Talk:Hindi/Archive 5

Language infobox

The language infobox should be moved to Modern Standard Hindi. Maquahuitl^talk! 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What infobox and why? Tuncrypt (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The infobox at Hindi, since 'Hindi' is ambiguous but the infobox is not. kwami (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

we don't have an infobox template for standard languages. The language infobox should be at the article on the language in the widest sense, not the standard language (German language not Standard German or German dialects; Hindi, not Standard Hindi or Hindi dialects). dab (𒁳) 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we need to decide what 'Hindi' means. There is no single definition in the article, and the infobox contradicted itself. kwami (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

why? we should not "decide" anything, we should merely report all notable opinions. Hindi is "the language" of central north India. What exactly is meant by "the language" is the subject of various opinions and definitions, which we need to place alongside one another. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't have the population figures for one thing and the classification, writing system, and official status for something else. We do have to decide something there. kwami (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

the populating figures are given as a wide range, both for "wide" and "narrow" Hindi. We cannot make this simpler than it really is. The article on "Hindi" is on all aspects of "Hindi", that's its entire point. It can state that Standard Hindi is an official language, and it can also state that the Indian census includes a large range of dialects under the name of "Hindi". I don't see the problem (i.e. I can see that it is a problem, but the problem is out there in the real world, it is not our problem). The infobox gives no classification more narrow than "Indo-Aryan", which is obviously correct. This is rather similar to Swiss German, which is given the classification of "Alemannic", but not more narrow, because the term groups dialects paraphylletically. dab (𒁳) 12:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the info box after my previous posting. I'd objected because it had Hindi as a subset of Khariboli, spoken only in India, and written only with nagari, but yet equated it with the 1991 census. kwami (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying soon. I just want to say that these issues are not relevant to what I said. I just said that Modern Standard Hindi as the title of the article goes, has an unambiguous classification. However, this SS-type Hindi article talks of all possible meanings of the term 'Hindi'(it was supposed to anyway) , and therefore having a language infobox doesn't make much sense, and certainly not when you cannot narrow it down beyond "Indo-Aryan" so as to not contradict any of the different definitions. Even if it had been an unambiguous sub-group within Indo-Aryan there would have been a case but it is not even a sub-group.Maquahuitl^talk! 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In the widest sense it is a subgroup of Indic in the infobox. Whether it's a legitimate genealogical node or not depends on which classification you follow, but that's true for a lot of languages. kwami (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps Hindi can have that box as well. But the one on Modern Standard Hindi should have one for sure, since it is anyway more unambiguous than Hindi.Maquahuitl^talk! 08:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I do not understand your point. What does ambiguity does have to do with it? Standard German is also less ambiguous than "German", yet the infobox is at the latter, not the former article. Same for Standard Arabic vs. "Arabic" (a macrolanguage). We do not have an infobox designed for standard languages. dab (𒁳) 14:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry... if there are consistency/convention issues then it's alright. Forget what I said. Maquahuitl^talk! 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

well, I note that Literary Arabic does have an infobox. But I have misgivings about that. We are free to decide to introduce a "standard language" infobox, but it should probably be a template different from {{Infobox Language}}. dab (𒁳) 08:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Merge

It is my opinion that this article should be merged with Hindi because most of the information on this article is applicable to the Hindi article. A section on that article could be used to describe "Modern Standard Hindi," which is the standardized version of the language sponsored by the Government of India. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, until you actually do it. Then the article turns into an absolute mess, because people start fighting over what 'Hindi' means. — kwami (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I too used to support having just 2 articles. But then I realised that the biggest problem that we faced was that of choosing the one to which we would redirect 'Hindi'. I think that the present system is alright. However I don't think that the infobox on the Hindi article makes much sense. Maquahuitl^talk! 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hindi/Standard Hindi/Khariboli/Urdu etc

Request editors of this article to comment on this message:Talk:Hindustani language#Hindi/Standard Hindi/Khariboli/Urdu etc --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Modern"

I assume that the convoluted lead was a result of the long discussion on what to name the article. The choice of "Modern Standard Hindi" seems rather unfortunate, though, since there's no indication that there is any other "Standard Hindi" to disambiguate from. I moved the article and cleaned up the lead since I can't see any indication that the addition of "Modern" is necessary. It's certainly not used in any other article on a standardized form of a language.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

UDHR example is wrong...

According to this page [1] the first sentence should be "सभी मनुष्यों को गौरव और अधिकारों के मामले में जन्मजात स्वतन्त्रता और समानता प्राप्त है।" Please make the appropriate changes. YoshiroShin (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Bill william compton^Talk 13:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete George Weber's estimates

I move to delete the George Weber section. These figures do not correspond to the figures in the article, which is itself seriously suspect. The article was written over a decade ago, so using it as a source for current population figures is in itself a bit dubious. It also has very little discussion of sources, no proper definitions and no recognition of the fuzziness involved in some of the terms used - just a bunch of graphs with some dubious statements and strongly stated opinions (e.g., listing regional languages in the Pacific while ignoring larger ones elsewhere, listing scripts by number of languages - a dubious concept - separating some out with no good reason).

The table here seems to claim that Hindi has 350 million native speakers (a defensible figure, but Weber's was 250 million, also defensible) and then claims it has basically no second language speakers (at least when rounded off to the nearest million), which I can say now is WRONG by any standard. Ethnologue tends to lie on the extreme splitter side of the 'splitter-merger' linguistic spectrum, counting slightly different dialects as entirely different languages (so it would only consider actual Khari Bholi speakers), but at least it's relatively consistent - and determining what Central/Central Eastern Indo-Aryan dialects count as Hindi is very subjective. Harsimaja (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Number of Hindi speakers

It seems like the number of Hindi language speakers are stuck at 180 million since 1991. It is really ridiculous. And I don't know how that figure was reached at. Even in 1991 India had a population of 820 million and about 40% of them speak Hindi. 40% of 820 million will be 328 million. And this year i.e. 2011 India has 1.21 billion people. So 40% of 1.21 billion will be 484 million. But it seems to me that for Wikipedia the no. of Hindi speakers has not increased since 1991. It means this article on Wikipedia is still 20 years behind the real information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.108.90.92 (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "Hindi". Pls read the article. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Stylised Devanagri Font?

The file 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Word_Hindi_in_Devanagari.svg' used for the Hindi panel has italicised and a slightly stylised Devanagri font. I propose it be replaced with a standard Unicode Devanagri font, such as in 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marathi_modi_script.PNG'.Sabre (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

About Hindi's Spilt Ergativity

Reanalysing Hindi Split-Ergativity as a morphological phenomenon (Stefan Keine). Apparently there's a revision about Hindi's Split Ergativity. I thought it would be nice to share. (cf. The Origin of Ergative Case in Indo-Aryan) Komitsuki (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Reads like a case of "this causes problems for my theory, so let's pretend it doesn't exist".

Also, it's not ergativity. It's a fluid-S system in the PFV, so I guess "split fluid-S" might be a more accurate label than "split ergative". — kwami (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The neologism - Standard Hindi

Is there any reliable secondary sources that support this neologism called Standard Hindi created on Wikipedia? If so, they may be listed on the references of the article. Else, the name of the article should be changed to the name Hindi. Moreover, the leed is misleading - Hindi is India's official language. There is no such thing as Standard Hindi defined in the Indian Constitution (which defines India's official language). WP cannot change facts. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Demographics again

Hello Taivo! The new section on demographics that you reverted was a merge from the article List of states and territories of India by number of Hindi speakers that wasnt altogether necessary as a standalone article and could easily be housed here. But i did not understand your edit summary of revert "The India Census counts a different kind of "Hindi" than what we describe here". What different Hindis are you talking about? Even if you are right in whatever you are saying, can't we host this list here in either case? We can always edit and clarify it more. We can also include statistics of Hindi-speaking-population of Nepal, England, Australia, etc. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The census includes all included under Hindi languages not just Standard Hindi that this page deals with. —SpacemanSpiff 18:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So should the list be placed at "Hindi languages"? (I seriously did not know that these are two different articles. Always thought that it redirects here.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff is correct. The Census of India lists a lot of languages that are not Hindi proper as "Hindi" for purposes of the census. --Taivo (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The census reflects that page more than this and given the structure of that article I think census data will fit in there; I also think a more suitable hatnote is required to highlight Hindi languages and not just the disambiguation page where the article is a bit hidden. —SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Moved to Hindi_languages#Demographics. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't belong there either. You'll notice the census counts Bihari, Pahari, and Rajasthani, none of which are included as "Hindi languages". They are, however, counted under varieties of Hindi, where the census numbers are already noted. Stupid article titles, I know: suggestions are welcome. — kwami (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh Gawd!!! Merge all these articles in one first. How are people even able to make out differences if they are written on different articles? One would land on one page and think this is all to know about Hindi and leave. I am not moving that table anymore. Now just for info, States of india by hindi speakers and List of states and territories of India by number of Hindi speakers redirect to wrong articles as of now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you might have a suggestion. THIS article is Hindi in a strictly linguistic sense. The Census of India sense of Hindi is different and based on political and regional definitions. It is unfortunate that the definitions are quite different. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and scientifically based, we rely on the linguistic definition and not the political definition. That's the fundamental point of kwami's post, that the political definition of "Hindi" doesn't match any permutation of actual, scientific, linguistic fact. --Taivo (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the solution is to move the article back to Modern Standard Hindi, in line with other Dachsprache. — kwami (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be more accurate if this article's title would be more specific like that. --JorisvS (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hindi/Archive_4#Requested_move_2012. There are good reasons why the article is at Hindi. --regentspark (comment) 13:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear all

I would respectfully submit that we use the official census figures. I hear you on the issue of standard Hindi versus the broad 'political' definition but like Arabic, the broad definition is not irrelevant. We need to have both sets of numbers. When people come to visit Wikipedia, they need to have both numbers in one page - quick information on ones finger tips. The Spanish spoken by grass roots communities around the world is not entirely standadized either. Dipendra2007 (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussion. The Census of India uses a definition of "Hindi" that does not match an accurate linguistic definition of Hindi. --Taivo (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Taivo

You are introducing a subjective view of what is an 'accurate linguistic definition' and what is not. In effect you are saying that the Census of India is wrong and that ethnologue is correct. You are introducing your PoV - which is fine but both sides need to be represented. I did read the previous discussion and what I take from it is that it appears to dismiss without consideration the valid concerns raised by several i.e. that the census of India figures can not be entirely dismissed.

Yours truly, Dmitri Paxinou (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If you care to read the census figures, you'll discover that this "Hindi" is incoherent, and that you're at the wrong article. This article is about Khariboli Hindi, which the Indian census does not address. The census counts people who call their language "Hindi", which has little to do with which language they actually speak. The census acknowledges this by placing numerous language responses under the Hindi rubric. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Kwami is absolutely right. The definition of "Hindi" by the Census of India is not the definition of "Hindi" in this article. Do not place Census of India numbers here because they are inaccurate measures of what we consider Hindi to include in this article. --Taivo (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Kwami and Taivo

The title of the article is not Khariboli Hindi. If you say that this article is about Khariboli, lets then change the title. Can you please provide a footnote, besides ethnologue, to prove that the census of India misclassifies people who speak Hindi although they speak another language? If correct, this is a serious allegation. All I am arguing is the need to provide both sets of numbers - ethnologue and the census of India. If the census is political as you say it is, then ethnologue represents a western anthropoligical and linguistic view that reflects its own ideological baggage. Please do not dismiss the census entirely as a concoction. The alternative would be to change the title of this Wikipedia article. Yours truly. Dmitri Paxinou (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

An "anthropological and linguistic view" is precisely what Wikipedia requires in these articles. We do not list L2 speakers here. The problem is that the definition of "Hindi" in the Census of India is politically motivated in order to list all L1, L2, etc. speakers. The name is also quite loosely interpreted in the CI. In the linguistic sense, "Hindi" does not include speakers of all the relatively closely related languages of the Ganges plain, they are all separate languages and separately listed. The CI, however, lumps all these languages together and calls them "Hindi". That's the problem that you don't seem to understand. That's why we use a linguistic survey source that we know does not group all these languages together under an inappropriate label. --Taivo (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Taivo

I am not sure whether you can say that the Census is politically motivated. Is that the Wikipedia position? If so, its a loaded statement to make. I am not sure whether Ethnologue is that impartial as you claim. Who determines whether Arabic is one language or many dialect groups? Who determines whether Chinese is one language or many dialect groups? How do we proceed? I think Dmitri's suggestion to have both sets of data is a good compromise. The discussion page indicates that this issue has been pending for a while now and not resolved yet. Do we place a tag that the material under this page is disputed? Dipendra2007 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a confusion here about what is "Hindi". If I understand this correctly, Taivo and Kwami are arguing that there is a Hindi that is syntactically and semantically well defined. I assume that this is the version of Hind that is taught in schools and colleges. Then there are different versions, dialects if you will, of Hindi that are spoken all over Northern India that are not well defined in the same sense as the school Hindi, and that the census of India is classifying any speaker of any of these dialects in the Hindi category and that this classification is incorrect. Dipendra2007, on the other hand, is arguing that we should accept whatever definition the census of India uses because that gives us the official numbers. Is this a reasonable précis? BTW, I'm going to post a note on WT:IN because this issue needs to be resolved one way or the other and we should get more eyes on this. --regentspark (comment) 14:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Regents Park, You have understood both positions accurately. The census statistics is not irrelevant and needs to be alluded to along with the Ethnologue figures as a commentator above argues. This issue has been pending for at least six months and has not been resolved. It appears that the views of one set of editors has been over riden by another set. We need consensus language that includes both sources of information. This article is currently disputed. Best regards. Dipendra2007 (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a little more subtle than that, Regents. The things that the Census of India considers to be "Hindi" are not just dialects, but languages in the formal sense and are listed separately in Ethnologue. I would post a link to the Ethnologue node that the CI considers to be "Hindi", but even that would not be accurate since the CI definition of "Hindi" even crosses between subgroup nodes of Indo-Aryan and includes a rather eclectic mix of forms, all of which are linguistically considered to be languages, but are considered by CI to be "Hindi". The CI definition of Hindi is neither scientific nor based on any objective measurement of what constitutes a language. It is a political/ethnic/historical mix of languages and divergent dialects that bolsters a political narrative. --Taivo (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes things clearer, thanks. So what we have then is a census of India view that clumps various languages under Hindi and a linguistic view that unclumps the languages. I don't disagree that the number of Hindi speakers is likely a politicized subject (the entire history of Hindi is political) but, oddly enough, this discussion does lead me to wonder if there is anyone whose mother tongue is Hindi? Wouldn't the mother tongue be Haryanvi or Bhojpuri or some such thing? --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Regents Park, there is a degree of intellectual dishonesty here. The 2001 census figures given on this page i.s. 258 million is inaccurate. If we quote the 2001 census figures, lets quote the correct one - i.e. 422 million. Just look at the link provided by the census - no where is the number 258 million provided. Best regardsDipendra2007 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand what has been said above. Is that unintended or actually on purpose? --JorisvS (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Regents, there is, indeed, a Hindi language as described in this article, but the CI lumps it together with a lot of languages that are not Hindi and calls the whole stew "Hindi". --Taivo (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I know there is a Hindi language. Just wondering if it is anyone's mother tongue. Anyway, looks like Dipendra2007 has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts so perhaps this whole discussion is moot anyway. --regentspark (comment) 01:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's the same language as Urdu. Where the boundary is exactly is to some extent a matter of opinion, but the infobox map shows the native area according to one RS.

This isn't really the fault of the census. Censuses all have the problem that they rely on what people report as their language. One Awadhi speaker may report that their language is "Awadhi", and another that it's "Hindi". They will then be counted as speaking different languages, but the census can hardly be faulted for that. The census addresses this problem by listing all the language that speakers sometimes self-report as Hindi under the Hindi subheading. The only two numbers for Hindi that you get out of that is the number of people who consider their language to be Hindi (or at least tell the census that) and the total number of speakers of the languages/dialects that are spoken by people, some of whom report that they speak Hindi. — kwami (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The only really accurate means of counting speakers is for a linguist to go in and listen to what people are actually speaking and to conduct more sophisticated surveys rather than just "What language do you speak?" Survey questions such as "What is you word for 'dog'?" (if 'dog' is diagnostic for language in that area) are far more revealing. I worked on Timbisha for my dissertation, but all the speakers of Timbisha will tell you that they speak "Shoshoni" (which they don't). --Taivo (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Taivo is relying on one data source that is 22 years old - Ethnologue. It is unreliable. This dispute needs to be resolved. WarunaNugawela (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The "dispute" was never a dispute Dipendra2007 (you don't fool anyone with your WarunaNugawela user sockpuppet), the actual linguists here have a very clear consensus that the numbers in Ethnologue are linguistically superior to the numbers in the Census of India and the the CI numbers are not based on reliable linguistic science. --Taivo (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Taivo - do not talk nonsense! This has been a dispute for a long time. Look at the log of past edits and look at the earlier comments. Focus on the issue - Ethnologue is 22 years old! The Census of India 2001 which you cite gives one number and you give another number while still dishonestly citing that source. The issue of the number of Hindi speakers has been challenged in earlier comments by others and the reversions have been going on for a while if one were to look at the log of edits. Ethnologue is a western anthropological cultural exercise. It is outdated. Is Italian one language? Is Arabic one language? Is Chinese one language? Yours is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Last point you intolerant person - I ain't Dipendra2007. Prove it or otherwise just hold your peace!!!! Otherwise focus on the issues instead of your gang deliberately underplaying the number of Hindi speakers as part of your own agenda and sidetracking the issue!WarunaNugawela (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You are a sockpuppet of User:Dipendra2007, the evidence is pretty conclusive. You didn't exist until Dipendra2007 was banned, your arguments and edits are identical. If you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, and look like a duck, you're a duck. On the issue, you don't know what you are talking about and refuse to listen to the linguists here who actually do know what they are talking about. The Census of India doesn't know how to conduct a proper linguistic survey and never has. It has no scientific definition of the term "Hindi". We have explained this to you over and over and over again, but you refuse to understand or simply don't have enough knowledge of actual linguistic science to understand. Either way, you are editing against linguistic consensus. This has not been a contentious issue until your puppet master Dipendra2007 started pushing this again. --Taivo (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep diverting the issue with your tactics. A sock puppet will be blocked. I have not been blocked and will not be blocked. I ain't Dipendra but that does not matter. You self-proclaimed linguists impose your PoV when this issue has been debated and debated but you refuse to concede. Every other website, including Britannica, provides a different set of numbers that you do. Further, you are dishonest - you cite the Census of India in a footnote but do not provide the number that it provides!!! This is a deliberate, political attempt to under enumerate the number of Hindi speakers without addressing the points raised by others. This has been disputed for a long time - not just in the comments section but in the repeated reverts. Continue lying, Taivo - you ain't a linguist but a political puppeteer.WarunaNugawela (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that articles about languages are the special domain of linguists. That's our field and we are the experts. We actually know which sources are good, reliably scientific sources and which are not. You claim that there has been debate, but you are counting yourself and all Dipendra's other sockpuppets. That's just one voice, not multiple voices. --Taivo (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Alphabet

There's little discussion on alphabet in this page: it states Hindi is written in the Devanagari alphabet. I do not think it's as clear cut as that. I was confused recently when asked to add translations in Hindi written in the Roman alphabet to a project I was working on, so I did some research. I gather the choice of alphabet is not as clear cut as this Wikipedia page suggests, and Roman and other alphabets are in use as well. I have been told most Hindi readers can read it in Roman. I'm confused.

Should this page be updated to show this variance of alphabet? Or at least touch on the discussion and indicate why it's a sensitive issue (since I see Wikipedia black-listed the reference I was about to give).

Andy Henson 82.152.115.137 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hindi is a weird language, because it's practically defined by its alphabet. If you write it in Persian, people will deny that it is Hindi, despite being otherwise identical.

Many languages using non-Latin scripts are written in Latin as well. I don't know if we have an understanding on whether or when to include that in the info box. (We have Latin listed for Chinese, but then the Chinese military uses it for telegraphy.) — kwami (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If english were to be written in Chinese script, there are a lot of English speakers who would claim it is not English (despite it being the same language. That would not make English a weird language. So why is Hindi more weird for being written in its own traditional script? 57.250.245.249 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Shwela (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand why Hindi is a "weird" language. Pardon my ignorance, since I don't have a good knowledge about Persian language, but your two statements: "If you write Hindi in Persian, people will deny that it is Hindi, despite being otherwise identical." and "If English were to be written in Chinese script, there are a lot of English speakers who would claim it is not English" tells me the same thing that if a particular language is written in some other language's format/alphabet, it would probably not be called the same language. I believe if you write English in German (though they share the same script, the rules and grammar are applied differently to both the languages), it will still not be called English.

However, when you write Hindi in Persian versus Devangari, you DON'T change the rules and the grammar--that's the point. It's simply changing the symbols. English in modern German script is a meaningless description, because English and modern German use the same symbols (less an umlaut or three), but writing the exact same sounds using the exact same grammar in a different alphabet changes Hindi into Urdu (or vice versa). 165.201.138.25 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hindi and urdu

I noticed that there were a series of reverts between two versions of a sentence:

In their colloquial forms, the two languages are nearly indistinguishable.

and

In their colloquial language the two communities are nearly indistinguishable.

Can the editors (Foreverknowledge and Kwamikagami) discuss the issue here instead and clarify what they intend the sentence to say ? The former is a claim about the languages (although 'indistinguishable', as opposed to mutually intelligible, may be pushing it too far), while the latter appears to be a (weirdly phrased) claim about the communities. Also, it would be good to have a source for the claims in either form. Abecedare (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I misread that. Foreverknowledge is right, but 'varieties' would be better, since we just said they're the same language.

Also, he left a quote on my page that we could profitable use. Does anyone have the ref?

Hindostani is primarily the language of the Upper Gangetic Doab, and is also the lingua franca of India, capable of being written in both Persian and Deva-Nagari characters, and without purism, avoiding alike the excessive use of either Persian or Sanskrit words when employed for literature. The name Urdu can then be confined to that special variety of Hindostani in which Persian words are of frequent occurrence. . . . and similarly, Hindi can be confined to the form of Hindostani in which Sanskrit words abound.

— kwami (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I listed the reference on your talk page. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

fa or pha

one of my friend told me that hindi haven't fa sound but pha. but I realize fa sound in words fool and fal etc. what's the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.63.143.29 (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Modern Hindi has both pha & fa sound & Devanagari (script to write modern Hindi) has alphabet denotion for them too,

• Pha - फ

e.g. फूल i.e. flower, bloom, garden stuff

• Fa - फ़ (note that this is pha & a dot under it)

e.g. फ़ालतू i.e. excess, extra, supernumerary, superfluous, spare, needless

The examples you have given i.e. fool & fal are wrong pronounciations of words फूल i.e. flower & फल i.e. fruit, many native speakers of Hindi especially of eastern dialects pronounce alphabets differently (wrongly, if you consider standard pronounciations), also, some time they pronounce different sounds in same manner e.g. Sha & sa both as sa.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Some Hindi Phrases With Pronunciation And Meanings

If you wanted to say "What's that?" in Hindi, You would say, "Vō kyā hai?" (वो क्या है?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKingImperiatus (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, however that is not what this article is about. There is no context for a phrase list. Also, all content must be cited to some scholarly work on the subject, like an actual phrasebook. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, Wikipedia is not the place for phrasebooks, and they should typically be moved to Wiktionary. --JorisvS (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hindi image

The image for spelling Hindi at [2] was changed with the caption: "better font, standard spelling". The standard spelling is indeed हिन्दी and not what it is now in the image. The same can be referenced in the article Hindi or the any number of sites: bbc, [हिन्दी site:www.jagran.com dainik jagran (Hindi daily)] dainik jagran (Hindi daily) . Hence I am reverting the image. A new image can be updated for font change, but not for the spelling.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Both spellings are correct, but it's not worth having an img if it doesn't display correctly, so I reverted to the correct formatting. Feel free to change the spelling, though. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by not displaying correctly? Please let me know so I can modify the image.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The consonants don't link together as they should.

Also, check out the BBC page again: सोशल मीडिया पर बीबीसी हिंदी (BBC Hindi social media), बीबीसी हिंदी रेडियो (BBC Hindi radio), etc. And Hindi Wikipedia has article titles like hi:हिंदी स्वरविज्ञान (Hindi phonology). In their Hindi article, they start with हिन्दी, but then start mixing in हिंदी indiscriminately. And while dainik jagran returns 15k hits for हिन्दी, it returns 50k – three times as many – for हिंदी.[3] This is like the difference between algae and algæ: it's just stylistic. — kwami (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't check the jagran search for हिंदी. I will leave the image as it is and try my best to contact a hindi teacher :)--Cubancigar11 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Language family classification

For Hindi's language family, shouldn't Kari Boli be located above Hindustani in the chronology, since Hindustani is based on Kari Boli? In other words, it should be Khari Boli -> Hindustani -> Hindi. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Standard Hindustani is Kari Boli dialect, but it seems there are other Hindustani dialects as well: Kauravi and Dakhini. Though I'm not sure Dakhini is actually Urdu (and thus Hindustani) as it's usually claimed to be. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. However, if there are other dialects of Hindustani besides Khariboli, they should be listed in the 'Hindustani' article too, but to my recollection there is nothing. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It was on the Hindustani article that I found those three, which I put there some time ago after coming across them in the lit. It's rather difficult to find consistent definitions of Indian languages, though, presumably at least partly because there are so few objective distinctions. — kwami (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Khariboli should be above Hindustani, Hindustani originated out of Khariboli. The wikipedia pages of Hindi, Urdu, Hindustani, Khariboli is spreading wrong information by not putting Khariboli above Hindustani. I am a native Hindi speaker. Ashok4himself (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Population for Hindi

You kept claiming it's the wrong Hindi then explain why Hindi in List of languages by number of native speakers directly link to this article? Plus where is your evidence to say it's the wrong Hindi?75.168.189.114 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You would understand if you had actually read the entry you're citing. It says, "includes approx. 100 million speakers of other Hindi languages". This is because the figure comes from the Indian census, which does not record which languages people speak, but rather what they call the languages they speak. The majority of Awadhi speakers, for example, call their language "Hindi". But Awadhi is not part of Modern Standard Hindi, which is the topic of this article, so it is wrong to count them here. This has been discussed many, many, many times. Unfortunately, the data on Indian languages is quite poor. The figure we have is the best anyone has been able to discover. — kwami (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

still i don't understand where you have this from: "As of 2009, the best figure Ethnologue could find for speakers of actual Hindustani Hindi was 180 million in 1991.[1] In the 2001 Indian census, 258 million (258,000,000) people in India reported Hindi to be their native language,[6] which also includes people who identify as native speakers of related languages who consider their speech to be a dialect of Hindi, the Hindi belt." it is as silly as my red hat.... would you correct your numbers, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.210.83.158 (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the person whether he likes or dislikes a particular language. Statistician job is to report numbers.For example in US Census report American English is counted as English and Mexican Spanish or Spanish Creole is counted as Spanish. The largest numeric increase was for Spanish speakers. The languages that declined in use since 1980 includes Italian, German, Polish etc. Now you can easily guess that pro- Spanish language person will love this census report while others will not like it. Similarly there are lot of people avoiding and are in denial mode to use India Census numbers from 2001. You know 'Senyorita Bade Bade Desho Main...' PradeepBoston (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Multiple Issues on this page

1) The page Hindi is getting redirect from Hindi language, Modern Standard Hindi, Hindi. Do you know the difference ? What is your suggestion for putting articles about all 3 topics in same page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PradeepBoston (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

2) The Hindi Language map does not even exist on this page. Hindustani maps and photos are used. Ethnologue https://www.ethnologue.com/map/IN_xx has better map on Hindi.

3) The words "Modern Standard Hindi" only appears only 4 times in the article. The word "Hindi" appears 152 times in the article. Which Hindi are we talking about ?

4) Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Hindi . There are hundreds of Wiki pages which are pointing to Hindi page. There is not much information about it.

5) This page is not general page like Arabic or Chinese language. Any issue in keeping it general high level page on Hindi ?

PradeepBoston (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, Hindi as defined by the GoI isn't Modern Standard Hindi as Modern Standard Hindi isn't recognized as an official language of India while Hindi is. The term Modern Standard Hindi is only used by some linguistics and it only includes a portion of what is traditionally considered Hindi. Modern Standard Hindi should break off as a separate article while this article should be the one for Hindi as defined by the GoI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filpro (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I also see ethnic terms like Hindustani, Bihari used to describe Hindi languages. Someone is still referring to text books published in British Raj and doing copy+paste materials from old books. The new terms for Hindustani and Bihari are Hindi, Bhojpuri. The Hindustani and Bihari are also slang term which may offend some person from the regions. PradeepBoston (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On side fun note, people using terms like 'Modern Standard Hindi' are Professor Parimal Tripathi (Dharmendra) of 1975 movie Chupke Chupke. For common person Modern Hindi is spoken in college campus and Bollywood with heavy vocabulary from English, Punjabi, Urdu and other Indian languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PradeepBoston (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure 180 million (1991) Modern Standard Hindi native speakers don't live in the tiny red highlighted area in the map in the infobox. This is the Hindi article and should include what is considered Hindi by the GoI and there should be separate articles for the different languages/terms/dialects.Filpro (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not even quote 15 years old Census of India numbers of 2001. If you do the whole article will be revert by Language Warriors (see history). You can write up other materials without touching numbers. For fun you can read Spanish (more than census speakers), Chinese and Arabic estimates which are not based on census.PradeepBoston (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, something should be done.Filpro (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

For now I think we should work on arranging sections with Chinese, Arabic and Spanish pages as example. Number is not a big deal as it gets vandalized on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PradeepBoston (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Re the above:

• This article is about Modern Standard Hindi, as stated in the lead. If you want to create an article about some other kind of Hindi, go ahead. If you want this page moved to a different name, make a move request.
• No idea what "the Gol" is. Please link or define.
• It is possible that the area of the map and the cited population do not match. But we can only go by our sources.
• If you have better population data, please provide. I agree it's ridiculous that we don't have more recent data for such an important language, but we haven't been able to find anything. I'm not aware of the Indian govt having anything either, but let us know if you find they do.
• Hindustani and Bihari are not the same as Hindi and Bhojpuri. Bhojpuri is just one of the Bihari languages. "Bihari" tends to be used when they are considered a dialect of Hindi. Hindustani is just one of the Hindi languages, what was historically known as Urdu. Since few people will accept calling the basis of the national language of India "Urdu", "Hindustani" is probably the best choice.

There have been many discussions on all of these points. Personally, I really don't like having this article at "Hindi", but my POV was defeated at the last move request. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the GoI is the Government of India. I believe we should create another move request and see what are the current relevant arguments against us as this (Modern Standard Hindi) is not the official language of India and is misleading readers into believing so. Filpro (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What is your evidence that it is not the official language of India? Moving it to another name won't change that statement. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.censusindia.gov.in/%28S%282scoev45b4mhlg45mz5jq345%29%29/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.aspx

The scheduled language of Hindi (one of the 22 official regional languages and the main official language of India) had a total native speaking population of 422 million in 2001, this is definitely not Modern Standard Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filpro (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

How is that relevant? The language that people report speaking has nothing to do with whether it's official. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that only 257 million listed Hindi (even more than Modern Standard Hindi) as their mother tongue but the GoI themselves grouped the other Hindi languages/variants under Hindi which is #6 of 22, which is the official language of India.Filpro (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So, you're saying that Awadhi is the official language of India? Because that figure of 257M includes the majority of Awadhi speakers. (That's why the GoI lumped those varieties together: there are varieties for which a significant number of native speakers called them "Hindi", but others reported them as distinct languages. There is therefore no way to determine from the census the number of Manak Hindi speakers by excluding varieties like Awadhi.)

One problem with simply saying that "Hindi" is the official language of India is that Urdu is a variety of Hindi, but Urdu is not the official language of India. In practice, the official language is not Urdu-Awadhi-Chhattisghari, or Rajasthani-Pahari-Bihari (all of which are "Hindi"), but Sanskritized Hindustani written in Nagari, while the official language of Pakistan in Persianized Hindustani written in Arabic. If we use broad definitions, then Hindi is the official language of Pakistan and Urdu is the official language of India, as they're just different names for the same thing. — kwami (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

'Modern Standard Hindi' is also part of Hindustani wiki page. User:Kwamikagami can maintain such definitions there.PradeepBoston (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitions need to be maintained at the relevant article. "India" is defined at Pakistan, but that doesn't mean we don't need to define it at India as well. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not find definition of "India" on Pakistan page. Can you put it there? :D It is making sense to me why this page and History of Hindi has become History of Hindustani. Too many lovers of old terms like Hindustani from British Raj text books. I do agree that we should have a section on Standard Hindi (Manak Hindi, Shudh Hindi) to distinguish text book Hindi from spoken Hindi.

PradeepBoston (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The official language is "Hindi written in Devanagari". Question: if you are a government official, say a judge making a decision on a court case, can you publish official documents in Rajasthani or Magadhi or Kangri, as long as they're written in Nagari? Because all of those are "Hindi". Or are you required to write in Hindustani/Khariboli? If a judge can publish a decision in Rajasthani, then I would agree that the official language of India is "Hindi" in the broad sense. But if it has to be in Hindustani, then the official language is "Hindi" in the narrow sense. It would be misleading to say both that Rajasthani is a variety of "Hindi" and that "Hindi" is the official language of India, because that would mean that Rajasthani is acceptable as the official language of India. — kwami (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

With due respect to User:Kwamikagami this page looks like single point of view of one linguist. Going through last 1000 pages of changes and reverts in 2 years it looks like User:Kwamikagami is very active in promoting his point of view. Many times edits by User:Kwami are good but sometime he quotes his view, his "source" which is should not be intention . I do like his constructive criticisms and would like his criticisms on Spanish, Arabic, Chinese pages too :D. PradeepBoston (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been one of the principal editors here, but it's been with the consensus of many others. For example, I was just thanked for removing "Fiji" from the list of places where this Hindi is the official language. This has been the case ever since we cleaned up these articles several (maybe ten) years ago. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You may be technically right about Fiji. You should also check why info box says Hindi "or" Manak Hindi, what is modern about Hindustani, Bihari. PradeepBoston (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It has Hindi and Manak Hindi because those are names of the language. — kwami (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Please go ahead and rewrite this article for Standard Hindi. Don't confuse readers with hindustani map and images. PradeepBoston (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It already is the article on Standard Hindi. That's why at the top of the into we say it's the article on Standard Hindi. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Only title is Manak Hindi. The visuals on the pages are of [Hindustani]. No offense to anyone but this page seems like wonderful article on [Hindustani] by [Pakistani]. Even [History of Hindi] link is going "History of Hindustani". Please add present day map of standard Hindi. PradeepBoston (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hindustani by Pakistani is at Urdu. --JorisvS (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It's impossible to map Hindi because it's not a language. It's Hindustani spoken by Hindus, and India has a mixed Hindu/Muslim population. It's also a standard register of Hindustani designed for Hindus, but that can't be mapped because it's no-one's native language.

Also, as discussed above, we can't use population data based on the Indian census because the Indian census does not distinguish Hindi proper from other Hindi languages. This is clear in the layout of the census data, but the point tends to get lost in 2ary sources. — kwami (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kwami for letting us know that Hindi is not a language. Thank you for your explanation on [Hindustani], [Hindi] and [Urdu]. Thank you for letting us know that you do not believe in language surveys published by Statistician at office of The Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, New Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Thank you for letting us know that you do not believe in Indian Judiciary system. Thank you for reverting even Ethonologue statistics. Thank you for your POV. PradeepBoston (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

PradeepBoston, I understand that you may not agree with some things, but you are getting dangerously close to being disruptive. Please remain (and read) WP:CIVIL and adhere to Talk Page Guidelines, especially WP:TALK#USE. Discuss the article and sources, not people or behavior. Also, please see Wikipedia:Competence is required; I don't think you are understanding either the consensus building methods used at Wikipedia, the sourcing requirements, or the academic issues regarding the subject of this article.

You have made many complaints about the article but no real suggestions for improvement. Neither have you provided any sources upon which to base your objections. In order to effect change to an article, you must discuss precise changes you wish to make and provide academic, reliable sources to support your reasoning. Then, wait for others to comment and build consensus. Otherwise you are wasting everybody's time, your's and ours.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry that I am taking avatar and doing changes. When time permits I will send you Academic reference materials on Hindi. Some are already in my sandbox. PradeepBoston (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Chhattisgarhi language says that it is the official language of the state of Chhattisgarh. Since when did Chhattisgarhi become a language when the state itself did not exist before the year 2000? Ethnologue classifies it as a language, so what? I'd rather use the definitions reported by the Government of India in their censuses that they have been doing since 1871, you know because... they KNOW what they're talking about. Ethnologue knows zilch, they literally classify the Hindi dialects of each state of India as it's own language when they clearly have no clue about languages vs. dialects in the subcontinent. Filpro (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

They don't know what they're talking about. They're not experts, but politicians or bureaucrats, not scientists, let alone linguists. They mix up ethnicity with the language people speak. Ethnologue is known to do that too (Hindi vs. Urdu, Croatian vs. Serbian vs. Bosnian), though, but the existence of those articles is not based on Ethnologue anyway. It is based on linguistics. --JorisvS (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I would rather much have this article moved to Modern Standard Hindi. The new Hindi article should correctly be the languages of the Hindi belt as what the Government of India defines as Hindi.Filpro (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with a move. However, for the sake of clarity and because there is no primary topic ("priority"), "Hindi" should become a disambiguation page pointing to the different forms of 'Hindi'. --JorisvS (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we enhance 'Hindi Languages' page and make it generic like Chinese Language page. We should keep Standard Hindi here only with using Spanish Language as example. I have seen that 'Standard Hindi' or 'Modern Standard Hindi' do not need more one paragraph to describe it as text book, literature Hindi. We should redirect all 'Hindi' link to generic Hindi page keeping it simple to read. PradeepBoston (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Hindi should become a disambiguation page. I also think that the Hindi languages article should be moved to Central Hindi or Central Zone Hindi since the current title of "Hindi languages" is very broad and can also include Rajasthani and Bihari which are grouped as dialects of Hindi by India. A new article can emerge as Hindi language which would contain all the Hindi belt languages as it is what India herself defines as Hindi similar to how Chinese language contains all the Chinese languages/dialects and it is what is defined as "Chinese" by China.Filpro (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Filpro that, since this article defines itself as being about "Modern Standard Hindi", its name should reflect that. After renaming this article "Modern Standard Hindi", Jorivs is correct "Hindi" should be a disambiguation page because, as evidenced even by this short "discussion", different people/organizations/groups/governments/etc. mean different things when they use "Hindi" by itself without any qualifiers and we have no way of knowing exactly what the reader is looking for when they type "Hindi" in the search box...and that's what the Project is all about: making it easy for the reader to find what they want quickly (wiki). Wikipedia needs to be consistent, across all related articles, about what we mean by "Hindi" and the various related terms. A "Hindi" disambiguation page should be where Wikipedia defines what it means by Hindi, Hindi Belt, Modern Standard Hindi, Western Hindi, Eastern Hindi, etc.

@Filpro, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Chinese, Spanish, etc are irrelevant to this discussion. And you need to give up on the idea that India can define what is Hindi and what isn't...that's a question for academics (specifically, linguists specializing in the field). If you want to start an article titled, for example, "Language policy in India", that is were such things belong. Our articles about languages are based on academic study as presented in reliable sources, not politics. Our article on Chinese is the way it is because that is the way linguists have historically treated the Chinese languages, not (directly) because of what the Chinese government says. Contrarily, linguists don't treat, nor have they historically treated, Indic languages the same way the Indian government does.

In any case, the current situation here with all things "Hindi" is unacceptably muddled, inconsistent and confusing. Just one example: the article [Hindi]] says it is a register of Hindustani which in turn says it is a dialect of Khariboli, which in turn describes Khariboli as a dialect of Hindi!! Obviously, I know what the articles are trying (but failing) to convey, but the casual reader following these four links would be left with the confusing circular impression that Hindi is a dialect of Hindi.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is circular. Needs to be cleaned up, though that has been hard with everyone disagreeing on what we're talking about. The page move might help. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It was more than that. Khariboli dialect even disagreed with itself. I've fixed this now. --JorisvS (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

support moving this page to Modern Standard Hindi per Filpro and William, and moving Hindi (disambiguation) here. Support also Filpro's suggestion to move Hindi languages, though I'm not quite sure to where -- perhaps better w a dab like "Hindi (Central Zone)", as otherwise the title would have implications we don't intend. (E.g. "Central Zone Hindi" or "Central Hindi" would imply there is necessarily some other kind of Hindi, but that depends on your definition of Hindi.) — kwami (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not Central Zone? That already redirects to Hindi languages, our article already establishes it as a synonym, and it is consistent with the terminology of the branches of the Indo-Aryan languages as outlined there. --JorisvS (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JorisvS. User experience and UI design guidelines suggest we reduce number of clicks. The Hindi_languages, Central Zone and Hindi Belt can be merged as Hindi languages. The Standard Hindi and Hindi language can stay as is. We should add simple infobox on Hindi_languages and list all related languages. PradeepBoston (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hindi Belt ≠ Central Zone. The Hindi Belt includes all of the Central Zone, plus several other languages, as is made very clear at its article. --JorisvS (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the move of Hindi languages to Central Zone. Although I still think there ought to be an article titled just Hindi language like http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hindi-language which PradeepBoston pointed out at Talk:Hindi languages.Filpro (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What would that "Hindi language" be if it's not Standard Hindi, Hindustani, Central Zone Hindi, Hindi Belt Hindi, or covering the various scopes of Hindi? Do we really want yet another Hindi article? — kwami (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question. I supposed it would basically be the article Hindi Belt as seen by the 425M speakers on Britannica's article for Hindi language. Perhaps move "Hindi Belt" to "Hindi language"?Filpro (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But the Hindi Belt is not the primary topic of "Hindi (language)" either, just like Modern Standard Hindi really isn't. That's why it should be a disambiguation page (or rather a redirect to a disambiguation at "Hindi"). --JorisvS (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Well the Hindi belt article isn't the primary topic of the "Hindi" article but it is certainly what people look for when they search for Hindi in the sense of a large language/language family and internally consisting of many languages/dialects. Hindi in the broad sense is considered a language family by linguists at the same level as Arabic language and Chinese language.

Articles in question:

Hindi (move from Hindi (disambiguation)) - A disambiguation page
Hindi language (convert the redirect to an article) - e.g. a group of related and in most cases mutually intelligible language varieties, forming a branch of the Indo-Aryan languages
Modern Standard Hindi (move from Hindi) - The Sanskritized register of Hindustani and one of the official languages of India
Central Zone (move from Hindi languages) - Western Hindi and Eastern Hindi

Any concerns?Filpro (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"Hindi language" must keep redirecting to "Hindi", because there is no separate topic for it to cover. --JorisvS (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Small caution note on 'Modern Standard Hindi'. It is used only in one primer by author Michael C Shapiro. It looks like copyright violation or promotional insert by someone. 'Standard Hindi' is common term for 'Manak Hindi' or 'Shudh Hindi' PradeepBoston (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not only are you wrong, you're very wrong. I suggest you peruse this Google Scholar search, just for starters.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not expert on copyrights and trademarks but clearly see difference between 'Modern Standard Hindi' as 'Title' of a book and keyword search on 'modern standard Hindi'. This has to be decided by experts not me. PradeepBoston (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If we try coming to consensus on everything at once we might never get anything done. Can we at least agree on moving this article to MSH? If yes, can we agree on moving the dab page here? If we can accomplish one or both of those, that might make the rest of the conversation easier. I don't like "Central Zone" because it's such an inane title. No indication it's about India or a language. Maybe "Eastern and Western Hindi" or "Hindi (Central Zone)". And agreed that Hindi language needs to remain a rd to "Hindi". "Language" is not a natural dab for a language.

Once we start a RfM, there will be all sorts of objections even if we here are unanimous, which would make a multiple move request difficult to accomplish. I suggest first making a single RfM for Hindi --> MSH. After that's done, a second for Hindi (dab) --> Hindi. And finally a third for Hindi languages --> whatever we agree on. — kwami (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Support. We'll figure out the rest later.Filpro (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ethnologue

It seems to me that most of the articles on Hindi and other languages are quoting USA Ethnologue as single source of reference. Ethnologue, a language reference books published by SIL International which is a U.S.-based, worldwide, Christian non-profit organization which also counts Bible published in its referenced data. Here are some examples of such edits:

• Hindi - As of 2009, the best figure Ethnologue could find for speakers of actual Hindustani Hindi was 180 million in 1991.[1]
• Hindi belt - Population data from the 16th (2009) edition of Ethnologue is as follows, counting languages with two million or more speakers:
• List of languages by total number of speakers - Only shows Ethnologue data. Multiple edits to reference data from Krysstal and Stasita are removed keeping only Ethnologue data.

Similar examples can be found all throughout English wikipedia. PradeepBoston (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

While the English language article doesn't have to follow Ethnologue? double standards it seemsFilpro (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I also see Ethnologue has defined 'Arabic' with many scripts and dialects, 'Chinese' with many scripts and dialects as "macrolanguage" and use it reports its numbers. Do not see any effort by Ethnologue to call Hindi, Standard Hindi and dialects with single Devanagari script as macrolanguage. Hindi speakers are still regional language or Hindustani to them. Divide and conquer British Raj examples are valid here again PradeepBoston (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok...SO I have been invited or been given the impression that this page is about Hindi but what I found is some imaginary thoughts on Hindi without any connection to origin of the language. This is very confusing. I understand that 'Change is rule of Nature' and every thing has its version of Old and New (Modern) but it would look very odd when I create a page on 'China" and start talking about Modern Day China (40 yr), skipping all its 1000s of yrs old history'. Modern day Hindi is more famous in youth and Indian Cinema Industry and is only a small chapter of HINDI, It's not Hindi in itself. It would have been better if we kept the things separated using the basic principal of Article Writing i.e; Stick with the Topic. This page doesn't define the actual Hindi and very sooooon i.e; in first line of article get diverted from the topic. I do understand that it's very difficult for people to give perfect article on One of the Oldest Language and it requires lot of in-depth study of History before writing something on Hindi, but then it's always better to choose the correct title and in this case Title is not correct. JavaToSwift (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)--JavaToSwift (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)