Talk:Urdu

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)

You are continuously pushing POV. Urdu is, according to the reliable sources already added in the article, Modern Standard Urdu and is a standard register of Hindustani language. When I say it needs to be there in the first paragraph, I am basing my arguments on WP:RS, WP:NPOV and consistency with other articles. Logosx127 (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You need a reference from an expert or historian to prove this term, for example from Dr. Tariq Rahman's books. Just giving a reference to a book is not enough. And again, this term is not used for Standard Urdu. "Modern Standard Urdu" is not a term, like "Modern Standard Hindi" or "Modern Standard Arabic" are. AlidPedian (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I have already provided the reliable sources well in advance. Meanwhile I do not Logosx127 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

You have provided a cherry pick, and you know about that. AlidPedian (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hindustani relation

Urdu isn't 'considered' a register of the Hindustani language, it is the Persianized register. This is well written on the Hindustani and Hindi page, but is missing on this page. Shubhsamant09 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes that's right. A related topic has been discussed above. You may check the above discussion . Logosx127 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Shubhsamant09 This has already been discussed twice on this talk page, and has been ended with consensus. The second discussion was requested by @Logosx127, and was ended by the consensus of three users (@Fowler&fowler, @نعم البدل, and I). I would advise you to check out these discussions first, and then come back, if you have any remaining disagreements. Kind regards. 😊 AlidPedian (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The article says "Urdu has been described as a Persianised standard register of the Hindustani language." You should read that. Also, you are removing academic citations without a proper reason. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Koshuri Sultan Yes, in the previous discussion, I tried to make them understand the same thing which you have stated. Regarding the reference, I want to add that in the paragraph where the reference is provided, it says, "In colonial India, ordinary Muslims and Hindus spoke the same language in the United Provinces in the ninteenth century, called Hindustani, whether called by that name or whether called Hindi, Urdu, or one of the regional dialects such as Braj or Awadhi." Whereas, in the reference, the very brief statement (with some other claims as well) is provided, which is not only irrelevant here, but also have highly POV and unfair words. The same fact that, Urdu was used by both Muslims and Hindus, is also mentioned in the book of Dr. Tariq Rehman (a reliable historian and linguist), which is provided above, and neither the POV words are not used in that book, nor the false statements like "It was once disdained" are used. Please pay attention to this, and look at it. It's really unfair. AlidPedian (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

We're not the ones to judge references as being fair or unfair based on our views though. It meets WP:RS, being published by an academic publisher and the authors being university professors. You can restore the citation or I shall revert your edit. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Please check out the book of Tariq Rehman first, and please consider the fact that the reference is irrelevant here. I would happily restore it myself then. You can do it too, I don't want to engage in edit warring in any way. AlidPedian (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Tariq Rahman is not the progenitor of Urdu. He was also a pro-partition activist with his own biased POV. Logosx127 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I have said many times before, most recently in a thread above, Hindustani language is Wikipedia POV.

When the Turkic Muslims arrived in the Khari boli environs of northeast Delhi in the 13th century, Khari boli was an unwritten language, spoken by illiterate people without a literature. However, the reconstructed India-POV of the 20th and 21st centuries has given it all sorts of make-believe things.

The Muslims created a new language with a Persian and Arabic lexicon and literature superimposed on a basic Khari boli lexicon and syntax to make their way in their new world. What began to take shape over the next three centuries and became standardized by the 17th and 18th centuries was what we today call Urdu. There was no Khari boli Hindi literature, only Braj and Awadhi. In the early 19th century, the East India Company chose Urdu in the Persian script (which they called Hindustani) to be the language of instruction for their newly arrived British recruits, taught at Fort William College in Calcutta. Soon, as a result of this instruction, non-fiction emerged in Urdu. In 1837, the Company made Urdu its second official language in Upper India (which until then, from 1765 to 1836, had been Persian).

By the 1860s, Hindus in Upper India began to promote the idea of an artificial language in which the Persian words of Urdu would be replaced with Sanskritized words. This came to be called Modern Standard Hindi by the early 20th century. However, even in the 1910s, it wasn't standardized. Writers such as Hazari Prasad Dwivedi had to create standards of punctuation and grammar, which they imposed strictly on their submissions. Early MSH poets such as Maithili Sharan Gupt were writing artificially inflated poetry.

By the end of the 20th century, Urdu had begun to die in India. The proportion of people able to read and write competently in Urdu had declined precipitously since 1947. I have given this example before, but on the BBC Urdu website, only 10% of the letters and posts (which are required to be written in Urdu) are from India.

The "new Hindustani POV" promoted resolutely on Wikipedia and now also among "Urdu wallahs" in India, i.e. people who make a living promoting the lost glories and charms of Urdu, is nothing but a denial of the slow decline of Urdu in the land of its birth. For by muddying the waters and given primacy to the unlettered history of Khari boli, they continue to maintain the make-believe notion that Hindustani is the real thing, that it is alive and well in India, in Bollywood songs and in Javed Akhtar's talks to the clueless young men (and a smattering of young women) who applaud at every lame joke.

Pakistan has produced 90% of the Urdu poetry of the postcolonial era, if not more, and much of the nonfiction. As for Tariq Rehman, he is a latecomer; his Ph.D. is in English. He is not a scholar of Urdu such as C.M. Naim. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

PS I would wager that a large proportion of people who post on this talk page are unable to read and write Urdu. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

What is this unrelated point? This is an English encyclopedia, reading and writing English is our only requirement. You should probably strike it, as it reads like an aspersion at worst, or a misunderstanding of what is required to edit Wikipedia at best. 107.116.165.135 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, this IS Wikipedia. 'Wikipedia POV' is the editorial consensus. You are free to publish your original research elsewhere, but not here. Wikipedia is no place for Original Research. Logosx127 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Logosx127 Now, you are even tagging Dr. Tariq Rahman as biased. He was the one of those who raised voice against the 1971 ethnic-cleansing and rape of Bengalis, when the majority of Pakistanis were pro-army brainwashed supporters of the Pakistan army, and were not aware what the army generals did to their own people. That is why he is respected even among many Indians. He has cleared many nationalist biases of both Indians and Pakistanis regarding the Urdu language. You don't know anything about him.

When you were cherry picking the references, and I asked you to provide an academic source for this false term "Modern Standard Urdu", instead of academic fraud, you started showing your inexperience and unawareness through criticising the historians. I also have some disagreements with his work, but disagreements are done in the spirit of respect and honor, not by displaying ignorance. Enough is enough now! AlidPedian (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Did I say Tariq Rahman is unacceptable? He obviously has his own bias. But that does not mean he is not admissible here. I have always been ready to accommodate him as well, but you clearly cannot tolerate anyone other than him. Logosx127 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Then tell me about a well-known reliable historian, who says that "Modern Standard Urdu" is an accepted term, and what the reference tells is true. AlidPedian (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Logosx127 And when you are freely adding that Dr. Rehman is not the progenitor of Urdu. I ask, who the hell are you then? You don't even know some of the very basics about the Urdu language, and want to have your own biased edits published. AlidPedian (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I mean what I said. Do you disagree with me on my quote "Tariq Rahman is not the progenitor of Urdu"? If you don't, what is the issue! Let me tell you, you are in no position to judge my expertise in Urdu. I suggest you mind your own business at this point. Logosx127 (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed Tariq Rahman was the 'progenitor' of Urdu, so I’m not sure what you're arguing against. As for expertise, language debates thrive on evidence, not personal authority. If you have something substantive to add, I’m open to it. Otherwise, this conversation isn’t productive. AlidPedian (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

At the same time, I would like to reiterate one more point. I have provided a reliable source for the term Modern Standard Urdu, and it is not my fault that you did not pay attention to it. In the previous section, I have accurately cited reliable sources and quotations from them. Logosx127 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Only the first reference, Muzaffar, Sharmin; Behera, Pitambar (2014) uses this term, and again that's not by a reliable historian. AlidPedian (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to tell me whether they are reliable historians or not. They are indeed academic historians. Its better if you stop pushing Tariq Rahman as the only authority on Urdu. Let's leave the 'progenitor' debate there since none of us claim he is.Logosx127 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The existence of a term doesn't become obsolete just because some historians misunderstood its context. Language evolves, and academic terms are refined over time based on evidence, not personal opinions. If you have a valid argument on 'Modern Standard Urdu' as a term, present it logically instead of dismissing the historians outright. AlidPedian (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

And the idea of Hindustani as a unifying language was proposed by Gandhi. Even Abdul Haq rejected this idea, along with many others. Now, the Hindi-Urdu continuum is referred to as "Hindustani", and no one has objections to it. Nor anyone is disregarding it. But what you want is to disregard the Urdu language!!! AlidPedian (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Stop your original research here. Wikipedia needs reliable sources not your "trust me bro". Nobody is disregarding the Urdu language. Based on academic consensus, which I have already cited above, Urdu is a standard register of Hindustani language. Its linguistic status is comparable to that of Hindi. I am not the one who is "dismissing the historians outright". It was you who said "Muzaffar, Sharmin; Behera, Pitambar (2014) uses this term, and again that's not by a reliable historian". Logosx127 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Stop blaming me of 'original research' to prove your illogical point. I'm referring to well-documented historical positions, whereas you are just cherry picking. The previous arguement was ended with a consensus of three users, because you were failed to prove your illogical biases there. Urdu is indeed a standardized register of Hindustani (I am adding again that the term now used for Hindi-Urdu continuum). I never disregarded it, and you know it very well. AlidPedian (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I am not simply blaming Original Research on you. You are actually replying without citing sources, and that's what is called Original research. The only one who is doing the "cherry picking" is you and the "cherry" is Tariq Rahman. And, one the "three users" with whom you claim consensus is a Hindustani denier. Logosx127 (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you read and write Urdu? Perhaps read a poet like Iftikhar Arif if I give you a poem of his in Urdu and give us the English translation? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

That was for Logos* Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not need to prove to you anything. Logosx127 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

When I asked you that if you have a problem with Tariq Rehman's work, instead of pushing your single cherry pick, please cite another well-known historian so that this term "Modern Standard Urdu" can be proven (at least one), but you didn't give that either, and you kept running away. And now you have started a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in anger, while also ignoring Fowler&fowler's messages and tagging every single message as 'Original search'. Isn't this bullying??? AlidPedian (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler, AliPedian and Koshuri Sultan, there's a discussion involving this dispute at ANI.Logosx127 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Your CONCISE statement of your position on this dispute would be welcome. Keep it civil, please. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• My position on the lead of the article is:
  Modern Standard Urdu, commonly referred to as Urdu, is the standardised variety of the Hindustani language written in the Perso-Arabic script. It is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan. In India, Urdu is an Eighth Schedule language, the status and cultural heritage of which are recognised by the Constitution of India; and it also has an official status in several Indian states.
  Urdu has been described as a Persianised standard register of the Hindustani language. Urdu and Hindi share a common Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived vocabulary base, phonology, syntax, and grammar, making them mutually intelligible during colloquial communication. While formal Urdu draws literary, political, and technical vocabulary from Persian, formal Hindi draws these aspects from Sanskrit; consequently, the two languages' mutual intelligibility effectively decreases as the factor of formality increases. Logosx127 (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Dear @Liz,

  I kindly request you to review the previous discussion. The concerns raised by the @Logosx127 seem to be unfounded, as the information he is demanding is already present in the article. However, he insist that it should be included in the lede, despite there being no necessity for such a change.

  I would appreciate your guidance on how to proceed in this matter.

  Best regards. AlidPedian (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

References

RfC on the collocation Modern Standard Urdu

Should Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, be referred to as "Modern Standard Urdu" in the same ways as Hindi, the official language of India, is referred to as: "Modern Standard Hindi?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Request to the participants: If you post a list of sources, please collapse them as I have done below. It is considerate to others. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• No The predominant usage in the scholarly sources is "Urdu" and "Modern Standard Hindi." Google n-grams point to the same.

Three highly cited scholarly sources; four more recent; and Google ngrams

Masica, Colin P. (1993). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge Language Surveys series. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 27. ISBN 0521299446. Counted as different languages in sociocultural Sense B (and officially), Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi are not even different dialects or subdialects in linguistic Sense A. They are different literary styles based on the same linguistically defined subdialect. Google scholar citation index 1,764 Orsini, Francesca. The Hindi Public Sphere 1920–1940: Language and Literature in the Age of Nationalism. Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 9780195650846. Urdu remained the dominant vernacular in Punjab, Delhi, and Awadh (Oudh) well into the twentieth century. The use of Khari Boli Hindi, which would later become modern standard Hindi, was more uneven Google scholar citation index 589 Pareltsvaig, Asya (2021). Languages of the World: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-108-47932-5. Indo-Aryan Languages: The majority of Indo-Aryan languages are subnational rather than associated with independent geopolitical entities. Exceptions include ... Nepali, which has 16 million native speakers and which serves as the official language and lingua franca in Nepal; and Urdu, which plays a similar role in Pakistan. Hindi is spoken primarily in the "Hindi belt" ... In this region, Modern Standard Hindi serves as the official language in use in administration, schools, and the media. Google Scholar citation index 192 Here are some more recent scholarly books: Dudney, Arthur (2022). India in the Persian World of Letters: Ḳhān-I Ārzū Among the Eighteenth-Century Philologists. Oxford Oriental Monographs series. Oxford University Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-19-285741-5. it might in fact be the oldest critical dictionary of khari boli hindi, which is to say the vernacular usage of the Ganges-Yamuna plain that yielded both Modern Standard Hindi and Urdu. Cort, John E. (2024). "When Is the 'Early Modern'?: North Indian Digambar Jain Literary Culture". In Bangha, Imre; Stasik, Danuta (eds.). Literary Cultures in Early Modern North India: Current Research. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 15–62, 28, 50. ISBN 978-0-19-288934-8. (page 28) Premi started out writing in Brajbhasa; but that he also wrote verse in Urdu indicates that he located himself in a linguistically wider and more cosmopolitan literary milieu. Premi soon abandoned the older languages and committed himself to writing and propagating Khari Boli Hindi, which in his lifetime became Modern Standard Hindi. (page 50) Premi's pronounced break with both Brajbhasa and Urdu in favour of the newly developing transgressional prestige language of Modern Standard Hindi involved a conscious choice of language Mani, Preetha (2022). The Idea of Indian Literature: Gender, Genre, and Comparative Method. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. ISBN 9780810145016. Yet, no sense of Hindi as a standardized language distinct from Urdu existed even in the 1910s. Mani, Preetha (2022). The Idea of Indian Literature: Gender, Genre, and Comparative Method. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. ISBN 9780810145016. Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi's editorship of the Hindi journal Saraswati from 1903 to 1920—through which Dwivedi carefully crafted the spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, and genres now asociated with Khari Boli (equated today with modern standard Hindi)—provided an avenue for expressions of Hindi language to emerge. Goulding, Gregory (2024). "Urban Space Across Genre: The Cities of Gajanan Madhav Muktibodh". In Anjaria, Ulka; Nerlekar, Anjali (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Modern Indian Literatures. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 531–545, 533. ISBN 9780197647912. Before and after independence, many of the most important ideas of urban culture in northern India, such as the literary traditions of Lucknow and Delhi, were strongly associated with Urdu; Hindi, by contrast, was at times portrayed as an uncouth, undeveloped language. In response to this, from the 1910s onward, Hindi was rigorously policed to produce a standard, Sanskritic language that did not allow for the influence of Urdu or of the many languages, now considered dialects, that were spoken in the regions of northern India. (Mani and Goulding added at 20:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC))

• The Google ngram viewer for (Modern Standard Hindi,Modern Standard Urdu) gives only the graph for Modern Standard Hindi (and that too after 1960s, but says: (!) Ngrams not found: Modern Standard Urdu

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

PS Clarification: A standard language variety is the variety of a language whose syntax, phonology, lexicon, and so forth have been systematized enough that most speakers consider it authoritative and it is commonly transmitted through public education, official communications, and newspapers. So, just as there are Standard British English and Standard American English, there is also "Standard Urdu," but that is quite different from a "Modern Standard Urdu," the putative analog of "Modern Standard Hindi," for the latter, in the words of John Cort (see quote above), refers to a "transgressional prestige language," which "involved a conscious choice of language." Two other scholarly sources I have added above (Mani and Goulding), make clear that publications in Modern Standard Hindi in the early 20th century were strictly patrolled for any traces of Urdu, which were then replaced with Sanskrit-derived synonyms. In other words, Modern Standard Hindi was artificially constructed as a response to Urdu being the prestige variety of "Khari boli" in the 19th century; it did not evolve over centuries as Urdu, British, and American English have.

• As you can also see in the additional Google ngram Modern Standard Hindi,Modern Standard Urdu,Standard Modern Urdu,Standard Urdu, only "Modern Standard Hindi" and "Standard Urdu" show any bumps. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes.

While 'Urdu' is obviously the simpler and more popular usage, the more precise and accurate term for the language is 'Modern Standard Urdu'.
Urdu language can mean more than one thing.

• The specific version - There are different subjects known by the term Urdu: for example, there's a Dhaka Urdu and it has more in common with Hindi than Urdu. Here, the nomenclature 'Urdu' clearly denotes the cultural identity of the speakers. Therefore Standard Urdu is obviously the accurate nomenclature for the language that is officially defined as Urdu.
• The specific time frame - Urdu has had various forms in its developmental history as well. So the name Modern Standard Urdu.

• None of the sources mentioned above by Fowler&fowler explicitly rejects the term.
  

There are ample sources in support of the term: Modern Standard Urdu

Azim, Abdul (24 August 1989). Some problems in the phonology of Modern Standard Urdu. Paper presented at the First International Conference of the Columbia School of Linguistics. Columbia University.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Azim, Abdul (11 October 1993). Problems of aspiration in Modern Standard Urdu. Paper pre-sented at the Third International Columbia School Conference on Linguistics. Rutgers University.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Azim, Abdul (20 February 1995). The phonology of the vocalic systems of Modern Standard Urdu. Paper presented at the Fourth International Columbia School Conference on Linguistics. Rutgers University.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Azim, Abdul (16 February 1997). Revisiting the phonology of the vocalic systems of Modern Standard Urdu. Paper presented at the Fifth International Columbia School Con-ference on Linguistics. Rutgers University.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) McLeod, John (2019). Modern India. Page- 205 :Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu share a common grammar and most verbs, pronouns, and particles, but nouns and adjectives are often very different because Hindi draws many of them from Sanskrit and Urdu from Persian. For example, "This picture is beautiful" would be Yeh chitr sundar hai in Modern Standard Hindi, and Yeh tasvir khubsurat hai in Modern Standard Urdu. Schmidt, Ruth Laila (2005). Urdu: An Essential Grammar. p. 122. The verb root alone may function like a conjunctive participle (the SHORT ABSOLUTIVE). Short absolutives are incorrect in modern standard Urdu, but may nevertheless be found in texts, particularly older ones CARDONA, GEORGE; JAIN, DHANESH (2007). The Indo-Aryan Languages. p. 346. Wallis Reid; Ricardo Otheguy; Nancy Stern, eds. (2002). Signal, Meaning, and Message: Perspectives on Sign-based Linguistics. Abdul Azim clearly differentiates Modern Standard Urdu from the obsolete classical urdu: This development from classical Urdu to modern standard Urdu is illustrated in Word List... L.Ashok Kumar; D. Karthika Renuka; Bharathi Raja Chakravarthi; Thomas Mandl, eds. (2024). Automatic Speech Recognition and Translation for Low Resource Languages. p. 333. Persian on Hindustani contributed to the development of Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu as Hindustani language registers. Kees Versteegh, ed. (2006). Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics: (Q-Z). p. 598. 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. Vol. 4 (1–2). p. 1. quote: 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. Fabio Leone, ed. (2019). "Imagining and Institutionalizing the New Regime". Prophet and Statesmen in Crafting Democracy in India: Political Leadership, Ideas, and Compromises. p. 231. : It is a pluricentric language, with two official forms, Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu, which are standardized registers of it. South Asian Language Review. Vol. 3–4. 1993. p. 117.: There are hardly 4% examples which are not prevalent in modern standard Urdu History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present. Vol. 1. 2000. p. 178. : Modern Standard Hindi ( Khaṛī Bolī ) , Modern Standard Urdu , regional dialects and languages sometimes subsumed under the.. Morphological Analysis of Modern Standard Urdu The History of the Urdu Language Together with Its Origin and .... The abstract says: The objective of this paper is to briefly review the Urdu or else further specifically Modern Standard Urdu... [2] : the Urdu or else further specifically Modern Standard Urdu. scriptsource.org [3] speaks of the modern convention that uses Hindi to mean Modern Standard Hindi, Urdu to mean Modern Standard Urdu, and Hindustani to mean the “undivided language”. [4] Some languages have standard forms. The Standard form of Urdu language is Modern Standard Urdu [5] Modern Standard Urdu, the formal version of the language, is deeply influenced by Arabic and Persian, reflecting centuries of cultural exchange and ... [6] Modern Standard Urdu is a standardized register of the Hindustani language. [7] This course is an introduction to the modern standard form of Hindi-Urdu [8] Urdu is widely known as the national language of Pakistan, but it is also one of India’s 22 official languages. Modern Standard Urdu, once commonly known as a variant of Hindustani, a colloquial language combining the modified Sanskrit words found in Hindi with words brought to India via Persian, Arabic, Portuguese, Turkish and other languages, is a language with one of the most fascinating and complex histories in the world. [9] It will cover basic grammar of modern standard Urdu. [10] A standardised register of the Hindustani language, Modern Standard Urdu or Urdu, as it is more commonly known, is historically associated with Muslims living in the Hindustan region of the sub-continent. [11] There are multiple other google search results including: [12] quora Wikiquote Many sources tend to use the term "Modern Vernacular Urdu", which is linguistically equivalent to "Modern Standard Urdu". [13] : The modern vernacular Urdu, also known as Standard Urdu, is based on the dialect spoken in Delhi. Logosx127 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Clarification

• Linguists clearly distinguish Classical Urdu from Modern Standard Urdu. Classical Urdu may be found in various literature while MSU is the official version (or standard register) recognised by the governments and has considerably high usage of Persian and Arabic vocabulary.
• Google Ngram Viewer provides data from the books that are scanned by Google. Therefore, most modern academic books do not fall within its scope. A simple manual google search is enough to find numerous results for 'Modern Standard Urdu'.
• The arguments raised regarding Hindi are actually beyond the limits of this discussion and have to be identified as strawman arguments. I have not said anything against the term 'Urdu". My suggestion is only that the term 'Modern Standard Urdu' should be included in the lead as well. Some of the academic sources I have provided above even include the name 'Modern Standard Urdu' in the title itself.

• No. There is no substantial academic backing for the term Modern Standard Urdu. Unlike Modern Standard Hindi, which has been widely studied and documented in linguistic research, Modern Standard Urdu lacks recognition in authoritative linguistic literature. No major linguistic or historical work treats it as a distinct, standardized category, making its inclusion unjustified. It was only Urdu which was standardized, and can be referred to as 'Standard Urdu', but not 'Modern Standard Urdu. AlidPedian (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. Scholarly citations, such as those authored by Ruth Laila Schmidt[14] use this term Modern Standard Urdu. It's either Hindi and Urdu, or Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• No for now. Based on my review of all the sources offered so far, the question is not even close. See detailed analysis here, where I have applied the standard of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and not mere verifiability.

The (TL;DR)  is that the best available sources on the subject (refer especially to Masica (1991), Cardona & Jain (2003) and Pereltsvaig (2021)) avoid the term "Modern Standard Urdu" and use plain "Urdu" as the parallel for "Modern Standard Hindi". The arguments/sources offered so far on the contrary unfortunately rely on cherry-picking isolated mention without looking at context or the complete work being cited, casual use by non-specialists, or straight up non-RS sources.

My !vote is tentative solely because this is not my area of expertise and I am basing it on the sources other editors have offered to date. I'll review the state of discussion nearer to its closing to see if additional sources/arguments submitted by then change my current conclusion, and will copy over my (possibly updated) source analysis to the discussion section below at that point. Abecedare (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. There is no reason to use a tacky and frankly synthetic name like 'Modern Standard Urdu', just to mirror it with Hindi. There is a reason why Hindi is called 'Modern Standard Hindi', and it has to do with history. 'Modern Standard Hindi' is different to the various other long-standing dialects of Hindi-belt, which are also known as "Hindi". "Hindi" is also an obsolete name for the Urdu language. To differentiate between those senses and this modern vernacular, linguist call Hindi as we know it today Modern Standard Hindi, but not Urdu as "Modern Standard Urdu". There is no basis for calling it "Modern Standard". — Preceding unsigned comment added by نعم البدل (talk • contribs) March 31, 2025 01:00 (UTC)

Discussion

completed formatting requests

@Logosx127:An indiscriminate collection does not help the participants here. Please list your sources in the cite book, cite journal, or cite web format. Please add the Google scholar citation index for each source, so we know how much your sources, some of which such as Vinoba Bhave University Hazaribagh, Department of Urdu seem to be websites, are valued in scholarship. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Please also note that I have replied to your list. Please don't change it retroactively; add new sources in a separate post below. See talk page guidelines Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC) I haven't completed my list. What you called 'nothing' seems to be everywhere. Logosx127 (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC) I mean you may add new sources to your collapsed list above, but do so at the end of the list, and sign new additions, so we know what was added when. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Logosx127 I would like to state here that these sources are insufficient. Just because the term "Modern Standard Urdu" has been noted in websites, or even books which are not authored by the accepted and well-known historians or linguists, does not make it academically recognized or authoritative. In contrast, "Modern Standard Hindi" has been extensively documented in full-fledged academic books (for example, "A Premier of Modern Standard Hindi by Michael C. Shapiro"), whereas "Modern Standard Urdu" has never been widely accepted in linguistic or historical scholarship. This term is neither found in authoritative linguistic references nor acknowledged by prominent scholars in the field of Urdu studies. AlidPedian (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

off topic comments

Who made you the official spokesperson of "linguistic or historical scholarship"? These sources clearly support the term. Logosx127 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC) It would be nice if you could answer respectfully. Your citation of these references does not make this term authoritative and widely accepted. AlidPedian (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC) I do not mean any disrespect. I intended to ask, who gave you the authority to say that the authors did not mean what they explicitly published in these books. Logosx127 (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

This isn’t about personal authority; it’s about whether 'Modern Standard Urdu' has been academically established as a recognized linguistic term. In linguistic and historical scholarship, terms don’t become valid just because they appear in a few sources—they require thorough research, peer-reviewed academic backing, and widespread scholarly acceptance. If 'Modern Standard Urdu' is indeed a legitimate term, then where are the comprehensive linguistic studies, books, or historical analyses dedicated to it? AlidPedian (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

off topic or completed requests

My I respectfully suggest that we not get involved in arguments at this early stage. Please post your opinion in the survey section first, so that a third person is able to see your criticism in context. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Yes, arguments should be avoided in every possible way, and I'm trying to avoid them, not join them. AlidPedian (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC) @AlidPedian That's what I have provided and am providing. I suppose you are susceptible only to Tariq Rahman, which explains this behaviour. Logosx127 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC) @Logosx127 My dear brother, stop accusing me for now and consider the discussion. I have even stopped mentioning Tariq Rehman's name for fear of this accusation. If you know of any other prominent historian or linguist who accepts this term, please present his accepted work. Providing the websites or the quotations from the books, which are not authored by the accepted and well-known historians or linguists, does not make this term, academically recognized or authoritative. AlidPedian (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC) You may open your eyes and read. By the way, have you ever heard of Abdul Azim? Logosx127 (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC) I’m happy to consider any serious academic work on the subject. However, the recognition of a linguistic term isn’t based on a single author's usage but on widespread acceptance in academic research. If Abdul Azim is indeed a recognized historian or linguist whose work has been widely cited and accepted in linguistic scholarship, then please provide references where his work has been reviewed or acknowledged by other established scholars in the field. This term has not been used in any well-established linguistic or historical scholarship on Urdu, including the works of scholars like C. M. Naim (the scholar of Urdu language from India, Fowler&fowler also mentioned him in the previous section) and Rauf Parekh (the Urdu linguist from Pakistan), who have extensively studied and written about the language. AlidPedian (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Masud Husain Khan (a linguist from India) and Jamil Jalibi (a linguist and scholar of Urdu language from Pakistan) also did not used this term anywhere in their work. AlidPedian (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@AlidPedian, You say that Modern Standard Urdu is wrong. If so, how do you distinguish Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, from Dhaka Urdu and Deccan Urdu? Logosx127 (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Dhakaiya Urdu and Dakhini Urdu are considered as the dialects of Urdu language. The existence of regional varieties does not automatically justify the term 'Modern Standard Urdu'. Linguists and historians have long discussed standard Urdu without using this term. If 'Modern Standard Urdu' were a widely accepted linguistic concept, we would find detailed academic works defining and analyzing it, just as we do for 'Modern Standard Hindi'—but that’s not the case. AlidPedian (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

If they are dialects, then what would you call the official form? 'Urdu' can mean any one of the dialects. Logosx127 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Let me remind again that, The official form can be simply called Standard Urdu, as recognized in linguistic and official contexts. Just like Standard English is used for the official and literary form of English without needing a term like ‘Modern Standard English’. AlidPedian (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

So how would you differentiate the modern version from older ones? Modern Standard Urdu is the only option out there. There's obviously a reason behind the nomenclature. Logosx127 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Linguistic terminology isn’t created arbitrarily; it must be based on widespread academic recognition. Urdu, like any language, has naturally evolved, but there hasn’t been a drastic transformation that requires a separate label like Modern Standard Urdu. The standardized form used today is simply known as Standard Urdu, and this is how linguists, historians, and language institutions refer to it. If 'Modern Standard Urdu' were truly necessary, we would see it widely used in academic research, but that simply isn’t the case. AlidPedian (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't ask you anything for this essay. You are actually trying to skip my original question. Answer my question. Logosx127 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

As the respected admin @Liz rightly pointed out, 'the winner is usually whomever is the most persuasive, not the loudest or the most belligerent.' We should all keep this in mind and focus on a reasoned discussion.

Regarding your question on differentiating the modern version from older ones, the correct and widely accepted term is simply Standard Urdu, as Modern Standard Urdu is not an academically recognized term. Early forms and regional varieties should be understood in their historical and linguistic contexts as distinct from the standardized form. I hope this clarifies the point so that I don’t have to describe this repeatedly. AlidPedian (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Google ngrams which give graphs of appearances of various terms in Google books from 1800 until today give an empty return for the collocation “Modern Standard Urdu” as is clear above. That means its appearance constitutes a negligible proportion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

That’s a strong point. Google Ngrams provides a valuable indicator of how frequently a term appears in published books, which include academic and historical works. If 'Modern Standard Urdu' had any real academic standing, we would expect at least some consistent usage over time. The fact that it returns no meaningful results suggests that this term has not been recognized or widely used by linguists, historians, or Urdu scholars. This further supports the argument that the term lacks legitimacy in academic discourse. AlidPedian (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Google Ngrams are clearly wrong in this aspect. A simple manual google search is enough to show countless examples of "Modern Standard Urdu". Fundamentally, Google Ngram Viewer is only for scanned books. Newer books and much of the academic books are out of its reach. Hence it is expected to fail. Logosx127 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Logosx127:

• So how would you differentiate the modern version from older ones? Modern Standard Urdu is the only option out there. There's obviously a reason behind the nomenclature – If you're having an issue with understanding the difference between "Standard Urdu" ^{and how it compare to its various dialects} and "Modern Standard Urdu", then there's going to be a problem. It's not hard to understand that every language has dialects, and a standard form. The issue here is with the word "Modern". نعم البدل (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is it an issue? Logosx127 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@نعم البدل, @Abecedare, Prof. Abdul Azim's works which are listed in detail in the source section clearly add the name 'Modern Standard Urdu' in the title and also in the content body. These are highly regarded authoritative works on the topic and has been cited in multiple books so far. Logosx127 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• I have no a priori opinion on the subject but plan to take a look at the proffered sources and comment in the next day or two. May I request that the main editors involved in the dispute, Logosx127, AlidPedian and Fowler&fowler, please limit their comments, so that uninvolved editors whose opinion is being invited by the RFC can participate; ideally step back once you have made your best case in the Survey section. Also inviting admins @Asilvering and Liz: who commented at the ANI that led to this RFC to keep an eye so that the bludgeoning does not get out of hand. Abecedare (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  Here as summoned. (By the by, since it came up above: all Standard Englishes are Modern English, but the reverse is not true: many English speakers do not speak a Standard English. Standard Modern English does not exist, as there is no single standard; Modern Standard English does not exist, as there was no premodern Standard English.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  The length of this discussion section before the first 24 hours are over is not a good sign for whomever takes on closing this RFC in a few weeks. I'd like to discourage bickering among editors who are well-aware of the position of editors you disagree with. In a discussion like this one, you put out your best, policy- and source-based argument and do not try to tear down other editors. It reflects poorly on you and can actually lead to editors who wander into this discussion dismissing your argument because of poor behavior they see on display. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a political discussion board. The "winner" is usually whomever is the most persuasive, not the loudest or the most belligerent. I say all of this as a cautionary remark, not directed to anyone in particular. Good luck and I hope no blocking will be necessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Abecedare, Your negative comment is unfortunate, but I am saying this with the intention of answering a question that was raised in your sandbox.

  The specific chapter in the book "History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present. Vol. 1. 2000". is: "Michael C. Shapiro, The Hindi grammatical tradition" p.178. Logosx127 (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Question: user:Koshuri Sultan In the survey subsection above, you cite Ruth Laila Schmidt’s Urdu, An Essential Grammar, 2005 edition. On what page does the expression "Modern Standard Urdu" appear? In the 1999 edition of her book it appears just once on pages 109–110 of her 300-page book ("Short absolutives are incorrect in modern standard Urdu, but may nevertheless be found in texts, particularly older ones."). However, in the Introduction, in which she introduces Urdu and talks about Urdu’s official status in Pakistan and some states in India, she mentions only "Urdu," which she does many times and also “Delhi Standard Urdu” once, which she states is the language variety codified and represented in her grammar. To the extent a book’s introduction corresponds to a Wikipedia article’s lead, or at least a major part (with the conclusion), why does your example support the inclusion of the expression, "Modern Standard Urdu" in this article’s lead and not much later in the main body? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)