Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles/Archive 3
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Toadspike in topic Specify Urdu alphabet in MOS:INDICSCRIPT?
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Specify Urdu alphabet in MOS:INDICSCRIPT?
Obviously, the Urdu alphabet is not an Indic script, and it is not typically used in India. However, MOS:INDICSCRIPT would clearly seem to apply to situations where editors would want to add Urdu alphabet, so maybe this should explicitly be stated? Remsense ‥ 论 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is merely a dumb question, but I'm still curious about this. Remsense ‥ 论 23:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe MOS:INDICSCRIPT does clearly apply to Urdu when the subject is Indian/in India. On the other hand, INDICSCRIPT and the RfCs on which it is based mainly mention "Indic scripts" and link to that article. (The exception is
One reason Indian scripts are avoided...
) I think the way to square this is: We don't know whether INDICSCRIPT applies to Urdu, but as soon as someone starts edit-warring or civil POV-pushing to include/not include Urdu text in a lead/infobox, then INDICSCRIPT applies in that case. Toadspike [Talk] 10:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)- Hi Remsense and Toadspike, we have such a case currently being argued at Hyderabad, and my talk page.
I don't know who devised/adopted the phrase "Indic script", which is not defined in our guidelines, but is normally considered as a synonym for Brahmic scripts. I seem to recall that about 10 - 12 years ago there was a discussion about Arabic (or it could have been Persian), where it was being argued that it should be allowed as it as not an "Indic script", although, as Arabic is a Brahmic script, that seems contradictory. I believe the outcome was that MOS:NOINDICSCRIPT should cover any non-Latin script (except Sanskrit?), but unfortunately, my initial search for that discussion has drawn a blank.
This needs to be resolved, as, if Urdu is not being deleted, this will just encourage the addition of other scripts, and we will return to the mass language-warring which led to the introduction of, and the subsequent tightening up of MOS:NOINDICSCRIPT. - Arjayay (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Arabic is a Brahmic script
– I'm no expert, but I don't think that's true. I think the Arabic script (which is used to write Urdu) is a separate writing system.- But I agree with the rest – it would be ridiculous to ban only Indic/Brahmic scripts, with the result that all India-related topics only have Urdu or Arabic in the infobox. That is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the close and unhelpful to our readers. Toadspike [Talk] 12:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like the editor in question self-reverted in this case, but I'm starting to agree with Remsense that the inclusion of other non-Latin scripts needs to be explicitly stated in INDICSCRIPT. Toadspike [Talk] 12:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Remsense and Toadspike, we have such a case currently being argued at Hyderabad, and my talk page.
- I believe MOS:INDICSCRIPT does clearly apply to Urdu when the subject is Indian/in India. On the other hand, INDICSCRIPT and the RfCs on which it is based mainly mention "Indic scripts" and link to that article. (The exception is
- @Remsense, Toadspike, Arjayay, and CX Zoom: Note these additions [1] and [2] (rev'd it). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- ...Yeah, that's concerning. Ophyrius, if you're reading this, I'm pretty sure that INDICSCRIPT does apply to Urdu – that's the intent of the rule. Toadspike [Talk] 19:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Remsense, Toadspike, Arjayay, and CX Zoom: Note these additions [1] and [2] (rev'd it). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Noting for the record that yes, we should be removing Urdu under these circumstances. The spirit of the INDICSCRIPTS close is that scripts used in India shouldn't be added to avoid dispute. Urdu is certainly one of those. On articles about the subcontinent Urdu gets the same treatment as the other languages. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- As WP:NOTLAW says,
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles
and the principles of WP:INDICSCRIPTS (and all the discussions that led to its adoption) apply to Urdu/Nastaliq, or even, say, arguments over inclusion of Greek in Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and not just to "Brahmic" scripts. I am fine with the language of the guideline being tweaked to make this clearer. Abecedare (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC) - Firstly,
the Urdu alphabet is not an Indic script, and it is not typically used in India
is objectively false. Urdu is an Indian language which developed from Hindustani language spoken in present-day Central India. It is one of 22 scheduled languages in the Indian constitution, the official language in multiple states, the mother language of 50 million Indians as of 2011 census, and the 6th most spoken language of India. As for official usage, see for example, New Delhi railway station, it is the main railway station of national capital, in the infobox image of the main entrance of the station you can clearly see English, Hindi, and Urdu being shown. So, I don't know where you are getting thenot typically used in India
data from.
Secondly, Urdu script, even though borrowed from Persia, is developed in India. If you think that Urdu script is not Indian because of heritage, then Khmer script or Thai script or a number of south-east Asian scripts would be Indic scripts by heritage. That is not how this policy is traditionally interpreted as.
Thirdly, the entire point of this policy is to overcome issues caused by battle between editors who want (or oppose) the use of specific languages in articles. This battle may always extend to Urdu and thus should be covered under WP:INDICSCRIPTS.
That said, I think this policy should be repealed, but as long as it stays, it extends to every language of India. Urdu's inclusion does not need to be explicitly stated, but if editors are misunderstanding the policy on a regular basis, someone might add this as a clarification. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)- Indic script has a particular lineal definition that we typically use. No use muddying the waters here. Remsense ‥ 论 18:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. That's where the 3rd point comes in. This policy is to discourage the battle between languages. Not that Indic scripts are unworthy of encyclopedic value or something. I fail to see how allowing Urdu or Santhali but restricting other languages will overcome that issue that created the policy at the first place. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's precisely my initial point, but it's best to remain clear in how we're using terms. Remsense ‥ 论 19:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. That's where the 3rd point comes in. This policy is to discourage the battle between languages. Not that Indic scripts are unworthy of encyclopedic value or something. I fail to see how allowing Urdu or Santhali but restricting other languages will overcome that issue that created the policy at the first place. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Indic script has a particular lineal definition that we typically use. No use muddying the waters here. Remsense ‥ 论 18:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)