Talk:Urdu

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 and their vocabulary, we are talking about standard Hindi and Urdu and their standard 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)

Historical script for Urdu

Urdu was widely written in Kaithi, Devanagree, Gurumukhi script.

Reference:

Dhir, Krishna Swaroop (2022). The wonder that is Urdu: a multidisciplinary analysis. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 139. ISBN 978-81-208-4301-1. Jabirttk351 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2024

Yaverjavid (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

Add this template

Dragonoid76 (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed addition. M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

Add this template:

{{Hindustani_language}} 118.172.31.7 (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Query

@Foreverknowledge why edits has been omitted? Jabirttk351 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The reference took information verbatim from Wikipedia, including edits I myself have made about the scripts. Doesn’t meet the criteria for a reference Foreverknowledge (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you did not check the reference. Mentioned citation very clearly mentioned this. Jabirttk351 (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The cited reference took information from Wikipedia. Foreverknowledge (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay I understand. Jabirttk351 (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CIRCULAR. –Austronesier (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)