Talk:Hindi/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Requested move 16 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Hindi → Modern Standard Hindi – Start with this move per previous thread. If this passes, a 2nd request to move Hindi (disambiguation) here; some other article could occupy this spot if that's where the discussion takes us. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral on the first move. But if it passes I would rather this page Redirect to Hindi (disambiguation) and this page be protected against editing to keep people from changing it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose leave Hindi where it is. Every language has old and other forms. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  @In ictu oculi: What are old forms supposed to have to do with anything? --JorisvS (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  @In ictu oculi: Also, Hindi is not just a language with dialects and so on. That's Hindustani. The term "Hindi" can refer to much more than just Hindustani and less (in which case it isn't even coherent dialect). --JorisvS (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  Totally disagree that Hindi is not a language. Hindustani is 60 -70 year old term still used in to show common features of Hindi and Urdu. We read and write Hindi, we PAY for Hindi newspapers, we PAY for Hindi TV PradeepBoston (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  You're confusing terms with concepts. Languages do not have ages, but are continuous evolutions from previous forms. "Hindi" means Hindustani spoken by Hindus, "Urdu" Hindustani spoken by Muslims, regardless of the amount of Persianized or Sanskritized vocabulary used, which means that even if languages could be said to have an age, Hindustani is much older. --JorisvS (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said - I vote Leave where it is, honestly look at Amazon, Hindi courses, Hindi phrasebooks. Hindi Hindi Hindi In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Amazon as a reliable source? No one is disputing that the word "Hindi" isn't used, but that does not mean that it is a distinct language in the sense that, for example, English is. These RM are not votes, but discussions (see WP:VOTE). If you're not prepared to discuss your opinion, don't put it here. --JorisvS (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. As discussed in the section above, that's clearer and "Modern Standard Hindi" is not the primary topic of "Hindi". --JorisvS (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It's a clearer name. Peter238 (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose first move based on number of time terms like Hindi vs Standard Hindi vs Modern Standard Hindi is used in common language and in Wiki pages. Neutral on 'Hindi' redirects to some generic page. PradeepBoston (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that there are multiple concepts which could have their own Wikipedia articles, including Hindi, Hindustani language, Hindi dialects, Hindi languages, and Modern Standard Hindi, but I disagree that the path to clarity is to apply the title "Modern Standard Hindi" to the content in this article. That title would not match what is covered here, and it would leave the content which is currently here out of place. What I would propose instead is the creation of several new articles - if people want a Modern Standard Hindi article, then there should also be an article for any older version of Hindi, and perhaps an article on Hindi dialects to describe which kinds of Hindi are nonstandard. It would be good to better differentiate Hindi/Modern Standard Hindi with both Hindi languages and Hindustani language, because so many people are confused about these three distinct concepts.

"Modern standard Hindi" is not a term used often anywhere. When any English speaker names the language of Bollywood, they know the term "Hindi", and I think that there should be an article called "Hindi" or "Hindi language" per WP:COMMONNAME. If anyone can make a distinction between Bollywood Hindi (which is the most proper version of Hindi, just like Hollywood defines what is proper in English) and "Modern Standard Hindi" (which is theoretical and for grammar scholars) then I think that would be good to include. There is more to discuss here than just the title of this article. I want to see an outline for all the basic topics which need articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Would it be better if we kept a Hindi or Hindi language article while still moving this article to Modern Standard Hindi? - since this article does cover more about Hindustani than it does of the other Hindi varieties.Filpro (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the statement in the lead section is misleading that this article is about Modern Standard Hindi. Create such an article and have that lead statement there (if anything like "Modern Standard Hindi" is spoken by someone!) Leave this article as it is and remove that claim that it is about Modern standard hindi. --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 16:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  @सत्यम् मिश्र: So about what is this article if it's not about Modern Standard Hindi? Not about the Hindi belt, nor Central Zone (Hindi languages), because those have separate articles. What else besides Modern Standard Hindi is there what this article could be about? --JorisvS (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @JorisvS: I believe this article is about a language spoken in India and written in Devnagari script (mostly) and identified by some to be their first language, and by some to be their second language; language of Bollywood films, language of so called Hindi newspapers, and a language which is medium of education in most of the schools in Central zone; and which has a very refined and oversnskritized written form used in offices or some books (though, this form is not spoken, even by the judges or professors at their home) which is called by some to be "Modern Standard Hindi".Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  And I too have some questions about your interesting comment above JorisvS! Do you think Firaq Gorakhpuri was a hindi poet because he was a hindu (birth name - Raghupati Sahay) and literary criticisms by Gopi Chand Narang on Firaq's poetry are part of Hindi literature? Or when Javed Akhtar writes a Bollywood song it becomes in urdu? You appear to be confusing religious beliefs with languages. Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 17:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not confusing that, but a lot of people are. The relationship between who is saying something and whether it is called Hindi or Urdu is arguably more complex, but the first-order approximation comes down to religion. This is just terminology and changes nothing about what people actually speak. Hindi and Urdu in their colloquial forms are indistinguishable, and hence a single language, which is most inclusively called "Hindustani", although that may often be misguidedly a loaded term (after all, it's simply a word inclusively used to refer to the entire language without reference to non-linguistic factors). What makes something Hindi and not Urdu? I don't know, and that's also why I can't think of any other topic an article on "Hindi" could be about except the three already mentioned. --JorisvS (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

JorisvS Hm? Sorry, I know Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM, but is the major difference not script? Is Urdu ever written in Devanagari? Is Hindi (Modern Standard Hindi) ever written in Persian script? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a valid question. I'll answer it by a counter-question: What about all those people who cannot read or write, or even when people are speaking? Then there is no script to base that choice on. --JorisvS (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Yes, Urdu is frequently written in Devanagari. There is even a spelling convention to distinguish it from Hindi: ain is written as अ with the appropriate vowel diacritics rather than as इ उ ए etc. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not want to make it a Hindi/Urdu debate here. But, Hindustani itself is not a very clear term, and sorry to say, obviously not the older form of Standard Urdu and/or Standarad Hindi. If you take a look at Premchand, his works listed in the article tell he wrote in Hindi as well in Urdu. Some of the his titles are literal translations while others not. And they are not just script transformations (transliterations) because in that case they would have had the same title in both scripts. Nither they are pure translations because they were written by him in two differnt languages (some of them, e.g. Prema/Hamkhurma o hamshabab (1907) actually printed in Devnagari script in both languages, though not available online!). So, if there were not two differet languages, then how he was writing in them in 1907?? It is difficult to believe that they are single language. And also, that they can be distinguished by religion, nationality, geographical regions or script. --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 03:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Great thoughts, thanks for sharing. I look forward to seeing how this article develops. I am open to changing the name but still unsure of what the best name is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support This is an eminently sensible proposal as the current title is causing more confusion than it addresses. The main problem being the common usage of the term Hindi not matching the linguistic definition (which this article uses). However, I'm hesitant to support Kwamikagami's second proposal. On that I think Hindi should be changed to a definitions page with a sourced section for each of the following (perhaps some more, but restricting it to just the languages and not the multitude of listings that the dab has): MSH, Hindustani language, Hindi languages, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Rajasthani etc. This would prevent the back and forth that's been happening here and also clear up the confusion that both editors and readers have with these. —SpacemanSpiff 20:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment For those of you who are opposing because this article is not about Modern Standard Hindi, you're simply wrong: that's exactly what this article is about, as noted in the lead. It was even once under the name MSH but was moved here by people who insisted that MSH is the primary meaning of the word "Hindi". As long as you try to make this article about something else you will be reverted. I'm suggesting the move to prevent the ensuing edit-wars that have resulted in people being blocked. — kwami (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support This article should be moved back to Modern Standard Hindi as per the discussion above. As said earlier, the primary topic of "Hindi" is not Modern Standard Hindi. It is the title that is misleading, not the lead. Filpro (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support per the discussion in the previous section. Just look at this RM so far...even the people here can't agree on what "Hindi" is. "Hindi", by itself, means different things to different people/groups/governments/etc. To some, in it's most narrow sense, it means Modern Standard Hindi; to others it's all versions of Hindustani that aren't Urdu, to yet others it's all dialects in the Hindi Belt. This was previously recognized, for example Hindi language (generic) still redirects to Hindi Belt, not "Hindi" (where it should logically be if the "oppose" !voters are right), but now it is a giant confusing muddled mess. The title "Hindi" should either redirect to Hindi (disambiguation) or be the home of the dab page and this article should be moved to the unambiguous Modern Standard Hindi to reflect it's content.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't intend to vote here when I write "Oppose" (because I have very few contributions here and basically active on Bhojpuri wiki and Hindi wiki); nor anybody need to warn against editing this article to make somthing else (as I have never edited it). My point simply is that the most common meaning of the word "Hindi" is Hindi language - a language in which Bollywood films are produced, Hindi newspapers are published, and Hindi literature has been written! Yes, there are other menings also; but the confusion is not prominent to that degree (which is being celebrated by supporters of this proposal) to redirect Hindi to Hindi (disambiguation). Also, I want to add that "Khari boli" dilect of the Hindi belt went through "modernization", "standarization" and "sanskritization" and borrowed ample amount of words from other languages such as Bhojpuri, Rajsthani, Maithili etc. and evolved into a language which is called "Hindi" and there is no need to explicity say this thing Modern Standard Hindi. For me, and most of the people who live in Hindi belt and speak and write in this language, its name "Hindi" is enough, and to the best of my knowledge there is no such huge confusion internationally, too. Perheps, it is the supporters of this proposal who are trying to confuse linguistic concepts of modernization and standarazation of a language and deliberatly want to insert them in a term which already includes them inherently. --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 04:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  But what language is that really? To speakers of Urdu, the speech in Bollywood productions, and (if they can read Devanagari) Hindi newspapers and Hindi literature is intelligible, which means that those that and Urdu are part of a single language (in fact part of the same dialect of that language, Khariboli). This is the language in which they are produced. This language is called Hindustani. There is, linguistically, no "Hindi", except Modern Standard Hindi, that does not overlap with "Urdu", which means there is no coherent topic this article can be about if not about Modern Standard Hindi. --JorisvS (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Simlpy disagree that the language of Bollywood films and Hindi newspapers is Hindustani just because a Urdu speaker is able to understand it. But, for now, let us hold it. Since, all you want for this article, is a language different from Urdu and that too, linguistically, I would like to request you to elaborate your view about linguistic differences between Urdu and language of this artcle, between Hindustani and language of this article, and between Hindustani and Urdu. For more clarity, Let us assume this article is about a language "x". And, also, please make it clear who are the speakers of this language "x"? --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 16:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Intelligibility is the defining criterion about what constitutes a distinct language and what doesn't. There's Hindustani language#Hindi and Urdu. You can't speak of differences between Hindustani and Hindi and Urdu, because the former includes the latter; it's like speaking of the differences between a fruit and an apple. And we can't assume that this article is about a language "x", because it isn't, not in the sense of linguistically distinct set of speech varieties anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  I disagree on the statement that there is no "Hindi" except for Modern Standard Hindi. But yes this article should be moved as the current title doesn't represent what this article is specifically about.Filpro (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  So what would that other Hindi be? --JorisvS (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  JorisvS! I was suggesting to name the language (with x) about which this article is until we reach an agreement whether this article is about "Hindi" or "Modern Standard Hindi" so that I dont have to type everytime "the language about which this article is" when I have to refer. But anyway, its fine.:).... Let's move on...what do you mean by "it isn't, not in the sense of linguistically distinct set of speech varieties anyway."? You were arguing that this article is about a language which is distinct from Urdu and that's why it should be named MSH. Because only MSH is a language which is linguistically so distinct.That's why I asked you to elaborate this distinction. What you are suggesting at Hindustani language#Hindi and Urdu. does not clearly makes them distinct and this very article at Hindi#Comparison with Modern Standard Urdu claims that both are linguistically same languages (I belive at least in this article "Hindi" is used to mean "MSH" according to you). Then, what kind of linguistic distinction do you have in mind when you say that naming this article MSH will be appropriate because this is about a language which is distinct from Urdu. I was asking how your MSH is distinct from Urdu (or better MSU)?

.... erliar you said language of Bollywood and hindi newspapers is not Hindi but Hindustani, and now you say "You can't speak of differences between Hindustani and Hindi (and Urdu)". Then, how you denied so clearly that language of Bollywood is not Hindi? .....and if "Intelligibility is the defining criterion about what constitutes a distinct language and what doesn't" is true then do you think this article is about a language which can not be understood by a Urdu speaker? Do you think this section of our article lists authours and works which are completely obscure to an Urdu (or MSU) speaker? --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 07:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Modern Standard Hindi can be understood by a speaker of Urdu, except for a good number literary/formal words (wherein lies the difference between them). However, Bollywood is not formal, is it? And this Bollywood Hindi contains some "Urdu" words. "You were arguing that this article is about a language which is distinct from Urdu"... basically the opposite; they are not distinct languages. There exists really a continuum between Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu, with most speech somewhere in between. Here's, again my point to you: Even though commonly viewed as different languages, speakers of Hindi and Urdu can normally easily understand each other, even when they're near the ends of this continuum, so there is no linguistic basis for this view. The name of the language both are a part of is Hindustani, so it makes no sense to compare Hindi and Urdu to Hindustani. I'll repeat my analogy: It makes no sense to compare an apple to a fruit, because an apple is a fruit. --JorisvS (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That's good! now, you and me agree at some points:1. linguistically we cannot make distinction between MSH and MSU (except for vocabulary), 2. linguistically we cannot demarcate a boundry between Hindustani and MSH. (they are continum) 3. Both, MSH and MSU share (or intersect at) present day Hindustani. 4. MSH and MSU have something (some literary/technical words) which is not common with Hindustani and in that way only this thing is not common to both languages - MSH and MSU. And I hope you will fairly agree that this thing which is not common (out of intersection) cannont alone survive to form a language (or two different in this case). I mean to say there will be no MSH or MSU if we try to exclude things which are common to both.

Now, where we differ!? You are suggesting (by supporting this proposal Hindi->MSH) that when Khari boli dilect of Hindustani (of taht day) got "modernized" and "standarzed" (largly, by vocabulary modifications) took too forms - Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu. And what I am suggesting that in this process the two languages which resulted (mark, which are not linguistically distinct) are Hindi and Urdu. You need not use "Modern" and "Standard" before their names. Because no medival/ancient Hindi or Urdu was there taht we need to use "Modern" qualifier (their previous verson is Khari boli). Nor we need this qualifier "Standard" as no non-standard version of Hindi or Urdu existed, all that existed as prior version was khari boli.

I am also in opposition to this M and S because they are somewhat confusing. I would like to know What this "Modern" means to you? and Standard is confusing because it has a different meaning in linguistics see here and Charecteristics of Standard language in the same article, while for the language warriers of Hindi standarisation (मानकीकरण) (i.e. weeding out farasi and english word) is yet to complete (until they make their language obscure to Urdu speakers) but they fail because both languages share a lot of verbs (THE WORDS)  :)

I am aware that you may not linguistically like it to name a language what it is called instead of calling it what linguistically it is. But, when Khari boli was being transformed into this new language, its supporters called it Hindi, not MSH and still it is called Hindi not MSH.

Let me know your opinion about the above points. --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 10:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The standarization process did not create new languages, it simply created new standards. One cannot speak of two languages because they are not linguistically distinct. The problem with using "Hindi" is not that it would not be 'what it linguistically is', but that it is ambiguous and that there is not a primary topic. I'm fine with using 'Standard Hindi', but either is better than just 'Hindi' because of this. --JorisvS (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

JorisvS! we are already in agreement that standarization did not creat two languages linguistically. It would have been fine if it had created one new standard - Standard Khari Boli. But, in our case it created two Standard Khari boli's and in order to distinguish them we need to add somewhere Hindi and Urdu. So, in that way we will have "Hindi Standard Khari boli" and "Urdu Standard Khari boli". But these technically correct names (or similar) are used nowhere but simply Hindi and Urdu are used. And your second point - "Hindi" is ambiguous. I request to describe how? and with what? and how you think this prefix "Standard" would be able to eliminate that ambiguity!--Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 15:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Hindi" is ambiguous, because it often refers to A) the Central Zone branch of Indo-Aryan languages (a.k.a. Hindi languages), and B) any speech variety that is part of the Hindi Belt (as in the Indian censuses), which is even broader. --JorisvS (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

JorisvS! Both the ambiguities (and below I can see!) have nothing to do with "Standard". These mentioned by you can be eliminated by asking a simple question - What the common man's meaning of Hindi is? Common and most accepted meaning is that it is a language (though not tecnically, as I have agreed with you already above; But it does not mean that we can have single article for Urdu and Hindi because they are linguistically single). Next confusion is what is the scope of this language Hindi! Common perception includes the language of films, media, - to literary version. Confusion starts when you start defining this scope linguistically (as you denied that the language of films and newspapers is Hindi) and when you start defining it on the lines of Government of India!

As you have said "standarization creates new standards" and you are "fine with (having title) Standard Hindi", title "Standard Hindi" would mean Hindi (in common meaning a language, and technically not a language) has some standards about which the article is. But for this you have to agree that Hindi is a language and has some standards (or has a standard form/version). Then, our page titled "Standard Hindi" will not be the same as our present page is. Then we will focus on standarization process, what changes ocurred in this process? and what is the history of this standarization? We will talk of phonology and sytax and grammar and their standarization. I will be fine with such an article "Standard Hindi". But our article of current discussion is (presently) not about new standards. It is written as if it is about a (distinct) language. you can see the history section and literature section. For phonology and grammar one is suggested to go at Hindustani. If we have to move this article to "Standard hindi" we have to focus this on standards and standarization of Hindi language and for language we have to create seperate page titled "Hindi". Since, our present article has title "Hindi" and it, in its present form, is mostly about Hindi language, not about its standards, I suggested to create a seperate article which would specifically be about standards and standarization and standard form of Hindi language.

Then we will have questions, "if we have this article for Hindi language (titled "Hindi"), how we will distinguish it (your mentioned ambiguities above)?" and "How we will define its scope (Common perception vs. Linguistic vs. GoI's version vs. any other)?" --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 09:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"What the common man's meaning of Hindi is". That's an argumentum ad populum, a fallacious reasoning, and a reference to supposed common knowledge. Common knowledge means nothing and the common people are not experts (read the links). As for "Standard Hindi", you simply misconstrue what that means; the "Standard" is there simply to disambiguate which Hindi we're talking about. The "History" section is actually a very short summary of the standardization, exactly on-topic, and the essentials of the grammar and phonology are simply those shared with other forms of Hindustani, so pointing the reader there makes sense. --JorisvS (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS: No, I am not making that kind of argument. I am simply trying to tell the scope of ambiguities you uave mentioned. It is not the expert's who need disambiguation, they already know when they speak, about which Hindi they are talking. You need disabiguations for common man. when a common reader serches wikipedia, in most of the cases, one is serching about a language - Hindi! And one should get it, along with links to (and may be brief descriptions of some) other meanings of Hindi. He should not fall in experts paradise in the form of a dab page and get -"look, here are n things that your serched title can mean!". Common meaning or most popular meaning is important consideration in disambiguation (at least in my opinion) as all the n possible menings of Hindi are not equally probable for searching by readers.

And "Standard" is there simply to distinguish ! No Sir! it is not simply an ornament but a word which has a meaning. When I see Standard English or Standard German or Standard French, it has specific meaning (of a Standard language)! Sorry to say if it is there tucked like an ornament to distinguish then it is only making a further ambiguity. And when I am pointing towards it you say I miscontrue?!

And it is there to distinguish which Hindi we are talking about": Which Hindi this article is talking about?? A) Its second para of the lead starts talking about how many people speak Hindustaani Hindi. B) You are saying its 'History' section is a very short summary of standarization. Read it again - it appears to be a short summary of its official status recogniged by different administrations, a political or administrative history (except for the one sentence in second bullet). C) Our article has a full section on History of literature which mentions Kabir, Raskhan, Chandrakanta and Premchand.... about which Hindi this all is?? Do these have anything to do with your dintinguished Hindi? D)See sub-section 'Mass communication' which says - "Hindi is the primary language used by the Bollywood film industry" and "Many famous Hindi-speaking celebrities include( Mr. a, b and c)"! About which Hindi is this?? Shah rukh Khan speakes "Standard Hind"!? E) Read the section 'Sanskrit vocabulary' which first describes what kind of words are found in (which?)Hindi and then tells us there is another Hindi Shuddh hindi which largely uses Tatsam words. If Suddh hindi is different from the Hindi(of this article) then about which Hindi this article is??? Will you kindly comment on these???

All you have in this atricle is that lead statemnet that it is about (some distinguished )"Standard Hindi" which supports you view. Sir, If you want an article about some Hindi which can use the word "Standard" (simply to distinguish, regardless of the fact that it is ambiguous), then make it... I am fine with such (as I have said at the very begining). But don't say that this article should be moved to Standard Hindi and Hindi title should become a dab! Better solution is taht supportars create a page "Standard Hindi" and leave this title to be developed for Hindi language. But see! the supportrs of this RfM are warning that anybody if tries to develope this article into an article about Hindi language - one's edits will be reverted!! --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 06:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't a better solution be to move this article to Standard Hindi or Modern Standard Hindi and create a new Hindi article rather than converting the Hindustani content of this article to Hindi and copy-pasting the current content of this article to Standard Hindi?Filpro (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Filpro:Which one is easier? And would this article, moved at MSH or SH, would remove those things (above mentioned) which have nothing to do with "Modern" or "Standard"??--Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 12:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to the things in the article that are not about (Modern) Standard Hindi? I can't find them. --JorisvS (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

JorvisvS SpacemanSpiff just [deleted the text about Bollywood using Hindi because Bollywood is not MSH. If there is an article for MSH then I think there ought to be an article for whatever language is used in Bollywood. This information goes somewhere - Spiff, instead of deleting this, can you suggest where on Wikipedia this information can go if you do not want it here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, Please see Hindustani language#Hindustani and Bollywood. That's where this rightfully belongs. And there, SRK speaking the language wouldn't be out of place either. —SpacemanSpiff 20:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There are no sources cited there. Please provide a source which says that Hindustani and not Hindi is the language of Bollywood. Here are Google Scholar sources using the word "Hindi" to refer to the language used in the films. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing usage of the terms with what is actually spoken there. --JorisvS (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I give up. This is the whole point of this move, Hindi is NOT the common name for MSH, and this article is on MSH. Sadly, people don't understand that and we keep getting this clusterfuck where everything that says Hindi gets added to this article, but not all of it gets reverted and stays on to contribute to this mess, aided by others like you. —SpacemanSpiff 21:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff I disagree - Hindi is the common name for MSH. Examples include all Bollywood marketing, which consistently call the language of the films "Hindi", and all language education programs. When students outside of India learn the language of Bollywood as a foreign language, they buy a Hindi textbook and take a Hindi class in the Hindi department of their school. The common name is "Hindi". I agree with you that there should be distinction. Wikipedia requires sources and no one has provided any sources that says that the language of Bollywood is something other than Hindi. JorvisvS - what language do you think they use in Bollywood? Hindi? MSH? Hindustani? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, there is a formal Hindi (Standardized Hindi) and a broader collection of languages all labeled under Hindi. This article is about the Standardized version. We do need another article for the broader collection (and there is support here for that) but combining the two is a recipe for confusion. We need to move this article to MSH and create another article title Hindi that becomes the 'all about the spoken North Indian language' place. --regentspark (comment) 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, The "English" we learn in school is known simply as English however it has a separate article as Standard English and the content on English language includes the standard form and other varieties. The same way there should be a MSH/SH article as well as a Hindi or Hindi language article.Filpro (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

At least somebody found something in the article which is not about MSH!! JorisvS I think if you can't find them (even after I have mentioned some and requested you to give your opinion upon) It is better to extend the Filpro's lines and we take a look at these articles-Standard English, Standard German, Standard French, and Standard Arabic. Look at the pattern on which these articles are organized - and compare our present article's organization pattern with that. It will be certainly helpful in deciding how our article should be if it has to be on Standard Hindi (and perhaps, you can find why this article appears to me to be more on Hindi instead of on SH). Perhaps this way we can reach a solution.--Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 05:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That I can overlook something is no argument for your position, obviously, especially because the topics could be valid, but are not actually about MSH. @Bluerasberry:, the language of Bollywood is really Hindustani, no matter that it is referred to using the term "Hindi". Usage of terms does not determine what something is. Even if Bollywood were in (Modern Standard) Hindi, it would be in Hindustani, because the actual language MSH is a part of is Hindustani (then it could have been said to be in both). However, Bollywood Hindi is more colloquial, with features of (Modern Standard) Urdu, which means that it simply isn't in (Modern Standard) Hindi. It still is Hindustani. There is no other coherent speech entity that could be called "Hindi". --JorisvS (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS: Don't mind! No problem with what you overlooked. But, There is a coherent speech entity that is called "Hindi" and which is 1) a standarized form of Khari boli, 2) shares some of its contents with Urdu, 3) which has a highly sanskritised and standarised veraiety Standard Hindi at the one end of continuum and an informal form at the other end, 4) Whose informal form is often confused by some to be Hindustani because they overlook that it is simply the shared property and both the languages (Urdu and Hindi) have equal claim; 5) which is the only entity that can cover deviations and deformations which result in other informal forms of Standard hindi (which can/do arise due to influence of languages/regional languages other than Urdu; e.g. informal Hindi spoken by a Bihari (Lalu Prasad) or Bengali or Punjabi which may have influences of the respective languages, 6) Which is found to be confused with "Central Zone languages" as linguists define eigth dilects/regional languages as "Hindi languages", 7)which is confused by census of India to be "Hindi in its broadest sens" with what is termed as "Hindi belt languages" (i.e. Central zone languages + Bihari + Rajasthani+ Pahadi groups) 8) which would be the subject matter of the article titled "Hindi" if we reach a concensus.--Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 13:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Filpro and RegentsPark: - I agree with both of you, there should be two articles - one for the grammar system and one for the common language, just like happens with English and other languages on Wikipedia. @JorisvS and SpacemanSpiff: - can you find any textbook or school which teaches Hindustani? Per WP:COMMONNAME, it seems to me that this language is usually called "Hindi" but sometimes called "Hindi-Urdu".

The common name for the language of Bollywood is "Hindi". Here are some textbooks for English speakers to learn this language.

• Delacy, Richard; Joshi, Sudha (2009). Elementary Hindi workbook : an introduction to the language (1st ed. ed.). North Clarendon, Vt.: Tuttle Pub. ISBN 978-0804839631. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Weightman, Simon; Snell, Rupert (1989). Hindi (2nd ed. ed.). Lincolnwood, Ill.: NTC Publishing. ISBN 978-0844237954. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Taneja, Sonia (2012). Basic Hindi (1st ed. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0071784245. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

Harvard University calls the language "Hindi-Urdu" and so does Princeton. University of Washington calls the language "Hindi" - this is significant because the only popular "Modern Standard Hindi" textbook is written by a professor there. In England at Oxford they teach Hindi.

Does anyone have an example of any language classes calling the spoken language something other than Hindi or Hindi-Urdu? Like for example, can anyone find a Hindustani textbook or Hindustani classes at some school? I could get more examples of English schools or books teaching this language, but I expect that almost all will call it "Hindi" or "Hindi-Urdu". How do people feel about calling the spoken language "Hindi-Urdu"? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Support On reflection, I'm switching to support. This article is better at MSH and someone can write a better version of Hindi that includes the broader language in line with what Britannica et al do. Baby steps!I can see why kwami is proposing this move but it won't solve the problem and it will leave us in a worse place. It won't solve the problem because the editors adding bhojpuri or other dialects will merely click on the MSH link on the dab page and continue adding their preferred dialects. It will leave us in a worse place because Hindi is a commonly understood term to mean a language and a disambiguation page with non-language meanings of Hindi will not only be a source of puzzlement for the reader but will also fly against our WP:Common name policy. I suggest, instead, that we create a page along the lines that Spiff is suggesting (see above) with a lot more detail and a section on Modern Standard Hindi that has a main article tag that takes an interested reader to the MSH article (somewhat like what britannica does). Hindi is broader than MSH, the term is the common name for that broader meaning, and our article structure should reflect that. --regentspark (comment) 13:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  The broader meanings are located at Hindi languages and Hindi Belt. As you correctly point out, there is no primary topic. That's exactly why this article (which is about (Modern) Standard Hindi) should not be located here as if it were the primary topic. --JorisvS (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: Those editors can add Bhojpuri to the new Hindi or Hindi language article if that's where the discussion takes us but this article is specially about Modern Standard Hindi is currently under a misleading title. It is better to move this article to Modern Standard Hindi and create a new article here or at Hindi language (like what Britannica does) rather than converting the content of this article to Hindi and creating a new Modern Standard Hindi article.Filpro (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  @JorisvS: There is Standard Chinese to Chinese language, Standard English to English language, Standard German to German language, Standard French to French language, and Modern Standard Arabic to Arabic. I see no reason for a Modern Standard Hindi to Hindi or Hindi language to not exist. Claiming one such language doesn't exist is ridiculous. Hindi is definitely a language, there's no disputing that no matter how many times it's said otherwise on the talk page. Yes the varieties of Hindi are often considered individual languages just like the varieties of Chinese language but the Hindi language is more often considered a language than Arabic and Chinese yet only the standard version of Hindi is still located at the Hindi article. These main language articles contain information about their standard version in a section and lead to a main article of the standard version but also includes all the other varieties and dialects as they should. Filpro (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  That 'Hindi' is that of Hindi languages. Of course Hindi exists, but its nature is not that of a complete set of mutually intelligible speech varieties (i.e. a language). --JorisvS (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  Actually that "Hindi" as defined by Britannica and the Government of India is of the Hindi Belt. -Filpro (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  There you go, how confusing just "Hindi" is. --JorisvS (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Now MSH is ambiguous as a teaching subject in University ? I know from the begining that some of edits and reverts have nothing to do with Hindi or Standard Hindi language. All edits and removal of Standard Hindi clealry indicates agenda and denial of facts, numbers. There is a common word in American English borrowed from Arabic for such folks. Some of you are making even Obama's birth certificate issue less interesting. Your anti Hindi edits are making wiki more less reliable every day. PradeepBoston (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Evolution of Hindi through Nagari script/Devanagri script

Evolution of Hindi through Nagari script/Devanagri script took place in phases. Hindi books in Nagari books were first published in 1795.--Conradjagan (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The Nāgarī script is the ancestor of Devanagari, Nandinagari and other variants, and was first used to write Prakrit and Sanskrit. The term is sometimes used as a synonym for Devanagari script. Standard Hindi is now Sanskritised Hindi only with bit influence of Urdu and Persian words. The first Hindi books, using the Devanagari script or Nāgarī script were one Heera Lal's treatise on Ain-i-Akbari, called Ain e Akbari ki Bhasha Vachanika, and Rewa Mharaja's treatise on Kabir. Both books came out in 1795. Munshi Lalloo Lal's Hindi translation of Sanskrit Hitopadesha was published in 1809. Lala Srinivas Das published a novel in Hindi Pariksha guru in the Nāgarī script in 1886. Shardha Ram Phillauri wrote a Hindi novel Bhagyawati which was published in 1888. Then Chandrakanta was published in 1888.--Conradjagan (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Is that Modern Standard Hindi? --JorisvS (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is about Hindi language PradeepBoston (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"Hindi language", what does that mean for you precisely? Hindi Belt Hindi, Hindi languages, Modern Standard Hindi, or Khariboli Hindustani under the name Hindi? --JorisvS (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Is someone trying to bully native-Hindi speakers here ? I said "Hindi Language" plain and simple. PradeepBoston (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@JorisVS ; and what does the wikipedia mean by chinese , either of 13 languages in a group and what about Arabic, a group of 19 languages, and Malay , a group of 9 languages.Please see this https://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size. Further hindi, bhojpuri ,avadhi are all written in devnagri script and therefore are one language.Rajatbindalbly (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Please also see http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hindi-languageRajatbindalbly (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Fourth largest?

Is Hindi the fourth largest language in the world on it's own or is it Hindustani?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Substrate

@Uanfala: you are most certainly right about Persian - I used the wrong word. The new wording should be more acceptable. Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 02:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Official language in Fiji

I think Fiji should be added to the "Official language in" section, the Hindi variety of Fiji Hindi is official there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Last edited by: (talk • contribs) 14:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the official language of Fiji is Fiji Hindi, an Eastern Hindi language, not part of the Hindustani language, which is Western Hindi. --JorisvS (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rajbhasha.nic.in/IIContent.aspx?t=enevents

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of Speakers of Hindi

We don't have language speakers' numbers of 2011 Census. So, 2001 Census have latest figures. Although Hindi language group has more than 422 million speakers comprising all its 50 dialects including Standard Hindi, only standard Hindi speakers are 257,919,635. ( mentioned in 18 number Hindi dialect (Hindi itself) in the beginning of right two columns of table in the following source: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.aspx I see there are some users who can't digest the fact of them being corrected by junior and somewhat new editors like me. I don't understand what is the problem with these official figures. Vibhss (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This point gets brought up time and again. The archives of this talk page are full of discussions about that and two particularly lengthy ones are Talk:Hindi/Archive 5#Demographics again and Talk:Hindi/Archive 5#Population for Hindi. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Just adding one point that might not have surfaced too vividly in the discussion I linked to: the census you're citing counts the self-reported number of speakers. It is often the case that speakers of Awadhi or Bhojpuri or Bagheli would report their language as "Hindi" and their numbers would get conflated with those of Modern Standard Hindi. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

mix up

much of this article is treating "Hindi" as if it were simply the "Hindusthani" dialect of Hindi - major revision required. Hindi = is many many dialects leading to the figure of half a million speakers, Hindusthani dialect is just one or 10-20% of Hindi speakers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ge-eN-De (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Filpro, you seem to have changed the lead here, without leaving an adequate explanation. Has this been discussed before? It is not clear any more which is the "language" and which is the "register". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That should never have been done, this article is about MSH and the talk page archives reflect that, this is a highly disruptive edit. —SpacemanSpiff 13:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've now reverted back to the MSH content which this article is about. Please do not change this unless consensus changes. —SpacemanSpiff 04:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hindi dialects

Hindi or it's dialects doesn't have any status in Mauritius, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago. It only has an official status in Suriname. A.R.Nayudu (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

See also: Urdu § Examples linke is broken

The Examples section in the Urdu article has been renamed Sample text. I tried to correct the {{See Also}} template, but recent reverts targeting edits from other editors have reverted these edit twice. I'm going to reinstate this because I think this should be uncontroversial enough, but if you revert this, please let me know the reason. Thanks --Kakurady (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hindi Belt

Look at the map above, borrowed from the page itself, northwest India includes Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat, Hindi is not native of these places. Hindi is native of Gangetic plain area and is the lingua franca of the so-called Hindi belt. Shimlaites (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think any part of this map depicts the Hindu belt, I would say you need to get your eyes examined.

The border between "northern" and "northwest" is debatable, and doesn't matter particularly. But your edit saying, Hindi is spoken in the "Hindi belt", is a textbook example of opacity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You really need to read alphabets which are written on the map, not the ones you are imagining. It clearly denotes Hindi's native place, which lies in the Hindi belt. I am sure you know your latitudes from your longitudes to know the place marked for Hindi on the map is not in northwestern India by any description. Shimlaites (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Standardization vs Sanskritisation

There's nothing inherent to standardisation that implies Sanskritisation, at least not to a layperson outside of the context of Hindi and Urdu. I think users who support either mentioning Sanskritization or not should give their reasons. As for my two cents, it seems like it's useful to mention it, since otherwise there's no way to distinguish between Hindi and Urdu as variants of Hindustani. Actually, my preference would be to have something like the following: Hindi ... is an Indo-Aryan language native to India/South Asia. Along with Urdu, it is a standardised register[8] of the Hindustani language, but with stronger Sanskrit elements/influence. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 17:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion to resolve this; I appreciate that. Hindi was standardized as it's own register due to the Sanskritization. If not for sanskritization what other standardization did it go through is my point. If not for Sanskrit influence, how else was this language standardized? Let's answer that. Another point to make is that the sanskritization is already mentioned in the Hindi variants history section. Adding it to the lead would just be a repeat. The intro already mentions it's a standard register of Hindustani (as is Urdu), but how it was standardized is not the purpose of the lead but the history section--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean, hypothetically Hindi could have been standardized by going through each set of word variants, and picking one of them at random.... There's nothing about a standard language that entails the need to specify a source language for technical vocabulary. Anyways, I actually think that's beside the point. The problem remains that it's confusing to introduce both Hindi and Urdu both as a "standardised form of Hindustani" without any other distinction, and that the choice of source language for technical/formal vocabulary is quite significant, and should be included in the introduction, regardless of how you interpret "standardization" (which as you said, depends on your knowledge of history, and would be opaque for a layperson). How about, Hindi is a standardised register of the Hindustani language, differing from Urdu by drawing from [[Sanskrit for technical and formal vocabulary. ? ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 07:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, Urdu and Hindustani are not exactly the same thing, Urdu is more formal and has more Arabic-Persian words. What differentiates Hindi from Hindustani is the Sanskritization of the latter, which is important and notable enough to be mentioned in the intro para. I agree with User:Basawala on this one, what is the difference between Hindi and Urdu? Its the Sanskrit words, mentioning that is necessary otherwise how would the readers differentiate that what is the difference between Hindi, Hindustani and Urdu?

Also do not delete Sanskritization part until a consensus is achieved here.

Shimlaites (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hindustani to my knowledge historically did have perso-arabic words as it was evolved out of Muslim rule. But the point I'm trying to make is what exactly happened during the standardization? Are you implying that something else happened during the standardization besides sanskritization? Wasn't the sanskritization the process of that standardization? If not, what was part of that standardization. If yes, why is it being mentioned besides the the standardization? Read what I wrote repeatedly before answering. Try to understand the point--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hindustani has more words of the Desi north Indian dialects, Urdu evolved from it as the court language of the Mughals. The Persian speaking Turco-Mongol Mughals from Central Asia, settled in north India, who being Muslims also had lot of Arabic words in their vocabulary, hence Hindustani+Arabic words+Persian words+Chagatai Turkic words = Urdu, in fact Urdu itself is a Turkic word, introduced by Mughals(Chagatai Turks themselves), whereas Hindustani just means the dialect of 'Hindustan' or also known as 'Hindavi" again the 'language of Hind'.

'Standardization' is a literal term, every language goes through standardization process, even Urdu is a standardized version of Hindustani, does that mean Urdu has gone through Sanskritization? Coz apparently you are conflating Sankritization with standardization. What makes Hindi different from Hindustani is Sanskritization just like Urdu is different from Hindustani because of addition of more Persian and Arabic words. Its a notable point need to be mentioned explicitly. Shimlaites (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

An example of standardization that has nothing to do with Sanskritization/Persianization: 'festival' is tyauhaar in Hindi, but tehwaar in Urdu. Both forms probably existed in Hindustani, but the two languages chose one form as the standard. Anyways that's beside the point. If we agree that Sanskritization was an important part of the development of Hindi that sets it apart from Urdu, then we should agree to include mention of it in the intro. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 22:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nadir Ali, I am sorry, but you are not making much sense. Standardisation of Hindi might have involved Sanskritisation, but it is not axiomatic that standardising a language in general implies its sanskritisation. Neither does the meaning of the word "standardise" mean "sanskritise". So, your objection to the term doesn't hold any water. I agree with Basawala nd Shimlaites that it is important and should be mentioned in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, the sanskritization is mentioned in the article in great detail, when people want to know they go further into the article and learn it, which is what it's for. One way we could do this is change it to "sanskritized standard register of Hindustani". If I remember correctly, previously both articles of Hindi and Urdu just referred to them as standard registers (which makes sense as the standardization has been done). We can put persianized for the urdu article.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you are talking about. If a topic is mentioned in the article in great detail (which it isn't, by the way), what makes you think it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if other standardization took place, I don't understand why that Sanskritization should be excluded from the overall standardization. Many things could have happened during standardization, including sanskritization. To respond to Kautilya3, what is wrong with adding details about this in the history section. What else could that section possibly be for?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Standardisation and Sanskritisation are two different processes that Hindi went through. There is no direct relation between them. There is also no comparison between the Sanskritisation of Hindi and the Persianisation of Urdu. Persianisation is the very essence of Urdu. In contrast, Hindi was "Sanskritised" relatively recently, partly to purge Persian words and partly to make it fit for modern usage. There is also an argument that Sanskritisation was good for modern India because Sanskrit words are pervasive in Indian languages and most speakers in various parts of the country understand them. This is a huge political debate. Urdu has none of this. You need to stop making comparisons and drawing parallels. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hindi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140909230437/http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf to http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140901145421/http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0900.pdf to http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0900.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

Hi can you please change

'''Hindi''' ([[Devanagari]]: [[wikt:हिन्दी|हिन्दी]], <small> [[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: </small> ''Hindī''), or '''Modern Standard Hindi''' ([[Devanagari]]: मानक हिन्दी, <small> [[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: </small> ''Mānak Hindī'') is a [[Standard language|standardised]] and [[Sanskrit#Influence on other languages|Sanskritised]]</blockquote> [[register (sociolinguistics)|register]]<ref name="Constitution of India">{{cite web|url=http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm|title=Constitution of India |accessdate=21 March 2012}}</ref> of the [[Hindustani language]].

to

'''Hindi''' ([[Devanagari]]: [[wikt:हिन्दी|हिन्दी]], <small> [[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: </small> ''Hindī''), or '''Modern Standard Hindi''' ([[Devanagari]]: मानक हिन्दी, <small> [[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: </small> ''Mānak Hindī'') is a [[Standard language|standardised]] and [[Sanskrit#Influence on other languages|Sanskritised]] [[register (sociolinguistics)|register]]<ref name="Constitution of India">{{cite web|url=http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm|title=Constitution of India |accessdate=21 March 2012}}</ref> of the [[Hindustani language]].

(i.e remove the </blockquote> that does not have a corresponding start tag) the reason for this is that in the current form the generated html is a bit odd (with the first paragraph not encapsulated with a <p> tag) I assume that the reason at least.. Thanks!! Osterd (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A note or sentence/paragraph should be added distinguishing the sanskritization from the genetic derivation of Sanskrit

A common myth I see is that people believe Urdu is a 'derivative' of Persian and Hindi is a derivative of Sanskrit. And that's probably obviously because Hindi was Sanskritized and Urdu Persianized. It's probably a good idea to add a note or at least a sentence explaining that despite being a genetic derivative of Sanskrit, there is a difference between the Sanskritization of Hindi and the genetic relationship between Hindi and Sanskrit.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hindi is not a "derivative" of Sanskrit, it is a Sanskritized derivative of Hindustani, just like Urdu is a Persianized and Arabized derivative of Hindustani, it is a well established fact. The myth you are talking about seems to be subjective. Shimlaites (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but you must be joking. Hindustani (both Hindi & Urdu) being an Indo-Aryan language is a genetic derivative of Sanskrit, unless you're telling me you're willing to rewrite history.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have a point. In a language like French we talk about native French words (like sûre from Latin securus) which are derived organically from Latin, and borrowings from Latin (like sécurité). Normally this distinction would be made quite clear, under the Vocabulary section. However, the notion of tatsam, which we have due to use of the traditional vocabulary groupings, groups together words like naam which are native to Hindi but simply didn't change, and words like praapt, which are borrowings from Sanskrit. So if what you mean is that you want to make it clearer that there are native words in Hindi inherited from Sanskrit, versus borrowings from Sanskrit, then you make the clarification stronger in the Vocabulary section. This fact probably doesn't need to go in the lead. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 21:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not "joking", there is a series of derivation here and as per that Hindi(and Urdu) derived from Hindustani. Sanskrit is a distant predecessor for both of them. Shimlaites (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd understood that Sanskrit was a standardized form of Old Indo-Aryan, while Hindustani descended from Old Indo-Aryan as spoken by the masses. If so, that would make Sanskrit an aunt, not an ancestor, of Hindustani. Largoplazo (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"Old Indo-Aryan" is really just Vedic Sanskrit. (i.e. Pre-Panini Sanskrit, no formal grammar) Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 17:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

- plz add more information regarding Persian in Hindi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.168.221 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hindi is a form of Hindustani, not a "derivative" of it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support needed

The following statement in the article needs either a reputable supporting reference or should be removed. By the 10th century A.D., it became stable. Braj Bhasha, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Khari Boli etc. are the dialects of Hindi. Proof that it became 'stable and that Braj Bhasha, Bhojpuri, Awadhi are dialects of Hindi need to be supported. This sentence occurs under the Section History --செல்வா (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Can someone look into my comment and take required action please?--செல்வா (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Anyone who finds a source can re-add it. --regentspark (comment) 21:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm about to add a significant section and would like to summarize edits first

I was assigned to edit a wikipedia article for a course and chose this one. I am new to wikipedia editing, so please bear with me. I am adding a grammar section, because the article did not have one before. I talk about personal pronouns, adjectives, a few tenses, the cases, and some syntactic rules. However, the section is not complete because that would be outside the scope of this project, so I would greatly appreciate anyone adding to it! Also, any feedback is very welcome, as this is my first time editing an article (however, because of that please be forgiving!). Thank you! Shalineem (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Figures for Hindi

Stop adding the figures for Hindustani or Urdu on the page, it is a page of the Hindi language not Hindustani or Urdu. Their is a link provided for them on the page in the 'see also' section. Don't make it confusing for the readers by adding figures for Hindustani as figures for Hindi. SoniaKovind (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@SoniaKovind: I have reverted your edit, you need to obtain consensus for the change, also, what you have done is misleading the readers as the figures are jointly given for Hindi, Hindustani and Urdu, not only Hindi. Modern scholars consider both to be one language, or at best, 2 variants of a langauge Thapa 75 (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thapa 75 Please read the discussions from the past many years. This article is about Modern Standard Hindi, that's it, not Hindustani language. —SpacemanSpiff 08:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thapa 75: Do not blindly revert without checking the history, these figures for other languages were added here without any discussion in the first place, the page has been restored to the original version. Once reverted its the duty of the other user to join here and discuss his changes, not revert them back. Do not revert till the discussion is over.

Hindi, Hindustani and Urdu are identified as different language. Like slavic languages, which sound similar but are categoried differently. This is a page for HINDI, not HINDUSTANI. No need to add figures for other languages on the page, leading to a confusion. SoniaKovind (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor SoniaKovind: Your edit summary also indicates to me that you have little knowledge of the subject. And because there is no such article on Wikipedia as "Hindi grammar" it just links to Hindustani grammar, which you yourself insisted putting in the article, indicates you are contradicting your own statements the two are different.

If Hindi and Hindustani are two different languages as you claim, you wouldn't be inserting the link to the Hindustani in the see also section. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the subject before editing it again. I will give you a day to explain your reverts, otherwise I will have to insist on restoring it again. Note that what you removed was sourced to a university publication which falls under WP:RS.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@NadirAli: You seem to be unaware of how Wikipedia works and what a languages is, the fact that you can't differentiate between Hindi and Hindustani, when their is a clear description of both of them on Wikipedia. It is the page for Hindi, which is clearly mentioned as the fourth most spoken first language independently, Urdu is mentioned on the same list separately. Is it a page about Urdu? No. Is it a page about Hindustani? No. Do you even know what language is and what a dialect is? Hindi is a proper, standardised, separate language. What was your reason to deleted well-sourced information only to add confusing stats and POVs about another language? SoniaKovind (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor SoniaKovind: yes I do know. You have still not provided evidence for your claims nor any sources. The article on Urdu also has mention of Hindi, the article on Hindustani mentions both. Hindi is a register of a language not a language in itself. And if you're going to put the number of speakers, a mention does need to be added that when it's independently covered from Urdu it's the fourth spoken as a register. Technically Hindustani is the third most spoken language, not fourth. You also failed to explain why you put a link in the see also section when you yourself insist it's not the same language. Hindi by definition is not a language, it's a register of the Hindustani language. If you actually came to Wikipedia a week ago, then you'll need to familiarize yourself with policies; especially with regard to reliable sources.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor NadirAli: So is Braj a register of Hindustani too? And Kannauji? Awadhi? Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 00:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're confusing Hindi with Hindi languages--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

now hindi is most spoken language in the world by 2017

Now hindi is most spoken language in the world and second most spoken language is now mandarin which is a china's language from 2017 Gurmeet grewal (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

So please edit it Gurmeet grewal (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done here either. See why at Talk:List of languages by number of native speakers#please change the ranks by 2017. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Indo-Germanic"

Indo-Germanic is an obsolete term, common a century ago, and once favoured by German scholars in the form indogermanisch. It disappeared from common use decades ago. Koro Neil (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of dialects

IMO we should list the "languages" that some linguists list as dialects. E.g. Braj and Awadhi are mutually intelligible to a degree with Hindi. I'll do some changes when I'm on a computer. Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 00:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

196.207.125.2 (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Grammar section

I'm removing this since all of this is covered in Hindustani grammar. Perhaps Sanskritised constructions deserve a mention here, since they are specific to MSH and not Urdu. Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 21:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

ENGLISH FOR A PERIOD OF 15 YEARS...TIME HAS LONG PAST So, Hindi is the official language of India, and documents should use the Hindi language.--213.60.237.52 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2017

Hi. Please change the map in the infobox to this one. This image is better representative of where Hindi is the official language while the one currently used in the infobox only shows the natively spoken range. Standard Hindi is the official language in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh states but the map doesn't show that. 2400:6180:100:D0:0:0:3A1:E001 (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer the edit request (I'll leave it to somebody else) because it is a content issue (rather than simply fixing a mistake) and I have an opinion about it. I oppose this suggested change. "Official language" status is a political consideration; where it is natively spoken is of more interest from a linguistic/sociological/academic (i.e. "encyclopedic") perspective. I think the current map is better.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response William Thweatt. I requested this because other language articles (Urdu, French, Russian, Indonesian etc.) almost always show a map of countries/regions where it is the official language and the native region is in the "Native to" section of the infobox. I believe the current map doesn't do it justice since Hindi is the lingua franca of the Hindi Belt and is the medium of instruction in all of those states. How about we have two images? One that shows the native range and one that shows the states where it is official. A second map (and capition) can be added using |map2 and |mapcaption2. I feel this would be much more accurate. Thanks. 2400:6180:100:D0:0:0:3A1:E001 (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: The proposed map is not verifiable to the sources given. The area in dark gray in the existing map corresponds closely to the alternative map's source labeled as the area where the "Indic Branch of the Indo-European language family" is spoken. The available sources do not specify the official status of the Hindi language in that area. If a better source and alternative map are found, then they can be added as a map2. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I definitely won't override Eggishorn and William Thweatt, but I think the proposed map would be an improvement. The current one is rather strange, and is more of a "where did Hindi originate" map, not a map of where it is currently spoken as the main language. A comparison would be a map of English having only England (or even only SE England) in red with the rest of the UK, the US, Canada, Australia etc. in grey. Again, I won't make the change but I think it merits a discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• The current map does seem a bit on the odd side. It appears to be for Hindustani rather than Hindi, and focusing only on the region where it (Hindustani) developed. Perhaps it is a leftover from the Standard Hindi/Hindi days. @Kwamikagami:.--regentspark (comment) 15:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @RegentsPark: It's the Khariboli heartland, so it's where Hindustani, Modern Standard Urdu, and Modern Standard Hindi all developed from. It's definitely too confined though. Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 01:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Neither map is of particular use here, the one included is very dated and is focused on the development of Western Hindi, it's clearly not a representation of the 260m native population for the language. The proposed map on the other hand is not for this article but Hindustani language. —SpacemanSpiff 16:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @SpacemanSpiff: No, that map doesn't include any Urdu speaking regions, it can't be used for the Hindustani article. And what do you mean by "Western Hindi"? There are other dialects of Western Hindi besides Khari Boli, the basis of Modern Standard Hindi (the topic of this article). IMO the current map is far too restrictive and this suggested map is more accurate. Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 01:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As it would seem that we all agree that the current map is inaccurate, and very much understate the extent of Hindi as a first language, I am removing it. Not replacing it with any other map yet, as there does not seem to be a consensus on which new map we should use. Jeppiz (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly added File:Indian-languages-map.jpg as Map and File:Language region maps of India.svg as Map2, which are probably more likely to be what is needed according to the original edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Sorry, I undid your edit. Now the maps use too broad a definition of Hindi, subsuming Rajasthani, Chhattisgarhi, all the lects in Uttar Pradesh, etc. I think it's best to leave it mapless for now. Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 22:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I really like this map, which shows the broad and narrow definitions of Hindi/Hindustani. Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 22:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's where this discussion started. It didn't seem like it showed what the IP editor was asking before and still doesn't now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: I'm the one that originally made the edit request. (My IP keeps changing) I'd say that the second map Eggishorn added wasn't that bad but the caption was definitely wrong. I think it is important we have at least one map showing where Standard Hindi is the official language although it may not accurately represent the native/historical range. Maybe we should switch the caption used on File:Language region maps of India.svg from "States and union territories of India by the most commonly spoken first language" to something like "States and union territories of India by the most commonly spoken official language"? Any ideas? 2400:6180:100:D0:0:0:1521:F001 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@2400:6180:100:D0:0:0:1521:F001: The fact is though, in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand, etc. people don't speak Modern Standard Hindi (MSH hereon). They speak (emphasis on speak) a regional Hindi belt language, like Rajasthani, Chhattisgarhi, Bihari. I think if we intend to treat MSH in this article we should have a dark-shaded region in Delhi and some parts of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana as the MSH heartland, and a lighter shade throughout the regions where MSH is the prestige dialect but may not actually be spoken that much. Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 22:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hindi Medium (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

urja patteya kya hai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2019:C46E:D406:FDFE:7B3E:744E (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2018

No mention of the number of Hindi speakers in Canada is made; Canadian Census data indicates Hindi speakers at over 100,000 people; (this information is actually available in another wikipedia page) 45.72.209.45 (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Wikipedia is not a reliable source as it it WP:SELFSOURCED, please provide reliable sources for the numbers — IVORK _Discuss 01:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hindi is a dialect of Urdu

Fruitless discussion wandering into disruptive territory.--regentspark (comment) 16:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add that Hindi is a dialect of Urdu because, Hindi is a old name of Urdu language. Mtbltwimtblttph (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC) Please give sources. — kashmīrī TALK 11:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC) dear, Kashmiri i have a reliable source for this See Mirza Khalil Ahmad Baig's book Ek Bhasa Jo Mustarad kar Di Gai ایک بھاشا جو مسترد کر دی گئی. you can also find this source on Urdu Wikipedia link: ہندی زبان. - Mtbltwimtblttph (talk) 7:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC) You should wait for others to respond. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC) dear, Mtbltwimtblttph you are right Hindi is a dialect of Urdu i read Ek Bhasha Jo Mustarad Kar Di Gayi. you have good source. - Waking Developer (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC) thank you. - Mtbltwimtblttph (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC) August 2019 Please add, that Hindi was made from Urdu in the early 19th century. Under the psychological policy of 'dividing and ruling', the Hindi language came into existence by removing Urdu-Persian words from Urdu and replacing them with Sanskrit words. The word Hindi is one of the old names of the Urdu. Mtbltwimtblttph (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC) That would need reliable sources and then consensus. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Sir, please give me reliable sources. - Mtbltwimtblttph (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC) The WP:BURDEN for providing reliable sources is on the person adding material - in other words you need to provide reliable sources for the claims you want to add, not anyone else. On the substance of what you want to add: this seems like a minority view that will be very hard to adequately source. In particular, it seems unlikely that the claim that Hindi originated in the early 19th, century will stand, given the article already gives examples of Hindi in use as far back as the 12th. century. Railfan23 (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC) As Railfan23 has said, what Mtbltwimtblttph is trying to prove is WP:FRINGE. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC) i am not trying to prove WP:FRINGE. and The Developer is not mine Yes, many people may not know that Hindi is a dialect of Urdu Before down voting read below. many people may not know that Hindi is a dialect of Urdu Before down voting read below. First Urdu was born before Independence then Hindi, hindi is just a different language by script. In mughal and British era people knew devnagari script but not Sanskrita language >> then Urdu became the official language of many states including bihar and others >>> so one language which is unknown spoken by majority of British india was written in Nastaliq script and devnagari script and in 1988 Bihar changed it official language Urdu to Hindi. After Independence because of political agenda people renamed Khadi boli which is a dialect of Urdu to Hindi to connect with Hinduism and to get rid of their past. See some old Hindi movies they had title along with 2 scripts including which were devnagari and Nastaliq People here claim than hindi is dialect of Sanskrita I don't think so because it doesn't fallow the rule of Sanskrit rather than Persian and Arabic. and that's also that Hindi is a Dialect of Urdu - Mtbltwimtblttph (talk) 5:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Yes, Hindi is a dialect of spoken Urdu. However their standard forms can be quite different depending on the amount of Sanskritization for Hindi and Perso-Arabization for Urdu. But their anglicized forms are of course almost the same. in 19th century Hindi was originated with Urdu by Psychological policy of India or British India. - The Power of Aryan (talk) 5:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC) thank you. I am trying to understand the same thing. - Mtbltwimtblttph (talk) 7:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Ek Bhasha Jo Mustarad Kar Di Gai by Mirza Khalil Ahmed Baig Sir, please add that Hindi is a dialect of Urdu, in this book there are many proofs that says 100% Hindi is a dialect of Urdu language. - Mtbltwimtblttph (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC) No. You have been told multiple times that this is not going to happen. Your edits are undone by multiple editors because you have not provided the multiple  independent, published sources that would be needed to overturn the current well-sourced history of Hindi in this article. Your behavior and editing is becoming disruptive and your constant attempts to push a fringe belief is damaging Wikipedia's requirement that articles retain a neutral point of view. I strongly suggest you stop this campaigning across multiple articles before you are blocked from editing. Railfan23 (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)