Talk:Amir Khusrau

Sources

@HistoryofIran: What's wrong with the sources? نعم البدل (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, please explain how websites like The Hindu newspaper are WP:RS for a historical figure, and why citations without any pages (WP:VER issues) should stay. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Well, despite even my issues with The Hindu, WP:THEHINDU is considered a reliable source in this case. A lack of page number doesn't warrant the removal of 2 good references. You said the sources were against WP:RS, that implies they have been proscribed or condemned on Wikipedia. None of those sources, not even Britannica is against WP:RS. So what's the issue exactly? نعم البدل (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you say you have issues with the references, but you've removed other parts relating to Urdu, but more intringuingly the Hindi parts have been retained, such as the categories. نعم البدل (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, despite even my issues with The Hindu, WP:THEHINDU is considered a reliable source in this case.
Yes, about news related stuff. Not historical stuff. See WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
A lack of page number doesn't warrant the removal of 2 good references.
Yes it does, WP:VER. And what 2 good references are we talking about here? 3 of them had no pages. Please elaborate.
You said the sources were against WP:RS, that implies they have been proscribed or condemned on Wikipedia.
Again, please see WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
None of those sources, not even Britannica is against WP:RS.
See the Britannica section at WP:RSP, and its link doesn't even mention anything about "father of Urdu literature." Respectfully, you should verify stuff like this before reverting a year old edit.
Also, you say you have issues with the references, but you've removed other parts relating to Urdu, but more intringuingly the Hindi parts have been retained, such as the categories.
I don't know, it was a year ago. The article still has a lot of issues, I assume I only had the motivation to address some of it, and it ended up being the info that got my attention first. Feel free to help, you can start with Indian related stuff if it bothers you so much. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: You need to clarify your point, because your argument about them being against WP:RS do not have weight. Are you opposing the view that Amir Khusrau is:
1. considered an Urdu poet? –If so, you'd be quite mistaken really.
2. (specfically or by extension of the first point) was not considered the "father of Urdu poetry"?
Because if so, you need to counter those points with your own references. WP:NEWSORG or WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't say that news organisations can't be used, it just says that acadamia is preferred:
It states:
  • Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics (see § Scholarship, above).
Nothing about news articles not be allowed for scholarly points.
I'd understand if any of the sources were against WP:RS - but they're not. WP:THEHINDU is a valid source here. For the other two sources, your only point is they lack page numbers, which I can't seem to find any policy that says that the removal of citations are warranted for lack of page numbers. Considering, how many citations lack specfic page numbers, you'd find it extremely difficult to make that a convincing point. نعم البدل (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Bakshi & Mittra, the page reference is 10, Mehta 1980 is page reference 10 as well. There are an abundant of source for these two points. نعم البدل (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to clarify your point, because your argument about them being against WP:RS do not have weight. Are you opposing the view that Amir Khusrau is:
1. considered an Urdu poet? –If so, you'd be quite mistaken really.
2. (specfically or by extension of the first point) was not considered the "father of Urdu poetry"?
This is already your second attempt at suggesting that I have something against Urdu. Let me make it very clear: I don't care what Amir Khusrau spoke, which you clearly seem to do as per your indications about me, as well as that you have no issues with undervaluing Wiki policies if that means you get to keep about information anything Urdu related, yet the same rules does not apply to Indian-related stuff, whose preservation of info is so concerning to you that you had to bring it up. I merely removed sources that had either WP:RS or WP:VER issues, which I've already told you. I do not care if it was Urdu, Indian, Swedish or Hungarian. When you first reverted me, you said "Removal of the mention of Urdu from several places". It seems you were more concerned with Urdu-related info being removed than why it was removed, which is concerning. I also think you're missing something here; the WP:ONUS is on you, not me. Let's see what actual WP:RS and in high quality a that says:
  1. "AMĪR ḴOSROW DEHLAVĪ, NĀṢER-AL-DĪN ABU’L-ḤASAN (651-725/1253-1325), the “Parrot of India,” the greatest Persian-writing poet of medieval India." / "Amīr Ḵosrow’s knowledge of Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Hindi enabled him to produce exotic puns, wordplays, and stunning literary tricks so that W. Berthels with full right speaks of his “powdered style.” Encyclopædia Iranica article by Annemarie Schimmel, another leading expert. Zero mention of Urdu in the whole source.
  2. "Amir Khusrau (1253-1325)-often also written as Khusraw or Khusro-was one of the greatest poets of medieval India, writing in both Persian, the courtly language of Muslims of the sultanate period, and Hindavi, the vernacular language of the Delhi area. Known as Tuti-yi Hind (Parrot of India) for his poetic eloquence and fluency in Persian, Amir Khusrau has stood as a major cultural icon in the history of Indian civilization for almost seven hundred years. He is especially remembered as the founder of t he "Ganga-Jamni" Hindustani culture which is a synthesis of Muslim and Hindu elements. He helped to give a distinctive character to Indian Islamic cultural traditions through his contributions to t he fields of Indian classical music, Islamic mysticism (Sufism), South Asian Sufi music (qawwali), and Persian literature. Significantly, he also contributed to the development of Hindavi, in which both modern Hindi and Urdu have their roots." - Page xi, In the Bazaar of Love: The Selected Poetry of Amīr Khusrau, by Paul E. Losensky and Sunil Sharma, experts in poetry and Indian history and literature, respectively.
  3. "Abū l-Ḥasan Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī (651–725/1253–1325) was the greatest Indo-Persian poet of the sultanate period. He is better known today for his devotion to his Chishtī Ṣūfī master, Niẓām al-Dīn Awliyāʾ (d. 725/1325). His sobriquet Tūtī-i Hind (“Parrot of India”), comparing the eloquent poet to the sweet-talking parrot, indicates his canonical status as a poet of Persian. He was primarily a court poet, whose Persian poetry was read in every part of the Persianate world, and a small corpus of it, as well as verses attributed to him in the vernacular language Hindavi, are part of the oral repertoire of qavvālī, a devotional form of poetry that developed in India and is performed chiefly at Ṣūfī shrines. Khusraw’s works “provide the fullest single expression extant of medieval Indo-Muslim civilisation” (Hardy), and he played a central role in conferring a distinct identity on Indo-Persian literature and on the practice of Indian Islam." - Encyclopaedia of Islam, third edition, article by Sunil Sharma [1]
It seems in fact that you were the one that was "quite mistaken" here. Clearly, Urdu is not as important to WP:RS as you make it out to be. Unless you were referring to Hindavi (Hindustani language) all this time, which I doubt, and which isn't exactly a synonym for Urdu according to its sourced lede. A well sourced and balanced lede would look something like those three sources.
Because if so, you need to counter those points with your own references. WP:NEWSORG or WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't say that news organisations can't be used, it just says that acadamia is preferred:
It states:
Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics (see § Scholarship, above).
Nothing about news articles not be allowed for scholarly points.
I'd understand if any of the sources were against WP:RS - but they're not. WP:THEHINDU is a valid source here.
Please be careful to not engage in WP:GAMING/WP:LAWYER. A random news site is not WP:RS, especially for such a huge claim (WP:EXCEPTIONAL), especially not when three high quality sources show a different story. You can take it to WP:RSN where they will tell you the same. It's not like there are a lack of WP:RS, especially high quality ones for a figure like Amir Khusrau. WP:SCHOLARSHIP also states that; "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." Since you're so confident on this, can you at least list some actual WP:RS?
For Bakshi & Mittra, the page reference is 10, Mehta 1980 is page reference 10 as well. There are an abundant of source for these two points.
So, let's hear it, how is Bakshi & Mittra WP:RS? The WP:ONUS is on you after all. And Mehta 1980 doesn't mention anything about "Father of Urdu". This is why it is important to have sources that are verifiable, otherwise it results in misattributed info like in this case.
For the other two sources, your only point is they lack page numbers, which I can't seem to find any policy that says that the removal of citations are warranted for lack of page numbers. Considering, how many citations lack specfic page numbers, you'd find it extremely difficult to make that a convincing point.
I'm borrowing this great comment; "Many articles do not respect Wikipedia rules, or even are wrong. They cannot be used as examples for improving this particular Wikipedia article." See also WP:OTHER. Moreover, WP:VER says; "People must be able to check that facts and claims in Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means each fact or claim must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any facts or claims challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." This applies to anything, even Urdu. Again, please be careful to not engage in WP:GAMING/WP:LAWYER. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran:
  • Please be careful to not engage in WP:GAMING/WP:LAWYER – Asking for clarification when you state xyz reference is against WP:RS, when there is no such issue, is not WP:GAMING / WP:LAWYER, and I'd appreciate it if you could dial down your threating tone.
  • It seems you were more concerned with Urdu-related info being removed than why it was removed, which is concerning – Yes because you essentially shed the only couple of sentences that mentioned Amir Khusrau's link to Urdu, to extent that there only one mention of Urdu, and you removed that section, along with the citations claiming they were unreliable.
Like I've stated before, that implied the sources were proscribed at WP:RS - which is not true. The sources themselves had no issue - they were reliable. What you never said was that you do not like the references that were given. You went to as far as saying that why citations without any pages (WP:VER issues) should stay - which is such a frivolous point to make. Just because citations don't have the specific page number, it doesn't make them unreliable
That is on you for not elaborating and just expecting the other user to telepathically understand your frivolous points.
  • When you first reverted me, you said "Removal of the mention of Urdu from several places". – And was I wrong? You went to as far as removing the Urdu category, under the prextext of WP:RS[2], what was I supposed think?
  • Unless you were referring to Hindavi (Hindustani language) all this time ... It seems in fact that you were the one that was "quite mistaken" here – Lol, History of Hindustani, the ol' chestnut. There are two senses of Hindustani, 1. the combined continuum of Hindi-Urdu, which is a coinage in recent times (since the entire Hindi-Urdu controversy arose) to conjugate all the intelligible dialects into one. 2. Hindustani – the contempory name for the language that is known as Urdu, i.e. the old name for the Urdu language is Hindustani, along with other names like "Hindi" (not to be confused with the Modern Standard of Hindi) as well as Dehlvi, Rekhta, Lahori and Hindavi etc.
If you'd like a "scholarly" reference for that, please read the following:
  • Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World, by Keith Brown and Sarah Ogilvie (Elsevier, 2008), who state in regards to Amir Khusro and Urdu:

During the period of development, from 1100 to 1800 A.D., Urdu was known by several different names, including Hindwi, Dehalvi, Hindustani, Zaban-e-Urdu, Dakhini or Old Urdu, and Rekhta ... Specimens of Hindwi in the early formative period are found scattered in the Nath Panthi literature, early Sufis of North India, Amir Khusro, Nanak, Kabir, Baba Farid, and other poets. Amir Khusro (1236–1324) shows a distinct earlier form of Urdu, or Hindwi as he calls it.

- on page 1133, where pages 495-500 are on Hindi and Hindustani, yet Amir Khusro is only mentioned once in the Hindustani section, and not at all in the Hindi section.
Now, I'm not here to dwelve on the Hindi-Urdu/Hindustani controversy, because it's not relevant here and it's been discussed to death, but the matter of the fact is just because your references don't mention Urdu, and to be honest I find it hard to believe that you've not been able to find decent references or references to your liking which mention Amir Khusro's link to the History of Urdu literature, or the fact that just because you don't like the references that mention Urdu, shouldn't mean that you remove every citation that mentions it - discuss it, because Amir Khusro has a link to Urdu which should be mentioned here because his few works in Hindavi are linked to Urdu literature. The Urdu Council in India state:

Its [Urdu's] first major folk poet is the great Persian master, Amir Khusrau (1253-1325), who is known to have composed dohas (couplets) and riddles in the newly-formed speech, then called Hindavi. Through the medieval time, this mixed speech was variously called by various speech sub-groups as Hindavi, Zaban-e-Hind, Hindi, Zaban-e-Dehli, Rekhta, Gujari. Dakkhani, Zaban-e-Urdu-e-Mualla, Zaban-e-Urdu, or just Urdu. There is evidence to establish that the name Hindustani was in vogue in the late 11th century, which later became synonymous with Urdu. Literally, the word Urdu (originally Turkish) means camp, or the royal camp. It also stood for the city of Delhi which was the seat of the Mughals for centuries. Nonetheless, major Urdu writers kept referring to their speech as Hindi, or Hindavi till as late as the beginning of the 19th century

.[3]
Similar sentiments have been given by Pakistani linguists such as Rauf Parekh who has been the head of the National Language Promotion Department in Pakistan, who states in his article Urdu’s origin: it’s not a ‘camp language’ - which has been cited abundantly:

while poets like Ameer Khusrau (died 1325) had been composing poetry in Urdu much earlier than that. Even in Babar’s writings one can find quite a few Urdu words. In other words, the Urdu language did exist before Shah Jahan and it was there even before the name Urdu was given to it.

My point with these three references is that Amir Khusrau's link has been mentioned by linguists of various backgrounds. I'm not here to specfically defend the works of Bakshi & Mittra or Mehta, but I don't see anything wrong with their works either. نعم البدل (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And not to mention Rekhta (website) which is foundation dedicated to promoting and preserving Urdu literature have described Amir Khurau as the:

First poet of Rekhta/Hindvi(states as "Urdu" in the Urdu version), musician, and disciple of Sufi Saint Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia. Known for his "pahelis," which form part of Indian folklore. He is famous for inventing two of the most important musical instruments, tabla and sitar. Wrote "Ze-hal-e-miskin…" one of the earliest prototypes of Urdu ghazal written in Persian and Hindvi.

نعم البدل (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for clarification when you state xyz reference is against WP:RS, when there is no such issue, is not WP:GAMING / WP:LAWYER, and I'd appreciate it if you could dial down your threating tone.
Not quite what you were doing. WP:LAWYER: "Using a portion of the rules in a literal manner that goes against the rule's intended message (usually with the intent to "win" an editing dispute) is frowned upon by the Wikipedia community."
Yes because you essentially shed the only couple of sentences that mentioned Amir Khusrau's link to Urdu, to extent that there only one mention of Urdu, and you removed that section, along with the citations claiming they were unreliable.
Non-WP:RS and unverifiable information will get removed, Urdu is not an exception.
Just because citations don't have the specific page number, it doesn't make them unreliable
Issues were either WP:RS or WP:VER, that was mentioned from the start [4]. That is on you for not reading my edit summary and comments properly, instead immediately engaging in bad faith and assuming I have a bone to pick with Urdu.
but the matter of the fact is just because your references don't mention Urdu, and to be honest I find it hard to believe that you've not been able to find decent references or references to your liking which mention Amir Khusro's link to the History of Urdu literature, or the fact that just because you don't like the references that mention Urdu
These are three extremely high quality references, by leading figures. It's not like I picked random people from a quick Google ebooks search. But sure, keep accusing me (WP:ASPERSIONS) that I have something against Urdu.
And please explain how Urdu Council in India, National Language Promotion Department and Rekhta (website) are WP:RS, let alone on par with the afromentioned sources I mentioned. Where they do place in WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
Lol, History of Hindustani, the ol' chestnut. There are two senses of Hindustani, 1. the combined continuum of Hindi-Urdu, which is a coinage in recent times (since the entire Hindi-Urdu controversy arose) to conjugate all the intelligible dialects into one. 2. Hindustani – the contempory name for the language that is known as Urdu, i.e. the old name for the Urdu language is Hindustani, along with other names like "Hindi" (not to be confused with the Modern Standard of Hindi) as well as Dehlvi, Rekhta, Lahori and Hindavi etc.
Yikes, this is one thing I don't want to get entangled in. Regardless, we should not engage in WP:SYNTH, eg the Losensky citation says that Hindi and Urdu have their roots in Hindavi, not that Hindavi equals Urdu. I would also like to hear the opinion of users that are well-versed in this, and doesn't immediately accuse others of being anti-Urdu when they do something that they don't like. I'm sure that they know of several relevant WP:RS. If they say the same as you, then I'm sure we'll figure something out and can have tons of Urdu related info in the article. I'll ask tomorrow. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is on you for not reading my edit summary – I did read your edit summary; it's how I was able to restore the article to diff [5], and I linked the summary in my previous reply. I still standby it, your argument about the sources being against WP:RS doesn't make sense. We're not basing the entire article on the three references you have mentioned. You also mentioned no pages numbers several times. I've provided the page numbers as well, the quotes check out, and the context is valid.
  • please explain how Urdu Council in India, National Language Promotion Department and Rekhta (website) – If you head read properly, the Urdu Council's reference is an article and holds academic value. I haven't simply referenced the Urdu council for being the Urdu council. I haven't directly cited the NLPD; I cited a prominent Pakistani linguist who's article I linked has been cited abundantly, who has been the head of the council. Rekhta is an organisation of linguists, and it focuses on Urdu literature and poetry.
  • These are three extremely high quality references, by leading figures – Your point being that if these three authors don't mention a point it calls for the removal of that content? Again, I'm failing to see the point, how do you contain that? Yes they may well be respectable authors, it doesn't mean to say that other authors can't be considered. A quick search of Amir Khusrau's link to Urdu would reveal an abdunance of sources. Three authors, which you seem to be happy with, don't suddenly get the authority to determine every single point.
  • But sure, keep accusing me (WP:ASPERSIONS) - You're accusing me of bad-faith, yet ironically you're doing the same. When I said because you don't like the references that mention Urdu - I was referring to the citations you removed. You insinuated that they're not reliable, yet you didn't start any discussion regarding whether that point could be verified. When you say they're not reliable, I'm assuming you mean they have a history of being problematic.
  • Yikes, this is one thing I don't want to get entangled in – Yet you seemed quite confident in saying that I must be the one who is mistaken when the subject of Hindavi and Hindustani came up. I assumed you would be aware of Hindi-Urdu controversy. In any case, like I said before, the Hindi-Urdu debate is irrelevant here. نعم البدل (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still standby it, your argument about the sources being against WP:RS doesn't make sense. We're not basing the entire article on the three references you have mentioned. You also mentioned no pages numbers several times. I've provided the page numbers as well, the quotes check out, and the context is valid.
    It makes sense if you read WP:RS and WP:VER. For example, Britannica and Mehta 1980 did not even support the cited info. Again, which is why it's important that sourced information is verified, even for Urdu. But I've already mentioned that several times now.
    Your point being that if these three authors don't mention a point it calls for the removal of that content? Again, I'm failing to see the point, how do you contain that? Yes they may well be respectable authors, it doesn't mean to say that other authors can't be considered. A quick search of Amir Khusrau's link to Urdu would reveal an abdunance of sources. Three authors, which you seem to be happy with, don't suddenly get the authority to determine every single point.
    I never said that. However, obviously not all sources are equal, such as the Hindu news website you insist that is it WP:RS, despite not being that. Which is also why I asked to explain why some of the other sources were WP:RS and were they placed, which you have failed to explain thus far. I'm just as "happy" with these three authors as you seem upset by them. Regardless, this is ultimately irrelevant, as I'll be asking other editors for their opinion.
    You're accusing me of bad-faith, yet ironically you're doing the same. When I said because you don't like the references that mention Urdu - I was referring to the citations you removed. You insinuated that they're not reliable, yet you didn't start any discussion regarding whether that point could be verified. When you say they're not reliable, I'm assuming you mean they have a history of being problematic.
    I'm not sure how many times I have to make highlight that I removed the Urdu info due to WP:RS and WP:VER issues. Please re-read my comments a few times. If you truly think I am anti-Urdu, then report me.
    Yet you seemed quite confident in saying that I must be the one who is mistaken when the subject of Hindavi and Hindustani came up. I assumed you would be aware of Hindi-Urdu controversy. In any case, like I said before, the Hindi-Urdu debate is irrelevant here
    Yet here we are talking about it, so clearly relevant enough. I'll ask two veteran editors about it tomorrow. If I'm mistaken, then so be it, I have no problem admitting that. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I asked one of Wikis most well versed users on this subject, and this was their response [6]. That Urdu first originated in the 17th-century in the Mughal army camp, and that Hindavi is not Urdu, but one of its precursors. Obviously, what WP:RS says ultimately matters, but they do seem to go in line with Hindavi being a precursor to Urdu, and not the same as it, as you are claiming;
    1. From the thirteenth till the end of the eighteenth century the name of the language we now call Urdu was mostly Hindi. Other names were also used (see Chapter 2) but this was the name which most people used for this language. But then it was not this language. Firstly, because languages change naturally. And, secondly, because the language mostly called Hindi for about five hundred years was the ancestor of two languages: modern Urdu and Hindi. Modern Urdu was created not only by natural change but also human agency as, indeed, was modern Hindi." ----- "Hindi, Hindvi and Hindui are all used as variants of each other and they are used mostly for the ancestor of Urdu-Hindi. Although the most commonly used word in the earlier sources is Hindvi, all these terms occur in medieval sources interchangeably. Amir Khusrau, always interested in language, used both ‘Hindvi’ and ‘Hindi’ in two meanings: for the language of India (Hind); and for the language of the region around Delhi.Khusrau has been credited with being the father of modern Urdu and Hindi (Sharma 2006: 81). Songs, riddles and anecdotes inverse attributed to him are quoted in innumerable books and even sung in South Asia. However, it is not clear that he actually wrote all or even any of them, though it is clear that he did write in a language he called ‘Hindi’ or ‘Hindvi’ since he ‘gave some samples of Hindi verse to friends as gifts’. (Juzvē chand nazm-ēhindvī nēz nazrē dōstã kardā shudā ast) (Khusrau 1293: 63). He was aware that this language changed after every hundred miles, asthe varieties or dialects of all unstandardized languages do, whilePersian was uniform all over India (Zubān-ē-Hindvī har sad karōhēhar gurōhē rā istilāhē dīgar ast ammā Pārsī dar ĩ chahār hazār ō andfarsang yekē ast) (1293: 29). - page 1 and 24 respectively, Tariq Rahman, From Hindi to Urdu: A Social and Political History, Oxford University Press.
    2. "The fact remains that Amir Khusraw’s Hindavi, or Hindi, is the precursor of the modern languages Urdu and Hindi." - page 81, Amir Khusraw The Poet of Sultans and Sufis, Sunil Sharma
    3. Khusrau is associated with numerious language traditions, including Persian and (confusingly) what is called Hindavi or Hindustani, a precursor of what is identified now both as Urdu and Hindi (or Modern Standard Hindi). - page 221, Before the Raj Writing Early Anglophone India, James Mulholland, Johns Hopkins University Press
    4. Significantly, he also contributed to the development of Hindavi, in which both modern Hindi and Urdu have their roots." - Page xi, In the Bazaar of Love: The Selected Poetry of Amīr Khusrau, Paul E. Losensky and Sunil Sharma.
    5. "The linguistic label ‘Hindustani’ refers both to what is now known as Hindi and to what is known as Urdu, or, rather, to their recent common linguistic history".... "For a long time. Urdu and Hindustani were more or less regarded as identical, although the term ūrdū was often restricted to the language used in literary and poetic circles." - Désoulierès, Alain. "Urdu/Hindustani". In L. Edzard and R. E. de Jong (eds.), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics Online, (Brill Publishers, 2011)
    More WP:RS to come. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember a very similar discussion not too long ago at wikt:Talk:Hindustani. To reiterate what was said by different users (in as many words) is "no": pre-modern usages of the terms Hindi, Hindavi, Hindustani etc. should not be conflated with Urdu specifically.
    Coming to the article itself. "Father of Urdu" etc. for Khusrau has always been a colloquial usage than one of scholarly or encyclopedic interest, stemming from the fact that he was the first of Persian writers to make copious usage of local languages and dialects (the "father" label as such may lend itself to any of the Hindi languages of northern India including modern Hindi). And while I have no strong feelings about its inclusion or disclusion, for the lede at least it does appear to be undue. Gotitbro (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gotitbro: The discussion that took place at wiktionary was distinct to the discussion that's taking place here, and if you're keen on connecting the two discussions then would you like to go through the various senses included in Wikitonary's English lemma for "Hindustani"? Specfically senses 2 and 3? Even sense 4 is quite dubious considering the term "Hindi" was historically used for the Urdu language (as it has been by Urdu poets and not "Hindustani poets"), not Modern Hindi. نعم البدل (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To reiterate what was said by different users (in as many words) is "no": pre-modern usages of the terms Hindi, Hindavi, Hindustani etc. should not be conflated with Urdu specifically. – There was absolutely no insinuation of that, and to imply that is ahistoric. What we consider the "Urdu language" today is older than the name "Urdu" - what names do you think were used prior to that, and prior to the standardisation of Modern Hindi? نعم البدل (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the discussion seems very similar to this one. Even there, you were quick to accuse others of being anti-Urdu and oppose Indian-related stuff being mentioned, as well as disagreeing with WP:RS. This is very concerning. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't because that was specfically discussing the various senses of Hindustani, this is discussing the link between Hindvi/Hindustani and Urdu specifically, as well as the link between Hindvi/Urdu and Amir Khurau. Tariq Rahman, whom you've quoted, has extensively about the terms Hindustani and Hindi and Hindvi being used for Urdu.

    But the fact that the oldest name for Urdu was Hindi is not acceptable to many Pakistani users of Urdu because they want to wipe out the Indian past of their language in favour of an exclusively Muslim (and military) past. In India it is the other wayround. The name Hindi is now reserved for Sanskritised Hindi created in the nineteenth century so that Urdu appears to be an exclusively Muslim, hence foreign, cultural artifact.

    نعم البدل (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran::
    • This is very concerning – Very concerning - in what way? If you believe that is the case, bring in an admin. I'm here attempting to discuss it, while your solution was to remove the quotes. You asked for the page numbers, I brought them to you. You said the citaions went against WP:RS that wasn't true. There was nothing wrong those citations. نعم البدل (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very concerning - in what way? If you believe that is the case, bring in an admin.
    I certainly will if you continue violating Wiki policies. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You said the quotes are against WP:RS so why didn't you take it up at WP:RS, if not why haven't they been restored. There's nothing wrong with the quotes. نعم البدل (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran: – Could you clarify your point, you've brought citations for both sides. For instance, Tariq Rahman has mentioned this several times in his works that the name Hindi and Hindustani were both used for Urdu historically, in the first couple of pages too, if I remember correctly. نعم البدل (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is pretty clear, please read it again. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tariq Rahman has explained in depth about the connection of Hindustani and the Urdu language, including:

    In short what is wrong with the theory that Urdu is a pidgin is that it takes away the status of Urdu as a fully formed language before the arrival of the Muslims. ... Indeed, all names of Urdu and its ancestor are implicitly political as they have associations given below.

    Hindi; Dēhlvī; Hindvī/Hinduī; ... Indostan; Hindustānī; Rēkhtā; Urdū

    Still later, probably in the eighteenth century, the name came to be used for Urdu. This name overlapped with Hindi in the beginning of the century and with Urdu by the end of it. The poet Mushafi (b. 1141 to 1156/1728-29 to 1743) who is credited with having used the word Urdu for this language for the first time used Hindi and rekhta as synonyms.

    and:

    And in his memoir Wāqiāt-ē-Azfarī, written between 1211/1796 and 1221/1806, he calls his language Hindi‘ (Azfari 1806: 74) and also Hindustani‘. After quoting the Urdu couplets of a Nawab he says that in his Hindustani poetry his language is that of the gentlemen of Delhi.

    and:

    The British generally wrote in both the Perso-Arabic and the Devanagari scripts. However, as mentioned with reference to both the missionaries and the officials, they had a mental distinction between Hindi and Hindustani. The former was associated with the Hindus; the latter with the Muslims. For the latter the terms Urdu and Rekhta are also used.

نعم البدل (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember when you disregarded WP:VER earlier? It would be helpful if you cited pages, and what the name of the source is. Are we still talking about the From Hindi to Urdu: A Social and Political History? Or is this another work? Again, WP:VER is important. Regardless, your claims are not supported by the quotes, especially not the Tariq Rahman quotes above. Also, more sources that goes against your claims;
    1. Basu, Manisha (2017), Cambridge University Press: “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.”
    2. “Hindustani”, in, Oxford University Press, 2024: “An Indo-Aryan language of northern South Asia widely used as a lingua franca, from which modern Hindi and Urdu derive.”
HistoryofIran (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's from the same work, I'll give you the page numbers here as well. And I'm assuming you still haven't got the just of what the term Hindustani means.
Yes Hindustani means the combined Hindi-Urdu continuum. But that is just one of the senses. That does not mean the term was not used for the language that is known as Urdu, which has been mentioned by several authors, including the ones you are quickly referencing(!). نعم البدل (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS (and in numerous amount a that) clearly contradicts you, Hindavi is not Urdi, but its precursor. Besides me, two users also contradict you. You also keep disregarding Wiki policies. It seems the person who still doesn't understand is you. I think you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to your comment Please be careful to not engage in WP:GAMING/WP:LAWYER., either stick by it or escalate - at this point you're just threating me to back away after moving the goalpost several times. You can call Hindavi a precursor, you can say Hindustani refers to Hindi-Urdu - it does not even matter. That is why I said those discussions are irrelevant. What does not change is the fact that Amir Khusrau has been linked to the development of Urdu literature, and has been and deserves a mention, not a blanket removal of any citation that dares to mention him in the history of Hindi-Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides me, two users also contradict you – One user, who hasn't contributed to the discussion, the other who is referring to another debate. You've led the discussion onto the a debate about the link between Hindustani and Urdu - when that isn't even the topic. The topic was regarding the inclusion of Urdu on this article, and your removal of the citations, because you believed they were "unverifiable". نعم البدل (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my reply carefully, what was meant is not that these terms were not used for Urdu but should not be conflated with it exclusively, as is being done here for Khusrau whose usage of the term here of course does not lend to the modern language or even its early-modern forms. There is a reason why the Hindi sense was added, by consensus, after you added the Urdu sense for it at Wiktionary (in my ooinion both should have been avoided especially in an English dict). The discussion is very pertinent considering the content under dispute.
As stated above, I have no strong feelings about the content under dispute but when I came to this discussion (seeing the back and forth) and saw inexact linguistic appraisals being proferred, a reply was warranted.
@Foreverknowledge, Pulimaiyi, and Svartava: Tagging participants from the former discussion who might be interested in this. Gotitbro (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I can see similar issues (and edit warring) at Hindustani-speaking world, where there was an attempt ([7]) to label Khusrau as "one of the earliest writers in the Urdu Language". The same edit moves Pakiatan to the top of the geo table; replaces Hindustani for Urdu for the Saudi Arabia section (note the reference makes no mention of either i.e. it is OR); replaces Hindustani with Hindi under the India section; replaces Hindustani with Urdu under the Afghanistan section; replaces Hindustani and British Indians for Urdu and British Pakistanis under the UK section.
  • Another edit ([8]) at the same article adds this "particularly through the Afghan refugees in Pakistan who studied Urdu and became exposed to Urdu media" when the quoted reference itself has to say this [emphasis mine] "In the 1980s and '90s, at least three million Afghans--mostly Pashtun--fled to Pakistan, where a substantial number spent several years being exposed to Hindi- and Urdu-language media, especially Bollywood films and songs, and being educated in Urdu-language schools, both of which contributed to the decline of Dari, even among urban Pashtuns."
With as basic a violation of NPOV as this, I find the protestation of "Removal of the mention of Urdu from several places" quite unconvincing. Gotitbro (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: – If you feel so strong about my edits, then instead of accusing me of WP:BADFAITH, argue with the references, the same references which have called Khusrau "the father of Urdu", and I'm more than happy to discuss my edits over at Hindustani-speaking world which is the relevant article, otherwise pointing out edits and calling it WP:NPOV is nothing but an attempt to discourage me on a topic which you may or may not have any conflicting views, and that is borderline WP:GROUND.

The fact is, I've not even accused anyone of being "anti-Urdu", I asked why the content mentioning Urdu was removed, in addition to the fact that sentences which specfically mention Hindi was kept undisputed, including the categories - that is a fair assessment, and accusing me of WP:NPOV is unwarranted.
  • There is a reason why the Hindi sense was added, by consensus – Yes by consensus which included me, not conflicting. The reason for the original discussion at Wiktionary was because Wiktionary has a very specific criteria for the inclusion of a definition or lemma – which includes Wikt:en:Use–mention distinction, and in that respect I asked for a quote, which was provided for – That is a completely different situation which involves Wiktionary polices as the basis of the discussion - not which dialects make up 'Hindustani'. That discussion is over and the matter was resolved.
  • As stated above, I have no strong feelings about the content under dispute – Then, respectfully, why are you leading the discussion away from the topic at hand which is the removal of the Urdu from the article, including the categories to pointless topic? You can pretend the discussion from Wiktionary is relevant to here, but it isn't - because we're not discussing Hindustani and its senses, we're discussing the removal of the sources, and the link between Urdu and Khurow, and inviting other users from that discussion is pretty much WP:Canvassing.
The fact is, this discussion began with the removal of sources which were relevant to the Urdu parts of this article on the basis of WP:RS, which was wrong, because the page numbers for those citations have been confirmed and verified, which somehow led to several sources being mentioned here. My question is now, how do we proceed? Do you think Urdu-Hindi should be included in this article as Amir Khusrau has been considered an important part of Urdu literature or not? نعم البدل (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to your comment Please be careful to not engage in WP:GAMING/WP:LAWYER., either stick by it or escalate - at this point you're just threating me to back away after moving the goalpost several times.
You're welcome to try to corroborate this newfounded accusation, along with your several anti-Urdu accusations. You're also just repeating what I told you earlier - to report me (for apparently being anti-Urdu). I can easily corroborate my claims, even more so with the diffs presented by Gotitbro. However, there is still a bit of WP:GF left.
You can call Hindavi a precursor, you can say Hindustani refers to Hindi-Urdu - it does not even matter.
Yet you have been strongly opposing that view. If you have changed your mind on that, please make it more clear. This is ultimately about what Nasir Khusraw spoke, so it is very relevant, even when WP:RS gives a opposing view.
not a blanket removal of any citation that dares to mention him in the history of Hindi-Urdu.
So did I remove Urdu info only or Hindi too? Was I not anti-Urdu? Wasn't I the person who gave special treatment to Hindi over Urdu? In other words, please make up your mind. You were the one who wanted to remove Indian-related info, both here and in the Wiktionary thread. You wanted to have Hindavi be the same as Urdu, when it is clearly not the reality according to WP:RS. It was not a mere "blanket" removal, there was WP:RS and WP:VER issues, as you've been told several times.
But again, feel free to corroborate these claims. Nasir Khusraw could have not spoken a language that did not exist in his time. Sources that explicity focus and expertise on him says that he spoke Hindavi/Hindi, not Urdu. And the dozens of other WP:RS here says that Hindavi is a precursor to Urdu (and Hindi). In other words, you're engaging in anachronism. A well sourced and neutral article says that he spoke Hindavi, which is a precursor to Urdu and Hindi.
The topic was regarding the inclusion of Urdu on this article, and your removal of the citations, because you believed they were "unverifiable"
The issue was still WP:RS and WP:VER issues, as I've still repeated several times by now, and will probably have to do again shortly. Some sources were indeed unverifiable and did not support its cited information, that is a literal fact. Yet you were willing to ignore both WP:RS and WP:VER for the sake of including Urdu. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: –:
  • along with your several anti-Urdu accusations. – This is getting tiring. Where did I accuse of being anti-Urdu? Do you feel offended for having to clarify your edits. I've explained this several times now, and you've avoided answering it directly. Did you or did you not remove only the Urdu parts, because I can still see the following lines on the article:
    • He also introduced a few Hindi words to complete the sense – Should it not be Hindavi, if you believe it was strictly and not Hindi-Urdu?
    • Ashiqa - Khusro pays a glowing tribute to Hindi language and speaks of its rich qualities – No objection here?
    • Category:Hindi-language poets – No objection to Amir Khusrau being a Hindi poet, but you removed the Urdu category?
I'm asking why the difference? Did you simply overlook it, or did you retain those parts because you believe they should be included in the article? If it was simply overlooked then that's what I'm attempting to discuss here, that should Hindi-Urdu be mentioned here at all?
You said that you didn't like WP:THEHINDU because it was a news article, and you believe that they shouldn't be used here, yet the references tab still show news articles being cited on the article. Your explanations haven't been consistent.
  • You were the one who wanted to remove Indian-related info, both here and in the Wiktionary thread – What do you exactly mean "Indian-related info" - are you accusing me of being anti-India? Because now you're on thin ice by accusing me of that, when India or politics wasn't even part of any discussion.
  • The issue was still WP:RS and WP:VER issues, as I've still repeated several times by now, and will probably have to do again shortly. Some sources were indeed unverifiable and did not support its cited information, that is a literal fact – Okay, so now we have an abdunance of source for both ends of the spectrum, which mention the claim of Amir Khusrow renowned for being the "father of Urdu". That sentence exists, so what do you now want to do with all those source, including the ones you removed previously? نعم البدل (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is perfectly valid, provided that the proper procedure is followed. With a discussion directly pertaining to terminology with an extant discussion for it, it was prefectly fine to non-selectively ping all previous participants.
It is well within editorial discretion, encouraged even, to guide discussions on the correct path; the discussion and outcomes of them should not be contested on colored grounds. This was the case when I saw inexact conflations being made here and at the article.
WP:BADFAITH: There is quite a difference between pointing out NPOV vios [directly pertaining to content here] and accusing an editor of BADFAITH, you have been pointed to the former not the latter.
But if you want to stave the latter entirely, please desist from the incessant wikilawyering on P&G, what the discussion is about, accusing editors of battleground, delimiting which editorial opinions are worthy of consideration etc. As that would only lead to mediation, certainly not favorable to these protestations.
Coming to the edits in dispute. As stated previously, mention of modern languages (as a founding father etc.) i.e. Urdu here, should be nowhere near the lede. I would say the same for the Hindi (or Urdu cats) which should be removed (we have perfectly fine Hindustani cats already extant which should be used if at all necessary). Gotitbro (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As on opinion on Rekhta.org: It is an Urdu archival and promotional website. Good for certain statements of fact and opinion but not really a WP:HISTRS or a scholarly source, if we have better sources available sourcea such as this should be disfavored in lieu of those.
Further as shown above itself, the languages referred to on the website vary from Hindvi, Rekhta, Urdu etc. (I would not conflate any of these). To further solidify my earlier contention that "[the "father" label as such may lend itself to any of the Hindi languages of northern India including modern Hindi]" we also have a Hindi website as well from Rekhta.org, Hindwi.org [translated]:
"[Sufi saint, musician, historian, and linguist. Disciple of Hazrat Nizamuddin and the first poet of Khariboli Hindi. Coined the term "Hindavi."]" Gotitbro (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amir_Khusro