Talk:Hollywood North/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer Review and Archive

I have elected that this article undergo a peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hollywood North/archive1. The talk page was archived because it was oversized, and also to give our reviewers an 'untainted' opinion of the article. Editors interested in reviewing previous conversations may visit the archived discussions via the archive box to the right. Mkdwtalk 11:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was getting a bit hard to read. However, we should make sure that reviewers are aware of the issues that are causing disagreements. They can't really do an effective audit of the page if they're not given all of the relevant information. --Ckatzchatspy 11:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The validity of those issues are still being question. Just let them read the article with out any outside influences. Langara College 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

note: "Hollywood North" is not a film industry term. Variety, the most well-known and respected film industry trade magazine does not refer to Canada or any of its cities or Provences as "Hollywood North" but rather as Canada's more well-known slang term, "The Great White North". This article is an advertisement for Canada in the guise of information about a "so-called" film industry term which is not even used in the film industry. It is, however, an advertising term that has been coined by Canadians who are trying to use subsidy schemes and attempting the misappropriation of the "Hollywood" name itself to try to lure U.S. film productions away from the real Hollywood. This is confusing (as there is already a "Hollywood" as well as a very real city of "North Hollywood"); and to call Canada "Hollywood" is just not factual, but misleading. This page should be renamed "The Great White North Film Production" or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donteatyellowsnow (talk • contribs)

Then why did the American edition of Entertainment Tonight just use it tonight? That program is core-central to the Hollywood p.r. machine, and is a "voice" of the US entertainment industry. Billboard magazine uses it, Variety magazine, and others (as well as Canadian-run US mags like Vanity Fair....).Skookum1 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This page was completely blanked/erased by the above people, to form a bias towards the thing it is selling: Canada as a filming location. This page should be deleted as there is no such thing as "Hollywood North" and this is a blatant attempt by the Canadian film commission to sell something... Canada. There is a "North Hollywood" and "Hollywood". "Canada" is Canada. Canada is not Hollywood. This is a blatant attempt to steal away the "Hollywood" name from the true trademarked name of Hollywood in California, where movies have been made for over a hundred years. Please review older versions of this page to see the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donteatyellowsnow (talk • contribs)
Y'know, Yellowsnow, misrepresenting what other people have done so as to make some kind of ongoing agenda sound like there's a conspiracy against YOU is very much against Wikiquette; the Archive was created for the reasons Mkdw and Ckatz have laid out quite clearly; claiming that it was "blanked" when it was archived is outright misrepresentation. Your behaviour is not verging on abusiveness. It is abusiveness. You appear to like being able to insert favourite bits on certain film and actor writeups, other than your campaign against runaway productions and those evil ol' Canadians; be advised that continued conduct of this kind is not maybe going to result in your being unable to keep on fiddling with actor/film articles. It will" result in your being unable to keep on fiddling with actor/film articles....which is all you seem to be on Wikipedia to do.....Skookum1 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Misrepresenting? You guys did all the erasing! Go back and look (anyone else who has any objective sense will). That's not a misrepresentation, but a fact. The constant erasing that goes on with this page shows that you guys are the ones with no "wikiquette". You have created and maintained a page which is nothing but an advertisement for Canada, and a false one, for a place that doesn't exist that you are self-titling, "Hollywood North". The proper terminology that actually IS used by the entertainment industry when making a euphemism for Canada is "the Great White North". You guys aren't Hollywood! No matter how much you try to convince yourselves of it. And yes, I would know because unlike you guys I actually do know something about the subject. So yes I do have a specialty, unlike many of you "dabblers" or Canadian nationalists who have to have their government provide welfare to support their workers because the films wouldn't come there without it. Why don't you guys just create your own independent Canadian films and hire your own workers? Why do you feel you have to steal Hollywood's industry away and then steal even the name of the U.S. film industry too. I mean, come on! Should we start referring to Eureka, California as "Vancouver South"?! Should we start calling Montreal "New York North"? Do you see how ridiculous it is.Donteatyellowsnow 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Top Entertainment Industry Mag, Variety references to "The Great White North" and does NOT reference "Hollywood North" when referring to Canada.

Videotron won't pay in fund fracas Cabler unhappy with fund's management

"Videotron, one of Canada's leading cable operators, has decided to stop financing the Canadian Television Fund, one of the main motors of TV production in the Great White North."

Posted: Wed., Jan. 24, 2007, 4:00pm PT

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117958021.html

Posted: Wed., Jan. 10, 2007, 2:14pm PT

Alliance Atlantis sold for $2 billion CanWest and Goldman Sachs pony up

"CanWest, which has print and broadcasting assets in Canada and radio and television interests in Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, missed the boat on the pay television explosion in Canada. However, the AAC acquisition further entrenches CanWest as one of the two largest media companies in the Great White North."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957101.html

WGN to 'Gas' up on Canuck series World Brief

Posted: Sun., Nov. 26, 2006, 6:17pm PT

"'Corner Gas' draws around 1.5 million viewers in the Great White North; the fourth season is airing on CTV. Created by and starring Brent Butt, the sitcom is about life in the fictional prairie town of Dog River, Saskatchewan."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117954523.html

Donteatyellowsnow 04:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Variety magazine - Canucks consider their options: "Hollywood North has in fact geared up for an unprecedented surge in film and TV service work"

Variety magazine - Exex seek Calif. job growth, tourism boost: Eisner calls for relief to stop runaway film prod'n: According to Eisner, it can be $4 million-$6 million cheaper to shoot a film in Canada. "The issue is real and should be addressed. It's almost become part of the entertainment culture that there's a Hollywood and there's a Hollywood in the North."

--Ckatzchatspy 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Eisner uses the word "almost". "Hollywood in the North" is not "Hollywood North". It really isn't even "almost" Hollywood in the North, except by a possibly linguistically challenged over-burdened now ex-film executive. Eisner is not putting those words together the way you are inferring in any way, shape or form! The intention of the article is completely the opposite. Why don't you quote what the article is really about! About the PROBLEM of runaway production! What the 2001 article and Eisner does say and imply are that, QUOTE: "Movie executives and tech companies Friday pleaded for tax breaks to boost business and job growth in California. Speaking at a state economic summit organized by Gov. Gray Davis and held on the Disney lot in Burbank, Michael Eisner, chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Co., called for investment... to attract runaway film production back to California."- Donteatyellowsnow 05:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can claim I've misrepresented the quote. The headline text says "Eisner calls for relief to stop runaway film prod'n" and Eisner says "the issue is real and should be addressed." If, as you claim, the intention is the opposite of that text, then I guess he must want productions to come north. -Ckatzchatspy 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
A city and even a country can have more than one nickname. It's ridiculous if you think a magazine determines the name of a place. Think about New York City and its countless names it has. "The Big Apple", "The city that never sleeps", "The Big City", etc. etc. However, just because TIME Magazine names that city by New York most commonly, doesn't mean its called all those other names. The same with Hollywood North and no magazine has the ability to change its nickname used by people. It should also be noted that the government of Canada as well as various other film agencies around the world are quoted as calling Vancouver, Hollywood North. If you're saying a magazine has more legitimacy than the government of the place, then the United States would no longer be called the United States, seeing how the media all over the world, especially in communist countries have called the US and the western world many other names. This could not be a more perfect example of WP:SNOW. Mkdwtalk 10:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The "Big Apple" is yes, a colloquialism. But it isn't borrowing from another place called "The Big Apple." It is unique. "The city that never sleeps" is more of a saying, than a name. I understand that the government of Canada is so desperate to steal away the U.S. film industry that they are referring to themselves as "Hollywood North" -- that's what I've been saying all along! That this is part of the runaway production scheme, the false advertising, and that is a calculated and aggressive effort by the Canadian govt. to steal something that is not theirs. Bravo! True! You would think there would be some shame involved... but the Canadian government has never been embarassed to tilt the odds unfairly on their behalf at the expense of the "big bad U.S.". You guys tried to block U.S. magazines from coming in there, from U.S. films being played at theaters, and yet you try to steal away our filmmaking industry! "Hey, we don't want to watch your films and we are going to force Canadian theater owners to play boring Canadian movies that will make them NO MONEY and we are going to BLOCK and PROTECT our "Canadian Culture" (whatever that is) from the U.S. and by the way, we hate it so much, please come here and we will pay you 50% of the cost of labor to hire our Candian film industry flunkies to make your big budget Hollywood movies... " It's too funny. If you don't like U.S. entertainment, then create your own! Don't call it "Hollywood North" unless you are willing to debate the theft. It's not America's fault that Canadians (and the whole world) loves our entertainment or that you guys are incapable of making your own without a heavily subsidized industry! - Donteatyellowsnow

Disambig Vote

This is a vote for all. A disambig. link is a great idea and contributes to Wikipedia's clickability. However, what that disambig links to is another question. We'll vote:

Protologism in Wiktionary

From the Protologism article in Wiktionary[:

"The term “protologism” is considered a neologism. Although its use has been verified through durably archived citations, there are no references in any major dictionary.
"The citation of “protologism” may be restricted to certain contexts that have not been fully investigated, such as industry jargon or regional use. If so, the term may not generally be understood even within those contexts.
"Most neologisms are also substandard—possibly slang or even illiterate—in which cases a term would not be used in formal writing except in quotation or italics.

How humorous that this term would be invoked by someone complaining about lack of citability. The ongoing superfluous and very POV alterations of this article by Yellowsnow are well into the pale of the well-defined term "Vandalism", however....Skookum1 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is up for speedy deletion for the reason: neologism (specialized and unclear terminology and/or misnomer) per Wiki criteria. There is no such place as "Hollywood North" and it is undocumented and unverified exactly what "Hollywood North" is. It is also confusing because there is a real city called North Hollywood as well as an already existing Hollywood, California -- so it is misleading and confusing. It is also attempting to make contact with major Hollywood producers by nefariously trying to associate itself with the real Hollywood film community, and attempting to benefit from it financially. This page also has original research as well as unverifiable and/or uncited or completely inaccurate or self-serving PR-based research and propaganda. It is also blatant advertising for the Canadian film industry and various related groups and companies. If not SPEEDY DELETED, this page should absolutely be renamed the "Canadian film industry". Donteatyellowsnow 03:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See Hollywood (disambiguation) for a full listing of the many places named Hollywood, or with names derived from the Hollywood film industry (e.g. Bollywood, Lollywood....there's also "Brollywood", another nickname for Vancouver but that doesn't have as much currency as HN). And also see, as Mkdw as already pointed you to, WP:SNOW, meaning that you're way out of line and your deletion agenda "doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell".Skookum1 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And a term that's been in widespread use for over 15 years is NOT a "neologism", not even by the most anal intrepretation of Wiki policy.Skookum1 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You do realize the article is about the term and nickname, not about 'the place'. French kiss is an article about a term, not a place. Not every article has to be about a location. Mkdwtalk 06:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You have not documented its use (per Canada) or anything else for "15 years" as you state. If that is true then DOCUMENT IT. It is a neologism in that it is "vague" and doesn't describe one particular area. It is used colloquially to refer to almost any place other than Hollywood that is to the "north" and was actually used first to flippantly refer to San Francisco and the film community that had migrated there (including George Lucas' Skywalker Ranch, Francis F. Coppola) etc. LONG before the Canadians borrowed even THAT term. So it is a neologism in the sense that it is a) vague b) not specific to one area and c) really just based on slang. And wiki is not a dictionary. So since the page is going to exist, it must be complete and all references to it must be included (particularly the first ones) before any MORE parasitic bastard child film communities can cannibalize the term any further (and you know they will). Hmmn. What will be next... Romaniawood... Irelandwood... UKwood... NewZealandwood. It's ridiculous. But if you're going to insist that it exists, then it's a free-for-all... isn't it?Donteatyellowsnow

San Francisco and the Silicon Valley

I'm happy to include San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Ulan Bataar, Narvik or anywhere else in the article if there is something behind it. I've looked into the sources for the recent edits and I'm finding that they don't support the assertions made in the article. I’ll start with the section that my heading comes from.

  1. 1 This source, [1] a tour guide, is cited as the first use of the term “Hollywood North”. I can’t find the term in the book at all, let alone any sort of claim to the creation of it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
For now I can't even find the date, although I recall re that item it's much more recent than the term's currency up here (Vancouver); I'd say this may might be the first usage of the term in an American publication.Skookum1 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. 2 This source,[2], is used to claim that George Lucas refers to the area as HN but the article is only titled that and there is no reference to Lucas, or anyone other than the writer, using the term.
  2. 3 This source, [3] is used to show the claim that the Silicon Valley is referred to as HN. The article does not contain the term.
  3. 4 This blog entry is used to demonstrate the same claim as #3. However, it refers to the Hollywood North/Silicon Valley South nexus and is actually describing films financed by Silicon Valley types but filmed elsewhere, such as Syriana and Good Night and Good Luck (actually filmed entirely in the LA area).
  4. 5 This source,[4] shows that the term is used to refer to Santa Barbara but is only used in the splashy title by the journalist and doesn’t demonstrate any other usage by anyone else. In any event, the article is about the Santa Barbara International Film Festival which honoured mostly (genuine) Hollywood films (such as Paul Reiser’s The Thing About My Folks, filmed in NY/New Jersey) and not film production in the area per se (or at all?).
  5. 6 This source [5], a blog entry with the title “Hollywood North?” with much the same problem, describing two film festivals (the title in my opinion refers to one in Bakersfield, California) and some film production in Bakersfield. This is a good example where the author, Scott, has mused that Bakersfield could be (probably with hyperbole) HN but is obviously not suggesting this is a term that he is familiar with, something I expect such a source to show (not that I’d accept a blog anyway).
  6. 7 No link is provided. There is only the line”Entertainment Tonight" entertainment news show reference to Sundance as "Hollywood North" January 25th, 2007 show”. I’m always uncomfortable when someone uses their memory of a tv show as source. In any event, I imagine that the context makes this similar to Scott’s usage above but since there is no source to scrutinize (and sadly I don’t watch Entertainment Tonight) I can only wonder. --JGGardiner 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmn. It's interesting that you don't accept use of the term to verify that it has been used in situations other than the Canadian ones, yet you don't use this same scrutiny on the citations regarding the Canadian entries (most of which are bogus at best -- many coming from the PR sites of Canadian film commissions or which are advertisements for the industry). Put the microscope up to your own work and the work of all the Canadians who have tried to make this into the Canadian film commission web site before you go deleting my very valid entries. -Donteatyellowsnow
And regarding the ET reference, that was something noted by your pals who contribute to this page. They have cited it many times. Donteatyellowsnow
If you agree with them and I don't, I think that makes them your pals and not mine. --JGGardiner 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't delete your entries at all. I started with that section first because it is, well, first (reading top down which is the style here). As for the Canadian part, it already survived an AfD on pretty much the notion that the article contains that usage is already accepted by the community here. In any event, my problem with your usage is that what you've written in the article goes far beyond what the source demonstrates. If something is a commonly used term or has some history behind it, that's fine. If it was used once in a headline, that's fine if that's what you're talking about but the article goes well beyond that. I also have other concerns about the fitness of the sources which I mentioned (many being blogs).
Putting the microscope up to my own edits, it seems that my only edit here was to remove a paragraph that you inserted twice. I don't expect to have any problems sleeping at night because of that one. --JGGardiner 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, your bias leads you to delete and put anything I edit under a microscope after-the-fact. A microscope that NONE of your sources could hold up to (and why this page was up for deletion as the "nonsense" in the first place).

Yet what about these "so-called" sources which you don't ever question (just to name A HALF DOZEN... there's more):

8. ^ CBC: Searched for 'Hollywood North'. CBC News. Retrieved on 2007-01-02. (how can a search count as a source? -- this is nonsense. AND the search was limited to just CBC news. Again, Canadian bias)

9. ^ "Hollywood North Vancouver". Google Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-01-01. (ditto: a search used as a source when half the searches turn up PR sites and/or people selling something regarding almost anything. PLUS it is limited to Vancouver.)

11. ^ New numbers confirm Toronto's rank as Hollywood North. City of Toronto. Retrieved on 2007-01-01. (propaganda: use of the term by the very people benefiting/creating the use of the term does not count as a source for reference).

13. ^ "Hollywood North Toronto". Google Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-01-01. (again a search is used as a reference and is limited to those containing Toronto -- bias, vague, not a real source)

14. ^ a b Hollywood North: The Canadian film industry. Statistics Canada. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. (Statistics and propaganda from the Canadian government which is benefiting financially from the subsidy scheme).

26. ^ Some 'useless' facts about Vancouver. Vancouver dot Travel. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. (Okay: this reference is CALLED "USELESS FACTS" it is also a travel-realted reference. You did NOT question this though!)

27. ^ Mayor's Office Release. City of Vancouver. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. (again... propaganda/PR in an effort to promote his city for film business/ runaway productions)

32. ^ What Makes Canada Cool. Canadacool.com. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. (This is the equivalent of "Useless Facts" - It is vague and undetermined what if anything really is "cool" and totally subjective)

Unlike most of my sources you have cited NONE absolutely NONE that define the term "Hollywood North" or that even discuss it. You have framed all of your research around Canada only. That is why there needs to be another page dedicated to all these lists of useless production statistics about Canada called "The Canadian Film Industry" and this page should just be about the colloquialism "Hollywood North" which has been used to describe just about any location outside of Hollywood, California that is to the North.

- Donteatyellowsnow

I'll remove all those web searches. I think the point behind those were to prove that the terms are used widely. I don't know about the other cites you have problems with, but Statistics Canada surely isn't a propaganda mouthpiece for the Canadian government. Carson 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have problems with our citations and then insert you own, equally 'useless' citations, you forego your right to criticize the Vancouver citations. Langara College 05:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

San Francisco

I've just replaced San Francisco with Greed as the earliest film to be shot in San Francisco (it predates the former by twelve years).

I have two concerns about the quote from the San Francisco travel book ("Some of filmdom's most important studios are camped in the Bay Area and the local film industry is frequently referred to as 'Hollywood North'."):

1) The quote provides no indication as to how long San Francisco has been refered to as Hollywood North. True, American feature films have been shot in the city for over eight decades, but this in no way means that San Francisco has been known as Hollywood North for a similar length of time. I am hoping that the guide provides more information than what is contained in the quote.

2) In his posting of 22:49, 30 January 2007, JGGardiner relates that s/he was unable to locate the quote in the book. Would Donteatyellowsnow please provide a page number? Victoriagirl 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In the reference provided [6] as San Fran as the earliest reference as Hollywood North does not even say "Hollywood North" in any part of the book. Furthermore "Hollywood North San Francisco" has only 3 search results on Google Search. More research should be done to investigate this San Fran claim, otherwise it should be completely discredited as it appears to be non-sense and original research. Langara College 06:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of Donteatyellowsnow's claims and accusations increases with each examination of his/her "contributions". The amount of energy put into researching non sequitur facts, then posing them as distractions, has been rather interesting, and it's true that casual use of Hollywood North, in the days of Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin, might have included Stockton and SF; but SF never went around promoting itself as Hollywood North - which granted is certainly done by Toronto, and incraesingly to a degree by Vancouver (but with a different context and origin). Yellowsnow's problem is that such promotions are not valid because he/she says they're not, because it's some kinf of insult to Hollywood or whatever. In my mental notes on this in the last few days, following the resumed edit war, I've begun to refer to Yellowsnow as "the Dissembler from the LA Film Office" or some other Cailfornia-industry body intent on undermining the perceieved threat of the Hollywood North "brand" to Hollywood's presumed integrity and uniqueness. We can't help what has become a common term, albeit with different meanings in Vancouver vs Toronto and also as it happens on the occasional bit of casual use for places within the US. As for Brollywood, Bollywood and Lollywood, what's the name of that big studio near London, one of the older film sound stages/backlots in the UK - "somethingwood Studios", just can't remember its name right now. Point is I think Donteatyellowsnow may be a professional p.r. person who's been assigned to "go after" the Hollywood North label. A simple LA-fanatic and cinephile mania isn't enough to warrant or justify or account for the nasty behaviour and outright dissembling of the last few weeks; I think there's a budget at work here, but can't guess at whose. Not specifically, but I've seen all the hallmarks of professional p.r./advertising campaigns at play here. Still makes me wonder which corporate network was the point of origin that IP address SPA, possible sockpuppet, that appeared on the RD. I'm amused that Yellowsnow has now fessed up to US usages, howevermuch obscure, for Hollywood North as within the US. Maybe he's meaning Mary Tyler Moore's Minneapolis-St. Paul? :-) Skookum1 08:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A REMINDER:

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Making libelous statements that you can't prove is against Wiki policy. Where do I start here? To comment on your obvious personal attacks on this editor? When there are SO MANY? Okay, first off you have said that I have added "non sequitir (sic) facts". Hmmn. Isn't that an oxymoron? Facts are facts. This is also your personal OPINION and not based on content criteria or my work. Sorry if they don't fit into your preconceived POV. Then you try to claim that Canada has the unique right to the term Hollywood North by the assumption (unproven, btw) that San Francisco never "advertised" itself as such and therefore that it somehow doesn't or shouldn't count. I don't get your logic. Okay, if the Canadian industry is "advertising" using "Hollywood North" as part of its lure/campaign, then that PROVES my point that this page was set up as advertising and it should not be allowed on wiki. Okay. So advertising CANNOT be the reason for this page! Period. That means it cannot be part of your criteria for definition of the word. Secondly, since when has use in advertising constituted the definition of something anyway? Okay, then you are mentioning bastardizations that were obviously made as tongue in cheek expressions for India, etc. And even THEY didn't try to steal the entire Hollywood name! Okay, and you are alluding to Pinewood studios, I'm guessing. Well, excuse me, how do you know the origin of the name? It's not on wiki. I can't find it on the Internet. Perhaps it is named after the coniferous tree of the genus Pinus? Or maybe it is named after the trademarked Boyscout Pinewood Derby? Who knows? I mean, I don't think Brentwood, Westwood, or any of the other "woods" are necessarily named such as to copy Hollywood. Back in the day, they might have named cities with "wood" names. BUT "Hollywood North" is specifically trying to borrow from Hollywood, California. There can be no misinterpretation of the attempted appropriation of the Hollywood name. Also regarding Pinewood... that is the name of one studio. Who cares what a studio is named? The UK production industry didn't try to call itself "Hollywood UK"! So Pinewood... who cares. They have to name it something. But Vancouver is Vancouver. It doesn't need another name. Toronto is Toronto. I guarantee you if I asked almost anyone on the street RIGHT IN FRONT of the Mann's Chinese Theater where "Hollywood North" is they would either NOT KNOW or they would think it is "North Hollywood" the city. I even bet if you asked almost anybody in rural Canada where "Hollywood North" is they wouldn't tell you "Eh? oh yeah, that's Toronto" "Vancouver" or "Saskatchewan". Okay! NEXT. You have accused me of being a "professional PR" person. One, I am not. And two, I resent that you have constantly tried to diminish my contributions by inferring that I'm either a person paid to contribute or that I have some kind of corporate agenda. This are all FALSE CLAIMS. And I will request right now that you CEASE AND DESIST from libeling me in an attempt to have my writing disregarded as PR work. It is NOT! You may not like what I have written, but it has come from me and from the sources cited. It has not come from or under any direction of any corporation or any other group. Your personal attacks on me have not been about the material. They have been about me. And that is against Wiki policy. So please just stop it. Thanks. -
Jeez, I think I'm the only one around here not paid by a film office for my edits. Where does one arrange that can of thing? Are there classifieds in the Signpost?
Anyway, I know that you don't have to AGF when it is obviously lacking but I do feel the need to remind everyone about the rules regarding civility, even when some of you have many thousands more edits than I do. Thanks. --JGGardiner 09:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

More source issues

"In 2000, cuts to Toronto's film and television subsidies meant that the nickname of "Hollywood North" was still primarily associated with Vancouver" appears in the "Toronto" section. The source actually only says that the venture has declined but it only implies a decline in the use of the term and does not note it directly. Although it is a logical step, I'm concerned that is a bit of WP:OR. I won't remove it for now because it is probably worth noting the decline but it should be rewritten to maintain consistency with the source. And yes, I am aware that it was likely placed by a Canadian (without having checked). --JGGardiner 09:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the Sundance (Entertainment Tonight) reference that I had a problem with above. Besides the source problem, it appears as a single usage anyway. If somebody would like to note that the term is also used in such an ad hoc fashion, that's fine but I don't think that we need to list every instance of that use. --JGGardiner 09:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your questioning of the Toronto section and the Hollywood North association with Vancouver. I have at various times rewritten that to remove those comments and have stated previously that almost NONE of the cited sources that particular editor wrote were verifiable (none even mentioned use of the term, let alone any definitions and particularly that one you mentioned). They were very twisted interpretations of the sources cited. But every time I tried to get rid of it, it keeps popping back up. It doesn't really give you guys credibility if you keep deleting my work yet you allow these blatantly incorrect statements and sources cited which say NOTHING about what that editor is trying to claim. My theory is that if all the Canadian cities are trying to claim the term that either all of them be listed or none of them be listed. Toronto can be listed, but they can't claim ownership of the name by these sources (or by any other source(s) considering the widespread use and misuse of the vague term "Hollywood North.") Which BTW, appears to just be a way for a few Canadian writers to "jazz up" an article and not necessarily to "define" a region or claim "exclusivity." Donteatyellowsnow
  • If you're trying to rewrite the article to advance a theory, then I suggest you're introducing opinion and original research into the article. Agent 86 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I didn't intend to say that either city was not associated with HN; I was just suggesting that the specific article did not link the decline of the industry in Toronto to the decline of the use of the term. I think the use of the term for both cities is very well documented. --JGGardiner 08:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Agent 86's. "Theory" was just used as a figure of speech, not as a hypothesis and it was used by me in regard to the order of the article (not the content). There is no "theory" being proposed, as this is a vague article anyway. - Donteatyellowsnow 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Origin of the term "Hollywood North" section

I have just deleted the 'Origin of the term "Hollywood North"' section and thought it best to discuss my reasoning. The first paragraph was removed because the reference, a travel guide entitled San Francisco, appears not to contain the information that has been quoted. Requests for a page reference, made to to the editor who supplied this information, have gone unanswered.[7][8] The second paragraph does not refer to the origin of the term. This information has been moved to the 'San Francisco and the Silicon Valley' section.

Two changes have been made to the 'Canada and Runaway production' section. The first concerns the removal of the statement that Canadians "appropriated" the term "Hollywood North". One cannot appropriate a term unless it was already in use. Though I think it likely that "Hollywood North" existed as a term prior to its use in reference to Toronto, Vancouver or the Canadian film industry, no verifiable information has yet been supplied. I have also removed the claim that the term has "allegedly" been in use since 1981. The reference, a Globe and Mail article from 8 September 1981, backs up this information.

Other changes are, I feel, self-evident: two citation requests and the removal of redundant links. Victoriagirl 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me! You had no right to delete SOURCED material. The sources were CITED and were VERY real. If you couldn't "find" it then that is your problem. I guarantee you that this editor did not source anything that wasn't verifiable. Please refrain from making malicious bad faith deletions of valid content and reverting everything that this editor has contributed SIMPLY because you don't agree with it (or me) or because it doesn't fit into your POV of what this page is. It is factual. And real. The use of the expression "Hollywood North" was not originated by and is not exclusive to Canada. That has been proven. - Donteatyellowsnow
Source for what you were questioning: Richard Sterling and Tom Downs. San Francisco. Oakland: Lonely Planet Publications. ISBN-10: 1741041546; ISBN-13: 978-1741041545, Chapter title: "Cinema" (first page of this chapter, first sentence, first paragraph) Quote: "Some of filmdom's most important studios are camped in the Bay Area, and the local film industry is frequently referred to as "Hollywood North." This book has been SCANNED at least partially into Google -- so it shouldn't be so "hard" for you to "find." I had put a link but of course you deleted it. Donteatyellowsnow
Victoriagirl's edits were appropriate - the text doesn't state the first use of the term. It only supports the assertion that San Francisco is called "Hollywood North". I have moved the information into the "San Francisco" section, complete with references etc. --Ckatzchatspy 05:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem might be that the link to Google Books is inconsistent - sometimes, it produces a scanned version that states page 29 isn't available. I've entered a different path that (hopefully) will be stable, otherwise the reference may not be suitable. --Ckatzchatspy 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No Victoriagirl's edits were NOT appropriate and I had reworded the sentence to read that it is the first BOOK use of the term and you were so busy reverting my edits that that got deleted too. It does DEFINE "Hollywood North" (as best as that slang term for a non-existent location can be defined); and virtually none of the other sources cited on this page do that but merely mention the word without putting it in context of a definition. It is one of the BEST sources cited on this page! You guys removing it is obviously a scheme to delete everything that I have contributed and to re-write history. PLEASE STOP reverting my edits the minute I start adding or changing anything. It's not going to make me go away and it is AGAINST wiki rules. I will start posting warnings on your talk pages like you have done to mine. I have thus far refrained from doing that petty elitist Wiki stuff that you guys are pulling just because you disagree with my editing. Please know that you are WRONG to do this. Please restore the work that has been deleted recently without just cause (and there isn't any just cause as far as I can see). If you want to challenge something, do it with wit, logic and sources not with your backspace key. That goes for ALL OF YOU. Donteatyellowsnow

Reminder to everyone:

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.


Reminder to everyone:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.


Reminder to everyone:

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

First, my apologies to Donteatyellowsnow - I was unable to view the page in question at the time of my edit. In fairness, I must point out that I twice asked for a page reference (as did another user). Furthermore, I see now that the page in question in no way supports any claim San Francisco may have in association with the early use of the term. Victoriagirl 05:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As I understand from his last post above, Donteatyellowsnow is attempting to indicate that Richard Sterling and Tom Downs' San Francisco is the first book to use the term. Unfortunately, I think the sentence in question, "The earliest known use of the term "Hollywood North" is in the book San Francisco by Richard Sterling and Tom Downs", doesn't reflect this aim. In addition, Mike Gasher's book, Hollywood North (2002), pre-dates that of Sterling and Downs by two years (never mind that the term is used in the title). While I might suggest "The earliest known use in an American book of the term "Hollywood North" is found in San Francisco (2004) by Richard Sterling and Tom Downs", I would suggest respectfully and in good faith that information concerning the first use in any specific media is trivial at best.
I'm afraid I cannot see that San Francisco provides any definition of the term "Hollywood North". Victoriagirl 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You've nothing whatsoever to apologize for - the reference was hard to get to, and sometimes comes up as being "unavailable". (That is why I had to source a new link for it, which is documented on this page.) As well, the text as written does NOT suggest that it is the first "book" - it explicitly states "The earliest known use of the term "Hollywood North" is in the book San Francisco" - which is completely incorrect, as proven by several other notable references already in the article. --Ckatzchatspy 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
But I provided a quote which is the first use AND definition of the term! The BOOK defines "Hollywood North". It is in a chapter entitled "CINEMA". Like it or not! Remember that this book is in its FIFTH edition. Also no one has given any quotes from the book "Hollywood North" that show how that term is used in that book, other than it being the book's title. If there is a definition in that book, then please support your argument with it. I mean otherwise, why isn't this page called "Hollywood North by Northwest" which is yet another book title and another bastardization of the name, combined with a Hitchcock film. If there is not a defintion and it is merely just the "Hollywood North" book's title, then like the movie "Hollywood North," I think it should fall at the bottom of the page. Remember, the source must be ABOUT the term and not just a MENTION of it. - Donteatyellowsnow
OK, one more time... the book in question (Lonely Planet's San Francisco City Guide) does not "define" the term "Hollywood North", and most definitely does not support the assertion that SF represents the first use of the term. The book says 1) that "the local film industry is frequently referred to as 'Hollywood North'" and 2) lists companies, producers, directors, and films that are set in SF. You cannot put those together and claim that it is the first use of the term "Hollywood North", or that it "defines" what Hollywood North is. All you can state is that a 2004 book says that the San Francisco film industry is referred to as "Hollywood North". The "fifth edition" fact doesn't matter, either, UNLESS you can show that the earlier editions also used the term. Finally, this book is a Lonely Planet city guide - a tour book. If you're not going to accept the Globe and Mail, then how can you endorse Lonely Planet? --Ckatzchatspy 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We have to remember that, as Wikipedia editors, we can not make our own authoritative statements. Saying that something is the "first-known" of whatever qualifies. We can say that Jean Doe says it is but we can't say it ourselves. Because we are not experts. "First-known" means known to mankind. The Lonely Planet book is just the first known to DEYS and the rest of us here. Not to put down google searches but our research efforts are not exactly exhaustive. =) --JGGardiner 08:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If you can find a definition of it that predates that one, then please add it! I disagree with Ckatz about the term not being a definition. I believe the author, knowingly or unknowingly, documented the use of the term and defined it with respect to the location San Francisco. I also think that there is a prejudice here against travel guides as if they don't contain factual elements. Many travel guides have historical facts and discuss popular culture, as this one does. Also a travel guide might be one of the only places that by shear incidence that it discusses location, would be able to pinpoint one. I mean we are not going to be able to locate a cartographer who is going to be able to map the exact location of "Hollywood North" because it doesn't really exist. It is just an expression. - Donteatyellowsnow

Canada and Runway Production

This section had many huge NPOV issues such as using 'Canadians' in a general term instead of Canada or Canadian Government. Other problems included words such as 'self-claimed', 'self-given', etc. and until references can be found have been removed. However those statement words have a WP:SNOW chance of being references because they're impossible to prove and many US references refer to Canada as Hollywood North. I also have a problem with "Pay Television" by The Globe and Mail, 8 September 1981 pg 7 reference as The Globe and Mail does not mark its pages as such. A7, B2 etc. are page numbers in which Global Media uses to number their newspapers. Also the date stamp is in the American format which makes me think that is a falsified reference. Mkdwtalk 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is definately something wrong with that reference. I agree. Not enough information. No link. Nothing. That is not my reference though. Someone else put that there. And I questioned it below as well. - Donteatyellowsnow
Concerning the Globe and Mail reference: I found this early use of "Hollywood North" through an on-line phrase search of the newspaper (an exercise made particularly irritating by ads for two old Toronto cinemas named Hollywood North and Hollywood South). I can assure you the reference is accurate - I've just doublechecked the information contained. The use, should anyone be interested: "Mr. Meisel [CRTC chairman John Meisel] has written, in reference to Hollywood North, that 'not much is gained if the only result is the creation of imitations of foreign products following formulas bearing no relationship to Canadian experience.'" The page number provided is also accurate - let's not forget that the Steed's piece was published nearly two decades the paper was the acquired by what we now know as CTVglobemedia. As for the date stamp... I'm afraid the day-month-year format is just another reflection of the British Columbia school system. Victoriagirl 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a minor point, but from what I understand the "day-month-year" format is British, not American - the US does "month-day-year". It's why I find the "9/11" term confusing, as I'd use that to represent November 9th. (Canada, as with our language and culture, is a mash-up of the British and American preferences...) --Ckatzchatspy 01:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also there are no references that refer to San Fran as Hollywood North. This section should be deleted. If you do a google search "Hollywood North San Francisco" there are 0 search results. Mkdwtalk 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you search for "Hollywood North" "San Francisco", you do get some results[9], including this one. Agent 86 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
On further looking at this whole section, I even wonder if it belongs here. I have no objection to the topic or the fact that it is a real issue, particularly in California, I'm just thinking that it's a bit incongrous in that it is tangental to the topic of the article. The article is about the origins and use of the term "Hollywood North", not the politics and economics of the film industry. Would it be sufficient to have "runaway production" as a "see also" link? Agent 86 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm satisfied that the term is occasionally used to reference SF in a relatively similar fashion. And the article which you found actually notes that the term is in use, rather than simply demonstrating one utterance. It also makes the interesting point that HN in SF is refers specifically to the tech heavy films. But I think that we should be careful not to weight the section more heavily than it should be. --JGGardiner 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I combined two separate thoughts into one. When I spoke about the section belonging, I meant the subject referred to in the sub-heading of this talk page discussion, namely "Canada and Runway Production". I agree that mention of SF as HN should remain in this article, it's the section on "Canada and Runway Production" that I think might be tangental. Agent 86 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks 86. I see what I missed before. I think that we should probably eliminate the Runaway section but move some of that content to an earlier section. As I understand it, the term does come from the presence of runaway productions in Canada so it should be mentioned somewhere but I don't think that I would keep the exact content that is there right now. --JGGardiner 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've thought for a while that a background on the reasons for the name would help to flesh out this article. However, as it is currently written, you're right about it being a tangent (and, IMHO, not much more than another soapbox for the "anti-Canada" campaign.). The US reaction is valid content here, in that one would expect some sort of response - but it needs to be neutral text, including the Canadian side of the debate. (There's a BC gov't report on r.p. that says the numbers used in the DGA report are overstated, that it doesn't take into account money flowing back to the US companies, etc.) --Ckatzchatspy 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the runaway production section should be removed as the Canadian film industry is using the term "Hollywood" and thereby the "American" part of it is baked into the name. It is not an original name. Also as much as 90% of the films shot in Canada are runaway film productions from the U.S. To ignore that would be POV against the facts. Also re: the quote from that still questionable Steed "Pay Television" source: "Mr. Meisel [CRTC chairman John Meisel] has written, in reference to Hollywood North, that 'not much is gained if the only result is the creation of imitations of foreign products following formulas bearing no relationship to Canadian experience.'" This quote is vague. It is not clear what the subject of the sentence or the article is. "Pay Television" could be about any subject... cable tv, satellite? I still have not found this article on the Internet either. I don't believe anyone has provided a true link to it and I question if perhaps original research might was done to obtain it as the Globe & Mail's online archives only go back to 2000. The search page that someone gave in response, also shows "0" results for that article. - Donteatyellowsnow 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Donteatyellowsnow, with all due respect, I have time and again bent over backwards in an attempt to help you research this quote [10][11][12][13]. I have already pointed out that Wikipedia does not require that references be available online. In fact, a casual glance through other Wiki articles will reveal that the majority of references have no online presence. That said, I have twice informed you that old editions of The Globe and Mail are indeed available online - but not for free [14][15]. I encourage you to investigate.
I'm afraid I can't speak to your final comment about the search page "someone gave in response". Perhaps you could identify the page and the person as neither piece of information is found on this page. Victoriagirl 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North the film

In the interest of reaching consensus, I'd like to begin discussion about what information concerning the film Hollywood North should be included in the article. The setting and period of this film has twice been removed [16][17]. I question these deletions:

1) No explanation has been given for the removal of information that the film takes place in Toronto. As the city is one of several locations that has been tagged with the term "Hollywood North", it would appear that this fact is highly relevant.

2) The year in which the film takes place - 1979 - was removed with the explanation "confusing if the film was made in 1979 - irrelevant fact". In fact, the film was released in 2003, a fact contained in the article. I think the year in which the film takes place is relevant, particularly as it relates to the Canadian industry as it existed in the 'seventies (and not 2003). I think the previous wording ("A movie, Hollywood North, starring Matthew Modine, was released in 2003. It was set in Toronto in 1979, detailing the struggles of two Canadian film producers.") was in no way confusing.

Finally, I would propose that the words "fictional feature film" be replaced by the more accurate "mockumentary" or "mockumentary feature film".

I look forward to hearing from other users on these issues. Victoriagirl 07:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could tell you that I agree with you - but unfortunately I honestly don't think it will make any difference. (Just now, I've been accused of making personal attacks for pointing out that the San Francisco reference didn't support the text it was attached to.) This is not what I joined Wikipedia for. --Ckatzchatspy 07:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I think it was misleading to put the year the film was SET in, as it was a fictional film that was shot in 2003. It's not relevant and is deceptive as it appears whomever added that info was implying that the fictional date has any bearing on the issue of when the term was first used. It was a MODERN script that was written to be set in a fictional 1979. Also someone wiped my reference that this film was a SATIRICAL film. In other words this is not a documentary about "Hollywood North". It was a comedy. So if that was going to be wiped as information -- I felt that the bare minimum information should be there instead. Just the name of the film and who starred in it. Since others were obviously trying to use the film as some kind of evidence. Which is so funny, I'm rubbing my belly and falling on the ground right now... - Donteatyellowsnow
The claim was that information concerning the date in which the film was set was "confusing", now it is said to be "misleading". Both contentions, I would argue, severely underestimate the intelligence of the reader. The film is currently described as a mockumentary, which is, if anything, even more precise than descibing the film as "satirical". Why, I wonder, has the setting of the film been twice deleted?
Frankly, I remain unconvinced that this film warrants mention in the article. That said, I recognize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers and I welcome discussion on this issue.
On an unrelated note, I would recommend the reading of the Wikipedia guideline on good practice as it pertains to talk pages. Victoriagirl 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the film probably does not deserve a mention in the article or perhaps a very minimal one. --JGGardiner 05:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Time to request comment on article

Given the attempts by most contributors to this article to reach some sort of balanced, encyclopedic article have been mostly frustrated, I suggest that it's time to take this article to Wikipedia:Request comment on articles. The commentary on that dispute resolution procedure suggests getting a third opinion (I had also thought of asking for the assistance of an "outside" admin, like someone listed in Australian Wikipedia administrators or something similar). Any thoughts? Agent 86 08:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think Wikipedia:Request comment on articles is called for here (third opinion wouldn't be appropriate as it is specifically meant for disputes between two editors). Should RfC fail to resolve the impass, I recommend that a request for mediation be made. Victoriagirl 17:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I left a note on DEYS's talk page[18] inviting him to participate. Based on the current entry[19] on his talk page, I assume that my note was "read and promptly deleted". I think we can proceed with drafting the RFC submission. Agent 86 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There has already been aWikipedia:Request comment on articlesSee Jan 15. Mediation is the only thing left to be done, but when I brought it up ages ago, it was rejected, and now look where we find ourselves. Langara College 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware that a RfC had been made concerning this article. I strongly recommend that a request for mediation be made. Just to clarify, should Mediation fail there is one "last resort": Arbitration. Victoriagirl 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
(Weakly): yaaaayyyyy...
I'm glad LC posted the link to the past RFC - I had just drafted and was about to post the RFC. How willing are people to take it to mediation? If so, what are the specific issues to be mediated? Or do people just want to carry on as we are, and hope a balanced article can be achieved and somehow becomes "stable"? Sigh... Agent 86 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Mediation is fine as long as BOTH sides are represented fairly and that AMERICAN mediators are chosen. I feel that this is a Canadian dogpile and that I have been attacked because I have burst the bubble on this page. The problem with this page is what I stated from the beginning that it is a MISNOMER -- there is no real place called "Hollywood North". There is only the various Canadian cities fighting over the term, until I introduced evidence that this term was slang that had actually been used to first describe San Francisco and other U.S. locations (such as the Sundance mention that several people here noticed on Entertainment Tonight). In other words, it's not really a term that can be pinned down to one location. And so I feel that either this page should be deleted (as being vague) or that it be a page that links to other pages (i.e. the Canadian film industry or whatever stats page you guys want to have all those numbers on). To use "Hollywood North" as a page for the Canadian film industry exclusively is false. It is using wiki as advertising. You guys have been resistant to any other alterations to this page and have tried to take ownership of it. I have fought hard to try to get runaway production included -- and it has been watered down to the point of not even barely being mentioned. Which... is that reality? I don't think so. Once this page went through the AFD and it was largely a Canadian stacked popularity contest, I then participated in the page by offering up other information as to the uses of the term and other representations. Which have been repeated deleted, moved and or disregarded or completely reverted many times. There is clearly an ownership issue here with you Canadians. And sorry, you can't own it. I don't know what else to say or how a mediation is going to help you. Because I'm allowed to participate and even if you find it frustrating, this alternative information is part of the process. Donteatyellowsnow
I don't care who conducts the mediation; a mediator just facilitates discussion between others and does not adjudicate. But I find it offensive to the Wikipedia community to even consider the nationality in an instance like this and to suggest that one is competent and others are not. I think an RfC might be ther better option right now but I'm fine with whatever attempt is agreed upon. --JGGardiner 07:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"The term "Hollywood North", with regards to Canada been in use as far back as 1981"

The Judy Steed reference doesn't have a link, an ISBN, a name of the article or a name of the publication. I think this should be removed if it cannot be verified.

Also I disagree with all the moves to put San Francisco at the bottom of the page when clearly that was the FIRST KNOWN use of the slang "Hollywood North" as San Francisco has had a thriving film community for much longer than the 10 years that Canada has tried to create one. Also it is stated in print that San Francisco is KNOWN as that, that is a definition and is the first definition. Nobody here has any print definition of Canada or any of the competing Canadian cities that defines any of them as "Hollywood North". Mere mentions of the name don't count (per Wiki rules of source criteria). Therefore SF should come first in the order of this page and all other cities should be considered for removal unless there is a PRINT definition, not just 'mention' (since you guys deleted the other U.S. cities such as Seattle).

I also think that this might be a good time to break Hollywood North off from the statistics of various filmmaking locations. Maybe this page should just be about the slang term and be a sort of disamb. page and have links to the various other filmmaking pages (i.e. Canadian film industry and U.S. ones) or whatnot. Some of the stats are also questionable and read as advertisements or are unproveable (such as many in the Toronto section -- ie. about the realtively new Toronto film fest being a precursor to the Oscars or even that it is the "premiere" film festival of North America (kind of a Johnny Come Lately in that respect -- with many other film festivals having much more weight and longer histories). BTW, how do those stats separate American exports (ie. runaway prods) from true "Toronto" productions (they are all glommed in there together as if they are one and the same stats). If an American film shoots in Toronto it is not a "Canadian export" necessarily -- so those stats are likely misleading. Donteatyellowsnow

Looking over the article history we see that since its introduction the Judy Steed article was properly referenced until an editing error was made late yesterday. I have corrected the error (typo, really).
I had nothing to add to my observation that San Francisco provides no indication as to the history of the city and its association with the term "Hollywood North".Victoriagirl 22:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a link to the Judy Steed article? It seems that it would be unfair to include it if there isn't an Internet link to prove the use of the term in the context that it is being used (to ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by ANY reader or editor). Where did you get this reference from anyway? It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear what that source is. Also there should be a quote from this article how she used the term so that it can be out in the open (and not vague, like it is now). This is trying to assert that she "defined" the term or was the "first" to use the term in a particular context. If she DIDN'T DEFINE the term, then I think that it is inappropriate for this to be the first position paragraph. Whereas in the use from the SF book the term is actually a "definition", which meets Wiki criteria for sources. Remember, "mere use" of the word does not count. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that merely use the term. - Donteatyellowsnow
Unfortunately, the Judy Steed article is not available gratis on-line - not that this is at all required by Wikipedia. That said, The Globe and Mail being "Canada's National Newspaper", I imagine the article is readily available in university libraries or the public library of any city of significant size. I must say the request as to from where I got this reference a peculiar one, particularly as the answer is found on this very page (as is the sentence in which the term is used). Those who care to investigate will find that the term is no more defined by Ms Steed than it is by Messers Sterling and Downs (in their travel guide to San Francisco). I must also point out that I in no way implied that any definition was provided by the article in question. To quote myself: "The term "Hollywood North", with regards to Canada been in use as far back as 1981". Victoriagirl 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that's strange that you were able to find this through a search of the Glob and Mail on the Internet because I don't think they have articles that go that far back in their online archive. I believe it only goes back to the last few years. But if you had that success, perhaps you can share the link to prove it? - Donteatyellowsnow
Here is the link. Enjoy! Victoriagirl 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you be a little more specific? That's just a search page. BTW, the other regular Glob & Mail search page has only archived back to 2000. And that article would pre-date that. But let me check it out. A little more info? Thanks. - Donteatyellowsnow
You'll note on the link I provided begins wiith the the statement that the company in question, ProQuest of Ann Arbor, Michigan, offers an "online digitized full-image version of the complete works of The Globe and Mail newspaper since its inception as The Globe in 1844." As previously stated, this information is not available for free. That said, my local public library is a subscriber to the service - perhaps your's is, too. Hope this helps. Victoriagirl 00:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Donteatyellowsnow, I just realized I may not have addressed everything you wrote. Once you have access, you would be offered a number of search possibilities, including word or phrase ("Hollywood North", for example), or you can simply look up a specific edition (in this case, 8 September 1981). Victoriagirl 01:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Toronto

The source that is cited for this is the arts and culture page for Toronto and does not say any of this: "Toronto is the third-largest television production centre in North America,[31] just behind Vancouver and Los Angeles; the city ranks second as an exporter of televison programming in North America.[32]" ^ Toronto Facts. City of Toronto. Retrieved on 2007-01-14. I think this should be deleted. Or re-sourced. - Donteatyellowsnow

Also #31 is from an advertising page called "What makes Canada cool" and is not a reliable source. (31. What Makes Canada Cool. Canadacool.com. Retrieved on 2006-12-24.) - Donteatyellowsnow
*I'm changing these to better reflect what the sources said:
original: In addition to being a productions centre, Toronto is the home to the Toronto International Film Festival, considered the premiere film festival in North America and second to the Cannes festival.[35] It attracts numerous high-profile actors and film makers form around the globe to premiere their Films in Toronto and is generally considered the point to which the Oscar races begin.[36]
ACTUALLY, that #35 source (^ Tobias, Scott. "Film Festival Guide", BBC NEWS, May, 2005. Retrieved on 2007-02-08) says nothing about Toronto "being second to Cannes" and in fact lists it much further down the list anyway. And as far as "Toronto generally being considered the point to which the Oscar races begin" that is NOT what Roger Ebert's article said nor inferred. It says that Toronto is "a SHOWCASE" for movie studios hoping to get Academy Awards. Obviously any film festival is, but that goes for Sundance, Cannes, Berlin and all the many other higher profile festivals. Ebert does not say the words that this is the point to where the "Oscar races begin" - Donteatyellowsnow
I have a problem with this statement and what the source actually says (or more likely doesn't say).
"In 2000, cuts to Toronto's film and television subsidies meant that the nickname of "Hollywood North" was still primarily associated with Vancouver"
ref name="TIME" [20] "Mounting a movie banquet" publisher Time Magazine accessdate=2007-01-13
For one thing the source never discusses the term "Hollywood North" as being associated with Vancouver, nor that this is what ended with the subsidies. The source talks about the "VISION", aka the FANTASY or scheme of making the Toronto FILM FESTIVAL into "Hollywood North" and how that fell apart:
"The festival's founding coincided with a push by the national government to make Canada a prime movie-making nation, not just a farm team for Hollywood... That ambitious scheme was not to be realized; the government cut its subsidies after a few years, and the vision of Toronto as Hollywood North was quickly occluded." - Donteatyellowsnow
(cur) (last) re: Ckatz: (Please do not remove valid references - the "Globe and Mail" is a well-established newspaper)
I wasn't doubting that the Glob and Mail is well-established, however, that more information is needed for this source. Where did the editor get this reference and what is the Internet link? Also in what context is "Hollywood North" used? Need a quote if possible. Wiki requires that sources be verifiable to all and that you cite secondary sources (sources where this source was obtained from). - Donteatyellowsnow
And re: (cur) (last) 00:44, 10 February 2007 Ckatz (Talk | contribs) (rv. - why is this "useless"? (to use the editor's words))
your other comment about that "source". HA! Did you even READ that source. For one thing it is JAPANESE and for another thing it slags the Canadian film industry bragging that Japanese don't like Canadian films and that they only bought one Canadian film in that entire year of that report. And again, I believe that it is useless information about the location of a film office. It is nonsense at best, irrelevant at a minimum and most likely is blatant advertising. I really question why you would want that source quoted. But if you do, perhaps we should put that little nugget about how much Japanese dislike Canadian films (as that seems more relevant to that particular source) - Donteatyellowsnow
I think that it is worth noting an office or other attempts to woo productions north. The basis for the usage of HN is really how these locations entice Hollywood bring there film work there. This seems like a fairly extraordinary effort and deserves mention. I don't think it is terribly important however. --JGGardiner 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Film Festivals

I'm not real sure why film festival posters are doing on this article? At least the Toronto section mentions their festival, but I didn't see a link to the Vancouver one. Regardless, I think this article is suppose to be about the film making industry and references to any film festivals from SF, Toronto, and Vancouver should go (both pics and content). Film festivals are about showing the films, not making them, and since they are all "internationl" festivals that means at least some of the films were not made in the city holding the festival. Otherwise maybe Seattle needs to be added, they have a film festival, they're north of Hollywood, and some movies are filmed there too. Aboutmovies 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think Seattle needs to be added as that has also been referred to as "Hollywood North" but someone (Canadian?) removed that reference. Or all the business about film festivals should be a link to List of film festivals. I added the info about SF only to try to balance what seemed like heavy-handed grandstanding by Toronto re: their relatively new film festival. The first international film fest in North America was in SF. And these people are trying to infer that SF doesn't have a filmmaking community or that it was never referred to as "Hollywood North" or that is less significant than the Canadian one. I don't know why they are so possessive of a title ("Hollywood North") that is stolen anyway... but go figure! - Donteatyellowsnow
I removed the Seattle reference. And why yes, I am Canadian. The source that supported it was this blog post[21] on scottsmovies.com ("Hi. I’m Scott and I see a fair number of movies"[22]). In any event, I removed it not merely because of the fitness of the source. The only use of the term is in the title. I think that this makes it a singular quip. However, I also feel that the title is actually referring to Bakersfield, CA, and not Seattle. If anyone reads the particular blog post and feels that it refers to Seattle, please let me know because I do like to hear all viewpoints and I just can't see how anyone could. Or if anyone feels that my nationality made the edit untenable, I'm interested to hear why that would be as well. Thanks. --JGGardiner 09:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I agree that references to film festivals should be removed. I actually brought that up with regard to the Santa Barbara Film Festival above but didn't get much response (although my main complaint was the source). I would have removed it myself but kept it as a concession to donteatyellowsnow because it was the only reference to support the inclusion of Santa Barbara at all. As for Seattle, I'm happy to include it but am not aware of any connection between it and "Hollywood North".
As well, I'd like to say that I completely agree with your advice[23] that canvassing is not a good idea. Although I disagree with your advice to it via e-mail instead. In my year and a half at Wikipedia I have not seen such a bad faith, atmosphere-poisoning action as to canvass users on the basis of having previously fought with a user (Skookum) to a new fight involving him. Could you imagine the effects were that an acceptable or common practice? --JGGardiner 05:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Canvassing certainly is bad faith and bad etiquette, but I disagree that it is not common. In my expierence it is pervasive. As to email, it is legitmate to do it that way, I don't know why, but WP:CANVAS only refers to user talk pages. It doesn't make sense to me, but that is what the guidline is. I was only trying to throw the user a bone so they could avoid running afoul of Wiki policies. Hopefully he (and others users that watch this page) will learn the lesson not to go to others in hopes of recruiting people. Aboutmovies 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply AM. I'm sorry if my post suggested any bad behaviour on your part because I do certainly think that you were acting properly. You are right, canvassing is fairly common. I actually don't mind the occasional friendly note if you know a user and find something that is in their area of interest. What I was really concerned about was that DEYS' canvas to you and another user was explicitly based on a supposed negative history with Skookum. In a way that is almost requesting wiki-stalking and certainly perpetuating any bad feelings that do unfortunately occur here. I am glad to see that you are a conscientious editor so your actions certainly aren't problematic themselves but I can only imagine how Skookum might feel if several editors appeared here on the basis of such a canvas. An arch enemy is fine for Spiderman but that is the kind of thing that belongs more in Hollywood (North or otherwise) than on WP. =) --JGGardiner 07:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention Spiderman ;-), given the last round of paranoiac ravings we all faced down. Or was that intentional?Skookum1 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The toronto film festival is actually pretty relevant when relating the term hollywood north to toronto. That term experiences greater usage amongst the public and media during the festival as well one of the factors for the media labelling of toronto as hollywood north has to do with all the publicity that surrounds the TIFF. Not to mention the festivals relation as the un-official start of the oscar races.

--Duhon, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have said "removed" but we do have to be careful to weight them accordingly and make sure that we know that they are related to the usage of "Hollywood North" and not just Hollywood itself. --JGGardiner 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
As per the attempt to try to say I was "canvassing", I was not. I accidentally stumbled across that page and was SHOCKED to see Skookum's personal attacks there. And BTW, I don't think Skookum is going to be able to argue against canvassing anyway as he has certainly done his best to canvas people to come and fight his fight to reclaim the Oregon border! I'm sure there are several people here who have gotten messages from him OUTRIGHT SOLICITING them to come over there and write something on his behalf. I never made any such request, and in fact, I don't even remember even telling the other user which pages I had been attacked on (even when requested). Just asked for advice in dealing with a certain person who shall be unnamed but who goes by the initials of... SKOOKUM ! - Donteatyellowsnow
As a matter of fact, SKOOKUM uses canvassing REGULARLY. And so much to the point that he actually started a feud with Hong Qi Gong on Mkdw's talk page: Here is what Mkdw had to do: "ATTENTION -Please take this conversation somewhere else. Mkdwtalk 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)" That was on Mkdw's own talk page! Ridiculous! Check out Skookum's 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC) post on Mkdw's page. To quote Skookum: "And either of you guys (Mkdw or Ckatz) I'd appreciate it if you'd drop by the Oregon boundary dispute some time, or at least have a look over it relative to the entrenched/increasing USPOV content/tone there, even though it's part of "our" history just as much as "theirs"...." If that isn't canvassing, then I don't know what is! And I did NOTHING of that sort! BTW, those disputes were made very personal and nasty, which seems to be Skookum's M.O. Perhaps he got you guys more riled up about me than anything. I don't know. But I'm starting to see that he has a history of this. - Donteatyellowsnow
I only called your messages "canvassing" because that is what AM called it in his post to you and I wanted to be on the same page. I don't care how you came upon the users' talk pages. Even if I believe that you stumbled across them, you explicitly note their negative relations with Skookum (by name) in your requests here[24] and here[25] Although you admitedly also appeal to them as fellow "fed up" Americans. As I said above, I don't mind canvasing in its usual sense. My problem, as I said above, is that you canvased them to continue their negative relations with Skookum here, essentially asking them to wiki-stalk him. That is absolutely unacceptable. I've never seen such behaviour from an editor who thought that he was acting in good faith, if indeed you were.
As for Skookum's behaviour regarding Oregon, it is relevant to that aritcle, not this one. He's a big boy and if he's caused any problems elsewhere on Wikipedia, he'll have to deal with the consequences. If you think Skookum's action are bad, for God's sake, don't emulate them. "An eye for an eye" is certainly not acceptable practice around here. --JGGardiner 08:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Worth a comment here that Donteatyellowsnow, during the AFD or another round of this page's sorry fracas, went looking for trouble and found some other articles which he had to take a poke at; as I recall it was the List of ghost towns article, where you'll find a piqued and nasty comment edit by DEYS in the edit history, about a topic area he knows absolutely nothing about (which I do). So here we have another example of DEYS doing "predatory" Wiki-ing - going after an opponent, either by digging up what he thinks is dirt on them, or by finding other articles to stalk them at. Minor stalking, perhaps, as with the ghost towns edit, and more pathetically amusing than anything else. Donteatyellowsnow can associate himself all he wants with the puerile bleatings of HongQiGong and his simplistic condemnations of me, or with Aboutmovies' attempts to wage wordwar against me on Talk:Oregon Country - where, in the wake of the latest round of accusations and sophomoric dissembling on terms I got tired for the fracas and did the "disengage" (well, except for a bit below...). I have better and far more worthwhile things to do on this planet than argue with sophomoric nitpickers (on Oregon Country and as in HongQiGong's case - though both antagaonists have degrees, you'd never know it with some comments/references made....I don't have a degree, so don't need an excuse ;-) and paranoid childishness (Donteatyellowsnow and a certain rp) that also happens to be associated with SPA-type activity and a particlar agenda (DYES' is trivial by comparison to many others, granted). And yes, these other topics don't belong in this discussion but Doneatyellowsnow thinks that they do, and that character assassination is not only a legimate pasttime but also relevant to getting rid of one of his more pointed critics in this discussion. Pointed, and I've even held my tongue becawsue the inanity and virulent hostility of Donteatyellowsnow's activities is naueating (and no, Langara College, he's not the only one here with a professional interest in the film industry - there's at least two others of us - and "professional" is hardly a word I would use to describe Donteatyellowsnow, except in the capacity/context of "professional p.r. man" or "professional spin doctor". A lot of the twisting of truth and hateful, whiney invective inserted into the article by DYES reminds me of nothing so much as American-style political attack ads, in fact; and I don't need to go looking in DYES' edit history to find ugly things about him to point out; you don't have to read far into the edit history of the article or the talkpage here to find some bit of perverse nuttiness and deceitful, manipulating edits done by DYES. So he can go and join HongQiGong's little hate-Skookum1 club (and it's Skookum1, not "SKOOKUM") and pretend to be all morally superior in the same end of the self-righteous mudpatch. Oh, I'm sorry was that a personal attack? Maybe you should try not making them youself, then, DYES? Trying to provoke me into a block? Hell, even in the last week, while just watching you nonsense going on here, I've still contributed and edited in other areas as I'm not an SPA (as you are); your campaign here has nothing to do with truth, but with an attempt to distort and evenb denounce the truth (which you also sought to get deleted), and built on a clear and well-articulated group hatred of Canadians and the Canadian film industry by someone with ties or some other strange form of jingoistic loyalty to Hollywood; it's got "agenda" written all over it, as well as rather elaborate measures and drastic edits and attack attitudes right and left.Skookum1

I'm bored with it, and with you; and can't see how Wikipedia can survive in the long run if belligerent, half-informed combatants with axes to grind (including yourself, HongQiGong, etc) can be stubborn and vocal - and childish and stubborn and rude - enough to make sure they get their way, as all the sane people will have left; or gone insane trying to communicate with the incommunicable. Whatever. Go play some mah johngg with HongQiGong and talk over the burning issues of Chinese immigration to Canada (a topic I'm sure you're interested in and must know a lot about, which HQG doesn't despite knowing all about it, or rather only what he wants to know about it...), and maybe brush up on the Oregon Treaty and the Oregon boundary dispute so you can wade into the fray and "fight the good fight" there, too. Speaking of people being canvassed to take on the big skookum in the fray (hi Aboutmovies; recusing myself from Wiki overall lately, and bored with the nitpicking; JQ Adams isn't exactly a "diplomat" , and citing another American source is still yet more evidence of the APOV tilt that you can't seem to see or think outside of, never mind that you theory about "joint occupation" is, ultimately, original research...and also POV because it was a political rant you cited, not a diplomatic note or correspondence). But back to DYES - you've had no problems deleting and distorting history here; why not do it all over Wikipedia?Skookum1 08:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Skookum1 08:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to say what is wrong with that comment Skookum1 because you already know. But I fell that I have to say again that an eye for an eye is not acceptable. --JGGardiner 09:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
JG, this is not an "eye for an eye"; Skookum went after me first. Not to nitpick during this display of belligerence on his part. But this is what started everything, more of less. That is his M.O. It's all over wiki. So yes, randomly going to a page one is likely to be assaulted by one of his fits (and that's exactly what happened! Looking for SF info I ran into the Northwest pages and there was Skookum's personal attacks!). And BTW, I don't even know HongQiGong. I just saw that amazingly insane transaction on regular HW contributor Mkdw's page. However Skookum's "Mah Jong" comment here seems bigoted and I think he is really out of line with that (especially since HongQiGong isn't here to defend the comment). - Donteatyellowsnow 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not an eye for an eye because he went after me first? That's exaclty what an eye for an eye means, doing to him what he did to you. It doesn't matter who started it; retaliation is not a legitimate excuse for bad behaviour. I also don't care how you came across the users you canvassed. The problem isn't that you came across them, it is that you recruited them, on the basis of their biterness towards Skookum1, to come here and continue the antagonism on this talk page. That is absolutely inexcusable. You should be thankful that Skookum and everyone else here have been to kind enough to not complain about it because that is absolutely the worst behaviour that I have ever come across here from an editor who wasn't an outright troll or vandal. --JGGardiner 10:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What's on Mkdw's page is, actually, something of the result of HQG going around and canvassing people about me while I was improperly locked during the Erik Bornmann fracas. Mkdw had been visiting various pages announcing my block, and how happy he was about it, and what a terrible person I am; I rejoindered (post-block) on Mkdw's page, and on a few other places where HQG had found the balls to attack me while he thought I couldn't respond (i.e. being blocked because of edits ensuant on the Bornmann fracas - in fact, more "calling a spade a spade" kind of stuff, the very same kind I've laid on the paranoiac ravings of HQG). So it's kind of funny that DEYS found some stuff created by someone else canvassing, and as it happens the example he's cited were specific attacks on me (with carefully chosen out-of-context excerpt to paint me in the worst possible light, which is totally out of line as well as incorrect - "borderline racist", which is HQG's chosen denunciation of me, is better applied to himself, but you have to know/read all the exchanges). As for mentioning mah jongg as being bigoted, I come from a city where lots of non-Chinese also have played it ever since it became fashionable among non-Chinese (1920s and the image is not racist at all, but of a pair of ladies or old gentlemen sitting kvetching about other people, moving the mah jongg pieces around with a loud clack-clackety noise, i.e. with nothing better to do. But kneejerk paranoid and "conspiracy" paranoia reactions are DEYS' hallmark style. And as for attacking DEYS first, I think a read of this contributor's early onslaughts against this page is clear enough as to who the attacker is; especially those of us who are Canadian and found our whole natoinality slagged as having no right to use or even have our own words, neologistically or otherwise, without being accused of somehow raping little Miss Hollywood, all so vulnerable and wrapped up in white duct tape and at the mercy of the brutal, thieving Canadians. BIGOTRY? The bigotry around here is the anti-Canadian ranting and hysterics of DEYS, and while he may not be an official emissary of a US trade war on film, in politics optics is everything - and protectionist, jingoist, anti-Canadian attacks are what DEYS has to point to as his "achievements" on this page. Trying to point the finger at everyone else is also usually the hallmark of bullies, who need the faults of others to try and evade responsibility from their own (since they can't hide from them).Skookum1 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on point, the question is ‘what are film festival posters doing as illustrations on this article?’ I think the posters should be taken out. In Vancouver, VIFF has virtually nothing to do with Hollywood productions filming in the City. The Vancouver festival screens hundreds of films each year from all over the world, of which no more than two or three are Hollywood productions. The Toronto festival is a bit different, because while it also screens hundreds of films from all over the world, it tends to include a dozen or so high-profile Hollywood productions. Much of the news coverage of TIFF, therefore, focuses on the Hollywood stars attending premieres of their movies in Toronto. But even that is only peripherally related to the concept of Hollywood north; i.e. Hollywood productions being filmed in Toronto.--Mathew5000 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this article is not solely about filming productions in various cities other wise we should have articles or rename the article as : "Film industry in Canada", "Film industry in Vancouver/toronto" but its about each cities relationship with the term "hollywood north". As i've stated and as anyone who lives in Toronto or perhaps canada in general knows, the TIFF is very related to the term hollywood north in toronto. the fact is while the TIFF is a world festival 90%+ of the media attention is foucused on hollywood productions and hollywood celebrites while in the city. There are numerous articles written about the festival where one see's "hollywood north" mentioned. The idea of "ollywood" as is one of the categories here, goes beyond just film production but its essentially a culture. As for the other festivals i believe you are right about their lack of relation to "hollywood north" although i am not 100% sure about what the san fernando festival's relation is. .--Duhon 13 February 2007
I agree that the article is about everything related to the term, so that should include film festivals or weather or whatever when it is relevant. For example, right now we have mentions of film-making history in Vancouver and SF which predates the first use of Hollywood itself as a filming location. That isn't really relevant to this article. I just want to make sure that everything is clear and sourced. I don't want us to make any assumptions, even if they seem reasonable, or introduce things that we know in our minds without a real source to verify them. --JGGardiner 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused by your last point, JGGardiner. Is anybody saying, “They call my city Hollywood North because we have a lot of local filmmakers making their own movies?” If so, that makes no sense to me. Maybe some people use the term that way, but it isn't really that common, is it? For the most part, the term is used in the sense of “My city is called Hollywood North because it is treated as a northern branch office of the Hollywood studios.” In regard to Duhon's last comment, I agree that at TIFF “90%+ of the media attention is focused on hollywood productions and hollywood celebrities while in the city”. However, I do not agree that there are “numerous articles written about the festival where one sees ‘hollywood north’ mentioned”. There might have been a few, but not that many. Hollywood doesn’t have a big film festival, so why would the Toronto film festival invite comparisons to Hollywood? It would make more sense to label Toronto Cannes West. So I still think that mentions of both TIFF and VIFF should come out of this article unless they can be better justified. --Mathew5000 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I was more or less agreeing with what you just said. I think that we should only talk about things in relation to the term and not just because they are related to film culture in those locations. For example one might think that HN could be related to a city's excellent film school. But you shouldn't put it in the article without an appropriate source suggesting a known link. Similarily, the presence of film festivals may or may not be related to the use of the term and we need specific references to demonstrate that they are. --JGGardiner 05:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All these articles make mention of "hollywood north" when discussing the TIFF [26][27] [28] [29] [30] [31] I find it highly naieve that you believe that there is no relation to the festival and the nickname "hollywood north" in toronto, it is very well documented. the fact that the festival plays heavilly into the oscar races is another factor to its Hollywood connection. the TIFF plays moreso to the hollywood crowds than does cannes even. TIFF has never been labeled as "cannes west" its an entirely different entity. I will try to explain in the article more the connection between the festival and the term to make it more clear.--Duhon 14 February 2007

It's odd that Duhon and I should find ourselves on the same side of this particular point, and I do endorse the position that the "Toronto usage" of Hollywood North, not to be confused with any other usage (Vancouver, the whole of or anywhere in Canada, San Francisco, or Burbank), is very much associated with TIFF. But hosting TIFF does not make Toronto "Hollywood North" except by Toronto's definition/application of what it means - seen clearly here in the idea that TIFF is somehow a "Hollywood connection", as in inside connection and fame-by-association. Fine, that is the context of the Toronto usage - preening itself as a "second Hollywood" - but it's NOT the context of the Vancouver usage, though granted the meaning in the Vancouver media is blurred by constant repetition of the Toronto usage on our Toronto-dominated national news networks; Global Vancouver doesn't make that mistake, nor generally does CBC Vancouver; but their Toronto head offices rarely refer to Vancouver as Hollywood North, and hype the application of the term to Toronto. That was my point, before Donteatyellowsnow turned up to piss in the pool from the American-paranoid end of the pool; Toronto's interpretation and use of the term have to do with glamour, glitter, the building of a Canadian star-machine, glamour for the city itself, as if it really were the Centre of the Universe; the idea of a "connection", of being an insider in the Big Machine, is very appealing to the nerdier side of the Canadian media/ego; but the usage in Vancouver is/was very different (other than contemporary fudging because of Toronto-dominated media and the growth of a very minor gossip industry in Vancouver) and was not about an "inside connection" to "Hollywood", as in the "swimming pools, movie stars, etc" of the Hillbillies or the fawning, jaw-dropped Lucille Ball in the presence of famous stars who were guests on her shows; that dream, that imagery, is what Toronto obsesses about and, yes, agreeing with Donteatyellowsnow of all people, Toronto did steal the term, but only from Vancouver; not San Francisco (they can't see that far, but Vancouver is one of their colonies in the parasitical Canadian hive, OK?), and it is blatant advertising for one of the most boring, socially-cold cities on the planet which needs to convince people it's got something worth visiting. Vancouver doesn't have that problem; and by that I mean not the scenery and climate yada-yada, but more that Hollywood North isn't a salespitch in Vancouver; it's a reference to an economic sector and not to a star machine but to the omnipresence of Hollywood-style street and house and sidewalk sets "on the go", and to the likelihood of running into Hugh Jackman at Starbuck's, or Goldie Hawn at a store on West Broadway; and not treating them goofy if you do run into them, as would be the case in TO, or in LA.....set etiquette pretty well applies off-set in Vancouver, and even though the paparazzi have started making the rounds here part of the appeal for the star set here is not because it's a place to be seen (Toronto apparently is, or thinks it is), but it's a place to hang out where you can still reasonably get away with being an ordinary person. And there's lots of good restaurants, if no night life to speak of (other than Brandi's, but not a good place to hang out p.r. wise since Affleck's fling there....). Whatever. The point remains - yes, TIFF should be mentioned, but I'd venture in the context of the contrast to Vancouver, where VIFF is not part of the Hollwood North phenomenon, and not part of the image/source; of course there's a connection because of people (though certainly not in product), but it's not part of the package/image.Skookum1 08:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


The funniest bit I've seen all night is on one of DEYS' recruitment canvasses, which I happened to look at: there are a handful of them that associate with him Meaning me, of course. ROTFL. I'm not actually sure any of the other BC/Canadian Wikipedians want to be associated with me; we just all happen to give a shit about BC-related articles and that's why we're "fed-up Canadians". I'm fed up with the Americanization of the history of the Oregon boundary dispute, and of American jingoism rampant (well, sometimes soft-pedalled and even unintentional, but still biased when not fully jingoite) throughout most articles involving cross-border issues. Hell, we haven't even started on Salmon War yet, huh?Skookum1 08:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

North of wherever

"Canada, oh yeah, that's up north somewhere. Past Bakersfield, right?" The LA-myopia of the perspective that SF and other non-LA California cities are also Hollywood North, simply by being north of Hollywood, reminds me of those satirical maps/aerial views of the US that show up on New Yorker covers, with only Manhattan and the other boroughs, with a slim line of New Jersey in the distance, and only some indication the rest of the US, never mind the world exists. Something like the script in the CN Tower, if it's still playing since I heard it, that Yonge Street is the world's longest street because if runs all the way to Vancouver. The equivocation of the most widely-recognized meaning(s) of Hollywood North here is getting more than a bit annoying; the primary usages of Hollywood North do not concern casual quips or general references about an amorphous backlot consisting of the rest of the continent outside LA, they concern the Canadian film industry and the urban persona/naming/branding of Vancouver and Toronto in particular. Trying to please those who maintain those are inconsequential and that the real meaning is cities in northern California, or perhaps Seattle or Utah.....gimme a break. Actually, no, no one's giving anyone a break around here, huh? This whole affair is absurd but in and of itself will make an interesting bit of history one day, both on the film industry end of things and also within Wikipedia. The issue of film festivals raised by Aboutmovies above is actually one of the defining parameters of the difference between the usage as applied/used differently by/in/about Vancouver vs Toronto, which was a subject of discussion here before DYES raised the battle standard over whether or not the term/article should even exist, and how its mere usage by Canadians is an affront to the film industry; from my end so is Toronto's appropriation and recultivation of the term, but I can live with that as by definition a parallel, though derivative and different version/usage; whatever other casual uses it may have elsewhere, the Canadian milieu and the images of each of those two cities are primary; and one of the differences is that in TO the existence of TIFF is pointed at as a demonstration of WHY Toronto IS Hollywood North (as opposed to anywhere else that might claim the title, or have previously earned it....) when in Vancouver, VIFF has nothing to do with it except by way of somewhat common cocktail crowd, and the occasional luminary in town to shoot a flick who might show up at the gala, or at least promote their own films; the difference in the film festivals is their different repertoires/menus, also, with Vancouver specializing on world productions and experimental/political stuff, Toronto vying for a place as a "great mainstream festival" or whatever expression might be used. Toronto's vision of Hollywood North, is as I've said before, based oround glamour and glitter and, yes, sharing in the limelight of the Big Industry, while Vancouver's is about a working environment and no developed star machine/branding concerning the city; it's hardly something Tourism Vancouver promotes in the same was as Toronto's tourism marketing does there. That said, this is all irrespective of the ongoing problem with the dissembler who's been such a pain here; actually sorting out the defintions/usages is impossible in the current air of conflicting realities; what is happening here is that someone with POV agenda is successfully defraying proper editing and now is presuming to want moderation/conciliation at the same time as continuing to attack the article, as well as other editors, with relative impunity. There's a lot in the article I think is superfluous from the Vancouver end of what Hollywood North means to and about that city; but the same things absent in Vancouver's self-image as Hollywood North are what defines Toronto's own variant/cooptation. Yes, Toronto is wanting to steal Hollywood's thunder, branding-wise; Vancouver's context is rather than it's an extension of the LA machine, as opposed to being one of its own. And THAT difference is a much bigger and more relevant difference than any one-time or occasional use to refer to Spokane, Boise, Denver, Fargo or wherever.....Skookum1 05:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin wrote a fable once about a father and a son traveling with a donkey. When the father rode and made the son walk, they were criticized by those they met; likewise, they were criticized when the son rode the donkey and made the father walk, or when they both rode the donkey, or when neither rode the donkey. So finally, they decided to throw the donkey off of a bridge. The moral according to Benjamin Franklin, was that it is foolish to try to avoid all criticism. Fortunately, despite his "despair of pleasing everyone" Franklin concluded, "I shall not burn my press or melt my letters." Q.E.D.- Donteatyellowsnow

Usage of city guides as legitimate sources

It seems especially in the case of san fransisco a city tour guide is being presented as a legitimate book [32] as well as the claim that this is the first written usage of the term hollywood north in 2004, even though the same travel book (toronto edition) as well in 2004 refers to toronto as being the "hollywood of the north" [33]

Are we actually going to be using these as legitimate sources for the article?

---Duhon February 10th 2007

We should be conservative in our use of such things as sources. We have to remember that they don't say much other than a term has been used. We don't know if the term was a one-off quip however. I saw a newspaper article refer to a Vermont location as "Hollywood North" but it obviously doesn't warrant inclusion. These definitely are not "reliable sources" for analysis. But this is an article about popular culture so we might have to make occasional use of sources like this. --JGGardiner 08:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think a travel guide, when we are discussing LOCATIONS, is perfectly acceptable as a source particularly when it discusses the actual definition of the words and places it in a certain region. Obviously the fact that this Bermuda triangle called "Hollywood North" has been contested (even between the Canadian cities themselves) proves that it is a vague term; that it is a colloquialism and that most likely it doesn't really belong on Wiki (particularly if its only going to be used to define ONE area -- i.e. Canada). So if there is going to be a page on the colloquialism then uses and definitions should be appropriate for ANY CITY'S INCLUSION if a writer who knows enough about a city to write a well-known travel guide on it 1) uses the term and 2) defines the term. - Donteatyellowsnow
I admit to being mystified as to why the legitimacy of San Francisco as a book is being questioned. It is, after all, published by Lonely Planet, a company with a subtantial reputation. Were it a self-published title I would feel differently. Victoriagirl 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the book's legitimacy is being questioned, although personally I would have some reservations about regarding tour guide text as "absolute truth", be it Lonely Planet or not. What seems to be the real issue is that the quoted text does not support the claim of "first use". --Ckatzchatspy 01:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Victoriagirl for a agreement (for once). There is obviously considerable bias against this editor and any of this editor's contributions, including that book as a source. That is fairly obvious. So that's why it is being questioned, plain and simple (as per Victoriagirl's question). Anyway... Ckatz' criteria of "absolute truth" is not really Wiki's criteria. I don't think there even is such a thing as "absolute truth". "Truth" is always subjective and relative. Wiki only requires "verifiability" and truth as it pertains to that verification. I think we should use a broader sense of "truth" here than the proposed "absolute truth" the criteria of which Ckatz is ONLY putting my contributions up against (and not necessarily the contributions of others); particulary because we are discussing a colloquialism and trying to put it in context. Perhaps we should look to "beyond a reasonable doubt" as criteria. If you have a "reasonable" doubt that the book (or any other fact) is 1) not legitimate or that it is 2) not truthful or that 3) San Francisco was NEVER referred to as Hollywood North or that there is 4) some conspiracy between me and an author who wrote a book five editions old -- then please say why. So far, I haven't heard any rational reasons why it isn't 1) a definition or 2) valid. - Donteatyellowsnow
Once,again, you're trying to sidestep the matter at hand. With regards to this particular reference, the problem we've been trying to resolve is the fact that it does not support the assertion that San Francisco is the first place to use the term "Hollywood North". It only indicates that the term has been used to refer to San Francisco. I'm puzzled as to why you would introduce this idea regarding a "conspiracy" between yourself and the book's author, though. --Ckatzchatspy 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My two cents

As someone who lives in San Francisco, I can honestly say I've never heard of our fair city referred to as "Hollywood North". There is a small neighborhood by Candlestick known as "Little Hollywood", Treasure Island is frequently used as a movie set, and there are a lot of filmmakers and support infrastructure in the area, but the use of the term and the industry's importance to San Francisco's economy are minor relative to, say, IT, Finance, professional services, biotech, tourism.

I would further say that, with respect to the Bay Area as a whole, North Bay and East Bay have more significance in this industry than does Silicon Valley. And anyone who says the Silicon Valley is most likely from Southern California, as any self-respecting Bay Area resident knows it is just Silicon Valley. Similar to how you drive on 101 in the Bay Area while you drive on the 101 in Los Angeles.

A quick Google search for "Hollywood North" AND "Canada" turned up three times as many hits as did a Google search for "Hollywood North" AND "San Francisco". This wikipedia article was actually the first entry for that latter query. Searches for "Hollywood North" AND "Vancouver" or "Hollywood North" AND "Toronto" also turned up about twice as many hits as did the search for San Francisco. Upon performing a simple search for "Hollywood North", all the top ten hits were Canada-based. Results for "Hollywood North" AND "Bay Area" and "Hollywood North" AND "Silicon Valley" were miniscule.

Thus, I would humbly suggest that, while San Francisco and the Bay Area should certainly be mentioned in this article, I do not think it should be placed of higher importance than sections devoted to Canada, regardless of the history of the term. Its use is clearly more linked to Canada than it is to San Francisco or the Bay Area.

--DaveOinSF 06:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Some more observations: The San Francisco Film Commission has a web page, but I don't see the term "Hollywood North" anywhere.--DaveOinSF 07:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Even more observations: Upon further review of the results I get when I google "Hollywood North" AND "San Francisco, only one of the top 10 hits is a legitimate instance of the term being used to describe San Francisco. The other instances include this wikipedia article, hits on the city of "North Hollywood", some unconnected instances of "North" and "Hollywood" appearing next to one another, and a Vancouver reference.--DaveOinSF 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for that Dave. It is nice to know the perspective of someone who lives in San Francisco. As someone from Vancouver, I can say that the term is nearly universal out here. Every major media outlet uses it regularily and I would think only the most recent of immigrants was unaware of it. As a British Columbian it actually makes me cringe because I think the appeal has more to do with celebrity-obsessed culture than anything else. But it isn't my place as a Wikipedian to pass judgement on culture.
Your searching is also interesting. I did a little searching myself earlier, for my own interest, and found that HN and SF was pretty much unique to the area. In the SF Chronicle (and sfgate) I did find the term used fairly frequently but the usage was not standard. The most common was the convergence of Hollywood story-telling with Silicon Valley technology and sometimes money. But it was also used in other contexts. The Chronicle also used the term for both Vancouver and Toronto. Among other American papers, most had no use of the term at all but some did for Vancouver and Toronto including the NY and LA Times. Among the British papers, the Times (London) had nothing but both the Guardian and Independent had the Canadian use. --JGGardiner 08:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've never heard of the term being used with respect to SF before, but it's use is apparently not zero. And it completely goes against every fiber of my being as a Northern California resident - using a term that makes you sound like an LA wannabe.--DaveOinSF 08:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Recognizing DaveOinSF's comment I offer the following for anyone who still sees humour (or, perhaps seeks humour) in this situation. While reading old articles online in The Globe and Mail, I came across a feature, "Grow Up, Toronto!" [The Globe and Mail, 8 June 1998, C01], in which the writer, Deirdre Kelly, included this throw-away line: "Why – when Americans nickname us Hollywood North – do we think it’s a compliment."
This sentence occasioned a letter to the editor from one Andrea Pasquil of Vancouver: "Just to clarify matters, in your article you claimed that Hollywood had nicknamed Toronto 'Hollywood North.' You are mistaken. Vancouver is third in film and television production in North America, behind only Los Angeles and New York. Vancouver is and will always be Hollywood North. The only people who give the title to Toronto are Torontonians." [The Globe and Mail, 13 June 1998, D07].
Ms Pasquil’s letter brought the following response in another letter to the editor from a Brian John Busby of Toronto: "I can assure Andrea Pasquill that Torontonians are not alone in referring to this city as Hollywood North. Throughout the eighties, I was one of many Montrealers to use this appellation for the nation’s larger city, but only as an insult. Why anyone would choose to describe his home as an appendage of an American city – least of all Hollywood – is beyond all understanding." [The Globe and Mail, 20 June 1998, D07]. Victoriagirl 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the sheer amount of evidence and sources points to a stronger correlation between the term and Canada in general as opposed to NoCal. --Brodey 06:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, DaveOinSF may not be part of the filmmaking community up there which has used the term rather prolifically and this is probably where the Canadians heard it and borrowed it. It wasn't because SF was trying to "copy" L.A. but because San Francisco actually has a very long and important history of cinema and being a major production location (unlike the Canadian cities which are relative newbies to the whole process) it really was just "to the north" of Hollywood. Also I don't think that number of search hits should be the criteria for inclusion of material or relevance. I think we should stick to the hard facts and book definitions rather than just "hits". I mean there might be a lot of hits generated by the word "McDonalds" that doesn't mean it is synonymous with the word "hamburger." Obviously the neologism has become popularized in Canada among Canadians, but in the U.S. filmmaking communities it is rarely if ever used and when it is used, it is used to mean almost any location outside of Hollywood that is "to the north". - Donteatyellowsnow
Most of the editors here aren't part of the film community. In fact Donteat you're probably the only one who is actually involved with it professionally it seems. San Fran has no references that meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:notability guidelines. For example if you created a lone article about how San Fran is hollywood north it surely would be deleted under WP:SPEEDY. Langara College 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
All the references that link San Fran as Hollywood North do not even cite the word. I have removed all the references accordingly as enough time has passed where no credible references were provided. The San Fran section as well as the introduction. Langara College 00:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the statements that used [34] as a reference as you will see that paragraph one, line one, does not say the specified quote nor does the book even use Hollywood north. Langara College 00:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken, although it is completely understandable as Page 29 is hard to access through Google Books. The first line of the "Cinema" section says "Some of filmdom's most important studios are camped out in the Bay Area, and the local film industry is frequently referred to as 'Hollywood North.'" --Ckatzchatspy 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny how the citation read: "page 1, paragraph one, sentence one of this chapter" when 'this' was the first page of the book. I've reinserted the statement with the properly formatted reference Langara College 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny how some people just "disappeared" from this conversation. Or did they? If the sock fits, wear it, right "Langara College"? A comparison of contributions appears to show that there are at least two people who are never "in the same room at the same time"... - Donteatyellowsnow 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that Langara is a sock of Skookum1, then the sock most definitely does not fit. --JGGardiner 09:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you ask for an IP check from an administrator or actually stand by your words and say it. Or maybe you know that this is another one of those cases where you know you'll never get proof and make up some random fact about it. Langara College 01:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of earlier version

I have restored the version prior to Donteatyellowsnow's two edit earlier this evening. While I feel my edit summary adequately explained my reasoning, I thought it best to explain the changes here as well. Donteatyellowsnow's explanation for these edits was 1) restoring definition / removing broad statements and unsourced statements w/ factual" and 2) "reposition 1st city referred to as term in 1st position - pending further citation dev. on "1981" ref &/or actual Canadian definition ref". However, I do not feel that those edits are appropriate given the discussions on this page, and the contributions by a San Francisco-based editor. The rewrite of the lead paragraph, in which Vancouver and Toronto were placed before the California sites, was done by DaveOinSF, based on his information that the term "Hollywood North" is not in common use for the city. As for the "reposition" edit, this was done because "Dont" is challenging the validity of the Globe and Mail reference - a citation that has been properly formatted according to Wikipedia guidelines, and verified by a reputable contributor. Given these conditions, I felt it was appropriate to restore the previous version (incorporating "Dont"'s extra references) while we continue this discussion. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are all the citations you need if you guys would stop deleting the content I have added (with all appopriate references). DaveOinSF is not an expert on "Hollywood North", but merely thought he hadn't heard a term; a term, in fact, that has been used dozens of times in the San Francisco Chronicle (which have been listed) over the last decades. Your constant removal of this material is vandalism. It shows your bias against any contributions (additions that don't add up to your bias that "Hollywood North" is somehow and ironically exclusive to Canada), which obviously it isn't. Why don't you just accept that fact?!?!?! Like Wikipedia itself, the term "Hollywood" and "Hollywood North" originated in the U.S. and is American-born and made. - Donteatyellowsnow
Sourced content isn't appropriate if it still fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and the like. Blatantly inappropriate content needs to be excised - there's no grey room.
On a personal note, I find it rather perplexing that you're an otherwise good contributor who regularly makes grossly inappropriate edits to a couple of articles, despite this being pointed out to you time and again. WilyD 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, one of the folks around here used to be a reporter and still has their own style guides; he won't have the San Francisco Chronicle's style guide but it's a propos at this point, given DEYS comment here, to call the editorial room of the Chronicle and ask if their style guide, or Associated Press' or anyone's in the US, has "Hollywood North" in it, and what they use it for...If San Francisco regards itself as Hollywood North, or anyone else but DEYS and the Lonely Planet guidebooks does, it's legitimate as another usage. But if Bakersfield and Stockton are somehow "Hollywood North" because of backlots there, might I suggest the Hollywood page be retitled "West Brooklyn" or "Staten Island West", because Hollywood was after all a series of runaway productions from the New York film industry of the time.....Skookum1 19:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver's nickname

I've introduced a reference indicating "Hollywood North" as a nickname for Vancouver.[35] In the interests of furthering this article along I thought I might present the quote on this page: "The idea that British Columbia's feature film industry is a dis-placed cinema is written into the nicknaming of Vancouver, the proviince's centre of film production, as 'Hollywood North' or 'Brollywood.'" [Mike Gasher. Hollywood North: The Feature Film Industry in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2002. p. 8.] Victoriagirl 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is "Brollywood"? Never heard that one before. Bobanny 20:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have... couldn't tell you when or where, but it's not new, or uncommon. --Ckatzchatspy 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Here we go... from the Tourism Vancouver website:

"Take advantage of Vancouver's reputation as Hollywood North (sometimes called Brollywood North during the November rainy season.) These are some of Western Canada's best places for celebrity watching. After a hard day on the set, the movie crews and stars come to eat and relax, see and be seen."

--Ckatzchatspy 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It (Brollywood - I've never seen it in the "Brollywood North" combo though) surfaced, I remember, during the David Duchovny/Tia Leone thing years ago, i.e. Duchovny saying his wife didn't like the rain here, and the media jumping all over him about it. Brollywood is a straightforward take on the often-hundreds, or at least dozens, of umbrellas seen around each film set/circus during some of the "best" of our weather; it's more a reference to having to shoot in the rain, vs. Hollywood North describing the working environment in general. Still hear it now and then, always as a quip/joke in passing....never as a monicker/"tag" like Hollywood North. I may have an old copy of a start-up mag called Role-Call here from 1989, and I'll see if we used it in there (I was its editor), although I know "Hollywood North" was already current at the time, though in more of an awkward "gee - who, us?!" kind of way than a brag/boast or "theft" of Hollywood's allure; again the difference between Vancouver's and TO's usages of the term is the branchplant working environment on the one hand vs the glamour mill/media machine on the other. One is an attempt to ride on Hollywood's coattails and steal some spotlight; the other, original, Canadian usage (Vancouver), has to do with being dragged along behind Hollywood's coattails, and in the spotlight whether you like it or not. The funny part about DEYS' hostility towards me is that I actually agree that Toronto's use IS advertising/promotion, and in the worst way; but the broader general Canadian usage, and the original Vancouver usage, are NOT advertising/promotion but just a reflection of being backlots for LA (or Toronto, for that matter, as is often the case lately). Skookum1 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

hmmm...still not sure I quite get it. So you're saying the "Brolly" part is a play on "brelly," as in "sh@*t, it's starting to rain and I left my brelly at home"? At first I thought the "br" might be taken from British Columbia, or that maybe it was some allusion to "Bollywood." I definately like the sea of umbrellas image better though. And while I'm here: as much as I'm not a fan of Duchovny, who here doesn't complain about the rain in Vancouver? Bobanny 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, can't say I've ever seen it spelled as "brelly" - I've always known the umbrella slang to be "brolly". --Ckatzchatspy 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit that I felt stupid for a minute when I didn't get it. When you have to stretch it that much, it isn't really clever. =) Although it makes one realize that Vancouver's popularity as a shooting location is all the more remarkable, especially when one remembers that clear weather is much of what got the real Hollywood going in the first place. --JGGardiner 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I heard someone say "brolly" today for the first time, or at least it was the first time I was paying attention. Bobanny 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A note on civility

I just want to remind of everyone to mind the civility of their comments. I know that some editors feel that they’ve moved past the point of AGF in this discussion, and I can understand that. However, it is important that everyone maintain their civility even in those circumstances.

And please evaluate each edit on its own merit. Even a problematic editor or one not acting in good faith can make some good edits. So stick to the content not the contributors. I realize that this article has been a challenge for everyone but the best thing for the article is if everyone can maintain the community standards of the project.

I know that it is easy and I too have had to watch what I say and I edit a few posts before I’ve submitted them. When things are heated it is important to look at one’s own actions and make sure that they appropriate. And please remember that it is not acceptable to act badly towards an editor because they did the same to you first. It will take some conscious effort on the part of everyone involved, myself included, but I'd like to see this discussion turned around. Thanks everyone. --JGGardiner 22:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here, here! (and thank you for that) Victoriagirl 22:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North Nightclub, vintage 1986

Just to throw the cat among the pigeons, I was on a Seymour Street bus last night (not often downtown) and happened to notice the Hollywood North nightclub, which is upstairs in one of the only buildlings on the east side of Seymour between Robson and Smithe (the rest is parking lot or garage). It's not big deal on the Vancouver night life circuit (such as it is), but still in business. I say "still" because I remember it from the Expo summer (1986) when it was one of three clubs on Seymour dubbed "the Playpen", this particular one being "Playpen Central" (the Luv Affair, now extinct, was Playpen South, Systems - now The Drink - was Playpen North. I'll leave the reputation of this particular club aside but bringing it to mention its existence; and that its name was on that sign in at least 1986 (I saw it every day), and in those times in Vancouver if you did say Hollywood North you'd have to tell by context if it was the nightclub or the film industry association that was being made; but usually the former, in fact, although by the end of the next year the momentum on the latter side was on the roll. I should note that AFAIK the club wasn't named as a part of any attempt to ride the film industry's bandwagon, but had been arrived at independently; maybe even it's at fault in getting The Province to notice the name and hype it; although, again, the term was growing within the industry before the newspapers got wind of it - and who knows, maybe the presence of the club name helped move that along or even spawn it. I guess the way to prove the vintage of the club's name and sign is in city business license records (or BC liquor license records?).Skookum1 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DEYS => WP/ANI

Just saw WilyD's latest attempts to keep this page encyclopedic, and DEYS rapid-fire attempts to turn it back into an editorial on those mean ol' Canadians making life hard for the California film industry. DEYS' latest funny is his allegation in an edit comment that Americans aren't allowed to edit this page (which doesn't explain why he still can and does, huh?) and that his version of the article is "correct". This nuttiness has gone on long enough; I don't see what's going to be useful here - a mediation, an arbitration, or what? What I do think is that if DEYS pulls another sequence of edits like this morning, and takes that third step and violates the 3RR rule, then it's high time to try and get a block on this SPA. But in the meantime, it's fun picking apart his wildly paranoiac rationalizations and pretentious "correct definitions" which nobody else uses or has even heard. Whatever (Hi, yellowsnow! how's the watered-down beer?); the weird part here is I tried to pull a revert on one but WilyD beat me to it.....Skookum1 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe an arbitration or such is needed - Donteatyellowsnow is clearly a good contributor, who contributes to lots of articles positively and only a few (This and Runaway production) negatively. I'm not sure what it is that changes his behaviour here, but he's not a single purpose account - if you look at his edit history, there's a long list of good contributions to other articles. WilyD 19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
they're all film-topic articles, though, aren't they? Still an SPA, therefore....Skookum1 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't checked - primarily anyways, but I don't think he's what the guideline had in mind. He's clearly a good editor who focuses on an area he knows who lets his emotions get the better of him in a couple of articles that really get his goat. WilyD 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't wish to contradict you, but a thorough review of DEYS' edit history will more than adequately demonstrate the true nature of his/her editing style. --Ckatzchatspy 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that his dicking around with articles because I've edited them in the past was probably not the best way to advance his point. WilyD 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at his edit history I see that he put a 3RR tag on your user page, even though you only edited the article three times, the same as him. --JGGardiner 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's alright. Whatever you might guess are his motives, warning me before I might break 3RR is a very reasonable thing to do. WilyD 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
His edit summary said that you had already "broken" 3RR. But in the spirit of AGF, I'll assume that was a typo. In any event, since everybody is so concerned about edit-warring, I look forward to a quite day here tomorrow. =) --JGGardiner 05:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, standard protocol is to get consensus on the talk page before making potentially provocative changes. Like all those other articles subjected to numerous inappropriate edits, it's justifiable to just revert changes without consensus, especially when they violate NPOV and attribution policies, which only takes a nano-second. I just copyedited the article, and it looks pretty good now - definitely well-referenced and it's informative. It doesn't seem to be subjected to inappropriate edits nearly as much as some other articles on my watchlist. As an aside, I thought about DYES a little while back, wondering whether Dweezil Zappa performed "Don't Eat the Yellow Snow" when he brought his Zappa Plays Zappa tour to Vancouver. Bobanny 20:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
maybe dweezil should sue for copyright violation because DEYS "stole" his title? ;-)_Skookum1 20:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Completely local reference: isn't D.E.Y.S. the acronym for Downtown Eastside Youth Services; I was looking at it and also saw D.E.Y.A.S., the needle-exchange folks. Just accidental/anecdotal but I was wondering why that acronym looked familiar (given that I seem to recall being the one who first coined it for our eater-of-white-snow-only).Skookum1 01:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MikeGasherHWN.jpg

Image:MikeGasherHWN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to remove.

Upon reading your entry on "Hollywood North", I would like to point out that San Francisco is not referred to as Hollywood North in entertainment circles here in California. Although I cannot cite a source, George Lucas foray into setting up his production studio in the Bay Area caused him to coin the term "his Hollywood North", a term which is attributed to the nickname as used for Vancouver, Canada. In fact, Toronto has laid claim to the name after it has been used and in existence for quite some time. I wanted to make some contributions to your entry but having read the discussion, the impression appears that you may not allow for any additional contribution to the subject and any efforts to add or edit will only be reverted.

Secondly, I would like to add that the use "two to three days drive" in regards to the proximity of "Hollywood" to "Los Angeles" is trivial and should not be included. It is common practice in this industry to have things shipped, parceled out or flown. In many regards, equipment are rented at filming location (which is why Vancouver and Toronto are attractive for production).

The use of the term "Hollywood North" is highly debatable but the history behind the terminology should be included for historical purposes with an addendum to point out the dispute.

Inclusion of San Francisco should be rethought over as being "Hollywood North" since it is rarely, if ever, attributed as such and any such mention in the past was coincidental. Being in this industry here in California, we never refer to SF as being as such. However, the term is and has been attributed to the production centers in Vancouver. In addition, the City of Santa Barabara pens itself as Hollywood North due to the International Film Festival held there as well as a history in silent film making at the turn of the century.

Just my opinion and thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeroDoe (talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally in favour of these changes and had suggested them earlier, but due to other opinions I refrained from doing so. I was never able to find any notable sources that mentioned San Fran as Hollywood North where as several books have been written about Vancouver, Toronto, and Canada as a whole as being 'Hollywood North'. Mkdwtalk 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Part of the confusion regarding the usage of "Hollywood North" is the media and marketing boards persistent determination for inclusion into their own dialogue. It should be noted that any usage here in California is due to the media's knowledge of the term that is unknown to the average reader in the United States. It has also been argued that the City of Toronto uses the term in its claim to be recognized as the Hollywood of the North but what is not mentioned is that of the production dollars spent in the entertainment industry, much of that cost also lies with the production cost of locally produced materials for CBC and CTV. Hollywood North refers in effect, to American produced film and television productions and NOT to locally produced materials. If in fact the inclusion of recognizing San Francisco as being described as "Hollywood North", then it does a great disservice to the readers of Wikipedia with ill-informed and unsubstantiated facts. When I was in Vancouver for the production of Runaway (no pun intended), I was highly amused by the "Hollywood North" moniker and if I recall, and from what I understood at the time, it was termed as such by the Tourism industry as a marketing tool. I cannot confirm this as I am just relying on memory. I would like to point out that in some instances when there is a film production in a city that is north of Los Angeles, some media types, whether local or national, there has always been some reference to that location being referred to as Hollywood North due to past productions in the same area. In addition, the industry here in California generally recognizes "Hollywood North" to be universally known as referring to Vancouver as the production location. Not to refute DEYS claims, but if in fact San Francisco is known as "Hollywood North", it is not wide-spread. For as long as I've been in this industry, we don't make that connection. KeroDoetalk 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. I brought up the point about domestic production, specifically CTF money, on the related runaway production article. It has been a while since I looked at this article but just reviewing it now, I really don't think that any inclusion of the locations other than Vancouver and Toronto is needed. In fact, I think that any inclusion would be a definite case improper weighting. I'd support some trimming to the article. I think that only one editor was ever in favour of inclusion anyway. --JGGardiner 22:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The sections on Vancouver and Toronto contradict each other. In the Vancouver section it says: "Vancouver is North America's third-largest film centre,[23][24] just after Los Angeles and New York.[25][26][27] It is second to Los Angeles in television production in the world.[28]". On the other hand, the Toronto section claims: "Toronto ranks third in film and television production in North America[38] and ranks second as an exporter of television programming in North America.[39]. To me, these sentences have practically the same meaning. That's the problem of having to many references, it gives the illusion of accuracy but nobody cares whether the figures are actually correct or not. --Voyager (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Hamilton, Ontario

Greetings & salutations. yesterday I added a link to a wikipedia article: List of films shot in Hamilton, Ontario and that link was removed by Ckatz with no explanation given for the removal. Also, keep in mind that in the "Canada" section of the article it states that Hollywood North "is now common for the term to be used to describe the entire Canadian film industry.[16][17]"...so with that I feel that link I added yesterday should not have been removed so I placed it back to the "See also" section of the article. Have a good day. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, maybe have a look at this policy. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the note I left on your talk page... in short, the article doesn't list all film centres. As I suggested on your talk page, perhaps the solution is to create a "list of Canadian film centres" and link to it from here. Then, all of the links could go there (including Vancouver/Toronto), and it would avoid future problems when other cities get added. --Ckatzchatspy 10:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your response. The Hollywood North article goes on to state in the "Canada" section that the term "Hollywood North "is now common for the term to be used to describe the entire Canadian film industry.[16][17]" and once that statement was added and approved for inclusion to the article that then opens up the door for Hamilton, Ontario to be included in the article. So I added it back to the article. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are free to disagree with me, as I am with you. However, reverting back and forth is not beneficial - and the external link you added does not belong at all. I've tried to make a suggestion that can resolve the problem of the internal link you keep adding, address your concerns, and perhaps head off future issues. Please don't make unwarranted accusation of "ownership" - it does not help with discussion - and please remove the external link. Thank you.
You are free to disagree with me too and I agree with you too that reverting it back and forth is not beneficial. Like I said previously, in case you missed it, The Hollywood North article goes on to state in the "Canada" section that the term "Hollywood North "is now common for the term to be used to describe the entire Canadian film industry.[16][17]" and once that statement was added and approved for inclusion to the article that then opens up the door for Hamilton, Ontario to be included in the article. So I added it back to the article. If you disagree with Hamilton, Ontario being added then I feel before you remove any reference of it in the article that the statement I referred to in the "Canada" section needs to be removed first.Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't miss your note; in fact, I tried to address it in my suggestion about a "list of" article. Please note that this article lists only the main centres, of which Hamilton is not one. Again, that is no slight against Hamilton - nor is it a slight against any other city that isn't listed. We cannot realistically hope to list every centre in the country - that is why a separate list would be better. --10:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, FYI, Hamilton film shoot numbers continue to rise every year because of the extra regional tax breaks given to film producers. Last year was a record year and this years projections are expected to be even better. Might actually be the #3 film market in Canada right now. Again, for the 3rd time, The Hollywood North article goes on to state in the "Canada" section that the term "Hollywood North "is now common for the term to be used to describe the entire Canadian film industry.[16][17]" and once that statement was added and approved for inclusion to the article that then opens up the door for Hamilton, Ontario to be included in the article. So I added it back to the article. If you disagree with Hamilton, Ontario being added then I feel before you remove any reference of it in the article that the statement I referred to in the "Canada" section needs to be removed first. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to repeat yourself over and over again, as I've already responded to your point with a solution that can resolve both concerns. BTW, you should find a reliable source for your "3rd place" claim, as it certainly hasn't made headlines. --Ckatzchatspy 10:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation Nhl4hamilton. Just because the term is sometimes used to describe the Canadian industry as a whole, it doesn't mean that we have to deal with all of the minutiae of the industry. There are a million things that could be added if the door were really opened as you suggest. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, nobody should be edit-warring, not to mention the 3RR. I count 4 reversions for one editor and 3 for the other. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I find no harm in adding the List of films shot in Hamilton, Ontario link to the "See also" section. Hollywood North includes all of Canada and not just Toronto and Vancouver. I agree that there could be a million things added but all that was added was a link to another wikipedia article: List of films shot in Hamilton, Ontario since we are talking about The film industry in Canada here which is referred to "Hollywood North" and the Hamilton film shoot numbers continue to shoot upwards on a yearly basis. It's not like Hamilton had only one or two films shot in town. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Yes, this time "all that was added was a link to another wikipedia article" - but what happens when someone adds Victoria, someone else adds Kelowna, then Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Halifax, Langley... where do we stop? You end up with a bloated link section, much like what we have to clean up at Film location. --Ckatzchatspy 11:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a link for films shot in other cities in Canada. Would be very interesting to see the film activity taking place in other key film markets in Canada. I also don't think it would be a bad idea. I also don't think that we would see a "bloated" link section, as you put it, simply because its not as if we have hundreds of film centres here in Canada. Again, once it was included and approved in the article in the "Canada" section that "'Hollywood North' now refers to all of Canada" then that just opens up the door to also include Hamilton, Ontario and OTHER Canadian film markets to be included here in this article. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I still believe that editors have free will. Articles demand nothing of us, except perhaps that we expand them. But those are mostly just stubs. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to see what the problem is. I don't know why I didn't notice this before. The article's link has "Vancouver" name in it and is also included at the top of the Vancouver Featured article here on wikipedia. I think the last thing Ckatz wants to see is another Canadian town be publisized here as being a major player in the Canadian film industry except for his Vancouver. Again, once it was added and approved in the article that "Hollywood North" now refers to all of Canada then that opened up the door for all other film markets in Canada to also be included here. What I suggest he do then if he's not happy with this is create a separate article for the Vancouver Film Industry and then go on to place the link for it at the Vancouver featured article page. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stick to the topic at hand, without unnecessary, unwarranted (and blatantly ludicrous) insinuations. If you'd read my earlier posts, I actually advocated creating a "list of locations" and proposed moving all links there, including Vancouver and Toronto. How you can twist that into a supposed desire to protect "my Vancouver" is, frankly, unbelievable. Beyond that, it would be very naive to think that a mention in a Wikipedia article (or the absence of one) would have any significant impact whatsoever on the "publicity" for a production centre. Industry decision makers don't come here and look for locations, they already know what is out there. --Ckatzchatspy 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I believe that you are blowing things waaaay out of proportion. Like I said in the previous post, There is a link to this article here over at the Vancouver featured article and I suspect that the last thing you want to see happen is other Canadian film centres being mentioned here in this article. If you are interested in highlighting and focusing on the Vancouver Film Industry that would be great Ckatz but just as a suggestion I believe that a separate article titled, Vancouver Film Industry should be created and after that post the link for it over at the top of the Vancouver city article where you now have the link for this "Hollywood North" article. Hollywood North now referes to All of Canada as mentioned in the Canada section of this article. Once that was added to and approved to this article here that then opened up the door for Hamilton, Ontario and OTHER Canadian Film Centres to be included here in this artcle. Have a good day. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is way out of line for anyone to post speculations about the ulterior motives of other editors. Remember to always assume good faith. In just a few hours I’ve now seen edit-warring, 3RR violations and incivility. I’ve never pointed anyone to WP:COOL before but we’re getting awfully close here. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You should probably try to get Hamilton mentioned in the article with reliable sources first for the See also link to make any sense to the reader. Merely being in Canada does not automatically warrant inclusion. –Pomte 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Now some people may not be aware of the level of film activity currently taking place here in Hamilton, Ontario and that's fair enough. This is why I created the article List of films shot in Hamilton, Ontario in order to get the word out, inform and raise people's awareness of it. When people start talking about all the film work that's being shot up here in Canada they automatically start thinking Vancouver and Toronto and they would have good reason to since they are both the #1 and #2 film centres in Canada respectively. However, there are other key film markets in Canada as well. Montreal is one and an emerging one is my hometown of Hamilton, Ontario. Since I also happen to work in the Film industry I follow it a lot closer than most especially where it pertains to film shoots taking place here in Hamilton, Ontario. The situation here in Ontario is as follows; Toronto is the film hub and because of it the Ontario government offers film companies extra tax breaks if they shoot outside the Greater Toronto Area in order to encourage filming to other parts of the province. Hamilton has benefited greatly for 2-reasons and they are: (1) We are close enough and only 45-minutes south of Ontario's film hub, Toronto (2) We are far enough, and just outside of the Greater Toronto Area, which means these extra tax breaks from the Ontario government starts to kick in for these film companies. Even if they start with their productions in Toronto but manage to get enough shoot dates here in Hamilton these extra tax credits start to kick in for them. Just to give you an example of how this works, An American film company gets an extra 6% tax break filming here in Hamilton compared to Toronto. The numbers are even better for Canadian film companies. A Canadian film company gets 10% more tax break filming in Hamilton compared to Toronto. The other thing that has worked in Hamilton's favour is our "open to filming attitude." In Hamilton the entire downtown area was blocked off for film shoots like "Exit Wounds" & "The Hulk"...In Toronto you can't really close down their downtown core like they do here in Hamilton. The other area I really don't like to admit BUT in Hamilton we have some shady looking neighbourhoods in the north-end and can double as an American blue collar town or an inner city U.S.A. In Toronto you can't really find any neighbourhoods like that so that works to Hamilton's favour for film shoots. If you watch Mark Wahlberg's film 'Four Brothers' that's supposed to be Detroit in the film but was shot in Hamilton's north-end. I could go on and on with this. I like your idea of getting Hamilton mentioned in the article and a section for it created with citations supplied for it. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for citations

Greetings. It was pointed out to me that the Internet Movie Database is not a good reliable source to use here on wikipedia. I would like to add a couple of sentences to the Canada section of this article that makes references to Hamilton, Onrario. What I would like to know is I have two sources that I would like to use for citations. One from the local Hamilton Spectator newspaper and the other from the Hamilton Film Office. Would these 2 sources be reliable ones to use here for citations in this article? Thanks. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

IMDB's problems lie in the fact that some of the information is user-submitted, which gives us problems for verifiability. As for the citations, the Spectator is a legitimate journalistic enterprise, so it should be good - just be sure to assess the stories to see if they are objective writing or "boosterism". (I'm presuming you are referring to a news article rather than an editorial.) As for the film office, it is best to assess on a case-by-case basis as they have a vested interest in promoting the area. If they are saying "project X shot here" or "we had X million in productions last year" - that would be appropriate. If they are saying "Hamilton is the new Hollywood North" - that wouldn't work. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 04:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

t

OK Thanks for that very helpful response. Is the Canada-section of this article the appropriate location to add that information to? Nhl4hamilton (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Canadian Film Centres

Greetings. I've had some time to think over Ckatz idea of creating a seperate article titled List of Canadian Film Centres and I think it's a great idea.  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

... welll i can't find a way to add a comment to i've added it here by "editing" a comment ...

Alliance Atlantis stopped all production in film (and almost all tv) in 2003 and though they continue to do distribution they should not be listed as a producer of films. i've made the changes in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.48.164 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hollywood North Movie.jpg

Image:Hollywood North Movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood North Report link

I see we're close to a 3RR on this, I think needlessly. Hollywood North Report is indeed a major Canadian film industry website, even though only founded in 1999; not including it at least as a cite is an omission; it may be that it constitutes a spamlink if in the External Links, although IMO it's not; but it could at least be mentioned in the lead paragraph on the Canadian section where the Hollywood North book from 1981 is also mentioned.Skookum1 (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It appears the site is blacklisted now. Some spammer ruined it for the rest of us.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008 Archive Dec 1#User:Hollywoodnorthreport
-- Ϫ 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If there's a good use for it, a whitelist request can be made for specific URLs if there is consensus. The blacklist came about as a result of the IP who was spamming incessantly. --Ckatzchatspy 03:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
See below about claim taht item on FILMPORT was spam-ref from HNR; I just noticed your discussion now, so will reverse that change; which left in place overtly spam references from FILMPORT itself and the TO Film Commission; maybe because HNR is a Vancouver-based zine the TO p.r. people don't like it....Skookum1 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, so much for that, I'm in no mood to have to deal with wiki-procedure because some fool arbitrarily put this on a list, and now there's elaborate procedure needed to get it reinstated. It's like saying "National Geographic" is a spam link for "Geography".....would somebody else please deal with this for me as I'm gonna get kinda testy if I have to argue for this link's obvious legitimacy? Reminds me of certain politicians who, under the Canadian system, can do things by fiat/unilteral action, then say "you can ask for a commission to get it changed back, but I might not agree to the commission" etc...too much arbitrary foolishness on Wikipedia is going to drive thos of us actually sane and knowledgeable away from this place.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That URL currently goes to an ApacheWorks server error page...either the print version of Hollywood North Report is a different organization/company, or there's a derelict website out there; but putting this on the spamlist is like putting the BC Liberal Party website on the spamlist because so many of its members spam their own political articles; likewise BC Govt websites re BC Government/etc articles....Skookum1 (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood North terminology.

Despite the ambiguities, the general consensus is that the term "Hollywood North" is now attributed to multiple major film centers that is NOT Hollywood itself. I've been reading discussions debating in regards to where Hollywood North is attributed to and the origins of the term, I still find most of what I'm reading not being able to fully get the facts correct. Although it is claimed that the first appearance of the term was Mike Gasher's book, it is not. During the early 80's, Vancouver was starting to see a lot of Hollywood Runaway productions being filmed there. As an aspiring screenwriter, I took a lot of interest in the developing industry in Vancouver. The first time I saw the term "Hollywood North" first appeared in a new publication called Reel West and this is before Gasher's book was published and released. Out of curiosity, I purchased his book when it was first released with the thought that Gasher was "borrowing" the terminology or describing the Industry as it has now become to be known. Sadly, I cannot find any of these publications amongst my huge horde of stowed boxes but I do recall this clearly. In my opinion, Hollywood North was a media coinage and was directly referring to the burgeoning film industry in Vancouver. Having worked on the movie set of Runaway in 1984(no pun intended), those in the business here in California were already familiar with the term. I also recall at one point how the industry here was concerned about losing productions to Vancouver that Variety magazine then first used the term for their article. Again, I cannot directly cite this. Although Wikipedia allows inclusion only for verifiable information, I thought I would post this information and see if you can do your own research.

Finally, to include whatever city which has seen movie productions there is NOT a reason for inclusion. The use of the term is heavily used by the media as a way of describing the industry. When the movie For Keeps was filmed partly in Manitoba and the Press used the term, does that mean Winnipeg can also lay claim to being known as Hollywood North? It is a common term and its present use should not be a basis for including every film center on the wikipedia pages reflecting it as such. Hamilton, Santa Barbara and San Francisco, IMO, does not warrant inclusion on these pages. Since 1979, I have known Hollywood North to be Vancouver and Vancouver alone. Any other city using it is just hijacking the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeroDoe (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; there's a discussion/argument about this farther up this page; the only one I can see as viable, because it's hijacked the term so much, is Toronto. The disputer was a Californian who was adamant about those other usages; so long as they're cited (technically there should be three cites for each, not just a one-time use in one local paper). The meanings in Vancouver and Toronto are different, too - in Vancouver it refers to the industry as an organism, and to the "branch-plant" relationship to the Real Hollywood; in Toronto it's being used for that city's promotional self-image and its star system, right down to the Walk of Fame on Bloor or Yonge Streets or wherever it is; a knock-off of the Real Hollywood, while Vancouver's industry is an extension of the Real Hollywood, not a cocked-up Canadian imitation of the glitz and glamour; it's a working term in Vancouver, in Toronto it's hype. But very citable.Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Driving time from Lotusland to La-la Land

Vancouver is 1,725 kilometres (1,072 miles) from Hollywood, a three hour airplane flight[32] or a two to three day drive.

LOL. Three days including traffic jams from Bakersfield I guess. Usually do-able in two days with a break around Eugene or Medford, admittedly with hard-ball driving (Eugene's a good 8-9 hrs from Vancouver, not including border-crossing times or Seattle traffic). We used to reckon on it taking about 22 hours or so to reach LA....driving at "Canadian speeds" though maybe. "Two to three days" I guess isn't too much; I winced at the three days, more like 2.5, at least via I-5 if not 101, with stop at Medford/Ashland and Stockton/Modesto....Skookum1 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

removed Montreal section

Montreal has never, or perhaps very rarely, been associated with the term Hollywood North; there were no citations for this usage in ref to that city present, nor are many likely to be found; the Frenc-language industry in particular does not affect the term; this is not about which Canadian cities have film productions, it's about places where the term Hollywood North has been used for. The Just for Laughs festival, for example, has nothing to do with film/TV anyway (other than it's taped and broadcast). Winnipeg and Halifax, however, have been associated with the Hollywood North idea, more along the lines of the Vancouver context than the Toronto one; Winnipeg more than Halifax, I think; I'm in Hali so will ask my industry contacts if they feel the term applies to them, but it's not hyped as such at all so I didn't even try to include it in the article. The blurbs about one-time usages in California in the lede continue to stick out as out-of-place and WP:Undue weight; Sundance is just Sundance, if there's a mention of it as Hollywood North that must be more to do with the transplanted glitz during the festival than with the workaday context in Vancouver which is the origin and primary usage of the term.Skookum1 (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for the Santa Barbra Film Festival and Sundance Film Festival. For example one of the 'references' was "Entertainment Tonight" entertainment news show reference to Sundance as "Hollywood North" January 25th, 2007 show" - hardly a citation. Even if this citation was acceptable, the fact that it was used by a single source does not make it the primary topic and would be so obscure that it should be left out. I also propose a removal of the San Francisco and George Lucas farms comment as it is likely the term was incorrectly applied to those places by the media, who we know all so well to get usage of terms wrong all the time. Mkdwtalk 13:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

re the term being compared to something it shouldn't be compared to

Please see here.Skookum1 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this thread? Are you canvassing?   Will Beback  talk  00:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
On the attack again, huh? The purpose of this thread is to alert editors of this page, who sweated long and hard over citing it, to the existence of a debate as to whether it was a legitimate term or not. You should stay with the merits of that other article, if any, rather than drag other articles into it which have nothing to do with it, simply because I've edited them....Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Attack? Why is it you always use combat-related terms to describe discussions? Anyway, you're the one who dragged this here. I was just using this article as an example for why well-sourced names, like "Hollywood North", should be allowed in Wikipedia. Is there any harm in that?   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Pffft - you're comparing a well-sourced term (Hollywood North) to one that ISN'T and CAN'T BE.Skookum1 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not really an issue for this talk page.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Haliwood

Haliwood is the local term in Halifax for its film industry; fairly citable, just noting it here for later article-creation use. Trailer Park Boys, LEXX, Paul Kimball's UFO/ghost shows etc etc etc.Skookum1 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Toronto 1985 claim

the cite from a Philadelphia paper says only "Toronto could easily claim the title of Hollywood North," while the article conflates this to "Since 1985, Toronto has associated itself with the nickname 'Hollywood North'". Sayiing some where could claim something and using that to "prove" that that city's rebranding effort dates back to 1985 is entirely spurious; I should remove the whole phrase because as a concept Hollywood North did not even become current until after that date, and only in reference to Vancouver (ever since when Toronto's been retooling its meaning, including puffy press making conflated claims exactly like this one).Skookum1 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added several newspaper sources referring to the term Hollywood North to the article. They all date from the late 1970's.Brodey (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

FILMPORT "spam" article from Hollywood North Report - when other spam left in??

As far as the spam-based removal of the FILMPORT item re Toronto, from Hollywood North Report (an independent magazine), why was that reference considered spam and the one from PORTAL itself left intact, along with the press-release/spam-like quality of that whole bit of content, which is only there to promote Toronto's film industry and has nothing to do with Hollywood North as a concept/name? This article isn't about Toronto's film industry, it's about the term Hollywood NorthSkookum1 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we ever decided what the subject of the article is exactly. It probably should be about the production of non-domestic film and television in Canada. Or perhaps just Vancouver. But the whole thing before was so difficult that it was just never worked out. Runaway production, which was a content fork from here, is in even worse shape. Every once in a while I think I should fix it but I get depressed about it before I can even start. I guess I should make it a stub at least. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to make time to look through the history of Runaway production. There was a version at one point that was somewhat referenced and neutral, but the problem with that article (and what spilled in here also) was a particular user from the States who had a hate-on for Canadian film production and who was using the article as a very one-sided opinion piece. --Ckatzchatspy 20:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Book References

Can someone explain why there are several books being mentioned in the article section of the article? None of these books link to their own pages and it is unclear what role they serve in the article aside from promotion of those books? If those books have had an impact or play a prominent role in relation to vancouver film it should be noted somehow. I have not seen other articles reffering to other books similar to its subject just for the sake of it. Brodey (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed references to the various vancouver film books in the article. Can it please be explained how a book that came out in 2002 is so important to the idea of hollywood north (a term coined at least 20 years before said books publication) in canada, that it should be featured in the opening paragraph? All these references appear to serve as nothing but promotion for these various books. No other articles contain seemingly random listing of books. In the article for airplane there is no "you can check these other books out section". Unless reason can be given they will be removed. Brodey (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Restored; this has had consensus for quite some time, and you have not established a suitable rationale for removing them. Furthermore, they do appear relevant to the topic. Please allow discussion to continue. --Ckatzchatspy 06:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, we need to avoid a tug-of-war back and forth between Vancouver and Toronto editors. It's not a PR competition, nor do I want to see a return to the situation we had a few years ago with the aggressively pro-US/anti-Canada "yellow snow" guy. --Ckatzchatspy 06:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
A request for review has been placed in Wikipedia:Third opinion, hopefully they will be able to determing the worthiness of the inclusion of said books. Brodey (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, we'll need to make sure we check our respective preferences at the editing door (so to speak). It's not OK to strip out references to Vancouver while building up ones for Toronto. --Ckatzchatspy 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem with including references that are relevant to the article, however as mentioned these books seem to serve no purpose but to promote themselves. No explanation has been given as to the importance of any of these books especially the one listed in the opening paragraph. Why does that books deserve mention to the term in equal reference to vancouver and toronto and canada?? There is a film set in toronto called hollywood north, it is not placed in the header paragraph due to the fact it is not important enough on its own to the term "Hollywood North". It seems that any book with the title vancouver and "hollywood north" has been randomly thrown into the article. Brodey (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Dispute over the relevance of listing various film books in the opening paragraph without explanation of their importance to the article. Appears only to serve as promotion of said books. The books listed in question are: "Hollywood North: The Feature Film Industry in British Columbia", "Dreaming in the Rain: How Vancouver Became Hollywood North by Northwest", and "Hollywood North: The Feature Film Industry in British Columbia: An article from: Business History Review". None of these books link to their own page and are not explained as to how they are relevant to the article. 06:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Please also examine for concerns that the removal is related to a Toronto-Vancouver rivalry, as removal would strip out material directly related to the Vancouver production community. ):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Hollywood North and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Looking over the references, one does not exist (labelled 30), see . That being said the reference formatting of the other book references appear to be sufficient, and one appears to link to a review to attest/verify that the book exists. That being said, it is the opinion of this editor that the mention of the books in the Vancouver section are not necessary, and if they are to be included anywhere in this article it is to verify article content as references themselves, or in a Further reading section. For information on including a Further reading section please see WP:FURTHER.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I also think a "Further reading" section is a good idea. It will highlight the books and in a way that does not have to be part of the article body. WP:FURTHER is the relevant link to the guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This article has a lot of history. A lot. Several edit wars and disputes occurred, meditations, etc. etc. I suppose the most blunt reason why these third party publications are included is because of the dispute as to where the term was originally applied, and then where it applies to now. See archive discussion. Two editors made a very large effort to remove the Vancouver section despite the evidence that the term was mainly applied to Vancouver originally, and in more recent decades applied to Toronto (although back in the 80's Toronto was some times referred to as Hollywood North as well). The books and magazine references were used to show that publications had been written about Vancouver and referred to the use of the term in relation to the city in its contents as the main recognized location for the term with in the film industry for many years. The second factor to these publications was that when the article was first written, it faced another challenge, and that was from the deletionists who argued that this term was simply a neologism. Having these publications helped the original writers confront these arguments and eventually keep the article on the site in the first place. Mkdwtalk 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Following the advice from the third opinion request I see no reason to keep the book mentions as they are right now. If a further reading section for any books relevant to this article is to be created that would be fine. I see nothing about how listing these books re-enforce vancouver as being referred to as 'hollywood north' originally. These books are all published post-1970's when several newspaper articles are cited referencing toronto as 'hollywood north' in the 1970's. A 3rd party review was put in and yet it is being ignbored? I say take the steps advised by the 3rd party review or said section should be removed. Brodey (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Also the way you described the use of a section violates wikipedias policy on advocacy. Brodey (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Brody, again, I'd state that I'm concerned by an apparent pattern of enhancing the material focusing on Toronto while at the same time deleting text relating to Vancouver. Furthermore, in questioning he books, I'd ask if you had actually investigated them. The first one in the list, for example, is written by a former reporter for the Province who is now a member of the Department of Journalism at Concordia. It is a historical overview of the development of the BC film industry, and as such certainly notable in the context of this article. --Ckatzchatspy 08:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I too am concerned with Brodey's edits. He has disregarded advice or the opinions of other long time editors of this article. He turned to a third party editor who I highly doubt is very familiar with the subject matter and made a first touch comment, but since that opinion was expressed in line with his views, he's disregarded article consensus. Furthermore, it's clear that he has the intent to only promote and expand the Toronto section while seemingly removing information from the Vancouver section. This unbalanced editing could lead to an extremely biased and factually errant article. I warn that further attempts to reduce the Vancouver section could be seen as tampering for the purposes of promoting the sole ideas of an editor, and not writing a complete and well rounded article about the whole subject matter. I say this as we've seen it in the past, especially with Donteatyellowsnow we ultimately tried to have the article deleted -- was banned -- all because he couldn't work together with other editors on having an equally weighted article with sections pertaining to both Toronto and Vancouver. Mkdwtalk 05:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The books have been placed in a further reading section, if any one wants to find out more on the issues that is a place where they can look. Regardless of who wrote the book they seemed to just float in the article without actually being incorporated. Wikipeida 3rd opinion has been given it is the fairest view at this point compared to us just fighting it out. As for issues of bias if anyone was to look at the toronto section before a reformatting was started in the last few days they would be shocked at the state it was in, containing numerous factual inaccuracies that have been corrected. i.e 'Hollywood North' is new title it has adopted. Only if 30+ years or media reference is considered new I suppose. Either way we should calm down, all I want to see is fairness in the article, not at the cost of making this whole article into one giant puff piece.Brodey (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_North/Archive_3&oldid=1136800007"