This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflanguages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Trinidad and Tobago, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the country of theRepublic of Trinidad and Tobago on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit thewelcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Trinidad and TobagoWikipedia:WikiProject Trinidad and TobagoTemplate:WikiProject Trinidad and TobagoTrinidad and Tobago
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of allSouth Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of theCaribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit thewelcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related toSouth America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between10 September 2021 and31 December 2021. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):MCuratolo.
MoinLargoplazo, the figures used in the article are 22 years old. I checked with the linguistics dpt at UWI; they have no better figures. The language is dead. It's just a bit hard to find evidence for that since no field research has been done since then. I sourced the secondary education curriculum and rephrased a bit, hope that's acceptable. Shouldst thou have current figures - all hail to you. I gave up. Kind regards,Grueslayer16:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moin moin. Unknown to whom? If there are current speakers, thenthey certainly know about it, so "unknown" just isn't a helpful way of describing the situation.
Further, your personal analysis is faulty, since many languages remain in usedespite not being the language taught in the schools. After all, was Trinidadian Bhojpuriever taught in the schools? I'm supposing it wasn't, yet itwas spoken in Trinidad and Tobago for generations, no?
That you specified that the data we have that's known is from 1996 is enough. You don't need to be explicit about not having current data, especially not when it leads you to try drawing conclusions in the article to explain that situation.WP:OR applies.Largoplazo (talk)16:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've got a point of course, but let me put it like this: There's two facts: The number of speakers in 1996, and the lack of figures for today. There's a source for fact 1, and fact 2 means that one can't claim that there is anyone still speaking the language. I may be clumsy in phrasing this, so if you have a more elegant wording at hand I would appreciate it. The old wording was plain wrong though. Kind regards,Grueslayer17:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we just leave it at "... in 1996 ..." and let the fact that it hasn't been updated speak for itself. If that leaves it looking out-of-date, well, itis out of date, but without more recent info there is no imperative for us to make it look like there is. I propose removing the last sentence.Largoplazo (talk)17:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Arimaboss: You have added some information about the scripts used. Do we actually have sources that support the claim that Caribbean Hindustani is indeed written using these scripts? As far as I can see, and as is sourced for Sarnami, speakers traditionally have used Standard Hindi (in Devanagari) and Urdu (in Perso-Arabic) in writing, while the actual spoken Bhojpuri-derived vernacular has become a written language only for a couple of decades, using the Latin script. –Austronesier (talk)12:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should Sarnami / Surinamese Hindustani be its own article?
It appears that in both Dutch and French Sarnami is given its own article. Given that Sarnami is the most spoken dialect, with the most information already available, should a separate article be created or perhaps translated from the Dutch?Ourdou (talk)04:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ourdou: I think it's better to expand the section here first based on the sources in the Dutch page (but with inline citations!). We can then still decide whether to split it out. Note that ISO calls [hns] "Caribbean Hindustani", while Ethnologue calls it "Sarnami Hindustani". This one of the things we have to match carefully when splitting out Sarnami. –Austronesier (talk)09:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't force someone to come to the talkpage, they are also changing the names of the headings and deleting other names of the languages, and how Caribbean Hindustani is also based on another language besides Bhojpuri. I don't think these changes are something that should be under discussion, especially when it deletes referenced content.Hermes Express (talk)20:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several sources and journel and official government and NGO sites that work on it to prove what I am writing. But that user dont have source to prove it and its just his opinion which he had written.
He also wrote his opinion on Hindustani page which got removed by the admin as it was false information but the same thing when I added on caribbean Hindustani page, he reverted my changes. If writing opinion as a fact and that too without any source and also the source provided dont match with the information. How come you are allowing it?Adrikshit (talk)04:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to anyone whose unrelated edits got caught as collateral damage when I rolled back the edit war referred to above. Feel free to reinstate them. To the edit warriors: please discuss your edits and find a consensus before editing this page in the future. Thank you. --asilvering (talk)07:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between10 September 2021 and31 December 2021. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):MCuratolo.
.svg)
