Talk:Vidya Balan

Official site

Vidya balan does not have an official site. the site listed is a fansite as the disclaimer of the site clearly states

Fan Sites

Hi

I was wondering if the fan sites rule includes fan sites that have no adverts or sources of income what so ever. For example this site as opposed to this one.

Thanks!

Wrote something about the topic on Amrita Rao's page. If you wish to raise a discussion over the use of fan sites, I suggest you ask the editors which work on this article to contribute.

Problem with adding own fansites is:

"A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." (Policy for external links here at WP:[1])

Not to mention copyright violations and POV.

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 01:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. :)

I see the other site there now... added by our new editor. --82.37.25.233 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Urdu

User:Zora and U-Company, Can you please explain the rationale behind inserting urdu script in Vidya Balan's biography.-Bharatveer 09:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by this edit war too. Could somebody please explain the necessity of adding Urudu to this biography article?--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 13:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense, especially considering her ethnicity (Malayali) to have Urdu. Malayali Urdu ka orru sambandho ille.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, Bollywood movies are made in HINDUSTANI -- they stick to language that is understood in the widest possible area of Northern India and Pakistan. That's a commercial decision, to maximize box-office receipts. That's why the titles, on screen and in the advertising, are given in both Devanagari and Nastaliq script. Those are different ways of writing the same thing. If it's necessary for the Devanagari to be there, so that people who know both Hindustani and English can figure out how to pronounce the name, then it's just as necessary for the Nastaliq to be there. Insistence on coding these as Hindi and Urdu, and as separate languages, is just plain wrong-headed. Removal of Nastaliq script is a political ploy. It implies that North Indians and Pakistanis who read and use Nastaliq script are enemies, don't count, shouldn't be considered in writing this encyclopedia. So far as I can tell, you guys are trying to censor information that would be useful to some readers because you don't like those readers. Zora 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Zora, You have a habit of making these kind of meaningless political accusations .

See your post on User:Anupam's page : You're stepping into a minefield here and I may not be the best person to advise. For whatever it's worth, I'd suggest that you limit the supplementary Devanagari to material that is sold and advertised in India, and perhaps phrase it thus: "When appearing in India, or sold in India, rendered as XXX in Devanagari." That makes it very clear that you aren't attempting to claim the material for India, that you're just trying to reach out to Indian fans who might not be able to read the Urdu script. Take it slow and don't act as if you're a tank division heading for Islamabad! :) Zora 02:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

UserZora, wikipedia is not the place to do this kind of things.-Bharatveer 04:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NAstaliq is absolutely unnecessary, the language of her ehtnic group is probably all that is needed. There should be an urdu wiki article written on Vidya Balan. On that article users can read the nastaliq script. You make amazing assumptions of bad faith, Zora, even I cant accuse users of "political ploys".Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

When people started putting up script, the point was NOT to pigeonhole the actor/actress by "ethnicity," whatever that means in a country that has been intermarrying for millenia, but to put up names and titles in a form that would allow people who can read the scripts to pronounce the name or title correctly. The point was usefulness to readers, not categorizing movies/actors/actresses. Well, there are millions of people who read and write in Nastaliq who watch Bollywood movies. They count. It's the same reason that many Shi'a-related articles give a name in both Arabic and Persian scripts (which are slightly different) -- many Shi'a are much more familiar with Persian, even though the subject of the article (Husayn ibn Ali, say) was an Arab. Zora 05:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments read together with your tank division comment will clearly show your political motives .Pls desist from using Wikipedia for such political purposes.Indian film articles should not be treated in anyway different that Indian biographies-Bharatveer 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• User Zora - There are millions who read and write in Kannada, tamil, telugu, oriya etc., scripts who watch bollywood movies. They also should count. So please add those scripts also or remove the urdu one. I have been observing this trend of infesting urdu script on all hindi movie related pages. This is bad. Either remove the Urdu scripts from these articles or just simply say that the movies are infact Urdu movies and remove the Hindi(devanagari) script. Sarvagnya 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why we should have any vernacular scripts in an English language wikipedia? Dozens of articles (AFIK) are suffering from tit-for-tat edits on which scripits to have. This pracitce has introduced a flavour of communalism and regional prejudices into WP. It is wasting numerous editors' valuable time and effort. What useful purpose is served by transcribing a name in numerous scripts? - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For example, Harrison Ford's movies are watched by people all around the world speaking hundreds of different languages. His movies are even translated and dubbed into numerous languages as well, I remember seeing a Tamil version on Satellite TV a few years ago. Does this mean we need to insert numerous scripts into the Harrison Ford article? I see no logic in this. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you. I didn't want to have the darn scripts in the first place, but the other editors all disagreed. When I have time, I'm going to try to work up a general "script" policy that would apply to all WP articles, as to how non-Roman scripts should be chosen and displayed. Right now, I'm thinking that the scripts should be moved out into an infobox somewhere near the bottom of the article, and that there should be a limit of five or so. Criteria is going to be the hard part. I totally and absolutely reject the idea of using the scripts as ethnic or religious tags or codes. Better to have none at all than to play the ethnic/religious tagging games that have consumed so much time on WP. Zora 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Political motives? Sheesh! I live in Honolulu. I've never been to India OR Pakistan. I'm not FOR one side or another; I think the whole business of "sides" is ridiculous. I'm an anti-nationalist. I didn't want non-Roman scripts in the articles in the first place, but since other editors want them, I'm just trying to be fair to the Bollywood audience that uses Nastaliq. Zora 06:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that long discussions have already taken place regarding this on Talk:Bollywood. IMO, adding Urdu to pages of actors makes little sense. True, a large Urdu-speaking fan following might exist, but the diversity of fans is not the criteria which we use to normally decide such things. The article on bollywood can use both Devanagiri and Urdu script in the lead. There your point holds very well.

Also, I dont think we are being biased in any way by not providing Urdu script on an actor's page. George bush is more popular among Indians than Americans (according to many surveys). So should his article contain his name in Devanagiri? In short, there simply isnt any reason for a biography page on a non-urdu speaking person to contain urdu (or any other language for that matter), for the sole reason that the person is popular in Bollywood.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Urdu and Hindi are separate languages only in their upper registers. At the man-in-the-street level, Hindustani is the same whether it's written in Devanagari or Nastaliq. And Bollywood films are written for the man in the street. They wouldn't be so immensely popular in Pakistan if the Pakistanis didn't understand them. Please don't cover up the real linguistic complexity and disenfranchise many Indian (as well as Pakistani) fans. Zora 09:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Zora, Pls stop your meaningless politic rant.Wikipedia is not the place to do these kind of things.-Bharatveer 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The sorry part of this discussion is that this user is not having the faintest clue of the topic under discussion.-Bharatveer 10:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bharatveer must cease his habitual personal attacks and start contributing usefully to WP. Thanks - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Parthi. User:Bharatveer should focus on arguments and logic rather than his denigration of other users in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA. Ad hominem attacks are always bad, and should never be tolerated. Thanks. --Ragib 00:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Zora, wikipedia is not about pandering to certain groups its about presenting valuable info. Writing a Sanskrit derived name in Urdu (unless the person is Sindhi or Kashmiri) is just plain stupid. Anyway my suggestion that an Urdu language wiki article can be linked to this is a viable solution. There is a reason why we have interwiki links. I can even ask some users on ur (read as urdu) wiki to write the urdu script while I give Hindi transliteration. Vidya Balan should have Tamil script though as well (she is part Iyer) and Hindi only because she speaks Hindi and is in Hindi movies.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman, thanks for inviting me to this discussion. I'll try to offer whatever advice I have for this situation. In my opinion, Urdu should stay on the article because it is a script used for the language in Bollywood films -- Hindustani. For Bollywood related articles, we've had a policy- that if someone adds Devanagari, thats okay. If someone adds Perso-Arabic, that's okay too. Neither script is required, but when they are added, they should not be deleted. For this article in particular: Vidya Balan stars in Salaam-e-Ishq, a movie whose script is written by Javed Akhtar, an Urdu script writer. Also, Vidya Balan has read Urdu with perfect pronounciation as well (see Vidya Balan reads Mo ka Tara in Urdu and Telgu Portal: Vidya Balan). However, I do see that many individuals here are opposed to Urdu on this article. I'm going to make a compromise between the two parties and present the language using the word Hindustani instead. This should be agreeable to everyone here. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were not helpful. Hindi is the "rashtra bhasha" and it will stay in devanagari.Fortunately or unfortunately Hindustani is not mentioned anywhere in the Indian Constitution.Regards.-Bharatveer 05:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer thanks for your comments. I understand and respect that fact the Hindi is the "rashtra bhasha". However, in this situation, we're not discussing the Indian government, but Bollywood. I only made the change to Hindustani as others were objecting to the use of the word Urdu. I can re-add the word Urdu if you would like based on my comments above and those at Bollywood talk. However, I'd like to wait on some more comments before doing so. I'm going to revert to my "compromise version" for now and see what others think. Could you please honor this compromise and not revert until we have more input? Thanks, I really appreciate it. Shanti, Anupam^Talk 05:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Anupam.There is no way nastaliq can be written in this Indian Biography.The only unibiased compromised situation will be the article without any scripts.I am going to revert to its Hindi version. If you want ; you can remove both the scripts for the time being.-Bharatveer 05:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, thanks for your concern. The only reason I kept my compromise version was so others could see it and give their comments on it. I'm not going to revert to my version myself, but if you understand this, I'll let you revert it. Also, I just wanted to let you know that Urdu is indeed an Indian language. It was formed in India, has the most number of speakers in India, and is a Sanskrit based (Indo-Aryan) language. In fact, before the Partition of India, Delhi, Lucknow, Aligarh and Hyderabad used to be the four literary centers of Urdu — none of which lie in present Pakistan. I hope you understand the reason I reverted to the compromise version. I await yours and others valuable comments. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer's objection seems to be to the mention of Urdu, or Nastaliq, in connection with India. Since many Indian nationals do speak an Urdu-leaning Hindustani, and use Nastaliq, the only conclusion I can draw is that he considers those Indians not "real" Indians. They're "real" enough that the Indian government is considering dealing with discrimination against them by including them in the Scheduled Castes. I don't like discrimination in real life and I don't like discrimination on Wikipedia. Bharatveer, is this really the impression of India that you want to give to foreigners? Zora 06:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Zora, Pls try to understand things properly.You are attacking me personally here making false accusations.

"They're "real" enough that the Indian government is considering dealing with discrimination against them by including them in the Scheduled Castes."

This shows that you dont have a remotest idea of what you are writing about.Pls try to read something about India before you make these kind of "funny comments".

User:Anupam, Pls dont try to divert the discussion.This is an indian biography and should be treated like one.Hindi is the language and not "hindustani" as you say.Regards.-Bharatveer 06:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, the only reason I brought up the comments about Urdu's status in India is because of your comment (in italics): There is no way nastaliq can be written in this Indian Biography implying that Urdu is incompatible with India. I think Zora interepreted your comment in the same manner. Once again, I realize that Hindi is the official language of the Union of India. However, here we are discussing Bollywood. Bollywood films and their actors speak the nonstandardized Hindustani language to cater to the widest possible audience: the 180,764,791 Hindi speakers and the 60,503,579 Urdu speakers. In this way, Bollywood will maximize its potential customers. Native Hindi speaking actors/singers are encouraged to use neutral language in films/songs. For example, they will not say subjee but subzee (vegetables) or sir but sar (head). I hope this helps, Anupam^Talk 06:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You are just drawing wrong conclusions of your own.I have never made such nonsensical accusations .-Bharatveer 08:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Zora, Indian politics has little to do with this person. Anupam, I think your math is a little bit off. There are closer to 400 million Hindi speakers in India (337 is the norm on wiki). Anyways perhaps more energy should be spent writing Hindu/Urdu wiki articles on the person, rather than bickering over which scripts to include. Its more convenient to read the article in Hindi than it is to have a Hindi script on an article otherwise in roman scriptBakaman _Bakatalk 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see my query above regarding the value of any vernacular script in an English language, especially in a bio article. I had asked the question giving Harrison ford as an example. This dispute is totally non-productive. These scripts IMO are merely utilised to label someone's ethnicity rather than provide any useful information to the reader. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 07:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The script should be where the person is from and what he/she speaks. I don't think urdu belongs in such a place unless the person is muslim indian or pak.--D-Boy 07:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a WP policy stating this? How would you know what language someone speaks? One may be proficient in many languages? Do you include all of them? Or did you mean 'the language the person'sethnicity represents'? - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 07:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm yet to come across a Muslim who insists on having Urdu in Bolly articles... Zora dunno why are your pandering to imagined sensitivities,

Guys, Bollywood movies are made in HINDUSTANI -- they stick to language that is understood in the widest possible area of Northern India and Pakistan. That's a commercial decision, to maximize box-office receipts. That's why the titles, on screen and in the advertising, are given in both Devanagari and Nastaliq script.

Its been a long time since I've seen usage of Urdu script in Bollywood movies in adverts or otherwise (obviosly Urdu-fied bootleg Bolly DVDs from Pakistan we get in England dont count)... Hindustani is essentially dead. Higher forms of Urdu is Greek to my Rajasthani-Marathi ears. You are exagerating use of Urdu or Persianised Hindustani (if you like) in modern Bollywood movies. For a person who has never been to subcontinent, can you even differentiate between Urdu and Hindi?

Whats more in this Urdufication campaign you guys seem to have negelected the quality of articles themselves. Kajol article for one doesnt even mention her Marathi ethnicity. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer's objection seems to be to the mention of Urdu, or Nastaliq, in connection with India. Since many Indian nationals do speak an Urdu-leaning Hindustani, and use Nastaliq, the only conclusion I can draw is that he considers those Indians not "real" Indians. They're "real" enough that the Indian government is considering dealing with discrimination against them by including them in the Scheduled Castes. I don't like discrimination in real life and I don't like discrimination on Wikipedia. Bharatveer, is this really the impression of India that you want to give to foreigners?

Given your views of anybody right of Prakash Karat, this is unsurprising. I really dont know what sort of notions about Hindus you've cooked up in your head. Surely Government of India commitees are no gold standards on objectivity and impartiality. You are in effect 800 million Hindus of India of being racists. Obviously this is no space to discuss the merits and demerits of Sachar committee (which has been blown to smithrens on Blogosphere).

Lastly to be frank, i've spent some time with hardcore RSS chuddiwallahs last July. I can affirm they are not half-as paranoid as you. Stop seeing Hindutvadis everywhere. Indian Nationalism does NOT equal Hindutva. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a random Zora rant on Anupams talk page:

Please have a look at the talk page there. This is yet another instance of a certain cadre of editors replacing references to South Asia with the term "Indian sub-continent." Laying claim to the whole sub-continent

For one term, sub-continent has academic patronage. South Asia is nothing more than a politically correct term. I find it hypocritical of you to go that far to accomodate Pakistani sensitivities, while denying same to us on topics relating to our (Indian) cultural icons. I'm not a man to mince words. 'hanging around' at Sepia Munity hardly makes one qualified auhtority on Desi issues. Given the masochist slant of a few writers over there, Abhi in particular! (For records i write for Sepia Munity's sister blog Pickled Poltics from across the pond). Morever Sepia Mutiny isnt exactly the alpha and omega of desi blogopshere. Desipundit is... Most Indians regardless of faith or ideology would find term South Asian, exteremely irritating.

All I'd say, Zora come out of the closet, tell us what we already know, tell us about your extent of distaste for Indians and Hindus. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 19:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend AMBBroodey to assume good faith. I see no valid reasons given for the inclusion of any vernacular scripts other than to mark the person as belonging to a certain community. This invariably leads to communalistic and chauvinistic behaviour. What value do these scripts add to an English language encyclopedia?- Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well neither do I. But if you are gonna rid them on Indian articles, do it on all the articles, which will be a pointless exercise. As for Assuming Good Faith, its not as if i dont value Zora's cotribs to Wikipedia or something, but she definitely has her POVs which she refuses to acknowledge. Moreover I havent seen Zora extensing same courtsey to Hindu and Indian editors. She is very quick to denounce us as Hindutvadis. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of *This* talk page is to discuss *this* article, not the editors who edit this. Let us stick to that please. Thank you. --Ragib 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Malayali, Tamil, Devanagari (for Hindi films). Besides English (the article is in eng) Hindi is the only other official central government language. If I want to address the assembly in Trivandrum in Hindi I can, I cannot do that even in Tamil (though more people are bound to understand Tamil). Bollywood are Hindi language films, and experiences in the blogosphere and original research dont meet WP:RS. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What has Hindi being the "official" (sic) language of the Indian Government has anything to do with an English language Wikipedia article? This website is not a Government of India website (thank God!) - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is because Hindi is the "Rasthra Bhasha" of India. This website is not the property of Govt Of Ooze land either.(thank Ooze dog).-Bharatveer 07:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice see the usual personal abuse from the most useless editor on WP. - Parthi ^talk/

contribs 09:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see this coming from one of the worst anti-indian,anti-hindi editor POV-PUSHER in wikipedia .-Bharatveer 09:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindi is not the "Rashtra Bhasha" of any country I know of. If the Northie cow-dung belt wallahs are going to tell me what language I should speak, then the country can go and blow itself up for all I care. Gamesmaster G-9 07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That speaks much of your "knowledge". "Blowing up" is all too common now. Pls keep Wikipedia free from terrorism.-Bharatveer 08:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep it free from narrow minded linguistic bigotry. 08:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamesmasterg9 (talk • contribs) .

protected until script issues resolved

As usual, this article had to be protected until the script issues are solved. Very sad, but I hope that the users will arrive at a consensus. Some of the edit-warring editors are on the verge of breaking WP:3RR as well. Please be careful about that. Thanks. --Ragib 07:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Starting a new section, to continue the same old same old

Urdu IS one of the official languages of India. See List of national languages of India. It is not one of the two languages of central administration (English and Hindi), but it is an official language in many states. Why try to get rid of Nastaliq and Urdu, but leave Tamil or Malayalam? They have exactly the same status as Urdu.

As for Muslims and Scheduled Castes, see this article from Outlook India: [2]. The Sachar report recommends reservations for Muslims. Zora 09:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Even after repeated requests, You are just bringing up your Political Povs here.Malayalam script exists here because she is from Palakkad ,Kerala and hindi, because its her national language.-Bharatveer 09:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if we assume that Hindi is the 'national' language of India for a microsecond, why do we need any scripts on a bio page? Is it for pronunciation? If so the speakers of these languages already know how to pronounce her name. WP is not India. It doesn't care what language someone speaks. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Its not assumption its fact and official.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor matter. Hindi is one of the official languages of India (among 20 odd) and not the national language. Cheers Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

minor for oozies perhaps!!!-Bharatveer 05:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing useful to offer. As usual indulging in personal attacks. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So are you, continuing your anti -Hindi rants here.Bharatveer 05:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindi is one of the official languages (with English) for all of India. That means if I'm in Trivandrum with my aunt and we go to the government office, the proceedings can proceed in Hindi even though the official lang of Kerala is Malayalam. If I go to Imphal the govt proceedings can be done in Hindi, even though the official lang of Manipur is Meitei. Parthi please re-read Official languages - Central Government. ACtually I'll cquote the needed part.

“ The Constitution of India has stipulated the usage of Hindi and English to be the two languages of communication for the Central (Federal) government. ”

and

“ The state governments use their own language along with English for communication with the Central government. For example, the central government sends its information in Hindi and English to the state of Karnataka and this state communicates back in Kannada and English. Information from the center to Tamil Nadu is in English and Hindi and this state communicates back in Tamil and English. ”

. Its not minor, lolBakaman _Bakatalk 15:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to drop all the scripts except the IPA pronunciation guides, which could be of use to everyone. However, I'd have a hard time convincing all the other editors who insist on adding scripts. Parthi, you want to work with me on coming up with a script policy? I'm thinking right now of putting all non-Roman scripts in teeny teeny type in a box at the bottom of the article and for a criterion -- how about whether or not there's an article on the same subject in the relevant non-English Wiki? The scripts could be the links to the articles. We wouldn't have to worry about ethnic/religious tagging or arguments about which scripts are relevant. Zora 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO IPA alone would suffice for any article. I don't mind links at the bottom of the page linking to interwiki articles. However again this could lead to behaviour fuelled by regional chauvinism as seen here. I'd be happy to assist where I can. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If we only have links to wikis where there's a matching article, and don't add the links automagically, then there's no room for ethnic/regional chauvinism. I think. The problem isn't so much adding the links (it's information, if potentially much too much) as the desire to remove them. Zora 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I urge User:Bharatveer to keep within the limits of civility; edits like this are not really helpful in having a civilized, friendly discussion. Let's not launch ad hominem attacks, and keep commenting on other editors without actually commenting on the issue. Thank you. --Ragib 06:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to weigh in with my two bits - I think the issue is an important one because the decision taken here will affect other pages too. So far, the options for choice of sripts seem to be as follows: 1) No vernacular script - only IPA 2) Only Devanagri. I think we all agree that this is an incorrect choice. 3) Devanagri and Nastaliq. The argument for this is that "Hindi" movies are essentially in Hindustani, which can be written in either script. The argument against this is that these movies are always referred to as being in Hindi, never in Hindustani. The other argument that Urdu-speakers watch Hindi movies too is irrelevant because this is true of speakers of many other languages. 4) The person's native script. Makes intuitive sense. The downside is that many actors act only in movies made in other languages. What do you do for someone like Simran - a Punjabi who is most famous for acting in Tamil movies - for example? 5) The script of the languages which the person speaks. Impossible to determine with certainty. 6) The script of all languages in which movies have been made featuring this person. Problematic - someone like Riya Sen should have her name written in Devanagri, Bengali, Tamil and Malayalam in that case. 7) Some combination of the above.

Lets have a straw poll here. Gamesmaster G-9 08:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was told (at the Village Pump) that the results of the previous poll weren't enough to constitute an enforceable policy, so it's unlikely that a new poll would constitute something an admin could enforce. We need a UNIVERSAL policy, not just one for cinema or India-related articles. Zora 10:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Only English and IPA - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 08:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Only English and IPA on top, small box on bottom with scripts if articles in those wikis exist. Zora 09:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Malayali and Tamil at top (in addition to english and IPA).Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Given the problems with all other options, I believe only English and IPA is the best option, if we are to have a UNIVERSAL option. Again, as an example, what would you propose we do in the case of Simran Bagga and Riya Sen? Gamesmaster G-9 16:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply - Riya Sen is Tripuri/Bengali. According to the only active tripuri user on en wikipedia (Bdebbarma (talk · contribs)), the Tripuris use Bengali to write their names (the old Kokborok script is extinct). What ethnicity is Simran Bagga? Anyway, just like we do with normal bios, we might as well stick to ethnicity. Apart from users making bad faith accusations of "political ploys/ethnic hatred/etc" and anti-Hindi rants from others, the scripts are hardly controversial. The world is divided by ethnicities who use different scripts to express their words, and wiki merely should reflect the world.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • As Zora says below, ethnicity is notoriously difficult to pin down. In fact, I was the one who put Riya Sen's name down in Bangla script, but after this discussion, I am actually thinking of removing it - remember that Riya (unlike her sister, for example), has done most of her work in movies made in languages other than Bangla. Similarly, Simran's chief ethnicity is Punjabi, but she is most well known for her work in Tamil cinema. In both cases, it makes most sense to just stick to English plus IPA. After all, we must ask ourselves what the purpose of including alternate scripts is. Gamesmaster G-9 05:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But why is it important to display the ethnicity of the subject though the use of vernacular scripts? What value do you add to the English language encyclopedia? Why is ethnicity, race and religion of the subject is important? - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity is NOT a simple matter. Here in Hawai'i, people say things like "I'm a real mixed plate; I've got Hawaiian, Pake, Japanese, Okinawan, Scotts-Irish, and Podagee." So, what ethnicity is that person? You might say that he was "local", but people here can have flaming arguments about who is "local" and who isn't. If a man from Peshawar moved to Kolkata and opened a shop, and married a woman from Dacca, and their daughter married a Parsi man and the young couple moved to Mumbai, and raised a son who spoke English from birth ... what ethnicity is that boy? Ethnicity is an IDEA, not a fact. It's how you choose to describe yourself, and whether or not there is a group that is willing to accept you. B, you can't just assert that this isn't "controversial". It's enormously controversial. Zora 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Zora you misjudge the importance of ethnicity in Indian culture. Indians for their part take excessive pride in their caste and etnicity. Word Indian isnt descriptive enough for many of us. I tend to agree with Parthi that we must do away with these vernacular scripts... but goven the number of biographical articles, I s'pect it is going to be an exhaustive task. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, we aren't mentioning caste. I believe that there's already a rule asserting this. As for ethnicity -- I don't think we should be assigning it. If someone asserts that he's Bengali or Marathi, we can put that down, but if he doesn't make any claims, we have no business pigeonholing him. If he wants to be just an Indian, or a Mumbaikar, that's up to him. Zora 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as the person's principal identity (if we can identify one), is mentioned, there is no need for the vernacular spelling. In this article, it is mentioned that Balan is Malayali/Tamil, so that should pretty much be that. Gamesmaster G-9 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a sort of an agreement here. The discussion at the Village pump is also leaning towards removing these scripts. If we can draw up a policy for India related articles to disallow vernacular scripts for new articles, we can retrospectively edit the hundreds of Bollywood and India bio articles over a period of time. The main intent of this discussion is to reach an agreement on the use of the vernacular scripts. The consensus seems to point to not using these scripts. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. there are desenters. Only a select few want to remove the scripts. That's not enough. You and zora seem to be the only ones that are gungho about it.--D-Boy 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we use IPA and ITRANS when writing out the names. These two together provide enough information to back out both the pronounciation and the spelling in the Indic script of your choice. I have already changed Riya Sen and Kajol, and intend to continue. Gamesmaster G-9 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sen is Bengali last name!--D-Boy 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense - many others including User:Venu62 and User:Utcursch agree with the proposal. Some others also agree partially. To me it seems like we are almost at a consensus, except for the few vociferous dissenters such as yourself. Gamesmaster G-9 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should rather stick to the arguments, than apply adjectives to each other. As for the consensus, I don't think enough discussion have been there to enforce a wiki-wide change to remove all scripts from *all* biography articles. Thanks. --Ragib 00:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise - I didn't mean to be rude. On the matter of wiki-wide changes, this matter is not likely tobe relevant to non-Indians because most countries in the world are mono- or at most bi-lingual. Gamesmaster G-9 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NO, NO, NO, a million times no. Here in Hawai'i, my condo association was handing out a newsletter translated into Japanese, Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, and Vietnamese. Our state has two "official" languages, English and Hawaiian, and one unofficial language, pidgin, which is a mashup of words from many languages. Most other US states host several different languages. Per [[Languages of China, Chinese citizens speak dozens of different languages. Per Languages of Iran, Iranians also speak dozens. Ditto Russia. In Switzerland people speak German, French, Italian, and various dialects thereof. Spain has Spanish, Basque, Catalan, and I don't know what else. The only countries in which one language is spoken are very very small ones. (Heck, even in the small country of Tonga, where I lived for a few years, there was Tongan and then there was the dialect of Niua Fo'ou, which differed in many ways from standard Tongan.) Languistic chauvinism and ethnic/religious conflct aren't unique to India. Zora 09:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That logic (bi-lingual) applies to Indians who are Bengalis too. I assume there is no disagreement over having the Bengali script written in Rabindranath Tagore. The only bone of contention seem to be Hindi cinema-related biographies, and people from a multi-lingual region. So, does the proposal of removing all scripts apply to only such articles? If not, this is applicable to all biography articles from Non-English speaking countries/persons. Thanks. --Ragib 00:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hold that if there is no objection to any inclusion, then it should go ahead. If it were possible to identify every Indian with a single language, then I would have supported the move to include vernacular scripts. Unfortunately, once you allow this rule, I can see people will tout one language above another. Thats why I am wary of agreeing with your suggestion. Gamesmaster G-9 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Caste categories

Exactly why is a "Brahmins" category here? Consensus was to delete all the useless caste categories, and listify them. See Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics/archive18#Caste_lists_vs._Caste_cats.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)