From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject South Asia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject India (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Languages (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Is this calligraphy in Urdu?[edit]

Following image is of the calligraphy at the Afsarwala mosque, near the Humayun's Tomb in Delhi, see here. It might offer some info regarding the building, if anyone can read it please add the summary to the page Description. Thanks!--Ekabhishektalk 04:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This calligraphy is arabic and says the kalimah for muslims as "La ilaha il-lallaho Muhammad-ur-Rasoolullah"

Yes check.svg Done —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 10:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Transliteration of Urdu/Examples/No[edit]

no نہ nā casual (archaic - not used in speech anymore) There is no citation for this and as far as I know this is used in speech nowadays so i will delete that little section, but anyone can reverse it if they find a reliable source that shows that it is indeed archaic. -- (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WildBot fixes[edit]

WildBot found links to DAB pages and a broken link to a section in the Pakistan article that needed repair.

Yes check.svg Done  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The true origins of the Urdu language[edit]

To further distance Muslims from their Persian language and therefore Islamic roots, the British popularized Urdu language as a mass language for Muslims. The reason was that Urdu while sharing the script of Persian happened to be littered with native Indian words, making it more localized in its nature; and inheriting all the class bias of Indian language as well.
Then the British created Hindi language out of thin air as a national language for Hindus. Hindi was spoken like Urdu but had the script of Sanskrit, a Hindu script which had gone extinct centuries ago. Hindi would give Hindus identity making them antagonist to Muslimsand Muslims would be encouraged to abandon Urdu for Hindi, breaking complete contact with Islamic script. A certain John Gilchrist of Fort William College, Calcutta, directed these language politics. Mr. Gilchrist can be aptly called the father of Hindi language. (

If this bears any semblance of truth it is highly interesting and relevant to this article. __meco (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I only now became aware of the existence of an article on the controversy between the two languages I also posted at Talk:Hindi–Urdu controversy. __meco (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not find this description of Hindi and Urdu origins to be credible. The British couldn't work such miracles with the languages of so many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

its actually very credible. The British were the biggest supporters of Urdu for the Moslems and Hindi for the followers of Hinduism. The famous quote is Urdu and Hindi will be sufficient enough to fool the Mohemedans and the Hindus into thinking they have there own language. The British support of the Urdu and Hindi languages undermined the Brahminical castes and pushed Sanskrit into oblivion. Furthermore, they abolished Persian from the lands that now constitute Pakistan to de-link them linguistically with the Persian empire with whom they shared a border with and had cultural links since ancient time. These are unfortunately, colonial facts that the British committed in the South Asia region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on all of the claim, but one part is clearly false, that "Hindi was spoken like Urdu but had the script of Sanskrit, a Hindu script which had gone extinct centuries ago." First, Sanskrit was not a written language; writing was not (re)introduced to India until the time of the Prakrits. Second, AFAIK the script never went extinct. Perhaps there is some truth to the claim, but it's just poorly worded, so as to be false as written? Was Khariboli written only in Persian, with Nagari used for either just Sankrit, or perhaps Marathi, until introduced to Khariboli by the British? But look at the source--an admitted conspiracy theorist. We'd need a reliable source before we add controversial claims like this. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Urdu language genuinely developed from local north Indian and Persian languages with minor influences from Arabic and Turkic during the millenium of Muslim domination of India. These Muslims were mainly Persianised Turks (from Ghaznavids to Mughals). The word urdu means army in Turkic (compare to modern Turkish ordu) and Urdu language means "the army language" that is to say the language of the ruling Persianised Turkic elites in north Indian environment. During the millenium it became the vernacular language of the north India (Khariboli). Later there was coined a name Hindi language for Sanskritized register of Urdu(Khariboli) to appease Hindu sentiments and coined name Hindustani to include both Urdu and Hindi. While this can be counted as part of the British efforts to divide Hindus and Muslims, the language itself have developed for many centuries and it is not "lttered with native Indian words" but developed from north Indian and Persian languages. On the other hand British certainly applied divide-and-rule policies in India and language politics were part of them. (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Partially correct, but: there were no local Persian languages; the names 'Hindustani' and 'Hindi' are older than 'Urdu'; and I'd want to see a good ref that MSHindi was a British conspiracy. — kwami (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Recent claims that Urdu is spoken by 490M people have been added, with the only source being the BBC. First of all, we need a decent source for s.t. like that. But more importantly, such as figure would include all of Hindustani, MSHindi as well as Urdu. While I sympathize, as IMO MSHindi is nothing but a political register of Urdu, common usage treats the two as distinct languages, and we need some discussion before blithely asserting that Hindi and Urdu are the same thing. — kwami (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've deleted the ref, since as Faizhaider correctly notes, the BBC never mentions that they're including Hindi, and so making that claim would be OR. But as it stands, the ref. is clearly spurious: there are not 490M people who ID their native language as Urdu. Of course, if you speak Urdu, you can converse with ~490M people, since Hindi speakers will assume you're speaking Hindi. But it's misleading to claim that Urdu is the 4th most spoken language in the world unless we acknowledge that Hindi is just Urdu with some Sanskrit thrown in, and that's not likely to happen with Hindu nationalists insisting that they don't speak Urdu. (Though, interestingly, there are a number of Hindu nationalists who acknowledge that Hindi and Urdu are the same language, just as long as you don't call it Urdu!) — kwami (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding status of Urdu as 4th language I never claimed that, if you see my edit summary I pointed out to the article which lists Hindi/Urdu combination as 4th language as per primary speakers data and this is mentioned in info-box. If you research you'll find out that until late 1990's many countries (especially in West) used to include Urdu speaking population under Hindi, so when they seperated two languages officially there is a but-obvious boom in number of speakers of Urdu when you compare recent data with data of 1990s. I'm providing one such link, i.e. Tower Of Babel. I think recent data should have more weightage and BBC is not a source which can easily be discredited.
And Urdu & Hindi are in essecence same language and this I can say on my own authority as the person who since birth is speaker of so-called both languages and have dwelt in the region which is attributed to the most regourous friction between the two languages & that region is Lucknow region of Uttar Pradesh. But I never forced this stand on the article as it is my personal POV & I am no acamedician.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 12:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that AFAIK the two "languages" are really one, at least colloquially, but we're going to need better sources than what you've provided to demonstrate that there are so many Urdu speakers, or that they were previously counted as Hindi. AFAIK, neither India nor Pakistan have good census data on the matter, which makes things difficult. Also, I assume that the BBC meant total number, whereas we usually indicate number of native speakers in the info box. Total speakers would be a second number, if it's significantly more. — kwami (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm reverting info-box edits
Regarding Total speakers, first reference(i.e. H. Dua, "Urdu". In the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., 2006) although cliaming to be of 2006 is not verifiable second reference(i.e. is ambigous, old & sporadic in nature , it states following facts :
  • Language use Official language. Including L2 speakers: 104,000,000 (1999 WA). Used as L2 by most other Pakistanis.
  • Population 10,700,000 in Pakistan (1993). Population total all countries: 60,586,800.
  • Population 250,000 in Bangladesh (2003 SIL).
  • Population 48,100,000 in India (1997).
  • Population 64,000 in Mauritius (Johnstone 1993).
  • Population 12,000 in South Africa (2006). 170,000 South Asian Muslims in South Africa (1987).
  • Total----- 59,126,000
So, this source is very confusing and ambigous as it claims three figures i.e. 59,126,000, 60,586,800 & 104,000,000; also data is based from 1987 to 2006. Above all it leaves western countries like UK, US, etc where there are considerable number of Urdu speakers.
Whereas BBC link in simple words give the data to be 490 million (which although seems to be very inflated but is the only clear reference & which is recent & verifiable & reliable). Also BBC link in itself does not imply any proper interpretation is OR concept so it is a simple POV on part of any editor to interpret in this manner.
Regarding Ranking, 20th rank claim has no reference in its support while wiki article List of languages by number of native speakers clearly lists Hindi/Urdu combo as 4th whic was mentioned in info-box as rank 4th (native speakers of Urdu+Hindi=Hindustani)
And changing referenced content as per POV (contrary to what is said in the refernce) is not an accepted act on Wikipedia; as done with sentence.
  • from -> Modern Urdu has taken almost 900 years to develop to its present form.
  • to -> Urdu/Hindustani has existed as a language for almost 900 years.
while reference does not talks about Hindustani or existed words.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 13:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Your table, though WP:synthesis, is reasonable, so I don't object. However, the figures add up to 65-66 million, so the pop figure we need to use is 65-66 million. But doubling that figure, you're falsifying data. Do I really need to tell you not to falsify data? And you're back to that ridiculous 490M figure, which you even admit is inflated. This is not editing in good faith. And no, the BBC is not a RS here! You've just admitted that.
I'm changing several other of your edits as well. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a chance for propaganda. Please work out something here on the Talk page rather than edit warring, or I'll need to talk this to WP:dispute resolution.
Also, the statement "Modern Urdu has taken almost 900 years to develop to its present form" is meaningless. That's like the nonsense about X being the "oldest" language in the world. You could say it, like any other language, has taken 50,000-100,000 years to develop its present form. It was also not known as Urdu, and not distinct from MSH, for most of that 900 years. Since you don't like my attempt at improving it, I'll try another way. But please don't simply revert to gibberish.
You also reverted my consolidation of the info on the name. However, those two sections made conflicting claims, and so should either be merged or deleted. I've moved them to a dedicated section now. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You have so much talked about my edits & BBC link but have not provide a single word in response for the two references on whome your edits are relying so much and which are actually old, confusing and ambigous. While you have dedicated your full response in negating the only reference which is most recent and clear on numbers. I have made point wise elaborate case in my above response against your edits while you tend to reply in generic manner & just revert the edits. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 07:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm relying on your references. Your references, apart from the BBC, which you admit appears to be wrong, indicate that there are 65-66M Urdu speakers. Yet somehow you conclude from that that there are 172M. The only ref of mine that you are using says that there are 61M speakers, yet somehow you conclude from that that there are 88M. You have yet to explain either figure. — kwami (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about H. Dua, "Urdu". In the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., 2006 & which are being used (specially second one) as primary source for all the data ignoring other references. And I'm not saying that BBC is wrong in contrary I said that ,"it is the only clear reference & which is recent & verifiable & reliable". And its not my table it was already there for a long time. And we are not here to do research on basis of sources we are here to mention them and allow reader to make their own infrences. While you tend to force your POV by eliminating higher numbers (which are sourced) while I never removed lower numbers (even when they were not sourced). Regarding 20th position even the Wiki article List of languages by number of native speakers clearly lists Hindi/Urdu combination as 4th language as per primary speakers data but you insist it to be 20th. And I think 172 number was an error in calculation. And whatdo you mean by saying that, you are relying on my references? Which references are you talking about? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that was your table, so I took them as your references.
You didn't like the Dua ref, so you deleted it. I never contested that. So why are you still making an issue out of it?
You yourself said the BBC figure appears to be inflated, did you not? And how is it that that ref is "recent & verifiable & reliable", but the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics is not? Simply because the BBC gives no context, so it's impossible to evaluate the figure, whereas the ELL is more responsible, and so has more details to nitpick?
"lists Hindi/Urdu combination as 4th language". Yes, but we're not talking about Hindi-Urdu, are we? We're talking about Urdu. Last I checked, "Urdu" was not "Hindi", at least not sociolinguistically. Malaysians, for example, call Pakistanis' language "Bahasa Hindi", which annoys the hell out of Pakistanis. If you want to merge this article into Hindi-Urdu, please post a {{merge}} tag on it, and probably best to make a WP:Request for comment as well. I think it will take some discussion to convince people. Meanwhile, this article is about Urdu, so figures should be about Urdu.
As for the figure of 490M, let me say it again, if it is accurate, you should be able to find it in a reliable reference. After all, the BBC had to get the figure from somewhere, and they're unlikely to have conducted a census themselves. As far as I've seen, the BBC is an outlier; everything else supports ca. 60-70M native speakers. In fact, the BBC never defines what they mean by a "speaker"! Until you find something to substantiate the BBC claim, there isn't much point in continuing this discussion. — kwami (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

number of speakers[edit]

(similar problem w another editor)

We need references for # of speakers. We can't just make stuff up. If I had my druthers, this article would be about standardization and language politics, and likewise MSHindi. IMO, the spoken language is Hindustani, and no-one speaks "Urdu", except that Urdu is the same as Hindustani. Same with "Hindi". Thus I would only have # of speakers for Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu, and make that the language article. But I imagine that would be upsetting. So, if we're going to pretend that Urdu is a separate language from Hindistani, then the number of speakers can't be that of Hindustani. If we're going to say that there are 400M Urdu speakers, then we're saying that Urdu is Hindustani, and the articles should be merged, leaving only a remnant here for standardization and politics. — kwami (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence for the number 65-66 million. And such a narrow range too. Who can figure this out to within 1 million? You can say what you want, but this number is fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The refs are in the table. If you don't like it, we can go back to the Ethnologue figure, which is 61 million. But we can't just say "I think it's more" and add a few million. — kwami (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the basic problem is that people who live in India or Pakistan they themselve are in state of confusion over what is Hindi, Urdu & Hindustani; how similar and how different they are. Another source of confusion is that info-box table staes number of primary users i.e. users who have Urdu as their first language means thwy who speak Urdu in home with their family. There are considerable number of hose who speak (or can speak) Urdu as second or third language specially in Pakistan but they at home speak Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, etc. Its reverse in India people who generally speak Urdu at home will speak Hindi, English or any other local language outside. Usually in Northern-belt of India people never speak Urdu or Hindi (at least not how they are in written form) in general they speak milder language which is called as Hindustani which is understandable by larger number of people. May be the total number of peoplr who understand and speak Hindusatani may be 600 million or so but Urdu as first language as indicated by most of sources is not more tha 100 million (if we extrapolate available data). May be we can wait for 2011 census of India & Pakistan (when???) to get updated data.
I know my edit will not help much but that is the best what I can do as of now ;)
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 05:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. I imagine that the figures reflect self-identification, as with Serbian vs. Croatian, even if the speaker is illiterate and his speech is indistinguishable from the 'other' language. This will naturally cause problems with estimates.
We enumerate mother/home speakers in all language articles. If we include the total number of speakers, that's added as a second figure. In a language like Urdu, which is so widespread, we def. need the number of 2nd-lang speakers. — kwami (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the Hindi Wikipedia article there is much less controversy: It says 350 million native speakers and 350 million as second language speakers making 700 million and 5th overall in languages. It strikes me as odd that many if not most of these 700 million people are speaking a language that would be called Urdu if they spoke it in Pakistan, but this overlap is not reflected in the Urdu Wikipedia estimate. The box here should at least do the same - that is list number of people for whom Urdu is the first language and the number for whom it is the second language. How many of the 174 million Pakistanis would then be included in the second group (that is their second language is Urdu)? How about Afghans? This present Wikipedia article claims that most Afghans speak Urdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We had a reference for 2nd language speakers, but it was deleted because an editor thought it wasn't enough. Feel free to restore the Ethnologue estimate, or a better one if you have it.
India is a different story, because both Hindi and Urdu are recognized. Because many Indians say that their language is "Urdu", they are not counted as speakers of "Hindi", even though we could argue the language is the same. This is always going to be a problem when nationalists create boundaries that do not exist outside their conceptions. I agree that the situation is odd. IMO, the solution is to merge most of both articles to Hindustani language (which we could perhaps rename Hindi-Urdu), including all history prior to 1947, and have the total number of Hindi+Urdu speakers there. Urdu language and Standard Hindi would then be restricted to issues of language standardization up to and following independence, and not bother with speaker numbers at all. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would venture to say that these numbers will not be known without a lot of effort on the part of the India and Pakistan census departments. That's not likely to happen. But we should present the best and most objective picture that can be put together for the Wikipedia readers. So, I would agree that a unified article on Hindi-Urdu-Hinudstani will go a long way towards clarifying the issues and provide a unified estimate and additional data on numbers as appropriate.

Given the large uncertainties I also think it is inappropriate to quote such a narrow range in the box. It gives the false impression that these numbers are well known. Common practice in data reporting is to give the number of significant digits that you can support, which I believe is "one" in this case. I have made minor changes to reflect some of the discussion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That depends on how good the figure for India is. The Pakistani figure has a presumed error of 0.5M, and the UK figure 0.35M, which is ±0.85M. The other figures are might bring that up to 1M. So if we can get some idea of the accuracy of the Indian census, we'll know how close we are. But even assuming a total error of ±2M, we'd be at two sig figs, and wouldn't need to round up to 70. Two sig figs is also the general convention for such things, unless there's reason to believe a number is particularly inaccurate.
Sayed, that's two of us who think the articles could use some merging. What about you? — kwami (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been known to few on Wikipedia as a supporter of "Hindi & Urdu" as same variant of "Hindustani" and will support the amalgamation but I think it needs more discussion and opinion of other editors especially form Pakistan, India & Language groups.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

About the significant digits: I think the census uncertainties are much larger than you have quoted, but I am willing to drop this issue because the problem is much bigger. So Mr. Haider, how do you propose we proceed to implement the one article idea? Combining the articles will take some work, but much of the information is already here. Who decides on combining articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

More Numbers Concerns[edit]

The table in the article says that there 12 million Urdu speakers in Pakistan. The population is 170 million - that's a mere 7% for a national language. This is just not correct. I understand that there is an issue with the "first language" and "second language" but it does not mean that those who speak it as a second language should not be counted as speakers. Under the circumstances of the Indian subcontinent with the provincial and regional languages, people can speak two or more languages with equal facility and the whole idea of "first" and "second" language is blurred. In any case, if a person can speak and know a language he or she should be counted.

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia Hindi article: "Linguistically, there is no dispute that Hindi and Urdu are dialects of a single language, Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu". I agree with this statement. It makes it very difficult to simply ignore the overlap between Hindi and Urdu speakers. In this present article, the editors are ignoring the 10's or perhaps 100's of millions of Hindi speakers whose language is identical to "Urdu" speakers and similarly to my knowledge Bollywood has almost never made an Urdu movie. Yet every Urdu speaker can not only understand them but get the idiomatic usage as well. In my opinion the current number of 65 million is completely bogus.

I am also amused by the significant digit issue. The table has India's Urdu speaking population to the last person! Out of 51 million!

This article would greatly benefit from real editing. There are useless sections such as difficulty of learning Urdu and some sections belong together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Urdu derives from arabic, persian and turkic words.[edit]

I would request people to be careful of users who POSE as muslims and use muslim sounding names but are hindus working for hindu fanatical organisations like rss.

As for the issue at hand urdu and hindi are completely different and have got nothing to do with one another. urdu derives largely from arabic, persian and turkic. hindi on the other hand derives from sanskrit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You obviously speak neither language. — kwami (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I speak urdu.
urdu has a lot of words that are arabic, persian and turkic based. whereas all the words of Shudh hindi are sanskrit based.
That's not what you said. You said it derives largely from Arabic etc. It does not: It derives largely from Indic (Khariboli), with large numbers of Persian words. (Most Arabic words arrived via Persian, did they not?) MSHindi, by the way, also has large numbers of Persian words. It does not derive from Sanskrit, is derives from Urdu, with much of the more formal Persian vocabulary purged in favor of Sanskrit. But the colloquial Persian vocabulary remains. From what Urdu and MSHindi speakers have told me, they cannot tell their languages apart when they speak colloquially. It's only the academic/formal/religious registers that differ.
So: Delhi dialect of Hindi absorbed large quantities of Persian from the Moghul army and court. That's Urdu. Hindu nationalists then tried purging Urdu of its Persian vocabulary, only partially succeeding. That's M.S.Hindi. If you speak Urdu, and think that it has nothing to do with M.S.Hindi, then you must have never seen a Bollywood film in your life. — kwami (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Too Many Articles[edit]

While we have been discussing things about this article, many changes seem to have been made in other articles related to Urdu. There are now SEVEN articles on Urdu and Hindi. They are: Hindi-Urdu, Hindustani, Hindi-Urdu Word Etymology, History of Hindustani, Hindi, Urdu (this one) and Hindi-Urdu Grammar. I noted that the number of speakers has been removed from the Hindi article, the article on Hindustani is gone and what remains is a re-direct, and the Hindi-Urdu article has a reasonable number of speakers at 490 million.

I think it is time to combine and cross reference these articles so that people can get some use out of them. I suggest that we eliminate the number of speakers from this article altogether and let it rest with one of the other articles where there is no controversy since the article is about both languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Urdu[edit]

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 Urdu'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 "Ethnologue":

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 15:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

lede: Urdu is Indo-Aryan & Muslims are not sole speakers of Urdu[edit]

Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language; So why not to depict this reality in lede?
Urdu is not solely spoken by Muslims & there have been various Hindu, Sikh writers, poets, composers in the language; So why to retain this false info in lede? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, it was developed and patronised by Muslims. The Muslim connection should be mentioned somehow. Mar4d (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The so called Muslim connection is mentioned in detail in the article, I'm only pointing out that it was/is not solely spoken by Muslims so to mention this in lede(or per se matter of fact anywhere in article) is incorrect. It's just a POV while truth is that although in majority of speakers of Urdu are Muslims but good minority is non-Muslim too which is reflected by literrai class of ghe language. The sentence in lede is synonymous to Hindi is spoken by Hindus which also is incorrect. So why to mention a incorrect staement in lede? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Those statements are true only if Standard Hindi is seen as a register of Urdu. (Personally, I think that it is.) Historically, yes, Urdu was spoken by all sorts of people, and the majority of Urdu speakers were Hindu. However, since independence (and for some time before) the name (not the actual language) has become restricted to Hindustani (an erstwhile synonym) as spoken by Muslims. If you're a Hindu, then what you speak is "Hindi" even if it's indistinguishable from what Muslims speak.
Standard Urdu of course is a different standard, but differing standards do not make different languages.
At present, the defining feature of Urdu, what differentiates it from "Hindi", is the ethnicity/religion of its speakers. This is discussed in the ref I added to the lead, which IMO is now being misrepresented. My objection to saying it's an "Indic language" is that it puts Hindi and Urdu on par with other Indic languages which actually are separate languages. I wouldn't want to say that Southern American English and West Midlands English are "Germanic languages". Technically, yes, they are Germanic, but only because English is Germanic.
Some excerpts from the ELL2 article:
Urdu is the literary, cultural, and religious language of Muslims in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other parts for the world ... Urdu in its colloquial form may be considered the lingua franca of one of the largest speech communties in the world [that is, Urdu = Hindi]. Urdu is ... a pluricentric language .... [not just Hindustani is pluricentric]
Urdu [historically] had a wide dialect base that included Braj Bhasa, Haryanvi or Bangaru, eastern Panjabi, and other dialects spoken in the region surrounding Delhi. Khari Boli was present as one of the elements in the formative period of Urdu and it gradually became stronger ... By 1800 [it] could be considered the basic source of Urdu.
The establishment of Fort William College ... encouraged the development of two styles of prose that paved the way for the emergence of Hindi and Urdu as distinct standard varieties.
... the exclusion of Hindu poets and the Hindu community in constructing the history of Urdu literature, on the one hand, and the switching of Hindu writers from Urdu to Hindi on the other. ... This process reached culmination with the complete identification of Urdu with Muslims in the second quarter of the 20th century.
the partition of India led to the development of Urdu ... in India and Pakistan along different lines. ... both the Hindi and Urdu speakers gave up Hindustani on ideological grounds. Although Hindi speakers identified Hindustani with Urdu, the Urdu speakers considered it another form of Hindi.
both Perso-Arabic and Sanskrit words [are] are an integral feature of both Hindi and Urdu.
kwami (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Kwami, your all judgements are if not always then usually centered around the great ELL2, you borrow text form it to prove you POV but that is not sufficient and you have to add brackated text to it (I think this adds to Original Research). The reference you are talking about is non-verifiable as it points to a book which is not available thru link. And Perso-Arabic and Sanskrit words are even used in Dravidian languages atleast in Telugu & Kannada (just like English words).
Atish, Mir Hasan, Nazir, Ghalib, Isma'i1, Hali, Igbal, and others) are Muslims, but the contribution by Daya Shankar Nasim, Shafiq Aurangabadi, Chakbast, Suriu, Mabrnm, Firaq, Anand Narain Mulla, and others who are Hindus is equally creditable and cannot be ignored in any history of Urdu poetry. Here are links which show that there are still many Non-Muslim Urdu poets and writers:
Actually Modern Hindi is 135 years old which was invented by Lallu Lal and Dr. Gilchrist. Infact almost all Modern Indo-Iranian languages of Indic (Indo-Aryan) branch are considered as dialect of Hindi with few exceptions like, languages from extreme West (e.g. Gujarati), extreme North (e.g. Nepali), extreme East (e.g. Bengali), extreme South (e.g. Marathi). Lambadi · Gujari · Nimadi · Mewati · Marwari ( Dialects: Godwari · Dhatki) · Mewari · Dhundhari · Harauti · Bagri · Malvi · Braj Bhasha · Hariyanvi · Bundeli · Kannauji · Awadhi (includes Fijian Hindi) · Bagheli · Chattisgarhi · Bhojpuri (includes Caribbean Hindustani) · Garhwali · Kumaoni · Nepali (Palpa) · Potwari etc. are still counted under umbrella of Hindi although most of them have literature older than so called Modern Hindi. It has tried to eat all local dialects from east to west but thankfully that has not happened and locales still remember their languages. Maithali till recent(until 2003, when it was was included in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution) times was treated as dialect of Hindi but now it is a diffrent language. Although there is no Urdu cinema but Bhojpuri exists. If all these are same language then how can you explain such phenamenon.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You may have a good point about Hindu Urdu poets. That certainly needs to be explored, and perhaps balanced against the general identification of modern Urdu with Muslims. I have no problem with that; it's only a question of reliable sourcing. My problem is with presenting Hindi and Urdu as distinct Indic languages, when they're actually registers of a single language. I think that should be clear for our readers, just as it should be for Serbian and Croatian, Malay and Indonesian, Tagalog and Filipino, Romanian and Moldovan. (My impression is that Urdu is the original and Hindi the derived form, but I'd want to be more confident of that before stating categorically that Hindi is a form of Urdu, rather that more neutrally stating that Hindi and Urdu are formally registers of the same language.)
I use the ELL because it is very well respected and is convenient for me. Most of the time it simply confirms what I already know from other sources I may have read years ago, and which I am often unable to produce for citations. Whether you have access to it has no bearing on its acceptability as a reference. (Hint: it can be found online, if you look hard enough.)
You're using two very different conceptions of "Hindi". The Hindi of Hindi-Urdu/Hindustani is much more limited than the Hindi of the Hindi Belt. Hindi hasn't "taken over", people of very diverse dialects simply identify themselves as Hindi speakers.
Another possibility would be to merge the two articles, as we do with grammar and phonology, rather than trying to maintain this rather artificial distinction. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If a Hindu poet wrote in the Khariboli dialect but borrows heavily from Persian and Arabic, and writes in the Nastaliq script instead of Devanagari, wouldn't that be Urdu? GizzaDiscuss © 11:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hindi borrows heavily from Persian and Arabic, just as Urdu borrows from Sanskrit, so I'm not sure how much that would matter. Yes, if you write in Nastaliq, that's normally considered Urdu. But then Urdu is also written in Nagari! It seems to be more about identity than language. If the poet says he writes in Urdu, then I think we need to accept him as an Urdu poet. This is all very interesting, and needs to be covered, but AFAIK the primary factor is today religion. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) The identification of Urdu with Muslims began with the Arya Samaj movement around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. Writers, like Premchand, who were Hindu and wrote exclusively or mostly in Urdu switched to Hindi around that time. Later, after partition, during the various Hindi movements, sanskritized Hindi became the norm in India and Urdu became confined to the Muslim minority. You'll probably find many older non-muslim north Indians, particularly Sikhs who migrated from West Punjab, who can read, write and speak Urdu, but, excluding this group, I doubt if the language is spoken or understood outside the muslim community in India. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hindustani Language does not consist of Urdu.[edit]

Urdu is NOT a Hindustani Language. For God's sake stop falling for indian propaganda and their false beliefs that they invented everything and everything originated from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read your history. Hindustani and Urdu were synonyms back in the day when Hindus were said to speak Urdu. It was just a name the Moghul court used for the local language. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have the impression that we are confusing Hindustani language with Hindustan, which is another common name used to refer to modern day India (even though it is generically meant to refer to the whole South Asia). To the IP above: Hindustani language is just a term that is synonymously used to refer to Hindi and Urdu as one and it has nothing to do with the India Hindustan; please clear this misconception. Mar4d (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The name "Urdu" is a Turkish word meaning 'camp', which symbolizes a language of communication among different groups. [...] One of the earliest authoritative statements about this distinct lingua franca appears in the writing of Amir Khusrow (1253–1325), who calls it "Hindvi," i.e. the language of Hindustan. The name "Hindustani" was used for it in later centuries. Anwar S. Dil, "Urdu", International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Oxford: OUP, 2003), vol. 4, pp. 333–334. -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
And Hindustan in this context of course refers to the whole Indian subcontinent. The IP user's issue here seems to be is that he is confusing Hindustan with modern-day India, thereby naturally provoking nationalist sentiment. Mar4d (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Lead of Urdu Page...[edit]

The lead of Urdu Page should begin like this.

Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language of the Indo-Iranian branch, belonging to the Indo-European family of languages. It is a standardised register of Hindustani.

This is more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I object because it makes it sound like a separate language, when it's a register of the same language as Hindi. This is a special case, and considering how many nationalists (on both sides!) try to obscure the relationship, IMO the only responsible action on our part is to state this fact up front. This is the same approach I take with other languages where nationalists try to deny the identity of their language (Indonesians who deny they speak Malay, Croats who deny they speak Serbo-Croatian, Filipinos who deny they speak Tagalog, etc. Given FOX "News" in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if some Americans started saying they speak "American" and denying that they speak English, but I'd be opposed to humoring them on WP.) — kwami (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is perhaps lack of understanding or lack of knowledge, but Urdu is a seperate language. There is no such language as Hindustani proper; just like there is no such thing as Hindustani alphabet, Hindustani literature etc; today, India recognises Hindi while Pakistan recognises Urdu and both are identified as seperate languages with seperate cultures. In definitive terms. Hindustani is like a language family which combines the two languages based on common linguistic similiarities. Academically, Urdu and Hindi are both seperate languages. (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
All the cases which you have presented are different; Hindustani is probably a synonymous reference in historical terms. It is wrong to say that Hindi and Urdu are both the same when in fact their only similiarities are the almost-same-words. Urdu uses Perso-Arabic alphabet while Hindi uses totally different Indic alphabet. Urdu, when spoken very formally, sounds a lot like Persianised while Hindi, if spoken very formally, will become more Sanskritized. They are very obscure when spoken formally; in fact, a speaker of one language may even have difficulty recognising some of the words in the other. When the alphabets are different, accents are different, literatures are different, history (although deriving from the same origin some time in the past) is derived slightly differently, and most important of all, there is no such thing as "Hindustani" in the official languages of India but Hindi and Urdu are listed as seperate official languages, I don't see on which bases they are not individual languages. They just happen to have the same origin and are registers of one common parent. (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you got it: they're registers of one parent language, which goes by the names "Hindustani" and "Hindi-Urdu".
Who ever said they were the same? — kwami (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
They are registers of a family and languages. Not some sort of mere sub-dialects as you seem to be advocating. Read my comments above; (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
And as I have said, Hindustani is not a proper language. Its more a synonymous term covering these two identical languages. (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying. First you say they are the same, then you say they aren't the same. — kwami (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The point is, formally you cannot write or speak Hindustani. You can write or speak either Urdu or Hindi - and both are identified as seperate languages, though are classified together in the Hindustani family. The point being stressed is that they are seperate Indo-Aryan languages. The very term "Hindustani" is a cover-up for linking them together based on their identical similiarities. However, Hindi and Urdu are both still languages. 12:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Yes, they're separate standards. No-one disputes that. But saying that therefore Hindi-Urdu is not a language is like saying that English is not a language because you have to choose to write "British" or "American", and can't just write "English". — kwami (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
English is a language that you can write. It has alphabet, literature, culture, history and status. Hindustani is a language that you cannot write. It does not have a unified alphabet, literature or culture for that matter. It only has historical relevance and it is in fact more of a term loosely used to define two seperate but verbally identical languages ("American English" and "British English" are not languages). Hindi and Urdu are languages (and Indo-Aryan for that matter). You can't write "just Hindustani." You either write Urdu or Hindi. (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope I have convinced you enough that which 500 million other people would do as well: that the lead for this article should be as follows: "Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language of the Indo-Iranian branch, belonging to the Indo-European family of languages. It is a standardised register of Hindustani." :) (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I think the essence of a thing should come first, details later. I wouldn't say "RP is a Germanic language, it is a standardized register of English", I'd just say "RP is a standardized register of English". Urdu has official recognition as a separate language, which makes it special, but it is essentially still a register of Hindi/Urdu. It's not even a standardized register: lots of people speak non-standard Urdu, but they still call their language "Urdu". — kwami (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've made some edits to the lede. Perhaps you'll find them an improvement. — kwami (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Why,, are you so concerned with "alphabet, literature, culture, history and status"? It would appear to me that all are peripheral to language. Serbs use the Cyrillic alphabet; Croats use the Roman alphabet; they use it to write the one Serbo-Croat language. Vietnamese was Vietnamese before the adoption of the Roman alphabet; it remains Vietnamese after the adoption; and it is still Vietnamese when spoken by the illiterate. Japanese would still be Japanese if the Japanese people had the good sense to adopt and adapt for it the excellent Korean writing system. Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why cannot this page be edited?[edit]

This is absurd. Urdu is NOT a HINDUSTANI Langauge. HINDUSTANI language ONLY consists of Hindi and nothing more. And this page is locked to promote false views? All the more to show Wikipedia is garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's protected from editing by the kind of person who refuses to read what is written shortly above on this very talk page, and who is keen to edit from the gut rather than from the brain. There is indeed plenty of garbage in Wikipedia; most thinking editors (and readers) don't want the percentage to increase.
Now, if you read and digest what is written in the two sections above, and if you then wish to present a rational argument for why the article is wrong, I for one will read this argument with interest and an open mind.
Mere declarations (such as HINDUSTANI language ONLY consists of Hindi and nothing more) are not at all persuasive in themselves. However, if you can cite academic works about language that make these same declarations, they would then be of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the name Urdu[edit]

I can see from the previous section why this page isn't free to be edited by one and all. But it also means I can't edit it benignly to include a sentence on what the name Urdu means. It isn't mentioned anywhere else, and I think it merits inclusion as it's quite illuminating.

For those who don't know, the word urdu means "army", since Urdu was originally sponsored as a military lingua franca to allow soldiers in the Mughal army from all the various parts of India to understand each other. The word comes from the Mongolian ordo, and originally meant a nomadic tented palace settlement, whether pitched or in transit; and is related to the English word horde.

Don't you think that merits inclusion? Nuttyskin (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We do include it in one of the other articles, I forget which. I rewrote the history section, but there wasn't an obvious place to plop it in, so I left it out for now. Suggestions welcome. (How would you translate Zaban-e-Urdu-e-Shahi and Zaban-e-Urdu-e-Mualla?) — kwami (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
In this revision of the article, it was mentioned that the name was also related to Urdu Bazar. I'm not sure when this was deleted but it might be helpful to reinclude this fact in the article. Also, Zaban-e-Urdu-e-Shahi and Zaban-e-Urdu-e-Mualla mean "Language of the [Royal] Court" and "Language of the Camp" respectively. You can use this link as a source for that statement. Also, could you please reinclude the statements that were lost when the anonymous IP reverted me, particularly the one about the influence on "apabhramshas"? I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I figured that the ancestral word for urdu was ambiguous as to army camp vs. palace or court, given that the Turks were nomads, but am not sure if Zaban-e-Urdu in the settled Delhi Sultanate was similarly ambiguous.
Not just apabhramsha, but specifically Sauraseni. I almost added that in, but I wasn't clear if that was an earlier layer than Braj Bhasha, or if (Old) Braj Bhasha was the form of Sauraseni they were talking about. Do you know?
Oh, and Dehalvi: translation? — kwami (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"Dehalvi" means "of Delhi." If you want to write the introduction with a particular apabhramsha, you should write it like this: "its vocabulary developed under Persian and Turkic influence on regional apabhramshas, particularly Brij Bhasha and Sauraseni, of northern India. This language became known as Hindavi, Hindi, and eventually Urdu" (source). You must also mention that it is a literary form of Khariboli (source), along with Hindi. This language was also known as Hindustani (source). Also, you didn't readd anything about the deleted Urdu Bazar. The sourcing and statement for that is found in this revision of the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've added most of that, including Urdu Bazar.
The problem I have with Sauraseni is that AFAICT it was the ancestor of Braj Bhasha, but your wording suggests that they were cousins. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you mean - I have once source for Urdu being descended from Sauraseni, which discredits the "pidgin" theory of Urdu. The source is from Encyclopædia Britannica and may be found here. As far as my word choice - I just modeled it off what the source stated. Thanks for adding the information. Best wishes, AnupamTalk 17:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

At last some consesus seems to exist on couple of positive things on this article. Thanks Anupam, Kwami. :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

After seeing the nationalist bullshit that occurs on the Croatian article (there are now even newspapers in Croatia writing on how Wikipedia is practicing cultural genocide against Croats, simply for stating that dialectologically Serbian and Croatian are one language), I approached Urdu and Hindi with some trepidation. I've been pleasantly surprised that, apart from a few cranks, everybody's been quite reasonable. Unfortunately there are enough cranks to protect the article, but please let me know if you think we're giving anything short shrift. (I'm hardly knowledgeable on the subject.) You can always make a proposed revision here on the talk page, and if it seems reasonable we can add it to the article. — kwami (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

the muslim connection[edit]

First of all, let's get a few facts clear.

  • Hindi and Urdu are the same at a spoken level. for example a sentence (main ghar ja raha hoon) (I'm going home) is both Urdu and Hindi. Here in Delhi, Muslims of old delhi will often refer to what they speak as urdu, where-as hindus who speak exactly the same lingo will call it hindi.
  • when it comes to specialized vocab, that's when the difference occurs. for example, a pakistani urdu speaker will easily be able to follow hindi TV shows and bollywood films (and bollywood songs use some very persianized lyrics, as persian words are considered musical :) ). But he'll/she'll have trouble understanding the hindi on a news channel or on Nat Geo.
  • Urdu is used as a lingua franca in regions where Hindi is the prestige dialect. There are a few exceptions (some people in Maharashtra, eg. ZaK Gujarat, eg. Irfan Pathan) and the Deccan-Urdu speaking Hyderabadi Mulsims.
  • However, in WB and Assam (where muslims form 25 to 30% of the pop.n), with the exception of Bihari and UP migrants, all the Muslims speak Bengali, Assamese or Bodo.
  • The same for other states in India. Lakhwadeep, as someone pointed out, is 95% Mulsim and all of them speak Malayalam.

User:Upamanyuwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Innotata, 5 November 2010[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please add interlanguage link to Piedmontese stub pms:Lenga urdu. Also doesn't look like interwiki links follow either of the two acceptable orders. —innotata 15:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

innotata 15:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Had a go at reordering them as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Usman.shamim, 7 December 2010[edit]

{{edit protected}}

In Urdu Poetry example section someone has inserted this:

1- Iqrar ma kaha onke inkar se lazzat

  bardta ha shoq Ghalib on ke nahe nahe se.
       (by Riaz Dukhi from Swat.)

It is totally irrelevant, before the translation of Ghalib's sher. Please remove it or place it somewhere else in the article.

Usman.shamim (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Crystal Clear action edit remove.png Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Urdu Belt[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please add a link to Urdu Belt in this article. About two-fifth of the Indian Muslim community live in this region. Katheeja (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of section[edit]

Section 12, "Difficulty in learning Urdu" is poorly written and full of mostly redundant information, which seems to all be culled from a single dubious (commercial) website. I strongly recommend it either be cleaned up or just outright deleted. - AlexanderKaras (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved the section up to the writing system section and retitled it since it doesn't seem to be about difficulty. If someone can suggest an appropriate rewriting, and there are no objections, I'll go ahead and make the changes. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 16 December 2010[edit]

{{edit protected}}

Please change "native speakers of both Hindi and Urdu frequently assert them to be completely distinct languages, despite the fact that they generally cannot tell the colloquial languages apart."


"native speakers of both Hindi and Urdu frequently assert them to be completely distinct languages".

That is, omit the part "despite the fact that they generally cannot tell the colloquial languages apart", as this is not a fact at all. Urdu and Hindi speakers can very well differentiate between their respective colloquial languages; not only the vocabularies are different at times, so are the pronunciation styles. Any Urdu or Hindi speaker could confirm that. (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've heard they can't. A Hindu and Muslim who say they speak Hindi and Urdu, but who grew up in the same city, will think the other is speaking their language if they don't know he's of a different religion. Unless of course they're speaking in a formal register, where the languages have been made distinct. — kwami (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
N Protected edit declined. Please obtain consensus for a proposed change before making the edit request.  Sandstein  11:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Kwami. Hindi and Urdu only differ in the standardised registers. On a daily basis you cannot say definitively that a person is speaking Hindi or Urdu only. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
That is correct, sometimes they can make out difference and sometimes they can't and intrestingly at times a listner will percive that conversation is going in Urdu & another will think that its in Urdu and when you'll ask speakers one will say they were speaking Hindi other will say in Urdu. Pronounciation of alphabets changes with region e.g. most of the speakers of Lucknow (Hindu or Muslim, Hindi or Urdu speaker) will say Bazar and not Bajar. Anyways, this is my experience as a person who since birth has lived with two languages and travelled across to find that one area's Hindi may be Urdu to other areas (that may sound wiered but its true). ;) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 23:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from AnonyLog, 24 December 2010[edit]

{{edit protected}} In the article it defines Urdu as "a register of the Hindustani language identified with Muslims." I completely disagree with this statement; the millons of Hindu, Sikh and Christian Urdu speakers in Pakistan, and Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Hyderabad and other regions of India I am sure would disagree with this statement as well.--AnonyLog (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) AnonyLog (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please make a specific suggestion - ie "Change XXX to YYY" - and re-request for consideration. Otherwise, we cannot guess what you would like. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
May be AnonyLog wants "a register of the Hindustani language identified with Muslims." to be reduced to "a register of the Hindustani language." to drop association of Urdu with Muslims.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 22:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Faizhaider is correct, the identification soley with Muslims is not appropriate for the article. The language is very popular among non-Muslims in India, especially in Hyderabad. --AnonyLog (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You mean Hindus speaking Dakhini? Maybe we need to think about this. In Delhi, the only way to know which colloquial language someone is speaking is to ask, as they can't tell them apart themselves. But regional dialects like Dakhini may be more specifically Urdu. Do we have a refs that discusses this? Regardless, the identification with Muslims still broadly holds up, doesn't it? — kwami (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 30 December 2010[edit]

{{edit protected}} Change "Based on the Hindi dialect of Delhi, its vocabulary developed under Persian, Arabic and Turkic influence over the course of almost 900 years." to "Based on Khariboli, the Hindustani dialect of Delhi, its vocabulary developed under Persian, Arabic and Turkic influence over the course of almost 900 years." because the former gives rise to the dispute between Hindi and Urdu as to which came from the other. The correction/modification states a fact that all agree to. Khariboli was a dialect of Hindustani spoken in and around Delhi and is the basis of both Hindi and Urdu. (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - sounds reasonable.   — Jeff G.  ツ 19:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - its more factual too.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He's got his facts backwards. Khariboli is not a dialect of Hindustani, Hindustani/Urdu is a register of Khariboli. Khariboli is a dialect of Hindi. Hindustani (AKA Urdu) developed out of Khariboli, or actually out of Braj Bhasa and then Khari Boli, not the other way around. That is, Standard Hindi is a standardization of Urdu, which is a register of Khariboli, which is a dialect of Western Hindi, which is an Indic language. The problem is that the word "Hindi" is so ambiguous as to be nearly useless: Hindi (MSH) is a form of Urdu and Urdu is a form of Hindi (Hindi Belt). We could change it to "Based on the Western Hindi dialect of Delhi", maybe. Khariboli IMO is too unfamiliar to be used in the first paragraph of the lede. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)\
Comment. If Hindi is so confusing why to put it in lead, just drop it from lead saying "Based on (local) dialect of Delhi". BTW 900 years ago was there Hindi or Western Hindi or somethimng else? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 02:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, done. I also cleaned up the wording, which had gotten a bit garbled from all the piecemeal editing. — kwami (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 03:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please have a look on what George Abraham Grierson in his book Western Hindi, Linguistic Survey of India. says about Western Hindi, Hindustani, Urdu & Hindi,
pg. 1, "Western Hindi has five dialects,—Hindostani, Bangaru, Braj Bhakha, Kanauji, Bundeli. Hindostani, as a local vernacular, is spoken in Western Rohilkhand, the Upper Gangetic Doab, and the Panjab District of Ambala. It has also been carried over the whole of India by Musalman conquerors, and has received considerable literary culture. Under these conditions it hfis three main varieties, Literai*y Hindostani proper, employed by both Musalmans and Hindus for literary purposes and as a lingua franca ; Urdu, employed chiefly by Musahnans and by Hindus who have adopted the Musalman system of education, and a modern development, called Hindi, employed only by Hindus who have been educated on a Hindu system. Urdu, itself, has two varieties, the standard literary form of Delhi and Lucknow, and the Dakhinl, spoken, and used as a literary medium, by Musalmans of Southern India."
pg. 3, "The earliest date which Yule gives of the use of the word ' Hindostani ' is 1616 ..."
pg. 44, 45 & 46, "It (literary Hindostani) has several recognised varieties, amongst which may be mentioned Urdu, Rekhta, Dakhini, and Hindi. Urdu is that form of Hindostani which is written in the Persian character, and which makes a free use of Persian (including Arabic) words in its Tocabulary. The name is said to be derived from the Urdu-e mu'alla or royal military bazaar outside the Delhi palace. It is spoken chiefly in the towns of Western Hindostan, by Musalmans and by Hindus who have fallen under the influence of Persian culture. Persian vocables are, it's true, employed in every form of Hindostani. Such have been admitted to full citizenship even in the rustic dialects, or in the elegant Hindi of modern writein like Harishchandra of Benares. To object to their use would be affected purism, just as would be the avoidance of the use of all words of Latin derivation in English. But in what is known as High Urdu the use of Persian words is carried to almost incredible extremes. In writings of this class we find whole sentences in which the only Indian thing is the grammar, and with nothing but Persian words from beginning to end. It is curious, however, that this extreme Persianisation of Hindostani is not, as Sir Charles Lyall rightly points out, the work of conquerors ignorant of the tongue of the people. On the contrary, the Urdu language took its rise in the efforts of the ever pliable Hindu to assimilate the language of his rulers. Its authors were Kayasths and Khatris employed in the administration and acquainted with Persian, not Persians or Persianised Turks, who for many centuries used only their own language for literary purposes. To these is due the idea of employing the Persian character for their vernacular peech, and the consequent preference for words to which that character is native. Persian is now no foreign idiom in India, and though its excessive use is repugnant to good taste, it would he a foolish purism and a politick mistake to attempt (as some have attempted) to eliminate it from the Hindu literature of the day."
"Rekhta (i.e. ' scattered ' or ' crumbled ') is the form which Urdu takes when used for poetry. The name is derived from the manner in which Persian words are ' scattered ' through it. When poems are written in the special dialect used by women, which has a vocabulary of its own, it is known as Rekhti.
"Dakhini is the form of Hindostani used by Musalmans in the Deccan. Like Urdu it is written in the Persian character, but is much more free from Persianisation. It uses grammatical forms (such as mere-ko for mujh-ko) which are common in rustic parts of Northern India, but which are not found in the literary dialect, and in the Southern Deccan it does not use the agent case with ne before transitive verbs in the past tense, which is a characteristic feature of all the dialects of Western Hindostan."
pg. 46, "The word ' Hindi ' is used in several diflercint ma&nings. It is a Pei-sian, not an Indian word, and properly signifies a native of India, as distinguished from a 'Hindu' or non-Musalman Indian."
"On the other hand, Europeans use the word in two mutually contradictory senses, du. sometime to indicate the Sanskritised, or at least the non-Persianised, form of Hindostani, wMoh is employed as a literary form of speech by Hindus, and which is usually written in the Nagari character : and sometimes, loosely, to indicate all the rural dialects spoken between Bengal proper and the Panjab."
"This Hindi, therefore, or, as it is sometimes called, 'High Hindi', is the prose literary language of the Hindus of Upper India who do not employ Urdu. It is of modern origin, having been introduced under English influence at the commencement of the last century. Up till then, when a Hindu wrote prose and did not use Urdfl, he wrote in his own local dialect, Awadhi, Buiideli, Braj Bhakha, or what not. Lallu Lal, imder the inspiration of Dr. Gilchrist, changed all this by writing the well-known Prem Sigar, a work which was, so far as the prose portions went, practicaUy written in Urdu, with Indo-Aryan words substituted wherever a writer in that form of speech would use Persian ones."
pg. 46 & 47,"Since Lallu Lal's time Hindi has developed for itself certain rules of style which differentiate it from Urdu, the principal ones relating to the order of words, which is much less free than in that form of Hindostani. It has also, of late years, fallen uiiider the fatal spell of Sanskrit, and is showing becoming in the hands of Pandits and under the encouragement of some European writers who have learned Hindi through Sanskrit, as debased as literary Bengali, without the same excuse. Hindi has so copious a vocabulary of its own, a vocabulary rooted in the very beings of the sturdy peasantry upon whose language it is based, that nine-tenths of the Sanskrit words which one meets in most modem Hindi books are useless and unintelligible excisescences."
pg. 46 & 47,"We may now define the three main varieties of Hindustani as follows :— Hindostani primarily the language of the Upper Gangetic Doab, is also the lingua franca of India, capable of being written in both Persian and Deva-nagari characters, and without purism, avoiding alike the excessive use of either Persian or Sanskrit words when employed for literature. The name ' Urdu ' can then be confined to that special variety of Hindostani in which Persian words are of frequent occurrence, and which hence can only be written in the Persian character, and, similarly, ' Hindi ' can be confined to the form of Hindustani in which Sanskrit words abound, and which hence can only bo written in the Deva-nagari character. These are the definitions which were proposed by the late Mr. Growse, and they have the advantage of being intelligible, while at the same time they do not overlap. Hitherto, all the three words have been very loosely employed. Finally, I use ' Eastern Hindi ' to connote the group of intermediate dialects of which Awadhi is the chief, and ' Western Hindi ' to connote the group of dialects of which Braj Bhakha and Hindustani (in its different phases) are the best known."
"As a literary language, the earliest specimens of Hindustani are in Urdu, or rather Rekhta, for they were poetical works."
pg. 47, "Urdu and Hindi, as representing, each, one of the two great religious systems of India, have their headquarters wide apart. Two rival cities claim to be tlie true headquarters of Urdu, viz, Delhi and Lucknow. ... Hindi, also, has two schools of writers—that of Agra, and that of Benares. ... In connexion with this, it may here again be mentioned that Literary Hindustani founded on a vernacular dialect of Western Hindi, but is still in living connexion with it."
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 02:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems pretty much correct, apart from the distinction between Hindustani and Urdu being a recent one; historically, they referred to the same thing. He's not using the term Khari Boli at all, but just calling it Hindustani. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, IMO above source/reference should be used to fix all related articles. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 03:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hm, should we use the population figures too? ;) — kwami (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
lol...may be in history section. But the work is very informative and composite especially it is not that biased. Although many definitions have changed and several new ones have originated regarding evolution of the dialects/languages in question then also this work can work as litmus paper for evolution facts on WP articles of languages/dialects mentioned in this work. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 11:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it does look like a good source, I just haven't had a chance to look it over. — kwami (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

it seems that these is been Effort to destroy the identity of Urdu language. regardless what ever you all say or write about Urdu (Ordu) it is different language then Hindi. request for Hindi speaking people please respect Hindi and do welfare of that beautiful old historical language and do run after Bollywood as they don't speak Hindi or Urdu correctly. Please there is nothing called Hindustani language and stop destroying the identity of Hindi and Urdu. and stop misguiding people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightrider083 (talkcontribs) 15:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixing the location of the "Transliteration of Urdu" section[edit]


The one-paragraph section "Transliteration of Urdu" is about the ad-hoc ways that 7-bit Urdu is used on the Net... And under it, there's a table of Examples that shows anything but-- because it's examples for the "Roman Script" section, further up. Can someone bump that "Transliteration of Urdu" section to after the Examples table, to put things in the right order? Sean M. Burke (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. The transliteration section didn't have any real content, so I just deleted it. Phrases moved to the end of the article, where they will probably eventually be deleted as well. — kwami (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language, India[edit]

National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language
Autonomous Regulatory Body
Founded April 1, 1996
Headquarters Delhi, India
Area served
Standardisation and promotion of Perso-Urdu language

The National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language is an autonomous regulatory body under the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD), Department of Higher Education, Government of India. It was established on April 1, 1996 to support the advancement and promotion of Urdu which one of the languages of India. It was set up to promote, develop and propagate the Urdu language, and today is the principal coordinating and monitoring authority for promotion of Urdu language and Urdu education.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Effort to destroy the identity of Urdu[edit]

it seems that these is been Effort to destroy the identity of Urdu language. regardless what ever you all say or write about Urdu (Ordu) it is different language then Hindi. request for Hindi speaking people please respect Hindi and do welfare of that beautiful old historical language and do run after Bollywood as they don't speak Hindi or Urdu correctly. Please there is nothing called Hindustani language and stop destroying the identity of Hindi and Urdu. and stop misguiding people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightrider083 (talkcontribs) 14:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

broader Urdu[edit]

Bihari is called "Urdu" in Bangladesh. Should we add something about that? How widespread is the use of "Urdu" for any variety of Hindi when spoken by Muslims? — kwami (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Public domain urdu dictionaries[edit]

DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Pardon me, but is there any particular reason why 'Buttsechs', a crude homophone for a sensetive term, redirects here? In the event of no replies, I will delete this redirect. Thanks, Intheeventofstructuralfailure (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the page history. It's just vandalism. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan/India or India/Pakistan[edit]

Kwamikagami seems bent on putting India first in the list of countries where Urdu occurs. He bases this on a rigid, legalistic practice that he thinks is inflexible in Wikipedia, that the country with most speakers comes first and the country of origin comes first. Normally, I would agree with him, but not in this case. Urdu is more firmly associated with Pakistan than with India because it is the official language of Pakistan, it is intimately associated with Islam, it is usually contrasted with Hindi (the first language of India), and there are enough linguistic sources that list it as being spoken in Pakistan first to justify an exception to Kwami's rigid rule. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics article on Urdu begins, "Urdu is the national language of Pakistan..." and then mentions Muslims in India second. Linguasphere mentions Pakistan first. Ethnologue calls Urdu a "Language of Pakistan". These are not minor sources and if they consistently associate Urdu with Pakistan, then an exception to kwami's rigid rules needs to be made here. --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule, simply a pattern of usage in our articles. Imagining a rule and calling it "rigid" three times is propaganda, not a rational argument. The patterns found in other articles mostly favor India in this one:
  1. Listing countries alphabetically, esp. if there is conflict. (India comes first)
  2. Listing countries by number of native speakers (India comes first)
  3. Starting w country of origin (India)
  4. Starting w center of diversity (Dakhini etc: India)
As for association with Islam, India has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan. Pakistani Urdu-speaking families are immigrants from India. Urdu is an official language in India as well as in Pakistan. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics article begins, "Urdu is the literary, cultural, and religious language of Muslims in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other parts of the world ...". Masica (CUP) The Indo-Aryan Languages speaks of Urdu as "the language first of the Muslim population, mainly urban, of northern India; now the official language of Pakistan and a second language for all educated persons there; the southern form Dakhini, mentioned above as having a base at Hyderabad, is also found spoken (along with Standard Urdu for formal purposes and by the more educated) by Muslims in cities and towns throughout the Deccan, and in Bombay."
Against this, Urdu is the sole official language of Pakistan, and Pakistan has a higher percentage of Muslims than India. But we don't normally arrange countries according to official status in the geographic section: that's what the official-status section is for. — kwami (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with Kwamikagami. Any more or less neutral and measurable rule would seem to favour putting India first. While "more associated with" is both ambiguous and subjective, alphabetical order, number of speakers or country of origin are all relatively neutral (country of origin is not neutral for all languages, though) so I would recommend putting India first.Jeppiz (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
But this is not a clear-cut case when you have major linguistic sources putting Pakistan first because the relative importance of Urdu to Pakistan is greater than the relative importance of Urdu to India. Consider English. By both number of speakers and alphabetical order, India should precede both the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, if "number of speakers" is considered a valid criterion, then India and China would come first on many, many lists where they are not really appropriate as primary exemplars. It could be argued that there are more Hmong speakers in the United States than in any of the countries where they are scattered in Southeast Asia. While I generally agree that neutrality is often best served by rule-based behavior, I disagree that information exchange is always best served by rule-based behavior. We must always balance the need for neutrality with the importance of presenting information. --Taivo (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There are certain flaws in Kwamikagami's argument. I will try not go too deeply into them because this deserves an essay in its own right, so I'll try my best to summarise. First of all, the argument As for association with Islam, India has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan - is not true. Pakistan has a larger Muslim population as per List of countries by Muslim population, with India following closely afterwards. But that is not even relevant, since we're discussing the number of native speakers. In terms of native speakers (i.e. those who have Urdu as their mother tongue), yes, India has a larger native Urdu-speaking population. But that argument is a rigid and narrow interpretation. if you look outside the box of just native speakers, most Pakistanis can speak Urdu; as per Pakistan: a global studies handbook by Mohiuddin, 75% of Pakistanis can comfortably speak Urdu at a native level. It is used as a national language/the main medium of communication between people of the different ethno-linguistic provinces. Pakistan's most common language, Punjabi (spoken natively by a population of 90 million or roughly 60% of the Pakistani population) - is furthermore similiar to Urdu, which means most people from that ethno-linguistic group in particular have no problem in adopting and conversing in Urdu. As Taivo correctly points out, Urdu is more important in (and is commonly associated with) Pakistan because it is the national language there and is part of the national identity. In the historical context, the Urdu movement played a pivotal role in the Pakistan Movement; before independence, Urdu was commonly viewed as a linguistic identity of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent and was thus to play a crucial role in the founding of Pakistan, a state for the Muslims of the subcontinent. After independence, Pakistan has been the main centre of Urdu-language education, culture, communication, media, newspapers/journalism, film/television, literature, poetry, music etc., not India. The largest language regulation/promotion board of Urdu, National Language Authority, is based in Pakistan. So if you look through any angle, Urdu is significant in Pakistan and most of the influence that Urdu has today comes from Pakistan.
Now, as Kwamkagami points out, Urdu has official status in India too, which is true. But at a secondary/state level along with some 20 other regional languages. Not at the national level or union level. Only Hindi, Urdu's counterpart, enjoys that status. Urdu does not have a well-defined influence on the national identity of India as a whole. The lone (and perhaps only significant) factor that makes the oranges different from the apples in this case is that there is a native-speaking population here. There is therefore Urdu culture present in India, but overall Urdu print media, literature, education in India is not comparable to that in Pakistan, where it enjoys the status of national language. Common sense dictates that Pakistan should obviously be listed first on the infobox per WP:WEIGHT. Excuse the long comment. Mar4d (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In addendum to the above comment, I'll also add that after 1947, some independent observers have noted that Urdu as a whole has been on the decline in India and relegated as just a Muslim language. And not just the partition of India, but factors such as lack of promotion by language authorities, defunding by state governments, a perceived identity crisis associated with Muslims in India, and domination of Hindi are held as contributors to the decline. Some sources:
  • Handbook of Twentieth-Century Literatures of India, p. 346
  • Gender, Genre, and Power in South Asian Expressive Traditions, p. 357
  • Culture And Customs of Pakistan, p. 55
  • The Twelver Shi'a as a Muslim Minority in India: Pulpit of Tears, p. 29
There may be rebuttals or valid opposition to this perspective. But, disregarding how true this is, the issue of Urdu possibly declining in India has still been a topic discussed in academic sources. It is an interesting debate. But to those who think India deserves to be associated with Urdu more - I think you get the point from what I'm trying to say. Mar4d (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


I've fully protected the article for a week due to the edit warring today. If you manage to come to a consensus about whether or how to include the material, just leave a message on my talk page and I'll lift the protection. I see that and are sites that users can contribute to. Per WP:SPS, we are not allowed to use sites like this unless the content is written by an expert; is there any reason to suspect that this is the case? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledging and giving liberal Pakistanis their due credit[edit]

I am terribly dismayed at the wrong impression the article on Urdu is giving - That all Pakistanis are narrow-minded. People who read Urdu are bound to believe that all compatriots are over-enthusiastically Taliban-style narrow minded. They are all barbaric, especially, when dealing with people of other faiths. When the truth is, as quoted in the article Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the father of the nation said at the time of the nation's independence: "You may belong to any religion caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state. In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.". Former Pakistani Minister Mushahid Hussain attended Mother Teresa's funeral and prayed for her departed soul. In 2006 the government announced another series of reforms and a Pakistan Education Task Force (PETF) was set up to reduce and reverse the level of Islamization of the education system by keeping Islamic instruction restricted to specifically Islamic studies and out of other general subjects. A revised curriculum guide was formulated whose provisions included, the reduction of Islamic instruction, the introduction of “the role of minorities in Pakistan” for grades 8-10, emphasis on the role of minorities in the creation of Pakistan and its pre-Islamic history. However, textbooks reflecting these changes were not printed.

It was in this context, an effort was made to introduce the following text in the article pertaining to the use of "Marhoom" and "Anjahani": Liberal Pakistanis, however, appear to be disgusted with these nuances. This is reflected in response to the article "Murders Most Foul" in which a respondent posted:

On the condemnable murder of Shahbaz Bhatti ..., they, the government and the media ... showed a better reaction than on the murder of Salman Taseer. But what is all the more condemnable is the immoral discrimination shown by them in case of Shahbaz Bhatti who has been dubbed as ‘Aanjahaani’ instead of ‘Marhoom’ or ‘Shaheed’, perhaps to avoid the risk of his getting into the ‘jannat’ and getting entitled to houries which may perhaps be already in short supply in view of the recent rise in demand for them. What a terrible joke they have made of the religion that they have to think many times about the status of the victim so as to decide whether he is ‘shaheed’, ‘marhoom’, ‘jaan-baahaq’, ‘aan-jahaani’ or simply a ‘jahannam-raseed’.

The source of the quote is a blogposting @ Yes, its a "blog", but the effort is quote common liberal man's perception about the discriminatory use of "marhoom", "anjahani", etc. It highlights not all Pakistanis think alike and by chance if you land in the country, don't presume yourself to be in the forest surrounded by wild animals. Rather, you'll find lots of Asma Jahangir, Abdul Sattar Edhi, etc. Also, my friend Kwami is peeved at one particular sentence (What a terrible joke they have made of the religion). I'm sorry if he's hurt, but these are not my words, rather those of a Pakistani. If needed, I can post the above text without these words and use three dots instead. Is that okay to justifiably highlight good-natured rational human beings in Pakistan? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC).

I don't see how any of this is relevant to the article. If there are parts of the article that you feel give a bad impression of Pakistanis, perhaps we can fix those directly rather than adding this. Or, if you can find linguistic or sociolinguistic sources which make the same points, they could be added per RS and WEIGHT. Remember, we aim to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper editorial. — kwami (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. The wrong impression about Pakistanis is created by the section which mentions the distinction of "Marhoom" and "Anjahani". It is, however, encyclopedic - the source is reliable and the fact is well known.
  2. Curious Wikipedia-readers will get a wrong impression that if a people hold these type of views, then do they hold human values and sentiments - especially with regard to rest of the world?
  3. The blog posting cited is only intended to reveal that there people within that very country there are people who think otherwise - Of course, I agree that this is not the only view or source - there can be better sources, but till someone comes out with another better one let this be in place as an answer to #2 as it seems sum up many other views contextually.
  4. Other Wikipedia articles have cited social networking sites and blog posts to highlight a specific aspect - keeping in mind that these may be quoted as opinions and not historically significant facts / absolute truths. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC).
Sorry, I lost track of this discussion. Indeed, we do not want to present a biased or stereotyped impression of Pakistanis. The section does not seem to be negative as it is written now, though there are some irrelevant things I'll remove. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
A particular country is being attacked here, naming its nationals as biased. The Discussion ought to be held on the content instead of that country. And relevancy is to be decided by consensus, not by the decision of a single user. Remaining neutral is the foremost requirement here, and Pakistanis should not be attacked. Faizan -Let's talk! 16:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
No country is even mentioned, so how can you say it's being attacked? Is the info factually incorrect? — kwami (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
What? Pakistan was menmtioned and repeatedly attacked as "biased" on your talk! Faizan -Let's talk! 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

update population[edit]

Update population fig: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talkcontribs)

|speakers = 66 million
|date     = 2007
|ref      = <ref>[[Nationalencyklopedin]] "Världens 100 största språk 2007" The World's 100 Largest Languages in 2007</ref>
No opposition to this, so Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Does anybody know Urdu?[edit]

Hi, I just need help to translate an article in Urdu. I have done my bit but the problem is of putting the references, since all the references are in English I couldn't really understand how can I put the references? Please visit my article Rebecca Masterton and help me in compiling the article. Hope to see some enthusiast people. --Lubna Rizvi 11:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talkcontribs)

I will translate it, don't worry! It shall be done very soon. Faizan -Let's talk! 15:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Much as been done already, but I will help you with it further. Faizan -Let's talk! 16:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Modern Standard Urdu, not all of Hindustani[edit]

[copied from my talk page — kwami (talk)]

As for your edits here, Info regarding Urdu as the register of "Hindustani" is found in the following sections already, please don't move it again to lead. Being a Regster of Hindustani was a history, now Urdu is a "South Asian language in the Indo-Aryan branch in the Indo-Euro pean family of languages"! For more, do discuss it at the articles's talk, Thanks. Faizan -Let's talk! 08:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been discussed many times. We generally oppose nationalist attempts to deny history. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello there! This is Wamiq, a user who edited the article Urdu and whose edit you reverted completely. Can you please justify it? Faizan was right when he said that that article was concerned only with Urdu, but that did not mean you remove everything relating to Urdu from before 1900, labelling it as Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu. What you consider Urdu (as being born in 1900) existed much before that (I suppose you already know this, but still?)... So all what you say to be in the realm of Hindustani also comes in the sphere of Urdu (these were synonyms then, Urdu being the official name of the language whereas Hindustani used sometimes in colloquial speech; again I suppose you know this already). Hindi was non-existent before 1867, so calling the language before that as Hindi-Urdu would be an injustice with Urdu. How about replacing that introduction back (after modifications, if you consider appropriate)? Another reservation I have, is regarding your opinion of disregarding Urdu as a seperate language. Urdu should be the broad name of the Hindustani languge as it used to be in the past. This makes Urdu the actual language name as opposed to Hindi and Hindustani. Urdu is not a prejudicial name for a pre-existent language as is Hindi. So it is neither subordinate to Hindustani (in reality being equal to it), nor is equal to Hindi (rather being superordinate to it), which makes it a language in its own right. I hope this is clear now... So would you please review and reconsider your revert? I would be very grateful if you comply with this. Regards.
— Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 16:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The article for Urdu/Hindi/Hindustani before the standards split is under the name Hindustani language. That is Urdu. The article we call "Urdu" is for the modern standard language after the split, since people now claim that Hindi and Urdu are separate languages. For most of their history, they were the same language. Since there are three conceptions, we have three articles. The Hindi article too should be about only modern history, even though Hindu activists might want to claim it's 2,000 years old.
When you talk about Urdu before ca. 1900, you're really talking about what we're calling Hindustani. It's rather odd to make the lead to the Modern Standard Urdu article about Hindustani rather than about Modern Standard Urdu. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks a lot for making that clear to me! Well, can I ask you one thing? You do not seem to be the native speaker of either Hindi or Urdu. Where are you from and how do you know so much about languages which do not seem to be yours? You have put up nothing on your page and your name is so odd, that one could not make a guess regarding you. Please do tell me. Regards!
— Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I don't speak any language from the Subcontinent. I do have a pretty good understanding of linguistics, though, so if you can make a good linguistic argument with good sources you're likely to convince me. I've learned a lot talking to people here, and hardly think I know everything (though evidently more than some do). My user name Kwami is Ghanaian (Akan) for a man born on Saturday, while Kagami is a Japanese joke on my family name. It's not meant to be transparent!
We have a long history of dispute over these articles, going back years, just as we have in other cases where nationalism creeps in, like Serbo-Croatian, Tagalog vs Filipino, Malay vs Malaysian vs Indonesian, Turkish vs Turkic, and minority languages and dialects all over the world. We've also had a difficult time choosing appropriate titles that people can agree on. Personally, I'd like them to be at Hindustani, Modern Standard Hindi, and Modern Standard Urdu. ("Hindi" is an even more difficult name than Urdu, because there is even greater variation as to what people count as Hindi, as you can see in the language section of the Indian census.) I conceive of Modern Standard Hindi as a variety of Urdu, which is the same as Hindustani, but Hindutva activists would go berserk over that just as Serbian nationalists would go berserk if I were to say Serbian is a variety of Croatian (which I think is a fair statement), and just as Indonesians don't like it when I talk to them in Malay and call the language "Malay", though of course that's what it is. And of course Urdu is in turn a Hindi language, but many Pakistanis would throw a fit about that. Though I have met plenty of Hindi and Urdu speakers, as well as Serbs and Croats, who are perfectly willing to accept that they speak the same language as the other. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have understood the classification of Urdu language into three articles here, but many of my friends haven’t, so they keep on reverting your edit. If you would like to keep it as it is, then no problem, but if you want to fix it back, then what do you think about pasting our conversation over the talk page of Urdu, since many people want to discuss this issue? I think this is the only way of stopping this edit war. Another thing done could be renaming the articles Hindi and Urdu to Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu. This would be more appropriate in my opinion as it would remove misconceptions in the minds of people from both sides. What do you think?
— Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I did move Hindi to MSH, but there was a vote to move it back on the basis of COMMONNAME. I maintained that we should keep it at the unambiguous name, but lost the argument. — kwami (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Further discussion to be carried out at Talk:Urdu. Faizan -Let's talk! 15:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[copied over]

Conflict Resolved, Agreed with Kwami, that text ought to be in the Article of Hindustani language, now I request all, not to make any revert again prior to discussion. Thanking all. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Biased information?[edit]

Previously discussed at Taivo’s talk page. Copied over from there. Meant for Kwami, Taivo and Faizan.

Thanks a lot for telling me my weak points here, but please let me clarify my position. As to the phrase ‘great quality of assimilation’, I do not think ‘great’ would be an unjust peacock term. Please see my explanation below:

  • The first thing is that I entered that phrase exactly as found in a printed material.
  • The next thing is that Urdu does have that great property. That is so, because Urdu can be considered to be a made-up languge, just like Esperanto; the difference lying in the fact that Esperanto was made by one man, but Urdu was made by a whole nation. This means that it has no words of its own! Almost all the vocabulary is borrowed. Excepting a small figure, the rest all are borrowed. I divide the sources of borrowing into two types for better understanding (for long-established words in Urdu, when English terms were not extensively used):
  1. Eastern (Hindi aka Sankrit/Prakrit, etc.)
  2. Western (Muslim aka Arabic/Persian/Turkish, etc.)

Almost all the conjunctions, prepositions, interjections and pronouns derive from Eastern sources, with a few being from Persian. But the verbs, nouns and all other determiners form an open set and you can use them from almost any language, provided the addressee knows that word from the lending language already. Let us take an example. Consider the synonyms of the word ‘shade’ available in Urdu:

a. The most often used: sāyah —Persian

b. šēḋ —English

c. chā'ōⁿ —Eastern (Hindi)

d. The seldom used: ẓill —Arabic

So you see, these 4 synonyms were there just because of the property of assimilation.  There are many words like these who have two to four synonyms just because of borrowings from other languages.

Now as you know, the famous news channels try to avoid foreign words as much as possible and the people who come up there are chosen for their proper language, but still, recently when the 8-magnitude earthquake struck Iran, the seismologist on a news channel said:

“Is earthquake (arthku'ēk) kā focus (fōkas), Earth (Arth) kī surface (sarfēs) sē 123.45 (I do not remember the figure) kilometre (kilōmītar) kī depth pē thā.”

I do not think you would feel any difficulty in understanding this sentence (It reads “The focus of this earhquake was at a depth of 123.45 km from the surface of the Earth.”) But still, if an Urdu listener knows the meanings of the English words used here, the person would not find this sentence odd at all! Hope this justifies my statement that Urdu, in spite of being poor in terms of native vocabulary, is quite a vocabulary-rich language, just because of borrowing. This borrowing actually begins with someone using a foreign (Usually belonging to Eastern, Western or English source) word and it slowly gains popularity and becomes a well-established word in Urdu, which ultimately finds its way to the dictionaries and becomes an accepted one. Take another example. I read a discussion on the talk page of an administrator on the Urdu Wikipedia, in which one admin. said that a one-word alternative to rollback in Urdu was required. The other admin. suggested a multitude of alternatives from both Eastern and Western sources. And they finally chose ‘istarjeʿ’, an Arabic word and it is quite common there now. Many new words in Urdu are coined by borrowing this way.

Concluding this, I would like to say to you gentlemen that my words atleast regarding assimilation were not completely just POV cheer-leading and atleast required a mention in the lead and a subsection in the article below. Hope I am clear. Regards.

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 06:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It was never a "Biased" info and that reason given by the reverter was not correct, I support the inclusion of the added info in the lower sections, do it. Faizan -Let's talk! 14:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec):Urdu is not a "made up" language, it is a natural human language that evolved from earlier forms just like every other human language.  Just reading your comments shows that you should not be editing the linguistic content of this article until you understand the science of basic historical and descriptive linguistics.  You might be quite qualified to edit other aspects of Urdu life and culture, but your linguistic understanding is quite limited, and in some respects non-existent.  Commenting on your preceding suggestions alone would require me to give you a fundamental education in linguistic science.  Yes, Urdu has borrowed words, but so does every other language in the world--some less, some more.  That doesn't make Urdu a "made-up language" and it doesn't mean that Urdu "doesn't have any words of its own".  Those are two of the most unscientific, silly comments I've seen in a long time in Wikipedia.  They are utterly and completely false and you will find no reliable linguistic source that makes those claims.  Urdu is one of the two standard registers of Hindustani (the other being Hindi), which is a natural human language developed from prior forms going ultimately back to Sanskrit.  Your comments about an Urdu speaker and comparing an Urdu sentence to a word-for-word English sentence are simply childish in terms of linguistic science.  I'm sorry to be blunt, but you don't seem to know any actual linguistics in a scientific sense.  What you think you know are unscientific children's tales told to make Urdu speakers think that Urdu and Hindi are somehow radically different languages.  Sorry, but none of your edits are acceptable if this is the level of linguistic understanding that you exhibit.  --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Do not follow Faizan Al-Badri's bad advice.  He is pushing an edit war which will get you blocked or banned from Wikipedia.  You must build a consensus for anything you do in the article.  But in order to do that, you need to listen to the actual linguists here and follow their advice.  --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a personal Attack! You ought to "comment on the content, instead of the user", as per WP:PA, so should it be considered a violation of the rules, dear Taivo? The matter is open for a discussion, and no one can pose authority here, as an expert, the matter should be decided with community consensus, instead of Personal Attacks. Faizan -Let's talk! 15:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
You said "do it". It seems like you were egging him on to reinstate his changes without consensus. — Lfdder (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Taivo hit the nail on the head, but just to comment on this one (minor) thing:
"Today, its stock of words has crossed the figure of 400,000."
I wonder how they've come to that figure. Did they count words with different meanings individually for each meaning? Did they count inflected words? Did they count compounds? Did they count borrowed scientific terminology? You can see how easily any attempt to count words in a language falls apart.
You've confused a language's lexicon with everything "language". You're confused about the origin of Urdu. You're confused about linguistic typology and taxonomy. You've confused standard register with constructed languages and creoles. You should read all of those pages to get a better understanding of linguistics, and why your changes aren't appropriate. — Lfdder (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
@Lfdder I had discussed with him on his тαlк and I had asked him to improve it, add further references,etc, get community consensus, and then add it, do I had to explain him the same thing here again? Even if I was indulging him in a war, do PA become justified then? Faizan -Let's talk! 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Not constructive. There's a place to report PAs if you think that's what it was. — Lfdder (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
A personal attack consists of "You are stupid."  Saying that you have given bad advice is not a personal attack.  --Taivo (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing that wasn't meant to be in reply to me. — Lfdder (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
No, sorry, I should have prefaced my comment with "Faizan" :) --Taivo (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For my Sir Taivo:

Well, thanks a lot for criticising me! I have no objection to that. I think it is his right and it is my duty to listen to him. So now, I have come to know that my way of convincing was not sound. That is a fact that I am not a expert and do not know how to quote good examples, but you still deny the fact that Urdu did not develop naturally like other languages. It developed in the Mughal army, where different peoples could not understand each other; So, for easier communication they ‘created’ this language. Hence the name ‘Urdu’, meaning ‘Army’ (Ask any Persian). What do you say about this? Regards.

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 16:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
You are completely mistaken, Syed. Urdu developed exactly like other languages. It was not "created". It evolved in an unbroken line naturally from previous languages going back to Sanskrit, Proto-Indo-European, and beyond to the plains of East Africa. It is not a mixed language, nor is it a creole, nor is it anything other than a register of the Hindustani language that borrowed a lot of Arabic and Persian words. In that regard, it is similar to English, which is a Low German language that borrowed a lot of French words. Urdu is not "special" in any linguistic sense. That's my point. Your fundamental understanding of the nature of Urdu is flawed and unscientific. That's the problem. And that's why your edits are unacceptable. --Taivo (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
There must be something in your point, that is final. What we are told and what we read says that it did not develop naturally. I will need some time to research on the point and arrive to some conclusion the scientific way. Thank you very very much for telling me this thing. I think the discussion is closed from my side. Will revive this only when I find something appropriate relating to this. Bye! Regards.
—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 17:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Every standardized language is to some extent artificial, in the sense that it is standardized. This is true of German, French, Russian, Indonesian, Japanese, etc etc. Modern Standard Urdu is somewhat unusual in the degree to which religion plays a role, but its base is just as natural as the bases of any of those other standardized languages. That's the only way Urdu is in any sense "artificial". What you're talking about goes further back, to the establishment of Urdu as a lingua franca of the Moghul Empire. Really, though, even if the details are unique to each language, this is a common pattern with imperial languages. Persian and Chagatai Turkish went through much the same process. Urdu grew upward from a "commoner" (vulgar) language, rather than being imposed from above as the language of the elite, but then so did English. None of these are considered artificial. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe one has to be very clear about the very definition of the word language.

How are languages born? They take years to develope as a means of communication between any "two" parties involved. Raw material is already around as the common lexicon, which is used in the hope to get the message across. Jargon used in a ship etc. Even new meanings are given. It was under the sultanate period, not under the Moghuls, Urdu Lisan starts taking shape. i.e. something that occured a few hundred years earlier. I have a "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language"(1989). It lists more than 90 languages from where words are borrowed. Majority of the words originate in other laguages than English. I agee some of the critics have flayed earlier commentaors. They could have gone easy. BTW the word in Persian for "Army" is "Sipah".Abikan 22:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abikan (talkcontribs)

Changes to translit and transcription[edit]

These seem positive, but I don't really know enough about Hindi/Urdu phonology to judge. Can anybody else comment? — Lfdder (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

American/British usage[edit]

Per MOS:RETAIN we do not switch between British and American usage and vice versa when the existing variety is consistent within the article. One editor is trying to change American to British usage here without justifying that switch based on inconsistent usage within the article. This section is opened to give him the opportunity of demonstrating the need for change. --Taivo (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This article doesn’t use any form of English consistently. E.g., It uses ‘-ize’ forms (standardized, Persianize—US) as well as ‘-our’ forms (flavour, honour—UK/PE). This needs to be standardised to PE as the article is highly relevant to Pakistan.Шαмıq  тαʟκ @ 16:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Since "-ize" spellings are part of Oxford spelling, and as such acceptable both in US and in UK usage, I'm not convinced they are a problem for Pakistani English. Fut.Perf. 16:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
But -ise is actually preferred... the article uses -ise nowhere lesser than -ize.Шαмıq  тαʟκ @ 16:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't really care if it stays/gets converted to American/Brit/OED, but consistency would be nice, so the easiest thing to do would be to turn the remaining -ise into -ize. — Lfdder (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't really care which way it goes as long as it is consistent throughout and we agree here first. --Taivo (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia used as source for number of native speakers[edit]

Hi to all concerned Nationalencyklopedin is linked to wikipedia I think this not a valid source maybe find a new one? RameshJain9 (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's referenced correctly. — Lfdder (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I am confused it links to a wiki article however. RameshJain9 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Urdu is not native to Bangladesh[edit]

Urdu was and is not the native language of any part of Bangladesh. How can be the language of Biharis native to Bangladesh when Biharis themselves are not native to Bangladesh? Their status in Bangladesh is disputed. Biharies are not Bangladeshi and recognized as Pakistani refugee!

I have alredy included Indian Urdu speaking communities and Pakistani diaspora world wide (Biharis are also included in the list of pakistani disapora) IN THIS EDIT HERE [1] WHICH WAS REVERTED BY User:Faizan , who constantly push and pull POV term in bangladesh related article!

Unfortunately Urdu are used by most of biharis in Bangladesh as their second or third language. and they are native speaker of several Indian languages like Bhojpuri , Maithili, Awadhi, Marathi etc............but that’s not my concern. One can say that Urdu is native to Biharies but it doesn’t mean that Urdu is native to Bangladesh! Don’t push a language, which are used only in refugee camps to a sovereign nation------Samudrakula (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What does it matter if they're refugees? Reverted, per sources. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Kwami: The history here is that Urdu was at one time imposed as the official language on Bangladesh when it was East Pakistan, a move that led to massive demonstrations, many deaths, and the beginning of the secession movement. This is a sensitive subject. It matters. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It matters for sociolinguistics, but not for demographics, unless they're not an established population and the language is not stable. — kwami (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Indicating Bangladesh as Urdu native speaker nation is too far! The number of Urdu native speaker Bangladeshi is negligible. i guess less then 0.01% (Biharis are excluded as non Bangladeshi)

That source included almost 24 nations where Urdu is used. Then why only nepal and bangladesh were selected to indicated in infobox as native speaker countries? Including Bangladesh here is a historical, statistical and graphical mistake and new propaganda against Bengali Language Movement!--------Samudrakula (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Six countries the source expands on, not 24, with a quarter million speakers in Bangladesh. Now, perhaps Bangladesh and Nepal should be removed, but that is a debate for this talk page, not for edit warring. And it seems clear that your objection is political rather than linguistic. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Then what about several millions legal pakistani diaspora in saudi arabia; USA; canada; uae etc. About 3 millions Bengali speakers in pakistan and pakistan is not included in bengali language infobox. Political or linguistic , i think we should follow common rules for all language infoboxes. Native to a community (in this case a quarter million illegal from 160 millions legal civilians)and native to a nation are not same thing. You can correct me if I'm wrong.-----Samudrakula (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Languages are not native to political entities; they're native to places. Their or their speakers' legal status is not relevant. If Biharis born and raised in Bangladesh are native to Bangladesh, why would their languages not be native to Bangladesh? — Lfdder (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Lfdder then include all countries worldwide, where the urdu speaking people live over a decade or century!.Samudrakula (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a decent argument for not including refugee pop in Bangla if we don't include immigrants in Britain. I was looking at this as purely a matter of numbers, and Bangla appears to be 3rd. — kwami (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing that it should be included. — Lfdder (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there even a claim that those born and raised in Bangladesh speak Urdu fluently? I consider that unlikely. That their parents and grandparents still speak the language seems plausible, but that it is anything but a handicap to the younger generation would need a solid citation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

wrong referencing to Persian language in some parts[edit]

Dear all

Thanks you for preparing this article. I know Persian it is my first language and I also know Arabic partially as it is the official second language of Iran and everybody in Iran have been tough Arabic for six years. I noticed that some ill-referencing in the article two of them here.

First, in the "levels of formality" section, it is written,

"The etymology of the word used in the Urdu language for the most part decides how polite or refined one's speech is. For example, Urdu speakers would distinguish between پانی pānī and آب āb, both meaning "water" for example, or between آدمی ādmī and مرد mard, meaning "man". The former in each set is used colloquially and has older Hindustani origins, whereas the latter is used formally and poetically, being of Persian origin."

In fact, آدمی ādmī and مرد mard both are Persian. mard is from old Persian languages, while ādamī is adapted in the Persian literature which is considered the modern Persian language.

Second, in the "poetry" section, for the figure of the manuscript which had the caption "illustrated manuscript of one of Amir Khusrau's". The poem is in defiantly in Persian as I can read it and there is no non-Persian word in it.

I would be more than happy the help you with the Persian related aspects of the article. Anooshahpour (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Anooshahpour: Regarding ab and mard: What if they are Persian? They are used in Urdu they are in Persian... They are both long-established loanwords. Urdu is heavily loaned with Persian... So much that the national anthem of Pakistan, the Qaumi Taranah, whose lyrics are in Urdu, can be easily understood by any Persian speaker. Amir Khusro is regarded the first Urdu poet, so his Urdu poetry may well sound to Persian ears as Persian itself... —ШαмıQ @ 22:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
@Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi:Regarding Amir khosro's poem, Can you thoroughly understand the one which is demonstrated in this article? If no, it is not Urdu. It it not just a matter of words, but the grammar and structure of the language which is different in Persian. The posted illustration manuscript is Persian as I can read and understand it all and can confirm its Persian grammar.
We already say the poem is in Persian. Evidently someone else caught that, but we didn't have an illustrated Urdu poem to replace it.
Deleted the "man" example, left "water". — kwami (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

constants and vowels[edit]

why constant and vowels(IPA) chart/table isn't included in Urdu article? but it is present in other languages articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Urdu is a standardized form of Hindustani. Its phonology is discussed at Hindustani phonology. --JorisvS (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline of Urdu in India[edit]

The paragraph discussing the Decline of Urdu in India has been reverted by two contributors. The paragraph discusses that Urdu developed in Delhi-Lucknow region it is not taught in schools in both cities. It is regarded as Muslim language and taught to Muslim students living in Madhya Pradesh. There was deliberate official policy in India to lower the status of Urdu language. There few paragraph in this article that do not have any references such as Prose section but I am required to provide reference for each line. May be all sentences without any reference could also be removed. I am ready to discuss the issues but reverting referenced paragraph without discussion is censorship. Nestwiki (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If it is referenced using reliable sources and written in a neutral manner, then it could be fine. So far, it has looked more like a motivated essay. Moreover, the development of Urdu has no place in such a section (it is already discussed in the Origin section). --JorisvS (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
When his edits have been reverted with the edit summary vandalism, I hardly see any credibility in such a revert. It actually seems to be well cited, maybe to a blog as well. Last line may not be required. I think there should be some kind of re-work, under a section which may include other Indian affairs. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't want to call it vandalism either. If reworked and properly placed, it can be okay. --JorisvS (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Urdu (its status as official language & general use) has declined especially in so called Hindi belt of Northern & North-Western India. We surely can find number of citations for that, but until we have properly cited & written content we should not add a major chunk like it is being added as of now. ALthough we may have couple of sentences for now. Meanwhile I have restored some content which I think is referenced and harmless.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 05:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that you undid some straightforward copyediting of mine and only partially restored it. --JorisvS (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Improved translation of verse in Urdu poetry example[edit]

Please change

(They) say that in the past there also was someone (named) Mir.


It is said that in the past there was also a Mir


SN 1054 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I oppose the new wording that is less encyclopaedic (dull, grey, factual). As such, you will need to establish a consensus to make this change. Thank you for your interest in contributing to the English Wikipedia! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)