Talk:Bollywood

Classic hollywood musicals

Hello All, I am wondering if anyone has a special knowledge of the relationship between Hollywood musicals of the classic era (30s-50s)and Bollywood films beyond what we have in the article. The section in the article, "Influences," is based upon one source only and the overview it offers is useful but limited. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Strictures

In the section, "Genre conventions" there is mention of older films having "sex and kissing" and that today there are "strictures." However, there is no more information than this. I've found a few references to this with more information that someone might want to incorporate. [1][2][3][4] The findlaw and google books links are especially enlightening. -Miskaton (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Partition Films

although this is a very well written article, there is a lack of information regarding the pre-partition era of Hindi cinema - films like Khandan (1942), Zeenat (1945) and the biggest grosser of 1946 'Anmol Ghadi' have no mention, nor is there any mention of the heroines of that time - the most popular being singing actresses like Noor Jehan and Suraiyya. Films like Jugnu (1947) gave Dilip Kumar his first big break in Hindi cinema but there is nothing written about this. other than that it's a very informative piece of writing. thanks. source: http://www.upperstall.com/people/noor-jehanMk762007 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. This will be taken care of. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget K.L. Saigal. :) Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bollywood: largest film producer?

Is the statement "... when India overtook America as the world's largest film producer." not in need of clarification?

Surely, although Bollywood may quantitavly generate more films than Hollywood, it certainly doesn't in terms of finance. The sum of expenditure and takings on films from Hollywood must be far greater. Even if this were not the case, the article should clarify exactly what is meant by 'world's largest film producer'; is it number of films, or turnover generated by the industry.1812ahill (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bollywood does not generate more films than Hollywood. All of India together does. Did you even read the article? As for what that quote means, it's obvious it means number of films produced, not finance.

Hindi Cinema

Bollywood is not just a part of Indian cinema, it is even just a part of Hindi cinema. Hindi movies are made all over that world. Calling it as whole hindi cinema is as misleading as calling Hindi as a national language. --Onef9day (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Explain please? I mean, Bollywood is just a common name for Hindi cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Bollywood is Bombay + Hollywood, and it's the cinema industry centered on Bombay/Mumbai. It's a community (often intermarried) with an interesting history, common institutions, and characteristic cinematic styles. The language is actually Hindustani and the community is mixed Hindu-Muslim (with generous doses of Christians and Parsees/Iranis).

It's as if you were to say that Hollywood is the English-language film industry. It also is a lot more than that (for one thing, for many years it was significantly more Jewish than the rest of the US). Zora (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point Zora. Shahid you have an email. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. But no, the language is not Hindustani - it is Hindi. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people, on both sides of the Indo-Pak border, have aggressively asserted that Hindi and Urdu are different languages. The impetus is political: we don't speak THEIR filthy language. Moreover, there has been a lot of pressure to push Hindi (the dialect) towards a Sanskritized vocabulary, and Urdu (the dialect) towards an Arabo-Persic vocabulary. But linguists, as opposed to nationalists, say that Hindi and Urdu are merely dialects of Hindustani and that in their colloquial forms (everyday as opposed to literary or government speech) they are close to identical. (Closer, indeed, than my Western American English is to Glaswegian English, which I find close to incomprehensible.) The fact that they are written in different scripts doesn't make them different languages. To repeat a point that I made above, Turkish did not become a new language when the Young Turks decreed that it be written in Roman rather than Arabo-Persic characters. Note the WP article, Roman Urdu, which discusses the use of Roman characters to write Urdu/Hindi/Hindustani. Shorn of distinctive scripts, the division between the "languages" collapses.

See also the WP article on diasystem. Politically-driven will to turn dialects into languages isn't just a South Asian phenomenon. There's a linguist joke that runs, "A language is a dialect with an army." Conversely, nations can insist that they speak one language, for political reasons, when linguists would say that several languages are spoken -- for instance, China insists that there is a "Chinese" language, whereas linguists will point out that Cantonese and Mandarin, for instance, are mutually incomprehensible.

Shahid, you keep pointing to popular works that distinguish between Hindi and Urdu and you ignore the work of linguists, who are after all the experts on language. You write as if only words you don't understand, or can confidently identify as Arabo-Persic loan words, can count as Urdu, and ignore the many thousands of words that are shared by Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani. Why this WILL not to see the similarity and mutual comprehensibility? Zora (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not one of those "some political people", I'm not a nationalist, I'm a human being like you and I believe you have blood and feelings just like I do. Urdu is beautiful, but the languages are not identical, though similar. In any case, Bollywood is Hindi cinema, not Urdu. Urdu is used in Hindi films, and it can be mentioned.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, you believe that your impressions have more weight than the conclusions of linguistic scholars and professors? On what grounds do you reject expert studies? Zora (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this is becoming so antagonistic and unpleasant. No, I have no impressions. I'm going according to the majority of the sources. If you make a simple Google search through Google Scholar, you will see how many hits "Hindi cinema" gets as compared to "Hindi-Urdu cinema". Most of the sources cited by editors here still support the fact that Urdu is a language which is used in Hindi films, but the language itself is Hindi. Same with IMDb, with every possible newspaper or book. I can't see how citing a few sources can override what is cited by the majority of the sources or can invalidate what is known to be common and official. Film certificates universally (with a few exceptions of course) identify Bollywood films as Hindi. What argument do you have against that? I cited books which prove that the use of Urdu in Hindi films is minor, which discuss its decline in recent years, which speak of English taking its place, yet everyone feels convenient to ignore them. Sources which claim Hindi films to be actually Hindi-Urdu films remain a speculation since they contradict what is known as official. Had Bollywood not been the Hindi-language film industry, it would not have been so widely known as Hindi cinema. Let me just ask you the same question, on what grounds do you reject Encyclopedia Britannica and all the millions of reputable sources which refer to and describe the film indutry as Hindi? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If I google "Chinese language" I get more than 99 million hits. Nonetheless, linguists who study Chinese languages do not believe that there is ONE Chinese language, but rather a family of languages, some mutually incomprehensible. Popular misconceptions and verbal shorthand do not outweigh expert opinion. (PS, I've moved Himalayan Explorer's comment up to the thread where it logically belongs; I don't want anyone to believe that he expressed his approbation of ALL my remarks.) Zora (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, we are discussing that is not relevant. The similarity between Hindi and Urdu does not matter here, and you almost totally ignored my entire message. BTW, expert opinions remain opinions, they do not become facts. The major consensus is that it is the Hindi film industry. We cannot change that. The films are officially Hindi on their certificates. Milions of sources have it as Hindi, there are sources which have disputed over those experts' opinions. You think we have a misconception. And maybe it's you? You reject official film certificates. On what basis? Why would you call "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema" a popular misconception? It's just your POV, it cannot change facts, it cannot change what is known as official and what is so widely common. Saying that an industry is actually in another language is a speculation. Speculations can be mentioned, not mentioned as facts. And I'm not willing to discusss what's Hindi and what's Urdu again. You may find a better place to discuss it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This side discussion is directly related to the main discussion here. An effort was made to merge all of these discussions into one for easy readability but this effort was stymied by Shshshsh (Shahid). In my opinion, it would be helpful to place all comments relevant to this discussion in the linked section so those new to the discussion will have easy access to all the relevant comments. Thanks for your comments everyone, Anupam^Talk 16:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zora about Bollywood not being the entire of Hindi cinema. Good point, and very interesting. That makes Bollywood a genre then, and not an industry, or a place, or bound by a language or a geography. It's a genre of Hindi cinema that is considered "mainstream". Does this call for a revision then of the introduction to Bollywood? 120.62.39.136 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I, too, agree that Bollywood has become more of a genre of Hindi cinema that is considered mainstream, but if so, would we have to just separate it into two articles, one Hindi cinema and the other Bollywood? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be silly. Bollywood films are made in Hindi/Hindustani. They come in various genres; also, some are commercial and some are more indie. But no one has ever suggested (nor have I ever suggested) that there is a Bollywood film industry AND a Hindi film industry, as separate entities. Nor would there be any reason to split the article into two. What we do see is terminological variation, with some people preferring "Hindi" to "Bollywood" as the name of the industry (either because they want to stress the language aspect, or because they think the term Bollywood is imitative and crass) and some people preferring Bollywood. I just did a google search on various terms. Bollywood gets 71,000,000 ghits; "Hindi movie" gets 26,600,000; "Hindi film" gets 13,700,000, "Hindi cinema" gets 1,670,000. On many of the sites that show up on such a search, both terms (Bollywood and Hindi movie/film/cinema) are used. Bollywood, however, seems to be the clear winner in terms of usage. Zora (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. Actually the thing I was trying to convey is the fact that Bollywood is not a genre. If it was, there would be a need for two separate articles. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Which one is Hindi and which one is Urdu?

چلو آج رات کھانا کھانے چلیں

चलो आज रात खाना खाने चलें

Zora (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hungry, thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're evading the issue. Zora (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just do not feel it is a part of the issue. We are discussing the use of scripts in Hindi films, not the difference/similarity between Hindi and Urdu. If Hindi and Urdu were idendical languages, they wouldn't be called Hindi or Urdu. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Zora's comment is indeed relevant to the issue. The undisguised point that User:Zora is making is that this is the language used in Bollywood films. The two sentences above that User:Zora inserted read the same thing: chalo aaj rāt khānā khané chalein. (translation: "let us go eat food tonight.") The first sentence employs the script used for writing Urdu, i.e. Nastaʿliq; the second sentence employed the script used for writing Hindi, i.e. Devanagari. However, both scripts are a part of Hindustani orthography. The language used in Bollywood films follows this concept. It can be called either Urdu or Hindi as "the language in most of the productions grouped under this rubric is Hindustani, with a bias towards Urdu." (International Symposium on Sound in Cinema in London). Finally, Shshshsh (Shahid), please do not unmerge the sections of this article as you did previously. The sections relevant to this lengthy discussion have been put in one place so that other members of the Wikipedia community may easily read everyone's comments and comment in one area. If we have this discussion scattered in different places, it will be difficult for others to join. This has all been done in light of the fact that I have started a RfC for this topic. Thanks for your understanding, Anupam^Talk 01:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, several language topics regarding Hindi-Urdu on Wikipedia share the article in light of the above facts: Hindi–Urdu grammar, Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) word etymology, History of Hindustani, Hindi–Urdu phonology, and Hindustani orthography. Also, the term Hindi language includes both Standard Hindi and Urdu. Since Bollywood is sometimes misnomerically termed Hindi cinema, Bollywood-related film articles should include both scripts for the Hindi language: Devanagari and Nastaʿliq. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Really?

"sometimes misnomerically termed Hindi"? Are you serious? First, they are always termed Hindi. 99% of the sources on the Interenet and elsewhere, including those you cited in which the use of Urdu is discussed, call it HINDI cinema. "minomerically"? So according to you "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema", the largest book on Bollywood ever published by Encyclopedia Britannica and written by numerous authors and experts does not know what it writes? So according to you the few sources you cited override the majority of sources. These few sources are right, and the majority of them is not?

The films are officially acknowledged as Hindi on film certificates. You have cited some unimpressive sources here and there. Make a Google check, on "Google Scholar" and on "Google Book". You will not change facts. Your claim is exceptional and therefore will need many exceptional sources.

Dear Zora, no, I have not evaded the discussion.In fact, you are the one who did not reply to my latest pose in the previous section.

Same with you Anupam, my latest reply to you remained unanswered. Why? So let me repeat it. This very source that you cite (International Symposium on Sound in Cinema in London)

In terms of language, though Hindi was, and still is, the principal lingua franca for Indian films, the talking picture drew upon target audiences marked by the linguistic divide. Indian films are today made in 17 different languages. The earliest talkies used Hindusthani which was a strange blend of pure Hindi and pure Urdu. Today, we have Hindi films using regionally accented Hindi in the dialogue such as the Bambaiya Hindi which uses a vulgarised version of Hindi spoken in Mumbai. Or, the Telugu­stressed Hindi spoken by characters set against a Telugu backdrop. Such as in Shyam Benegal's film Ankur.

Another book which proves that the use of Urdu is minor is "A Cinematic Imagination":

The extent of Urdu used in commercial Hindi cinema has not been stable... Although the shift was gradual and two generations communicated with each other through a blend of Urdu and Hindi, known as Hindustani, the ultimate victory of Hindi in the official sphere has been more or less complete." It further says "The Decline of Urdu is mirrored in Hindi films... It is true that many Urdu words have survived and have become part of Hindi cinema's popular vocabulary. But that is as far as it goes.

This so perfectly proves that Urdu is used in Hindi films (yet it in a minor way and it also faces a great decline), but is clearly not the language of Hindi cinema.

So, have you already done a Google search? Have you seen the results? Are there more reliable sources for "Hindi-Urdu cinema" than there are for "Hindi cinema"?

What do you have to say about this sentence:

English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu

? In fact, it supports that the use of Urdu in Hindi films is minor and that it has only been reduced in Hindi films in recent years with English taking its place. The decline of Urdu is also clearly supported by the big quotes I just provided before.

A simple Google search will clearly show what the language of Bollywood is (just check on Google Scholar or on Google Books "Hindi cinema" and Hindi-Urdu cinema" - over 24 thousand results for the former and less than 500 for the latter), so will a little go through IMDb (almost all the pages on Bollywood films have only Hindi in their language field - the two films you cited, Khakee and Dil Chahta Hai, do not have Urdu in neither their certificate nor the scripts. They have only Hindi), and so will a little go through the films themselves and their certificates.

Saying that calling Bollywood only Hindi cinema is incorrect is a claim which contradicts a common fact which is acknowledged officially. It therefore remains nothing but a clear speculation. It can be mentioned but not made as a fact. The common fact is that Bollywood is Hindi cinema. The similarity between Hindi and Urdu is not relevant here. If the use of Urdu and Hindi was equal, it would be widely called Hindustani cinema and film certificates would also say the same. But it is not the case. It is widely, commonly and official known as Hindi cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This side discussion is directly related to the main discussion here. An effort was made to merge all of these discussions into one for easy readability but this effort was stymied by Shshshsh (Shahid). In my opinion, it would be helpful to place all comments relevant to this discussion in the linked section so those new to the discussion will have easy access to all the relevant comments. Thanks for your comments everyone, Anupam^Talk 16:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is very strong to eliminate urdu is the cultural legacy of muslims, it needs to so others can see it, there are more similarities than differences... seeeing the way we speak today

Shahid deleted comment from another editor

Up above, Mashi6200 wrote (somewhat incoherently), "I think it is very strong to eliminate urdu is the cultural legacy of muslims, it needs to so others can see it, there are more similarities than differences... seeeing the way we speak today". Shahid deleted the comment; I restored it.

What possible reason can Shahid give for deleting this comment? It is a plea from the Indian minority that would be affected by Shahid's preferred policy of removing Nastaliq. This is the minority (millions strong) that uses Nastaliq to read and write the colloquial Hindi (Hindustani) of Bollywood films. Shahid assures us that film-makers use the script only for "commercial" reasons. He's saying, in effect, that "commercial" reasons don't count, the film-makers' wishes don't count, and that India's Muslim minority can safely be disregarded.

All of us have been tiptoeing around the communal issue here. We don't KNOW why Shahid wants to delete all the Nastaliq. He doesn't mention the fact that it is predominantly Muslims who learn to read and write using this script. However, I think it's germane to point out that the removal of Nastaliq, in defiance of the wishes of the film-makers themselves, disproportionately affects Muslims and is clearly perceived as an attack on India's Muslim community.

I gather that this isn't the first time that Shahid has deleted a critical comment. I hope that it is the last.

BTW, Anupam, I do think that this deserves a separate section. I don't think that this topic can be contained in one section, and I find it easier to find comments when they're left under the original headings. Zora (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Zora, some points:

• First off, please do not put words in my mouth. I'm very aware of everything I'm saying. Accusing me of attacking India's Muslim community is cruel and I would clearly say it is a defamation and a clear personal attack on me. I request you to read WP:NPA ASAP.

I said that removing the Nastaliq would be perceived as an attack. I didn't say that you intended to attack. Pointing out the consequences of an action, intended or unintended, is perfectly legit. Zora (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• You don't know why I oppose to having Urdu scripts? Are you kidding? Did you not read any of my messages? So I'll answer in short. They are irrelevant, the language of Bollywood is Hindi, not Urdu, not Hindustani. That's how the films are officially acknowledged and that's how they are widely known.

But the language of the films IS Hindustani (colloquial Hindi and Urdu). Zora (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It's officially Hindi. See film certificates. Between Hindi and Hindi-Urdu, 99% of the articles on the internet mention Hindi. Make a simple Google search. It's either Bollywood or Hindi cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Did you understand what this anon wrote? This guy in fact says that Urdu scripts should be eliminated, but I still removed it because it was not added appropriately and broke my message (which BTW you completely ignored/evaded). That's the "possible reason" I can give, and it is fair enough. I did not delete anything. I simply undid, BTW. And the previous time I reverted a user who violated WP:NPA.

The writer is struggling with English, but I read the comment as a clear plea to respect Muslims, Urdu, and Nastaliq script. Moreover, it is not up to you to decide that a comment is inappropriate. "Undid" is the same thing as deletion. Persist in this course and other editors may be forced to go to arbitration. Zora (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not threaten me please. Removing Urdu from articles in which they are practically irrelevant does not show any disrespect to any nation or religion. And the user had broken my message. It is inappropriate. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Urdu scripts are no longer used in Indian movies. They are used only rarely today so nothing of what you said holds water. Urdu scripts have only vanished and in recent years there have been almost no films with such scripts. It only supports the quotes I presented in my above message which discusses the decline of Urdu in recent years.

I see Nastaliq quite frequently. Zora (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not, and I see new Hindi movies weekly. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, even if there were scripts, it would not matter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a film, and filmmakers' past commercial considerations should not interest us. We provide the script of the industry's primary and official language, which is Hindi. The similarity between the languages is equally irrelevant.
• As Nichalp once stated and as it was well supported by SpacemanSpiff - the use of scripts boils down to the location. I can quote a good post by Nichalp:

Bollywood movies are released with English and Hindi titles. Since I come from Bollywood's locale, I am very sure of this. However, the titles may be changed depending on the screening location for obvious reasons. In UP, Hindi/Urdu would be common; in Tamil Nadu, Tamil and English would be common; in Mizoram, (if allowed) is likely to be in English. Urdu is not the lingua franca of Bollywood. All Bollywood movies are released in Hindi only.

• Why would you ignore so many of my messages in the previous sections? My previous post, in which I cited sources which discuss that hte use of Urdu in Hindi films is minor was completely overlooked, so was my request from all of you guys to make a When I ask them to make a simple Google search through "Google Scholar" and "Google Book", on which we see a clear result. I don't think anyone can really change facts.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You argue; several people refute you; you repeat your argument, not having listened at all. I am not required to respond to the umpteenth restatement of "Hindi is not Urdu" and similar distortions and misrepresentations. Zora (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether I listened or not is up to me to decide. In fact you just overlooked three of my paragraphs. There are several editors who support my restatements. All my book quatations seem to be of no value to you. You reject official film certificates. On what basis? Why would you call "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema" a popular misconception? It's just your POV, it cannot change facts, it cannot change official acknowledgement. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

After this HUGE discussion, what has actually been achieved? How many articles have been promoted to GA status? I really don't think that this is worth such a discussion. Hindi cinema is Hindi cinema and Encycklopedia of Hindi cinema is certainly a reliable source, if not the most reliable as Shahid says. They often cite Urdu poetry extracts etc in the films from what I've been told. Why can't this be mentioned in the article without actually citing Urdu everywhere. Please move on everybody and think about all the poor articles we have on Bollywood on here. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to preserve the urdu culture, it is the legacy of muslims, and all they did to make hindustan a great country with great history and culture, and to deny its voice is to deny India's history. Urdu needs a clear representation in Bollywood just like Hindi has been given a voice. urdu should be always shown with Indian films, especially the font. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashi62000 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you do not even speak about the script, or the use of Urdu in Hindi films. Sorry, but we are not here to save the legacy of Muslims and this is not a reason to add a script. We are not here to add a language just because it needs a clear representation and just because we don't want it to disappear. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Urdu is the language of Pakistani films. Its use in Hindi films is minor. Adding it is like now going and adding a Hindi script to every possible Pakistani film article. Films in which Urdu is more present can have such a script, not otherwise. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hindustani is spoken in Northern India and Pakistan; when it's written in Nastaliq, people call it Urdu. When it's written in Devanagari, it's called Hindi. There are millions of INDIAN CITIZENS who write Hindustani in Nastaliq.

Shahid, you are saying that these people don't exist. That their alphabet, their interests, don't count. That the fact that a great many people in the Bollywood film industry are Muslim, come from Northern India, have learned both scripts, and take care to use both in film titles and movie posters, that doesn't count. We have a quote from the author of a Hindi textbook saying that Nastaliq is used to write Hindi/Hindustani. Ignored. Instead, we're told to stop fussing over this minor matter.

It's not a minor matter, given a long history of communal tension and massacre in India. I'm not a Muslim (I'm a Buddhist, which by some counts makes me a Hindu) but dangnabit, I'm not going to be complicit in a policy that is discriminatory in its effect, whatever the tenuous justification given for it. Zora (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop these terrible accusations, please

"Shahid, you are saying that these people don't exist. That their alphabet, their interests, don't count." - Zora I would be grateful if you stopped putting words in my mouth. I never ever said such a thing, but Urdu is not the language of Hindi cinema. Hindi is. Some people have cited sources which call it Hindi-Urdu, I cited sources which discuss the decline of Urdu, which prove that the use of Urdu in Hindi films is minor. It is ignored. I do not ignore the use of Urdu, I've always said that is can be mentioned and discussed, but scripts are totally irrelevant. I cited official film certificates, and it is ignored. I cited books, but it is ignored. I provided Google results on Google Book and Google Scholar, but it is ignored. I challenged you to reply to some quatations by respected authors, but it is ignored. Other editors oppose to the use of such scripts just like I do, and it is ignored.

Since when have random scripts had more weight than official film certificates? Since when have random opinions been more important than official acknowledgement? How can you try to refute something that is so widely common? Can you change the fact that 99% of the results you see on the net are Hindi cinema? On what ground do you overlook Encyclopeida Britannica's "Encyclopedia of Hinid Cinema"? So what if Urdu scripts were used from time to time (today they are used rarely)? The use of scripts boils down to the location. In Tamil Nadu, you will find Tamil scripts, not Urdu. It was just done for commercial purposes in the past, and today it's almost disappeared completely. English titles have also been used always, does it make Hindi films English-language?

Whether you are a Buddhist or a Muslim does not interest me, quite frankly. I'm not a Hindu, and not a Muslim, and it is just so totally irrelevant here. There's nothing discriminatory about the discussion here. That you call this like that only proves that your reasons are unjustified. We are not here to load pages with irrelevant scripts just for the sake of a certain community, and your opinion of me similarly does not interest me so I don't think I have to justify myself to you. I think Urdu is a beautiful language, but it does not mean I should support its addition to Hindi film articles.

I work on these articles, I do my best to improve them, I've spent hours to create them and make them better, and you just pop up from nowhere with your extrimist claims and accusations to enforce your POV and then leave this place again. I'd rather work on articles and fight to keep them in good quality than edit them keeping political factors in mind. Almost every reputable source, book, actor, filmmaker, and even the sources which discuss the use of Urdu in Bollywood, call it Hindi cinema. You won't change facts. And you may be very intelligent, but you won't refute the simplest of facts, and you won't invalidate a book written by the most reputable people in India and thousand of other sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with Shahid. And yes has anybody stopped to think how irrelevant it would be to insert Hindi script into every Pakistani film? As he says if the film has notable Urdu content it can be added. Otherwise not. Somebody should archive this now, its 300 kb. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 22:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The above insertion, for the record, is incorrect. Original Bollywood films will only contain Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Nastaliq/Perso-Arabic), not regional languages such as Tamil: "Most of the cinema produced in Bombay was made in Hindi-Urdu, but the regional studios either made films in their local languages (such as Bengali, Marathi or Punjabi) or they made two versions of their films simultaneously, one in their local language and one in Hindi-Urdu" (Cinema India). Also, discussions pertaining to this issue should not be archived right now since the discussion is still in progress. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is very correct. As Nichalp once stated and as it was well supported by SpacemanSpiff - the use of scripts boils down to the location. I can quote a good post by Nichalp:

"Bollywood movies are released with English and Hindi titles. Since I come from Bollywood's locale, I am very sure of this. However, the titles may be changed depending on the screening location for obvious reasons. In UP, Hindi/Urdu would be common; in Tamil Nadu, Tamil and English would be common; in Mizoram, (if allowed) is likely to be in English. Urdu is not the lingua franca of Bollywood. All Bollywood movies are released in Hindi only."

And BTW Anupam, the name of this book is not just "Cinema India". It is "Cinema India: the visual culture of Hindi film". Expectedly you ignored that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The older material was unrelated. The page is now down to 232 kilobytes which is better, but an incredible waste of time when you face reality ..And no I am not joking, this "discussion" has gone on two months and is clearly going nowhere. Compromise or ever remain at odds. Keep in mind that to the average english wikipedia reader urdu script within an article is unimportant and more effort should go into writing a decent article which I see little evidence of anybody here doing here in recent times because of this conflict. I suggest you identify those films which contain Urdu extracts and list them or only add script to those where it is actually relevant. It does make me angry in all honesty to see you going around in circles for months and waste so much time and energy when if stubs like Kali Ghata even got an ounce of the energy you've all put into this debate we'd have a better Hindi film encyclopedia... Urdu script is irrelevant to quality of our articles which is what readers care about. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 10:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

we'd have a better Hindi film encyclopedia You mean 'Hindi-Urdu' film encyclopedia. :) But, seriously, while I don't agree with the arguments for not adding nastaliq that have been presented above (mainly because of the language/script dichotomy), I think we need to note a couple of things. It is true that, traditionally, the language used in Hindi cinema has been written in both nastaliq as well as Devnagari and that the linkage of Hindi-devnagari is relatively recent (at least in Northern India). But that linkage is now, for better or for worse, fairly secure and the idea of penning a Hindi treatise in Urdu is now decidedly odd. We no longer live in the era of Premchand who learned one language but could write it in two scripts. Second, after all this discussion, I am unable to see what including nastaliq brings to the pedia. I'm not even sure why we need devanagri, given that the predominant title is often in English anyway. I have a mild preference for including both (if we include any one) but that is mostly for reasons of inclusiveness, history, and nostalgia, none of which are good encyclopedic reasons for inclusion. I suggest that the discussion be tabled for the present time because it is unlikely to be resolved in favor of nastaliq being added to the articles. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 18:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:RegentsPark, thank you for your comment. If it is decided that the discussion is to be "tabled," the old consensuses regarding the addition of Hindi and Urdu scripts to Bollywood film related articles would stand (poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3). These consensuses established that it is acceptable for both scripts to appear in the lead of Bollywood related film articles. User:Taxman, a bureaucrat and administrator, affirmed the validity of these consensuses in this discussion itself in two locations, here and here. I have no problem "tabling" the discussion if this is the case. However, I feel that it is a good idea to continue to hear the voices of the Wikipedia community on this issue. This article, from the University of Iowa, which comments on the Hindi-Urdu/Hindustani language of Bollywood films, may be insightful to this discussion and continues to support the longstanding consensus of including both scripts. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the discussion needs to continue, then that's fine. I've been kibbitzing for a long while and I see mostly the same arguments being rehashed, but would be happy to see something new emerge that will help resolve this. Personally, I find the discussion a bit sad because it underscores the disappearance of the Urdu script from non-Muslim life in India, a place which it had occupied as the literary vehicle for Hindustani expression for several centuries. The lack of awareness of this history of writing in India, and of the distinction between the spoken and the written word, is a revelation to me. But, it is a revelation that underscores the extent to which modern India has discarded Urdu while cementing the Hindi-devanagari bond. That, anyway, is my takeaway from the discussion so far and I'll retreat, once more, into my role as a kibbitzer. Whatever the outcome, this is definitely one of the more interesting discussions on wikipedia! --RegentsPark (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Anupam. Very clear. It reminds me of a moment, years ago, when I was just starting to watch Bollywood films and I was proud of all the Hindi words I was learning. I was talking to my friend Monir, who's Iranian, and rattling off the words I'd learned: "Zindagi, mohabbat ..." She laughed and said, "Those are Persian words." Zora (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, there was no consensus on these pages. Repeating and linking the same discussions, which are actually two discussions (Zora often posts new messages in new sections) on which consensus was never reached does not help. More there - even if there was a consensus, it would not help here because these scripts were gradually removed by many different users almost one and a half years ago and have not been added since, so the word "longstanding" is practically incorrect. The fact that Taxman is a beaurocrat does not give him any authority to decide anything, and I already proved that consensus never existed there. There's also no consensus here. Also, both you and dear Zora ignored my two lengthy posts, one of which is located in this section, the other in a previous section. I see you have no arguments. I cited books, quotes, opinions, facts,; I challenged you to see the majority of the sources, I provided film certificates, explained the decline of Urdu in Hindi films, proved that its use has been minor. You seem to be unwilling to reply, but anyway. Hindi is officially the language of Bollywood and the common and formal name for Bollywood is Hindi cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, there IS a mandate for the use of Nastaliq. We thrashed the matter out in 2005, and several times since then. I was there at the beginning, as you'd see if you were to look at the discussions. If there's no consensus now, it's because a FEW users will not listen to authors of Hindi primers, will not listen to linguists, will not listen to academics, will not even read other articles in Wikipedia, and continue to trumpet film board certificates and book titles as the beginning and end of linguistic knowledge. If a few users have been intent on removing the Nastaliq from articles, then that's something that needs to be tracked and reversed. It is not a popular mandate. Zora (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Another great insult from user Zora. I would love to see which sources y-o-u cited. For the most part you just speak out of your "knowledge". Linguists and academics? And what about the quotes I've provided from different books and authors? What about all the sources I provided? You mention film posters and when I cite official film certificates it's not OK? What's linguists got to do with cinema when the language of this cinema is officially clear? You try to change commmon facts, and it's OK? 99% of the sources on the Internet refute everyting you said, yet you stick to your truth. Is i-t OK? You ignore my lengthy messages to because you clearly have nothing to say, write little posts and ignore what I say, and it's OK? You want to add scripts mainly for political reasons (and you clearly have shown that), and it's OK? You accuse me with some really terrible accusations. What do you think about that?

Come on, Mrs Zora, you will not change facts, and speculations cannot become facts. 2005 is gone and I can't see any consensus on the matter from those times. Discussions were followed by discussions, articles were constantly reverted, scripts were removed. There was no consensus. And consensus cannot override facts, BTW. You say Hindi and URdu is the same languages, so according to it is fine to go on Pakistani film articles and add Hindi scripts? You've come here out of nowhere to just enforce your POV and leave, but I'm here and I'm working on these articles. I'm trying to improve articles, and it won't work like this.

Hindi is officially the language of Bollywood and the common and formal name for Bollywood is Hindi cinema. The use of Urdu has always been minor in Hindi films, and in recent years English has started taking its place as it faced a great decline. Film certificates acknowledge Hindi as the official language of the films, film posters no longer use Urdu scripts, and if they do from time time, it is mainly in order to tackle a wider audience, which is not relevant here. This does not make the language of the industry Urdu, just like the English scripts don't make it English. That's what the articles should reflect in their scripts. So no, no Urdu scripts should be added. You won't invalidate a book written by the most reputable people in India and thousand of other sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bollywood now legal in Pakistan

I've just become aware (d'oh!) that Indian films are no longer banned in Pakistan. I can't google up the exact date on which this happened, though it seems to have been some time in 2008 or early 2009.

Bollywood films are now doing great business in Pakistani cinemas -- without any subtitles, of course, because the language is the same. The films had always been popular there, but the Indian filmmakers weren't seeing any money from the pirated films. Now they're getting income from legit theaters. Large expansion of the market (and salvation for the Pakistani theaters, which were struggling).

The statement in the article that Bollywood is banned in Pakistan is now out of date. I'll do a temporary rewrite later today (should be working now) but I would appreciate some help in finding the exact date when the ban was lifted. Zora (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First line of article -- remove ALL scripts

I reread the entire article ... amazing how much of what I wrote in 2005 is still there. However, I noticed the addition of a Devanagari version of Bollywood after the main title. A bit of sleuthing in the history showed that Anupam was insisting on Nastaliq as well as Devanagari in this prominent position, and Shahid was removing the Nastaliq.

I don't think either script is necessary. Bollywood is a coinage in Indian English. It's Bollywood in standard English, Bollywood in Indian English, Bollywood in Hindi, Hindustani, and Urdu. No confusion is possible. The Devanagari is a provocation and serves no purpose other than the political. Let's remove it and have one less item about which to argue. I'll do so tomorrow. Thought it might be polite to mention it first. Zora (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No you won't do it, because you did not reach consensus. What happened, Zora? You have nothing to reply to my messages so you've taken a decision? Hindi is officially the language of Bollywood films and the scripts should reflect that. Devangari is a provocation? You once again prove that you're talking from a political point of view. It is the script of the industry's lingua franca. They often miss Urdu, but they never miss Hindi. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, there is no consensus for you to unilaterally remove the scripts as well. The last consensuses stated that the addition of both scripts would be acceptable. Even though you may not agree with the position, you will kindly have to accept the wishes of the community. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there were no "consensuses". You claim there was consensus using Taxman's statement, who, with all due respect, is no authority to take decisions. You always kept adding scripts although this issue was very delicate and many people kept removing them. Zora herself declared once that nothing was set there. Why do you keep overlooking this link? These scripts have not been here for over a year and a half. It's consensus. You have much more to prove since you are the one who adds unrelated scripts. You are the one who claims that Hindi cinema is actually not Hindi cinema, therefore the burden of evidence is on you. A few sources cannot change facts, they are just speculations because they contradict the majority of sources. Exceptional sources are needed for exceptional claims. And what Zora wants to do is not what the community wishes. We are talking about the Hindi-language film industry. The language is officially and commonly Hindi. That's what the articles' scripts should reflect - Hindi. All my lengthy posts which included quatations from books, reputable sources, other editors, explanations and proofs, were ignored and evaded by both you and Zora, other editors' opinions were also ignored. Go and visit Google, IMDb or the films themselves and you will have an answer. Just like I told Zora, you will not invalidate a book written by the most reputable people in India and thousand of other sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

All that aside, there's no real reason to add a Devanagari transcription to the title of the article. What possible purpose does it serve? Instead of fussing over which script/scripts to use, why not just drop the script and evade the problem in at least this one place? Zora (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, on that I agree. I'll remove it from this particular page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! We have reached agreement on something! Zora (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:Shshshsh, please do not remove Urdu from Bollywood related film articles until we have reached a consensus here. Until this discussion concludes, neither Hindi & Urdu can be removed from Bollywood related film articles. A new consensus has not been reached. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. This discussion is here to prove that Hindi films are actually Hindi-Urdu, not otherwise. The language of the industry is widely, commonly and officially known as Hindi. All these particular films' certificates and even scripts do not have Urdu. There was never a consensus on this issue, however you try to deny it. This discussion is done to add scripts, not to remove them. Prove that these particular films are actually Urdu films. If you want to edit war, be my guest.

From what I see, I doubt consensus on this issue will ever be reached because there are too many different Hindi films and there can never be taken one decision for all of them. Also, except for canvassing the "right" editors, citing random books, ignoring my lengthy posts, ignoring the majority of the Internet and the film themselves and providing the same links to the same discussions, you did not really prove anything here.

And coming to the issue, I just found out that you were secretly canvassing users to participate in the discussion. And this will not be spared. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if a DVD of the film, intended for world release, has both Nastaliq and Devanagari in the titles, that it would respect the intention of the producer and director if we gave both. If someone can produce a pic of a film poster with both scripts, I think we can assume that the producer and director signed off on the presentation, and should give both. If there's no Nastaliq, then I don't think it's necessary to add it in the article; however, I don't see any necessity of removing it if someone chooses to add it. It's respectful of a large Indian minority; it's a kindness. What is wrong with kindness and respect?

I accept that many people, and many sources, speak of Hindi cinema, but I don't accept the idiosyncratic conclusions that Shahid is drawing from that fact. A film described as "Hindi" may have Nastaliq in the titles and posters, so there doesn't seem to be any impropriety in writing Hindi/Hindustani in Nastaliq. Nor does the fact that people use the term "Hindi cinema" prove that it isn't also colloquial Urdu cinema, or that colloquial Hindi and Urdu aren't in fact the same language. We have numerous quotes from linguists and academics stating as much, and all Shahid can produce against that is his unshakable, PERSONAL conviction that if it's Hindi, it can't be Urdu.

If Shahid can come up with quotes from others stating that Urdu and Hindi are mutually incomprehensible, are different languages, and that it's wrong to use Nastaliq to write Hindi/Hindustani, then perhaps this dispute could be elevated from behind-the-scenes tussling to a discussion in the "language" section of the article. Something like, "Some Indians (insert citations) believe that Hindi and Urdu are separate and distinct languages and that it is therefore wrong to write Hindi in Nastaliq. Nastaliq is only appropriately used to write Urdu, which is the language of Pakistan. Indian film titles and film posters should use only Devanagari script." Is there some agitation against the use of Nastaliq? Are the Shiv Sainiks and Hindutvadis blacking out Nastaliq on film posters? Are they boycotting films with Nastaliq in the titles? Do rioters burn down business establishments with Nastaliq signs? If there is a real world controversy, then there should be some real world quotes to indicate that Shahid isn't alone in his campaign. Then we can take the WP step back, present all views (including those of the linguists and academics), and let the reader decide. Zora (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Compromise is not a solution

Sorry, but we are not here to look for compromise. Facts cannot be changed. Kindness is not our mission here, and I can't see how adding an irrelevant script is an act of kindness. Urdu is used in Hindi films, that's what most of the sources cited here proved and I never denied that. Its use is minor in the general Hindi film. But it is not the language of Hindi films. I support the addition of Urdu in films where its presence is much more major, but I strongly oppose to having Urdu scripts in Hindi films.

Why should we look at posters if we can look at official film certificates? Posters boil down to the location, they are made with commercial considerations which should not interst us. See what Nichalp says,

Bollywood movies are released with English and Hindi titles. Since I come from Bollywood's locale, I am very sure of this. However, the titles may be changed depending on the screening location for obvious reasons. In UP, Hindi/Urdu would be common; in Tamil Nadu, Tamil and English would be common; in Mizoram, (if allowed) is likely to be in English. Urdu is not the lingua franca of Bollywood. All Bollywood movies are released in Hindi only.

English scripts are also always used in Hindi films. That does not make the industry English-language. As one source said:

English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu

That does not mean the industry is actually Hindi-English. The industry is Hindi. Other languages which are used in it can be mentioned and discussed, and they are mentioned and discussed, but a script is not relevant.

Once again, onus is not on me to prove that Hindi and Urdu are not the same language, onus is not on me to prove that Bollywood is not Hindi-Urdu cinema, but on those who claim otherwise. That's a common fact. If you come up with exceptional claims, so go on and prove it by citing exceptional sources, by explaining why the films are officially acknowledged as Hindi, why Encyclopedia Britannica calls the industry Hindi cinema, why IMDb identifies Bollywood films as Hindi in 99% of the cases, and why 99% of the sources on the Internet, on books and on scholary sources describe the industry as Hindi cinema. To disprove this will be very difficult. And yet again, I can't see how the similarity between Hindi and Urdu relates to our discussion about Hindi films.

Urdu is mostly used in poetic and romantic dialogues in commercial Hindi films. Its presence varies from minot to major depending on the film's main plot, location and story.

Another book which proves that the use of Urdu is minor is "A Cinematic Imagination":

The extent of Urdu used in commercial Hindi cinema has not been stable... Although the shift was gradual and two generations communicated with each other through a blend of Urdu and Hindi, known as Hindustani, the ultimate victory of Hindi in the official sphere has been more or less complete." It further says "The Decline of Urdu is mirrored in Hindi films... It is true that many Urdu words have survived and have become part of Hindi cinema's popular vocabulary. But that is as far as it goes.

This is plain as day. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I also must note that after finding out that User:Anupam violated WP:CANVASS, some things are more than clear to me in this discussion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, thank you for alerting me to the official policy. However, if you read the email, which is on my talk page, it was very neutral. Moreover, I did not know User:Yumegusa. Since not many individuals were contributing to the discussion, I felt that it would be a good idea to invite individuals who I had not contacted in the past so that they would offer their opinions. You too, have been violating the policy as well by canvassing on other people's talk pages and through private email correspondence here and here. Moreover, you are contacting users and stating your opinion on the discussion on their own talk pages. No, I do not want to edit war with you on here. Please respect the fact that others have taken the time to discuss this isssue before. It was indeed decided before that consensus still stands per Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not alter any current articles until a new consensus has been reached. How would you feel if I went around and started adding Urdu scripts to Bollywood articles right now while a discussion on it is going on? I am not doing so out of respect, even though I do have the right to do so since previous consensus stated that I could. Please, do not take this discussion out of control. Continue to engage in dialogue. The defense in this dicussion, too, has many sources to support its position and you should respect that, even though you may disagree. You have been warned by a Wikipedia Bureaucrat to respect this. Please do not edit war. I encourage you to engage in further dialogue and delineate your views to the Wikipedia community. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, do not speak about a consensus that never was - you better prove your point rather than relying on something like this. I proved that these discussions died a premature death. And it's been a long time ago since most of the scripts were removed. This discussion is in order to prove that the industry is not only Hindi. Your claims contradict the majority of the sources, the common facts, the main official acknowledgement. Do not use the words of a user who has no right to take any such decisions whatsoever. This won't change anything. These scripts have not been here for over a year and a half. It's consensus. You have much more to prove since you are the one who adds unrelated scripts. You are the one who claims that Hindi cinema is actually not Hindi cinema, therefore the burden of evidence is on you. A few sources cannot change facts, they are just speculations because they contradict the majority of sources. Exceptional sources are needed for exceptional claims.

And the links that you cite have no meaning at all. What Blofeld and I had discussed through e-mail has nothing to do with this discussion, so do not cite things that have no basis or proof. Before defaming me please get your facts right. I clearly have basis for my claims, and it's there on your very talk page.

Again, Taxman is not here to take decisions on whether consensus was or was not, because clearly there wasn't, as this poll and discussions were declared as dead by Zora herself.

By far, you have ignored all my lengthy posts and quatations, even in this very section. You ignored the existence of Encyclopedia Britannica, Google statistics, reputable sources, official film certificates, IMDb and other editors' views. You are contradicting a common and official fact. Bollywood is Hindi cinema, not Urdu and not Hindustani. You will not invalidate a book written by the most reputable people in India and thousand of other sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh (Shahid) violates Bureacrat Rulings, WP:CANVASS, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:EDSUM

Shahid, you are trying to avoid the main issue here by attempting to wrongly frame me. You were completely aware that I supported the inclusion of as many individuals in the discussion as possible. When the discussion began, I even posted the fact that the discussion was occurring on the Indian and Pakistani noticeboards so that everyone had the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Indeed, I did notify some users that a discussion was going on as they were heavily involved with the issue before, just as you privately notified User:Himalayan Explorer about the issue. Moreover, you sent non-neutral messages to other users describing the issue. You are now being warned for violating Wikipedia:CANVASS. Moreover, you are framing me for the fact that new users are contributing to the discussion. IP evidence will show you that all the individuals commenting there are not linked and this is a strike against you. Go ahead and report me for the very acts you commit yourself. You have been warned by a Wikipedia Bureaucrat to respect a longstanding consensus on Wikipedia regarding the inclusion of Hindustani scripts on Bollywood related film articles. You ignoring this administrative warning by blatantly ignoring the previous consensuses (poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3) and unilaterally removing Hindustani Nastaliq scripts from Bollywood related film articles with sneaky edit summaries such as "Cleanup." Your unjustified edits will be reverted soon. --Anupam^Talk 19:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are very wrong. You have violated WP:CANVASS and WP:WL. And there was no consensus.

• I have never removed scripts in disguise - in the case of CCCC I wrote "cleanup" because I made other edits as well and it was a part of the cleanup. In other cases I clearly indicated my edits being removals. Why do you ignore my other edits?
• Secondly, I was never ever "warned" by a beaurocrat. It was never a warning so do not speculate.
• Thirdly, you are there edit warring because you are the one who reverts me.
• You deviously and massively cavassed the "right" people knowing they would support your claims on the talk page. Zora is one of them, but you've been caught, so whatever there, do not make up stories to disguise your guilt. You do not know what I was discussing with Blofeld via e-mail. I never came to him for any such thing. Do not defame me to conceal your bad acts!
• I never ever said that these IPs are actually yours. Please provide a DIFF if you claim so. It is a terrible accusation with no basis.
• There was never a consensus on this issue and I cited sources proving that died a premature death. Taxman has no authority to make any such decisions. Period. No sources were cited on these discussions, just opinions of editors. Zora was the one who led the discussions. Since then the scripts have been removed numerous times and most of the pages were without scripts for over a year. This very discussion is a proof that there is no consensus on the issue. One thing is clear. Bollywood is Hindi cinema.
• I did not ignore anything. It is you who actually ignored. By far, you have ignored all my lengthy posts and quatations, even in this very section. You ignored the existence of Encyclopedia Britannica, Google statistics, reputable sources, official film certificates, IMDb and other editors' views. You are contradicting a common and official fact. Bollywood is Hindi cinema, not Urdu and not Hindustani. You have ignored a book written by the most reputable people in India and thousand of other sources.
• Not less important - the discussion on this page does not have results. And as a matter of fact, it does not matter. We cannot make such inclusive discussions for an industry which makes so many films per year. My lengthy posts were ignored. So I think the right way is: if you add a script to an article, prove that it is actually an Urdu film. Let's be specific. If you claim Chori Chori Chupke Chupke for instance is an Urdu film - PROVE it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me just read it again: you are warning me of WP:CANVASS? You are trying to take this responsibility off yourself in a very devious way. Where did I canvass YellowMonkey? I mentioned what I was doing - I did NOT call him to participate in this discussion like you did with other users via e-mail. Read WP:CANVASS. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Anupam's Wikilawyering

I must also note that, in addition to violations of WP:CANVASS, you have been repeatedly violating WP:WL. You have just accused me of violating WP:CANCASS, while actually you are the one who did it. Also, WP:BEAUROCRAT does not say a beaurocrat determines the bottom line of a discussion. WP:ES is just an information page. In addition, I used proper summaries except for two edits which you conveniently chose to mention. And you keep evading the main discussion, instead going to personal extents and fake accusations. Wikilawyering at its worst. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I just decided to go through the so-called consensus Anupam was talking about again. So here you have it

• The so-called poll. First of all, there were only 7 editors participating in the poll, and editors who opposed to having scripts did not even take part in it. The entire discussion remained without sources and without focus. And it actually dealt with scripts for actors' articles, not films!! Zora, as always spoke of provocations etc. Users including Plumcouch, Elyaqim and Nichalp opposed to having Urdu. There was no consensus on this discussion at all.
• Discussion 1: Now Anupam, please tell me what "discussion" you are talking about! What consensus are you talking about?! A user just posted a comment about the general addition of scripts in film articles, Zora replied and he replied back.
• Discussion 2 and discussion 3 are actually one discussion with two sections (Zora has a habit of starting new messages in new sections like she did here; expectedly, Anupam used it to add two links to his list). There is absolutely no consensus here. On the contrary, it's one big mess. No sources were cited by anyone. The same intense arguments as the ones you can find here. Nobleeagle, Bharatveer, Dbachchman against Zora, Ragib (who's disappeared from this discussion as I cited the certificates he wanted me to cite) and Anupam (who as always cites specific film posters and in that discussion cited two unreliable sources). A user named Bakaman put it all very well: "There is no consensus reached on this page. All I see is large assumptions of bad faith and OR"
• The most important link which Anupam keeps ignoring is the one in in the fourth archive in which Zora declares that the old discussion and the so-called poll are over and dead. Yes, they died a premature death. This is the most important link which clearly proves that there wasn't any consensus.
• This clearly shows how Anupam mispresents the entire issue and that Taxman just misinterpreted it (though he clearly is not the one who takes decisions here as Anupam pretends).

Related Administrative Reports

Dear participants in this discussion, please see these two reports, which User:Shshshsh (Shahid) has started: here and here. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Anupam^Talk 10:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Kaunsi lipi mein likhoon?

Generally speaking non-English scripts on articles relating to the cinema industry based in Bombay is a minor issue. Okay, there may be some readers of Wiki who notice the inclusion or non-inclusion of the Nagari or Nastaliq script and conclude that the writers here are biased on Ind-Pak issues. But I think most readers will judge Wikipedia's quality and neutrality by reading the rest of the article.

Having said that, I agree with Taxman's point that Indic scipts could provide better phonological information about the title. Because an informal transliteration scheme is used, words like हम, हुम and हूम (although the latter two aren't actual words) may all be written as "hum". I think which scripts should be added however is not as straightfoward.

Should both Hindi and Urdu be added because speakers of both languages (which at a colloquial level are exactly the same) can understand the movie without subtitles? I don't think we should decide on a case-by-case basis because whether the dialogue leans towards a particular language or standard is quite subjective. It also creates inconsistency.

Then we'll have to consider what distinguishes Hindi and Urdu from other Indic scripts in areas of India where Bollywood is popular (Punjab, Gujarat, etc.). Many fans when saying or hearing a Bollywood film title will write in their mind the script in which they are most familiar with. But we can't cater to everyone. Personally I am split between Hindi and both Hindi/Urdu. Urdu is ultimately a prestige dialect of Khari boli just as Hindi is, but I don't think its strong historical roots in Bollywood (even if there are a plethora of references this quite obvious claim) can count for much as there is even a growing amount of Punjabi and English in Bollywood but it will be a while before Bollywood is referred to as Punjabi and Indian English cinema. The Khari boli dialect natively spoken in Delhi and Western Uttar Pradesh (whether Shuddh Hindi, Persian Urdu, Hinglish or Punjabindi) is the one constant throughout Bollywood history.

(And if anyone is wondering, I came to this page from my watchlist!) Gizza^{Discuss ©} 13:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest keeping the old compromise: let editors add either Devanagari or Nastaliq or both; don't remove scripts. I don't think we legislate that every single article have both scripts ... who's going to add them all? Some editors (like me) are Hindustani-challenged and can't add the scripts. Zora (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There was never an old compromise to add scripts. There must be some consistency. Abecedare's suggestion is the rightest way to go now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time to file an arbitration case. This discussion has been going on for months, with no resolution. It is also very difficult to read the huge discussion and get an idea of what's being argued. In any case, since the RFC and other attempts didn't result in any meaningful consensus, then perhaps the involved editors need to go through an arbcom case. --Ragib (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM would be the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute, and I'd highly recommend involved editors to go down that path. I think this discussion has gone on too long, that the arguments have started going around in circles, and the tone is worsening (on all sides). The conduct issues, as far as I can see, are not ripe for arbitration yet, and it would be good to keep it that way! Abecedare (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever there, guys, there was never a clear consensus to add Urdu scripts in the first place. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never in my life read more drivel written by people who are historically and linguistically challenged. At the end of 19th centrury and beginning of 20th century language riots broke out between supporters of Hindi and Urdu for ascendency under the British who pretty well manipulated the situation to their advantage. The Hindu wanted to cleanse Hindi of all vocabulary orginating in Turkish, Arabic, Farsi and yes even Pashto as well as the Perso-Arabic script they termed 'Quaranic writing'. This was the age of Hindu fascism's beginning and the real seed of later partition of the country.

But if you look at the Hindi language both the daily commonly spoken version as well as 'Bollywood' style then you see that the influence of the 'detested' languages goes further than the 'poetic' Urdu, which is representative of those languages in India, is greater then Sanscrit or any other language. Trueboth Hindi and urdu share origins in Prakrit and Brij Bhasha but even those languages now are heavilly Persianised/Arabised - even Hindi, Hindu and Hindustani are of Perso-Arabic origin. Not only nouns and pronouns but conjunctive words such as agar, magar etc. are of Urdu origin. Everyday terms such as shaadi, khoon, matlab, beemar, bukhar, have etc. (I could go on and on) are all of urdu origin. What was once the Indian nationalist perspective on the Hindi-urdu debate has become the mainstream preoccupation for Indians certainly where language is concerned. And what started as a movement to remove all non-Indian, particularly Muslim influence, seems to have achieved the opposite. But unfortunately for Indians it has worked to alienate a significant proportion of their own Muslim population and Pakistanis - something you guys need to work on. i suggest those who are entrenched in their position on this debate look at the issues historically and then analyse Hindi vocabulary they would be amazed that majority of everyday wormd/terms etc. including Hindu religious methphors etc. are all of urdu origin both linguistically and culturally. I suggest that you guys heed the call of right-wing Hindus and cleanse your language of all foriegn influence and then you'll find that you're left with Mahabaharat and Ramayana Hindi only and this will also be called Baharati not Hindi, your identity will not be Hindu but brahmanism and the counry simply Baharat. I rest my case. PS. I am Pashto/Dari speaker but an academic historian/linguist. User: Moarrikh 10:00 8th March 2010 [UTC]] —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

History and linguistics are just not relevant here. All of what you said does not at all prove anything. All of it is your opinion and is not even sourced. How can someone base himself on history when the reality is here in front of us? It was proved that Urdu is only present in Hindi films and is not the language of the industry. In fact, several books compare the presence of Urdu in Hindi films to the presence of English. Whether Hindi and Urdu are similar, identical or completely different, it does not change the fact that the lingua franca of Bollywood is Hindi. That's how it is officially acknowledged in film certificates and that's how it has been commonly known. So how come a script pops up out of nowhere? If someone bases his opinion on the similarity between the langages, then does he also agree to adding Hindi scripts to Pakistani films? This entire view does not make sense according to me. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear friend, please do read WP:NPA before referring to me as "Ms 'Shahida' Kumari". Consider it a warning. And by the way, your so-called argument proves nothing as it is just your personal opinion, in addition to having nothing to do with films. The Urdu in Hindi films actually is comparable to the English in Hindi films, as such comparison was done by reputable sources. The language of Bollywood is Hindi. Period. The use of Urdu does exist but it is nowhere close to being the lingua franca of Bollywood, which is Hindi and that's been proved continuously. That's how the films are officially and widely acknowledged. Adios. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong again but in part correct too. Bollywood is Hindi in that Hindi is an Urdu word - the equivelant native word is Bharati. You are wrong that Urdu in Hindi is same as English in Hindi. i was in UK 2/3 months ago and in the Guardian newspaper they gave out booklets in various languages - the hindi booklet was edited by a Hindu so we were not going to get a true account of this language. In the middle of this booklet was a picture with arrows to various objects and guess what out of 12 objects 10 were Turkic persian terms such as bagheecha not chaman, mez not table, tasveer not photo. basically it was Urdu not Hindi as defined by Hindu nationalists but Urdu as defined by Urduists. All in all another fallacy from the Bharati brigade. Mr Sahid majority o Bombay film dialogue writers, stopry writers and lyricists have been and are of Urdu background and unless you go back to Khari boli and purge hindi of Farsi, Turkic, Arabic and pashto vocabulary then you are still under our cultural rule. Incidently, Bombay is no longer a valid term so the film industry is Mollywood. Game, set and match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarrikh (talk • contribs) 12:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So do go and read the following facts, as quoted by a book called "A Cinematic Imagination":

The extent of Urdu used in commercial Hindi cinema has not been stable... Although the shift was gradual and two generations communicated with each other through a blend of Urdu and Hindi, known as Hindustani, the ultimate victory of Hindi in the official sphere has been more or less complete." It further says "The Decline of Urdu is mirrored in Hindi films... It is true that many Urdu words have survived and have become part of Hindi cinema's popular vocabulary. But that is as far as it goes.

This is as simple as that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your diatribe here, based on Hindu nationalism, will not change facts. This is Wikipedia the portal for historical revisionism, so people like you cannot change reality. Many lives were lost in the Urdu-Hindi riots in late 19th century/early 20th century. Everything Indian is everything from outside particularly Islamic: Shalwar Kameez is increasingly becoming dress of choice for women. Indian food is based to only what only 20 years ago was called Muslim is based on Central Asian Turkic, Arab and Persian cuisine. Language is acknowledged as being Urdu, by academics/historians, ordinary people and so many fair-minded Hindus - there are some of these around. India is the largest place where all faith groups and none practice Muslim culture. You yourself being named Shahid despite being a Hindu nationalist are a fine example of this and a witness for my arguments. Hindustan does not mean land of Hindus but Land of Hind, which refers to Indus Valley in the present day Pakistan a place widely held as having always been very different from Gangetic valley in terms of cultural and ethnic origins.

So I am convinced that the cultural chauvinism of Hindu nationalists pervades throughout Wikipedia, on any subject even remotely linked to India, is a tragedy that culminated in Partition. Hindu nationalism is a child of British Raj policy of divide and rule and Muslim self-determinism was a reaction to it. Jinnah, a committed ambassador of Muslim-Hindu unity was finally convinced of this when he changed his mind. Your attitude as displayed here is a testament to my words. Modern Hindi is no more than Hindustani which is a low level or uneducated Urdu at the most basic level.

The fact that Bombay film industry is based on Hindi is as true as the fact that Bollywood as a name is steeped in the Puranas or Maha Baharat.

User:Moarrikh offers a good exposition on his views above. I have also stated many reasons that both Urdu and Hindi scripts should continue to remain in Bollywood related film articles here which contains many scholarly references. User:Moarrikh, could you please evaluate my comments there? Shahid, I encourage you to accept the aged consensus of incuding both scripts. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, Anupam. Moarrikh's words are his personal opinion as nothing is sourced. And most of what he says is practically irrelevant. No, there was never a consensus on the issue and you can see my analysis of the previous discussions. On this discussion most of the editors involved were canvassed by you. Bollywood is both commonly and officialy the Hindi-language film industry - you cannot change reality by finding excuses like "Hindu nationalism". A simple Google search through every possible section, including Google scholar and Google book, will prove this. You can also make a go through official film certificates which have only Hindi on all of them. The use of Urdu is still just a "use" - its presence varies depending on the film's issue but the general Bollywood film is in Hindi. The lingua franca of Bollywood is Hindi and that's what the scripts should reflect. Would you support adding Hindi scripts to Pakistani film articles? I'm not the only user who supports this version. If you know that the films are actually in Hindi and you still think Urdu scripts are necessary for some other reason, then what is this other reason? I'm always ready to learn more but you never really convinced me that Urdu scripts are necessary. Say no more. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, your argument neglects the very important linguistic basis of Bollywood that User:Moarrikh, a linguist, is trying to educate you about. Yes, I understand that the language used in Bollywood is commonly called Hindi but you are not looking into the depth of the issue; rather, you make a very superficial argument. What type of Hindi is used in Bollywood cinema? - Hindi is a very broad term. Is it "Shudda/Sanskritized Hindi" used in government broadcasts or is it the colloquial language known as Hindustani which gives rise to the standardized registers of Hindi and Urdu which has two scripts? You yourself know the truth and answer to this question: "filmakers finally settled on one type of Hindi known as Hindustani - a mixture of Hindi and Urdu - a language associated with bazaars and trading that served as lingua franca across northern and central India" (Université de Montréal). My question is why do your look at the issue superficially when you know that the actual linguistic truth supports the inclusion of both scripts. Also, please do not rehash your baseless cavassing charges, which were dismissed by the Wikipedia Administration, who cautioned you that your arguments were unconvincing. This discussion should concern the linguistic issue, not debunked charges. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 03:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your canvassing was not dismissed at all. B, I don't have to be educated here. And C, linguistic basis is not relevant to Hindi films. Bollywood films are commonly known and officially acknowledged as Hindi. Official acknowledgement is much more important. It has been ignored by you. BTW, user Taxman is not a neutral party here. SNM. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(Several messages were removed from here as they went in violation of WP:NPA)

Thank you for the compliments. Next. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I'm ignoring your attacks. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested to go on with this discussion, all of what you said is based on your opinion only, and you've also been incivil and rude. My name is not of your business, and by the way, I'm neither a Hindu nor a Muslim. History, literature do not interest me here. We're talking about the Hindi-language film industry. Hindi is the official language of Bollywood films, and if you make a simple Google search you'll find out that it's commonly acknowledged as such. Bollywood's lingua franca is Hindi, not Urdu, not Hindustani, and many people seem to agree with me on that. Period. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh, I have notified administrator User:EdJohnston to see whether your removal of User:Moarrikh's comments was acceptable. Based on his decision, the comments will be either kept or deleted. As of now, I object to your removal of comments crucial to this discussion. --Anupam^Talk 19:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, not only did you revert me and restore a personal attack of another user on me, you also removed some of my modifications of MY own messages, which is totally unacceptable. This user has long attacked me personally and he was reverted several times by RegentsPark and even blocked for his attacks. Before reverting I consulted RegentsPark and he approved of me deleting these comments (See here). So I do have admin approval. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, I agreed with Shshshsh that the comments were NPA and should be removed. While the comments have been removed, there is no reason why that editor cannot restate his or her arguments without resorting to unnecessary invective and he/she is welcome to do so at any time. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh, I never knew you modified your messages because once again, you never indicated it in your edit summary. --Anupam^Talk 23:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You should have looked what you were reverting then. I did specify that I removed personal attacks but I realise you did not even check out what I was removing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. You should read WP:EDSUM. --Anupam^Talk 21:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's you who should. I always use edit summaries unlike you. I did specify that I removed personal attacks and you still reverted me, isn't it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Information-line and attempts to add Punjabi language

I reverted Information-Line again. So far as I know, no one has ever commented on a strong presence of the Punjabi language in Bollywood films. Though I'd be willing to reconsider if he/she could come up with a citation.

I suggested to IL, on his/her talk page, that an article on Bollywood films set IN the Punjab might be interesting. That could have something about local dialect used for color, and perhaps something about the settings where the filming was done. Also, I understand that after Partition some Punjabis fled to Bombay/Mumbai. Successful Punjabi actors, directors, and producers founded film clans (people like Yash Chopra). Something might be said about that in the film clan article. Zora (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

please add interwiki for ur:بالی وڈ کے

Done Thanks!

Mention of other Indian film industries

Recent addition re other film industries may not have been well-phrased, but it speaks directly to the question of what the rest of the industry IS, if Bollywood isn't the whole industry.

Question of language, which has been so divisive, is perhaps best addressed by adding a new section which would give the various viewpoints on the issue. Hope to get to that soon, as well as bringing up question of scripts again. Sorry, have been too busy with RL to deal with it. Zora (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Zora, please assume good faith. Mention of other specific film industries is NOT relevant in the lead of this article. This article is about Hindi cinema, not Telugu, not Marathi and not Tamil. If people want to know what the other parts of Indian cinema is, they can refer to that page. Also, the user mentioned only several industries, while there are much, much more. On top of that, you did not even check what the user added and where he added it. He actually inserted his text within a footnote, which is a very wrong format. Next time check before reverting. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a short clause which makes the sentence clearer: "which includes several film industries sorted per languages". If someone can rephrase it better without mentioning specific languages, then it's great. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, guys. See how I reworded it to point to the place where the other industries are listed. BollyJeff || talk 19:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

All good, only that the reference to the Cinema of India article cannot appear in the prose. Any kind of guidance and reference to a larger source of information has to be presented within footnotes. Unfortunately the article cannot be used as a footnote as it is a WP article. But it's good anyway and it's clear enough that those who want to get more knowledge of other film industries can refer to the article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think it will be really good to mention Parallel Marathi Film Industry along with Bollywood in This article. A significant number of Marathi movies are made in Bollywood aka Mumbai Film Industry. If this article is about Bollywood(very specific to Hindi Film industry) then it certainly should not mention as Mumbai Film Industry. Moreover, Recently Amitabh Bachan has produced a marathi movie and it is very much a product of Mumbai Film Industry. we should mention existence of Marathi film industry along with bollywood. There is no harm in it. In fact it is good practice to bring facts to notice. What you say?? --Onef9day ^Talk! 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Film industries in India are sorted by language, not states or cities. Marathi is an altogether different in dustry. Bollywood is not the Mumbai film industry - it is the Hindi film industry. It is generally based in Mumbai but there are Bollywood films which are shot in Mumbai. Therefore Marathi films have nothing to do with this article in my view. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• well i'm certainly not saying it is mumbai film industry. I'm just asking to mention marathi industry as well. may be in only few words like mumbai film industry hosts both bolywood and marathi film industry. This is to reflect the existence of both all together. Bollywood is bollywood because of mumbai. where else hindi films are made to this extent. nowhere else only in mumbai. It is a healthy practice and not including it may reflect an arrogance of Hindi people. Please do understand it. I'm not asking you to write whole section on marathi film industry. Don't be this stone. Be generous man. If not happy with it, just for the sake of many hindi and marathi people who work in bollywood. Think to include it man. Am i asking too much. Be inclusive man.--Onef9day ^Talk! 23:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.116.211.71, 13 September 2010

1. REDIRECT Template:Edit semi-protected/preload

The only countries in South America where Bollywood films are popular are Suriname and Guyana who have an Indian majority population. Indian films are broadcast on national tv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.211.71 (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC) N Not done. Please be more specific and cite reliable sources; currently that section is all of one sourced sentence long in the article. —SpacemanSpiff 05:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Golden Age

I found this section a little weird! Because if the Yesteryears formed the golden age in Bollywood, I wonder what it is now with more movies breaking records, ppl winning Oscars et al! The "Golden age" for Hindi cinema never ended!

But that's just me!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

BOLLYWOOD CULTURE IN 'OMAN'

I am from OMAN myself...and i for one know....that owing to the massive (2nd biggest population of Baluchs in Oman.....Hindi cinema is very very enormously popular there In the past the the national televioson even showcased Hindi movies In fact Hindi movies are showcased by many national televiosons all around the Middle east with arabic subtitles And more than Indians, its the locals who enjoy Hindi cinema, sicne it goes more with their culture than the western cinema. Also most of the people there guaranteed know salman khan,shahrukh khan and amir khan....nobody mustv even heard of tom cruise or something.

Plus these national televisons that showcase these movies.....as well as private channels.....they even dub the movies.....let alone subtitles.....that itself shows that they target the local population not the expats!

also

PAKISTANIS AND HIND CINEMA

sicne they are deprived of it in Pakistan to a big extent, trustme, Pakistanis love watching Hindi cinema, they fill halls in the middle east more than Indians. Its pakistan's expatriate population that has the ability to watch these movies. And owing to the fact that Pakistani cinema has declined over the past few decades to an all time low, Pakistanis resort to watching Hindi movies for entertainment and many even love it

SHOULD BE ADDED HERE...ITS PURE LOGIC....AND OF COURSE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.....CANT GET REFERENCES FOR BOTHE ABOVE POINTS (Pakistan and OMan)

Edit request

{{editrequest}} Please add an interwiki for ur:بالی ووڈ.

Done BollyJeff || talk 16:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wehokid, 3 January 2011

Bollywood popularity in South America is pretty strong especially countries like Suriname and Guyana. Suriname has over 8 televisions in Hindi based languages alone and showing Hindi films several times a day. Hindi video store is a huge business especially in the capital city of Paramaribo, and second capital Nickerie. Popularity of the Hindi movies is due to the 40% North Indian diaspora who still speak Hindi dialects. Guyana on the other hand is pure English speaking but to an amazement people watch Hindi films with or without subtitles, Guyana has a majority of Indian Diaspora covering about 60% of the population, Hindi movies are a high demand and even though TV channels are in English, Hindi movies are shown regularly. Just like Suriname Guyana has a big market for Hindi films. Both these countries gets visits from celebrities from India preforming Hindi Musical concerts, Artists so far included Sonu Nigam, Sharukh Khan, Juhi Chawla and a lot more. Wehokid (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. Needs sources to back up the claims. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bollywood is definitely very popular in South America especially spanish speaking countries like Peru,Mexico,Uruguay,Brazil.Infact the Bollywood movie "Kites" was shot keeping in mind especially this market in mind,where the lead actress Barbara Mori is a well known face in Mexico and popular through the spanish speaking regions.The lead actress Barbara Mori in this movie infact spoke only in her native languare -Spanish.Dhoom 2 was shot in Rio and a scene for Robot was shot in Machu Pichu in which Rajnikanth danced with Aishwarya Rai. In August 2010, Priyanka Chopra was in Rio for shooting the show, 'Fear Factor'.Shah Rukh's TV game show "Zor Ka Jhakta", which went on air in Argentina on feb 2011,(The name of the Show in Argentina was - "wipe Out") is also a factor reaffirm these growing bonds.

The Brazilian model Giselle Monteiro's debut in Bollywood in the movie Love Aaj Kal was also widely publicised by the Brazilian media.From bindis to Ganesh idols, the Indian flavour is becoming popular among the locals, thanks to the Brazilian soap opera "Camino das Indias" that ran for eight months in 2009 on Brazilian Globo.Another craze in Latin America is Bollywood dancing, which was a hit during the festivals of India in 2009 and 2010 in Buenos Aires. And people have also started taking Indian films seriously.he video rental stores in Buenos Aires have a number of Bollywood films. The Indian film shows during the last three Festivals of India attracted long queues of Argentines and the Embassy had to extend the film festivals for about a month.The facebook of the embassy has messages from Argentine girls asking about Shah Rukh and Salman Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajitdas01 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

...and still no source. BollyJeff || talk 13:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jdraper1, 25 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The second paragraph is missing a needed comma. It says "It is common to see films that feature dialogue with English words phrases, or even whole sentences."

It should say "It is common to see films that feature dialogue with English words, phrases, or even whole sentences"

Jdraper1 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Done thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sub-Genres

I would like to see more discussion on genres within Bollywood, perhaps even including a new article listing Bollywood movies by genre (rather than only having the current list by year). Too many people talk about Bollywood as if it is an indivisible genre, as if all Hindi movies look the same. How about some mention of historical epic dramas, action, comedy, etc.? — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yabbut a lot of them ARE masala movies, with action-romance-comedy-song-dance all mixed up. Makes it hard to categorize. However, I could see a section on Bollywood and genre that would start by pointing that out, then perhaps point to a separate article with lists of films that lean heavily in the direction of one genre or another. Mythologicals, historicals, Muslim socials, underworld, horror, comedy come to mind. Also films that use common tropes: double roles, identical twins separated at birth, reincarnation, revenge on the guy who hurt your family. Zora (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And a lot of them are not. Actually, the majority of recent Hindi movies cannot be called masala. Gone are the days when every film had song and dance and different genres within a single picture. Today everything is rapidly changing. Filmmakers start concentrating on one single genre. And there have always been non-mainstream films as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Peru - South America

The paragraph about South America is untrue and incomplete. Bollywood cinema is widely popular in Peru and it was a boom during the 70's and 80's in that South American country. Movies like Joker or Boot Polish were a huge success all over the country, and in Lima, until the beginning of the XXI century, there were at least 2 movie theaters completly devoted to Bollywood movies (the City Hall and the Metropolitan). 190.232.82.1 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Armando Pattroni

Length of the article

This article is even longer than the Cinema of the United States article. Does it require all that info which is present?? Some of it borders on wp:trivia so I suggest some sections like the Dialogues and Lyrics be removed. Secret of success (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

please correct

Can anybody correct this with reference, 3rd paragraph of section History which reads.

In 1937, Ardeshir Irani, of Alam Ara fame, made the first colour film in Hindi, Kisan Kanya. The next year, he made another colour film, Mother India. However, colour did not become a popular feature until the late 1950s. At this time, lavish romantic musicals and melodramas were the staple fare at the cinema.'

It says Kisan Kanya was made in 1937 and next year he made Mother India, where as Mother India was released in 1957. Regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Mother_India_(disambiguation), there were other films with this name in the 30's, so maybe its true. I will just remove the link to the wrong film for now. BollyJeff || talk 02:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Omer123hussain (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Name Bollywood

The article introduction read as below:

Bollywood is the informal term popularly used for the Hindi-language film industry based in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay), Maharashtra, India.

where as section etymology says:

it has its own entry in the Oxford English Dictionary.

well in this case we should remove the word informal term from the introduction and replace it with some suitable sentence. regards--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed an informal term and that's what Oxford says. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mukesh.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mukesh.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing is not vandalism

A newish user made changes to the article; Shahid (Shshsh) reverted them. I undid his reverts. He left a message on my talk page telling me: Next time you revert, I will report you on ANI.

Shahid, go ahead. I would like to see you make a case for not allowing anyone but yourself to edit the article when it comes to the Hindu/Urdu/Hindustani issue.

Sorry, I have not had time to do a rewrite of the article that gives this issue the space that it needs. BOTH views need to be presented: scientific linguistics and linguistic nationalism. That's the Wikipedia way. It is not OK to declare one POV false and not to be mentioned in the article. Zora (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not Shshsh, I'm Shshshsh. Secondly, I said much more than what you just quoted, so please do not try to misrepresent it. I do not own this article, so I'm not here to allow anything to anyone, but you don't either. My edits were in accordance with policy. I'm frankly fed up of seeing you accuse others of nationalism and of all the negativity you bring to the editing of this page.

Now, I welcome everyone who edits Wikipedia, but everyone must adhere to policy, otherwise the article may never progress. Such bombastic claims as "enormous film empire" and "Stars, rather than plots, were often the driving force behind the films" (which were added by the user in the lead!) just sound terrible to me, in addition to being unsourced (can they be sourced at all?), while you added them back calling them "reasonable" and in the process took the liberty of changing info that is sourced. How come? And it's not just that, there is also one huge block added in the first section, which is full of original research, and you just added it back. Ever heard of WP:OR or WP:CITE? I did explain why I reverted the edits, citing policy, but you reverted me because you personally find the other edits reasonable and because you see some "nationalism". Any logic?

The introduction has been this way for years, and the language of a film industry (which you just removed) is indeed the first thing that a reader should see (particularly when it comes to India, in which every film industry is sorted by language, basically).

And to remind you, this article is about cinema, not "scientific linguistics and linguistic nationalism", I'm not here to serve anyone's agenda. That Bollywood is a term used to refer to Hindi cinema and that Hindi is the lingue franca of the film industry is not even debatable, and we never even argued over it in the previous discussions (which concerned scripts). You have the best source one can ask for, Britannica's "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema", supporting it right there. You have film certificates which officially acknowledge Hindi as the language of Bollywood films, and a list of bibliographic works all of which call it Hindi cinema. That's what the lead must represent. You also have the use of Urdu mentioned and elaborated in the article. What else do you want? I think everything is clear. What is overlooked according to you?

It is not the first time you revert my edits on this page, and it's not just content, it is the fact that you have formed some negative opinion of me so you cannot trust them. I find it unacceptable. I work daily on articles and try to improve them to the best of my abilities. Seeing someone come every once in a while to revert an edit of mine without proper justification and then disappear for another month is just not done. My problem is the addition of nonsense to the article, which you have just supported. Shocking. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

In the past, I have seen other editors attempt to add information and references on the topic but they too have been reverted. I too, agree with User:Zora as I feel that both sides of the issue should be represented as there are references that support the alternate position of Hindustani being the lingua franca of film industry. I do not have a whole lot of time now but I will try to work more on this issue later, potentially in the summer. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be great if you would, but everything of this sort should be fair and should be agreed upon by others, so remember that. The lingua franca is not Hindustani, it is Hindi, at least according to the view of the great majority. Every possible film has a certificate which has the line - "language - Hindi" even if the movie later has an Urdu script (and today they almost do not), and most books you can see on the net refer to Bollywood as Hindi cinema, even if they later discuss the presence of Urdu (and most say, "the presence of Urdu in Hindi films... well). So that's what I believe we should do as well, as even you yourself have called it an alternate version; it is mentioned on the article (as you can see, "Urdu is often used in film titles, screenplay, lyrics, the language of love, war, and martyrdom") and I'd like to see it expanded, but I would strongly oppose to biased editing aimed to reflect the minority view as a common fact. Urdu has been used but its presence has been dying and it's been facing a decline over the years, that's another thing that should not be forgotten. Today it's more present in films like Jodhaa Akhbar, and basically English has been becoming more present in Hindi film dialogue. In the end, Bollywood is the term used to refer to Hindi cinema, as everyone calls it, not Urdu, not Hindi-Urdu and not Hindustani. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if the "great majority" of Indians and Pakistanis believe that Hindi and Urdu are separate languages. linguists say that they are indistinguishable at the level of everyday speech. So, we present both views. That's the Wiki way. That's why I need to do a rewrite of the article to bring this issue out in the open, rather than fighting over stray words and phrases here and there. Also, the article is cluttered and nigh unreadable. A lot of the stuff here needs to be broken out into other articles and then linked. I just haven't had the TIME. Perhaps during these holidays ... Zora (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"A lot of the stuff here needs to be broken out into other articles and then linked." - that's something I agree with, and I'm planning to do it soon, once I'm done with an article I've been working on. Regarding what linguists say, you first need to cite sources for it and discuss it if it might cause controversy amongst the editors here - that's the wiki way. Many Hindi movie-goers would need subtitles to watch a full-fledged Pakistani film in Urdu, many books about Hindi cinema discuss its presence in Hindi films. If these languages were practically the same, there would be no need to do it, and for that matter, there would be no need to make this devide, calling one Hindi and one Urdu - there's a blend - called Hindustani. Watch Umrao Jaan and Mughal-E-Azam to hear it. If you want to present both ways, do remember that there's a weight that each side must be given. And mind you, this article is about the film industry, the films, not linguistic research. The latter would rather belong in articles about the language. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)