Talk:Bollywood/archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Studios in History 2 Arabic/Devanagari scripts 2.1 Poll 2.1.1 Discussion 3 Movie poster 4 Unfair bias against actors from the past 5 Gujarati and Marathi films 6 Hindi Titles 7 Removed Bollycat link and write up 8 Why Bollycat.com is NOT slanderous. 9 bollycat spamming 10 Someone removed all mention of Hindi! 11 History article 12 Under Harprit attack 13 A revision 14 NPOV 15 Harprit's revert war, anon re Bappi Lahiri 16 My thoughts on the two versions 17 Why is Indian film history a subsection of this article? 18 entertainers and celebrities? 19 Revert block? 20 Bollywood versus Indian or even South Asian cinema 21 Pizzadeliveryboy's edits and Gurubrahma's reversion 22 grammar - resolved issue 23 Suzanne Khan 24 Grammar, form, sentence construction and content in Plagiarism section 25 popular 26 nepotism 27 heading order 28 To Zora!!! 29 Bollycat 30 Edit war on link spam 31 Bollywood movies camp? 32 Deewar Dialogue 33 Physical location of Bollywood 34 Where to for this article 35 Anon's edits 36 Split off list of film clans 37 List of popular movies 38 Suggestion for including an article/list of alleged plagiarization 39 History 40 Non-Commercial links 41 Bollywood? 42 Zora sticks her toe in the water 43 Ah, I see 44 Moving of page 45 References? 46 No, we don't need a REFERENCE 47 Excellent lead 48 Links

Studios in History

I am not clear on this, but I think there used to be signing a contract by an artist with a studio. This would bind the artist to perform only for that studio for the period of the contract. The studios would roll out films. The studios are later on converted into shopping mall, as the real estate prices went up and cost of film production did not give good returns. Someone who is closed to this history can tell better. Shoppers Stop in Andheri was connected to either studio or a cinema house. Also the word talkies = talking movies need presentation in history of bollywood. Then there are immitation of Bollywood in the form of Tamil's Tollywood, Kerala's Kollywood, Lahore's Lollywood. Npindia 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabic/Devanagari scripts

Editors Elyaqim and BernardM have been adding Arabic and Devanagari script versions of actors' names in various actor articles. Elyaqim prefers to do Arabic, as he doesn't know Devanagari, and BernardM prefers to do Devanagari.

I'm stuck in the middle, myself, and dithering. I would prefer to see neither A nor D scripts, as using one or the other seems like a political choice. If we're going to have them, we should probably have both. But then ... I've noticed a trend for Bollywood film titles to be in D only, no A, in recent years.

Bernard M makes a good argument that, since there are so MANY systems of transliteration, it is hard to know how something is to be pronounced if you're given only the English version. However ... I'm feeling that there is usually a standard English version for actors' names, and it's the movie titles that might need elucidation.

It would be helpful if we could get input from a number of editors as to the best policy for Bollywood actors and movies. I would guess that this policy need only be devised for Bollywood, as the various other Indian languages are all written in Devanagari -- right? Let's leave out Gurmukhi, I don't think there are any Sikh movies ... are there? Zora 20:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No opinion, one question ... is it Arabic or Urdu script? Some of the movies I saw had title pages including both English, Urdu and Hindi/Devnagri titles for each name, but I'm not sure if that's done in the recent ones. --Ragib 20:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Urdu is written in Arabic script. I think a version of Arabic script as used in Iran. Dunno, I'm afraid I read neither Arabic, Persian, or Urdu. Nor Hindi. My rusty college French is of little help here <g>. If I'm using the wrong terminology, please tell me! Zora 21:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Most movie titles are written in both English and Devanagari -- and, thinking back, I have never seen a a movie title wirtten in Arabic, so ... about the discussion if names should be written in Arabic, I don`t know -- as long as nobody gets offended -- but I think Devanagari would be useful, especially since the transliteration isn`t always clear. (Is it Zhayed Khan or Zayed Khan? Is it Shahrukh Khan or Sharukh Khan? I've seen both versions.) But if there are concerns about people getting offended or discriminated ... we should just stick to English. I hope I was helpful.^^ --Plumcouch 22:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, my impression is that the older the movie is, the more likely it is to have Arabic/Urdu script in the titles and credits -- unless it's a Hindu mythological. But I could be wrong. I didn't grow up watching old Bollywood movies on TV ... Zora 22:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain clearly my opinion. Even when they're everywhere the same, for various reasons, English transliterations (nearly) always suck a lot, from a linguistic point of view. But we have to use them since it's English Wikipedia, I agree. Having only English transliteration is a serious lack of informations. So if we want to know the true name of a hindi film or actor, we need a script that renders Hindi correctly. Two scripts are made for that : Devanagari and Urdu. I use Devanagari only because I don't know Urdu script at all, but having Urdu script as well is no problem to me. We can't add both each time we edit a Bollywood related article because Elyaqim and I have only half of the knowledge, and it would require us to be perfectly synchronized, which isn't possible. So one musn't see political issues when only one these two scripts is given. BernardM 00:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, do you guys think you could coordinate and work together on adding scripts? Zora 01:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Zora has requested for my comments. Right now, I have to go out for work. In the evening I will surely think over this. --Bhadani 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I added Urdu script to precisely three articles: Aamir Khan, Salman Khan and Shahrukh Khan. (See those pages' discussion pages, as well as my, Zora's and BernardM's discussion pages, for more information.) I was able to do so because their names are completely Arabic, Turkish or Persian in origin and thus I knew how they are spelled.

The problem, as I see it, is that if we use Urdu ONLY for names of Urdu origin, it's like putting a sticker up that says "Muslim". Given the political situation in South Asia, this could be difficult. It also goes against the usual Bollywood policy, which is NOT to make a big deal out of Hindu/Muslim divisions. Even anti-Pakistani films like Border and Gadar make the usual bows in the direction of "Of course India loves its Muslims". I dunno how to deal with this. Zora 04:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

However, I do not know how to spell Indo-Aryan names (e. g., Gujurati, Sanskrit, etc.) or Dravidian names in Urdu script. Urdu has quite regular orthography, so I could take an educated guess if I could read the Devanāgarī (which I cannot), but we need more than educated guesses.

There are also surprises: The only time I ever saw playback singer Alisha Chinoi's name rendered in Urdu script (on an audiocassette insert), it was not phonetic (*الیشا), but spelled as if it were the Arabic name "Ali" followed by the Persian name "Shah" (علی شاہ). Go figure.

Thus far, I think people feel the addition of Devanāgarī and Urdu scripts to be benign rather than inflammatory. However, not only is it impossible for BernardM and I to work in such unnecessary synchronization, the Urdu names deserve a Pakistani or Indian Muslim Wikipedian's attention.

(Thank you, Zora, for your wording of the commentary request and initial paragraph above. They are either neutral or more supportive of my point of view than your own.) Elyaqim 03:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Urdu should be added to Indian names. Outside the Muslim community in India, Urdu is read (the script) by an insignificant minority. As far as I've seen, the script has prominence only in Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Hyderabad. User:Nichalp/sg 05:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

One question again, I saw Urdu titles, actor names along with Hindi/English in some late eighties/early nineties movies, (an example would be "Quyamat se Qyamat Tak". But I watched a version for International audience, so that may be the reason. What about the titles as seen in movie theatres in India? Do their titles/posters/names have such multi-language versions? Thanks. --Ragib 06:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That depends on the location. Urdu is more common in the above locations and Delhi and Ahmedabad. User:Nichalp/sg 08:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ostensibly, I agree with Nichalp. Urdu is not relevent in every article. It is relevent and sufficient to be in the articles of people with Near Eastern names or a Muslim background. However, it was Zora who insisted unilaterally that it was unacceptable to have one without the other, saying every article should have both and trying to create an unrealistic situation wherein BernardM and I synchronize our schedules to revise all the articles simultaneously to ensure no article has one script without the other for long. Everything was peaceful, and BernardM and I were going about our business unaware of one another, until Zora stepped in and censored articles, created a controversy where there was none and claimed the presence of the scripts (particularly the Urdu) would offend others. Truth be told, I do not think anyone else has been "offended" by it.

Zora is spending a lot of time creating conflict while claiming to avoid some other impending conflict between Hindus and Muslims on Wikipedia. (It appears quite alarmist and reactionary, and thus biased, to me.) Wikipedia is not a Bollywood movie, and what percentage of movies present their titles in which scripts is not terribly relevent either. I think supplying the appropriate Urdu or Devanāgarī scripts as editors have the time, inclination and knowledge should continue as it has been doing, but without molestation, and see how reasonable Wikipedians react afterward. I feel that is a better solution than censoring relevent work already done in the name of avoiding offense. Elyaqim 07:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Bollywood movies are released with English and Hindi titles. Since I come from Bollywood's locale, I am very sure of this. However, the titles may be changed depending on the screening location for obvious reasons. In UP, Hindi/Urdu would be common; in Tamil Nadu, Tamil and English would be common; in Mizoram, (if allowed) is likely to be in English. Urdu is not the lingua franca of Bollywood. All Bollywood movies are released in Hindi only. There's no issue of religion here, it boils down to the location. User:Nichalp/sg 08:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Would it make any sense to ask publicists for the actors concerned (the three Khans) how the actors preferred their names rendered? Zora 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Needless task. They aren't going to object to having their names only in Hindi. User:Nichalp/sg 14:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have not read the whole trail, but here are some basic points:

• The script is not Arabic, but Urdu--Farsi, if you want.
• Why is there a problem with some names having only Devnagri and some both Urdu and Devnagri? Would it be inappropriate to have, say, Omar Sharif's name spelled in Arabic and not other Hollywood stars? Or have the original Russian or Italian versions of names of people who have simplified their names in Hollywood?

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I'm worried about giving some actor names Urdu glosses and others not is that it's pointing up the ethnic/religious origins of the actors in a way that I'm not sure that they, or anyone in Bollywood, would like. It's like putting stars on Jews, for me. Bollywood has always had a large Muslim contingent, and they have always come down on the side of NOT stressing ethnic/religious differences, preaching tolerance, etc. This is not anti-Urdu discrimination on my part -- I think IFaqeer knows that that's not it -- it's worry about possible effects on/reactions of the PEOPLE involved. Zora 20:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Urdu is not just an ethnic identity—it's also a literary tradition. I doubt (thought it might be true) that any Muslim (or any cultured non-Muslim) in Bollywood would mind being identified in Urdu.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 16:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

PS:

• A lot of the writers and other artists that gave, and continue to give, Bollywood its material came and come from the Urdu literary tradition and culture (there is one in India, you know) and that was partly why, till about the 80s or so, every Bombay (it was then called Bombay)-based movie had credits in all three scripts. It is only in the last decade or two that that has become less common. And yes, I agree it has become less common now. But the point is that Urdu (the script and the language) are a living and integral part of the "Bollywood" mix.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Aren't there also categories on Wikipedia specifically to identify Jews in Hollywood, as well as Puerto Ricans, Asians etc.? These were always out of pride in different ethnic and religious communities, not racist coding of articles.

Yes, Zora, we have heard your point of view plenty of times already. Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist and (possibly) Sikh and Christian have all participated in this discussion here and we all seem to more or less agree that there is nothing inherently "provocative" or "offensive" about the use of these scripts, even if one is used without the other. Give it up. Please stop trying to portray the genteel discussion on this page as if it were a whirlwind of controversy. ("I feel like I'm walking through a minefield. Please help us achieve a peaceful consensus on this." "I'm caught right in the middle of you guys.") I know you are concerned about us, but the very ethnic communities you feel obliged to "protect" by eradicating Urdu and Hindi from Bollywood articles are the very same ones who disagree with your censoring crusade. Please stop portraying yourself as the final arbiter of propriety here on Wikipedia, like telling people they need to convince you of their opinions or face censorship. Please stop trying to adjudicate unrealistic (and frequently contradictory) "solutions" designed only to appease your own opinions. (Like: Every Bollywood article must be updated to include both scripts. BernardM and I must be the ones to do it, and we must synchronize our schedules to ensure it’s done almost simultaneously. We should contact the publicists of movie stars to ask what they prefer.) Please stop throwing inaccurate conspiracy theories at us. (Like: I am "some BJP anti-Muslim activist." BernardM and I are the same person, and we are coding articles to identify Muslims. Saying BernardM is a false identity by misquoting him as saying "this is the name I use when ....") Everything was fine until you set up a roadblock with your party of one, and starting censoring articles and making demands. Elyaqim 23:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, Elyaqim, if I just wanted to WIN, or dominate, I wouldn't have invited the people I did to comment -- including IFaqeer, who contributes to Urdu poetry blogs. Don't get angry at me for arguing for my point of view. Please don't get angry at me for making an honest mistake, thinking that you and BernardM might be the same person. It was just weird, both of you starting to add scripts at the same time. If I'm being difficult, it's because I want to be fair to people who might not be here to bring up their POVs. If an Indian Muslim could assure me that there's no problem, I'd stop worrying. Zora 05:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have both, but we don't have to delete contributions of only one version or the other. Personally, I have nothing against Devanagari script, and I think every Bollywood actor should have their name provided in Devanagari. It also seems noncontroversial to add Urdu/Nastaliq script to Muslim actors' articles (since it's apparently not perceived as stigmatization, and people from the region are likely to be aware of who's a Muslim anyway, based on names alone). Personally, I think it would be nice to also have Urdu script for non-Muslim actors' names as well, just so I (and millions of other users unfamiliar with Devanagari) could read them and get a more accurate sense of how to pronounce them. (If someone wanted to, I also wouldn't object to someone adding e.g. Tamil versions of non-Tamil actors' names; it's an official Indian language, no one's eyes will explode if they see it, and it makes Wikipedia more useful for those users). However, none of these versions needs to be deleted, and it's not an explosive enough situation that we need to wait for coordination; if an article has one and not the other, then eventually someone will come along to fill in the gap.

In summary, I propose we agree on these points:

• Add what you know
• Delete or correct what is clearly wrong
• Don't delete what is not wrong
• Neither Urdu nor Devanagari script is wrong for the names of Bollywood actors or films

Can we get a consensus on that? --Skoosh 12:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, except for Tamil versions since Tamil script can't render Hindi properly (unless you create a specific encoding system). It would be like saying "let's accept Greek script", not more relevant. BernardM 17:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If that's the general feeling, I'll go along. U or D, and preferably both. Zora 09:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It stinks that I came in so late on this discussion, but I'm somewhat glad as well for obvious reasons. In any case I just wanted to let BernardM and Elyaqim know I'm willing to help. I don't know how my skills compare to yours, but I know both Devanāgarī and Nasta'līq (or the Perso-Arabic Naskh that unicode supports). Might I add that even standard Hindī and Urdū transliteration differs slightly, i.e. Hindī ai = Urdū ae. How about arguing over that?! lol. When using academic conventions (Rupert Snell, R.S. MacGregor, etc.) or itrans there shouldn't be much problem I would think. If I can be of service, just drop me a line. नमस्ते, خدا حافظ. Khirad 07:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll

Add # + your signature for what you consider the best choice, and your second choice.

• Devanagari

1. --D-Boy 07:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I thought wikipedia wasn't about voting....

• Urdu
• D & U

1. --Jpbrenna 18:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
2. --Ragib 18:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
3. --Zora 21:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
4. --Anupam 07:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. --Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Tamil

1. --D-Boy 07:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• D, U, & T

1. --Jpbrenna 18:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

This is confusing, because while I'd like to see Bollywood actors' names in D/U, I think for Tamil Actors, only T or D/T is ok. How do I express that in the poll above? --Ragib 18:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Dunno, but I agree that the proper script would be useful for names in Tamil. I'm not that knowledgeable about Indian languages -- do Telegu, Malayalam, and other South Indian languages use the Tamil script? The Devanagari? Anyhow, same thing for those. Script as used in the region in which the film is made. Zora 21:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No Tamil, Telugu, and Malayalam are all different scripts - though Tamil and Malayalam are similar to each other as are Telugu and Kannada. Just to preëmpt anything, yes there are special Devanāgarī characters to write தமிழ் (thamizh, Tamil), but this is actually probably more of a political problem than the other considering the resistance to Hindī in Tamil Nadu by some. Besides, nobody writes Tamil in Devanāgarī. The special characters are for writing loan words from Dravidian langs. Khirad 07:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't like seeing urdu on bengali actors. The script should be based on the background they are from.--D-Boy 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make any sense. Actors in Bolloywood films come from all over India and sometimes outside. By such standard Aishwarya Rai's name could only appear in Tulu script. Dieresis 11:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And it should!--D-Boy 21:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Movie poster

A new editor recently changed the poster at the top of the article. We used to have Deewar, which seemed to be OK with everyone -- that's a classic Amitabh film. Wingzero replaced this with a poster for Dhoom, which I didn't like at all. It could be any Hollywood biker movie, if you just go by the picture. I replaced that with Devdas.

We could go round on this for ages. Would it be OK to just say, well, leave the poster up for a few days and then change to another? That way everyone would get a chance to put up his/her favorite poster. I'd change back to the Dhoom poster if I thought it was going to be just temporary.

If we're going to have just one poster up there, then perhaps there should be some community discussion about which one to use. We only have a few thousand choices <g>. Zora 22:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfair bias against actors from the past

The article, unfortunately, is extremely biased in favor of the new actors. The article dedicates huge sections on the "Current" actors, but makes no mention on actors before the eighties. For example, the Cast and crew section dedicates 1 paragraph each on Hritik Roshan, Rani Mukherji, Preity Zinta etc. Sure, they are fine actors, but is it fair to give so much importance to them while ignoring Raj Kapoor, Dilip Kumar, Promothesh Barua, Nur Jahan, Madhubala? In his day, Dilip Kumar was very famous, earning the nickname "Tragedy king" (for his portrayal of tragic heroes). So, either the actors from all eras should be mentioned, or the bloated section highlighting the current box office favorites need to be summarized. Thanks.

PS: The wording should also changed from "Actresses" to "Actors", "actress" is usually considered not politically correct use in Wikipedia.

--Ragib 00:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ragib, all those actor edits were the work of one brand-new editor, Aarati, who decided that the article should contain his/her favorite Sholay dialogues and his/her favorite actors. I reverted all that and kept your useful addition re Internet piracy.

I've seen this sort of thing happening on various articles re BIG subjects, like "Islam" or "Jesus" or "Iran". Someone with no particular expertise, but strong opinions, decides to join the fray in an article where anyone, expert or not, can have opinions. Funny, the newbies tend not to jump into edits like a list of the known luakini heiaus in the Hawaiian islands, or the filmography of Vijayantimala <g>.

I don't want to discourage Aarati from contributing at all, since it's probably that there's something about which he/she really IS an authority. Just not a good idea for newbies to start with big articles with a long edit history. Zora 05:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Gujarati and Marathi films

The Spicevienna linkspammer (yes, back again!) also made an edit, stating that Bollywood made films in Marathi and Gujarati. I recall hearing that there were a few such films made, but I've certainly never seen them discussed on any Bollywood websites, or heard of any specific movies. Until this can be sorted out, I removed the edit. I'm thinking that if there are any such films, they would be classed under regional cinema rather than Bollywood. Opinions? Zora 08:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hindi Titles

I know that alot of Bollywood films, especially today, are released exclusively with titles written in Roman characters, but many films show the name of the film in Devanagri script as well as the Urdu title and if anyone has any information on these, I feel they should be included in the individual films' pages just as the Chinese title is given in the articles on Chinese movies. Zephyrprince 02:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That seemed to be the consensus among the editors here and people have been adding Devanagari titles to movies (or Arabic/Urdu script, if they can do that). If you know Hindi and Devanagari, feel free to start adding the titles. Zora 05:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I have no knowledge in the area and had actually tried a couple of times to look up Davanagri titles on here and couldnt find them and that's what sparked the comment but Im glad it's already being handled. Everyone is so on top of things! Zephyrprince 17:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed Bollycat link and write up

The Bollycat link, a web site cataloguing alleged Bollywood copies of HW films(called Bollycats) and the write up pertaining to it was removed after reviewing the web site and deeming it very unprofessional and malicious. There is a lot disinformation and racial based vitriol posted on the site. This is not an attempt to cover-up plagiarism in Bollywood, as I concede that this indeed does happen and I would personally like to see the culprits made accountable for it. While Bollycat/com does include genuine cases of plagiarism(e.g. Dushman as Eye for an Eye and Kaante as Reservoir Dogs) there are many that are not and the descriptions given to justify them are very vague and short(a few lines) In some cases the descriptions given are so generic that they could apply to anything e.g.

Main Hoon Na as Never Been Kissed

Explanation: A person goes back to school undercover as part of his/her job. And then things get complicated. Here's a BollyCat style credit role for "Main Hoon Na" (I'm here for you)...

Shree 420 as Citizen Kane

Explanation: Both movies follow a similar plot line of a young man's journey to the top, all the while alienting himself from those that love him and manipulating everyone else.

Mother India as The Good Earth

Explanation: So as they say, "Mother India" (no need to translate this title!) had "shades" of Pearl S Buck's classic, The Good Earth.

Lagaan as Victory:

Explanation: Kashif writes that Lagaan has the "same story and same feel of Sly Stallone movie 'Victory'." Both follow a match between two sides: the oppressors and the oppressed. "Lagaan" follows a cricket match and how the local Indian villagers learn to play a totally foreign sport while in "Victory" French POWs scheme to escape from an Axis prison using their Soccer match with a Naxi team as a cover. Pankaz notes that Lagaan is "very highly inspired, with added masala of cricket."

Those who have seen any of these will know how ridiculous these allegations are:

Visitors to the web site often leave comments outraged at the numerous false claims made on this site.

In the FAQ section on Bollycat reasons, the reasons given for the short and vague descriptions is that they do not have time to do indepth research. As the claims they are making on their web site are rather serious, even slanderous, admiting they do not research their claims shows complete irresponsibility, disregard and lack of respect. Indeed, the owners of the site do lack respect as they state in their FAQ section, "We do not like most Bollywood films. They suck. Big time"

You would think if they do not like Bollywood, why do they have a website dedicated to it? Obviously the purpose of the website is to slander Bollywood and it's fans and because of all of this I have removed the link as it would be offensive to most Bollywood fans and it's highly propaganized and inaccurate for research purposes.

Sunny.S 03:40, 15 September 2005

I agree that the examples you give are egregiously WRONG. I hadn't seen those. OK, if you don't feel that the site is completely accurate, we can remove it. I just hope that you aren't going to insist that all mention of plagiarism be removed -- because I've seen a lot of it. It's not unique to Bollywood -- Hollywood is darn imitative. It's just that Hollywood either pays for the rights or does better at filing off the serial numbers <g>.

Usually when an anon removes something without explanation I put it right back. It's different when someone takes a username and actually argues for his position. Zora 04:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not going to remove the Plagiarism section itself as I think this issue should be addressed as it is unethical and I think by keeping this issue public, maybe just maybe, Bollywood producers will think twice become ripping off another original work. As I said I personally would like to see them made accountable. As an aspiring writer myself I can relate to how wrong it is to steal anothers intellectual property. Unfortunately, Bollycat, which I hoped would have listed genuine cases, has too many egregiously wrong cases and that has more to do with it's anti Bollywood politics and I think it is unacceptable. In fact, I was going through most of it's entries last night, and I found more wrong than right cases, and in some instances even when a genuine "bollycat" has been identified it has been linked with the wrong Hollywood film e.g. the film Ek Ladka Ek Ladki which has been known to be a frame-to-frame remake of Overboard is linked to Housesitter; Qayamat, which most Bollywood fans know to be a ripp off from The Rock is linked to Cape Fear It seems the owners of this site do not watch these films themselves or pass of the slightest of resemblance or inspirations as a copy. In some cases even if the films tackle similar themes, the copy label falls. So as this site is very propaganized and even offensive, I don't think it has any place on a site like Wikipedia, which I respect immensely for it's informative and neutral content.

P.S I did not actually know I could edit the articles myself. I was initially going to lodge a complaint with Wikipedia, but then realised I could edit it. So I edited it anonymously, but felt it would be wrong not to justify the edits, so I registered an account only to do so. Hopefully, if I get any free time, I will add something to this AMAZING article in the future. You people have done a brilliant job with it. Hats offf to you. Sunny.S 20:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why Bollycat.com is NOT slanderous.

You have taken a handful of examples and presented them as a sample for the entire website. What about the hundreds of others that anyone with a common sense can judge as being clear acts of plagiarism? I can understand your bias towards anything anti-Bollywood, but please just try to see the relativism here. Two of the later, Mother India and Shree 420 have been discussed over the years in the Indian press as being inspired from Hollywood. As for the other two movies, they are relatively new and many a references exist on the web from mainstream Indian newspapers about speculations of these movies containing, at least in part, plagiarized content.

I believe that if a section on "Accusations of Plagiarisms" can exist on this page, it really needs a reference to this website. Of course in case of Bollycat these accusations are user submitted and sometimes perhaps a bit far-fethcing. But there is no other website out there that even bothers to create such a list.

But if your judgement is clouded by your blind love for Bollywood, then please go ahead and do as you please. Oh and you fail to justify in your writeup how the music website can continue to be listed? May be your forgot to mention that that Bollycat is the creation of a Pakistani, and perhaps this had the most influence on your decision to protest the inclusion of Bollycat in a document that would be used as a reference for Bollywood. --H2d2 18:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the nationality of the webmaster had anything to do with it. Sonny didn't mention it (perhaps he didn't know) and I certainly didn't know it. I don't care if the webmaster is Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Japanese, or Swiss -- I'm a foreigner, not a South Asian. Sonny brought up some good examples of bad entries and I had to agree that Wikipedia shouldn't link to a site where any suspicion, ridiculous or not, is allowed to stay up. I probably didn't do MY job as an editor because I didn't check out the site myself. It's not a blind love of Bollywood to demand accuracy.

The music site seems to me to be different in that I've checked it out myself, it's been recommended by numerous people (including my gurus on rec.arts.movies.local.indian), and best of all, it has sound clips so that users can make up their own minds as to resemblances.

It's possible that the music site should be demoted to the external links section, rather than featured. It's also possible that it too is wildly inaccurate. That hasn't been my impression, but then I've only sampled a tiny bit of the site. If other people say that it's inaccurate, then it should be removed. Zora 22:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns H2d2. I would like to first make it clear to you that the site owner being Pakistani, Japanese, French, British, American or whatever is completely irrelavent to me and had absolutely no bearing on my decision whatsoever, in fact I didn't even know he/she was Pakistani. So, please, do not bring race into this, I'm sure you know that most Pakistani's are Bollywood fans anyway and even they could find this site offensive and inaccurate. What is relavent to me is the content, and because the content is highly propaganized, sometimes offensive and inaccurate and not suitable for research, I decided to remove the link. I did not feel the same about the film music web site, which at least gives the sound clips for comparison for vistors to make their own judgements, hence why I did not edit it. I only justified what I edited. If you would note, I also left the initial paragraph discussing Plagiarism alone.

There can be no relativism in matters of Plagiarism or copyright violation both of which are legal matters and felonies. If something is claimed to be Plagiarised, it is making a claim that somebody has stolen somebody elses original work and is claiming it as their own. While saying something has violated the copyright of something, is claiming that content has been extracted from somebody else's work without permission. All claims must be proven as either true or false. These are very serious claims and cannot be made casually. In fact, I am not very well versed in Internet law, but I wonder if bollycat.com could face charges for slander and defamation.

As per copyrights law for screenwriters, at least in the US and UK guild, concepts/ideas cannot be copyrighted, only a screenplay or treatment can. Bollycat.com claims plagiarism on just some concepts/ideas resemblances, not proof. In some cases it claims plagiarism on just it's own speculations. I will give examples of both cases:

Claims of plagiarism made on speculation:

The Burning Train as The Towering Inferno

Explanation: Most likely the makers of this BollyCat found the word 'inferno' too hard for their target audiences to comprehend, but they still stuck with the language, calling their copy, "The Burning Train". How original?

Because the tallest skyscraper being built in India would have been unimaginable and since the country actually does have the world's largest rail network, replacing the "Glass Tower" to India's fatest train, aptly named the "Super Express", really made sense in the Bollywood version. The rest of the storyline remained the same: instead of each floor catching fire and the protagonist rescuing people and moving them from floor to floor, we have train compartment to train compartment. And his sidekick helps from the outside, becoming a railways engineer instead of the firefighter of the original.

And yes, the model train getting burnt in the end is laughable at best.

This explanation is ludicrous and most of it is an ad-hominem against Indians(very inappropirate) The Burning Train(I saw it very recently) is about a new train(the super express) being built and then going on it's first journey. A jealous engineer sabotages the train by taking out it's breaks and planting a time bomb in the engine room. Later, there is a gas leak and an explosion and the train catches fire. The rest is your quintessential disaster movie of the people fighting for their life and rescue efforts made to save them. The towering inferno is about people trapped in a skyscraper with raging fires.

Is this one of those other hundreds that anyone with common sense can identify as plagiarism, H2D2?

Claims of plagiarism based on resemblance:

Kuch Kuch Hota Hai as Sleepless in Seattle:

Explanation: Similar plot lines, a widower who needs a new wife according to those around him. A young kid who wants a mom, and goes to great lengths (like leaving home and going to look for the girl so he/she can hook 'em up) to get her. And then there's the thing about one of the characters going on national T.V. (radio in the original) to find another.b]

The resemblance is that a 'young kid' goes to find her widowed father a woman and thus the copy label falls. A simple IMDB plot summary of both films will speak volumes:

Kuch Kuch Hota Hai

Anjali Sharma (Kajol)is a tomboy, and is very friendly with the local casanova Rahul Khanna (Shahrukh Khan). She thinks that Rahul will eventually fall in love and marry her. Things seem to be going according to plan, then Tina Malhotra (Rani Mukherji) enters their lives, and Rahul falls head-over-heels in love with her, and marries her. This breaks Anjali's heart and she leaves to go and settle far away. The marriage of Rahul and Tina results in the birth of baby Anjali (Sana Saeed), and due to complications following the birth, Tina loses a lot of blood and passes away, leaving Rahul devastated. Anjali Khanna grows up, and finds out that her mom had left her some letters to read, and she does so, and finds out that her dad may have been in love with Anjali instead without realizing it. She then makes attempts to make both of them meet again. She does locate Anjali, only to find out that she is to marry Aman Mehra (Salman Khan) shortly, and Rahul and the heartbreak she suffered is history.

Sleepless in Seattle

After his wife died, Sam Baldwin did not think about other women. His 8-year old son Jonah thinks that his father needs a woman in order to get his life back in order and calls in on a nation-wide radio-show. The voice and story of Sam is heard by hundreds of women, including Annie Reed, who is about to marry her fiancé Walter soon. She can't find a rest until she really knows for sure that Sam Baldwin is not the one person for her. Thus, Annie travels to Seattle, where Sam and Jonah live, and there decides that Sam is not the one. The letter she never sent was posted by a friend of Annie, and therefore Jonah, who feels that she's the one for his dad, already booked a flight to New York in order to meet her on the roof of the Empire State building, just like in "An Affair to Remember". Of course, his father follows him instantly...

Someone with common sense could see these are completelly different films. Here are some of the comments posted on bollycat by vistors(the ones with common sense):

Oh my god! Really scraping the barrel aren't you trying to convince yourself that this is a copy of Sleepless in Seattle! hahahahah... ridiculous. SKP at February 20, 2005 09:53 PM

Maybe you need to watch the movie "Sleepless in Seattle" again because this movie and "Kuch Kuch Hota Hai" have nothing in common. Obviously you're trying to convince yourself...and you're not doing a good job of it at all. Jasmine at February 21, 2005 11:35 PM

Dont make poor comparisions....where is kajol's character in enlish movie. i think u r not well informed about movies. Rahul at February 23, 2005 01:50 AM

are crazy. KKHH copy of SIS? Dude, Cage was a drunk in that movie and his entire life was dysfunctional. No such thing in KKHH. What sort of crazy losers run this site?

Critic at February 24, 2005 02:42 PM

Guys Hats-off To all those who r protesting against this one and I think you guys r abosolutely true dont try to point fingures on every movie u watch. Just point out the once that really stand out. KKHH is nothin like Sleepless in seatle. So chill out and jus compare the once that really r :) Bootham at February 24, 2005 06:04 PM

This is so far out! You guys are really reaching with this one! KKHH is not at all like SIS!!

Phoenix at February 27, 2005 08:07 AM

Did you see kuch kuch hota hai and sleeplessin seatle? Ramu at April 30, 2005 01:10 AM

kuch kuch hota hai and sleepless have nothing in common except the fact that the guy is a widower and he has a kid.other than that kajol was a frnd of shahrukh and she comes back after 6 yrs sayanti at May 14, 2005 04:49 AM

you embarrase yourself! I know Bollywood copy's a lot and it bugs me! But how can you say Kuch Kuch Hota Hai is a copy of Sleepless in Seatle? Damn, dude you really oughta see both movies before saying anything! Damn, please do yourself a favour and stop this site! It doesn't make any sense if you give false information! HAhaha at July 18, 2005 10:21 AM

I will cap off this reply here, because I think I have proven my point. Best of regards to you, Sunny.S 22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

bollycat spamming

H2D2, please stop spamming the page. Wikipedia is not a link promotion tool. You are continuously promoting a website which has dubious merit; Wikipedia is not a tool for web site promotion. If you want to promote the site, blogs are a better way. I don't mind a valid paragraph on the plagiarism discussion, but we don't need to promote a site for that. Thanks. --Ragib 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

H2d2, unless you can provide a valid reason as to why your promotion of a dubious site is so important, I'd remove the promotional text you keep inserting here. Please come to the talk page to present your views, rather than spamming the article again and again. Thanks. --Ragib 02:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

H2d2, you are still spamming the article. Let me get my point straight, I have no problem having a paragraph on plagiarism. But the paragraph you are inserting again and again is simply a website promotion. The site has dubious merit, as pointed to by others. Also it is not a universally accepted site like imdb. All you are doing here is promoting the site, and wikipedia is not a tool for such promotional activities. I'm asking you again and again, give some compelling reason why your site is so important to be mentioned in detail here. Thanks. --Ragib 13:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone removed all mention of Hindi!

I just noticed that sometime during all the recent reversion and vandalism, someone removed all information re Bollywood as making movies in Hindi! I know that this is a politically difficult topic, but it really must be addressed in the article. I have tried to restore what I remember of the text we originally had, a year or so ago. Zora 03:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

History article

Hey guys Thanks to a lot of help from Wikipedia, i just finished a project for my drama class. I noticed the History section was blank, so I added in the History part is i managed to research from some other sites.

This is the first article i've posted, so please tell me if anything in my format is wrong.

Thanks

Alowyn

Under Harprit attack

I believe that Harprit is the editor who also uses anon IPs to attack the Urdu and Hindi articles, and has now expanded into the Bollywood article. He believes -- against the consensus of all linguists -- that Urdu and Hindi are two separate languages that just happen to have absorbed some vocabulary from each other. In other words, the Partition didn't just happen in 1947, it has always been there. (We have always been at war with Oceania.) I hope that all the other Bollywood editors will help do whatever reverting is necessary to keep the article scientifically valid. Zora 03:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A revision

I moved the history section to the end, and rewrote it. It was both inaccurate and ungrammatical. It's still sketchy, could use work.

Someone had added, to the list of Bollywood film clans, "The Other Khans" -- all the actors with the last name Khan. Sorry, that isn't a film clan unless they're related to each other!

I put the plagiarism links in their own section and added a caveat to the Bollycat listing. I don't want it there, really, but I'm not sure that I want to play revert war with H2d2, who's defending what I'm guessing is "his" site tooth and nail. If it is going to be there, link-clickers should know that the site has been criticized as inaccurate. H2d2 can decide whether he wants the link dropped entirely, or whether he wants it there with the caveat. I don't want Wikipedia to go on record as endorsing a site that puts up anonymous denunciations of dubious value. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an advertising forum. Zora 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zora, I don't think the criticism will make any difference to H2D2 as the main objective remains the same, publicity. Moreover, readers will find it questionable citing the reference anyway if it's a dubious site. It's becoming apparent that H2D2 is using wikipedia as a promotional tool for bollycat.com and I think that undermines the collective effort of those who've created this article for research purposes. Succumbing to H2D2 wishes sends the wrong message to others. I hope you reconsider. I don't want to edit it out myself and undermine your revision, but I don't want such a malicious, slanderous and dubious site linked from a respectable site like wikipedia. If we keep this one, it gives the green light to others with malintentions and wishes of having their own sites linked, no matter how shorn of merit they are. The only purpose I can see of linking a website here is as a resource to readers, so it is our responsibility we give them accurate information. Sunny.S 15:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's the dirty secret of Wikipedia that it comes down to gangs and numbers when you're dealing with people who won't compromise. H2d2 has three reverts a day on any one article; I have three reverts. More than that and one is blocked for a while. If it's just him versus me, then we have an impasse. I don't have any consistent support from other editors, so I don't have the "firepower" to remove the link. If you want to help me, then we can out-revert H2d2. If you don't think the link should be there, remove it. PLEASE! Zora 20:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

OK 172.201.96.47 00:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia's are not holy books without any bias. What you or even the majority of Bollywood fans decide is not the entire truth, although it might end up in places like Wikipedia. So if what you think can be allowed here, a link to an extensive reference to what others things is rapant in Bollywood is relevant too. I'm not part of a gang or a conspiracy out there to defame Bollywood. I'm just a fan who believes there are things, important things, that we ignore. Like plagiarism. As far as the site itself is concerned, if it comes out as a Bollywood Haters Club, I frankly don't care. What I care is that it provides a long list of movies and more than often accurate descriptions of script and story plagiarism in Bollywood. Wish you could deal with that...

H2d2, I can deal with the fact that Bollywood plagiarizes with abandon. I know that it lifts songs, plots, even entire scenes. (Akele Hum Akele Tum as a remake of Kramer vs. Kramer, complete with a "dad messes up cooking eggs" scene.) The problem with Bollycat is that it includes completely unjustified allegations, based on nothing more than a casual similarity. It also does not distinguish between scene-by-scene plagiarism, and the opportunistic exploitation of a general idea. I just got back from the movie theatre, where I watched Serenity, and also a bunch of trailers. One of them was for a movie that was a transparent knockoff of the Trinity character from The Matrix. I wouldn't call that plagiarism -- it's opportunistic exploitation. It's not necessarily bad, either -- people can make imitative films that are a heck of a lot better than what they're imitating. Can, but often don't.

If you want your site to really rate a mention on Wikipedia, institute some quality control. One method that I've suggested is to allow viewers to vote on the accuracy of allegations. Or take a more judicious view yourself. Anything that screens out inaccurate claims of plagiarism. Zora 08:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's say both Britannica and Encarta team up and launch an ad campaign against Wikipedia. Denouncing it's use in Academia due to the very simple fact any one can go in here and put whatever they think of something. Wouldn't that be very similar to your point against Bollycat? I for one know that there are many more money submitted to Bollycat than approved. (Again, I've told you before that it's not my site, but I do contribute there). There's a pending cases page, and you can see there that people have made much more ridiculuous assumptions to link movies that the ones that you are most annoyed with, like KKHH. The whole point of that site I think is to create a list of what people believe to be plagiarism, yes that includes accepting others' imaginative points of view, but that's part of deal. Besides, let's say Wikipedia implements such a rating system... what rating do you think the article on 'Carl Rove' would get???

NPOV

I added the NPOV tag. I'm not sure if this really counts as POV or if the article just needs cleanup. An example of this is: "Indian audiences expect full value for their money, with a good entertainer generally referred to as paisa vasool, (literally, "money's worth"). There has even been a quirky caper chick-flick - a rarity in this male-dominated industry -called Paisa Vasool. Songs and dances, love triangles, comedy and dare-devil thrills—all are mixed up in a three-hour-long extravaganza with an intermission."

I just think we should aim at a higher quality of encyclopedic writing than this. --Yamla 22:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the quirky chick-flick bit. It doesn't really add to the para. As for the general tone of this article, and other Bollywood articles -- it's a constant struggle between stiff academic language and fans who write just like their favorite movie columnists, all gush and hype. Various people have decided to "tone down" various articles and as soon as they finish, fans ratchet up the language again. IMHO, the only sustainable position is one somewhere in between dry and gush.

But I don't think it's an NPOV issue. It's a language register issue. If you're OK with it, I think we can remove the tag.

BTW, this article is under periodic attack by Harprit, an editor who resents any mention of Urdu/Hindi language issues. If you're going to stay here and help, you might keep an eye out for his edits. He also uses anonIPs and sockpuppet accounts.

I don't think we should have the bit re Hollywood grosses 20X more than Bollywood in the opening para. It makes the sentence incredibly long and baroque. If you don't like the para, how about trying a complete rewrite and posting it in talk for comments. Zora 20:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Harprit's revert war, anon re Bappi Lahiri

Anon, you keep inserting that material re Bappi Lahiri. It's just too detailed for an overview article. Could you please make sure that it's covered in a Bappi Lahiri article? Then we can link to that from the plagiarism section. We could add other links if you know of other individuals who've been involved in actual plagiarism lawsuits.

Other editors, if there IS anyone else here, I would appreciate some help. Harprit is vandalizing my userpage, threatening me, and making a point of reverting all my edits. Zora 02:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zeno although I don't really wish to just revert at this time. Harprit, stop vandalizing her userpage or you won't even be able to argue your point becuase you'll be banned. gren グレン 08:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts on the two versions

Going at it bit by bit:

• The image caption

popular Mumbai-based film industry in India seems better than popular Indian film industry based in Mumbai, because the latter implies to me that it's the only Indian film industry, which happens to be based in Mumbai, while this is not the case (e.g. Tollywood, Kollywood)

• poetic Urdu words vs Urdu words

I don't know enough to know which is correct. However, Urdu words also includes poetic ones...

In my opinion, it is POV to say poetic Urdu words when Urdu words would suffice. If on the other hand, Urdu words are only used in poetry, the sentence should be rewritten. The sentence fragment as it stands smacks of marketing speak and has no place in an encyclopedia. --Yamla 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a specific set of Urdu words commonly associated with Urdu love poetry/Sufi religious poetry (the categories overlap) that are often used in song lyrics. Zindagi, dil, ishq, mohabbat ... all words of Persian origin. The other set of references commonly used (hey, probably should be mentioned) is Krishna, Radha, gopi, devotee, etc., which is a Hindu mix of love poetry/religious poetry. Zora 00:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Bollywood has gained popularity throughout the world even in non-Hindi speaking countries. Besides the hassle of using subtitles, people are often intrigued by the action, music, plots, and romance displayed in the Bollywood movies. It is sometimes confused with British cinema, being the 'British Hollywood'. That is not true.

Um, I have never ever seen or heard anyone who said that Bollywood was British Hollywood. I have been reading books about Bollywood, reading online Indian film magazines, and participating in the discussions on the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.local.indian for years, and I've never encountered such an assertion. "Besides the hassle" is clumsy and unencyclopedic writing. Zora 00:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Some mention needs to be made of it's growing popularity outside India. Preferably with specific examples (e.g. sucessful films, total income outside India, etc.) I suppose some mention could be made of what people find attractive about it (again, with sources), but action, music, plots and romance covers quite abit. The bit about British cinema is poorly worded; if it is in fact a common misconception, it needs to be mentioned, perhaps as an italicized reference before the article.

Um, all that is covered in the rest of the article. Zora 00:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

All I see about the success outside South Asia is a (pretty vague) mention about theatre revenues increasing; is there something else I'm missing? --Mairi 04:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's this sentence in the introduction: "Bollywood is a strong part of popular culture of not only India and the rest of the Indian subcontinent, but also of the Middle East, parts of Africa, parts of Southeast Asia, and among the South Asian diaspora worldwide."

Indian cinema vis-a-vis the rest of the world is discussed in more detail in Cinema of India. Since there is a heck of a lot more to the Indian film industry than just Bollywood (though Bollywood is the biggest chunk of it), and since some of the movies that have had a large vogue outside India, like Satyagit Ray's films, aren't from Bollywood, it would be seriously misleading to put the main discussion in the Bollywood article. Zora 06:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• (Linguists would call both Hindi and Urdu variants of Hindustani. This is a politically charged debate; please see the Wikipedia articles on the various languages/dialects.)

This is true; linguistics do consider them variants/dialects. And yes, it is politically charged. And seeing as the distinction between Hindi and Urdu was just refered to, these 2 sentences seem quite appropriate. Perhaps the last sentence could be changed to "the Wikipedia articles on those three topics", but I'm not sure that's necessary.

• Elements of Hinduism are not uncommon either.

Putting that in a paragraph about language is quite out of place. If it's true (I'd be suprised if it wasn't), it probably ought to mentioned somewhere. For that matter, a general discussion of religion in Bollywood films might be worthwhile.

It is unclear what an "element" of Hinduism is, and exactly how it features in Bollywood films. Perhaps I should make it clear that this is minefield territory. India has been riven by communal violence many times during its recent history, and any Hindu/Muslim references are immediately controversial (which is the problem with the Urdu/Hindi language labels). Bollywood itself is dominated by Muslims, many of them refugees from the Punjab and the Partition, who fled to Mumbai and made new lives in the film industry. They tend to be extremely respectful of Hindu beliefs, and many films financed, directed, and acted by Muslims feature idealized versions of Hindu worship, Hindu shrines, etc. They're equally respectful of Islam. Bollywood films tend towards a chipper, cheery "Hindu-Muslim bhai-bhai" attitude.

For an example, see the recent Lagaan, which features a village cricket team with Hindus, a Muslim, a Sikh, and an untouchable. As I told an Indian friend of mine, it's like the US World War II movies where stereotypical Italian-American, Irish-American, Jewish, WASP, etc. soldiers discover solidarity in the trenches.

It gets more complicated than that, however -- there are a number of films about the Partition, communal violence, Islamic terrorism, the Mumbai underworld (which has a significant Muslim component) and suchlike. There are films re flashpoint Hindu issues, like widow remarriage and caste. There is also a whole genre of Hindu mythological films (less popular these days, I think).

As you see, it's all quite complex and can't be usefully summarized as "has elements of Hinduism". It's an interesting set of topics, which might deserve a number of breakout articles. I don't think we've tackled it just because it's so overwhelming. Zora 00:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• The paragraph on plagarism

The non-disputed paragraph seems far more NPOV. The little story about Bappi Lahiri is interesting, but I'm not sure it belongs in a general article like this. If it does, it needs to be NPOVed, and not include terms like "ace-plagarist". However, the non-disputed paragraph could do with some expansion on the views of both sides for how common plagarism is, and sources for those views.

This has been extensively discussed, believe me. The section on plagiarism has grown, shrunk, and morphed endlessly. The problem is that it's an inherently subjective judgement. There's stuff that everyone would agree is plagiarism (Elvis' Blue Suede Shoes given Hindi lyrics and featured in Dil) and stuff that's just the usual "Hey, historicals are hot at the box office now, let's make a historical". That's one reason why the music plagiarism site is linked -- at least it gives sound clips, so you can make up your own mind as to whether it's plagiarism or not. Zora 00:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• www.bollycat.com link

It covers material not covered by the existing plagarism link (which only discusses songs); however it doesn't provide the same specific detail, making it less desirable. But I don't know what other sites there are out there dealing with specific instances of alleged plagarism.

The Bollycat link was discussed on Sepia Mutiny (a very lively and influential desi blog) and contributors agreed that many of the supposed cases of plagiarism just weren't. Someone came over from there, I believe, and asked us, for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility, to drop the link. Commotion ensued.

I trust the folks at Sepia Mutiny to make good calls. The examples of misleading allegations were fairly convincing too.

No one has written a book yet on Bollywood plagiarism. We were linked to a Rediff article for a while, but that got dropped. It's something that everyone "knows", but no one knows how to quantify. Zora 00:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... --Mairi 04:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

a popular industry based in Mumbai doesn't read as well as Mumbai-based does. "T" should not be capital in the word they when the brackets are not at the beginning of the sentence. The reference to Elements of Hinduism immediately coming after reference to Urdu smacks of some sort of fundamentalism which equates Urdu with Islam - I don't buy that argument. In an article on Hollywood, one doesn't talk of elements of christianity. Why shd it be diff here? In fact, we have elements of Sikhism and Islam as well. I only hope that User:Harprit discusses things here rather than going on a revert war and forcing others to do the same. If I'm not mistaken, he hasn't discussed issues even once on this talkpage.--Gurubrahma 10:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Harprit has somehow gotten the idea that Urdu is an Iranian rather than an Indic language, and I think the Elements of Hinduism comment may be an attempt to avoid the word 'Hindustani'. kwami 11:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

He also seems to enjoy revert wars but not talking to people, so I'll comment on one of his changes: Wouldn't "Brother, I have mother" be better English than "Mother is with me"? Is the latter just an attempt to translate the Hindustani literally? (does it not have a verb 'to have'?) kwami 11:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "Brother, I have mother" translates from Hindustani literally. However, its rhyming tone does not convey the seriousness of the argument. Hence the change to the latter, Mom is with me. --Gurubrahma 11:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Further on the same note, I have mother as a literal translation is meaningless since the other fellow (since he is the brother) also has mother, but not staying with him. See Deewaar. --Gurubrahma 12:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, most language is meaningless when taken too literally. If I were to say this to someone, I would chose the wording 'I have Mother'. It ties in with the previous wording, and is direct and to the point. If someone were to instead say, 'I am with mother', my first thought would be, 'What does that have to do with anything?'

The formula "I have X" to answer such a challenge is almost a set expression in English:

• 'I have money, power, everything I could want. What do you have?'
• 'I have love.'

This wording has been used in so many novels and movies that it's easily recognizable. When you have the exchange,

• I have cars, bungalows, wealth. What do you have?
• I have Mother.

this is immediately evocative of 'I have love', or 'I have my respect', 'I have integrity', 'I have honor', or a dozen other variations of this formula that can be understood to mean 'I have what matters most'. No one would ever think it means 'I have a mother and you don't'. That would be expressed by 'I have a mother', with no capitalization - quite an insulting response!

kwami 19:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

My Hindi is minimal, but as an English-speaker I find Gurubrahma's version more colloquial and a better evocation of exactly what that exchange meant in terms of the movie. We seem to be having the usual translation argument about literalness versus effect in a second language. Often, if you want literalness you abandon the effect, and if you want the effect you can't be literal. How about we put up both versions? "Brother, mom is with me" followed by (literally, brother, I have mother). Zora 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And my Hindi is nonexistant! This wasn't a question of literalness, but of the English being smooth and evocative. "I have Mother" is more, I dunno, poetic? It's certainly how I would respond if someone addressed me that way. But perhaps it doesn't capture the flavor of the Hindi dialogue. I wouldn't argue for it being included just to have a literal translation; I think that's out of place in an encyclopedia. kwami 20:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is Indian film history a subsection of this article?

Yikes. Clicking on History of Indian cinema takes one straight to the Bollywood page. While clicking on History of cinema in India takes one to the general Cinema of India page. This semantic split is weird enough in itself, but that there's little actual history at the latter page makes it even more perverse.

It seems to me that these two phrasings ought to redirect to the same place, and if that place should be a subsection of anything, it should be at the general "Cinema of India" page. A general history of Indian film should not be tacked on way down towards the end of a Bollywood article. I'm sure I don't need to tell most people here that "Bollywood" and "Indian Cinema" are not synonymous - heck, Bollywood and Indian commercial cinema aren't even synonymous, as the separate articles on Kollywood, Tollywood, etc., make clear.

That aside, the history section looks like a pretty good start to my non-expert eyes, although it would be great to see it expanded considerably by knowledgable folks. All the more reason it should be in a more prominent and logical place.

Michael Wells 19:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with everything you say. I've been meaning to work on a general history of Indian cinema article for ages, and just haven't gotten a round tuit. If you want to excise the subsection and make it the start of the new article, and point both Bollywood and Cinema of India at it, please do! At least it would be a start. Thanks for the cogent criticism. Zora 22:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

entertainers and celebrities?

Hello all - was fussing around Sania Mirza's page and it struck me that there should be a category or page for south asian entertainers and celebrities. I've just been laboriously uploading a section on Nandita Das as well - hope people from here will bring their tools along to the latter site. But back to my poser - fame is glueing together a number of notable and otherwise non-notable names; this seems to be a global phenomenon. But fame in south asia is its own paradigm if you catch my drift. Worthy of a section? We could then have a global list of entertainers. I think I well repair back here after some sleep! Autumnleaf 23:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it's in line with other Wikipedia examples to have an article for List of notable South Asians. However, this article would be hard to manage. See the talk section for List of Muslims for an example. Historical and contemporary figures should be separated, and people slotted into reasonable categories. I'd be worried that the contemporary section would turn into a catalogue of "sensations du jour" and require constant updating. Frankly, if I want to know who's HOT as a South Asian, I just go to the blog Sepia Mutiny, one of my faves. Zora 02:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert block?

Harprit's edits are overwhelmingly blind reverts, as in this article. He refuses to engage in any discussion in the articles, to justify his versions, or even to make corrections when someone points out spelling errors. In some cases this has gone on for a month or more. I've told him that I will restore any reverts he makes unless he joins in a discussion to justify them and to work toward consensus. He doesn't engage in any specifically blockable behavior on a chronic basis, unless perhaps he is trolling. (It's hard for me to tell if he's sincere, a troll, or engaged in revenge reversion.) However, if the editing community as a whole finds him a nuissance, he can be blocked by concensus. I know at least one editor out there would like this, but I'm more interested in what the rest of you think. kwami 08:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

nope. Bollywood is an INDIAN movie industry. Normal Urdu words are used in song lyrics. Elements of Hindusim ARE in Bollywood movies (I always see Hindu Gods).--HaRpRiT

Bollywood versus Indian or even South Asian cinema

Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen, Ritwik Ghatak, Anurag Kashyap, Nandita Das - these are all respected names from Indian cinema but perhaps not easy stablemates with the likes of Yash Chopra and Aishwarya Rai; except that this is what is happening in the main page. There is a slightly unsatisfactory distinction made in Wikipedia between what constitutes Bollywood as opposed to Indian Cinema. It might seem at first sight that if a film professional becomes well known (Nandita Das, Satyajit Ray) they are casually appended to the big list in the sky titled 'Bollywood'. Feels odd to see Sen and Ray on the page - maybe the writer just did not make clear enough that the references were to what was NOT Bollywood? Whatever the case - scope for tidying up I wonder? Autumnleaf 21:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to take the parallel cinema folks OUT of Bollywood and put them in Indian cinema. I believe that "Bollywood" is usually taken to apply to mainstream commercial films, not indie or art-house films. It could be that this distinction is breaking down and that we should have a section discussing the boundaries between indie and commercial cinema in India. But if there's material on the current Bollywood page that implies that Ray was a Bollywood director, of course it should be removed. I'll take a look when I get a chance.

I believe that the Wikipedia articles on the non-Bollywood Indian film traditions or industries aren't in such good shape, and could use some work. I haven't been meddling with them because I am fairly ignorant in these areas. I tend to watch Bollywood movies exclusively ... and I think this is true of a lot of foreign Indian cinema fans. Tamil films? Hmmm, well, I have Kondukain Kondukain. That's about it.

A while ago, someone suggested that we set up a Bollywood "project" page. Mebbe that should be an Indian cinema project page, and we could try to expand Wikipedia coverage in the non-Bollywood areas. I know I'd like more info. I feel hesitant to rent Tamil films from Netflix when I don't know WHAT I'm going to get. Zora 22:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I will quietly make inroads then on the Indian cinema page. Autumnleaf 22:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pizzadeliveryboy's edits and Gurubrahma's reversion

Perhaps Gurubrahma didnt see the changes in toto:

I have generally abridged several sections to make the diction and paraphrasing shorter and standardized.

There are references to Pakistanis being 'more' involved in plagiarizing - REMOVED

Please use the words plagiarizing and bootleg instead of pirated/piracy - the usage is colloquial.

Roshan (Rakesh and Rajesh Roshan's father needs mention). Dont know who Suzanne Khan's father is??!! Please enlighten.

Pizzadeliveryboy 19:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference to India's Most Wanted as a 'tabloid' is a POV - removed

I have added links to some film personalities. Any info on them?

Pizzadeliveryboy 19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the changes in toto; that is why, the edit summary reads "revert - he removed some POV and added some POV." While you have made several changes, the net effect, imo, was that some POV was removed, some was added and the quality of writing came down, strictly again, imo. Bootleg and smuggle are more colloquial than piracy. Bootleg is used more for liquor, narcotics etc. While the dvds are smuggled into Pakistan, the fact remains that they are also pirated versions. The difference is this: DVDs are smuggled into Pakistan because it is (or was) illegal to get movies through imports. However, most of the DVDs available in Pakistan are also pirated, that is, not released by the copyright holders for DVDs. On balance, piracy is more serious from Bollywood's point of view as it affects their revenues. If legit DVDs were to be smuggled into Pakistan, it wouldn't be piracy but still smuggling - yet, it would no longer be a problem of Bollywood but Pakistan's law and order problem. In your paraphrasing, some of the contextual meaning has been greatly lost. Some POV also entered, probably inadvertently, when you call the India TV show "popular" - The TRP ratings of the show and the channel are not much to write home about, the previous categorization of tabloid show seems a better description. Some grammar mistakes have also jumped in, such as, plagiarized Pakistani industry - it should be plagiarized from. A minor matter, but strictly speaking, it should be "plagiarised" as we are supposed to use British English on this article. Roshan senior did not launch his sons, just as Harivanshrai Bachchan did not launch Amitabh or Sekhar did not launch A. R. Rahman. I felt the stress was on people who made it more on their own steam rather than their parents'. Suzanne Khan is the wife of Hrithik Roshan and the daughter of Sanjay Khan of "The Sword of Tipu Sultan." On a topic like Bollywood which sees constant churn like it does, it becomes very difficult to maintain the integrity when several edits are made within a few minutes. The situation becomes complicated especially in situations like these, where all the edits are well-meaning, but some improving the quality and some reducing the same. I would like to hear from the other regular editors of this article as well about what they think about the issue. --Gurubrahma 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pizza, I too would like to see a slowdown. While some of your edits have been helpful, others have been ungrammatical. It is very hard to wade through a number of small changes, accepting some, reverting others. It amounts to having to rewrite the article. I had to rewrite the plagiarism section, which I thought had been mangled, and I haven't dealt with the rest of the article. I usually don't mind rewrites when they improve the quality of the article, but in this case the effect is very mixed. Please give us time to vet your changes. Zora 08:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

grammar - resolved issue

Should it be "plagiarizing the Pakistani movie industry" or "plagiarizing from the Pakistani movie industry"??? Please comment and/or change as is acceptable after verifying the grammar. I have seen both instances elsewhere, but my gut feeling is that Wren and Martin would spin in their graves if they saw the second version!!!

Plagiarize is a transitive verb, in most cases. Which means that it needs a Direct Object to complete context, something that is an answer to a question ending in "what/for what", or "whom/for whom". So when I say,

"Many people have plagiarized what"?, the answer is "(the) Pakistani Industry" and not "from (the) Pakistani industry"

That my friend is British English!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Suzanne Khan

Now that I know Suzanne Khan's pedigree (see here), I was wondering if she has any films in her name??? Do we keep her, or jump directly to the Khan side of the Roshan-Khan clan??? Any thoughts....

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammar, form, sentence construction and content in Plagiarism section

In Accusations of Plagiarism

(To Zora!!!!)

The word alleged is important here since otherwise, we would ourselves be accused of leveling accusations of plagiarism against Bollywood. May be plagiarism happens, but Wikipedia is to document what ('allegedly') happens, and not actually level accusations.

PDB, I have seen arguments about how much plagiarism there is, but nobody, ever, ever, has suggested that there isn't any. Anyone who has watched more than a few Bollywood films knows dang well that there's plagiarism. It's even amusing. Dil steals "Blue Suede Shoes" and turns it into a campus dance number <g>. I don't think we have to pussyfoot with "allegations" when nobody doubts that there's plagiarism. Zora 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some places mention audiences in South Asia, some mention Indian audiences - need to stick to one reference.

I have combined a few sentences just for the sake a more lucid reading and proper context construction - no grammar issues, just that an encyclopedia article needs to stick to a std above plain essay writing.

Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. Don't be too sure of your writing abilities, grasshopper. The plagiarism section was carefully set up with a then/now organization, which you didn't see, and trashed. "In the past, this could be done with impunity" is anecessary organizing, orienting sentence and shouldn't have been moved.

"Ideas, plot lines, tunes, or riffs" has a better rhythm than your "themes, tunes or riffs, or even entire plot lines" -- try saying them both out loud. Also, your use of "or" in two places, at two levels of meaning, is inelegant and confusing.

You destroyed the parallelism of "close at hand" and "far away", leaving the first clause hanging.

You added your own POV when you said that audiences are more familiar with Western media because of cable TV. I understand that this is a big part of it, but cheap VCDs, more Hollywood films in multiplexes, influence of large diasporic community, etc., surely have something to do with it too. Rather than include that whole list, it would be better to just leave out the cable TV bit you added.

Do I have to pick apart every one of your edits? I hope not. One of them was good -- combining the last two sentences in my rewriting gives a better flow.

I'm not against people editing my prose. I welcome it, when the editor is skilled. Users Autumnleaf (from New Delhi), IFaqeer, and Mustafaa have been wonderful at fixing my prose. But I don't think you have that level of skill, PDB. In many cases you make things worse rather than better. I hate to be so blunt, but I'm not sure that anything else will have an effect. Until you're a better copyeditor, it would be a better use of your time and energy if you were to visit the Indian cinema projects page, look at the list of articles to be created, and start work researching and writing from scratch. Zora 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence in this section is still suspect in terms of grammar and contextual sentence construction.

Any thoughts???

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

popular

OK I must admit - using popular in Bollywood#Sex_scandals was a mild POV, just like tabloid was in the previous version.

I dont think the India's Most Wanted is a tabloid (A newspaper of small format giving the news in condensed form, usually with illustrated, often sensational material.). May be they create a lot of noise, and the antecedents of the original producer are suspect, but lets give the guy some credit - he is just trying to get the bad guys in jail.....

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Not having actually SEEN the physical form of the paper involved, I'll bow to your experience here. Zora 18:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

nepotism

I think that the part of Cast and Crew dealing with the clannish tendencies in Bollywood needs to be moved to a section under Controversies with a sub-heading Nepotism

What say you all????

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least you're asking us now. Is nepotism a subject of controversy? Not for most Indians, I think. It seems to me that it's taken for granted that ANY business will likely be a family business and provide jobs for the family and friends of the family. Zora 18:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

heading order

The heading Controversies is the main heading, with AoP and SS as sub-headings. Hence Controversies needs to be in big bold, and AoP and SS needs to be in a lighter font

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To Zora!!!

First rule of writing an encyclopediac article: Do not level accusations, even implied. Never mind if Bollywood plagiarizes, copies or even trashes other people's work. But Wikipedia has no business passing judgement - specifically, by omitting the word 'alleged' you are jumping into the bandwagon, so to speak and leveling an accusation, albeit implicitly, which is not what an encyclopedia is all about. So if there is a scent of wrong doing in the actions of the subject about whom the article is being written, you ALWAYS use the word 'alleged' - its common sense, polite and saves you from something called 'libel' - ever heard of that word??

IMW was also a program on TV - not just a paper. Never mind their antecedents or intentions - we need to atleast stick to a minimal decorum of not 'judging' someone - atleast the word 'popular' sheds some positive light - but the word 'tabloid' borders on crassness.

I may agree with you on cable TV, but mentioning the dynamics of the transformation of Indian audience needs some credit - just mentioning the changing tastes of Indian audience is incomplete.

"and far away Hollywood and....." - what are you? writing a high school essay??

As far as my english goes, I will reserve opinion.

Pizzadeliveryboy 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My responses to some of the points raised by PDB can be found on [[1]] message I posted on his talkpage. I am not posting it here because of the length and because it covers other aspects that may not fully be relevant on this talkpage. --Gurubrahma 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Bollycat

We went through an extended tussle over Bollycat and finally got it removed. It sees plagiarism in EVERYTHING, like a John Bircher seeing Commies under the bed. It is inaccurate. We had complaints about the link from several readers. Please don't add it again. Zora 05:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on link spam

I don't want to start an edit war, so its better to discuss it here before making changes in the main page. Someone (anonymous IP) has been adding a link titled http://www.eduwiser.com in the external links section. The link in concern is of a forum that hardly has any articles in it with most topics having zero posts. It is a perfect example of a link spam so I deleted it. But it was recreated. I have deleted that again. Please reach a consensus if an edit war is to be averted. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No consensus is needed. That's linkspam, revert on sight. We're all behind you 100%. Go to the WikiProject page (see the logo on the top) to call for help if the linkspam gets to you. Unfortunately, it's a never-ending task, as is simple vandalism. Zora 06:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood movies camp?

I know that some people think Bollywood movies are camp (see this website, Planet Bollybob [2]). The author is a Canadian transvestite, whom I know slightly from the time he posted to rec.arts.movies.local.indian on Usenet. He's funny but ... he's not the whole story. Some of us started out making fun of Bollywood and ended up loving it. So I removed the sentence re camp. However, there may be another way to add the info (and the website?). Comments? Discussion? Zora 23:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Deewar Dialogue

I don't think the Deewar Dialogue has a place in this article. It just doesn't represent anything to the general reader. Firstly, I don't believe an example is necessary, as the article stresses continually of how Hindi films are melodramatic etc. Also, I'm not sure whether anyone will agree with me, but I believe the dialogue has absolutely no effect in English. The 'I have mom' bit doesn't help the idea of melodrama, to anyone that hasn't watched the movie, I doubt it will make sense or help the explanation of Bollywood dialogues. In any case, the way it's written (with the <short pause>) just makes me laugh. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to delete it, that's fine with me. We had several editors who just LOVED that scene and fussed over it endlessly. Delete it and see what happens. It may come back. Zora 07:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Physical location of Bollywood

An anon keeps inserting sentences in the top para claiming that Bollywood isn't a place, unlike Hollywood. First of all, I'm not sure that Hollywood is a place any longer. It was once, but I have the impression that film studios in LA are more spread out now. Second, negative info isn't much use. Where ARE the Bollywood studios or facilities located? That would be useful info, particularily for those of us who aren't Mumbaikars. A map, with studios marked on it? Comments re traffic in Mumbai, difficulties this makes for movie stars commuting between sets? Stars who marry their drivers? That could be a whole section later in the article.

It's the same thing as saying "Silicon Valley" for the computer industry in the Bay Area. The companies are all over the place now, but we still call it Silicon Valley. Zora 07:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The old studios ( 1940's) were in the central part of the "then" Mumbai, and were not located in the same area but spread.

Currently Film city is a single location in Goregaon ( in the suburbs) and has most sets and highest usage for film and TV shooting in Mumbai. However independent studios exist outside this area ( ie RK studio in Chembur) Film city came up in the 80's and 90's. Till a couple of years ago did not have high quality housing near it, hence the "travel" related problems. Bandra, Juhu and Andheri being the popular upmarket areas where the stars stay, the commute to Goregaon can take a lot of time.( depending on time of travel)

However many flats have come up in the area now. Haphar 10:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. I'll get it in the article tomorrow. Separate section. Zora 10:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

An admin should note that User:59.184.12.203 is in violation of 3RR.

Where to for this article

I've had this article on my watchlist for a while but haven't seen any genuine progress being made into it. Nor any ongoing organized effort or place to see what the article now needs. Perhaps I just missed it. Anyway the point is that an article with as much potential as this should be reaching for nothing less than Featured Article promotion and if it does not match the criteria at the moment we should be working to get it to reach the criteria. So could someone just list what the article needs to become a featured article and then work can begin. If it needs a lot of work I may nominate it as Indian Collaboration of the Week. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been the editor doing the most work on this article, and I'm just exhausted and over-extended right now. If someone else could read Tejaswini Ganti's book, Bollywood, and bring some of his? her? insights into the article, that would be great. The book has some great discussions of the Bollywood creative process that would really enhance the article. So would the material on locations of film studios. More work on the history of Bollywood in particular would help. Rise and fall of studios, directors, etc. Zora 10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon's edits

Anon, it's not a good idea to go around changing US to UK spelling, and vice-versa. Both spellings are OK, and we haven't standardized. Basically, we usually leave things as the original author wrote them. Otherwise it leads to edit wars between US and UK editors.

Also, I reverted your edits in the Hollywood-Bollywood sentence. I felt that you had just made the sentence more stilted and harder to read. Now this is a matter of taste. We try to sound encyclopedic but not academic here, and it's a hard balance to attain. Still, I don't think the previous version was bad, just not as ornate as you prefer.

If you want to dispute this, do. Perhaps we can bat different versions of the sentence back and forth until we get one that we both like. Zora 12:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

India related articles tend to be written in UK English and I think it should be kept that way. --Blacksun 14:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Split off list of film clans

It appears that totting up genealogical and marriage connections between Bollywood stars is everyone's favorite sport, as the list was getting way way long. So I split it off into its own article, List of Bollywood film clans.

Now that it's by itself, I think it could use some work. Perhaps sorting it out into three, two and one generation clans? Perhaps discussing marriage links between the clans? Zora 05:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

List of popular movies

"Foreigners interested in sampling Indian cinema may wish to consult this List of popular Bollywood films." umm ya I dont think this type of a sentence belongs in an encyclopedia, especially the word foreigners. In fact, this entire section needs to go. It should be a see also link, thats about it. --Blacksun 14:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)\

Agree, sounds to much like you're advertising Bollywood films for foreigners as well. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK. All I can see is that I've directed a fair number of clueless foreigners here and I was a clueless foreigner myself, once. I would have appreciated this article, and the list. Zora 01:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for including an article/list of alleged plagiarization

http://www.akhilesh.in/life/india/bollywoodinspirations.php

I had actually first added the text myself by direct editing. Thanks to Zora for pointing that it should be discussed first over here. I do not want to do any link spamming. Please once take a look at the article and the list and if found suitable please add the link.

Toakhilesh 08:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The site is very limited, has ads, and contains only one person's opinions. I do not think that it is helpful. Zora 08:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

History

The history is useful, but it needn't be the first thing a reader sees. I moved it down in the article.

I changed terrorism to armed conflict and terrorism. Atributing the problems to terrorism, thus removing the tactics of the Indian army from the table, is biased. "Armed conflict" suggests that there are two sides involved and doesn't judge between them.

Anon, the sentence that you keep inserting in the plagiarism section is not needed. That is information found elsewhere in the article. Zora 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-Commercial links

I'd added some links previously to a couple of different organizations offering Bollywood style dance classes. It wasn't for commercial purposes, but rather to illustrate the point that Bollywood films and the trademark songs & dances are becoming very much a part of mainstream pop culture outside of South Asia.

a simple web search will turn over so many different options for fans who seek to learn the style of Bollywood dancing, or who are just enthusiastic about the song and dance sequences. I felt it was a great addition to the wiki, elaborating that Bollywood is no longer an underground or cult phenomena in the west, but is trending into a large wave, both in music and movies, and western pop culture. For example, the upcoming launch of the broadway show "Bombay Dreams" on tour in the US...

There are some wonderful resources available, and these sites don't just stop at dance classes, they are full of lots of information about the genre and style:

Bollywood West[3] Bollywood Axion[4] Mango Dance[5] India Community Center[6] London Dance[7] Diva Dance[8] Dhoonya Dance[9] Blue 13 Dance co.[10]

Wikipedia being a resource, I feel it would be remiss not to help direct readers and researchers to further exploration of the topic. Thanks~ Wikipedia would be reduced to another portal full of clutter --Johnhardcastle 10:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood?

How common is the use of "Bollywood" to refer to Hindi cinema in serious Indian texts? --A Sunshade Lust 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora sticks her toe in the water

I looked at the Bollywood entry and just HAD to edit. Someone had inserted a personal essay about Bollywood values. It had no references, just assertions. Had to go. Someone had again inserted some commercial sites as "news." Someone who adores Sholay added several references to it in the body of the article, which I pruned. This article is about all Bollywood films, not Sholay :) Zora 04:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see

People have been changing the list of regional film industries back and forth ... sometimes Tollywood is taken to refer to Telugu cinema and sometimes to Bengali (from Tollygunge, I believe). I've seen the term used both ways, by Indians, and the double meaning is extremely confusing. Best just to remove Tollywood from the list and leave the discussion in the Tollywood article (where it is mentioned).

An anonIP readded the commercial "news" links. Hmmmph. I read Rediff myself, but I've carefully avoided giving it a link in the article. Zora 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving of page

User:Nirojansakthivel has been constantly moving the page to Hindi films. The article is about the Bollywood industry not Hindi films. So if we mean Bollywood then that covers finance, marketing, films, awards etc. By saying films people might assume the article is just about Hindi films. Pa7 23:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

References?

Bharatveer, all I need to do is pull down a few DVDS from the shelf. My one mythological (Jai Santoshi Maa) lacks Urdu titles. A couple of films I sampled (Shri 420, Rangeela) are all in Roman lettering. The other seven I checked are mainly in English, but also have the main title of the film in Devanagari and Urdu scripts. They range from 1959 (Kagaaz Ke Phool) to 1990 (Agneepath).

Don't you watch Bollywood movies? Don't you listen to the song lyrics, with their Arabo-Persian loan words? If you don't, what are you doing editing the article? Zora 08:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Watch the titles roll of ANY film in the seventies... the titles appear in English, and then in Arabic and Hindi in tandem... Check the poster of Sholay, for a popular example! Don't you think we take the 'references' factor too far? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Example (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 September, 2006 (UTC).

Yup! That was me!!! Sorry :) Anagha 10:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia:Reliable sources& Wikipedia:No original research.

Posters do not make reliable sources; pls cite any source that claim Bollywood movies are made in Hindustani language.Preferably the Certificate given by the Censor board of India clearly gives the name of the language in which film is made. I would request you to cite any of such certificates here.--Regards-Bharatveer 04:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't need a REFERENCE

It doesn't require a reference to write a word in a different alphabet. I don't read Devanagari or Arabic/Persian/Urdu script, so I can't judge the accuracy of either rendering, but people who do know have looked at these words and passed them. That's all that's necessary.

Same sound, different alphabet. Hindi and Urdu are different only in the "elevated" registers. Zora 07:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason why devanagari script is included in this article is due to the fact that Hindi is the language of the bollywood films.If you claim that Bollywood films are made in Urdu language pls cite your sources .

And pls see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not regarding the necessity of a reference.

Therefore I am going to include the cn tag once more; Pls dont remove it unless you get a reference for it.-Bharatveer 10:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Filmmakers finally settled on a type of spoken Hindi known as Hindustani -- a mixture of Hindi and Urdu -- a language associated with bazaars and trading that served as a lingua france across northern and central India." Tejaswini Ganti, Bollywood, Routledge, 2004. Ganti is a professor of anthropology at Connecticut College. Respectable press, respectable academic. Linguists might quarrel with the description of Hindustani -- it's more that Hindi and Urdu are registers of Hindustani -- but the fact that the film industry goes for the broadest common denominator is undisputed. Zora 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Urdu is integral to Bollywood-related articles, since Bollywood markets both Hindi and Urdu speakers. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 23:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood films are marketted in all other indian languages too.That doesnt prove that Bollywood films are produced in Urdu language.-Bharatveer 04:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood films often use Punjabi, many Bollywood songs also include Punjabi lyrics and Bhangra dancing. If we include Urdu? Why not include Punjabi? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The title of a film, in Hindustani, is pronounced the same whether it is written in Devanagari or Arabic/Persian/Urdu script. It's the same word, different scripts. It is HARD to learn to read a different script. It was much easier for me to learn Tongan or French than it was to learn the tiny bit of Japanese I know, which required learning to read all over again. That is the point of giving the title in both scripts. To make it easy for everyone. You guys seem to think that Urdu and Hindi are different languages -- they aren't. They're different registers of the same language, with vocabulary skewed towards either Sanskrit or Arabic/Persian. Look at the Wikipedia articles on Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani. Bollywood films are consciously aimed at the street version of Hindustani, which is the same however it is written.

Of course, this is probably going to culminate in another wave of attack on the language articles ... AARGH! Zora 08:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pls stop your meaningless allegations and stick to discussing the topic under discussion.-Bharatveer 08:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

to be fair, I get lots of google hits for the Hindi spelling, but none for the Urdu one. Still, the "fact" template is mistaken here, since it is not the spelling that is disputed, as far as I gather, but the relevance of Urdu to the concept. This is a content dispute (and I have no opinion here), not an accuracy dispute. Compare Crete: it is disputed whether the Turkish variant of the name should be given, it is not the correctness of the Turkish spelling that is under discussion. dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Several Bollywood film covers that utilize Indian scripts give the two standard registers of Hindustani: Hindi and Urdu. You can take a look at some of these film covers: Image:Awaaraposter.jpg, Image:Waqt 1965 film poster.JPG, Image:Sholayposter2.jpg, Image:Padosan film poster.jpg, etc. I have provided a few here for you all. However there are many more. Please also see these references: Bollywood for the Skeptical and What is Bollywood?. Both references metion the use of Urdu and Hindi in Bollywood songs and films. Despite my giving of these references, it is quite clear that film titles are presented in both Hindi and Urdu. As a result, this article will mention both scripts. Thanks for your understanding. Anupam^Talk 19:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that there are many Bollywood films made in Urdu, in that the actors speak in the Western Hindustani dialect which is full of Persian/Arabic vocabulary. Eg. Pakeezah. I tend to disagree that Urdu and Hindi are the same language though. I struggled understanding Pakeezah but I manage watching Hindi movies. There are other subtle differences between Urdu and Hindi such as Urdu uses the "Aap" form much more often. However both names should be included. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User;Gizza, Are you sure that the language of that film (as per Certification) is URDU.?? Films which depict the life of nawabs, mughals etc etc will certainly have more urdu words. But they are exceptions and not a general rule.If Urdu can be included, then why not Punjabi and Marathi, telugu ?-Bharatveer 05:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The language on the censor certificate is absolutely irrelevant to linguistic reality. The 1960 censor certificate for Mughal-E-Azam lists the language as Urdu. For the 2004 colorized re-release, the certificate lists the language as Hindi. Yet not one word in the film has changed. It remains in reality a mix of mostly formal Urdu and some conversational Hindustani. Who knows or cares why they changed the certificate? Encyclopedias exist to record facts, not the bureaucratic effluvia of the Indian censorship regime.

There is no purpose in standardising on one script or the other. The irrefutable linguistic fact of the matter is that readers of the language spoken in "Bollywood" films read one or more of the following scripts: Nagari, Urdu, and Roman. Since the article is in English, Roman is required. The other two are optional and helpful. It is wrong to remove any of these scripts. Dieresis 12:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gizza, I think you are confusing literary Urdu with everyday conversational Urdu. "Urdu" and "Hindi" speakers converse with each other all the time without the need of a translator, because conversational Hindi and Urdu are in fact the same language. It's only when dialogues veer into literary or formal realms that it becomes incomprehensible to those not educated in literary Urdu (including, of course, plenty of illiterate or otherwise uneducated Urdu speakers). Hindi, of course, has its own literary and formal registers which pose the same barriers to comprehension. The dialogue of most "Bollywood" films is written in an uncomplicated register understandable to a broad range of people. Dieresis 12:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're starting from the assumption that Hindi and Urdu are completely separate languages, and that a Hindi film will be unintelligible to Urdu speakers and vice-versa. That's just not the case. The film-makers don't record the dialogues twice, once in Hindi, once in Urdu. They're written, and recorded, in a language that can be understood by the man in the street (with a few bits of local slang or high-flown vocabulary inserted for color -- frex, I understand that Lagaan made some attempt to have Bhojpuri-flavored dialogues). The man (or woman) in the street watches the film, whether he lives in New Delhi or Karachi, and understands most or all of it.

If the film is dubbed into Bengali or Tamil or Malayalee, then it makes sense to have those versions of the title, for the convenience of someone who might have seen it in those languages and is looking it up on the English WP. If it isn't dubbed, then I don't think there's any need to include any extra scripts. I'm not all that knowledgeable on the non-Bollywood cinemas, so I don't know if dubbing is widespread. Zora 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article says Bollywood (Hindi: बॉलीवुड, Urdu: بالیوڈ) is the informal name given to the popular Mumbai-based Hindi language film industry in India. Yes it says HINDI language. It doesn't matter if they use poetic Urdu words or dialogues. They similarly use Punjabi songs, dances and phrases. It's the Hindi film industry. The reason why the name may be written in Urdu on DVD covers is because despite the fact that the two languages sound similar, they are written quite differently and thus it makes sense to release the same movie (so no dubbing) to two different audiences (Indian and Pakistani). Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Noble eagle, Pls either add the punjabi and marathi script too then.-Bharatveer 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In case it matters, Aamir Khan's Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak was an Urdu language movie. I remember watching the title slide (which contains the movie length, certificate etc. stuff) which had Urdu listed as the language of the movie. Since I had seen it quite some time ago, I rechecked it at IMDB which verified my memory. Thanks. --Ragib 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And here are some more famous Bollywood movies that were in Urdu. --Ragib 19:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that 'Qayamat se Qayamat tak ' was an udru film. i just checked that out .This will show you that IMDB is inaccurate .pls see Qayamat se Qayamat tak . Pls see the language of the film is HINDI and not URDU.-Bharatveer 06:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think this one is ok and the imdb entry is wrong? I have provided another reference too. If you have the movie, please show me the certificate page that says its Hindi. Thank you. --Ragib 06:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm removing the tag as the reference is [here. Thank you. --Ragib 06:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not a scholarly paper or any study, just a compilation done by some university students; If you want to remove the tag, bring some cridible sources.-Bharatveer 06:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes your Amazon DVD cover credible? Also, who "informed" you that the South Asia Center at UPenn is run solely by "some university students"? That comment is entirely illogical. A commercial DVD cover is not a reliable source as an academic institution. So, please 1. Show the certificate page of the movie 2. Show how the "UPenn South Asia Center" was taken over by "Some university students". Unless you can satisfy these, I'll remove the tag. Thanks. --Ragib 07:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: For your kind information, here is the link for the South Asia Center, which you assume is run by "some university students". Thank you. --Ragib 07:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And to counter your Amazon.com dvd cover, here is one on the older VHS version of the movie, which mentions it to be Urdu. Also NCSU library collection mentions it to be "Hindi/Urdu". So, unless you show me the film's certificate showing it to be in Hindi, and unless you claim the NCSU library is also run by "some university students", I am definitely going to count these as credible sources. Thanks. --Ragib 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia:Reliable sources . See " The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question . So I am going to remove the URDU script till you can provide a credible reference.-Bharatveer 07:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are being extremely illogical here, as enough references have been provided, and their reliability has been pointed out repeatedly. If you continue with the tag, it will simply be disruption and vandalism. --Ragib 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, seems to me that you're playing a game of "Come up with some evidence to convince me" and NO evidence will ever convince you. So the only thing to do is just revert until you give up and go away. Zora 08:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think I am being illogical here.As per wiki guidelines ; references have to be given . As an admin , you should know that.-Bharatveer 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and as per wiki guidelines, I have provided enough references and pointed out their reliability. As a non-new wiki editor, you should know that. --Ragib 15:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer sir, many of us have provided you with references. It is also pretty obvious from the movie posters that when Indian scripts are used, both Devanagari and Perso-Arabic are given. Also keep in mind that this issue was already voted on here with 100% of the voters choosing to include both Hindi and Urdu. In other words, it is already well established that Bollywood articles will use both Hindi and Urdu scripts. As per this discussion, please do not place any more citation tags for the Urdu script in Bollywood related articles. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 19:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC).

Nobleeagle, the use of Bhangra/Punjabi is rather limited in Bollywood, it is used sometimes of course, but most bhangra/punjabi-like songs are in Hindi-Urdu. What I'm saying is, the use of Urdu in songs is typical, unlike Punjabi, which is not mentioned in the article above that I gave. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 02:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And what I am saying is that the use of Urdu in songs and dialogues is completely irrelevant. This is the article on the film industry, not of the movies that use Urdu or of the songs that use Urdu. The film industry is a Hindi one. Also, as I pointed out above, it is pointless to dub films in Urdu as Hindi and Urdu sound pretty much the same. Thus, the same film is sent to both Hindi and Urdu audiences. The differences in writing in Hindi and Urdu are what result in the fact that some films have both Hindi and Urdu on their film covers. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If Hindi and Urdu are "pretty much the same," you've as much as admitted that they're the same language. A writing system does not make a language. Ataturk, in Turkey, decreed that the Arabic alphabet be abandoned and a Roman alphabet used. The change in writing systems did not mean that Turkish suddenly changed. Chinese can be written with the usual characters (of which there are several systems) or written with Roman characters (for which there are also several systems). Chinese does not change when how it is written is changed. Zora 08:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They're not exactly the same but are similar. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 09:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Bollywood" films are popular in Pakistan, where they are regularly referred to as "Urdu films." Dieresis 12:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that there's a pretty good consensus to leave Urdu script in the opening here. There is some disagreement about why it belongs there and--rightly so. This is not very clear and the question is not whether Urdu is equal to or as important as Hindi. Bharatveer, feel free to discuss this more but do not remove Urdu script until there is a massive chance in consensus. Also, your evidentiary demands are not something that can easily be met for Hindi, either. There are mixed references about what language the films are actually in. Also, you may note that if you ever study linguistics that language delineation is not always the most clear prcess and it is a political one as well. The point being that you get contradicting claims which are politicized and that you will not find an 'objective truth' of Hindi vs. Urdu but a multitude of interpretations. So, continue this discussion by all means but don't remove Urdu script from the films because it is related in some sense--whether it's the film's language or just because films are relased in their non-dubbed form with devanagari and nastaliq. This is no doubt something that can be falsified on a case-by-case basis. For instance--religious (Hindu) film marketing may very well not include any nastaliq. This is a problem you get with mutually intelligible languages that we will have to deal with. gren グレン 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus reached on this page. All I see is large assumptions of bad faith and OR. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out the "Bad faith" and "OR", please? Bharatveer asked for references which have been provided. That was the only question in this thread, or so it seems to me. Thanks. --Ragib 02:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not on your part. I got in trouble for naming users in other disputes, but anyone reading this discussion would see that there are two users here who are entering the realm of Urdu-cruft and Bad Faith.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent lead

Congrats to all those who worked on the lead - extremely well-written. - Cribananda 07:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Praise is a nice change from the usual. I'm speaking not just for myself, but for ALL the editors who have contributed. Zora 07:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Links

Apparently when the spammers arrive, they remove existing links and add theirs. When the spam is removed, there is nothing. I went back a few months, found the non-commercial links that had been there for a long time, and restored them. Gosh all fishhooks I'm tired of this fight.

This time I put "non-commercial" after the links, which may give the spammers a bit of a clue. Perhaps we also need one of those warnings at the top which only show up when you start editing. Zora 03:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)