Talk:Urdu

Native to

@Fowler&fowler @Professor Penguino @Pepperbeast @RegentsPark Thanks for the consideration, I have also noticed that in the "Native to" section of the template, it says "India and Pakistan". I would also like to request that "Pakistan and India" or "Pakistan, Hindi-Urdu Belt, and Deccan" be written here instead, because of the same reason, I provided in my previous request. Thanks once again. 💗 AlidPedian (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino @Fowler&fowler @RegentsPark @Pepperbeast Kindly respond. AlidPedian (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, what do you understand by "native to?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler If "Native to" refers here to the place where Urdu originated, then only India should be written here, because Urdu originated from there (the present-day Northern India, and not from the present-day Pakistan). Obviously, It is not the case. The article of Turkish language has multiple countries in this section. But if it refers to the places from where this language is flourishing and had significant development, then Pakistan should be written here first (along with India). Because if Modern Standard Urdu is the tenth most-spoken language in the world today, the main reason for this is because it is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, and also the significant number of Urdu-speakers, who stayed in India after the partition of India. And that is why I requested that it be written here as "Pakistan and India" or "Pakistan, Hindi-Urdu belt, and Deccan region." AlidPedian (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems "Native to" will become (no matter how you rephrase) a slightly different version of the next argument in the infobox, "Region."

So, unless there is consensus around, something very specific, such as the Muslim military encampments of northeastern Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Muradnagar. (cf. the later, Mughal, "Zaban-e-Urdu-Mualla," language of the exalted camp), or if you want to go back further, viz to Amir Khusrow and list the region of Hazrat Nizamuddin Dargah, Delhi, it is best to leave the "Native to" argument blank. What do you think @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this. As a matter of personal preference, I would leave it blank because languages (natural languages) don't suddenly arise out of nothing. However, if there are definitive sources then that's a different matter. RegentsPark (comment) 16:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I would actually recommend listing the locations such as those that User:Fowler&fowler mentioned, including Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur in the "Native to" parameter. Students' Britannica India (2000) states:

Hindustani developed as lingua franca in the medieval ages in and around Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur because of the interaction between the speakers of Khariboli (a dialect developed in this region out of Shauraseni Prakrit) and the speakers of Persian, Turkish, and various dialects of Arabic who migrated to North India. Initially it was known by various names such as Rekhta (mixed), Urdu (language of the camp) and Hindvi or Hindustani (language of Hindustan).

I see no reason to leave out this information as the native region of Urdu is well sourced. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That being said, if consensus is to leave it blank, I would not particularly push for this. I hope this helps. Anupam^Talk 22:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at {{Infobox language}} and it seems to me that the "native to" attribute refers to the places where it is spoken, not where it originated (see the list of countries listed in the Farsi example). In which case, South Asia would probably be the right entry. RegentsPark (comment) 01:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification User:RegentsPark! Feel free to change it to "South Asia". With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If my opinion is taken, I would also emphasize more on changing it to "South Asia", because even before the partition of India, the Urdu-language literature was flourishing not only in present-day India, but also in present-day Pakistan and present-day Bangladesh. The examples of this are Allama Muhammad Iqbal (the poet of Urdu, from Sialkot) and the Dhakaiya dialect of Urdu. AlidPedian (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I have went ahead and made the change, while adding the aforementioned reference to the article. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 16:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You guys cant just change country names to region names because of political disputes and tensions. The source i cited mentions that Urdu is native to both Pakistan and India. 'Native to' means the language has linguistic roots in both India and Pakistan and originated from these two countries. 'Non-indigenous' as indicated on the source for example in the USA or Bangladesh means the language is not originally from the said countries and was introduced by later immigrants or in other words by later migration. South Asia is also not a country but a region in Asia. 'States' is another synonym for 'countries'. Many other wikipedia pages for languages spoken in countries with political tensions freely add the country names on their language infobox information. Removing Pakistan and India on the langusge infobox is not going to help solve political disputes or tensions or controversies between two countries and peoples on a wikipedia language information page. Readers should clearly know without direct or indirect bias that Urdu is native to both India and Pakistan, whike the region should be changed to South Asia since South Asia is not a country again. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler @Professor Penguino @Pepperbeast @Anupam please respond to my objection request and understand what I have said and if this reason is strong for you to change it back to 'Native to India and Pakistan'. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"South Asia" is fine and consensus developed here established this. The next parameter of the infobox ("Native to") already mentions Pakistan and India; duplicating the same information is redundant. If we are being precise, as User:Fowler&fowler mentioned, the "Native to" parameter would specify "northeastern Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Muradnagar". Anupam^Talk 14:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

where in the source (Ethnologue) does it mention native to 'northeastern Delhi, Grazia address, and Muradnagar'? Those would be 'locations'. India and Pakistan are countries so under the language entry it would be written as 'Native to' under the comments section. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cookiemonster1618 No one is editing the 'native to' section due to political conflicts. That's your idea, sir. And "South Asia" is completely fine here. As I mentioned earlier, Urdu has a dialect called Dhakaiya. And for your concern, Delhi and the surrounding areas are mentioned in the first reference. And thus the reader will obviously be aware of Urdu being native to India and Pakistan. AlidPedian (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nastaliq

There's often a confusion between the writing system used to write Urdu, and the style that Urdu is written in. Nastaliq (like Shekasta) is a style of writing Urdu. It isn't a separate script.

• it adopted the Nastaleeq writing system
• ("the language of the exalted camp") written in Nastaʿlīq script
• The Urdu Nastaʿliq alphabet

The script used to write Urdu is called the Perso-Arabic script, or simply the Urdu alphabet. نعم البدل (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل: Oh yes, please go ahead and fix it. That's an error based on an amateur understanding of the Perso-Arabic script that keeps on creeping into Urdu-related articles (note that the only source that actually talks about a "Nastaliq script" is a Lonely Planet language guide(!), a generally odd choice as a source for an encyclopaedia). –Austronesier (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Amendments made! نعم البدل (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

A request to enter another required information in the Post-Partition (History) section

In the section, History (Post-Partition), kindly include that in the early days of Pakistan, Urdu-speaking people (Muhaiirs) played a significant role in managing the country's bureaucracy, finance department and other major institutions, and they also established banks there. And that the mother tongue of majority of the founding fathers of Pakistan was Urdu.

Personally, if I were to mention one thing, Dr. Tarek Fatah (a Pakistani-Canadian journalist and author) mentioned somewhere that Muhammad Ali Jinnah gave Urdu the status of Pakistan's state language precisely because Urdu-speakers could run bureaucracy, finance departments, and more in Pakistan. (Although I have a YouTube link for the video, I don't have any reference for that, https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=ppTVjgRJSi5DVYPi&v=JOllroCaLQg&feature=youtu.be)"

It is an important part of the history of Urdu in Pakistan.

References

• Lieven, Anatol (2011). Pakistan : a hard country (1st ed.). New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-61039-021-7. OCLC 710995260.

References

AlidPedian (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anupam @Fowler&fowler @RegentsPark @Professor Penguino Kindly share your thoughts. AlidPedian (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added some information to the article regarding this, as requested. More information on the role the Muhajirs played in establishing Pakistan could be added to the articles about Muhajirs and the Pakistan Movement. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 18:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir. You included the information on my request. I am very grateful to you. However, sir, what I meant was that it is necessary to provide this information as part of the history that in the early days of Pakistan, Urdu speakers (Muhaiirs) played a significant role in managing the country's bureaucracy, finance department, and other major institutions, and they also established banks in the country. And that the majority of the founding fathers of Pakistan were Urdu-speakers, this addition is very important, as it is an important part of the history of Urdu in Pakistan. Thank you very much, respected sir. 🥰 AlidPedian (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Excess cites

@Fowler&fowlerI removed excess cites because it was already tagged and an unsourced image. Trimmed words as well and removed an idiom because it belongs somewhere else not on the first para on origins. Axedd (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Your explanation is a bit too vague and your edit summaries too brief for me to make sense of your edits. I defer to @Anupam and Austronesier: here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, thank you for inviting me to the discussion. User:Axedd, the references (with quote parameters) are in place to ensure that anonymous IP editors and others do not not remove information that has been carefully worded over time. As such, please do not remove them. The image is relevant and does contain a reference; the body of the article discusses the development of Urdu in Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur, with it being refined in Lucknow. Thanks for your understanding, Anupam^Talk 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The whole of that area is not sourced though, hence making the image vague and meaningless.I might return later to this for now Axedd (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Anupam that it's good to have multiple sources here. The history of the language that came to be known as Urdu in the 18th century is complex and contentious. POVs of exclusive ownership or denial of Urdu's erstwhile status as a supra-communal literary language regularly get inserted here. Overcite can also be mended by WP:CITEMERGE, a solution that I strongly prefer over throwing out high-quality sources like King's book. –Austronesier (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Modern Standard Urdu as a register of the Hindustani Language

Modern Standard Urdu, simply called Urdu, is a standard register of the Hindustani Language. Urdu is not a language on its own grounds.@نعم البدل:, @AlidPedian: as you can see [1] the article was consistent with this linguistic definition prior to the disruptive edits by Fowler&fowler initiated sometime back.Logosx127 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Some sources:

• Muzaffar, Sharmin; Behera, Pitambar (2014).Error analysis of the Urdu verb markers: a comparative study on Google and Bing machine translation platforms". Aligarh Journal of Linguistics. 4 (1–2): 1. Modern Standard Urdu, a register of the Hindustani language, is the national language, lingua-franca and is one of the two official languages along with English in Pakistan and is spoken in all over the world. It is also one of the 22 scheduled languages and officially recognized languages in the Constitution of India and has been conferred the status of the official language in many Indian states of Bihar, Telangana, Jammu, and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and New Delhi. Urdu is one of the members of the new or modern Indo-Aryan language group within the Indo-European family of languages.
• Kiaer, Jieun (2020). Pragmatic Particles: Findings from Asian Languages. Urdu is a Persianized and standardized register of the Hindustani language. It is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, and an official language of five states in India.
• Gibson, Mary (2011). Indian Angles: English Verse in Colonial India from Jones to Tagore. Bayly's description of Hindustani (roughly Hindi/Urdu) is helpful here; he uses the term Urdu to represent "the more refined and Persianised form of the common north Indian language Hindustani" (Empire and Information, 193); Bayly more or less follows the late eighteenth-century scholar Sirajuddin Ali Arzu, who proposed a typology of language that ran from "pure Sanskrit, through popular and regional variations of Hindustani to Urdu, which incorporated many loan words from Persian and Arabic. His emphasis on the unity of languages reflected the view of the Sanskrit grammarians and also affirmed the linguistic unity of the north Indian ecumene. What emerged was a kind of register of language types that were appropriate to different conditions. ...But the abiding impression is of linguistic plurality running through the whole society and an easier adaptation to circumstances in both spoken and written speech" (193). The more Persianized the language, the more likely it was to be written in Arabic script; the more Sanskritized the language; the more likely it was to be written in Devanagari.
• Basu, Manisha (2017). The Rhetoric of Hindutva. Urdu, like Hindi, was a standardized register of the Hindustani language deriving from the Dehlavi dialect and emerged in the eighteenth century under the rule of the late Mughals.
• Clyne, Michael (2012). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Walter de Gruyter. p. 385. With the consolidation of the different linguistic bases of Khari Boli there were three distinct varieties of Hindi-Urdu: the High Hindi with predominant Sanskrit vocabulary, the High-Urdu with predominant Perso-Arabic vocabulary and casual or colloquial Hindustani which was commonly spoken among both the Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of north India. The last phase of the emergence of Hindi and Urdu as pluricentric national varieties extends from the late 1920s till the partition of India in 1947.Logosx127 (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Already discussed before. Please visit past talk page discussions. We use tertiary sources like Britannica to determine the lead and it uses indo Aryan, it is not omitted. Your material is already discussed in the next para. Axedd (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Tertiary sources cannot be more reliable than Wikipedia, which itself is a tertiary source. The golden standard is secondary sources. Tertiary sources and primary sources are less reliable compared to scholarly secondary sources. Logosx127 (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Even this revision clearly states that Urdu is a standardized form of the Hindustani language, with Persian influence, meaning that what you are requesting is already here. It is not claimed anywhere in this revision that "Urdu is an independent language, and not the standardized variety of any language". AlidPedian (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

But the lead says Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language, which is linguistically wrong. Urdu is *only* a standard register of Hindustani, which is an distinct Indo-Aryan language. Therefore the lead is inconsistent with the scholarship and the respective secondary sources. In reality the present wording of the lead absolutely incoherent with the sources and gives an idea that Hindi and Urdu are two independent languages with some extent of overlap, which again is absolutely incompatible with the sources. Again the lead says: "The common base of the two languages is sometimes referred to as the Hindustani language", the sources do not say it is 'sometimes called Hindustani', instead they say that 'it really is Hindustani'. Here the lead editors are pushing their POV disregarding the content of the sources they are actually citing. Hindustani is not a conceptual language. It is, according to the sources, a real and distinct language of which Hindi and Urdu are two standard registers.Logosx127 (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The assertion that Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language of Indo-European branch is completely accurate. And I would say that the most accurate sources, like Encyclopedia Britannica and Ethnologue also define Urdu by it's basic language families (and it is already discussed, as told by @Axedd). It does not make Urdu a Independent language. It is a standardized variety of Hindustani, making It an Indo-Aryan language. AlidPedian (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

That's the problem. You are taking the Britannica and other tertiary sources above scholarly secondary sources on the topic. Urdu is basically a standard register of Hindustani. Its relationship with the Indo-Aryan language family is and solely is based on the fact that it is a register of Hindustani, which is a distinct Indo-Aryan language. Now by saying that Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language, without saying about Hindustani in the first line itself, you are calling Urdu an Independent language. Moreover the lead also says that The common base of the two languages is sometimes referred to as the Hindustani language which takes it another level by disregarding the Hindustani language itself and the scholarly consensus that Urdu is indeed a version of the Hindustani language. Logosx127 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the Hindustani language has its own Wikipedia article. Hence articles on Urdu and Hindi cannot be made inconsistent with it. Vague statements like 'sometimes called Hindustani' is not admissible in this case. One article says it indeed is, the sources say it as well, but Urdu article says 'it is sometimes'!! That's where a part of the POV problem lies. Let's just set aside our POVs and take the sources seriously instead.Logosx127 (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not a POV-push simply because the two articles are explaining the same thing, in two different ways. (The article does not says that "Urdu has been described as the standard form of Hindustani language, but it's not", instead the article says that "The common base of the two languages is sometimes referred to as the Hindustani language, or Hindi-Urdu, and Urdu has been described as a Persianised standard register of the Hindustani language." [Which simply indicates that Urdu is indeed a standard register of Hindustani, But It has been described as the "Persianized" standard register of Hindustani) This method of introduction for the Urdu language has already been discussed here, you can also request for it in the Hindi article. (Because Encyclopedia Britannica and Ethnologue also define Hindi in the same way). AlidPedian (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Logosx127: What you're calling a POV problem was discussed previously in detail at Talk:Urdu/Archive 11. It was a consensus that Modern Standard would be dropped from Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that it was the consensus. In fact the discussion seems to have directed in the exact opposite way. Logosx127 (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It was a consensus, through discussions and otherwise, which is why it was being upheld. نعم البدل (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

But what I see is 2-2 tie against Fowler&fowler's disputed edits. If you don't think it is so, you are free to correct me but that's what I see in it. As I see, this article has been subjected to a lot of POV pushing and I don't have any idea about the effect of that discussion on the present article as of now. Logosx127 (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The definition in the Britannica or Ethnologue has no connection whatsoever in determining how Wikipedia leads are to be made. It lead is indeed a POV push because it appears to classify Urdu as a distinct language disregarding it's linguistic status as a register of Hindustani language. The information, albeit rudimentary, is pushed to the second paragraph. That's clearly no the way the secondary sources define Urdu. Logosx127 (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to add It here, but you are repeating the same thing that I have already explained to you. If the first line states that Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language, then it does not affect Urdu being a form of Hindustani language and it's not a POV-push. The sources you are repeatedly mentioning are quotations from the pages of books. AlidPedian (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, you are not getting my point. Urdu is a standard register of Hindustani, which is an Indo-Aryan language. You are simply disregarding Hindustani in the lead by pushing it to second paragraph, and that's the POV push. I can't express this more briefly. Logosx127 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

My friend, What I'm trying to tell you is that this is not a POV-push at all, nor is it disregarding the Hindustani language. That's your idea. AlidPedian (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of doing POV push. I am just saying that in effect it seems to be so. I am totally aware that your original point contention was the Modern Standard Urdu terminology. I can restore your compromise version for now and can discuss on the specific issue of the terminology dispute if you agree. Logosx127 (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say that you shouldn't do that. Because this revision has already been discussed, and in this revision too, it is clearly stated twice in the infobox (in the headers of "language family" and "early forms"), in the second paragraph, at very first in the "History" section and also in the "Comparison with Modern Standard Hindi" section that Urdu is a form of Hindustani. Such an explanation does not even exist in the article of Hindi that "Hindi, like Urdu is a form of Hindustani". Because the first subsection of the section of History is named "Middle Indo-Aryan to Hindi" there. I compromised with you on your version because your version was not wrong either. But, this one seems more perfect to me too. AlidPedian (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem here is the obvious POV push that attempts to disregard the Hindustani language by avoiding its mentioning in the first paragraph. The lead is presumably intended introduce Urdu as an Independent Indo-Aryan language. Hence, I cannot agree with anything less than the stable version that existed prior to the POV editing started here seemingly in Dec 2024. Logosx127 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Bro, I am tired of explaining to you that if Urdu is called an Indo-Aryan language in the first paragraph, then this cannot make Urdu an independent language. Urdu is a standard form of Hindustani, and the reader will know this as soon as he reads this article, even if he don't know anything about Hindi, Urdu, or Hindustani. This does not disregard the Hindustani language. I think that the first definition for Hindi too, should be "Hindi is an Indo-Aryan language, written in the Devanagari script." or "Hindi is an Indo-Aryan language, spoken in India." Because the definition seems more correct on this method. The same method has been used in the Encyclopedia Britannica to explain Urdu and Hindi, and the Encyclopedia Britannica has not neglected Hindustani language in any way. Encyclopedia Britannica describes Hindustani as "Hindustani language, lingua franca of northern India and Pakistan. Two variants of Hindustani, Urdu and Hindi, are official languages in Pakistan and India, respectively." AlidPedian (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

That is where you POV push lies. You just want to hide the Hindustani somewhere in the bottom and establish Urdu as an independent language, disregarding the whole array of reliable sources. Logosx127 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You have made have made a flurry of posts here today.

Changing a consensus take a long time, days, weeks, and occasionally even a full month. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right. And I don't like to push the discussion too far by replying repeatedly in one day. I'm having a hard time finding time for all this, especially in this month (it's 8th Ramadan, where I live and it was very challenging for me to take time for this after Iftar. That's a extremely personal matter which I am telling here). AlidPedian (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. These sorts of disputes keep arising in these pages (Urdu and Hindustani language). Attend to what is important for you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Urdu arose in the 17th and 18th cenuries by the accidence of Turkic armies, making the area of what is today Old Delhi, Ghaziabad, Muradnagar, and Meerut the base of their settlement. The spoken language of this region before the arrival of Muslims was "KhaRi Boli," literally, language that is harsh, abrupt, or blunt (in contrast to Awadhi and Braj, which were considered melodic). KhaRi boli did not have a literature at the time. In other words, the Muslim hegemony of 17th and 18th centuries created a superstrate of Persian (the literary language of Turkic muslims) on a substrate of KhaRi boli. There was no Modern Standard Hindi prose then, only Braj and Awadhi literature.

In the early 19th century, the British began to promote Urdu prose at Fort William College, at first for teaching newly arrived British recruits of the Company. From this exigency, Urdu prose or nonfiction as literature was born. In 1837, the British East India Company changed the official subsidiary language of its rule from Persian to Urdu, which, at that time, the British called "Hindustani." Hindus began mimicking Urdu prose by the late 1860s or early 1870s, with Sanskrit-origin words replacing the Persian ones. Thus, by the 1880s, the quest for a more standardized Hindi began to take shape. There is nothing called Modern Standard Urdu, only Urdu, which was standardized in the 17th and 18th centuries, and Modern Standard Hindi, which became standardized around the turn of the 20th century.

Finally what is Hindustani language on Wikipedia? First, it has no connection with what the British called "Hidustani," which, as I explained, was identical to Urdu. Second, for a long time, the Hindustani language page was called Hindi-Urdu, which is the mutually intelligible base of Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi, especially their common syntactical base. Third, Hindi-Urdu is the term most commonly used by scholars in linguistics for this common base. Fourth, unbeknownst to most Wikipedians one fine morning not long ago, some Wikipedians changed Hindi-Urdu to Hindustani language after they had created that severely, or should I say gravely, POV-ridden page. They gave Hindustani a make-believe pre-Islamic literature and history, and since then, they've fought tooth and nail, by hook or by crook, to keep that name. Indian "Urdu wallahs," i.e. the community in India that promotes its dying Urdu, began to also use the expression "Hindustani." In the new WP version and the Indian Urdu-wallah version, Hindustani includes the language of Bollywood songs, Hindi, and the rudimentary Urdu that Indians can understand. By using this subterfuge, this community attempts to deny that Urdu is dying in the land of its birth. Some would say, "has died in the land of this birth." In the BBC Urdu programming, only 10% of the letters are from India. That is the blunt truth. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that India has produced no poets of even half the caliber of the post-colonial poets—Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Nasir Kazmi, Ada Jafri, Ahmad Faraz, Munir Niazi, Zehra Nigah, Iftikhar Arif, Kishwar Naheed, or Fahmida Riaz—of Pakistan, only a few Bollywood songwriters. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

PS For sources, see the "Official Languages" in the Info box of Company rule in India Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Now the POV is blatantly obvious. However, Wikipedia is no place for your POV, @Fowler&fowler and @AlidPedian. Here what matters most is reliable sources, and not your imagination. Logosx127 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Finally what is Hindustani language on Wikipedia? – Question of the century. It's like, it neither properly discusses the Hindi-Urdu language as whole, but neither the Hindustani as an ancestor as a whole, and how it's supposedly different to Modern Hindi and Urdu which they claim it to be, but at the same time both. It is the most ambiguous page and most useless pages among the Hindi-Urdu related articles.

What I find amusing is that the article was evidently written to undermine the history and development of Urdu, and some users on here are hell-bent on claiming that Hindustani and Urdu are two separate things, yet the example image on the article is the book cover 'A grammar of the Hindustani language' by John Shakespear, which has the following 'Hindustani' quote:

سخن کے طلبگار ہیں عقلمند، سخن سی ہے نام نکویاں
سخن کی کریں قدر مردان کار، سخن نام ان کا رکھے برقرار

sukhan ke talab-gar hain 'aqlmand, sukhan si hai naam nikoya'n
sukhan ki kare'n qadr mardaan-kaar, sukhan naam un ka rakhe barqaraar

^ while I have a dim view of Roman Urdu, I am being lazy at this stage, because I cannot be bothered to use a transliteration scheme.

If you were to ask a Hindi-Urdu speaker, what language this is – 'Hindustani' would not be the answer, lol. This is a quote that was, I believe, written by Altaf Hussain Hali, a renowned Urdu poet. نعم البدل (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This is what that is called Original Research, which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. The reliable secondary sources are all in agreement with Urdu being a register of Hindustani language. Logosx127 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, just before you proceed to make any more comments, do realise that 3 people have now essentially said that there is no consensus for your edits.

And I don't really get your point about my reply being 'original research' - it's my opinion (in this instance), I haven't applied or made such edits on the article, that you've decided to accuse me of WP:OR. There's nothing OR about it anyways! نعم البدل (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

And FWIW, I've never actually rejected that Hindi-Urdu combined are known as "Hindustani". نعم البدل (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The Original Research is what you are saying. Wikipedia is built on reliable academic secondary sources and your personal opinions does not really matter in determining how articles should look like or Wikipedia should work. There are sufficient reasons why the verse is said to be in Hindustani. If you don't agree, you are free to refute it with other similarly reliable sources but not with your personal ideas. Logosx127 (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

And most importantly, article-related discussions cannot be done if you are pushing your POV instead of bringing reliable sources in support of your argument. Sources matter, not your opinions. Logosx127 (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

My interest in Urdu is mostly in the role of Urdu in the Pakistan movement and some other points related to this from the history of the language, and I am trying my best to contribute to this article by adding those details in it. I don't know much more than the basics about Hindustani (or Hindi-Urdu), including some that the respected user @Fowler&fowler have highlighted in his comment regarding the language. This pattern of introduction for the Urdu language is the best in my opinion too, and I have explained the reasons for this.

And as the respected user @نعم البدل has clarified here, that he is not denying at all that "Hindi-Urdu" combined is called Hindustani, so I think you should stop this useless argument that Hindustani should be mentioned at the very beginning of the first paragraph, just because you think that not doing so is kind of neglecting and disregarding the Hindustani language, while that is not the case at all. You just want that when Modern Standard Hindi has been defined in this way, Urdu should also be defined in the same way too, and that's why you're trying so hard to prove it's POV. Please understand that what you consider to be POV is not necessarily POV, my dear friend. AlidPedian (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)