Talk:Hindi Belt

Urdu
Most Pakistanis living in the UK speak Urdu, and their families are often from Lahore and Karachi. Yet no part of Pakistan (save for a small strip over Sindh) is covered by the red area of the map in this article - and certainly not Lahore or Karachi. Why? BigSteve (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The red area is where Hindi languages are spoken natively. The native language of Lahore is Punjabi, and that of Karachi is Sindhi. After partition (and even before), a lot of Urdu-speaking Muslims moved to Pakistan, where they can be found in all major cities. Coloring in those cities because they now have Urdu speakers would be like coloring in London because it has Urdu speakers. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Brilliant, thanks for the explanation! BigSteve (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But what if Hindi or Urdu is spoken by someone born in London? Isn't it spoken "natively"?  Or if not, when was the cutoff year, so a language arriving earlier is "native", later: not "native"?  Remember, English is also an imported language that evolved from a dialect of German, brought by immigrants after the Romans left Britain. 104.172.242.0 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is Nepali excluded?
There is the saying, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy". Is this why Nepali is not categorized as a member of the Hindi family while other Pahari languages are? LADave (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hindi is a cultural concept, not a linguistic one. Nepali was never considered Hindi.  I would guess that's because Nepal was not part of India, but I don't really know.  BTW, Dogri is no longer considered Hindi, because it's become its own official language.  — kwami (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Macrolanguage
Is Hindi in the inclusive sense of this article a Macrolanguage? LADave (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Conceptually, I suppose so, though it isn't actually one in the sense that there's no ISO code for it. "Macrolanguage" isn't a linguistic concept, it's an attempt to address naming and coding problems when sociolinguistic and cladistic definitions of language clash.  Dogri-Kangri is coded as a macrolanguage, and that used to be part of Hindi; Rajasthani is as well, and it still is considered Hindi (or at least parts of Rajasthani: Marwari is a separate macrolanguage).  — kwami (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Map Issues
2001.hindi.majority.png may be controversial as it shows J&K. Such maps are banned in India. We should use  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PradeepBoston (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hindi Belt. 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/20160708012438/http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf to http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029190612/http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.htm to http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://charm.cs.uiuc.edu/~bhatele/hindi/hindi_intro.htm

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

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

Map
Please include actual drawing of the placement of the belt in india. The description is not enough. • Sammy Habib-Kemal Majed   •  Talk   •  Creations  •  Wikipedia Arabic   • 05:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove Pahari from dialects
Pahari languages' speakers don't identify their languages as mere dialects of Hindi. The map is very shallow and hence I am removing it. Simply saying Hindi is L1 without looking into what comes under it is wrong. Neither do people in Bihar call their language as dialect of Hindi. If you are going to point out the Indian Census, then Indian Census doesn't ask people if they consider their language as dialect or not. The map represents no one & spreads shhallow information about this country's diversity. The map in the infobox is also wrong. Bhojpuri, Rajasthani & Pahari languages are only political dialects; they don't share any linguistic history with today's Hindi. Therefore, that map too spreads wrong information & therefor I am removing it. I you want to show Hindi belt, simply include a map with states highlighted. Nik9hil (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not remove content/images from stable version without consensus. Also do not add your own personal commentary in articles. Pinging for suggestions. See this diff please. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The map in the infobox – File:Hindi belt.png – has some oddities. Like its inclusion of Maithili (which is open to debate), or the "Pahari" area of Kashmir (which is not open to debate – the only reason this could have been included is the bizarre decision by the census officials to categorise under "Hindi" each and every language whose speakers identify using the ambiguous word "Pahari"). The map further down – File:Language region maps of India.svg – is misleading, as it similarly visualises an artefact of the categorisation in the census, where all and sundry are counted as dialects of Hindi. Of course, this vast area does have one thing in common, and that's the dominance of Hindi in the public sphere. But if this is to be visualised, we'd need a specific parameter with a real meaning (rather than an artefact of the census publications). Something as simple as the extent of the territories where Hindi is official will probably do for now. This could then be neatly juxtaposed with a representation of speakers' own identification of the language they speak natively. File:Hindi_2011_Indian_Census_by_district.svg does just that. – Uanfala (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for removing it without consensus, but what is 'personal' commentary that I had put up? I only removed maps with explanation, & mentioned the languages whose Scheduled status is pending in the GoI's MHA, (listed under 'dialects' in this article). I also pointed out the Census's classification problem. About 'political dialects' term then it is pretty mainstream understanding now as most of these so called dialects don't share parents with Hindi (refer: Read caption here). I genuinely want to know it so that I can improve on my explanation for future edits. Nik9hil (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This line specifically → (which doesn't reflects ground reality), also mentioning that certain languages have their status pending at 8th Schedule, without sources to support that is also unsourced commentary. This one is not reliable either. Anyway pinging for suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) In the diff linked above you make several additions. One is the addition of commentaries to several of the list entries to the effect that Eight Schedule status was pending. This was unsourced, and probably not relevant – if such status does eventually get granted, then the fact may be mentioned, though again probably not within the list itself. Another addition was the observation that the census figures quoted do not reflect ground reality. This was again unsourced, and even though I would partially agree with you here, any claims would need to specify exactly where the mismatch is (here, it's the fact that for many of the languages listed, a significant proportion of speakers identify their language as "Hindi"). Your last addition involved changing sourced content without providing an additional source. While you could easily drop the otherwise regarded as Hindi dialects bit, your addition of "Himachali" was not backed up by the source (as it's not clear which Pahari it is referring to). Actually, I don't think this whole paragraph makes much sense. Yes, we need to mention the demands for official status, but surely we can do better than using as source this teeny-tiny current affairs report from 7 years ago that's likely long out of date. And the second part of the paragraph – there not going to be any Hindi left if Bhojpuri etc, get status – is complete rubbish. We don't need to report on any crazy view out there. – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The whole point is that "Hindi" has no basis in reality. The reason that the census is relevant is that the population given for "Hindi" is based on the census, so we really have very little idea how many speakers of actual Hindi there are, in spite of which people will say that "Hindi" in the Xth-most-spoken language in the world, based on the census data. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Source Sorry for not mentioning it earlier. Bihari & Eastern: Bhojpuri, Angika, Bazika, Magahi, Nagpuri, Pahari(Himachali), Rajasthani, Dhatki, Garhwali & Kumaoni mentioned in this document. The only reason I mentioned about the pending status is to highlight that there is a section of people who don't want to identify with Hindi or its belt as such. Thanks for the advice. Nik9hil (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Short description
This is rather simplistic hence confusing in my opinion, since languages of Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, are also considered Hindi languages, atleast by the Indian Census, secondly Maithili and the related Angika are not considered Hindi languages despite being Bihari languages, third unnecessary cluttering of short description which typically have to be short. Suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've simplified it to the minimum of necessary information. The short description is not meant to be a summary. As long as people get to know that the article has something to do with India and languages, and is not about a kind of belt (clothing), the short description serves its purpose. –Austronesier (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Austronesier for providing a better description. Yours is a much better and simple enough to serve its purpose. I agree that mine was a bit too complicated and slightly incorrect. PadFoot2008 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)