Talk:Hindi cinema

Do Aankhen Barah Haath

I would like to dispute the proposition that "V. Shantaram's Do Aankhen Barah Haath (1957) is believed to have inspired the Hollywood film The Dirty Dozen (1967)." Kindly review this statement after having watched Seven Samurai (1954) by Akira Kurosawa. Regards, Quindecillion (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits today

User:Shshshsh is a knowledgeable editor, but he shows WP:OWN by blanket-reverting and by restoring fan-level writing that violates WP:TONE, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I have changed back only those things, and I hope he'll say that I have carefully gone back over his edits and restored every other one of them.

I hope by this example that Shshshsh will discuss specific edits here first, rather than blanket-revert other editors' well-thought-out, good-faith edits. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't own this article, and I never blank-revert. It's the contrary. You have reverted everyhing to your own revision, and this can be shown by just clicking. Not mine, but the edits of a blocked sockpuppet were back on here - including lists of films and actors as opposed to the sources cited there. The lead is generally not sourced, so everything you removed was sourced throughout. A "poor sister" is a metaphore, there is nothing wrong about it. ourbollywood.com is not a reliable source, the source I was referring to is the book "Encyclopedia of Hindi cinema". Other such edits as tone addressing are fine by me. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If OurBollywood.com, which seems to be a webzine and not a blog, is not a WP:RS in your opinion, that's fine. But the claim in the lead isn't supported by citation anywhere else in the article. Neither is the Hindustan reference -- the Dialogues and lyrics section that mentions the term gives no citation support -- and what might be "more accurate" is POV.

The whole "poor cousin" phrasing is not encyclopedic; I cannot image, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica using conversational language such as that.

The lead currently contains footnotes, while you say, "The lead is generally not sourced," you are removing only my sources and leaving others. The points I found that need sourcing in the lead are not sourced elsewhere in the article that I could find. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said. Give me a few minutes. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- and I appreciate the work and additional researching you've done. Despite our initial differences, we listened to and addressed each other's concerns, and reached a middle ground that's made the article better. Thank you for working together on this! With good wishes, -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you friend, I appreciate your work. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Bollywood

According to the article, The term is often incorrectly used to refer to the whole of Indian cinema; it is only a part of the Indian film industry.

The question is, who is to say that this is an "incorrect" use? There is no "official" definition for this term. Most usage of this term makes no distinction between Hindi movies and movies made in other Indian languages, or between movies made in one Indian city versus another. Bollywood refers to Indian movies. Typical characteristics include song-and-dance sequences and melodramatic plots, and these characteristics are not limited to movies made in any one Indian city or language. 71.112.85.223 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)latha

No, you're wrong, there is actually an official definition for this term in books, dictionaries and newspapers. See that. But in short, I am willing to make it clear to you: Bollywood is Hindi cinema, and it is used officially known as a popular term for Hindi cinema, and only Hindi cinema. That's why there are so many terms similar to this like Kollywood, Tollywood and so on. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't make anything clear to me. There is no government or other official entity whose responsibility it is to define the meaning of this word. Nobody owns this word. The meaning of the word comes from its usage, not from some "official" definition book. Increasingly, and especially as it is used in western media, the word applies to all Indian cinema, not limited to movies made in any one language or city.131.107.0.86 (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)latha

Sorry, but what you're saying here is literally sheer nonsense. We are not responsible for others' mistakes, and their mistakes can't turn into reality by just being made by them. Mistakes made by western media are theirs, not ours. Wikipedia is here to make everything clear and correct any kind of mistakes and misrepresentations, instead of supporting them. Bollywood is the popular term for Hindi--not Indian--cinema. Period. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanings of words change over time and with geography. For example consider the word Yoga. There are many branches of Yoga, but in the west the word refers to Hatha Yoga. There are plenty of other examples where a word used to mean one thing but over time evolved to mean something slightly different. Or it may mean something slightly different in another country. The term football means something different in the USA as opposed to UK for example. You can't just declare that only one usage is correct and all other usages are a "mistake". You can argue that the term Bollywood originated as one thing, or that in a certain area of India it means one thing but you can't claim ownership of the word for the entire universe and for all time. As I said earlier the meaning of the word comes from its usage. The usage may vary from place to place and has evolved and will continue to evolve over time. As I said, increasingly, and especially as it is used in western media, the word applies to all Indian cinema, not limited to movies made in any one language or city. 131.107.0.86 (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)latha

Please cite a source that the meaning of Bollywood has changed. Don't give me sources of people who make mistakes. Media itself is nothing, more so when it makes mistakes and gets too lazy to present things correctly. The Oxford disctionary makes it clear - Hindi. And generally, western media refer to Bollywood as the Mumbai film industry. The meaning of Bollywood is the same elsewhere, only that some mistakenly consider it the entire Indian film industry (when they actually refer to Hindi films only). That's why we are here, to correct their mistakes, and that's what we are doing. Bollywood is not yoga nor football. So I'll repeat for the last time, we are not responsible for others' mistakes, and their mistakes can't turn into reality by just being made by them. Mistakes made by some people in western media are theirs, not ours. Wikipedia is here to present facts, yet make everything clear and correct any kind of mistakes and misrepresentations, instead of supporting them. That's exactly what we did. We stated that it is often incorrectly used to refer to the whole Indian industry, but it's only a part of it. Bollywood is the popular term for Hindi--not Indian--cinema. Period. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You are asking for a source, except "sources of people who make mistakes". So any source that does not agree with you can be dismissed as "a mistake". Princeton University's Wordnet [1] is used by many dictionaries and defines Bollywood as the film industry of India. Dictionary.com [2] also defines Bollywood as the motion-picture industry of India, based in Bombay. These are not "mistakes", this is what the word means. This may not be what the word means where you come from. Again, words may have different meanings in different parts of the world. The wikipedia entry is absolutely correct that the word is often used to refer to the whole Indian industry. In fact that has now become the meaning, according to many dictionaries. We are here to correct your mistake when you claim that the meaning of the word has frozen in time, or that whatever the word means in your particular geographic location should be what it means for the entire world. 71.112.85.223 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)latha

Even the dictionary you cited says "Based in Bombay". Only the Hindi film industry is based in Bombay, so there you go. Other industries are based in the south. Apart from that, when western sources mention Bollywood, they do it only when referring to actually Hindi films (actually, only Hindi films are viewed in the Us and Earope). The other source you cited says nothing and it's actually unreliable.

You say "The wikipedia entry is absolutely correct that the word is often used to refer to the whole Indian industry." - while it says "The term is often incorrectly used.

Again, we are here to present facts. "Bollywood is Hindi cinema" and "Bollywood is incorrectly used to refer to Indian cinema as a whole". These are facts. "Bollywood is Indian cinema" - this is a mistake. And we are here to correct mistakes. Definition of different terms must be taken from reliable sources, like books and professional dictionaries, not others' mistakes, even if they're common. Bollywood is the popular term used to refer to Hindi films. Other industries in India have their own terms. Yes, Bollywood is mistakenly used to refer to Indian cinema as a whole, but it's incorrect use, and that's what we will write. This is my last reply to you because I find this discussion insignificant and meaningless. All the members WP:INCINE will agree with me on that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary I cited says Bollywood is the motion-picture industry of India, did you miss that part? A large percentage of Indian movies are Hindi movies, so one can say the Indian movie industry is based primarily in Bombay, but it is wrong to conclude from this that only Hindi movies are Bollywood or that only movies made in Bombay are Bollywood. If a Hindi movie is made in Chennai or even abroad, does that suddenly mean the movie is not Bollywood? You are also making a lot of unsubstantiated claims: Only Hindi movies are watched in US and Europe? Can you site a source for this? When western sources mention Bollywood they are referring only to Hindi movies? Again what is the source? The opposite is true, and here's a source for that: From Encyclopaedia Britannica [3]: "At the turn of the 21st century, Bollywood was producing as many as 1,000 feature films annually in all of India’s major languages and in a variety of cities." Read that again please: all of India's major languages and in a variety of cities. 71.112.85.223 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)latha

Yes another mistake, another incorrect use of the term referring to the entire Indian film indusry. Bollywood is a term for Hindi, and only Hindi cinema, and that is its official definition. Different western sources, mostly net sources, use it incorrectly very often. But if you look at books about Bollywood itself, no such thing will be seen. I'm not talking about physical places, but languages, and Hindi is the major language of Mumbai. And when the film industry was conducted, there were only Hindi films made in Mumbai. And what will you say about Kollywood? Tollywood? Are they non-existing in your view? Why were these names created?

Its success abroad led to some incorrect uses, because people abroad don't really differentiate between different Indian languages. And yes, I stand behind the claim that, if not only, at least mostly Bollywood films are watched in the US and Europe. Your source is a proof. The britannica entry mentiones films like Mughal-e-Azam, Sholay, Pakeezah, Jai Santoshi Maa - all of which are Hindi films. It mentiones actors like Ashok Kumar, Raj Kapoor, Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit - all of whom are Hindi actors and never acted in films in other languages than Hindi. It actually discussed Hindi cinema. The mistake there is to say that Bollywood produces films in different languages, and here we learn that they talk about the entire cinema of India, while discussing only one of its industries.

The fact that it's mistakenly used by western sources is their problem. We are here to correct others' mistakes, and present facts only. And the fact is that Bollywood is Hindi cinema. Facts never change. And the other fact is that it is often mistakenly used to refer to the Indian industry as a whole. And your source is another example of this mistaken use. Mistakes don't become facts by just being repeated by those who don't really know much about it. And I will ever let such a thing happen on here. BTW, though I've been a major editor of the article, I was not the one to wrote this, many stand behind this article. I don't think you can fight all of them. I'm done. I find this discussion insignificant and meaningless and therefore won't bother to go further with it. Best, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just another funny Sh* discussion. It's obvious for all people, that Bollywood is mostly referred to whole Indian cinema, just Sh* is keeping the WP:TRUTH in his holy hands. --91.130.91.92 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to source it, as we editors of WP:INCINE have through all these three years. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If it were "obvious for all people that Bollywood is mostly referred to the whole Indian cinema" we would not be having this discussion in the first place. Besides, I don't know anybody who would ever use "Bollywood" to refer to Indian films like Bengali art films from Satyajit Ray or some Malayalam films. Well, maybe some uneducated idiot who knows nothing about the topic. Moreover, this is about fact, not consensus, so even if most people believed it, it does not make it true. 172.162.118.208 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Ayan

I just want to add another point in support of Bollywood as Hindi film industry. Whenever a Kollywood, Tollywood or any other language film actor/directo/or any crew member, even if a big star in their language films, signs a Hindi film, it's reported in the media as the particular actor is trying their hand in Bollywood now. Even though that actor is a big star and works in Indian cinema, is NOT a Bollywood actor till they work in a Hindi movie. for example:

http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/telugu/article/50948.html

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/02/24/stories/2009022460311200.htm

http://www.articlesbase.com/humor-articles/can-tollywood-reach-bollywood-standards-1137149.html

Bollywood has been used in India for decades to refer to Hindi film industry. Calling Telugu, Tamil, Bengali or other language films as Bollywood is plain ignorance. And there are seperate wikipedia articles for other film industries like Kollywood and Tollywood. 86.20.43.242 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bollywood and plagiarism & Bollywood films and plagiarism ‎ & Hindi films and plagiarism

I've currently put a protection on these articles (currently redirects) that redirect to Bollywood#Plagiarism. The central concern is Bollywood and plagiarism is voiced by Dr. Blofeld (and I paraphrase) as it is a POV fork, potentially libelous (which verges on WP:BLP problems) - see here for initial concerns. I'm starting the discussion here to see if there is any additional information to be offered here (see Talk:Bollywood films and plagiarism for various arguments). Any admin is welcome to unprotect if they see these were done incorrectly, but I do note that I do share Dr. Blofeld's concerns about the BLP issues that could easily be raised in the accusations of plagiarism against the film directors, etc. Skier Dude (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Imagine you are a film director struggling to make an income in a competitive industry. And some mainstream central website like wikipedia reels off lists of films of your films which "they" perceive to be copies of other films. It could affect seriously affect the career of the makers of these films. Especially the screenwriters accused of plagiarism it could even prevent them getting new film work as producers may fear facing possible future law suits if certain screenwriters have a "reputation for plagiarism". It sounds a bit extreme but if you think about it it is a pretty serious issue to allege these films are close copies by law. Sure there might be similarities and a few of them pretty obvious but it is certainly not our place to list them without any references or reliable evidence. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, how exactly does this list of alleged films further the advance of encyclopedic knowledge? Assessing what or what has not been plagiarised is totally original research and a subjective one in that there is no measure to what level it can be described as plagiarism. Some films may have certain scenes which resemble another film others may have very extreme copied central plotlines and the whole works so you can't paint every film as the same level. Its too problematic, especially when this is just an encyclopedia and it is certainly not up to us to pass judgements based on original research. A paragraph on the subject addressing the general problem of plagiarism in the industry in summarised form is the way we should be doing it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed at the kind of illogical argument that is presented here by Dr Blofeld. His argument implies that when struggling film producers plagiarize hollywood films, it is okay or even required of us to look the other way. Please explain to me again why it is not possible to succeed in hindi film industry with original themes? His argument that it is libellous to accuse films of plagiarism doesn't hold water either. Is it libellous to accuse a thief of stealing? It is obvious to anyone who has seen a hollywood film and the bollywood version of it that they are copied. What is wrong with saying that? why are we scared of speaking the truth? It seems Dr. Blofeld has an agenda of protecting bollywood and doesn't really care about the truth.

Pepe962 (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't give a crap about protecting Bollywood in all honesty but I know when articles are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable, I live thousands of miles away from India in a place in the UK where Bollywood films are unheard of. You are seriously deluded if you think my main goal in life is to serve as to serve in some sort of Bollywood directors protective unit. I am fully aware that many Bollywood films are utter rubbish and are directly copied from Hollywood films, you;d be suprised also by how many Hollywood film are utter rubbish and steal ideas from foreign films actually. I "know" that many Bollywood films are embarrasingly similar to Hollywood films but that doesn't mean it is necessary to list every one of them. Even one of the best western films A fistful of Dollars was stolen from Yojimbo. The question is why do you feel the need to list every film which you think might be copied based on your own suspicions and original research on a site like wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some fricking watchdog outlet. If you care so much about exposing the "dirty scoundrels" in Bollywood who steal ideas set up your own website or blog exposing them. This is wikipedia an encyclopedia not a forum for listing and discussin copied films. IN all honesty can you imagine any book on general knowledge listing a bunch of films which bear resemblance to others. Its pathetic evne pitiful given that your clear aim as stated on here is to expose copied films and "punish" film directors and screenwriters. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm..so I am seriously deluded? Doesn't that qualify as slander? About plagiarism, Hollywood does it too, so why can't Bollywood do it..is that your argument? How illogical is that? There are plenty of differences between wikipedia and a standard encyclopedia. If you wan't a standard encyclopedia, why not go to a library and borrow instead of trying to build one on the internet. The very basis of the Internet itself is to provide and openly exchange information without any fear or favour. What is wrong with putting a list of copied films? If you feel it is not justified to say that a certain film is copied, you are free in the great tradition of wikipedia to remove that entry from the list, but you on the other hand are hell bent on removing the entire list without leaving any trace evidence.

Pepe962 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Plagiarism is common in many film industries across the world, not just Bollywood. Films from pretty much most industries have been accused of copying plot ideas since early film. We are not here to pass moral judgements on whether it is right for Bollywood to do so or Hollywood to do so if you thought I was claming this I suggest you reread what I said, the fact is you felt it was necessary to start listing every single individual film in a table which you thought was copied which is not appropriate when there is no official way in which it can be put forward as fact, it is a subjective matter and films are likely to vary significantly in how much they are plagiarised. How exactly do you measure if a film is plagiarised. Sure many films have similar scenes and plot ideas boy meets girl, girls meets boy, disaster happens broken hearted some scenes may be very similar so this qualifies as plagiarism? Hundreds of Post grunge new rock bands churn out very similar sounding riffs and tunes, plagiarised? There are thousands of films in which you could claim are plagiarised but how exactly does this improve wikipedia? Yes it is true that we are not paper so our scope of covering articles is far greater. However this does not mean we are a trash can for everything and anything especially if articles are potentially libellous and could potentially affect the lives of living people. You have not given me one reason why you think lists of copied films are even remotely encyclopedic and why the average wikipedia user could give a monkeys about it. Your explanation is that these directors need to be exposed and we must not hide the truth. The paragraph in the main article more than clearly states that plagiarism is a major problem in Bollywood but to start assessing every film in a list with its own articles is completely inappropriate. Not only this but in individual film articles providing you give reliable references you can mention that the film was accused of plagiarism as it is in the right context to do so, hardly hiding it. There ar elikely 1000s of films which bear resemblance at varying degrees but who are you to assess exactly what is plagiarised or what is not? Wikipedia is here to expose existing knowledge not original research based on personal observations. Now I've had enough of discussing such a pointless topic as this. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1) If there are films from other films industries which are copied, they should be listed too. Why hide that information? Putting a list of copied films in not passing moral judgment, it is just providing information to whoever is interested. I agree, mentioning that a film is copied is a subjective matter and not objective, but there are plenty of such topics on wikipedia. I would go so far as to say that every topic on wikipedia can be assessed subjectively. Wikipedia is not a scientific paper. No mathematical proof can be provided that a film is copied, but does that mean we should stop providing this information?

2) Some topics are 'encyclopedic' while others are not? How do we define which ones are 'encyclopedic'? If only topics which can be found in an standard encyclopedia are 'encyclopedic' then wikipedia should be 10% of its size.

3)What about the lives of people whose original work was plagiarized? You seem unconcerned about their lives.

I am tired of this discussion too. I request Skier Dude to be fair and restore the Bollywood and Plagiarism page.

Pepe962 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? What a nice request! It was a good decision. We've had enough of your disruptive editing, Pepe. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Everything about Bollywood belongs in this page. And again, it is an encyclopedia, no lists of plagiarised films will be included. Everything should be written in prose where relevant. This is relevant in the pages which are plagiarised. Obviously if you cite sources.:) Other than that, a list of films is irrelevant, more so when it's unsourced and violates WP:NOR. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Its really not a case of which one of us is right. You're not seeing things from a wikipedia perspective. The article failed the article criteria on just about every score as Shahid explained to you and you have refusued to accept what more people have said than yourself as clearly shown in the editing history by your disruption to various people. Skier chose the course of action not because either of us felt a certain way but because of the problems having an unsourced list could potentially create and its history of disruption which from a neutral pount is very clear and if Skier hadn't of locked it any other admin such as Yellow Monkey etc would have. I couldn't care less about the side of the plagiariser or the one who has been "robbed", wikipedia is not here to be sympathetic to either view or side although if it is potentially libellous and speculative information is presented as "fact" then I take it very seriously. Please try to see this site from a different perspective rather than chasing your own beliefs that plagiarism is wrong and the culprits should be identifed, Its not what we are about, any good editor can see this. It basically sums it up in Wikipedia:No original research which your list was clearly guilty of and its not only a few of us, this is a widely accepted guidleine to what should be included on here. Several paragraphs could probably we written on it in the main article in prose providing it is well written, balanced and sources as a general evaluation of the problem itself not going into reeling off EVERY single film. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

aaah...my old friend Shahid is here. His hobby is to revert back everyone else's work quoting some WP:XYZ. He thinks it is not disruptive editing as long you correctly/incorrectly mention WP:XYZ. Both of you seem to be forgetting that the very spirit of wikipedia is collaborative working. This means extend/enhance/correct each other's work and not to remove complete pages of information or extensive work done by other people.

Hiding information is not in the spirit of wikipedia. There is no WP:XYZ for this.

Pepe962 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Extensive work? You have less than 20 edits in two years. Hardly extensive. Unless of course you count the many sock accounts you operate under all on one thing, Bollywood and plagiarism. Information exists on the annual sales of tampons in supermakrkets in the UK. Do we have specific articles realing of figures by year and which colours sell more? No. We choose not the have an article on it not because we hide information but because to normal people it has no encyclopedic value or relevance. Add to that a distinct lack of sources an reliable evidence to back up your claim and it makes your claims completely inappropriate. What part about no original research don't you get? Perhaps you ought to take a break and listen to some Hanson, good ole home boys from Tulsa eh? Actually MmmBop was similar to a British band's song in the early 1990s, does this mean we start listing all of Hanson's and plagiarised songs? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bollywood and Plagiarism page has been around and edited over several years. To get to its current form (before the page was deleted) involved collaboration by many people. The only 'contribution' from Shahid has been to blindly revert back changes as is his hobby as I mentioned previously.

I admit that I have been lazy to login before making some edits, but remember that wikipedia allows this. The allegation that I am a sock is a completely baseless attack on my character. I do not hold multiple user accounts.

Pepe962 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld, who are you spending your time on? Someone who pushes POV and OR? Someone who does not even understand the meaning of Wikipedia?

Are you sure you don't hold multiple accouts? LOL, you just wrote a message using another IP and changed your signature. Do you think we do not notice such things? Here is the proof!

Pepe, every mention of a film accused of being plagiarised belongs to the article about the film (of course, with sources). In the Bollywood article, we mention it in prose, we mention that Bollwood has been criticised for plagiarism, without mentioning specific films, unless they were specifically criticised or their producers were taken to court. Such lists are irrelevant, unencyclopedic, unnecessary.

And your belief that films don't have to be sourced is ridiculous and always makes me laugh. Here are some quotes of yours just to show you and others who unaware you are of Wikipedia's policy:

"It is not possible to find a newspaper report or website for every plagiarised film" (then it was not even accused of plagiarism!)

or "I am putting entries for films I have watched myself" (and why should we believe you?)

Pepe, please get serious. I'm sure you can contribute effectively in other fields. This has been discussed many a time and nothing will change this. End of discussion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Shahid, you adding 'End of Discussion' does not bind me or anyone else to end the discussion. Remember that you don't own wikipedia.

About the Inspector Closseau like proof you provided is simply to a fact I just admitted in the previous paragraph, which is that I sometime am too lazy or forget to log on. I have never denied that. What I am denying is to the allegation that I am a sock or that I hold multiple accounts. Got any proof of this?

I hope Skier Dude or any other Admin of wikipedia will read this entire discussion and take the appropriate decision.

Pepe962 (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The argument for Neutrality Re-examined:

It has been argued here that putting up a list of copied films does not meet neutrality requirements of wikipedia.

Jesus is considered a God by many people - Is this a neutral statement? It is factually correct. It does not provide any opinions one way or the other.

The Bollywood film Criminal is considered to be a copy of the hollywood film The Fugitive by many people - Is this a neutral statement? How is this statement different from the previous statement?

If a well known fact offends some people, should it be considered as Not neutral?

The lack of sources argument Re-examined:

It has been argued here that there is no way to verify that a film is a copy of another film, hence it is only opinion of the individuals editing the page. I would like to make 3 points in response to this. 1) How is it opinion to make a factually correct statement like The Bollywood film Criminal is considered to be a copy of the hollywood film The Fugitive by many people?

2) If there is a WP:XYZ which quotes that EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE on wikipedia has to be sourced, I'd like to see it. It defeats the very purpose of wikipedia which is to compile the information in a collaborative manner from internet users. Why repeat the information which is in other places?

3) If you go to each of the individual wiki pages of some of the copied films, you will find that users have mentioned the Hollywood films they are copied from. If it can be mentioned here, why not in a list?

How do we control it when people make false allegations about movies being copied? Just like we control everything else on wikipedia - by collaborative editing.

The libel argument Re-examined:

It has been argued that listing films which are copied is libellous. Libel is when you make a false statement to harm another individual. Is it libel to say that The LTTE is considered a terrorist organization by several countries? This is a factually correct statement and is in no way considered as libel. So why is it libel when we say The Bollywood film Criminal is considered to be a copy of the hollywood film The Fugitive by many people?

Based on the rebuttal I presented above for the incorrect arguments made to deleting the Bollywood and Plagiarism page, I request the Administrators again that this page be re-opened. Pepe962 (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have one answer to you. Such pages and lists are unencyclopedic! You just don't get it. Info about a film being plagiarised belongs to the article about the film (with sources obviously). The issue itself belongs to the article about Bollywood, and must be discussed in prose. And your claim that no sources needed is ridiculous. Long message with no substance. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done Shahid. Laughable..is that your only response to the points I made? Sounds like you don't have any points in response.

The 'Unencyclopedic' argument Re-examined:

It has been argued that putting a list of copied films is Unencyclopedic. So what exactly does Unencyclopedic really mean? Open any dictionary and there is NO SUCH WORD.

If anything that is not in a Encyclopedia in Unencyclopedic then probably 90% of wikipedia is Unencyclopedic since it contains information not found in a standard encyclopedia.

One of the examples given here by a user was that the yearly sales figures of tampons in a region is Unencyclopedic. Does that imply Unencyclopedic means Irrelevant? Lets re-examine the Bollywood and Plagiarism page with this 'standard'. The page has been updated by several users over several years. It is a topic of active interest and can hardly be considered irrelevant.

Moreover, why such an urgency to go behind it and delete a topic which no one is supposedly interested in?

Pepe962 (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's another proof that you are not a Wikipedia editor and know nothing about the way it works. Unencyclopedic is a word used in Wikipedia itself, and this list is unencyclopedic for reasons I explained above and in many previous discussions. Your argument above is not impressive, does not make sense and does not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, that's why it's laughable. Your user page itself says you're here to highlight your POV. See WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:N. Maybe you'll learn something. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So you admit 'Unencyclopedic' is a word used only on wikipedia. Its ironic (and laughable) that the person who likes to harp on providing sources is using a non existent word to win an debate.

Pepe962 (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's a word used on Wikipedia, and considering policies and guidelines, which you are apparently unaware of, this page was like that. I don't wanna win any debate, there's nothing to win. It's been discussed many times and is now closed. Your arguments go against policies, don't make sense, even if you highlight them in green (LOL) and think they make you look intelligent, when you actually know nothing about Wikipedia and the way it works... Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets see about that. This topic is still open to discussion, even if you wish it were not. Pepe962 (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're wasting your time as noone is going to revert Skier's changes. Just drop it and do something useful with your time. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Skier can revert his own changes if he is convinced. I am hoping he will be.

Pepe962 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you're also wasting your time because your arguments are not convincing (they're practically the oppsite), and do not adhere to policies. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do Shahid and Dr Blofeld keep trying to convince me to give up? I wan't to know Skier's response to the points I made in green above.Pepe962 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not convinced; the basic issues of WP:BLP (allegations of plagiarism, the libel) have not been addressed. Also, any admin is able to revert the page protection if he/she feels it's warranted, doesn't have to be me. In addition, as raised above, the issues of WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:N have yet to be fully addressed. Skier Dude (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Pepe962 seems to be confused that the pages were deleted (see my talk page) - to clarify, the three articles (which are all now redirects) were only page-protected - nothing was deleted. The page histories, etc. are all still intact & viewable (I believe that the page histories are viewable by all, I don't have a non-admin account to check this, so correct me if I'm wrong on that). Skier Dude (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Portmanteau

This word does not need to be in both the intro paragraph and the etymology section, it is redundant. It needs to be removed from the intro for it is not a vital part of the subject. Drinkybird (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a vital part of the subject. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the word vital enough it needs to be in the intro and the etymology section? And it is linked in both places. I think using the word makes the article less readable. Drinkybird (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are other improvements needed

There are a number of other matters that need to be included and cross referenced to other wikipedia articles. Blocking the editing of the article is impeding such efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.201.107 (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem then? Create an account. This article is heavily vandalised when it's not protected, any attepts to unprotect it in the past have not helped. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hindi spelling

Why is it spelled बॉलीवूड in the introductory sentence? Isn't it pronounced बॉलीवुड? GSMR (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No comment for a week... fixed myself. GSMR (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Plag.

The user who's been known for editing Wiki for only one reason is back and he adds some court case to the section about Fox suing BR Films. For that matter, it is unnecessary and irrelevant in the Bollywood page. It is relevant in the film's page, not here. The plagiarism section is here to show the matter, not to list incidents associated with it. This section is not a list - two examples are sufficiently fine to discuss the matter and show the criticism Bollywood has faced. Adding another one adds no value at all. WP:IINFO and WP:UNDUE show that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1) I edit Wikipedia for only one reason? Kindly click on my contribution history. Disregarding the WP:EW which you similarly got taken to task for in mid feb this year, I'm barely even involved. Its a good thing that Wikipedia tracks these stuff, or else you'd be making a fool out of the other editors. Shame on you. 2) AS mentioned, that last entry was listed as significant because it is the 1st of its case EVER, and the only one so far, not the least the article mention that it could be a catalyst for other such legal actions in the future. I do welcome any corrections on that. Do cite the necessary references when you do so. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So what if it's the first? What value does it add? How does it improve the understanding of the matter? We want to show that Bollywood has been criticised for many films which remade others' works without legal authority. Out aim is not to list all the evidences. Whether it's the first of its case or not is not relevant here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not just any case. Its a Landmark_case and sets a Precedent, affecting how such incidents are dealt with in the future. Is it really that hard to understand the significance of it? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not to move the page, per the discussion below. A decision on whether or not to split the article is outside the scope of RM and can be discussed separately, although any article split from this one must avoid becoming a fork. Dekimasuよ! 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Bollywood → Hindi Cinema —

The name bollywood does no justice to Hindi Cinema. Even American movie industry's name is not hollywood check Cinema of the United States. What is the rationale of keeping the name bollywood. Specially when the city is not anymore named Bombay? I was trying to rename it to Hindi Cinema which is much more appropriate, but it got misspelled as Hindi Cinena and would not rename to Hindi Cinema, so I had to change it to Hindi Movie Industry. Bollywood in no way is a justified name. Why dont you rename the Indian people name to Curries just because thats the name for them popular in Australia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihits (talk • contribs) 08:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please rename it to Hindi Cinema? I renamed it but some dude started threatening me to remove my account Nihits (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know when was the term bollywood first used? maybe in late 80s or early 90s, and no one called it that until its 50 years of history before that.. Its shameful a bunch of wannabe-cools can change the history and name of an industry which has given so much to art. Nihits (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Split a more specific article on Bollywood should exist. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. Improve the already existing article of Cinema of India if you want, but keep Bollywood where it is. Don't create a 'Hindi Cinema'-article. Notice that there is an article Cinema of the United States and another article about Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. Your proposal to "rename the Indian people name to Curries just because thats the name for them popular in Australia" is worthy of serious consideration :). Flamarande (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood is actually a place in United States, whereas there is no place called Bollywood in Mumbai. Unless some wannabees want to ape everything and start naming certain place in Mumbai that way. 76.102.154.233 (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is a specific article on Hindi cinema. A quick look at the infobox will tell you that there are many divisions of cinema in India, and the films made in Mumbai is only one of them. After the move, Bollywood will redirect to this article, which it should (making an article just about Bollywood would relegate it to simply a dictionary entry), and as you can see from the article, it is properly known as Hindi cinema, and not Bollywood. Thanks for pointing out the error in the naming of this article. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Split (strong opinion). Bollywood is a recent term. Golden Age, History and some other sections are from the era where it was simply known as Hindi cinema. Hence, Hindi cinema should be the page where most of this content should be. A separate entry for Bollywood with references to Hindi cinema and content in the Bollywood page in line with the history of when this term came into use would be the correct way to present the information here. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Google gives 51,300,000 hits for "Bollywood" as compared to 273,000 for "Hindi Cinema" which indicates that the popularity of the term "Bollywood" vastly outnumbers that of "Hindi cinema". Just take a look at the film-based programs on TV. You will see "Bollywood khabrein" not "Hindi cinema jagat khabrein" Bollywood defines a genre in itself that encompasses all commercial Hindi films, regardless of whether they are made in Mumbai or not. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I believe Bollywood has been coined recently. Probably in last 20 years. Hindi Cinema has been around for nearly 100. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

google hits is no measure of what is right. anyway google hits show the only very recent things, which may not be correct. Does anyone in India say lets see a bollywood movie? or lets see a hindi movie? 76.102.154.233 (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Split per VasuVR.--Nero the second (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Policy requires us to use the most common English-language name of the subject of the article (which, in the present case, appears to be the Hindi film industry based in Mumbai). A search engine test on Google gives Bollywood 48.2 million hits, as opposed to Hindi Cinema which gets just 256,000. Similar results for searches on Google Books (Bollywood 1533, Hindi Cinema 650); Scholar (8630, 1090); and News (9378, 108) speak for themselves. Bollywood by far seems the most common, well-known name of the industry and should remain the title of the article. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - since Bollywood has been coined recently (probably in last 20 years) and this is the age of internet, there is going to be such a skewed count. Hindi Cinema has been around for nearly 100 and we did not have internet in those days. Golden age of Bollywood does not make sense unless you have documented proof that Bollywood was the primary term used in that period. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By that logic , we should be refering to Hindus and Muslims as "Hindoos" and "Mahomedans" on Wikipedia because those terms have been in use longer than the one we use today. Or the articles about Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata should refer to those cities by their older names which have been in official use for a longer period of time. It doesn't matter when how long a name has been in use(b.t.w the article states that it has been in use for nearly 4 decades now, not 20 years). If it is widespread then Wikipedia uses the new name . The "skewed count" on the internet is only a reflection of the "skewed count in real life". Anyway a difference of 51 million hits is hardly "skewed" by any definition. It is a clear reflection of the popularity of the term "Bollywood" over "Hindi cinema"--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear VasuVR, hello! From what I see, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of Bollywood. Split what? Bollywood is an alternative--and the most popular name--given to the Hindi film industry (or call it Hindi cinema). No two articles can be created here. It's either Hindi cinema as a redirect of Bollywood or vice versa. There should be one article mentioning both terms in either situation, as both refer to the same film industry. Therefore I strongly disagree with you about the split. You it all in this article - the history of the term and its use, and the history of the industry itself. How to name the article is the real problem here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per SBC-YPR. Jeni ^(talk) 01:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Those terms are not much different from their other spelling, Mohammedans has never really been that popular among muslims themselves. The term bollywood was coined by a bunch of wannabe magzines. Its a nickname at best. Its like calling cricketer Sachin Tendulkar as tendlya or whatever, is someone going to rename the article with that? 76.102.154.233 (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose While the term originated due to the presence of the studios in Bombay, Bollywood refers to all Hindi cinema today. It is the common name, as shown by SBC-YPR and Deepak. -SpacemanSpiff 02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By that logic it should be called Mullywood cuz Bombay is currently named Mumbai. 76.102.154.233 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wisecracks are better left without here. The term Bollywood is from the time it was originated at - it's not conducted by rules. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per SBC-YPR. Hindi cinema should redirect to Bollywood. I don't think there are any significant Hindi films made outside Bollywood.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Bollywood is simply the most common name. Copana2002 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dwaipayanc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New edits

User:Bigsuperindia keeps adding irrelevant information to the lead in violation of WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. He keeps edit warring and his last edits are laughable. "Today Bollywood has become very popular in American and world" is not only a badly written line but is also inappropriate in the lead right after the term's definition. The source also does not explicitly support what the line claims. How come it came in the middle of nowhere here in the lead when entire sections describe its growth in the rest of the world? Why America? Why today? It's been so for years! And again, what is the relevance of this line in the very first paragraph of the lead?

What makes me think even more is the claim that Bollywood is known as the "Hollywood of Mumbai" (also cited by the user in the lead). Now how exactly does this sentence make sense when we all know that the term is derived from Bollywood and Bobmbay. And since when has this been a common title used to refer to this film industry? Where are more sources? And then again, what is the relevance of this line right in the lead? Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

information added is from verifiable sources. "Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and its very first emphasis is WP:VERIFIABLE is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" which means the emphasis is always on the editor adding new material to make sure it is verifiable." Information is from government of USA which is one of the most reliable sources check here. Destroying verifiable information is against wikipedia policies. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

one of the emphasis of WP:LEAD is "The lead must conform to verifiability" Wikipedia:Verifiability. And it looks like you are not only trying to destroy verifiable information from reliable source but also defaming the global prospect of Indian Hindi Film Industry. It is good practice to bring true fact of importance to lead. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The content has to be relevant to the article, not just verifiable. "Today Bollywood has become very popular in American [sic] and world" is not something that is relevant in the lead which should be a summary of content included in the article. In addition, this is verifiable as the opinion of one writer, who has said that the popularity is rising. That's misrepresentation of what the source says, and of course there's the other problem of not attributing an opinion to the person who holds it. Finally, just adding disjointed statements from multiple sources doesn't enhance the article. I was going to remove the content myself when I saw it pop up on my watch list, but completely forgot to do it. I will be editing the current version to remove it. -SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

so you want to say that Bollywood has not become very popular in American. I wonder how anti-Hindustani you guys are. may god bless you all. I know everyone will fall into oblivion. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry for my previous statement. Looks like you guys are trying to make it a featured article. I apologizes. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Urdu Films

Information

The following discussion pertains to the inclusion or removal of scripts in Bollywood-related film articles. This issue was discussed before in a poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3. Any comments regarding this issue would be highly appreciated. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion & Comments

since several notable films have been created with heavy urdu in use. It can be said that Bollywood also represents Urdu films of India.--Bigsuperindia (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Urdu script was on the lead in the past. I will restore it. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Urdu script does not belong there. The issue has been going from talk to talk constantly and no consensus was ever reached. This was quite a controversial topic for many, and one determined decision has not been reached. But one thing is clear: Bollywood is the Hindi film industry. Period. See books, newspapers and other sources - they all say what the meaning of Bollywood is and what languages its films are spoken in. The use of Urdu is frequent, but minor and occasional, just like the use of Punjabi, English etc. Its use is primarily in song lyrics and titles (that's why back in time film titles were presented in both Hindi and Urdu. Not today, BTW). If you want to prove otherwise, please cite very reliable sources and many (preferably books and newspapers), not old discussions which were never closed and which died a premature death. From a broad check that I made, many editors opposed to adding Urdu scripts. I'm one of them. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

for you kind information, if you do not know what hindi and urdu is, urdu is a sister of hindi. please consider reading an article on urdu 1st. and one note about ownership of the article. consider it as an open wikipedia.--Bigsuperindia (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

i'm curious if there is any urdu movie made in INDIA. I think there is no film as such and no director is gonna endorse urdu. Hindi is what indians speak. Hindi is much more bigger than any other language except english. cheers --Onef9day (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Sholayposter2.jpg

A typical Bollywood film poster, from the movie, Sholay, showing both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts. Presented by Anupam^Talk 23:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you cannot unilaterally make a decision to remove Urdu scripts. The issue was discussed at length in the past here, among other places, and it was decided that Urdu scripts etc. are indeed relevant in Bollywood film articles. The concluding comment of that discussion was "It appears that there's a pretty good consensus to leave Urdu script in the opening here," and this comment was made by someone external to the discussion. It is helpful to understand the relationship between Hindi-Urdu and Bollywood when dealing with this subject area. 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 yourself: Image:Awaaraposter.jpg, Image:Waqt 1965 film poster.JPG, Image:Sholayposter2.jpg, Image:Padosan film poster.jpg, etc. The language of Bollywood movies can be called both Hindi or Urdu. Perhaps the A Little About Language section in this article will give some insight on the entire situation. Please also see this article, which also addresses the usage of both Hindi and Urdu scripts in Bollywood film articles. If you do not like the current policy, you are welcome to rehash the issue in a discussion. However, you cannot go against the current legislation. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

While reading your reply there is one word which pops up in my mind - "SO?!". The rather ancient discussion you cite clearly does not show consensus (in which you BTW said the same thing and cited two completely unreliable sources) and was followed by many other discussions throughout the years, this one included (and even here you see oppositions). Showing OLD movies which used such scripts does not help. Most of the movies made today do not use Urdu scripts, and even if they did, Bollywood is the other name for Hindi Cinema, Bollywood films are in Hindi, and the script should concur with that. As said, the use of Urdu is frequent, but minor and occasional, just like the use of Punjabi, English etc. Before you add an Urdu script to any HINDI movie or here, you will have to cite sources that this is an Urdu movie. I will end up by requesting again: if you want to prove otherwise, please cite very reliable sources and many (preferably books and newspapers), not old discussions which were never closed and which died a premature death. From a broad check that I made, many editors opposed to adding Urdu scripts. I'm one of them. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be an editor that opposes them but most of the individuals who participated in the series of discussions supported the inclusion of Urdu scripts. And yes, if you watch any new Bollyood movies, they will also render the name the Urdu script. Watch the beginning of the movie Lagaan, for example. If you wish to remove Urdu scripts from Bollywood articles, you must establish a consensus to do so first. Until now, the consensus has been to keep the Urdu scripts. You alone cannot make that decision on your own to delete them. I have found scholarly articles which even state that "Bombay became the centre of Hindi-Urdu film" (source 1). Another scholarly source 2 states the following:

“ Hindi films continued to be made in Hindustani and many prominent Urdu poets worked as lyricists within the Bombay film industry. It is hard to imagine the film songs or dialogues without the vocabulary, metaphors, and idioms derived from Urdu language and literature. ”

'Chidananda Dasgupta, the seniormost and most scholastic film critic in the country states that "The 'Hindi' film is a misnomer. "The language in most of the productions grouped under this rubric is Hindustani, with a bias towards Urdu." (source 3).' There are other scholarly sources which also state that the language of Bollywood can be called Urdu. Please allow a discussion and for other members of the Wikipedia community to voice their views before reverting. A new consensus must be established before an old one is disregarded. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who adds it - you are the one who has to gain consensus then, you are the one who claims that an industry known as Hindi cinema is in Urdu so YOU gain consensus first. No consensus was gained on any of the past discussions. On the contrary, many editors opposed to have these scripts, that's why they were thoroughly removed a year or so ago. As I said, even if films did use Urdu scripts in films, it would not make them eligible on Wikipedia's film articles. What you cite now are mostly sources which are not even close to being reputable and what do they say?! They perfectly support what I say and what I'm willing to repeat: The use of Urdu is frequent, but minor and occasional, just like the use of Punjabi, English etc. It is mainly used in songs and some words can be heard in certain films here and there, but Hindi cinema is Hindi cinema, and it was never and will never be officially named Hindustani or Hindi/Urdu cinema. Yes, there are films like Mughal-E-Azam, Umrao Jaan, Jodhaa Akbar in which you can find a more notable use of Urdu - but not in the common Hindi movie. You can see on IMDb that these films are also described as Hindi/Urdu, but every other Hindi film (take for instance Sholay), is in Hindi. You cite some inconsequential books and I can cite the book published by Encyclopedia Britannica - "Encyclopedia of Hindi cinema" which does not even mention the minor use of Urdu. Again, you now restore what you had added and what others removed a long time ago. Before you do it, gain consensus. Do not cite sources which prove nothing (they merely discuss the presence of Urdu) and old discussions which never reached that one word, consensus - prove that Urdu is the official language of Hindi cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you were the only one who aggressively attempted to remove the Urdu scripts from Bollywood articles. This article (and many other articles) had the script for a long period of time before you removed it. I am going to point you to the previous discussions which supported the inclusion of Urdu in Bollywood articles. For example, please see the previous poll, discussion 1, and discussion 2, and discussion 3. In the first poll, there was a ratio of five to one in support of Hindi and Urdu versus Hindi. In the first discussion, User:Zora, who was actively involved in maintaining Indian film articles stated that there "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 notice, the one editor who opposed the inclusion of Urdu scripts in Bollywood articles, is now banned. Please gain a new consensus to remove the Urdu script before reverting. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You cite three discussions and there is no consensus on any of them. These discussions happened in 2006. I for one was not there and I'm sure many now will oppose to it. The standard of Wikipedia has changed since then. There is more emphasis on sourcing and broad numbers of opinions. Please stop relying on old discussions and trying to avoid the burden of evidence, which is now on you. I did not remove the script back then, but you are the one who adds it now. You also ignored my entire previous message and did not answer any of the questions, so I'll quote myself again:

"They perfectly support what I say and what I'm willing to repeat: The use of Urdu is frequent, but minor and occasional, just like the use of Punjabi, English etc. It is mainly used in songs and some words can be heard in certain films here and there, but Hindi cinema is Hindi cinema, and it was never and will never be officially named Hindustani or Hindi/Urdu cinema. Yes, there are films like Mughal-E-Azam, Umrao Jaan, Jodhaa Akbar in which you can find a more notable use of Urdu - but not in the common Hindi movie. You can see on IMDb that these films are also described as Hindi/Urdu, but every other Hindi film (take for instance Sholay), is in Hindi. You cite some inconsequential books and I can cite the book published by Encyclopedia Britannica - "Encyclopedia of Hindi cinema" which does not even mention the minor use of Urdu. Again, you now restore what you had added and what others removed a long time ago. Before you do it, gain consensus. Do not cite sources which prove nothing (they merely discuss the presence of Urdu) and old discussions which never reached that one word, consensus - prove that Urdu is the official language of Hindi cinema."

Please explain why Encyclopedia Britannica's book on Hindi cinema does not even mention the minor use of Urdu, please explain why Bollywood is officially called Hindi cinema and not Urdu cinema, and please cite sources that Hindi cinema is actually officially called Urdu or Hindustani cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, there are many other sources that discuss the use of Urdu in Bollywood movies. Source 1, which is from an authoritative book titled Cinema India stated that "Bombay became the centre of Hindi-Urdu film." A new reference 4 I found, which is from the journal "South Asian Language Review" states that "At the level of the colloquial language that is spoken spontaneously or is heard in Bollywood movies, Hindi and Urdu are virtually identical languages." Please revert the removal and allow others to voice their opinion before making a unilateral decision. Moreover, it was you who unilaterally decided to remove the Urdu script from the Bollywood article with the edit summary: "There were far too man discussions regarding this recently. Start a new one if you want. As of now, the fact is that Bollywood is the Hindi film industry" on 22:51, 18 December 2008. Until, 17:55, 18 December 2008, the Urdu script was give in the article per the previous discussions which I provided links for above. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not the one who originally removed it. Another user did it and was instantly reverted by you (how surprising). The fact is that there was never a clear consensus that Urdu scripts should be there. There was also a long discussion out of the Bollywood article in which most editors agreed that Urdu scripts should not appear in the lead. Even then, it's been over a year since December 2008. No one ever touched it until you came (how surprising). It clearly shows that you are trying to enforce your views on others. Re-adding the script after over a year is like starting the issua anew. Now the burden of evidence is again on you. Please prove that Hindi cinema is Urdu cinema. Stop removing the fact that Hindi cinema is the official name of Bollywood, which is sourced. As for the sources you cite, they do not prove it. Saying that Urdu and Hindi are identical only goes against you because it only shows that you are mistaken, and it's got nothing to do with Hindi films.

Encyclopedia Britannice has a short article on Bollywood? Are you kidding? I'm talking about the book "Encyclopedia of Hindi cinema" which has over 1000 pages and which is the most reputable source for Hindi cinema ever. If you have not heard about it, so it's a problem, but not mine. Your sources, again, prove nothing. I ask for a source which stated that Hindi cinema is officially Hindustani cinema. Please prove that Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge is an Urdu film, that Mother India is an Urdu film, that Sholay is an Urdu film. Don't rely too much on old discussions and repetitive sources which do not even discuss the point matter-of-factly. Hindi cinema is Hindi cinema; the use of Urdu words is as common as the use of English and Punjabi, and it's mainly in songs and poetic dialogues. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Hindi cinema, ridiculous over addition of multiple scripts isn't helpful. Of course there are some Urdu movies made there, as are Marathi films etc etc. The primary industry is Hindi cinema, not Urdu, not Hindustani. -SpacemanSpiff 22:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have been asked by Anupam to comment on this discussion. I've read through all of the comments and I think that both Shahid and Anupam make valid and fair points. I will say here that I am neutral on this topic and so am not motivated by a personal belief in either direction. There are a few points to add. I suppose the first would that I do agree that Bollywood is referred to as a Hindi film industry. At the same time, Hindi and Urdu share so much that in some universities and colleges for example, the classes taught are "Hindi-Urdu" -- for example:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/asia/program_hindi-urdu.html

I did a basic google search and also came up with another university website that linked Hindi-Urdu and Bollywood cinema:

http://www.asu.edu/clas/dll/hin/docs/Why_Study_Hindi-Urdu.pdf

These coupled with some of the references given above indicate to me at least that this is an open debate and issue. Hindi films quite often contain Urdu and English. An argument in the other direction would be that - depending upon the topic - they also may contain Punjabi, Gujurati and so forth. I suppose the counterargument against this point would be that they do not unilaterally contain other languages but almost always do have some Urdu and English. Since this is the case, it makes sense to have three titles, one in Hindi, one in Urdu, and one in English. That being said, again, I am neutral on this topic. Hope that helps, -Classicfilms (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Classicfilms. I would also like to make mention of the fact that a good amount of the film titles of Bollywood are in Urdu, not Hindi. For example, the new movie Kurbaan, is the Urdu word for sacrifice. The word itself is derived from the Middle East which is evinced by the its first Semitic language letter qāf क़ ق, which is not native to Indo-Aryan phonology. On the other hand, the standard Hindi word for sacrifice प्रभुभोज (prabhubhōj), which is Sanskrit/Prakit dervied, is almost never used in Bollywood films. A reputable reference I provided states that central concepts in Bollywood films are from "Urdu's Persian and Arabic derived vocabulary." In light of these facts, it is evident that Urdu scripts should remain in Bollywood related articles. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

One of User:Classicfilms's references from Arizona State University discussed how watching Bollywood films was an integral part of the course syllabus for learning Urdu. I feel that this buttresses the point of view that Urdu scripts should be included in Bollywood related articles. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

CF, thank you for the comment. I think something is clear, yes Hindi and Urdu are similar languages but as you said, it is still the Hindi-language film industry. The use of Urdu is very minor in Hindi movies and is as frequent as the use of English and Punjabi. We do present this fairly in the lead mentioning both the use of Urdu and English but it doesn't make the Hindi film industry the Urdu one or the English one.

To Anupam, are you kidding? Someone from "Arizona State University discussed how watching Bollywood films was a part of the course syllabus for learning Urdu." and for you it is a reason to conclude that the Hindi film indutry is in Urdu and that the scripts are in place? The use of Urdu is very minor in Hindi movies and is as frequent as the use of English and Punjabi. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, my purpose is not to prove what you are asserting. I simply feel it is a good idea to include Hindi and Urdu scripts in Bollywood related articles as was decided in previous discussions given in the poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3. Also can you please provide a source which states your assertion that the "use of Urdu is very minor in Hindi movies and is as frequent as the use of English and Punjabi." The scholarly reference I used above stated that "Urdu's Persian and Arabic derived vocabulary" are what make up the central concepts of Bollywood films. Thanks in advance. I really appreciate it. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not come up again with your usual mantra "the poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3" because there is no consensus on any of them. I'm not the one who has to prove that the use of Urdu is minor. Onus is on you to prove that it is wrong to call it the Hindi-language film industry and that it is actually and officially the Hindi-Urdu film industry. So far, literary sources, books newspapers and other reputable sources (other than your so-called scholary researches) have used the term Hindi Cinema for this industry, and not Hindustani cinema. What Hindi language is originated from is not relevant in an article about Hindi films.

Your sources only keep supporting what I say, such as the one which says "...metaphors, and idioms derived from Urdu language". It is followed by a list of words which are used in Hindi films and only shows that it is just common to have some words here and there in songs and dialogues but it still remains a minor use. The book itself is called "Bollywood: a guidebook to popular Hindi cinema". Even your book Cinema India says "Cinema India: the visual culture of Hindi film" and not Hindustani film.

The Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema does not even mention Urdu as a primary language. A book called "A Cinematic Imagination" says "The extent of Urdu used in commercial Hindi cinema has not been stable". It further says "The fact is, for the most part popular Hindi cinema has forsaken the florid Urdu". The book keeps calling the film industry Hindi cinema and clearly says that there is a use of only some words in Urdu which has also been disappearing slowly.

To sum it up, all the books cited, whether by you or by me, call the industry "Hindi cinema" and they mention the use of Urdu in Hindi films, they do not say that Bollywood is the Hindustani film industry or the Hindi-Urdu film-industry, they just discuss the use of Urdu words, which is occasional and minor. As much as there is Urdu, there is also English which is often used in film titles and songs and dialogues. It does not make the Hindi film industry the English one, neither should it make it the Urdu one because there is a minor use of Urdu words here and there. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never managed to convince myself the usefulness of non-English scripts in English wikipedia. --CarTick 01:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Same here. All it leads to is lingo-wars. But frankly Bollywood movies are never referred to as Urdu films; they are always refered to as Hindi films; although IMHO, it would be more correct to say that they are Hindustani films(that term is never used). The amount of Urdu varies depending on the situation, mostly in songs based on the tune you will use an equivalent word(pyar v/s mohabbat). You will almost never hear the word "anumati" , it is always "ijazat". There are Urdu films made in India,and not made in Bolywood. They are mostly made with Muslim themes and characters and if my guess is correct, are targetted at the Muslim population in the north and not exactly a pan-Indian audience in mind. So Bollywood is largely synonymous with "Hindi" films. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Can you answer then, why many Official Bollywood Film Posters display both the Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) script such as these examples: Image:Awaaraposter.jpg, Image:Waqt 1965 film poster.JPG, Image:Sholayposter2.jpg, Image:Padosan film poster.jpg. Don't you think that if Bollywood posters show both scripts, Wikipedia should do the same? Also Deepak Ji, I am not arguing whether Bollywood is referred to Hindi Cinema or Urdu Cinema; I am simply saying that both Devanagari & Perso-Arabic scripts should appear in the lead of film articles. I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean displayed in the past? They no longer do. You cite posters from the 1950s-1970s which are not relevant today. And even if they did, to answer your question, Wikipedia is not a film, it is an encyclopedia, and we do not emulate films and do not care for producers' considerations (and by the way, nowadays Urdu scipts are not used). Hindi cinema is Hindi cinema. The minor use (why it's minor is explained in my previous large message which you ignored) of Urdu does not make it Urdu cinema just like the minor use of English does not make it English cinema (it is the English Wikipedia which is an altogether different issue). This use is mentioned fairly in the lead. I repeat, it is the Hindi-language film industry. That's what it is and that's how it is officially referred to. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I am not disputing the fact that Bollywood is often referred to as Hindi cinema. I do, however, think that film titles in Wikipedia should include both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts. Also, if you arguing that many Bollywood posters do not present the title in Urdu, it is also beacuse they do not do so in Hindi. Take a look, for example, at the poster of the movie Awarapan. It only gives the Roman script. Moreover, Bollywood movies themselves present their movie titles in the Roman script, Hindi (Devanagari), and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) in the introduction of their movies. Watch the introduction of a new typical Bollywood film by clicking here for verification. Since Bollywood officially uses both the Hindi and Urdu scripts in many of its posters and in the introduction if its films, Wikipedia should render both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts in Bollywood film articles. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Bollywood is not "often referred to as Hindi cinema", it is the Hindi-language film industry and is officially called Hindi cinema. Almost every title nowadays uses only a Roman script. Why is the link you have given called "a new typical movie"? Why not more recent movies like Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna? Or Rang De Basanti? Your argument is vague and unclear. I will repeat for the Nth time, the minor use (why it's minor is explained in my previous large messages which you ignored) of Urdu does not make it Urdu cinema just like the minor use of English does not make it English cinema. This use is mentioned fairly in the lead and there is no reason to have an unrelated Urdu script for Hindi films. It is the Hindi-language film industry. That's what it is and that's how it is officially referred to and that's how the scripts should go. We are not here to load pages with scripts which are not relevant just because one user thinks they should be included. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The association of Urdu and Bollywood is not a minor one as evidenced by my scholarly sources, quotations, and links to actual Bollywood films shown above. I have never seen any other scripts besides Hindi (Devanagari) or Urdu (Perso-Arabic) used in Bollywood film titles. Why is there never Punjabi (Gurmukhi) or Bengali (Eastern Nagari)? The fact that many film posters show Urdu scripts in their leads makes for a good argument to use both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts in Bollywood film articles. Leaving them there is not hurting anything. And also, I am not the only indivual who thinks so. Most other individuals in the previous consensuses agreed that both scripts should be given (please refer to poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3). With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, clearly not, these discussions did not have consensus and much has changed on WP since 2006, so mentioning them all over again every time you have nothing new to say is not a valid point. And the use of Urdu is minor according to the books I cited above and my long explanations, such as the biggest book ever made on Hindi cinema, Encyclopedia Britannica's "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema". As always you ignored most of what I wrote and ignored the video links I provided in which Urdu does not appear. Even if all the films had Urdu scripts, it would not be relevant on Wikipedia, because, as I said, Wikipedia is not a film, it is an encyclopedia. And this is an encyclopedia article about the Hindi-language film industry, officially called Hindi cinema. Producers' past considerations to include such scripts from time to time' were mainly in order to get a wider audience in India, and it is not relevant here, on the English Wikipedia. The minor use of Urdu in Hindi films, mainly used in poetic dialogues and film songs and some titles, is mentioned (and even the books you and I cited agree that it is minor, and it is explained in the quatations I provided here as well). Encyclopedia Britannica's Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema and all the books I cited are thousand times more reliable than your "scholarly sources", with all due respect. It is an article about Hindi cinema. We are not here to load pages with irrelevant scripts which do not even add value in any way to the movies and the articles. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Also note that this so-colled poll you have cited million times was declared as dead on this very talk page (see here). Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• As I mentioned before Bollywood is Hindi cinema. In Chennai, posters have Tamil titles in addition to Hindi, so that's a bad yardstick for what languages to use. If there are some movies that have significant Urdu usage and that is in and of itself a significant element of the movie, then the Urdu script should be added to the relevant movie article. Marketing gimmicks etc should not define how Wikipedia articles are written. It is incumbent upon whoever wants to add these extra scripts to show that those scripts add value to the article(s) in question. -SpacemanSpiff 20:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure why movie posters are being discussed here, instead of simply focusing on what reliable sources say on the topic of language of Bollywood movies. If one looks at sources one finds many that discuss the use of Hindi-Urdu-Hindustani in Bollywood movies, and some that point out how calling the industry "Hindi" cinema (or even, Bollywood, for that matter) is inaccurate and a convenient misnomer. Some relevant sources:
  1. Desai, Jigna, Dudrah, Rajinder, Rai, Amit, Bollywood Audiences Editorial, South Asian Popular Culture; Oct2005, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p79-82, ("Bollywood is (commonly and more importantly) inaccurately referred to simply as ‘Hindi’ cinema despite the ubiquitous presence of Urdu. One could argue that Urdu is the meta-language of romantic love in film culture. However, English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu.")
  2. Ganti, Tejaswani, Bollywood: a guidebook to popular Hindi cinema, Routledge, 2004
  3. Warsi, M.J, Heritage Language Teaching: Issues Regarding Hindi-Urdu in the United States, South-Asian Language Review, Vol. 8, January-June, 2003
  4. Rachel Dwyer, Divia Patel , Cinema India: the visual culture of Hindi film, Rutgers University Press, 2002 ("Bombay became the centre of Hindi-Urdu film after the coming of sound after 1931. ... However, once Hindi was promoted as the national language of India and the Bombay film industry came to be seen as the national film industry, the language of its cinema came to be somewhat inaccurately called Hindi")
  5. Kesavan, Mukul, Awadh and the Tawaif, the Islamicate Roots of Hindi Cinema, in Forging Identities: Gender, Communities, and the State , Zoya Hasan (ed), Westview Press, 1994.
  6. Mishra, Vijay, Bollywood cinema: temples of desire, Routledge, 2002
  7. Virdi, Jyotika, The cinematic imagiNation (sic): Indian popular films as social history, Rutgers University Press, 2003.
  8. Mehta, Rini Bhattacharya, Pandharipande, Rajeshwari, Bollywood and Globalization: Indian Popular Cinema, Nation, and Diaspora, Anthem Press, 2010
  9. Prasad, Madhava, This thing called Bollywood, Unsettling cinema: a symposium on the place of cinema in India, May 2003
  10. Alter, Stephen, Fantasies of a Bollywood love thief: inside the world of Indian moviemaking, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007 ("Though Bollywood movies are known as Hindi films, the root language is actually Hindustani, a dialect that has gone out of favour because of Sanskritisation.")
  11. Prasad, Madhava, Ideology of the Hindi film: a historical construction, Oxford University Press, 1998
  12. Anandam P. Kavoori, Aswin Punathambekar, Global Hollywood, NYU Press, 2008
  13. Philip Lutgendorf, Is There an Indian Way of Filmmaking? International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Dec., 2006), pp. 227-256 ("With the coming of sound, Persianized Hindi/Urdu with its strong literary and romantic associations became the dominant language of Bombay cinema")

As the above sources show the topic of Urdu-Hindustani use and influence is certainly worth addressing in the article, when discussing Bollywood history, influences, dialogues and songs. That said, the issue of including Bollywood spelled in Nastaliq script in the lede is simply a distraction, since that hardly helps the reader gain any understanding of the complexity or nuance of the topic (by the way, I am fine with removing the Devanagari spelling too; neither scripts play a significant role in Bollywood movies, while the use of the languages is indeed a crucial element since talkies were introduced!). Instead of spending so much time on discussing a minor side issue, which makes no difference to a reader, it would be much better if we devoted the effort on incorporating encyclopedic material from the above (and other sources) into the body of the article. Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The use of Urdu can be discussed in the article, but the script is not relevant. But Bollywood was, is and will always be the Hindi-language film industry. "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema", published by Encyclopedia Britannica, does not even mention Urdu. A book called "A Cinematic Imagination" (which you have also cited) says "The extent of Urdu used in commercial Hindi cinema has not been stable". It further says "The fact is, for the most part popular Hindi cinema has forsaken the florid Urdu". It only supports the fact that Urdu is present, but not in a major way. It is just as present as English. There are some words of each language used mostly in film songs, titles and different Urdu words are used primarily in poetic dialogues (supported by this book, also cited by you). Your very first source supports this: "One could argue that Urdu is the meta-language of romantic love in film culture. However, English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu." - The use of Urdu remains important, but still minor. It is fairly mentioned in the lead and in the body, and I agree that it can be elaborated, but a script is not relevant here as this is officially an article about Hindi cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been monitoring this discussion for a while and think this whole discussion is revolving around wrong focii. I would have not made the call if this discussion was not about Hindi-Urdu controversy.

• Bollywood is Hindi cinema : What does Hindi mean? Is it not in standard form Sanskratized version of Khariboli register (spoken in Delhi & adjoining areas of Western UP)? How many movies are in this register? 75% of people who claim that they know & can speak Hindi will not be able to understand actual Hindi(try to recall Government of India's Hindi notices which you may have come across & they are nowhere literary & standard). And not to forget the difference between Haryanvi & Madhubani(both claimed to be dialects of Hindi) is so visible that one is unintelligible to other & vice-versa. For Hindi primarily Devangri script is used but historically Nastaliq was also used & recently English is also picking up.
• Bollywood is also Urdu cinema : What doe Urdu mean? Is it not Arabo-Persian version of Khariboli register (spoken in Delhi & adjoining areas of Western UP)? How many movies are in this register or even use bits of this register? 75% of people who claim that they know & can speak Urdu will not be able to understand actual Urdu(which is so Persianised that it looks more like Persian than any language which resembles Urdu/Hindi/Hindustani). For Urdu primarily Nastaliq script is used but Devangri & recently English are also picking up.
• Actual language of Bollywood: It is lingua-franca of North-India (especially Central U.P.) which was until partition known as Hindustani. In todays context it is blend of Hindi(the Awadhi register & not any other), Urdu(the Lakhnawi Urdu & not Dakhini or Dehlawi or Pakistani Urdu) & English(typical Indian English) and this blend has been in use since last 100 years or so. Initially Urdu was prominent followed by English & hen by Hindi; post Independence equations were changed and gradually Hindi moved to first place, Urdu to second & English to third; this trend is changing and Urdu is being moved to third place being replaced by English. We can see same trend in Bollywood. It is no amazing thing that one who has seen Hindi movies and never visited North India finds language of a person from Central U.P. region (especially from the region between Ghaghra & Ganga) more easy to understand than form any other place(say Bihar or Haryana). Hindustani originally was written in Nastaliq script later on Devnagri was also used for the purpose & more recently English is also used (Romance if you may know). Use of Nastaliq script have seen a revival during last two decades(this is quiet evident from coins of British era, just a person has to look on them).
• Inclusion of scripts in the title: Now I come to bone of contention i.e. inclusion of devnagri & nastaliaq scripts in the title. I think we can include both as they are twin languages & scripts in sense of usage or do away with both as per suggestion of User Abecedare.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Forced unindent) Support: I think that this might be a fair solution (either keep both scripts or remove both scripts rather than keep one and eliminate the other). Again, as I stated above, I am neutral on this topic, but I find that the disagreement on this issue has created instability in some of the film articles. As my goal would simply be stability, I would like to see this issue resolved one way or another. Some excellent points were made above about the complex relationship between Hindi and Urdu, enough to imply that this is not an issue easily solved by Wikipedians alone. I agree that these issues belong in the body of the article - and I also agree that the question of what script to use is less important than the larger discussion above. I wonder if we should simply have a new poll or a new vote and as a community decide how to resolve the issue. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this solution of either removing the Hindi script or adding the Urdu one. The primary language of Hindi cinema is Hindi, that's why it is called Hindi cinema. It is not even relevant where the language originates from or what it is similar to. The use of Urdu varies from film to film and can be discussed in the article, but the script is not relevant. Bollywood is the Hindi-language film industry. "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema", the largest book on Hindi cinema, which was published by Encyclopedia Britannica, does not even mention the use of Urdu. I will reapeat, a book called "A Cinematic Imagination" says "The extent of Urdu used in commercial Hindi cinema has not been stable". It further says "The fact is, for the most part popular Hindi cinema has forsaken the florid Urdu". It only supports the fact that Urdu is present, but not in a major way. It is just as present as English. There are some words of each language used mostly in film songs and titles, and different Urdu words are used primarily in poetic dialogues (supported by this book, for example). A book called "Bollywood Audiences Editorial" says "One could argue that Urdu is the meta-language of romantic love in film culture. However, English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu." - The use of Urdu remains important, but still minor, which is proved by this quatation. It is fairly mentioned in the lead and in the body, and I agree that it can be elaborated, but as I already sais, a script is not relevant here and will be in violation of WP:UNDUE, as this is an article about an industry officially known as Hindi cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, please try to argue fairly and in the interests of producing the best product, not trying to belittle or beat other people. Repetitively repeating what you have been repeating doesn't help the conversation. Now to the more general point, I would like to give an overview of my observations of the situation as it stands. One is that somewhat more and better sources have been given to support the inclusion of Urdu scripts. From simply a verification and sourcing standpoint that side has been better argued. Shahid keeps claiming one or two sources that are not scholarly trump all the other scholarly sources that have been offered, which is not the case. Encyclopedias are generally low on the source reliability ranking. Additionally there was indeed in the past a consensus for including both scripts in the conversations that have been linked. Longstanding Wikipedia tradition is that consensus stands until a different one is clearly established, time doesn't invalidate a past consensus it just means it has stood the test of time longer. Since a consensus to change the practice hasn't been established yet, removing the scripts is not proper until such consensus has been established. I will note that currently there seems to be more people stating the opinion that they don't think both scripts should be included than there was in past discussions, but it hasn't yet resulted in a consensus for a change in practice. I think everyone should reconsider the evidence that has been offered and give a reasoned opinion based on that evidence. Personally I'm a bit torn on the issue and i haven't read all the relevant sources. But one thing is clear: at least the Devanagari should be included since it includes much more phonological information than the latin script. - Taxman ^Talk 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: While there really isn't anything in MOS:FILM which directly addresses this issue, it is probably worthwhile to visit one of its sublinks, WP:NCF. This subarticle addresses naming conventions for film titles. Again not directly related but perhaps will offer some guidelines we can use, since our job here is to edit articles according to Wikipedia guidelines. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Taxman, I have full right highlighting my points just as Anupman keeps citing old discussions on which there was never a consensus. Discussions were followed by other discussions and consensus was never reached (see here) while Anupam kept adding Urdu scripts. If you claim that Encyclopedia of Hindi cinema, the largest book ever written on Bollywood is not credible, then I don't have what to say. The other sources I mention are actually those cited by Anupam and Abecedare just to show that these sources themselves agree that the use of Urdu is minor and it is far from being a major language of Hindi cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The others sources never use the term minor. In fact they state the opposite. One of the sources even states that the central concepts in Bollywood films are from "Urdu's Persian and Arabic derived vocabulary." Another scholarly reference states that "filmakers finally settled on one type of Hindi known as Hindustani - a mixture of Hindi and Urdu - a language associated with bazaars and trading that served as lingua franca across northern and central India." You will never find as many articles on the usage of Gujarati, Marathi, Saraiki, or any other Indo-Aryan language in Bollywood as you will for Urdu. Bollywood's own film posters show Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts on their posters but never the Gujarati script, Marathi script, or the Shahmukhi script. You may repeat that your reference states that florid Urdu may not be used as much but note that the sentence has the word florid. What is still being spoken in Bollywood is just as much Hindi as it is Urdu as attested by the reputable reference which states

“ At the level of the colloquial language that is spoken spontaneously or is heard in Bollywood movies, Hindi and Urdu are virtually identical languages. ”

As User:Faizhaider mentioned in his post, florid Hindi (or shudha Hindi) as seen in official government broadcasts or news channels is not used in Bollywood either. In fact, there is probably more florid Urdu in Bollywood than there is Sanskritized Hindi. In light of these facts, both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts should remain in Bollywood related film articles as previous consensuses established. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read my entire message. I cited several books' quatations regarding Urdu being a minot part of Hindi-language films. That Hindi and Urdu are similar languages is not really relevant here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Wthout commenting on the script issue, it is useful to note that the history of Bollywood cinema is rooted in Urdu, both because of the Punjabi influence in its early days (at a time when the average Punjabi wrote in Gurmukhi and/or Urdu, rarely in Devanagri) as well as because it employed many writers who wrote in Urdu. All this was upended by partition when the Urdu writers decamped to Pakistan (Manto being the leading example). The urdu writer influence (as well as the Punjabi influence) has declined over the years, as also has the significance of Urdu in India thanks to de-urdufication (if I may invent that word) of the spoken Hindustani, but arguing that Bollywood cinema (which almost never speaks Hindi) is solely Hindi cinema is ignoring its historical roots in entirety.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The roots are not relevant here. I do not ignore neither Urdu nor any other language used in Hindi films. Hindi, however, i-s the primary language of the film industry. Urdu is mostly used in poetic dialogues, songs and occsionally in titles. This use is mentioned fairly, but we are talking here about scripts, and unnecessarily loading pages with scripts which are not important is weird in my view. Hindi cinema is Hindi cinema. The use of Urdu is minor and is as present as the use of English. If we were to go by the similarity between Hindi and Urdi, we would find ourselves adding Urdu scripts to absolutely everything related to Hindi, including books, and even the language itself. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I'm not talking about the use of Urdu in Bollywood films. I'm talking about the importance of the role of Urdu in the history and development of Bollywood. However, though I'm trying hard, I can't seem to get myself into a lather over either including or excluding urdu script from bollywood pages :) so make what you will of this comment.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Shahid on this one, I'm not questioning the influence/role of Urdu on/in Bollywood cinema, but the need for adding Urdu script to this article and to all Bollywood movies. As such adding one extra script (Devanagari) is itself odd (echoing CarTick's statement), but why more than that. -SpacemanSpiff 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) RegentsPark take is exactly right, and what the numerous sources I have listed above support. The mantra "Hindi cinema is Hindi film" is a false tautology based on an inaccurate name, and calling role of Urdu minor, is simply ahistorical. Again, I too don't care whether the Nastiliq script is used in this article, but I hope the body of this article will reflect the scholarship in the area. If someone wishes to read a single source on the topic, this article by Mukul Kesavan is most relevant and cited by many other sources. Abecedare (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Were it inaccurate, it wouldn't have been used all these years till this very day. "I hope the body of this article will reflect the scholarship in the area." - I'm in great support of this. I do acknowledge the presence of Urdu in Hindi films. Whether it's minor or not, it is, but well, it varies. Of course in films like Mughal-E-Azam or Umrao Jaan, Urdu is a major part. But so is the use of Tamil in a film like Ek Duje Ke liye and Hum Hain Rahi Paar Ke, or Assamese in Omkara and so on. Hindi is the primary language, that's the official name of the film industry (even the books which call it inaccurate have "Hindi cinema" in the title), and that's the script which actually needs to be here. Everything else can be fairly discussed in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify:

• The use of the simplistic term "Hindi cinema" rose during the period of India-Pakistan partition, and the surrounding language/culture wars. Its inaccuracy is attested by many the sources I cited above. It's not uncommon for such inaccurate terminology to "stick" and continue to be used by even authors who protest it. Note that, I am not calling for removal of that alternate name from the article lede (although, it is certainly not the "official" name, since there is no organization that has the authority to make such an assignment).
• There is no equivalence between the foundational influence of Urdu in Hindi cinema, and the occasional use of Tamil, Assamese etc in a few films. The influence goes beyond the titles you list above, and is attested by the sources I cited. There is no doubt that the influence is waning in recent decades (being replaced by English to some extent), but any encyclopedic article needs to cover the history and development of Bollywood without shortchanging a significant factor and calling it "minor".

Again, I am not arguing for the inclusion of the Nastliq script (my position on that is frankly, don't care), but some of the arguments you have made above for exclusion are flawed. Abecedare (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Abecedare. I also don't care one way or the other with reference to script. That being said, I would like to make a request. Keeping WP:CIVIL in mind and moving beyond the declaration that "Bollywood film is Hindi film" (I'm paraphrasing here), I would like to hear concrete developed arguments against inclusion of the Urdu title. As of this point, as someone who has stated neutrality on this topic, I am leaning towards inclusion of Urdu simply because of the logical and well developed arguments made above. Thus, I would be interested in hearing equally well developed arguments as to why it should not be included. It will make it easier for me to know how to respond to this discussion. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. While there may be good reasons for dumping the urdu script from Bollywood articles (I can think of a couple myself), the 'Hindi is not Urdu' argument is overly simplistic (IMO) and the 'urdu is unrelated to Bollywood cinema' argument is plain wrong. Hindi and Urdu co-exist in the same spectrum of languages, and the spoken language of Bollywood is somewhere between the two. Given the historical urdu roots of Bollywood, we need to make sure we're not just casually dumping a historical connection. (As an aside, and this is a tad tongue in cheek so don't take it seriously, the difficulty of separating Hindi and Urdu is well illustrated in this discussion. From the moniker Shahid to the use of 'alvida' in the title of the film given as an example in this edit!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Classicfilms. I think my arguments were fair enough and I still stand behind every word I said. If you think my argument lacked conviction so I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Anuji also repeatedly cited the same discussions (which did not gain consensus). I cited books, links, and to reply to RegentsPark, I cited Alvida as a reply to Anupam who cited Lagaan (which has an Urdu script), while Alvida and Rang De Basanti include only Hindi scripts. Anyway, what titles actual films include is not relevant here, and yes, even the book Abecedare cited above has a specific list of Urdu words in Hindi films, and it further says that "One could argue that Urdu is the meta-language of romantic love in film culture. However, English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu." - we all know how stricted the presence of English in Hindi movies is, so you can guess what place Urdu occupies by just observing the situation. I also think that onus is not on me to prove that Hindi cinema is Hindi cinema (it's the most obvious thing here) but on other editors to prove that Hindi cinema is Urdu cinema and explain why it's not called Urdu cinema. I mostly agree with Abecedare that this can be discussed in the body article and be fairly and neutrally elaborated, but I oppose to the addition of Urdu scripts (of course with the exception of films like Umrao Jaan, Mughal-E-Azam etc.) just as I would oppose to adding Punjabi, Marathi, etc. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Shaheed, I am not sure why you excised the most relevant part of the quote, namely, "Bollywood is (commonly and more importantly) inaccurately referred to simply as ‘Hindi’ cinema despite the ubiquitous presence of Urdu." Also note that the article (which is the introduction to a special issue on Bollywood), consistently refers to Bollywood movies as Hindi-Urdu(popular) films, and does not have "specific list of Urdu words in Hindi films". Can you please check the listed sources again ? Abecedare (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Abecedare, it clearly says "the ubiquitous presence of Urdu", it means that Urdu is present in Hindi films but it does not mean its presence is major or as much present as Hindi. In fact, it further describes the use of Urdu in Hindi films in a very clear way, mentioning that English has started taking its place. It is indeed a meta-language, and this use, its developement and the recent way it was replaced by English can be neutrally discussed as you yourself said. Having said that, I don't think Urdu is important enough to be used in the form of a script in every Hindi film article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, I agree with you that the onus is not on you or one person in particular. That is why my comments were directed towards a side of the argument rather than to an individual person. This is not a matter of passion or conviction. Clearly each side of this argument carries passion or conviction. It is a question of the depth and breadth of the argument. The argument for inclusion of the Urdu script offers numerous works of scholarship and indepth analysis of the very complex nature of this issue. So it is not so much a question of disappointment but rather a request for more information, more detailed analysis, and breadth of discussion. The relationship between Urdu and Hindi, as noted above is very complex and so it is not quite the same thing as saying we shouldn't include Marathi or Punjabi script. This is thus not a personal issue, or one of questioning intention, but rather of scholarly debate. The goal is resolution so that we can move on to other issues on this subject. So the onus really is on the debate itself. Which side (rather than person) offers the strongest, most detailed evidence? Since I can guess for example that someone who is fluent in Urdu can walk into a Bollywood film and understand it due to the the kind of influence we see above, while someone who is fluent in Marathi may very well not, we already can deduce that we are working within a different paradigm. And I open the floor to everyone to convince me either way. Hope that clears it up, -Classicfilms (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to stop the indenting ... it's gone rather far towards the right margin. I'm visiting here, after a three year or so hiatus, because Anupam asked me to comment. Speaking as a firangi who can read neither Devanagari or Nastaliq and whose Hindustani is limited to words like shaadi and pyaar :) -- the filmmakers themselves use both scripts. Not always, but often. Why? It's not just sensitivity to minority feelings; it's commercial. The industry knows it has a market that is far broader than India. True, their films can't be legally sold in Pakistan, but we know that there's pirating and smuggling. There *are* legal markets in Afghanistan and Iran, and there's a huge film market overseas, among the South Asian diaspora (Indian, Pakistani, and Afghan).

Rather than try to erase the Arabo-Persic titles (presumably because some people see them as embarrassing reminders of India's Muslim minority or of Pakistan's continued existence), Indian nationalists might take comfort in the fact that Bollywood movies have a presence that extends far beyond the Indian borders and certainly must cultivate goodwill towards India. If a title in Arabo-Persic script makes it easier for a Pakistani film fan to identify his/her favorite films in the English version of Wikipedia, isn't that good? Zora (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised Anupam had called you because he wanted more people to side his POV while this issue has always been a matter of great arguments but never a matter of consensus. We are not here to make it "easier" for Pakistani fans. We are an encyclopedia. If we were going by that logic, we would have to add every possible script in many different languages just to make it easier for people. It's not how it works. I'm happy you said the word "commercial". Producers' past considerations to include such scripts from time to time were mainly in order to get a wider audience, and it is not relevant here, on the English Wikipedia. It is the English Wikipedia, not a film with which a producer can play games to make more money. As said in the past by Nichalp, it all depends on location:

"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"

And BTW, in recent years, no such scripts have been used. Today you will hardly find a film including an Urdu script. In fact, the use of Urdu is now being gradually replaced by English. And as you youself said, it is just a presence, while the language is Hindi, that's the language as mentioned by every possible source, and that's what the scripts should reflect. The use of Urdu is minor. Some Urdu words are used in poetic dialogues and film songs in Hindi films. It is mentioned, and it can be elborated, but a script does not add value in this case. And yes, I will again mention the largest book on Hindi cinema, Encyclopedia Britannica's book "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema" which does not even mention Urdu.

And I'm quite astonished by something you have just said. I do not see Urdu scripts "as embarrassing reminders of India's Muslim minority or of Pakistan's continued existence". I think Urdu is a beautiful language, I think the use of Urdu, its developement and recent decline in Hindi films, can be fairly and neutrally discussed in the article as suggested by Abecedare, but with the exception of films in which the presence of Urdu is much stronger (for instance Umrao Jaan and Mughal-E-Azam) and which do not represent the majority of Hindi cinema, the only script which can be used in an article about the Hindi-language film industry and its films is Hindi. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we all need to remember WP:AGF as well as WP:CIVIL. It is beyond the scope of the thread and outside of WP bylaws to speculate about the motivation of editors from any aspect. Again, pointing to my post above, this discussion should be an objective one about how to best interpret Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) at this juncture. The debate has raised valid points on both sides of the argument. I'd just like to see more scholarship and development of each line of reasoning. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, friend.:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(Forced unindent) Comment: In adding to my request above for additional sources, I'd like to refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Encyclopedias, while useful when beginning research, are generally not used in scholarship as a definitive source. This is also true in the Wikipedia. Under Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Reliability in specific contexts - Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, it states:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Types of Sources indicates what is needed. What other works can be added to this discussion? -Classicfilms (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Note, "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema" is not an encyclopedia per se and cannot be called a "summarising source". It is a book published by Encyclopedia Britannica (perhaps the most reputable source and "the most scholarly of encyclopaedias"), which "Gives A Perspective On The Fascinating Journey Of Hindi Cinema From The Turn Of The Last Century To Becoming A Leader In The World Of Celluloid." And by the way, we are not talking here about "detailed discussion".

Even the books which do discuss the use of Urdu, call it the Hindi-language film industry. "Bollywood: A Guidebook To Popular Hindi Cinema" by Tejaswini Ganti starts with "'Bollywood' - once a tongue-in-cheek term used by the English-language media in India - has become the dominant global term to refer to the prolific Hindi language film industry located in Bombay." So does every other source. I know I've repeated it many times, but Hindi cinema is Hindi cinema - this article is about the Hindi-language film industry. The presence of Urdu is mentioned and discussed, but adding an Urdu scrupt to a Hindi film article is plain wrong. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Again you're generally just repeating and not adding anything new. You're focusing on one source that isn't more definitive than the others that have been offered. You have provided really no compelling evidence that "Hindi cinema is Hindi cinema" in any way that contributes to the issue of what scripts to include. In the Hindi-Urdu diasystem, Bollywood films are clearly far from the shudda Hindi side of the spectrum and include a large range of what could be considered Urdu, as attested by multiple academic sources. Calling something Hindi cinema despite the use of a language that is more a mix of the two and trying to ignore the fact that the two languages have far more in common than they have different, does not result in a strong argument against including one or the other script. And finally, it appears you don't realize what consensus means on Wikipedia. It's not something that everybody agrees on, it's rough consensus, where most of the people agree on something. Based on that, consensus was indeed established in the previous discussions and so far has not changed. That doesn't mean it can't change and it wasn't an overwhelming consensus in the past, so it could change a bit more easily if a different consensus were established. For the record, it's clear that hasn't happened so far. For that to happen, substantially better sources would have to support the argument to remove the additional script. My personal feeling I suppose is that the Urdu script isn't all that needed unless the film has been marketed with it, but it's also not a problem to include it. In fact it's such a non problem to include it that I can't see how this discussion is worth it. - Taxman ^Talk 18:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Taxman, I would thank you if you stopped discussing ME and started discussing the matter. If you find my messages repetitive, then just ignore them. And no, there was never a consensus on any of the discussions Anupam cited. Two of these so-called discussions are just little laughable threads consisting of two editors at best. These discussions were followed by numerous other discussions which never reached consensus. Zora herself declared once that nothing was set there. Different users kept removing scripts. It just that Mr. Anupam kept loading pages with Urdu scripts and often cited the same discussions which had already died a premature death.

"And so far has not changed"?! Huh, even if there had been consensus on those discussions, it would have easily been considered dead - these scripts have not been here for over a year and no one even attempted to re-add them. Therefore, a new consensus must be reached before such scripts are re-added, not removed.

I see why you see it as a non-issue. But I just don't. I strongly object to adding Urdu scripts to articles about Hindi films. Then again, onus is not on me to prove that Hindi cinema is Hindi cinema because that's how it is formally called everywhere. It's up to those who add it to prove that Hindi cinema is as much in Urdu as it is in Hindi. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding to your posts because the way you are responding is detracting from the conversation, instead of improving it. Though perhaps I am wasting my time since you are clearly misrepresenting the facts from the previous conversations which involved many editors, the majority of which supported both scripts. And consensus isn't considered dead just because of time or because some people don't know about it. Again, longstanding convention is that it stands until a different one displaces it. For the record that doesn't appear to be occurring. - Taxman ^Talk 20:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No longstanding conventions here. There was no consensus in the discussions, and they were followed by other discussions and numerous removals. And, more importantly, these scripts have not been included here for over a year. That's the epitome of consensus. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing that struck me in Shahid's responses was his conviction that Urdu and Hindi are separate languages. They aren't. They are dialects of a broader Hindustani that includes many dialects spoken in the northern parts of South Asia. They are differentiated only by the script in which they are written and, in some contexts, vocabulary. There has been conscious official effort use Arabic and Persian vocabulary in the Urdu spoken in Pakistan, and to use Sanskrit vocabulary in the Hindi dialect in India. But this bifurcation breaks down at the level of the man (or woman) in the street, who uses a vocabulary common to both dialects. That's the language of most Bollywood films ... and the reason that films in Hindustani are popular in Pakistan. They don't need to be dubbed to be comprehensible.

Filmmakers extend their reach when they make some accomodation for viewers who speak essentially the same language but use a different script. What some editors here are trying to do is to police and HARDEN dialect boundaries and to turn dialects into languages ... while claiming that the dialects are separate languages already. This is a common human response to political divisions. As one linguist famously observed, "A language is a dialect with an army."

I do not think that WP should enlist in that army. That would be to use WP for essentially political ends. Zora (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect you to concentrate on the relevance of Urdu scripts in Hindi movies and not on editors of Wikipedia. The similarity between the languages is not relevant to the film industry. Bollywood is formally referred to as Hindi cinema. Every language has influences of other similar languages, so nothing is surprising here. This is an article about the Hindi-language film industry. The use of Urdu varies depending on the film's subject. In a film about Akbar or Umrao, Urdu is much more present but in the majority of Hindi movies the use of Urdu words is either stricted to poetic dialogues and film songs or non existent. The use of Urdu is comparable to the use of English nowadays in Hindi movies, and as sources have said, English has started taking Urdu's place. This comparison clearly gives us an insight of how present Urdu is because we all know how minor is the use of English. All this is good stuff to be discussed on the Bollywood article, but I see zero relevance to the addition of an Urdu script. See IMDb's list of Hindi movies and check the language field in each of them. You will see that only films like Umrao Jaan, Jodhaa Akbar, Mughal-E-Azam and Pakeezah have Urdu mentioned along with the Hindi, but otherwise every other ordinary Hindi film mentions only Hindi. I don't mind going with this standard. But, whatever language may be used in Hindi movies from time to time, Hindi is the primary language and the only one which deserves to come in the form of a script in the lead of a Hindi film, not Urdu, not Punjabi, not Marathi, not Tamil. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh's assertion above is simply wrong based on what IMDb says itelf. For example, take a look at the Dil Chahta Hai's (2001) IMDb page here. It gives the language as both Hindi and Urdu. Another example is Khakee (2004) which is available at the IMDb page here. There are many more examples on IMDb which list Bollywood films as both Hindi and Urdu. Either way, multiple scholarly sources mentioned above state that Urdu plays an integral role in Bollywood. For this reason, many reputable sources such as this one published by Rutgers University Press state that "Bombay became the centre of Hindi-Urdu film". A source from Harvard University does the same here. User:Abecedare has provided multiple more scholarly sources above which attest to this fact and I have done the same. User:Faizhaider has lucidly delineated the symbiotic relationship between Hindi and Urdu in Bollywood above. Moreover, User:Shshshsh continues to ignore the fact that the language spoken in most Bollywood films in not pure Hindi or pure Urdu but is considered both Hindi and Urdu, i.e. Hindustani: "At the level of the colloquial language that is spoken spontaneously or is heard in Bollywood movies, Hindi and Urdu are virtually identical languages" [South Asian Language Review (SALR)]. In light of these facts, both Hindi and Urdu scripts should continue to remain in Bollywood film articles as was established in previous consensus. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pointing a few examples or a few specific sources does not really prove anything and does not change something that is factual and has been such for many years. I'm talking about the majority of films. Going by your logic, let's go and count the number of films on IMDb which have Urdu in the language field along with Hindi and compare the result to the number of titles which have only Hindi. Are you ready to do it? Now we can also make a simple google search and check the number of hits for "Hindi cinema" and "Hindi-Urdu cinema" and you will see the result yourself. Other than that, there's a diefference between "Urdu plays an integral role in Bollywood" and "Bollywood is Urdu cinema". Bollywood is Hindi cinema, not Urdu cinema, not Hindustani - a few sources cannot disprove this. That's what Wikipedia's articles should reflect - the primary language - not the minor one. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Zora has made very good points about the state of the Hindi/Urdu diasystem. The use of Urdu is not comparable to the use of English in Bollywood films because English is not essentially the same language as Hindi. It is highly relevant that Urdu is basically the same language, especially at the level of the language that is used in Bollywood films, for the very fact that it is the language used in the film. Thus your argument that "The similarity between the languages is not relevant to the film industry" doesn't hold water. And Bollywood being "formally referred to as Hindi cinema", even if there were such a thing that could formally make that designation, doesn't change the fact that Bollywood films are produced in a register of the Hindi/Urdu language continuum that is far from the shudda Hindi side of the spectrum. - Taxman ^Talk 20:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I can cite one sentence here: "One could argue that Urdu is the meta-language of romantic love in film culture. However, English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu." Other than that, please re-read my message. If Urdu was as much present in Hindi films as Hindi, the industry wouldn't be called Hindi cinema throughout all these years. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, you're using people's everyday verbal shorthand (Hindi film) to make an assertion that ignores linguistics, ignores history, and ignores the filmmakers' own intentions (as demonstrated by Devanagari and Arabo-Persic script in many titles, posters, and the like). It's as if you were to assert that because people say, "The sun rises in the east," the sun does circle the earth. Besides ... I don't watch Hindi cinema, I watch Bollywood :) I know many people don't like that term (even though it's probably more common than Hindi cinema). Yet there's more to Bollywood than language; there's what is by now a long tradition of themes, writing and directorial styles, choreographic conventions, etc. That tradition is part of the fun of films like Om Shanti Om and Dil Chahta Hai. You can watch the parodies of older film styles and laugh.

I will give you one point: it would be odd to add Arabo-Persic script for the titles of mythologicals or Hindu devotional films. I haven't watched the episodes of the TV Ramayana that was such a huge hit, but I would guess that the titles were in pure Devanagari. Zora (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Zora, "an assertion that ignores linguistics, ignores history, and ignores the filmmakers' own intentions" - I don't want to ignore any of that. I think all of it can be discussed in the article. But how can an Urdu script be correct in an article about Hindi films? In recent years, for example, most of the films have not used Urdu scripts but only Hindi. Filmmakers and actors call the industry Hindi cinema. And Hindi film is not "people's everyday verbal shorthand" - Bollywood is. The term "Hindi cinema" is used in books and other literary sources and even in encyclopedias, therefore the script should concur with that. I support the addition of Urdu scripts in films in which Urdu takes a much major part, namely Jodhaa Akbar, Umrao Jaan, Veer-Zaara but there are films in which Urdu is stricted to several words here and there and there are films in which Urdu is almost non-existent. It all depends. Again, I'm not against the mention of Urdu, I'm against the use of Urdu scripts. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, you keep saying that Urdu is used only "rarely". I get a sense that what Urdu means to you is a word that feels odd or foreign. But most of the everyday words (like "jawan" and "aap" and "shadi") are the SAME in both dialects/languages. If an Urdu-speaker can understand 100% of the dialogues in most movies, doesn't that mean that the dialogues are 100% colloquial Urdu? Also 100% colloquial Hindi?

Difference in script doesn't mean difference in language. When the Young Turks took over Turkey, they decided that Turkish was henceforth to be written in Roman rather than Arabic script. Does that mean that Turkish before the government-imposed change was a different language? I don't think so. Zora (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Taxman, Anupam, Zora, Abecadare, RegentsPark and others who support the inclusion of Urdu script in Bollywood films. Shahid's research is impressive, but interpretation is not. Urdu is a major part of Bollywood culture. Usage of English, Punjabi, Marathi, etc in Bollywood films cannot be compared with the usage of Urdu. English and Hindi are completely different languages, while Hindi and Urdu are nearly the same languages. Urdu has played a significant role in the development of the Bollywood industry. If some sources claim Bollywood is "Hindi cinema", then there are several scholarly sources which also say that Bollywood is "Hindi/Urdu cinema". We should include both or none. 122.169.56.86 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, according to me this one difference in the script which differentiates between Hindi and Urdu says it all. This "100% claim" contradicts almost all the books which discuss the "use of Urdu" and the "presence of Urdu". I have no doubt that Urdu is similar to Hindi, that many poetic Urdu words are used in Hindi films, but it still does not change the fact that Bollywood is the center of the Hindi-language film industry. If Urdu was a major language of Hindi cinema, it wouldn't have been said that English had started taking its place and challenging its existense. Obviously no other language threatens the existence of Hindi, because it's the primary language, the language ehich the industry takes its name from. To reply to the anon, not some sources claim Bollywood is Hindi cinema. Most of them do. I will just quote my reply to Anupam and challenge you to prove what you are saying: let's go and count the number of films on IMDb which have Urdu in the language field along with Hindi and compare the result to the number of titles which have only Hindi. Secondly, let's make a simple google search and check the number of hits for "Hindi cinema" and "Hindi-Urdu cinema" and you will see the result yourself. Are you ready to do it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of modern technology

why there is no mention of high tech visual effect and animation technology used in some of the movies like koi mil gaya and many more. plz consider it to further enhance the article. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sound

under sound section there is no mention of high tech sound engineering like Dolby sound surround used by music directors. there are several high tech modern sound techniques that are used in today's bollywood. This article is written in a very monotonous way. Editors have completely ignored the vibrant and fast evolving bollywood. This article is more like a NCERT text books of history. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits by Bigsuperindia

I just have a few problems with some recent edits by Bigsuperindia. This is in no way meant as offense to Bigsuperindia, and I hope you don't take offense. However, I have seen that one or two of the places where was added there was citation lower on, perhaps in the Africa section? Also, I believe it is still in the two categories that were erased, Hindi and Mumbai culture. Also, as far as description of Hollywood goes, I think someone who perhaps had never heard of Hollywood before would think "Why Hollywood? What's Hollywood, and why is it so important?"

Hollywood points to its own article and it is enough on lead. describe bollywood not hollywood.Cross linking is made for this purpose. And for the citation part. Reference do not claim of what citation is asked for. Clothing is largely similar, where men often wear long kurtas. Please review reference first. And here everyone is open for take. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good point. Thanks for correcting me, it's a good thing I posted this on the talk page first. I still must ask about the categories. I know you probably have a reason, I'm just curious as to what it is. HaiyaTheWin IS The Win! 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Classic hollywood musicals

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

Strictures

In the section, "Genre conventions" there is mention of older films having "sex and kissing" and that today there are "strictures." However, there is no more information than this. I've found a few references to this with more information that someone might want to incorporate. [4][5][6][7] The findlaw and google books links are especially enlightening. -Miskaton (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Partition Films

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

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