Talk:Qadiani

qadianiFr is not derogatory word

From when this is considered to be a derogatory word? I know ahmadi as "qadiani". I just discovered from wikipedia that there is a word called ahmadi. I have several qadiani friends. They never told that they are ahmadi, they always told that they are qadiani. In asia "ahmadi" is unknown word. I can bring my qadiani friends to talk about this in this encyclopedia. Ahmadikafirkabaccha (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

--NeilN ^{talk to me} Ahmadikafirkabaccha should be banned. Is there no WP policy which says that usernames cannot be profane words? His name means "ahmadis are sons of infidels"FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks FreeatlastChitchat. I've reported the username and the account should be blocked soon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

He is right that qadiani is the most common term, "ahmadi" is relatively unknown to most people. Saying it is derogatory is a bit ridiculous, it is just the name of the city the religion was invented in, Qadian. Sakimonk ^talk 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sakimonk: As NeilN stated did you bother reading the source? Yor edits such as this re-labelling Ahmadiyya as a separate religion are non-constructive and may constitute Vandalism.--Peaceworld 10:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a seperate religion because they following a totally different belief system to Islam and they follow another prophet and they say God is like a human who fasts (authubillah...) etc. etc. they have been declared as kafir a long time ago by total consensus Sakimonk ^talk 23:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Really? At what noticeboard did we arrive at that consensus? I note that HRW also describe the term as derogatory.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sakimonk: Seriously? Where on Earth do you get that information from? Please state your sources as this is Wikipedia and not some online forum. Facts matter over here and nothing else.--Muffingg (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As per the source, the official government term is qadiani, it refers to them originating from Qadian, this isn't a slur...

If it was a slur why would the government label them this officially? Official government documents >>>>>> a solitary book which may or may not be reliable. Sakimonk ^talk 23:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If "official government documents" do not recognize Ahmadiyya as a sect of Islam, they probably recognize it as herasy (sp?), so they might very well refer to it by a slur. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin The source Sakimonk refers to is part of Pakistan's Blasphemy laws which calls for up to three years of imprisonment for Ahmadis calling themselves Muslims, or preaching or propagating their faith, or "in any manner whatsoever" outraging the religious feelings of Muslims, or for posing themselves as Muslims. This bigoted law has been subject to serious criticism by international human rights organizations. If it uses a religious slur to refer to Ahmadis, it is by no means an accident. Rather it should be expected.--Peaceworld 09:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not a Slurr

Official documents call them Qadiani in Pakistan Saudi Arabia Iran and many other countries.

It is a cult or a religion, it is called a sect by its followers. By no means calling it by the name of village of its founder is a slur. Christians were called Nazirits, was that a slur too 39.52.181.160 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2016

Removal/Citation is needed for "As such, the majority of the Qadianis are Hindus, whilst a small number are Ahmadi Muslims and Christians."

The sentence begins with "As such" but it is a non sequitur really. Although the name might have etymologically originated from a town in India, the religious composition of current people of this persuasion need not be the same as that of the town, especially because it is a predominantly Pakistani community now, as the article claims.

If Qadianis consider themselves to be Ahmadiyya Muslims, they should be represented as Muslims on this page, or a citation provided to prove the contradictory claim. 204.28.124.24 (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Added Citation Needed template. Terra ^❤ 21:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge?

@Sirius86: I don't think that Qadiani nor Mirzai should be merged with Ahmadiyya. They are not alternative names for Ahmadiyya, and neither do they fulfil any of the reasons, as suggested in WP:Redirect, for merging. There are many religious and ethnic slurs. We don't just merge them into their respective pages.--Peaceworld 14:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: I know these are not alternative terms, but it would perhaps be more appropriate to briefly mention that these terms are used for Ahmadis as pejoratives in the main Ahmadiyya article itself. They hardly merit separate articles. Encyclopedias that include articles on Ahmadiyya don't usually have separate articles on "Qadiani" and "Mirzai". Moreover, if you check the legitimate reasons for merging pages here, I think some of these reasons do apply. For example:

• If there's a significant overlap: there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability.
• If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
• Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.

Also check this "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Sirius86 20:54, 02 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge per above. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: Template:Religious slurs is full of other terms that are socially significant slurs for groups. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support In the context of a pejorative, it may be be useful to include a section on the topic within the main article; particularly since it seems to be a legal definition as used by the Pakistan Penal Code, and if there is controversy surrounding such. DA1 (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It is better to keep it separate and not mix it up. We need to improve the article. Greenbörg (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing, given the absence of a consensus to merge and now stale. Klbrain (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016

The Article says that Most Qadianis or Ahmadies consist of Sikhs and Hindus, which is really agains the facts that, they consider themselves as Muslims, and they never claimed to be Sikhs or Hindus. You may say that most of them are from Punjab - other given statement is either untrue or it is put in a way giving understanding as if they are Sikhs or Hindus. Correction needed pls.

Nadeem2say (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - as it seems unlikely and has been tagged since March - Arjayay (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Source

This Article needs improvement per WP:SYN. SpyButeo (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not at all helpful. You need to be much more specific. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@SpyButeo: Please explain why you have removed the fact that the term is "derogatory" despite valid reference provided. If not done so, your edit will be reverted. Thanks.--Peaceworld 17:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017

Qadiani are not Muslims. All believers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are Non Muslim. They do not have any relation with Islam. Haris Qadree (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done. The same issue exists with various Christian groups that other Christians consider non-Christian. If a group says they believe in a particular religion then we simply report that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias don't make decisions such as the one you are asking us to make. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that Qadianis status of Non Muslim is also a Legal status decided through an open and fair debate in the National Assembly of Pakistan where Qadiani Leader had full and fair representation and fighting chance to prove their status. So Qadiani case shall not be taken like different Christian diversions as we don't see any legal resolution of who are considered Christian and who are not. Rehman Zahid (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Bareilly, Deoband, Qadian and Lahore

In South Asia, Muslim sects were normally named after the city where they started their schools of theology. Ahmed Raza Khan was a Muslim theologian and his followers are called Barelvis since he was from the city of Bareilly. The Darul Uloom is a Muslim seminary and the followers seminary are called Deobandis since it is based in the city of Deoband. Mirza Ghulam started his teaching from the city of Qadian and his followers are called Qadianis. The Qadianis split into another sect which was based in city of Lahore and this Qadiani sect is known as Lahoris. This "Qadiani" term is not "pejorative" in South Asian context. In Pakistan, the Barelvi and Deobandi never complain about these terms used to refer to them. 2607:FEA8:4EE0:885:C543:62CC:DE0B:C576 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening, I did not know this. I am going to submit an edit request to include this in the article. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I have committed this change as requested. --cute_cat (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

And I've reverted it. It doesn't matter what you or I or this anonymous editor speculates. We're here to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources say about our subjects, and they tend to agree that this term is used as a pejorative. Woodroar (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

Since Qadiani is used as a derogatory term to refer to members of the Ahmadiyya Community, make this concept of persecution/bigotry explicit as per the following edits.

Edit 1: Add the following to the "See also"

• Persecution of Ahmadis
• Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan

Edit 2: Expand the lede and add the following at the end of the statement which states that they are officially called Qadiani in Pakistani, make the FULL CONTEXT clear that PAKISTAN OFFICIALLY PERSECUTES them with bigoted anti quadiani laws, and pipe to appropriate persecution articles.

Replace the following:

While it is pejorative to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, it is used in official Pakistani documents.

with the following:

While it is pejorative to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, it is used in official Pakistani documents, and Pakistan officially persecutes Qadianis through the Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan which declares that Ahmadia are not Muslims and Ordinance XX which criminalises their religious practices and claims of being Muslims, to the extent that the fourth Ahmadiyya caliph Mirza Tahir Ahmad was compelled to leave Pakistan and move the headquarters of the Community to London during his years of exile. Reason they are persecuted is because "Muslims consider Ghulam Ahmad a false prophet and all Muslim scholars consider Qadianis to be outside the fold of Islam."

Edit3: As suggested by the previous editor, it makes sense to include the etymology/origin of the term Qadiani, some that was unknown to me previously. I am deliberately using non-Qadiani/Muslim INDPENDENT western sources.

Ahmadiyya are called Qadiani because their founder was from the city of Qadian in Punjab province of India,

Note: Feel free to rephrase as you deem fit, but do ensure it is done without diluting or whitewashing the bigotry. Thanks.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References

References

58.182.172.95 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't had time today but something like this should be done and I'll try to look tomorrow if I'm not beaten to it. Doug Weller talk 21:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done I haven't used all the citations here but I believe that I have included all relevant, citable, reliably-sourced information that complies with policies and also addresses the main concerns. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Qadiani or Ahmadiyya

Qadianis prefer to call them "Ahmadiyya Muslim" which is not correct and not acceptable by Muslims community as they are not Muslims and have no right to call themselves Muslim in any way. Even they shall not be allowed to use term "Ahmadiyya" as Ahmed was the name given by his mother to the Last Prophet، Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ). Qadianis claim to be a Muslim sect is preposterous and false. The name of their False prophet was Ghulam Ahmed from Qadian. So either they should just be referred as Qadianis as Muslims prefer to call them. If they wish to relate the term to their prophet's name, then they may call themselves "Ghulami". Rehman Zahid (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

“Qadiani” is not a derogatory word, as Mirza's tomb himself brands MGA as “Qadiani"

Mirza’s tomb as stated on Hakam, a famous Qadiani website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretive lobbyist (talk • contribs) 14:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

That a tomb stone for a person from Qadian includes the demonym "qadiani" does not in any way mean that the same word cannot be used pejoratively. The article already explains this. --bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

And please do not use the term "Qadiani" in the way you did above, when referring to a website affiliated with the Ahmadiyya Muslims. There are sources enough in the article that support the claim that the word is used as a slur, so as a basic courtesy, please avoid using it. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 15:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Very right, so it means you have seen the definition of an “equivocation”. Equivocation means that the semantics (meaning of a term) can correspond to multiple definitions. You apparently are PhD in Linguistics, but do not know what equivocation is, and claimed my English is weak.

However, you incorrectly claim that the article mentions the fact that the tombstone of Mirza bears the epithet “Qadiani”. You have removed it, and it is not on the Wikipedia page, and you are currently successful to hide it. By the way, its not “a person” from Qadian, it is the tomb of Mirza himself.

The mere admission that “Qadiani” is an equivocation is sufficient justification for me to use the term Qadiani to refer to the “Ahmadi”. The Barelvi too identify as “Barelvi” and they refer to themselves as such. This has been requested by another user, but he too perhaps was given a tablet to wait by the “administrators". I wonder why are you trying to hide the fact from the Wikipedia page that Mirza’s tomb bears the demonym “Qadiani”. I am not sure if you realise, but this is precisely what we are debating : Qadiani is not necessarily a pejorative term. Therefore, I will use the term Qadiani to refer to ‘Ahmadis'.

I suppose with your admission that the term is an equivocation, may we proceed to edit the Wikipedia page that the term is in fact an equivocation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretive lobbyist (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

No. There is no equivocation involved. Again, please do not use the term "Qadiani" in the way you did above, when referring to a website affiliated with the Ahmadiyya Muslims. There are sources enough in the article that support the claim that the word is used as a slur, so as a basic courtesy, please avoid using it. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 15:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

There is, you just conceded to the equivocation in your earlier statement, and now you are lying like Mirza. I will refer to the group as the Qadiani, given that the founder of the faith is referred to the given title on his tombstone. I will now be referring the issue to relevant administrators, it is clear you have vested motives to hide the truth. I reiterate, I am not arguing the term is entirely positive , I am arguing it may or may not be used pejoratively, and am citing a very relevant reason to why it may not historically be, but you are very keen to hide the truth. --cute_cat (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not helpful or constructive to accuse your fellow editors of lying – that is, in fact, a personal attack. It is unacceptable to put words in your fellow editors' mouths. There is no "hidden truth" and no equivocation involved, nor have I claimed that there is.

• According to the Ahmadiyya source you provided, the tombstone in question mentions the birthplace of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad – that is, Qadian. It is not an epithet (a word describing some characteristic or quality of a person). Rather, as I pointed out above, it is a demonym. "Qadiani" in that context means "person from Qadian" – no more, no less.
• The information that Mirza Gulam Ahmad is from Qadia is in the article: The term originates from Qadian, a small town in northern India, the birthplace of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement.
• A semantic shift has taken place, such that the neutral demonym has become a religious slur. This is not the same thing as equivocation. I don't know if this shift has led to its not being used as a demonym, but it's quite possible that the term now has two uses: as a neutral term meaning "person from Qadian" and as a religious slur. That does not mean there is equivocation involved; many words in English have multiple meanings, it's a fundamental property of the language.
• You are obviously free to interpret the term in whichever way you like, but it is a sourced fact that "Qadiani" is used pejoratively; maybe you were not aware of this before, but it has been pointed out to you multiple times, and so it is pretty odd that you say you will keep using it to refer to Ahmadiyya Muslims.

I see that you have chosen to edit war instead of following the policies described to you on your user talk page. That is unfortunate. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You are once again not stating the truth : you fail to admit the tombstone is indeed of Mirza Gholam Ahmad Qadiani, and that is precisely how the individual is branded in Urdu on his tombstone in the link I shared. It does not refer merely to the place in the tombstone, it refers to himself by his demonym “Qadiani” . In an early conversation with User:Woodroar, it was discussed that he had controversy with the source of the picture I used, and if I used a picture which was from a more mainstream media outlet, it might be alright. In any case, here is a proposal for you : for a historical context of the term in a possible “history” subsection, would you want to mention the fact that Mirza's tombstone bears the demonym “Qadiani”? If the answer is in the negative, please explain why you wish to hide this fact, as this page indeed is about the term “Qadiani”. --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I urge you to re-read that discussion, because "the source of the picture" was not the issue; your original research in analyzing a primary source was. Using "a picture which was from a more mainstream media outlet" would still not be alright if you're analyzing it rather than neutrally summarizing claims made by reliable, independent sources. Woodroar (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove the content

Wikipedia should remove the caliphate content from his channel because it's merged to the qadianism. In othe words they are not Muslim and out of the circle of Islam. Every Muslim knows who is the last prophet and who's are the past prophets and they strongly believe on the 4 caliphs. Rather than that there is no caliph either in islam, shiaism or in massehism. Qadianism is out of islam they are non Muslim. There is no categories in islam like they are saying these day's (ahmadi Muslim) What is this bull shitt muslim are Muslim either non Muslim. Who the hell are these middle man Muslims (ahmadi Muslim) they are non Muslims.

Specifically khilafat refers to the leadership of the Islamic community after the death of the Prophet. Simply, the Muslim community was to be headed by a pious and learned mail member of the Quraysh, the Prophet’s clan, who was to defend the land of Islam, enforce the law, appoint and supervise godly officers and judges, and to collect and distribute alms. From the assassination of the fourth caliph in 661 down to March 1924, when the last Ottoman caliph was dispatched on the night train to Paris, the universal caliphate operated for the most part in defiance of the model. Thus, a powerful strand in Islamic political thought held that the true Islamic caliphate did not outlast the first four caliphs. Nevertheless, such as the power of the idea of the universal Islamic caliphate that it continued to be invoked as a source of legitimacy right down to the modern era. 2001:16A2:E64F:3A00:417B:46F4:83C0:AA44 (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Qadiani is an Urdu word, not Hindi

@Anupam and Kashmiri: Rekhta is an Urdu dictionary, an organisation who's purpose is to 'save' the Urdu language in India. This term is only attested in Urdu dictionaries [1], not Hindi dictionaries. The sense the word is used is unique to Urdu as well. HolyArtThou (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User:HolyArtThou, Hindi-Urdu is a pluricentric language with the majority of its core vocabulary being shared between its standard registers, Hindi and Urdu (refer to this reference by Professor Afroz Taj at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). The adjective Qadiani means "one from Qadian", a city in independent India, where both Hindi and Urdu are used. The Rekhta dictionary shows both Urdu (Nastaleeq) and Hindi (Devanagari) scripts for the word. Wikipedia therefore does the same. Also, your assertion that the word is only found in Urdu dictionaries is false, as other dictionaries besides Rekhta have the Hindi spelling (including the nuqtaless form) therein, such as Hindwi. Both क़ादियानी and कादियानी have multiple results in search engines showing the word's ordinary use in that register of Hindi-Urdu. On a side note, these kinds of discussions are exhausting and are the reason why many articles no longer have scripts. Rather than engaging in nationalistic edit warring over scripts, it is better to learn to be accepting and tolerant, working to improve the content of articles, rather than fixating on trivial issues. I'm sure User:Kashmiri will agree. As such, both the Urdu and Hindi spellings will be retained in this article (if you have any issue of favoritism, note that Urdu is listed first). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anupam: Rekhta and Hindwi are run by the same organisation – I've checked multiple Hindi dictionaries, it's not found in any of them. It may be a pluricentric language but that doesn't mean that there aren't any differences between them or that it can't be separated. The term 'Qadiani' in Hindi, could mean a person from Qadian – as you said – but in Urdu, it merely means a follower of Ahmadiyyat in a derogatory sense, which is exactly what the article is about. In fact, most of the time when this term is used in Hindi, the term अहमदीय is usually found in the same sentence, if not precedes or succeeds it, pretty redundant, – which is very different to Urdu, where you either use the term قادیانی or احمدی, unless the context is specifically narrow. There is nothing nationalistic about my objection, and I'm not sure what even makes you think that, rather the issue comes about when users start adding other scripts unnecessarily. HolyArtThou (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

And while we're on the topic of nations, after a quick glance, it would seem that this term wasn't even attested in Hindi pre-partition era, while it has been in Urdu – which, though a bit peculiar, would show that the Hindi sense was influenced by Urdu. HolyArtThou (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with you. There are other Hindi dictionaries that use the term besides the two that I have listed, such as this one. In your recent edit, you attempted to trim the title of the reference to exclude the fact that it formerly stated "हिन्दी, इंग्लिश और उर्दू में क़ादियानी के अर्थ" (Meaning of Qadiani in Hindi, English and Urdu); it is clear that Hindi is included in this dictionary and your edits attempt to conceal that fact. This is besides the fact that multiple Hindi news outlets use the term in their articles and broadcasts (e.g.Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C). The script has a longstanding presence in the article and per WP:BRD, you were properly reverted by both myself and User:Kashmiri for trying to remove it. You may not remove scripts from articles where they are relevant, especially now that you are aware that the word (like most of the vocabulary of Hindi and Urdu) is used in both standardized registers of the Hindi-Urdu language. If you remain hidebound in your view, let us both wait for User:Kashmiri to comment, or any other interested editors for the same. Anupam^Talk 20:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You were the one who added the Devanagari equivalent, back in 2018, and this article was made in 2003. You can't really say it has a 'longstanding presence' when you added it. Also in regards to the Rekhta link, that is something that I wanted to discuss – why did you link the Hindi version of the website, and not, say, the English version? I'm pretty sure that goes against WP:NPOV. Would you have accepted it, if I had changed it to Urdu? So no, I didn't 'trim' it, I purposefully changed it to the language of the Wiki – English. Rekhta is an Urdu dictionary. Just because it gives the Hindi translations, doesn't make it a Hindi dictionary. The entire Rekhta organisation was founded so that people (in India more specifically, but not restricted to) could learn Urdu, hence why Hindi explanations are given. As far as you references goes, the first link uses 'Qadiani' to talk about the town of Qadian, which is exactly what I said in my previous reply. In fact all three links also use the term "अहमदी". However, like I said, in Urdu that wouldn't be the case. HolyArtThou (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If the article is merely about the derogatory use of the term, then why would Hindi be included which uses Ahmadi and Qadiani interchangeably, especially considering the derogatory sense developed from the Urdu literature side of things – Urdu; the language which is known for being the language of the Muslims of the subcontinent, whether or not you agree with it. And I feel, that you're not completely comprehending what I'm saying. In Urdu, if you said – وہ قادیانی ہے۔, then it would mean that 'He is an Ahmadi', regardless of whether he's from the town of Qadian or not. No one would think, 'He's from Qadian'. In Hindi, Qadiani the denomyn and the adjective overlap. HolyArtThou (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You are fixating on the Rekhta website, though you now acknowledge that Qadiani is used in Hindi (as evidenced in the aforementioned exhibits). With respect to WP:NPOV, as you are a new editor, you have a poor understanding of the policy; there is a reason that the reference template includes a language parameter, which was filled completely. I would have not minded at all if you had changed the URL link to Urdu; if you knew anything about my edits, I have added hundreds of Urdu scripts to articles on Wikipedia (example). The difference is that I recognize a common lingua franca and culture in the northern subcontinent, which you seem to reject. Anyways, let us wait to see what others have to say. Anupam^Talk 21:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that 'Qadiani' wasn't a Hindi word either, but yes I suppose we should wait for other users to comment, but FWIW, I did go through your contributions (and others, as I normally do to improve my own edits), and there were certainly some edits of yours on certain articles which I would object to. In any case, if there are any further replies, I will likely respond in the morning, have a Good Night (or morning, where ever you might be)! HolyArtThou (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's used in Hindi too. Hindi/Urdu has a shared vocabulary. This Aaj Tak Hindi news reel is an example where Qadiani / कादियानी is used in writing and in voice.[2] I would say that if HolyArtThou continues to demand its removal (despite the evidence that it's used regularly), all the scripts in this article should be removed to stop future edit warring. Or both can just stay as they have been. It's strange that HolyArtThou named this discussion "Qadiani is an Urdu word, not Hindi" but now says "I didn't say that 'Qadiani' wasn't a Hindi word either". Editorkamran (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: Yes, I said that Qadiani is an Urdu word, ie. the derogatory sense comes from Urdu – I didn't say that it wasn't used in Hindi, did I? This word is also used in Bengali, Punjabi, Malayalam, Tamil etc, and other languages in India and around the world. Should we add the various scripts as well in the intro, or is not better to just keep the origin – which is indeed Urdu, the language which is largely preferred by the community, and the second most spoken in Qadian, mainly by the Ahmadis of the town. The reason I want it's removal, isn't because I have something against Hindi, rather it's because it's not relevant. HolyArtThou (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The word 'Qadiani' is always redundant in Hindi, because the word 'Ahmadi' is always used alongside it – like I said used interchangeably. Even in your video (where the title also has 'Ahmadi samuday ki kadiyani masjid'), whenever they say 'Qadiani' they follow it up by saying 'Ahmadi Masjid'. HolyArtThou (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You can't really compare Urdu/Hindi to other languages because they have a common origin and the word originated at a time when Urdu and Hindi were not really considered separate. Anyways, given that Kashmiri and Anupam both reversed your edits (and I agree that there isn't a valid reason to remove it), there isn't a consensus to delete Hindi. Editorkamran (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You can, however, compare the usage in literature, and which I already mentioned, the word isn't even attested in Hindi works prior to the partition – yet a quick look on Google Books can show that it was being used at the start of the 20th century in Urdu, if not earlier. If that's your opinion then yes, 3/1 isn't a consensus, and I'll drop my view. HolyArtThou (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:ORIGINAL research, which doesn't count here. You need to avoid edit warring against the consensus here because it will likely result in a block. Editorkamran (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

🤨 HolyArtThou (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Stealth edit changing purpose of purpose?

@DivineReality's edit of this page on 30th Mar 2024 changes the previous "While it is pejorative to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, it is used in official Pakistani documents" to "While it may feel pejorative to some of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, it is used in official Pakistani documents and by Sunni Muslims worldwide as a demonym."

This edit is only tagged with "added info about it being a demonym" - the edit from 'is' to 'may feel' is a clear attempt to justify the use of a word that has been established to be a slur on this page numerous times. Moreover, it isn't used as a demonym when being applied to Ahmadiyya Muslims who aren't from Qadian, making the edit irrelevant in the first place.

I don't want to engage in an edit war and wished to add this to the public ledger of disputes hence my posting here. Cosmothemoondog (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, just revert and that's it. A single revertion of unhelpful edit is not edit war. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm an English teacher. It's not used pejoratively. It's a demonym because they indeed came from that city. For example, referring to the US government's actions as "the white house recently blah blah." If some people simply don't like them and use that term, that doesn't mean everybody who uses that term intends insult. Many do not like the US government but the white house is not pejorative. DivineReality (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@DivineReality Are you 100% sure you're not confusing a demonym with metonymy (synecdoche to be precise)? I'm not an English teacher, though. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm good idea. I think metonym is better. Thanks. DivineReality (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)