User talk:JusticeLaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

"WELCOME"

Contents

[edit] A welcome note

Welcome to Wikipedia. So, you want to "preserve justice" on here? Well, good luck to you but please be careful and please read WP:NPOV and WP:NPA so you will have some guidelines to go by when you try to help mediate some issues on Wikipedia. Zach (Sound Off) 05:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Appeal

Hi Justice. I see that you understand the falsities that are present in the Urdu language page. Those two just won't quit, they are persistent in spreading their biased information. We're going to have to keep a tab on this page. I saw that some previous users attempted to discuss, but it was in vain. Please revert to the correct version. Thank you --70.177.166.200 06:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion with Kwami

Hello JusticeLaw,
Let's discuss the changes you've been making to Urdu on the talk page. This edit war has gone on far too long, and it needs to be discussed in a civilized manner. Please note that I'm not accusing you of anything; you just happen to be the only editor courteous enough (or perhaps honest enough) to sign your name to edits reverting the article to "ORIGINAL UNBIASED VERSION 1.0".
We've had a quick poll on the talk page, and no one defended that version of the article. Since opinion has been unanimously against "ORIGINAL UNBIASED VERSION 1.0" on the talk page, I will continue to revert that version whenever it appears. However, I'm sure we can discuss the merits of our differences point by point, as with any other contentious issue.
I speak neither Hindi nor Urdu, am neither Hindu nor Muslim, and identify with neither side, but I have friends who are both Muslim and Hindu (more Muslims, actually) and frankly I don't care one way or the other about all the politics. I just want a fair and accurate article.
The article has been protected multiple times, but this hasn't accomplished anything. The next step is to start blocking anonymous and sockpuppet editors. Please join us so we can settle this without getting contentious! kwami 07:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello Kwami. I am more than willing to discuss, but the reason I had decided not to is because I thought that the mistakes were blatant and the users reverting had some agendas. The reason i keep reverting that version is that it adds much unecessary information such as cities in which it is spoken, this could be an endless list. That article seems to be an article about how similar Hindi is to Urdu. When I went to read this article on information about Urdu, all I found were how it is compared to Hindi. If I wanted to read about Hindi I would go to the that page.
The version that I reverted to has useful information about the Urdu language itself and its development. Someone also added the Nastalliq Urdu equivalents to the words on vocabulary list. When I did some research on the language outside of Wikipedia, I found the facts to be correct. It did originate in the 1500's and the name 'Urdu' comes from the Turkish word Camp, as the Islamic invaders had used it as a communication tool between camps. The section that I can find some possible POV in this version is the History section. I didn't even have a chance to work on it due to these constant reverts. I believe if we keep this version and work on the History section, we actually might have a decent article.--JusticeLaw 19:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good. I have certainly noticed POV comments in the current article, and it is hardly the quality I would want for Wikipedia. But that may not be as obvious to everyone as you think. I haven't seen any rants on their side that would make me think they aren't working in good faith.
(In the table of romanized Urdu, for example, there aren't even examples in the Urdu alphabet for comparison, making the table practically useless! I added a few Arabic alphabet examples from your version of the article, but I suspect that they are actually Persian translations rather than Urdu transliterations.)
But the "UNBIASED" version struck me as just the opposite of what it claimed - it seemed to be trying to deny, through omission, that Hindi and Urdu are effectively (in terms of communicative ability, if not conceptually, socially, or politically) the same language. (Or, as near as I can tell, Standard Hindi is a dialect of Urdu, which in turn is a dialect/language of the larger dialect continuum that is also called Hindi.)
I can understand that you'd want an article that discusses Urdu on its own merits. That's what we do for most language articles. However, there's a lot of propaganda out there, on both the Hindu and Muslim side, that deny the similarity of Hindi and Urdu, and we certainly need to address that issue too. In the Indonesian article, for example, it says that Indonesian is one standardized version of the Malay language. If you tell Indonesians that, you're likely to offend them, but it's the truth. It seemed to me that your version of the article denies the similarity, by saying that Urdu was a mixture of Arabic and Persian with Hindi and English loan words, as if it were Semitic or Iranian rather than an Indo-Aryan language. It was things like that, plus comments on the dishonesty of Muslim rulers of India - an unsupported and probably unsupportable assertion - that I personally found a turn off. Given all the propaganda that's floating around, I think we should at least have a section that very clearly explains the relationship to Hindi, in terms of intelligibility in everyday speech, distinct ethnic and religious identities, divergent national standards that cause difficulties in communication with 'elevated' speech, etc: everything that's relevant for understanding both how they're similar, and how they're different. That's very important, I would think, for a proper understanding of what Urdu is, because it seems that, in speakers' minds, Urdu and Hindi are almost defined in terms of each other.
But of course we also need to cover Urdu's history as Urdu, not as Hindi or Hindustani. I thought that the etymology of ordu was in the current article. If I'd noticed that it wasn't, I'd have moved it over. I'd like to just merge the two versions to accommodate everyone, but unfortunately I don't know enough about this topic to do so fairly.
Right now tempers are pretty strained. Continual reverts without discussion really piss people off, and I don't think they trust you right now because of that. Just talking to people can do a lot to change negative attitudes. Well, take me, for example. I saw all these reverts without any discussion and it gave me a very negative impression of you, and made me think that you were not working in good faith. But all it took was your comments on this page to change my mind, and your statement "That article seems to be an article about how similar Hindi is to Urdu. When I went to read this article on information about Urdu, all I found were how it is compared to Hindi. If I wanted to read about Hindi I would go to the that page." for me to understand where you're coming from and to think, "Okay, it looks like this guy is working in good faith; and of course we'd want an Urdu article to be about Urdu - no wonder he's trying to change it."
(Plus, if I'm wrong and they do have an uncompromising agenda, and you're reasonable and support your claims, while they rant and rave and call you names, then it will be obvious to everyone who's being biased.)
I can think of two approaches to this, though I can't say which would work better. One would be to take a useful piece of information from your article (such as the etymology of Urdu) and integrate it into the current version, and explain on the talk page why you feel this improves the article. Just a line or two of 'hey guys, this is relevant information - here are some sources to back it up' would probably do a lot to improve moral. Or, you could address the issue on the talk page first, and not make any changes to the article until people see your point. Or maybe a combination, just adding the little stuff, but discussing major changes until there's some kind of consensus (like using most of the sections of the article to address Urdu on its own merits, and restricting the comparisons to Hindi to one location - or maybe even splitting that off entirely to a 'Hindi and Urdu' article). Then if people revert or partially revert something you do, at least they'll have to explain themselves to you on the talk page (they'd be pretty rude not to), and you'll have a chance to defend yourself.
I think that by making just a change or two at a time, giving time for everyone to breathe, and to agree or disagree (or suggest further refinements) before implementing the next round of changes, you'll do a lot to build trust and a spirit of cooperation. Plus we'll get a good article much faster than any number of reverts will. kwami 01:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kwami, I have put the two versions together in an attempt for peace. I removed the parts that I found POV (mainly from the history section). I spent about an hour making sure nothing offensive was left behind. I hope this works.--JusticeLaw 05:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I still wish you'd engage in discussion on the talk page, but I'll put in a couple words on your behalf. Don't expect this to be the end of it, but with both sides editing instead of reverting, I think we can work it out. It might take a couple weeks though!
I haven't had time to look over everything you did, but a couple things caught my eye that I think people might object to. For example, you deleted the part of the classification about Urdu being a Western Hindi language. That's not POV, that's simply the classification. (I know Jews who claim that Arabs are not Semites. You could logically extend that claim to declare that Arabic is not a Semitic language, but that would obviously be POV.) Also, you put in some things that I would challenge, such as saying that Hindustani is a mixture of Hindi and Urdu, when in fact I believe that Standard Hindi and Urdu are both standardized forms of Hindustani, much as Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish are standardized forms of Scandinavian (Scandinavian isn't a mixture of Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish). But it's a start, and when people restore things you think are POV, we can debate them on the talk pages.
Thanks, and talk to you later! kwami 07:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi again,
Zora didn't revert the Urdu article just now, he restored it. StephenCox had reverted it. Both your and Zora's new versions of the article are very similar to your old versions, of course, but both of you have compromised. Bit by bit I hope we get to a full compromise, but reversions like SC's are unhelpful. If Zora hadn't restored the article, I would have done so. Maybe you could ask SC to engage in useful edits to improve the article, as you have done, rather than just deleting other people's contributions? kwami 07:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Kwami, When I had issued the resolve article, it comprised all of the material from both versions omitting some POV in the history section. I hadn't used the alternative one and worked on it, (you can see this for yourself by opening up three windows with the old ones and revised one). The reason I didn't add the classification part is because the majority of people would contend Urdu being a subcategory of Hindi. I have some knowledge of both languages, but I believe Stephen has more thorough knowledge of Urdu (he added Urdu text and such so you might want to refer to him for information regarding that). According to text books, there is no official language called Hindustani. It is used to refer to the dialect people use nowadays, which encompasses Urdu and Hindi words. Zora's version is just a reorganization of the old POV version without any elements from the alternative. I don't think the issue will be resolved by doing that.--JusticeLaw 20:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It's certainly not going to be resolved if you continue to revert to an old version. Your 'resolve' article was also just a POV reorganization of your old version. Take Zora's version and improve on it. She's given you that much respect, by taking your objections into account in her edit; you owe her the same. I'm not going to compare the before and after versions and judge whether something has been acceptably edited. I'm not Lord of the Urdu article. Take the things she's removed from your previous version, and add them to her new version. Or reorganize her new version to suit your tastes. The idea is for each edit to bring the two camps closer together, not to revert so they're further apart. And if you want other people to understand you, then justify yourself on the talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You don't decide alone what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, you have to convince everyone else. You have refused to take part in any sort of cooperative effort. If you're not going to work with other people, then you shouldn't edit Wikipedia. All you're going to accomplish is to piss people off, to waste everyone's time (including your own), and eventually to get yourself blocked. We need to work together here. I will continue to restore the article anytime anyone reverts it. So far you and Stephen are the only ones who continue to play that game, but if you make improvements and Zora simply reverts you, I'll restore your version of the article too.
As for Urdu being a subcategory of Hindi, that depends on your definition of Hindi. Urdu is not a variant of Standard Hindi; in fact, as far as I can tell, Standard Hindi is just Urdu with the Persian vocabulary replaced by Sanskrit. But Urdu is clearly a Western Hindi language - shoot, Panjabi is often considered a Western Hindi language. The distinction needs to be clarified, and you could help here by clarifying it, rather than censoring it. kwami 21:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried it myself. Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two versions, except that Zora's version has had more people working on it, and therefore the writing's more polished. So I took her version as the basis, reworked it based on my own understanding, and added in the things from your version that were missing. I left out things from Zora's version that I thought were biased, and also did not add things from your version that I thought were biased. Can we discuss further changes? Of course I expect my version to be substantially revised, but can we at least cooperate on it rather than fighting over it? kwami 01:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoning

Yes, here we go again.

Justice, you've violated the 3-revert rule (no more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period) on the Urdu article. This is a blockable offence.

Please give evidence for your edits on the Talk page rather than expecting everyone to accept your opinion as the Voice of God. Your lack of participation is getting tiresome, which is why they block people who engage in revert wars as you've been doing. kwami 19:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Kwami, you continue to war with me. Just to remind you, that you have violated the three revert rule on Hindustani language page, yet I didn't report you. What you are doing on the other page is ridiculous, read its talk page i'm going to comment. I thought you were actually out there to do some good, rather then push the inconsistencies. All of a sudden you popped up two or three paragraphs that have no truth in them at all--JusticeLaw 20:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops, you're right - I had forgotten that a revert of a prior editor accomplished the same thing as reverting you. I also see that you added a link to a conversation in the Urdu article, which I hadn't noticed, so I must apologize for accusing you of not participating - although it would be nice if you used some words of your own to explain what the link is supposed to demonstrate.
As for the Hindustani article, I'm trying to give some consistancy to the three articles. They were contradictory and in a complete state of confusion, and a reader would end up with no clear idea of what Urdu, Hindi, or Hindustani were. You're right, I'm no expert. But it's rather obvious that whoever wrote the articles was no expert either, and they provided no evidence for their claims. If you wish to prove me wrong, please provide evidence of it. I've been wrong plenty of times, and have no trouble admiting it - but only if you can show me that I'm wrong (or that you're right). kwami 20:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What you have said seems honorable, I went ahead and provided evidence as you suggested for the Urdu article. I have also looked through many sources and have found not a single one that refers to the Hindustani language as the language of Muslims or Mughal Empire. I have found that information for Urdu but not for Hindustani. Now, If I provide you with any sort of evidence it would be unrelated. In my opinion, it is currently looking confused. You have Urdu which was used by the Muslim Mughal invaders, and Hindustani to hold the same position. Hindustani is the modern colloquial, it borrows from both Hindi and Urdu. Since it borrowed form Urdu, it will also have vocabulary tracing back to Urdu's original sources. Message back when you get a chance.--JusticeLaw 19:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

True, you won't find many sources equating Urdu with Hindustani today. This was usage of the nineteenth century and earlier. However, you repeatedly say that Hindustani is 'derived' from Urdu, or a 'mix' of Urdu and Hindi. I have seen this description only in very simplified accounts, where the author doesn't want to confuse the reader by going into details. Also, it is likely to be the common conception of Hindustani speakers, for their point of reference is now the standardized languages of modern standard Urdu and modern standard Hindi, rather than the colloquial language which gave rise to them in the first place. Otherwise it seems clear, from all sources, that Urdu and Hindi are standardized registers of Hindustani - that is, that Hindustani as presently conceived (as the vernacular language of Delhi and surrounding areas, or the lingua franca of northern India & Pakistan) is the basis for both modern standard Urdu and modern standard Hindi.
As for Hindustani being influenced by Urdu and Hindi, of course this is going to happen. Whenever people are educated under a standard language, or exposed to a standard language through television, radio, or cinema, it will influence their colloquial speech. You see this all over the world, where the differences between regional dialects disappear under the influence of the standard dialect. This is true for English, German, French, Japanese, Chinese, Malay, Italian, Russian, etc etc etc. This only thing that makes Hindustani unique is that it's being pulled in two directions at once. But that doesn't mean that its origin is in the standard languages! Quite the opposite: standard languages are in every instance colloquial dialects that were cultivated for official use. Hindustani is different in that it was a lingua franca that was cultivated for two official uses, modern standard Urdu and modern standard Hindi. kwami 22:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urdu classification

Hi Justice. I've answered you on the Urdu talk page. (I added another section after that, so my response might not show up on your watch list.) kwami 20:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] okay

Okay Justice, I already accidentally changed it though. I'll try not to if I remember next time, becuz you asked nicely.---HaRpRiT

[edit] Hindustani, Urdu

Hi Justice,

Hindustani: Come on, Justice. You can't believe the English invented the name 'Urdu'. Please give some reference if you do.

Urdu: This is getting tedious. We have provided several sources and lines of evidence for the accepted classification of Urdu; you have provided none for your side of the argument. Writing what you believe without any evidence is called 'original research'. If you can't support your claims, they do not belong in Wikipedia. Engaging in a revert war for original research is not acceptable behavior. Please either provide evidence for your claims, or stop the edits.

See Wikipedia:Verifiability for policy on what to include in this encyclopedia.

kwami 09:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the English invented the name Urdu, but they were the first to call Urdu Hindustani. Muslims never named their language Hindustani. You'd have to read non-English history to understand. And I did provide sources, moreso than you have for the classification. The five sources I provided noted Urdu as Indo-Aryan. The Ethnologue you provided is one source. You have to realize that language classification is always on debate; you can't take the the classification of one site and say it is the truth. I've seen some other Urdu classifications that seem unreasonable. Indo-Iranian is what all agree upon and Indo-Aryan is what most agree upon, that is why I change it to Indo-Aryan. Now I don't know any other way to explain it to you if you are so religiously dedicated to the Urdu language being classified as Hindustani. I will try another attempt on the Hindustani page to see if I can save us both some time and effort.--JusticeLaw 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Justice, several people have explained to you why you haven't provided any sources to back up your claim. Your "sources" do not say what you claim they do. I've provided several sources, you've provided zero. If you don't understand that, please call in someone to review it, but stop reverting to a biased position that you have been unable to support. kwami 04:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's another source. Columbia Encyclopedia online,
Some authorities define Hindustani as the spoken form of Hindi and Urdu. Others prefer to call Hindi and Urdu written varieties of Hindustani.
Columbia Encyclopedia, 3rd print edition, in the table of Language Families of the Old World:
INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
Indo-Iranian
INDIC or INDO-ARYAN
Central Indic
Western Hindi
Khari Boli (standard HINDUSTANI) (literary HINDI; URDU)
kwami 11:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, here's another. Lots of sites accept the Ethnologue classification, but here at the Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing at the National University in Lahore they do as well. See the paper here. The classification of Urdu is right out of Ethnologue,
Urdu: Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Central zone, Western Hindi, Hindustani.
These are the people who developed the fonts and software used to read Urdu all over Pakistan. kwami 12:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That site quoted directly from ethnologue, it is not their original research. Let me give you a short explanation of what Hindustani means in modern times. Hindustan in our current time is used to refer to INdia, the country with a majority Hindu population, it makes sense. Since we are living in 2005 and are not ignorant or in the 1800's, it is only proper to define it as what it is not what is was thought to be by some people in the past.--JusticeLaw 01:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urdu as an official language of Delhi

According to Delhi Official Language Bill, 2000, Urdu is one of the four official languages of Delhi, other languages being Hindi, Punjabi and English. deeptrivia (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/s/User_talk%7EJusticeLaw_3e45.html"