Talk:Hindko

Pashto

Someone seems to keep editing this article with references to Pashtun or Pathan yet there is no relationship between Hindko/Hindkowan and Pashto/Pashtun. The latter are Iranian, the former are Punjabi (Indo-Aryan). Hindko/Hindkowan ARE a mix of Punjabi and another language/ethnicity, but that is Mirpuri to the Northeast, not Pashto to the West. There are many huge cultural differences between the Pashtun who tend to be Sunnis of the Deobandi variety whereas Hindkowans are usually Barelwi Sunnis. There has been historical animosity between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.147.134 (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mirpiri

This should probably be grouped under Mirpuri as a seperate sub-heading, seeing as how they're almost identical as far as actual language goes, yet both possessing obvious unique identities/names.

It is also not "mountain people language". Pahari or Potwari or Potohari all refer to the same group of languages, named for the mountainous area in which they commonly arose a long time ago. Modern day Hindko is spoken by Hindkowans which means "city-dwellers" because most of them moved south into the mid-northern Pakistani cities long ago, such as around Islamabad.

Hindko(Areas,Meaning,Some Phrases)Hindko is the main language in hazara division, it is also spoken in Attock and in the potohar plateau for e.g Islamabad and Rawalpindi but the hindko spoken in these cities is a mixture of Potohari and Hindko of Hazara Divsion it is more closer to Hindko. But some people in different areas speak hindko and they call it punjabi and the people with pure punjabi mother-tongue cannot understand them very well.

Some Sentences in Hindko.

Maan pata hai. (I Know)

Tudan pata hai. (You Know)

Khita Julian Hain. (Where are you going)

e.t.c

Hindko has punjabi roots and is a type of punjabi.The Hindko of Peshawar is different to Hindko in the Hazara Divison. Hindko of Attock is different to that of Swabi so after every 10 Km the Hindko changes a bit. For e.g the Hindko spoken in Islamabad is different to that spoken in Taxila.

According to my Knowledge Hindko means the Mountain of India so this is a pahari Language (Mountain people language). Hindko is somehow like seraiki aswell.Hindko and Sereiki have resemblence.

Hindko is a mixture of sereiki, Potohari, punjabi. Most of the words and from Potohari and sereiki and other Mountain laguages. There are some words from Pashto, but linguistically no connection. There is no connection to kashmiri which is dardic language.

Zarrigul (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Sir. Sorry to disagree with you. simple explaination is that every area new settlers changed the local language by adopting their own stypes. Awan's have only one dialect, Niazi's have their own dialect and Baluch and afghans common influence make the local languages as saraiki where as Sole Baluch influence comeup as Sindhi. The langauge is considered for its independant verbs not because of dialects. the term Hindko which perhaps is Indko got mis spelled historians without research. Why a dialect of lahore is not considered Hindko when they are so close to indian border but in KPK , the term Hindko is used. Is it not ample proof this terms is incorrect while we see District Indkai in Faryab province of Afghanistan which might be the place of Migration of the people today called as Indki (not Hindki) by Pashtuns as they migratted togethers. Most probbly they lost their original language after segregation by main tribes due to marriages with local girls. the same happend with Awan's, Niazi's, Tanoli's, Jadoon , Tarin's and Baluch of D.G.Khan and Sind. So this totaly paint a different picture. By the way The Rajputs and Barahman (To say Abrahaman would be more correct i think) also migretted to india from Afghanistan and central Asia and Sir. Kash is name of area (Ind- o- Kash) which is divided in 2 parts. the eastren and westren. Mar or Nmar mean Sun in the meaning of East . Kashmar/ Kashmir mean the eastren part of Kash and Kashghar mean westren part of Kash. Check it with map. you help me to translate a potohari sentence for me and find its resemblance with Indko, Kashmiri or punjabi. koor Gachrran ain . toora/tukrra khai gachain aZarrigul (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"potwari-pahahri" is now called "Panjistani"

Panjistani is another fake language creation just like Hindko and Saraiki.₯€₠€₯

Can it be spelled "Hinko"?

Ran across that spelling in this New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/nyregion/15hospital.html

Ms. Khan, a Muslim, speaks Urdu, Pashto, Punjabi and Hinko, a Pakistani dialect she said was similar to Punjabi.

Not sure whether it was just a case of the journalist not knowing the correct spelling, or a legitimate alternative... --babbage (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

followup: I found a reference with this spelling: Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan. Adding it. --babbage (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This pronunciation is common in Hazara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.195.101 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Read it again @Uanlfa http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/nyregion/15hospital.html Ms. Khan, a Muslim, speaks Urdu, Pashto, Punjabi and Hinko, a Pakistani dialect she said was similar to Punjabi. ₯€₠€₯

Hindko Abdullahjan123 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Name of external link

I think the heading for the last external link seems rather POV. The contents of the site seem to be relevant to the article, however. If there are no objections, I will change the heading from "A real Hindko website" to something more suitable to Wikipedia's style --Maurice45 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What is this ? ₯€₠€₯

Language itself

Should be more on the language itself... AnonMoos (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem Mr Taivo. can you explain the grounds for reverting with out any reference. dont miss use your edit chair for fun and reverse only you can proof the edits wrong as suppourted by published material. REGARDZZZZZ Frenchdreamer (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This material is just a rehash of other discredited material and isn't supported by reliable linguistic sources. --Taivo (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What is your problem Mr Taivo. can you explain the grounds for reverting with out any reference. dont miss use your edit chair for fun and reverse only you can proof the edits wrong as suppourted by published material. REGARDZZZZZ Frenchdreamer (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh Taivo You Cant Hide From Genuine Quires

Can u answer these questions please Mr. Taivo + Kwami

(1) Who are the authors of reliable scientific linguistic works Foreign or locals ??

(2) How can any forigner language expert who cant speak these dialects can classify them as an separate language only on the basis of 200 to 300 word comparison ??

(3) What is the difference between a dialect and language?

(4) Can you learn these dialects then challenge my edits?

(5) Y AUSTRAILIAN, US , BRTISH, South African english are not classified as different languages with similer level of differences?

(6) Y wikipages on these dialects of english contain word comparisons if i m not allowed to post word comparison in these dialects of punjabi...bcoz u remove them by arguing ITS NOT A DICTIONARY?

(7). Why these are not reliable refrences with such a famous authors Book name: 3 HINDUSTANI LANGUAGES Page 99 Author: Doctor K S BEDI...Book name: PUNJABI LISANIYAT (LANGUISTIST) Page 142 Author: Shehbaz Malik...Book name: SHORT HISTORY OF PUNJABI LITERATURE Page 17 Author: Qureshi Ahmed Hussain..Book name: URDU IN PUNJAB Page 76 Author: Hafiz Mehmood Shirani

(8) You said that other native speakers contested my edited so can u kindly name bcoz i cant see any objecting edit by any native speaker? LanguageXpert (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(9) Is wikipedia talk page arguments and logics presented not enough to revert wt u had been doing with out convincing me ?

(10) Are you not taking un fair advantage of your position as wikipedia administrators?

(11) Has any native speaker objected on my word list which clearly show how correct that was?

(12) If I publish a fake "scientific linguistic work" in your mother tongue and relate it to monkey language then will you post it on wikipedia as a scientific linguistic research ???

Read WP:BRD. If someone reverts your edits then you have to justify on the Talk Page and build a consensus before re-editing. You have failed miserably at even attempting to build a consensus. If you want us to consider your sources, then you have to provide full publication details so that they are available for our inspection and verification--not just a name and author's name. --Taivo (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Andki are not Hindki

Dear Sir I find you is discussion forum at Hindkowan page. In my opinion, District Indkai and Faryab province seems to be place of Migration of Indki (Hindki) to recent location. They migrated to recent places alongth with Baluchs and Pashtu speaker. and Pashtun call them Inkai as singular and Indki as plural perhaps with the reference of their previous location as later they lost their native language. Some how they got segregated by main tribes because of change in native language.The same happend with Niazi's and Baluch's of D.G.khan when they married local girls so there is possibility of change in native language but important is blood line. if it is derived from Hind Why Hindki term is not used for Punjabi's of lahore. Culturally these tribes are more close to Pashtun and Baluch. It is strange while that within punjab the indentity with Hindko is seldom found and commonly used word in history for a country is is Bharat instead of Hindostan. Most of Historian confused their origin with by using incorrectly the using the word Hindki . please oblige me with your opinion?Zarrigul (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Pashtun's recall them Andkai instead of Hindki. for common punjabi's Pashtun's use the term as Abo-wal, this difference make sense as these people migrated to this area along with Pashtuns and they call them Andkoi with the reference of there place of migration which is wrongly confused with Hind. I have uploaded two links ,travel guide of afghanistan and list of district in Faryab province which indicates the location of Andkoi/Andkhoy/Andkai District . Map , district information and travel information mention the place with three different speelings.

• [1] Andkoi, the real place of Migration from Afghanistan.
• [2], Travel & tour information of Afghanistan .

REGARDS

ZARRIGUL Zarrigul (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have edited out reference to Hindkowans in the introductory paragragh of the article. It is inaccurate to say that Hinko is spoken by Hindkowans because such an ethnic group does not exist. Hindkowan is a term that was used by British authorities due to that classification being created by their army officers doubling as 'scholars', and may, at best, only refer to people in Peshawar city, who are locally known as Kharays (city dwellers) and include communities of mainly Awan ethnicity and an admixture of various individual families from other Indian origin ethnicities e.g. Sethis, Kapoors etc. who speak Hindko/Awanwali. The majority of Hinko speakers reside in the former division of Hazara where major tribes are Pashtun - Hinko speakers can be of any ethnic group: Pashtun; Gujjar; Awans; Sayyids, Mayanas/Qureshis, Dhundh Abbasis etc. So the terms Hindkowan does not make any sense anthropologically, historically or sociologically. In Sindh province there are many ethnicities including Memons who are linguistically very diverse: Sindhi speakers; Memoni/Katchi speakers; Gujrati speakers and Urdu speakers. Would it be plausible to call them by umbrella term of Memons or by their linguistic affiliations? Similarly, can we call those numerous Punjabis, Pashtuns etc. who have adopted Urdu as their main language in their families as Urdu Speakers, a term designated for Mohajers? grups2.126.222.53 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please someone remove the subheading Hazara Province from the box in the article under 'spoken in' heading. Hazara Province demand is a political movement and does not exist as a real entity. If and until it becomes a reality it must be excluded from an article on the language called Hinko/Hindko. Incidently, the Hindko and Hinko are as dissimilar to each other as they both are to standard Punjabi. 2.126.222.53 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting but fictional. ₯€₠€₯

Map image breaches policy & has been removed

There is currently a deletion discussion taking place at Commons regarding File:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg, which can be viewed here. Regardless of whether the map image is deleted at Commons, I think that it needs to be removed from all English Wikipedia articles because it breaches our synthesis policy. The image creator has provided a long list of sources in the deletion discussion and it is evident from those that none contain all of the information shown in the image, nor is it a simple task to work out which bits of information were gleaned from which source(s). We simply do not permit people to aggregate information in this way. It should also be noted that the chances are very high that the various sources did not even adopt the same methodology in compiling their data, which makes the analysis of the creator even more suspect.

I have removed the image because the Commons discussion may end up as something other than "delete" and yet the thing is still invalid on English Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Map was deleted on two reasons. 1... Commons deletion discussion but now Deletion request by Sitush has been rejected on Wikimedia Commons. 2... Sitush has a self perception that map is synthesis, which is actually not because it is based on latest research of 2007 in the Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. So I am re inserting it. Unless Sitush prove it again as a synthesis and refer me the areas of map being synthesized also mentioning the different publications along with page numbers where from in his kind opinion I have synthesized the map.Maria0333 (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In the deletion discussion on commons you explicitly listed 13 separate sources that were used to create the map. You can't turn around and now say it's all from one book. If multiple sources were all put in to make the map, and it was not built from a single source, it's WP:SYNTHESIS, and thus a violation of WP:OR. Until you get your story straight, it must remain out of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dont try to be a lawyer who plays with words.I clearly mentioned there that it is not a synthesis and my map is as per Cardona as the latest research on indo aryn languages. You have a self perception that map is synthesis, which is actually not because it is based on latest research of 2007 in the Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. So I am re inserting it. Unless you prove it as a synthesis and refer me the areas of map being synthesized also mentioning the different publications along with page numbers where from in your kind opinion I have synthesized the map. develop WP consensus for deletion if you proved it synthesis. Rules are rules for every one whether a established editor or a non established editor. In fact established editor should first set the example for non established editors. Thanks Maria0333 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons was not the right place to discuss the content of the map, but the talk pages of the numerous articles where it is used also are not the right place. Please participate in consolidated discussion at File talk:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced sections

I've just tagged most of this article as being unsourced. Clearly the info comes from somewhere...but unless sources are added soon, the info should be removed per WP:V. It's always better to say less that is verified than to have a bunch of questionable info. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. ₯€₠€₯

Language source?

Could someone please provide a source that states at least one person's opinion that this is unambiguously a language? The fact that it began to be standardized doesn't make it language, nor does the fact that it was measured in censuses. Unless we can find a specific source that claims this to be a dialect, that whole position should be removed from the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: You are right. Please Participate in Move request below.

Recent vandalism by a WP topic ban user Jasimkhanum10

Attention all Jasimkhanum10 is topic ban for three months till november 2015 from all articles relating to Pakistan India and Afghanistan. See his talk page. 39.47.254.20 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Reverted, both his edits and his move. --JorisvS (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hindko is the 6th biggest language of Pakistan (not a Punjabi Dialect)

Hindko is a language and not a Punjabi dialect si lie to 'Panjistani' in North Panjab and parts of Kashmir. This can be simply proof by the fact that it is the 6th biggest most language spoken in Pakistan and the is the second most popular language of the province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Higher Education Commission (HEC) has also established an academy for the promotion of Hindko Language, Culture and its literature and they named it Gandhara Hindko Academy. The address of this academy is 2-Chinar Road, Abdara, University Town, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The official contacts of this academy are: +92915701626 , ghbpakistan@gmail.com, www.gandharahindko.com, https://twitter.com/gandharahindko1, https://www.facebook.com/gandharahindkoboard. The director of the Academy is Professor Syed Anwar Shah Kazmi. Academy has almost 20 employees who are working and doing research on this language.

All the information is correct and can be verified by contacting on the mentioned details. Almost 75 books has been published in this language by Gandhara Hindko Board and more than 100 books will be published in this year. Two international Conferences of this language had been organized and the third one is in the month of November of this year.

Therefore it is requested to make the correction and remove it under Punjabi or any dialect.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqarahmad2311 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(Contribution moved from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability): Noyster (talk), 15:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Answer to your question is already on talk page see section Language source? summerizing that "The fact that it began to be standardized doesn't make it language, nor does the fact that it was measured in censuses." Additionally if you read Talk page disscussions you will clearly understand why there is WP concensus that Hindko is a dialect NOT A LANGUAGE. 39.47.30.22 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Language

I m listening here Hindko in Peshawar, all hindko speaking community consider it a seperate language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HassanKhan95 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Participate in MR below.

Reverse a Move which was never disscussed

@Yoyi ling: It is requested that move from Hindko dialect to Hindko be reversed. Because Hindko dialect and Saraiki dialect both are classified under Western Punjabi Language. There is already an agreement among users to title Saraiki dialect [3]. This move will inconsistent if one is titled dialect and other differently. It was not even discussed. ₯€₠€₯

Thanks Deaed , more importantly hindko is a disambiguation page Yoyi ling (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The current title, "Hindko" is ok. The original speakers of the language consider it a language not dialect. Khestwol (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: This was a very very controversial move and is done without any discussion. Requesting you to please revert it as you have move protected the page. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done, oh I should clarify that there was no move protection. Moves over redirects that have more than 1 revision require page swaps — Andy W. (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate it Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoyi ling: and the IP who requested the move. Please bear in mind that cut-and-paste moves, such as the one that recently happened is undesirable as it splits the Help:Page history, which is legally required for attribution. If you are unable to perform a move, please use WP:RMT to request a move, and a page mover or admin will answer the request. I've performed the swap in the meantime, but please keep that in mind, and please don't cut-paste in the future. — Andy W. (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. ₯€₠€₯

Requested move 26 October 2016

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The proponents are not clearly explaining how they would resolve the 'dialect' versus 'language' question. There is a hint here that Google hits would be used to decide this, which seems to go against WP:NCLANG, which wants published sources. And it's unclear how the 'primary topic' argument fits together with WP:NCLANG. That guideline seems to imply that any primary topic would be a language, not a dialect. In any case the change doesn't have enough support. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Hindko dialect → Hindko – Unnecessary disambiguation (per the language naming conventions) as it's the primary topic (Hindko people appears to be a secondary ethno-linguistic designation). If anyone disagrees that this is the primary topic, please bear in mind that there isn't a suitable natural disambiguator at hand – the use of either "language" or "dialect" is ideologically laden and likely to cause controversy. The article's title was actually Hindko language from its creation in 2005 until a move in 2013, executed by one particularly disruptive sock. The sources I see on google scholar use either of the terms: there are 29 results for "Hindko language" [4], and 18 for "Hindko dialect" [5]. – Uanfala (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Hindko in itself is not precise enough, the article title should precisely describe what the article's subject is. There are Hindko people and there is Hindko dialect. By just looking at the title Hindko you cannot clearly and unambiguously tell what it is about or what Hindko is. Also, there are political ramifications of uncategorizing it from dialect to just Hindko. Most linguists describe it as a dialect of Punjabi and not a distinct language or just Hindko. Its against WP:COMMONNAME as well. The source Uanfala is removing clearly classify it as a dialect and I quote "Hindko has been treated as the western dialect of Punjabi, and hence its speakers have received little attention as a distinct community." There are many other sources which classify it as a dialect. It is different when a source just describes a dialect as a language. King Julien of Wikipedia | do not try to make a move | 21:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

An article's title shouldn't be more precise than is needed, nor should it strive to defend a particular political point of view. Its against WP:COMMONNAME as well would you clarify, what is the common name if not "Hindko"?

Most linguists describe it as a dialect of Punjabi and not a distinct language or just Hindko could you provide sources to back that up with? How would you then account for the fact that "Hindko language" receives 50% more hits on google scholar than "Hindko dialect"?

As for the source I've removed, "Hindko" is called "language" several times on the same page as the passage you quote. But then if it that passage says it has been treated as the western dialect of Punjabi does it say treated by whom? Hindko speakers themselves? Punjabis? the government? linguists? – Uanfala (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That is what I am saying that just Hindko is not precise enough and unambiguous enough. Disambiguation is needed so Hindko should be a disambiguation page listing Hindko people and Hindko dialect as the choices it might refer to and if there is any other Hindko related page then it should be listed there. This page's title should be Hindko dialect or if a consensus can be achieved towards calling it a language then it should be called Hindko language. Its against WP:COMMONNAME because most sources call it a Hindko dialect or Hindko language and not just Hindko.

Most linguists describe it as a dialect of Punjabi and not a distinct language or just Hindko was not part of my revert so its obvious that you were just engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND and reverting me just to satisfy your ego and not actually looking at what you are reverting.

"Hindko language has more hits than Hindko dialect", if we go by that definition, there will not be a single dialect left in the world and all dialects would be categorized as distinct languages. Please educate yourself about differences between languages and dialects. Sources describing a spoken medium as a language does not automatically categorize it as a language and this answers your last item as well. I also suggest that you self-revert as per WP:STATUSQUO, that source has been there for months and reviewed by many editors. King Julien of Wikipedia | do not try to make a move | 03:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have anything against your reasoning about the ambiguity, but have you read WP:PTOPIC? As for the fact that all dialects are languages after all – that's true as well, but can you give me an example where that was how the phrase "Hindko language" was used from the google scholar results above? If you disagree with using usage statistis from google scholar, what alternative method would you propose for determining whether "Hindko dialect" or "Hindko language" is more common?

[M]ost sources call it a Hindko dialect or Hindko language and not just Hindko – which sources are these? Unqualified "Hindko" is the term used in the two standard reference works on Indo-Aryan languages – Cardona & Jain 2003 and Masica 1991. And of the over 900 results that google scholar returns for "Hindko"[6] (which, judging from the first two pages, are relevant), only about 5% use "Hindko language" or "Hindko dialect" [7]. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Move will be inconsistent with near 20 other western Punjabi dialect pages, This article falls with in ambit of linguistics so a scheme of confused cherrypick will create no benefits.@uanfala have been vocal on saraiki dialect page too. His most questions were already answered there.I hope this time he will show respect to admin decision and not do edit wars he is currently engaged after failed talk page attempts. Yoyi ling (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: @Andy M. Wang did a great job. Page stood since 2013, visited by hundreds of visitors in three years. Even all page watcher never objected. There was express as well implied acceptance to Hindko dialect. Your decision to not move the page was good faith & rational. ₯€₠€₯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.84.196 (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support There's a great deal of controversy over this (similar to my views at Talk:Saraiki dialect), whether Hindko is a dialect or language. We should be inclined towards reliable sources, and also what the speakers of this language identify themselves as. Hindko is historically spoken in the Hazara region and the urban parts of Peshawar city (all located inside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, which is predominately Pashto-speaking). Technically, none of these areas fall in the Punjab region. Therefore, we should tread carefully over painting all dialects as extensions of Punjabi. There is for example a Hindkowan movement which seeks to form a breakaway province (consisting of Hazara) for all ethnic Hindkowans, separate from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa [8]. There are no references provided indicating that Hindkowans identify themselves as a Punjabi group, but there are numerous references on their movement which seeks its own ethnic identity for instance. Mar4d (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In support of my view, I'd like to quote the following reference. The source describes Saraiki and Hindko as "languages" with reference to the census and literary movements (see p. 69 for Saraiki).

Punjabi's numerous dialects (two of which, Siraiki and Hindko, gained language status with the 1981 census) further fragment the picture.

— Fighting Words: Language Policy and Ethnic Relations in Asia

Mar4d (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mard4d I think you lack subject knowledge. First North West Frontier Province was curved out of Punjab in 1920 by British Raj to make a frontier corridor in front of aggressive Afghanistan. It contained 4 divisions. At that time Pashto was not in majority in Capital Peshawer and other major cities Kohat, Noshera, Abbotabbad and Mansehra. In 1920 Census People opted western Punjabi as there language. Second Hindko is not claimed as language historically. It was just recent times when Pashtuns from Tribal areas and Afghanistan gained majority in province and it was named as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. This was the time when 25% Hindko population started a movement for separate province movement. Had they been saying themselves Punjabi Pakhtuns would have asked them to go to Punjab province. You your self contradicted your self we are not here to support any political movement or what people/govt claims. For centuries people opted Punjabi as there language too so if that is the criteria then It is never a language. We go by linguistic standards and as per those standards Hindko is never classified as independent and separate language which is not mutually intelligible with Punjabi other dialects. Read from Grierson to Cardona, no one ever classified it separated from Western Punjabi. ₯€₠€₯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.84.196 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Grierson (in his Linguistic Survey of India) classifies Hindko as part of Lahnda, which he then puts together with Sindhi into an "outer" branch of Indo-Aryan, in contrast to Punjabi, which he classifies together with Hindi into the separate "inner" group. So that's the last source anyone could dream of using to support the "Punjabi dialect" viewpoint. As for Cardona, which particular text do you have in mind? Also, do you have any reference for the claim that Hindko speakers identify as Punjabi? I've been reading through this sociolinguistic survey of Hindko and from what I see so far Hindko speakers identify their language as "Hindko language", and never as "Punjabi". – Uanfala (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Unafala I think you are not south Asian. Grierson grouped Hindko in Western Punjabi Lahnda. Due to Partition of India in 1947 after Grierson linguistic survey Western Punjabi is now spoken in 90% of Pakistani Punjab. Eastern Punjabi as per Grierson is now spoken in India. So there is no doubt that Hindko is a dialect of western Punjabi Language spoken in Pakistan. Now if you come to Pakistan and ask even any children about Faisalabadi Punjabi ( Eastern Indian migrated Punjabi) or sikh Punjabi (Indian Punjabi). He will says it Punjabi as he calls himself Punjabi with exception of 17% Saraiki demanding separate province in very south. While Grierson work was not accepted by other linguists. East Punjabi and West Punjabi situation is just like of Urdu Vs Hindi. Similar non local confusions eg Potwari-Pahari a western Punjabi dialect Vs Dogri case which are grouped under Western Pahari. But Eastern Pahari and Central Pahari are totally different from Western Pahari i.e Dogri. However Grierson grouped Dogri as Eastern Punjabi dialect. Similar case is with Kohistani term used for totally different languages such as Maiya Torwali. shina kohistani, Pashi and Kalami languages with 25% lexical similarities. Local language knowledge is best thing to understand mutual intelligibility to classify languages and dialects. Even in UK Mirpuri Punjabi (Potowari-Pahari) Western Punjabi and Eastern Punjabi (Indian Punjabi) call themselves Punjabi and communicated in Punjabi version of their own. I think you will get many sources for what I described above.

₯€₠€₯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.84.196 (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Unafala Cardona groups Hindko under Punjabi language.

• Also note the move proposal of Pothohari dialect at Talk:Pothohari dialect. —  AjaxSmack  01:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Surprised at level of WP:FORUMSHOPING @Uanfala you not even being native had been raising same questions on different Western Punjabi dialect pages and getting oppositions and complete answers from other users still you keep on scratching same thing. You are good at English then please leave Punjabi aside and first try your strange anti dialect stance over English (A language you have full command). First English_language here title is Language but if we apply your common name philosophy then It should be English. Second, there are Pages on British English , American English , Canadian English and near 50 approx more similar pages. Which are nation wise dialects / accent therefore we add country name and then English with the name. Third, there are Cheshire dialect , Cumbrian dialect , Lancashire dialect and approx. 50 more regional dialects so we add dialect but if we apply your philosophy these should be Cheshire, Cumbrian , Lancashire etc. Fourth, We add Accent to titles like Lancashire dialect and accent , Yorkshire dialect and accent and many more. Fifth, We add creole to these Army_creole, Belizean_Creole, Miskito_Coast_Creole and more and more. Sixth we also add pidgins to pages Hawaiian Pidgin English American Indian Pidgin English Seventh even we add artificial descriptions Multicultural_London_English General American Broad, general and cultivated Australian[[9]], Basic_English, Globish_(Gogate), Special English, Simplified_Technical_English

This was just English example. There are hundreds of other language examples. We on wikipedia use linguistic tags to common names to maintain linguistic classification clear for users who visit us to study linguistics. We can not misguide others. I Hope now this request move along with other two will be scraped to save users precious energy and time. ₯€₠€₯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.84.196 (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Uanfala is "escaping" my question. ₯€₠€₯

Sorry, what is your question? As for the collection of examples you've presented above – fine. But a qualifier like "language" or "dialect" isn't necessary if the language or dialect is the primary topic of the term, please see WP:NCLANG. – Uanfala (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Refs

• Masica, Colin P. (1991). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge language surveys. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-23420-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Cardona, George; Jain, Dhanesh, eds. (2003). "Panjabi". The Indo-Aryan languages. Routledge language family series. Y. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7007-1130-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

---

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

Topic structure

Opinions are welcome on the best way to structure the topic across its articles.

The Hindko dialects form a dialect chain starting with Peshawar and Kohat in the west, then passing through Attock in the south and then going northeast into Hazara. Ethnologue has partitioned this continuum into two languages: Northern Hindko (encompassing the varieties of Hazara and currently treated in the article Kagani dialect) and Southern Hindko (subsuming all other varieties), which is covered by the present article. So far so good, but where should Hindko as a whole unit be described? In one of the two article? Or in an article of its own (Hindko)?

And how about Hindko language? The area of the proper "language" (with a literary tradition and the self-identification of its speakers) seems to include the ends of the spectrum (Peshawar in the west and Hazara in the east), but not the middle bit of Attock. And that spans the border between the two "languages" that ethnologue defines. Should the language be treated in a separate article from the dialect area, or should the two be lumped together? – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. As mentioned by Cuchullain, since the target already redirects to the current title, it is already established as the primary topic. So the consensus is to move to the base title.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Hindko dialects → Hindko – Primary topic for the term "Hindko". – Uanfala (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Overcomes the dialects vs. language issue. Hatnotes already direct readers to Hindkowans (i.e. Hindko people) et al. —  AjaxSmack  00:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose . Viewing 26 Oct RM right above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherlands2 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• • Welcome to Wikipedia, Netherlands2, and thank you for the pointer to the previous RM. However, I don't think this is relevant because a) the previous discussion got overrun by socks; and b) since then the article has been rewritten and expanded and now the case for a move is much more obvious than it was last year. – Uanfala (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Some emphasis added. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Votes by sockpuppets

Oppose and move back to Hindko dialect (with an option of Conditional support) I oppose even recent move by Uanfala from Hindko dialect to Hindko dialects [10] which he did without RM. Recent changes had NO CONCENSUS [11] We still could not remove doubts about Hindko as separate language. so Title Hindko dialects is misleading. (as if Hindko is a big language with many dialects) IF we address Problem with Greater Punjabi, either western (Lahnda) or eastern. Specially Western, where Saraiki, Potwari and Hindko dialect (s) are claimed by separate province claimer (nationalists) as separate language from Punjabi. Saraiki is Southern Lahnda which is spoken in 25 out of 36 Districts of Pakistani Punjab Province. In last census of 1998 People were given choice to choose between Punjabi & Saraiki as mother tongue. The 9 very south districts have non Punjabi ethnic settlers (Baloch, Pashtuns, Siyads -Arabic & Geelani-Persian) in around 60% proportion. These people opted Saraiki as a separate language. While rest 17 district opted Punjabi. Same applied with Hindko (Western Lahnda) Those living in 3 Districts of KPK province are Non Punjabi- Pashtun ancestor and want separate province Hazara. They opted Hindko as a separate language. But 2 Hindko districts (Attock & Chakwal) in Punjab province opted Punjabi as their Language. Potwari (Northern Lahnda) people of two district of Punjab province Rawalpindi & Jhelum opted Punjabi as their Language. Eastern Punjabi speakers of 7 Districts of Punjab province opted Punjabi as their language. So out of Total 32 Lahnda districts of Pakistan (3 KPK 29 Punjab) only 12 districts opted Lahnda as different Language from Punjabi. While 20 Lahnda and 7 Eastern Punjabi TOTAL 27 district opted Punjabi as their language. My point is for all non Pakistani Great people like Uanfala, Netherlands2 and AjaxSmack. We thank you for your important time dedicated to our language and culture. If you retitle this Page as Hindko then FIRST re write it in a way that it is BALANCED article. Which tells every one that Hindko is a Language for whom with reasons/since when (1980s), Dialect of Lahnda for whom and reason/since when (1920s) , Dialect of Punjabi for whom and reason/since when (Historically), Dialect of Panjistani (Language covering of Potwari, Hindko and Pahari) for whom and reason/since when (2000s). Socio political scenarios / Language scenarios. More coverage should go to dialect aspect because it has 3 kids i.e Panjistani, Lahnda and Punjabi. ONLY THEN I will support renaming to Hindko. NOTE: In long run with Hindko people, Hindko Culture, Hindko Cuisine, Title Hindko could be re written as Hindko dialect. District Population Punjabi % Saraiki  % Others  % Vehari 2,090,000 82.9 11.4 5.7 Khanewal 2,068,000 81.2 11.6 7.2 Multan 3,116,000 21.64 60.67 17.69 Bahawalpur 2,433,000 28.4 64.3 7.3 Rahim yar khan 3,141,000 27.3 62.6 10.1 Mianwali 1,056,000 74.2 12.0 13.8 Okara 2,233,000 98.99 0.01 1.00 Sahiwal 1,843,000 98.10 0.01 1.89 Bahawal Nagar 2,062,000 95.2 3.1 1.7 Lodhran 1,171,000 18.6 69.6 11.8 Muzaffar Garh 2,635,000 7.4 86.3 6.3 Layyah 1,122,000 34.6 62.3 3.1 Bhakar 1,051,000 20.0 73.0 7.0 DG Khan 1,643,000 16.5 80.3 3.2 Rajanpur 1,103,000 13.3 75.8 10.9 Chakwal 1,083,000 97.7 0.2 2.1 Chaniot 965,000 95.9 0.8 3.3 Hafizabad 832,000 96.80 0.01 3.19 Khaushab 950,712 90.9 7.8 1.3 Mandi Bahauddin 1,161,000 95.9 0.1 4.0 Pakpattan 1,287,000 92.2 0.8 7.0 Sargodha 2,666,000 95.96 0.01 4.03 Toba Tek Singh 905,580 98.99 0.01 1.00 Jhang 2,834,000 95.9 0.8 3.3 39.50.8.26 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)39.50.8.26 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC) }}

• Oppose. The dialect(s) has never been demonstrated to be the primary topic over other meanings of "Hindko". Nor has it been demonstrated here. Just saying it does not make it so. I'm not convinced that other meanings, such as shown in the lead at Hindki where Pashtuns see Hindkos as Indians, do not challenge the dialect(s) as primary topic. And doesn't this title as plural "dialects" take exception to WP:PLURAL? If this page is moved, it would seem that the name should be "Hindko dialect", singular, as per the policy's community consensus.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You're perfectly right: the current article isn't the primary topic for "Hindko", it is the only topic with a claim to that name. And the fact that there exist similar-sounding articles like Hindki, or the fact that "Hindko" means something in some language has no bearing on the issue at hand (after all we aren't a dictionary). Thank you for the alternative proposal, but a title like the one you're proposing is blatantly inappropriate and that's obvious to anyone who's made the effort to read the first paragraph of the article. Or to anyone who's read the the naming conventions for languages and dialects. I hope that's not too much to ask for! Cheers. – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for establishing that the naming convention for languages is an exception to the convention for plurals. Never understood the reasoning behind that since it can lead to titling dog as dogs. Such exceptions make no sense to me. Since it's just a "language naming convention", then consensus can overrule it in page move discussions. A dialect is a dialect no matter how many there are by a certain name, just as a dog is a dog no matter how many breeds there are.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I see your point about the plurals. Were you thinking of Hindkowans? You're free to start an RM for that article, but please bear in mind that you'll be going against the naming conventions for ethnicities. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) The point about plurals is pretty clear. And thank you for bringing up Hindkowans, who are also known as Hindko people and who, as in similar other ethnicities, may even be more apposite than the dialects to be the primary topic for "Hindko". See previous RM of October 2016.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
          • "Hindko people" might be an obscure synonym for Hindkowans, but as far as I know Hindko by itself can't be used to refer to anything other than the language varietie(s), so there really aren't any contenders for the primary topic. I think it's also worth pointing out that "Hindkowans" isn't the name of a proper ethnicity, but just a cover term for the speakers of the various language varieties known as "Hindko". – Uanfala (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Still, it seems to me that the point made in the previous RM, that there should be a dab page (similar to this) for the base name "Hindko", does make sense. Hindkowans are just as relevant and meaningful as their tongues, I think even moreso.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
              • Converting Hindko into a dab would be an option if "Hindko" was ever used to refer to anything other than the language. Hindko has always redirected here, and the diff you've linked to was just a brief experiment. As for the previous RM, I'm not sure there's anything meaningful there: it was overwhelmed by sockery and the POV-pushing of our resident Punjabi ethnonationalist. – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
                • Yet that argument was not completely convincing even at Move review. Although, "Hindkowans" is used more and more in sources, "Hindko people" is also still used in books and news stories. This challenges your statement about "if "Hindko" was ever used to refer to anything other than the language". Also found were books and news stories about "Hindko culture" and "tradition". There certainly are "Hindko ('other than the language')" items, and one doesn't have to look very far to find them.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
                  • Fair enough, but the "Hindko people" are never, as far as I'm aware, referred to as "Hindko". And neither is the Hindko culture, cuisine or whatever (if these even exist as separate entities). These will all be partial title matches and hence ineligible as main entries on the hypothetical disambiguation page, which would be left with a single entry for the language, and hence almost speedy deletable (see the reasoning of WP:G6 and WP:2DABS). – Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
                    • In the books and news items I found (search engines are your friend) the people are described as both "Hindko" and, more often, "Hindkowans". There appear to be several things "Hindko" albeit thus far Wikipedia has only this dialect article and Hindko people. Since there is no primary topic, the dab page could use the entry "Hindko people (Hindkowans), an ethno-linguistic group native to Pakistan", along with the 2nd entry, "Hindko dialects, a diverse group of Lahnda (Western Punjabi) dialects", or something similar.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
                      • Could you share some of those search results? – Uanfala (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
                        • For the search-engine impaired, just type "Hindko" and "Hindko (an appropriate disambiguator)", with parentheses, at different times in the search field . Examples for the latter would be "Hindko dialect", "Hindko culture", "Hindko cuisine" and so on. I focused on books and news stories. I also searched for "Hindkowans", where I did find that term used more commonly than "Hindko people"; however, I also found that "Hindko people" is still being used. Hope this helps. The bottom line is that "Hindko" is too ambiguous a term to title anything but a disambiguation page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
                          • I did search for "Hindko" and the first couple of pages of search results feature nothing but the language. If you have found otherwise, you should share your search results. As for "Hindko culture" and the rest, there's no evidence that any of these could ever be referred to as simply "Hindko" (without any disambiguator). As far as dab pages are concerned, these would all be partial title matches and as such could (but need not) be included only in a "see also" section. That leaves a disambiguation page with just a single entry. Incidentally, a google search for "Hindko cuisine" return only a single result, and that's the discussion we're participating in. :) – Uanfala (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
                            • I think we've had this talk before but I can't remember which dialect was involved. You don't seem to understand how some things "Hindko" can be referred to as just "Hindko", which is as you know paramount to whether or not it is a PTM. Someone asks me the origin of a food they just ate. I say, "It's Hindko." Someone asks you about a dance they see on Nat Geo. You tell them that the dance is Hindko in origin. Whenever something can be described just by using the term, for example, the "Mississippi" for the Mississippi River, then it is not a PTM and can be used on a dab page. Your answer about the Hindko dance might also have been, "The people who originated that dance were the Hindko." Of course, you might also have called them "Hindkowans". These examples also show beyond doubt that "Hindko" is an ambiguous term that should not title any page that does not fully disambiguate it. It can in fact confuse readers just by redirecting to this page. Our readers come first. It should be a dab page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
                              • We already saw that your "Hindko cuisine" examples are completely made up. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the other hypothetical examples are actually found in sources? It seems to me you're just continuing your habit of finding ridiculous reasons to oppose every single RM I start, as though it wasn't bad enough already that we had to deal with all the socks and the POV-pushers. – Uanfala (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We already saw that your "Hindko cuisine" examples are completely made up.

I don't make things up. You need to calm down and get back to AGF'n.

you're just continuing your habit of finding ridiculous reasons to oppose every single RM I start

Please back off the paranoia. If your RM were to make sense, I wouldn't oppose it. Your personal attack will not buy you any points with the closer – guaranteed. Even if you think my behavior is inappropriate, an RM discussion is not the place to bring it up. I won't take you to ANI because I think of you as one of the better editors here, but I hope you will reconsider your accusations.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, who altered the hatnote at the TOP? Oh yes, we see that you made the change with this edit. Ask yourself why you did that. (Could it be that you reasoned that some readers might search for "Hindko" and be looking for the "Hindko people"?)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Best to note here that a hatnote only suffices if this article is the primary topic of "Hindko", which has yet to be demonstrated. If this dialect article is not the PT, then WP:TWODABS, an editing guideline that shows the consensus of the Wikipedia community, should be followed. There is no reason to think that the dialect(s) passes the criteria for primary topic over the Hindko people. So what happens is that readers who search for "Hindko" and who want to read about the people land here on an article they did not want to read. Had they been taken to a faster loading disambiguation page, their search would have been far less confusing for them.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is that this is the primary topic: Hindko has redirected here since the article was created twelve years ago and there are no other articles that share the same title. If you want to make a case that Hindkowan (or some other as of yet uncreated article) could challenge the language's position as a primary topic, you need to at least a) find usage in sources (books, websites, whatever) in which "Hindko" is used mononymously to refer to anything other than the language; and b) explain why such sources have been so difficult to find so far. – Uanfala (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, then consensus can change. While editors should be able to find the same things I did in an Internet search using their search engine of choice, Google presents the following:

• "Hindkowans" – in books – 3,430 results
• "Hindko dialects" – in books – 107 results
• "Hindkowans" – in the news – 8 results
• "Hindko dialects" – in the news – one result
• There is also a revealing page-views analysis.

The perceived consensus may very well change when this discussion is closed. Perhaps it is the Hindkowans article that should be titled "Hindko", or at the least, have "Hindko" redirect to it?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What your search results show is that Hindkowans is a topic that is covered in numerous sources. What they do not show and what they would need to show in order to be of any relevance for the primary topic status of "Hindko", is whether in any of these sources a Hindkowan is referred to as "Hindko". Apologies if I haven't made my prevoius post clear enough. As for pageview stats, you might want to have a look at these: [12]. – Uanfala (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The closer can make the decision. Bottom line for me is that "Hinkowans" or "Hindko people" can just as easily be called "the Hindko" as can the dialect, so "Hindko" is ambiguous and should not be the title of this article.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry, I see your point now. It's that the current title is inappropriate, right? Well, the move that this RM is proposing is away from this title, so I guess on that we agree. But otherwise, groups of languages don't use singular titles (e.g. Germanic languages rather than Germanic language) and that's a fairly uncontroversial guideline. – Uanfala (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Votes by sockpuppets

• Oppose. Hindko Dance of Hindko people worth wiki article. [13]. Hindko Dhol is a famous music which deserves article [14] Hindko Maya are folk songs/poetry tradition need a Wiki article [15] Hindko culture and it cultural festivals are important [16] so are Hindko literature Hindko dramas etc.Refimp (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Statement by OP. I realise I might not have made the case for the move detailed enough. Let me give it a try. The long-standing consensus (that hasn't so far been materially challenged) is that the current article is the primary topic for the term Hindko. According to the naming conventions for languages (NCLANG), the article can be titled with the bare name where it is unquestionably the primary topic for the name. Despite this the previous RM was closed as "no consensus" and the reason was that the closer wasn't certain that the quoted bit of NCLANG applied to dialects. This was a sensible objection given that the version of the article at the time made it seem as though Hindko was a dialect. Two things have changed since then: 1) NCLANG has been clarified to make it clearer that the primary topic rule also applies to dialects; and more relevantly 2) the article has been rewritten (with better sourcing) and now it's apparent that Hindko is not "a dialect".
  All this so far shows that the article can be moved to Hindko, but not that it should. What makes the move necessary then? First of all, any title containing the word "dialect" is problematic because a) it has less support in sources than the corresponding title containing "language" (for details, see the previous RM's nomination); and b) the existence of the standardised literary Hindko language makes such a title run afoul of the NCLANG guidelines for the use of "language" and "dialect": The word "language" is used for varieties which have standard forms, per common usage, even if they are not distinct languages by other criteria. Doesn't that mean that "Hindko language" is a desirable title? Well, it is more suitable than "Hindko dialect" and it was in fact the article's long-standing title until it was moved by a blocked user. But there's one problem with this title: the article scopes over all the language varities that are known as "Hindko" and that also includes the dialects whose speakers do not identify with the Hindko language (for further details, see the thread above). This suggests that a title like "Hindko language" doesn't correctly define the topical extent of the article, and so goes against WP:PRECISE (an objection that applies with greater force to "Hindko dialect(s)"). The only reasonable title that matches the article's scope is "Hindko". – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This article should be titled Hindko dialect as Hindko is a dialect of the Punjabi language. The text titled Punjabi Language and Linguistics, published by the Indian Institute of Language Studies, states: "The main important dialects of Punjabi are Majhi, Multani, Malwai, Puadi, Doabi, Hindko and Pothohari." This seems to echo the statement of User: Paine Ellsworth above. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I see nothing indicating that there are other topics of the name "Hindko". Hindko is already a redirect to this article. As a result, adding "dialect" serves to disambiguation purpose; this also dissolves the issues over whether to use "dialect", "dialects", "language", etc. and better fits sources like these:[17][18][19]--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Etymology

I know in this case "Indian" means Indo-Aryan, but until we can clarify that in the article I am shifting it here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:16, 4 June 20vas17 (UTC)

The name Hindko means "the Indian language" (in contrast to neighboring Pashto).

I'm not sure I understand what needs clarification here. This is the etymology of the word, and in this context its meaning isn't "Indo-Aryan". The full quote is "The word evidently just means 'the Indian language', i.e. as distinct from Pashto, although various explanations are offered as to its origin." and then there's a footnote that adds, inter alia, "Grierson took 'Hindko' to mean 'the language of Hindūs', a definition naturally hotly disputed in Pakistan." – Uanfala 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@NadirAli: You are right. It is silly to call that Hindko derived from Indian Language because Hindko term is recent term when all Hindko region is Muslim and Pakistani. You know the problem we are facing here some FORIENGER egoistic silly college boys like Uanfala and some so called Language researchers like Masica. These people should focus on their own language English but they are here to divide Pakistani languages in to pieces. Punjabi in to Saraiki Hindko etc Pashto in to waneci, wazirwola, central, southern and northeren and so own. Balochi in to east west northern . Total crap and sense less. We Pakistani know our languages & dialects better then these useless guys. They want to proof English as number one language in the world . As per them English has dialects BUT Punjabi Pashto Balochi have none. They have been tempering here for long time to which I had been resisting. I will keep a check on them. Don't worry BUT They are spoiling WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.89.5 (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• As no explanation was given for the removal of this sentence, I've restored and expanded it [20]. Will be happy to reconsider if someone points out what specifically was wrong with it. – Uanfala 23:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala:, thank you for pinging me. Well i disagree with the term "Indian languages" because there is not such things. The technical meaning of the term would be languages indigenous to India. As for "languages of the Hindus" well the problem here is "Hindu" "Sindhu" "Indus" are geographic terms and not religious terms. It was introduced as a religious term more recently by the British. "India" today might be used to refer to a country but it's historic and correct meaning as Hindustan is land of the Indus, excluding much of the territory of the Indian peninsula. That being said, I am okay with restoring the paragraph back into the article provided we add a note (I am not familiar with the code) differentiating between Indian and Indo-Aryan. "Indian" today might mean something or someone for India but back then it was not refereed to as such and that's the note we need to use. To distinguish the modern country of modern "Indian" from Indo-Aryan.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli, you're perfectly right about all that, but the sentence didn't claim Hindko was an Indian language, it said that the meaning of the word was "the Indian language". With the reworded sentence it should be clearer that it was about etymology. I'm restoring it now, if you still feel that a clarification is needed, you can insert a footnote by placing the code {{efn|Text of footnote}} in the text where you want the footnote to appear. – Uanfala 09:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: Alright thanks. I will try that.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

User:Uanfala, I understand that you added the clause "Although there is disagreement about the exact etymology of the name" in order to please User:NadiraAli, who is now blocked. Above, you noted that "I'm not sure I understand what needs clarification here" as the vast majority of references are quite clear on the etymology of the term. To say otherwise would be to insert a fringe view that is not supported by academics no has any historical basis. Barbara West documents the same in "The Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania", with regard to the etymology of the term:

The origins of the term refer merely to "Indian speaking" rather than to any particular ethnic group.

Likewise, the text titled "The rise and development of Urdu and the importance of regional languages in Pakistan" states:

Shackle suggests Hindko simply means "Indian language" and describes it as a "collective label for the variety of Indo-Aryan dialects either alongside or in vicinity of Pushto in the northwest of the country".

Christophe Jaffrelot, in A History of Pakistan and Its Origins states:

Hindko could mean 'Indian language' as opposed to Pashto, which belongs to the Iranian group.

Karthik Venkatesh similarly writes in "The strange and little-known case of Hindko":

Also, scholars post-Grierson understood Hindko to mean the “language of the people of Hind, i.e. India" and not the Hindus, which was a term used for a religious community.

The sources make it clear that scholars understand the meaning of the term Hindko to mean one thing, that "Hindko" means "Indian language/speaking". To say that there is "disagreement" about the origin of the word, when there is no such dispute in the academic world would be untruthful; quite the contrary, scholars are quite clear about the etymology of the term. Of course, we have a footnote that clarifies that the origin of the word Hind/Hindustan refers to the historical northwest Indian subcontinent. This should be sufficient. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• The disagreement is noted by Shackle (the sources cited: 1980, p. 482), though he says the term "evidently just means 'the Indian language'". There's further discussion of the alternative proposals in Rensch 1992, pp. 3–4. – Uanfala (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  Adding that I don't particularly insist on mentioning the disagreement, but we can't give the preferred etymology as though it's an established fact. How about a wording along the lines of "The term is most commonly taken to mean...."? – Uanfala (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear User:Uanfala, I would completely accept your proposed wording in light of the facts that you've provided. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

Nadeem Khan Tanoli (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hindko, spoken by the Hazarewaal in Pakistan, is similar to the northern dialects of Punjabi. It is spoken in areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (including Hazara Division), Peshawar city, Punjab and Azad Kashmir, Pothohar Plateauby an estimated 10 million people

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AntiCedros (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Rawalpindi?

The distribution of Hindko dialect shows Rawalpindi of Punjab province as speaking this language. This is completely false. People living Rawalpindi district speak the Potohari/Pothwari dialect, not Hindko. I don't know why people keep on propagating such lies online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019‎ 2600:8806:2603:3300:d16a:ec71:9ba0:c768 (talk) 01:43, 16 March (UTC)

You're right, thanks for pointing this out. This is a bit of text that has hung around since the old days, I've been meaning to rewrite this section of the article for some time. Will remove the offending bits now. – Uanfala (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No matter what you guys talk about Hindko. You guys probably being educated can talk alot. But what I know is that I am a Peshori. I speak Inko and I write Hindko. Its a complete language and has very old history. What I have seen by my self is that i Kohati, Attock, Hazro, Bannu, DI Khan, Hazara, Sawabi, Nowshehra, Peshawar, Hazara, azad Kashmir, and held Kashmir people also call it Hindko. The British would call it Hindko. The foreigners (British ignorant s some time use to call it Lahnda. They would bind Hindko and saraiki together. Obviously they din understand the difference. What I know today is that Hindko existed thousands of years back in Peshawar and surrounding areas. Its a indigenous language that has been ignored by its speakers and authorities. It is the original language of Peshawar even though in the last 40 years Peshawar has been flooded by the afghan refugees and local urbanization. So viva la Pishore and Hinko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibanisar (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Spoken in Afghanistan?

Anupam, you've added a mention that Hindko is spoken in Afghanistan, based on this newspaper article. I seem to recall that a previous version of this article used to have a similar mention, one that I had removed because I hadn't been able to find any reliable sources for it. Sure, the claim is repeated by many of the unreliable sources, but without references or discussion. As far as I can see, this is likely to be based only on the existence of a community named "Hindki" in Afghanistan. Of course, it may be that they do speak a Hindko dialect, but for all we know they may be speakers of any other nearby Indo-Aryan language, and it may be that they don't speak an Indo-Aryan language at all any more. In the absence of any evidence or reliable sources, I don't think we should be making this claim. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear User:Uanfala, a documentary about the Hindko language shows that the language is indeed spoken by the Hindus and Sikhs of Afghanistan. The newspaper article is reliable corroborates the same. The Australian Institute of International Affairs also mentions that the Afghan Sikhs "speak Hindko, a dialect of Punjabi that is mostly found around Peshawar, in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in north-west Pakistan." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional references. I've watched the documentary and it was very informative. The paper from the Australian Institute of International Affairs is really useful, it is the only source so far that appears to be unambiguous: in the way it explicitly links the Hindko of Afghanistan with the Hindko of Peshawar. I'm going to to rewrite the mention of Afghanistan based on that source. I'm not going to use the article at livemint.com: although primary journalism definitely has a place in sourcing, that article is an overview (without references too), and so a tertiary source that's not necessarily any more reliable than anything you or I could write here on wikipedia. Particularly infelicitous is its statement that Hindko is largely understood to be the language of the non-Muslim population of Afghanistan: it's either confused (Hindus and Sikhs in Afghanistan do not all come from Hindko-speaking areas), or misleading (as it seems to imply that they do). – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Spoken in Balochistan?

I've just removed the following recently added text: (ping to Anupam):

Some of these Hindu Hindkowans are traders and over time, have settled in areas as far as Kalat, Balochistan.

References

I don't think the Hindko referred to in the source cited is the same Hindko our article is about. The term is somewhat ambiguous, and it has been applied for example to the Saraiki dialects of Dera Ismail Khan, and has more broadly been used by Pashtuns for any Indo-Aryan variety. Of course, it may be that the Hindko mentioned there is the right one, but that's unlikely given how far the area is from the territories where Hindko proper is spoken, how close it is to areas where other IA languages are found, and how very few Hindko speakers come up in the relevant census results: in 1981 there were only 8 in Kalat district (see p. 81 of this), and as few as 3 in Kohlu, the region of the Marri described in the source above (p. 62 of this). – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Refs removed January 2020

I've rewritten a couple of sentences on the pattern of bilingualism with Pashto. This has resulted in a few of the sources used in the previous revision getting removed. Refs #37 and #38 are to different versions of the same text, and the context there is the efforts at establishing Pashto as a language of instruction in schools in the late years of the Raj. In my opinion, this piece of information is a bit too niche to be included in this article, and at the very least it can't stay in its present form because it's being used for an unwarranted claim about the opposition to Pashto in a stronger form. I've also disposed of refs #35 and #36: I've only been able to track down the first one, replacing it with Shackle 1983, of which it is only a republished version (riddled with typos, hence the preference for the original). I don't have access to #36 at the moment but judging by the quote (which is identical to the quote in #35), it appears to be yet another version of the same text. – Uanfala (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hindkowan ethnicity?

This is about additions like this or this. Now, if the intention was to make the statement that Hindko-speakers are known as "Hindkowans", then fine, feel free (though that would ideally be integrated with the brief discussion of what I assume to be the related term of "Hindku" in the last footnote of the lead). However, the added text does not make that statement, it makes another very different statement: that Hindkowans are an ethnic group and that they are a majority among Hindko speakers. That's not found in the sources. The second edit backs up this claim with five references, but the last four should be ignored as they only constitute uses of the term "Hindkowan" and make no statements about ethnicity. The first source appears more substantial though: it does indeed make a reference to Hindkowans as an ethnic minority of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but it does so in passing and it appears to be only in the context of Hazara. I don't think anyone would doubt that the Hindko-speakers of Hazara make up some sort of ethno-linguistic entity, but this Wikipedia article is not only about the Hindko of Hazara, it's about a much broader group of dialects that includes those of Hazara, but also of other places, both inside KPK (Kohat and Peshawar) and outside (Kashmir as well as Attock and Chakwal districts of Punjab).

I'll remove this recent addition as it's not supported by the sources used and apparently contradicts the picture of extreme ethnic diversity painted by Rensch (1992, pp. 10–11) and Shackle (1980): both are cited in the very same sentence of the article where those additions were made! Some discussion of the term "Hindkowans" is definitely needed, but if any statements are to be made about a Hindkowan ethnicity, they need to be based on sources that explicitly discuss Hindkowans as an ethnicity. – Uanfala (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala. We should be careful not to veer into original research while approaching this subject (see WP:BLUE). The purpose of the sources was to demonstrate the predominate subsuming of native Hindko-speakers under the Hindkowan identity. The sources mentioned are able to clearly verify this. We haven't claimed anywhere that only Hindkowans speak Hindko though, and that was implied in the manner I had edited the statement. If you have doubts over the question of ethnicity, a compromise can be to modify the opening statement from "people of various ethnic backgrounds" to "people of various ethnolinguistic backgrounds" or just "people of various backgrounds". However, even this wouldn't be entirely correct in my opinion; the very idea of a separate Hazara province is based on the ethnic argument, and the notion that Hindko-speakers constitute a separate ethnolinguistic group. Due to Hindko-speakers being a very small group out of a population of 220 million, there is naturally not as abundant literature available compared to larger groups like Pashtuns, Punjabis and Kashmiris. However, this is something easy to qualify and verify. I have added some below for the purpose of discussion:

• Shah, S., David, M.K. and Gulzar, M.A., 2017. Role of Hindko in Multilingual Community: Issues of Language (s) Choice and Use. Kashmir Journal of Language Research, 20(1). The focus is on the expanding use of Hindko among Hindko-speaking respondents and on the limited use of non-Hindko speaking respondents, relating this with instrumental and integrative attitudes. A general introduction to Hindko is followed by the objectives, and a review of previous studies related to instrumental and integrative attitudes towards using language as well as cross-linguistic and cross-cultural influences in the Mansehra region. The findings indicate that a significant number of Hindkowans and non-Hindkowans hardly speak Hindko informal settings, for instance at the work place...
• Nadvi, J., 2014. Farhan Hanif Siddiqi, The Politics of Ethnicity in Pakistan: The Balouch, Sindhi and Mohajir Ethnic Movements. Journal of International and Global Studies, 5(2), pp.126-129. The major ethnic groups of Pakistan include: Punjabis, (2) Pashtuns, Sindhis, Saraikis, Muhajirs, Balochis, Hindkowans, and Chitralis. There are also smaller ethnic groups...
• Shah, S.A.M. and Amjad, S., 2011. Cultural diversity in Pakistan: national vs provincial. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), pp.331-344. The distribution of ethnic groups in numerical size and on language basis include: Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Seraikis, Muhajirs, Balochis, Hindkowans, Chitralis and other smaller groups.
• Rakha, A., Shin, K.J., Yoon, J.A., Kim, N.Y., Siddique, M.H., Yang, I.S., Yang, W.I. and Lee, H.Y., 2011. Forensic and genetic characterization of mtDNA from Pathans of Pakistan. International journal of legal medicine, 125(6), pp.841-848. Major ethnic groups of Pakistan include the Punjabis, Pathans, Sindhis, Seraikis, Muhajirs, Balochis, Hindkowans, and Chitralis
• Ghafoor, A., Mehraj, J., Afridi, N.D., Rafiq, Y., Wendl-Richter, H.U. and Hasan, R., 2012. Multidrug resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis amongst Category I & II failures and Category II relapse patients from Pakistan. International journal of mycobacteriology, 1(3), pp.118-123. The main ethnic groups in the KP province are the Pashtuns, locally referred to as Pakhtuns, who form about two-thirds of the population, followed by a number of smaller ethnic groups, most notably, the Hindkowans.
• Raja, N.A. and Sohail, A., 2011. A Brief Introduction of Hindko Language. Language in India, 11(11). Some Hindko speakers are also found in Northern India, as at the time of partition, many Hindu Hindko speakers migrated to India. They are preserving their language and passing it on to their children as reported in "Daily Times-Hindu-Hindkowans at partition of India..."

etc. Mar4d (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources 2 through 5 are relevant here (but not #1, which as fas as I can see only uses "Hindkowans" to refer to L1 speakers of Hindko, or #6, where the term only appears in the title of a work cited). While they only have passing mentions in unrelated contexts, they indeed take it for granted that the Hindkowans are an ethnic group. Therefore, I withdraw my objections to this point.
The other points still stand though. When the previous version of this article made reference to the various ethic backgrounds, that was in the context of the discussion in the second section ("Social setting"). The ethnic groups in question are ones like the Awan or the Tanoli, and a category like "Hindkowan" does not appear there. The interjection of a mention of Hindkowans was not congruent with that discussion, or with its sources. The term definitely needs to be introduced somehow (it's apparently widely used), but that needs to be done in an accurate manner (so its relation to the other ethnic categories is made clear), and it should be based on what's in the sources (ideally not consisting just in passing mentions; there must be some relevant literature out there: just look at the phonology section for how much has been published in recent years).
The statement in the current version of the article – that Hindkowans are the predominant ethnicity among speakers of Hindko, can't stay. Fundamentally, it makes two claims: 1) that there are non-trivial groups of native speakers of Hindko who are not Hindkowan (and so "Hindkowan" isn't simply a synonym for a Hindko speaker), and 2) that there are more Hindkowan than non-Hindkowan speakers of Hindko, as that language is defined in the article (with Hazara simply one of several regions where it's spoken). I don't see either of these claims as being backed by any of the sources brought up so far. – Uanfala (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding that I wouldn't object if the mention of ethnicities is removed from the lede if you believe broaching the question without mentioning "Hindkowans" might be misleading. – Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Would you be okay with adding a statement that Hindko-speakers are known as Hindkowans somewhere, without broaching the question of ethnicity, as you implied above? Mar4d (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'd be fine with that. Ideally, such a mention would be integrated with the brief discussion of the other two terms: "Hindki" and "Hindkun" (it's currently found in the last sentence of the lede and its footnote but that may be moved elsewhere). – Uanfala (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say the usage of the word "Hindkowan" is a recentism, as Hindko was considered for a long time as a dialect of Punjabi. In the past, most speakers of Hindko would have identified as Punjabis. Pashtuns most likely used the term "Hindkowan" to refer to speakers of Indic languages, given the origin of the word "Hindko", as well as the fact that the Punjabi dialects had a border with Pashto-speaking regions of South Asia. Anupam^Talk 07:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anupam: That's an interesting point you make. I suggest integrating the rise of the Hindkowan identity, and explaining it's link to the dialect as a whole. Mar4d (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mar4d. If you look up the term "Hindki", you'll actually find that it is the older term used by those in Pashtun regions to refer to speakers of Punjabi dialects such as Multani and Hindko. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Speakers

Hi @Uanfala, you wrote: "if you have Ethnologue citing a primary source, then it's best to cite that primary source directly". I don't think so per WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources [...] Further examples of primary sources include: archeological artifacts; census results". Indeed, census data often merge what Wikipedia considers to be different languages into one label. That's why a non primary source such as Ethnologue is better. I asked the question to Ethnologue. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If the secondary sources performs some sort of synthesis of the primary data, then of course the secondary source is preferable. But if it's only transmitting the primary data verbatim (or as appears to be in this case, an out of date version of this primary data) then there's no benefit in using that secondary source. – Uanfala (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do you say "an out of date version of this primary data" @Uanfala?

Also: Ethnologue is editorialized, so anything they publish is synthezing primary data. Here in particular, they split Hindko into what they consider to be different languages ([hno] and [hnd]). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If we had separate articles about those two varieties, then we'd have to use Ethnologue, yes. As for why they appear to use an out of date version of the census data: in the preliminary results (examples) Hindko had a lower share, and I suspect they've used that. You know, for speaker numbers, Ethnologue is a source of last resort (see this): you only use if there isn't anything better available. – Uanfala (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, let's wait for Ethnologue's answer on this point to better understand why they did that. Could be a mistake indeed. Then, I'm not sure the essay you pointed has much value, if any, compared to WP:PSTS, a core content policy: a census is a primary source, so ideally we shouldn't use it.

(PS: would be nice to archive old posts on this talk page...) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

A455bcd9, did you hear back from the SIL? The link above doesn't seem to work. – Uanfala (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Uanfala ah sorry, I forgot to update here. Yes, they now give: "Total Hindko speakers: 7,000,000 (Lunsford et al 2020)." (North + South). Lunsford et al 2020 is in their bibliography: Lunsford, W. A., M. Z. Sagar, E. Ahmad, and A. Haider. 2020. Measuring the impact of using “The Guide” in six speech communities of Northern Pakistan. In D. M. Eberhard and S. A. Smith (eds.), Planning language use: Case studies in community-based language development . Dallas: SIL International. https://leanpub.com/planninglanguageuse . a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm also trying to figure out where the recently updated figure in Ethnologue comes from. All it says is Total Hindko speakers: 7,000,000 (Lunsford et al 2020). (where that's understood to be hno + hnd). As far as I can see, the citation is to:

• David M. Eberhard; Scott A. Smith (eds.). "Measuring the Impact of Using 'The Guide' in Six Speech Communities of Northern Pakistan". Planning Language Use. pp. 76–121. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

As far as I can see from a quick look, the population estimate comes from this passage: According to Robinson and Robinson (2007), the northern dialect had about 3.5 million speakers in 2003. That number has likely doubled since then (Robinson, p.c. November 16, 2020). So the 7 million is just a guess based on a 2003 estimate, and then apparently only applies to Northern Hindko (hno). I'm not sure what we can do with this. On the other hand, the 2017 census figure of 5.1 million probably undercounts the speakers (given that speakers in Attock district seem to prefer identifying their language as Punjabi rather than Hindko). – Uanfala (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of edits. Yes, that's it. The link doesn't work anymore (I hope they'll fix that soon...) but as far as I remember, Ethnologue's editor answered that they got information from Lunsford that the total number of Hindko speakers was now about 7m. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)