Talk:Urdu - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 22 October 2017 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Urdu/Archive 6) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:59, 22 October 2017 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Urdu/Archive 6) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Urdu article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

South Asia High‑importance

	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.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pakistan Top‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: Bihar Top‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Languages Top‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amarissaostmo (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Umbereenbmirza, Sanakareem20.

Khariboli is a derivative of Hindustani??

I thought it was the other way around. How do i fix the table? To editor Fowler&fowler:, can you please check it and tell me if it needs fixing? I am unfamiliar with the coding of the info template.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Per Khariboli dialect it is correct the way it is. You might be thinking of Standard Hindustani which is derived from Khariboli. Have a look at the article and let us know if that clears it up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Richard-of-Earth: you mean it's not a derivative of Hindustani, but a dialect within it. OK it makes more sense.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I am glad it is cleared up for you. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Make it Clear: Mutual Intelligibility of Urdu with Hindi, but not Urdu with Arabic and Persian/Farsi

Dear all and To editor Fowler&fowler:,

Urdu being a form of standard register of Hindustani, is mutually intelligible with Hindi as they share the grammar, construction, conjunctions ... and even the accent, they are linguistically same language even though "the large religious and political differences make much of the little linguistic differences (between Urdu and Hindi)", see reference

An Introduction to Sociolinguistics By Ronald Wardhaugh, Janet M. Fuller, Wiley & Sons. 2015. pp30]. Hindi and Urdu are not mutually intelligible with Arabic or Persian. Even Hindi has loan words from English and writing Hindi in Latin script does not make it mutually intelligible with Latin, English or French. None of these four are mutually intelligible, all are from Indo-European family and last three use Latin script. Even Hindi is not mutually intelligible with Sanskrit from which it draws heavily and shares the Devnagri script with. In fact variations of Arabic, though they sue same nastaliq script, are not mutually intelligible with each other, let alone being mutually intelligible with Urdu. See this reference The article mentions that Urdu draws from Hindi, Arabic and Persian. Article also makes it clear that Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible, this needs to be made clear that urdu is not mutual intelligibility with Arabic and Persian.

It will also be useful to include the reason why Urdu is mutually intelligible with Hindi and not with Arabic and Persian. "two closely related and by and large mutually intelligible speech varieties may be considered separate languages if they are subject to separate institutionalisation contexts, e.g. official speech forms of different states and state institutions, or of different religious ethinic communities. Examples of such language paris are Norwegian and Swedish, Hindi and Urdu", see reference The same source further clarifies that, "on the other hand, speech varieties that differ considerably in structure and are not always mutually intelligible, such as Moroccan Arabic, Yemeni Arabic and Lebanese Arabic." Those who want to understand the concept of mutual intelligibility in more detail please refer to this source, last para on page to page 8 and separate language versus dialect and this.

I suggest the following: 1. include the statement upfront (the current unofficial "exec summary" type section on top) that while Urdu is mutually intelligible with Hindi but not with other. 2. include a subheading in the article to discuss the mutual intelligibility of urdu with languages it borrows from. The central logic being that the "base" of Urdu is Khadiboli (Hindustani), and there are other toppings added to it including Hindi, Arabic, Persian and Chagatai, etc. Among those it is MI with Hindustani and not with the rest for the reasons mentioned above. The concept of Hindi and Urdu being two language could politically motivated but their mutual intelligibility is not subject to the political consideration but to linguistic considerations.

Discuss it here please.

Thanks Being.human (talk)

References

Hindi-Urdu Controversy and Islam

The Hindi-Urdu controversy is briefly mentioned in the "Origin" section and a link is provided under "See Also". I think this controversy is imperative in differentiating Urdu from Hindi and should be mentioned briefly in the main section along with a link to the "Hindi-Urdu Controversy" page on wikipedia. My understanding is that the tension between Islam and Hinduism became the main differentiator between Hindi and Urdu. For this reason, it would help to have a section specifically devoted to the interchange between Islam and Urdu as well as a mention of the creation of Pakistan. Amarissaostmo (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)amarissaostmo

Cultural Identity and Islam

1- The article is the perfect length. It covers not too much or too little information. It's short and sweet. The structure is clear and easy to see. The Last sentence sums up the article perfectly. The content is not bias ore leaning more towards one side in any way. The article is perfectly very neutral.

2- There isn't a clear lead. The articles goes directly into the first topic regarding India. India and Hindi overshadow the main subject : Urdu. Reduce some of the details regarding India for some about more basics of Urdu and how it is similar to India or fits in. Separate the the ending of the article from the paragraph regarding Pakistan. the amount of citations in the first paragraph is far more than those in the second paragraph. add more of Pakistan's citations.

3- The number one thing to focus on is adding some citations to the section about Pakistan to create a more balanced article.

4- While reading you article, I realized I have way too many sections I am trying to talk about. Your article is a reminder that more isn't always better. Sanakareem20 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

On the need for citations (or not)

We read:

Because of the difficulty in distinguishing between Urdu and Hindi speakers in India and Pakistan, as well as estimating the number of people for whom Urdu is a second language, the estimated number of speakers is uncertain and controversial.

The "citation needed" flag was added in this edit by one among several usernames of this person.

So, the claims are:

It's difficult to " between Urdu and Hindi speakers in India and Pakistan"
It's difficult to " the number of people for whom Urdu is a second language"
"the estimated number of speakers is uncertain and controversial"
Numbers 1 and 2 above are causes of number 3.

Do we really need reliable sources for any of these? Is it disputed by anyone who's dispassionate and at least moderately informed?

(I write not as an aggrieved/lazy contributor. I don't recall ever contributing to this article. And I'm happy to add "citation needed" flags elsewhere.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Categories: