Talk:Urdu

Request to Add Important Historical Context

1 (my revision)

Hi @Fowler&fowler,

I just wanted to say that your explanation in the "Hindustani relation" discussion, which we both participated in, really stood out to me. Especially the point that the Khari Boli dialect was an unwritten, non-literary dialect in the 13th century, and that Muslims created a new language by layering Persian and Arabic over it. The way you summarized how this evolved into what we now call Urdu was incredibly clear and, in my view, very important.

I was genuinely surprised that such a crucial historical insight hasn't yet made its way into the main article. I strongly believe it should be with proper sourcing, of course as it adds valuable context that’s often missing.

I would be very happy if this context were to appear on the main article, and if you could bring it to the main article with proper sources. Thanks again for expressing it so clearly. Kind regards. 😊 AlidPedian (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alid, I looked at your revision and it is most certainly POV to claim that Khariboli was an unwritten language without a literary tradition. Azuredivay (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a POVPUSH from anywhere, nor is it biased in any way. Because historical references indicate that Khari Boli (the ancestor of Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi) had no literature and was an unwritten language. AlidPedian (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

@182.190.51.133

Please avoid engaging in an edit war to push your changes. On Wikipedia, major edits should generally follow consensus. You are repeatedly re-adding your version despite requests to raise your concerns here.

Your addition of countries other than Pakistan and India in the lead is unnecessary and confusing. South Africa is already listed in the infobox as a country where Urdu is recognised as a minority language. There is no notable Urdu-speaking population in Afghanistan; only some Afghans speak Urdu due to having lived in Pakistan - yet you added it to the infobox even though it had already mentioned below in the "Demographics and geographic distribution" section.

Moreover, It is self-evident that if Urdu is the national language of Pakistan, it holds official status there; restating this is redundant. The current wording that it is the national language and lingua franca is sufficient. Please know that even your new version is not improving the article in anyway.

If you have valid objections, please present them here for discussion. This article has often faced edit warring and disputes due to users’ refusal to collaborate. Kind regards. AlidPedian (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@نعم البدل @Abecedare @Fowler&fowler @Respectful Toad AlidPedian (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I understand, will avoid all those things in my edit. 182.190.51.133 (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should avoid pushing your edits, before reaching consensus. AlidPedian (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Kashmir In Infobox

@AlidPedian The reason I added Azad Kashmir separately in the infobox is that it isn't a normal Pakistani province, but rather a self-governing and autonomous region of Pakistan, which has Urdu as its state and official language, which is why I thought it deserved special mention. Do you have any reason why it shouldn't be there? RealKnockout (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RealKnockout Hi. I understand your point, but the situation isn't quite parallel to India's. The Indian states are listed separately because India is officially a federal union of states.
Pakistan, however, is not a federation of "states" in the same sense. Its provinces and territories (including Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) are administrative and constitutional units of a single sovereign country, with varying degrees of autonomy.
Azad Kashmir's special and self-governing status is certainly notable, but that alone doesn't justify listing it separately in the infobox, especially for consistency with other Pakistan-related articles. AlidPedian (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AlidPedian Pakistan is a federation too, this is explicitly stated in the Constitution of Pakistan in many places, and the state vs. province thing seems to just be a semantics/naming difference. RealKnockout (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RealKnockout I never denied that Pakistan is a federation; my argument is that it functions quite differently from a classical federation of states, such as India. The provinces in Pakistan do not enjoy the same degree of autonomy as Indian states under a more robust federal structure. In fact, Pakistan has often been described as a centralized federation, where the federal government holds significant sway over provincial matters. This contrasts with India's constitutional arrangements, where states have clearer legislative and administrative powers.
You are absolutely right that the status of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is distinct from Pakistan's four provinces (and even Gilgit Baltistan). But It's also important to note the linguistic dynamics: Urdu is the sole national language of Pakistan. In contrast, India recognizes both Hindi and English as official languages at the Union level and grants official status to 22 scheduled languages, reflecting its multilingual federal ethos. This difference further highlights how Pakistan leans toward centralized nation-building, while India accommodates a more pluralistic and decentralized linguistic policy. Therefore, the special mention of Azad Kashmir seems unnecessary to me. AlidPedian (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urdu