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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
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.
The Urdu page is completely a biased, uneducated and overly emotional point of view. We actually need some information on Urdu, not this dribble.
I've moved the little content from Persian and Urdu that differed from this article. We're talking one paragraph tops. Please try not to break out material from articles that are anything but crowded or complete. Creating separate articles serves no purpose in these cases, except to make it slightly harder to find the information. Also, the title "Persian and Urdu" is really not an appropriate one. Articles should focus on either one language or the other, and this one is clearly about Urdu, not Persian.
The last paragraph in the opening "Persian Influences" section seems to be redundantly reduplicated at the bottom of the article as "Conclusion". One of them should probably go. Pseudo Intellectual 00:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comment! - Ulvbot 14:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Since this is an encyclopedia article and not a term paper, my vote is to remove the conclusion section altogether. (obviously if there's new information in the conclusion section, it would be moved elsewhere before deletion). –jonsafari 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrote an essay about how Urdu is rioted in Pakistan. I must say this is the first time I have heard this. Urdu has been spoken in the region of Pakistan for a long time. Indian version is called Hindi. This sounds like a hoax to me, and I would definitely like to see at least one source for the claims in this essay. Sorry if this offends anyone, but the last time I saw something similar, it was Pro Indian Muslims who wanted to claim Urdu as an Indian language, and make it foreign to Pakistan since being Muslims, they didnt want to refer to their language as Hindi. So they tried to give the impression of Pakistan hating Urdu.
I must say I dont know much about this, so I would like to hear someone elses opinions. Besides the way the article is written goes against Wiki rules.
I am talking about the "Should Urdu continue as our National Language?" section
--Unre4LITY 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
When I did a Bengali evening class the teacher (rather middle class) claimed that Urdu was 'soldiers language' and that it was a mixture of other languages. There is clear prejudice against Urdu by some groups.
What is concerning here is that this article is taken entirely from another website, http://www.worldlanguage.com/Articles/23.htm. This website has no references to corroborate any of the information so I have corrected many glaring factual inaccuracies here and added solid references. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eios1234 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
What the first person wrote in this section is rubbish. Urdu was developed in what is called India today... and flourished in India. Only now does Pakistan claim to use it, which in fact the majority of their inhabitants speak Panjabi, calling it "Urdu". Go to places like Delhi, Lucknow, Patna and Agra etc. and you'll see how real urdu is spoken. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The tags need to be there.We need just two history pages- History of Hindi languages and History of Khariboli specifically. The other page can merge to the former, this page to the latter. Maquahuitltalk! 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I didn't see this discussion on merging so I removed the tag, you can bring it back if you wish. However, Urdu is a different language from Hindi, politically and culturally. It should not be merged. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about history here. The history of Hindi and Urdu are not independent from each other. If you talk about history of Hindi as a group of languages v/s Urdu then it is surely different, and I support an article for that. But if Hindi means just the Hindu variant of khariboli then it makes no sense not to deal with the Hindu and Muslim varieties in the same article. Maquahuitltalk! 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the Urdu language is more influenced by the Persian language than Hindi. If your implying that Urdu came out of Hindi, than you are mistaken. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hindi is Urdu, which in turn is Hindi: the term "Hindi" is so vague as to be almost useless. Both Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Vernacular Urdu derive from Hindustani, which went by various names, including Urdu and Hindawi. Before partition, they had a shared history, and even today "Hindi" and "Urdu" speakers can't tell the languages apart when they're used as the vernacular. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is confusing. Why is History of Hindi re directed to here? This is the history of Urdu more than history of Hindi? Moreover, why does the history stretch to BC ??. Yes, Hindi borrows a lot of vocabulary from Sanskrit; that does not make sense to include the history Sanskrit language with in the chronology. If that is the case why not include the history of Arabic or Persian in the chronology as well. Really confusing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hindi is Urdu, or at least was until the 19th century, so the history of one is the history of the other. Urdu descends from Sanskrit, not from Persian or Arabic. Or perhaps a language related to Sanskrit: if you have a ref that the ancestor of Urdu was not actually Sanskrit, we can change the article. — kwami (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)