Talk:Urdu

Merger of the article into main Urdu article

The Urdu language has a wide and diverse group of fluent speakers, just like Hindi. The article, Urdu-speaking people complicates things instead of being useful, as there is no ethnic or ethnolingusitic group of Urdu-speakers as they are wide spread diverse group of people with various ethnic and regional identities. I suggest the merger of Urdu-speaking people article into this article, its situation is exactly like Hindi's, whose speakers do not form an ethnic or regional identity as other neighbouring regions. PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The merger has been completed and a new sub page has been added to this article. PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I've reverted it. It can't be done unilaterally. An WP:RFC is needed or at least a consensus in the well-advertised talk page proposal and then a RM. It take at least a month if not more. You can't make a hurried post and merge the page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Except that Urdu speaking people most definitely see themselves as a coherent identity. 39.41.209.33 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

They see themselves as Muslims, not Urdu speakers. Other than that they identify as Punjabis, Pashtuns, Balochis, etc. 178.120.11.225 (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Urdu speakers are called Muhajirs in Pakistan. عُثمان (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Changes

I'm restoring my version because of the following:

• Urdu is one of the Languages with legal status in India. The fact that its status is not exactly the same in India as it is in Pakistan is not a reason to exclude it.
• Flags don't belong in Info Boxes MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.
• Indo-Pakistani Sign Language is not Urdu. The Indian Signing System is a system that includes a manually coded version of Urdu.
• Lists should be formatted as lists, not just br-separated.
• A link to Languages of Pakistan is more appropriate than just Pakistan.

PepperBeast (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) And now, I'm restoring my version because of the following:

• Lists should be formatted as lists, not just br-separated.
• Indo-Pakistani Sign Language is still not Urdu. The Indian Signing System is a system that includes a manually coded version of Urdu.
• The few links I removed were dead.

PepperBeast (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Any WP:RS regarding Urdu being spoken in Afghanistan?

Urdu/Hindustani is a language a small minority people in Afghanistan might be fluent in due to being refugees in Pakistan and Bollywood; however, it is not an actual spoken language in Afghanistan.

Is there any WP:RS that Urdu is spoken in Afghanistan, not just understood? It does not belong to lede, and should be edited to be clear it’s not a spoken language like Dari Persian, Pashto, Uzbek, Turkmen and other languages of Afghanistan. 2600:1700:158F:A900:4158:88E6:ECAE:69DF (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I am seeing an absolute conflict between two parts....

Ordu is first thought to be used around 1780 by a poet and a outsider saying in 1777 orduzabain is what ots called by locals. You don't see a word coined getting popular just in a while. Sources conflict, second source has more credibility because: 1. It's possible it came late into litrature Yaverjavid (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

June

@PadFoot2008 See the Britannica version of Urdu [1]. The lead should be a summary of the body based on best available tertiary sources like Britannica. Your version is not only repetitive (this line already exists in the next para) but also removed crucial intro material from lead, which I see no valid reason to do so. There is no consensus for a change currently, which is why I'm restoring the longstanding version. Codenamewolf (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Codenamewolf, my version doesn't "remove crucial intro material" from the lead unless you are talking about the mention of Indo-Aryan language. That can be fixed easily:

Urdu is the standard variety of the Hindustani language within the Indo-Aryan language family written in the Perso-Arabic script.

And the repetition can simply be removed from the next paragraph. Pinging @Austronesier and @kwami for their opinions. PadFoot2008 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the first line is basically the standard (with the mention of within the Indo European languages family) and less cluttered as per Britannica. The standardised registered part already exists in the next para. Codenamewolf (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to keep it short right now, but will have more time for a detailed reply later.

I'm good with Anupam's addition. It's good and basic info and summarizes key points that are discussed in detail at the end of §Origins and in §Post-partition. Maybe it needs some copy-editing and could be interwoven with the preceding text in the same paragraph. Also, it's not redundant. Official status and the emergence of a vital literary language in the 18th century (after long centuries in the "shadow" of Persian) are two different things.

I disagree with the modification of the opening sentence by @PadFoot2008. First, it repeats the second paragraph; further, the analogy with BCD (Bosnian–Croatian–Serbian) is not helpful. We need to represent Urdu in the manner following the vast majority of reliable sources. This was part of previous discussions. Sure, Urdu is a standardised variety in the Hindi–Urdu gamut (btw, calling the latter "Hindustani" is not necessarily the preferred choice of the vast majority of reliable sources; that's another story). But this is not how most RS primarily characterize Urdu. In the first place, it's described as a language that is the national language of Pakistan etc. –Austronesier (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier, Urdu is an official language in many Indian states as well as a scheduled language of the Indian Union, it is not just limited to Pakistan. And the second paragraph can be modified to remove the repetition. PadFoot2008 11:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not. The common convention for variants of pluricentric languages like Hindustani, Serbo-Croatian and Standard German, is to state in the lead that is a variant. See articles like Serbian language, Croatian language and Austrian German. Those are Indo-European languages as well. PadFoot2008 11:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the difference between Hindi and Urdu is equivalent to the difference between the BCS varieties or the Standard German of Germany and Austrian Standard German? Most sources will tell you a different story. Indonesian and Standard Malay come close, but still it is an entirely different case. Every case of languages/varieties that have been called "pluricentric" at some point require individual handling. –Austronesier (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier, The vocabularies of (Standard) Hindi and Urdu match up pretty close. We aren't talking about formal Hindi and Urdu, we are talking about standard Hindi and Urdu and their "official" vocabularies. I am not saying that the case is similar to BSC or Austrian and German Standard German, just noting that they are varieties of pluricentric languages and are still considered to be so. PadFoot2008 12:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)