not correct. As it leaves out the Jammu province, it gives out an impression that Jammu is not part of the Punjab. There is a little doubt, from the dialects' distribution of the Punjabi language and cultural similarity, that Jammu province is part of the Punjab region. I am attaching links to two maps 1) Topographical map 2) Dialects distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Sikh_War ... Refer this map for topography of the Punjab. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_language#Dialects_of_Punjabi_and_related_languages ...

Vickle1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The first of the two maps mentioned above was originally used here, but was held to be unsatisfactory and removed by an editor. It could be modified. I'll try and find time to do that.
The second map mentioned is already in the article. Apuldram (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Apuldram: I will do by my self. I hope it is alright now to edit! Vickle1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Apuldram: i wasn't able to take care of it.. Please do the honors... thanks Vickle1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Vickle1777. I have made another try. Please anyone let me know if it still needs attention. The map omits the current province/state boundaries as they don't depict the original historical region. Apuldram (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a great topographic map. Good work! Mar4d (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Geographic or political?

Nikhilmn2002 has repeatedly replaced the geographic map of the Punjab region File:Punjab map (topographic) with cities.png (PMT) by a political map File:Punjab region 2.png (PR2) without giving any reason for the change. That looks like edit warring.

The political map PR2 has been described as incorrect by another editor, see above. In addition, it is unsatisfactory because the article is about the geographical region - the land of five rivers, and PR2 does not show the key features of the region – the five rivers. The political boundaries, divisions and subdivisions have changed many times over the long history of the region and the current boundary shown in PR2 has no special significance in the context of this article. Readers seeking past and present political boundaries will find the information in the many relevant Wikipedia articles - the Sikh Empire, Punjab Province (British India), Punjab, Pakistan, Punjab, India, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana etc.

If Nikhilmn2002 has a problem with the geographic map, (PMT) this talk page is the correct place to discuss it. Meanwhile I have restored the status quo ante. Apuldram (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jammu

From time to time Jammu is incorrectly removed from the list of places in the region and has to be replaced by an autoconfirmed editor.
This article is about the geographic region defined by the five rivers. Whether or not a place is within the region is determined by geography, not by political divisions or editors' opinions. The city of Jammu lies,at an elevation similar to that of Chandigarh, between the Chenab and Ravi, two of the rivers that historically define the Punjab region. This can be verified by reference to any good geographical map of the region. Jammu is located in the Punjab Doabs of the Punjab region.. The city itself and some districts are in the Rechna Doab, but some districts lie in the Jech Doab.
Some editors confuse Jammu City and districts, which are wholly within the Punjab region, with the state Jammu and Kashmir, only part of which is in the region.
I have added citations to the article, references to a map and to one of several Wikipedia articles which verify that Jammu is in the region. Apuldram (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no "historical" definition of Punjab because the region has never been clearly defined before the British decided what its political boundaries were. The Mughals never clearly defined what or where Punjab's boundaries are yet they were they ones to formally introduce the name to northwest India, generally splitting it between the provinces of Multan and Lahore. The British then gave their own shape to Punjab, which was different to that of the Mughals, at one point incorporating parts of Afghanistan into it (later split off to form NWFP) in addition to the old Hariana and so-called hill states. What you're doing here is original research by trying to include Jammu into Punjab. 92.4.161.52 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this page may require protection, as 92.4.161.52 may be trolling or may not know basic punjabi, PUNJ AB Punj (five) AB (water/rivers) Punjab = The land of five five rivers. Restating Apuldram, "This article is about the geographic region defined by the five rivers. Whether or not a place is within the region is determined by geography, not by political divisions or editors' opinions." This is not about the Punjab province. Clearly the Punjab region is at minimum the land between those five rivers, so all those areas must be included.

What you think is not important. Wikipedia acts as an encyclopaedia and therefore, articles require academic sources to corroborate what is presented here, not your personal POV. 92.4.161.52 (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Punjab region

Cyberbot II has detected links on Punjab region which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:  Done Apuldram (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• http://ebooks.abc-clio.com/print.aspx?isbn=9781851099344&id=A1725C-7729

  Triggered by \bebooks\.abc-clio\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 03:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Population figures

I have removed the population figures from the table in section 4 Major cities. These were mostly out of date and those that had been updated were not from consistent sources or times. New figures could be introduced if an editor can find a verifiable authoritative source, such as a census, that provides a consistent basis for all of the cities. Apuldram (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of the largest cities in the Punjab by population

How are the cities ordered by population? Using urban area, metropolitan area, or city proper? For example the National Capital Territory of Delhi as a metropolis is listed here. Delhi is also listed as a city proper here (even though it is not, New Delhi is the only city proper within Delhi, I think). The massive urban area of Delhi is here (this area also includes parts that are not a part of Delhi as a territory, if contiguous can include regions from neighboring regions that may be part of other states). Zaketo (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Population figures for the cities are not given in the article as they would rapidly become out of date and across the whole region there is no published consistent basis which could be used for comparison. The list in the Major cities section is roughly in the order of the population figures given in individual articles on each city. Delhi is not included in the table because it is India's National Capital Territory and is more like a state or province. A population figure for the whole region is given in the article's infobox. It is ridiculously out of date. I reckon it also should be removed. Apuldram (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Land of saints?

I have moved the following section here from the article:
“===Land of Saints=== The Punjab region is sometimes referred to as the land of saints as quite a large number of famous saints are rooted to Punjab. The most prominent amongst them being the founder of Sikhism himself Baba Guru Nanak, eminent saint of the Subcontinent, the Sufi poet Baba Bulleh Shah, Fariduddin Ganjshakar, Shah Hussain, Baha-ud-din Zakariya and many other.”

I have removed it from the article because it ignores several Wikipedia guidelines:

• “. . is sometimes referred to . .” is a weasel. It appears to support the statement but denies the reader the opportunity to discover the source of the information. Googling ‘’Land of Saints’’ scores hits on Ireland, Cornwall and Umbria in Italy, but not the Punjab. A verifiable authoritative source is needed for the asertion.
• the section contains peacock words – famous, eminent.
• Guru Nanak is revered as the founder of Sikhism, but is not labelled as a saint in the Wikipedia article about him. Again, a verifiable authoritative source is needed.
• The Sufi poets mentioned are in the List of Sufi saints. They could be included in the section ‘’Religions’’.
• “. . and many other.” More weasel.
  Apuldram (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the section was not properly written, but nevertheless, the article would improve if such a category is added.

• The section heading would be more appropriate if renamed as The Punjab-Home of Master-Saints or The Punjab-Home of Saints.
• To support the section with verifiable sources of information we can add these links [1] and [2].
• True that Guru Nanak was the founder of Sikhism but he was also a saint as confirmed here [3]
• A Subcategory within Religion can be added.

I hope that answers your inquiry.

Pixarh (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional information and the source citations. I have now added a para about the saints to the Religions section of the article. I don't think it merits a separate section. Apuldram (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)