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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

We talked about this before, but as Plagarism is a huge issue in bollywood, there needs to a section that talks about it. It looks like some vandal keeps on deleting it. Because of that I think this page or at least that section should be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.248.7 ( talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the name is now Mumbai shouldn't it be Mollywood now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.220.124 ( talk) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You decide. "Bollywood" is a western nickname. Most Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, etc. call it "Hindi movies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.166.238 ( talk) 03:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Pakistanis never call it hindi movies , we call them "Indian movies", the word hindi is never used in pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.105.224.142 ( talk) 10:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest redirecting Bollywood to the Hindi film industry page. Bollywood is not the official name for the Hindi film industry and many people oppose this name. It was originally used as a derogatory term toward the industry and caught on. Many people still use it but that does not make it the official name of the industry. Since the industry has no official name it should be called by a proper classification, that being 'Hindi film industry'. Also, Hollywood is a redirect for 'Cinema of the United States'. So there should not be an issue with making Bollywood a redirect as well. Nsrav ( talk) 03:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Nsrav

"Bollywood" doesn't refer to the entire Hindi film industry, just the highly commercial part. Dieresis ( talk) 13:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the first line of the article and it specifically says that Bollywood is the Hindi lang. film industry of India. It doesn't say anything about being commercial or non commercial. If no one has any valid objections to this I'm going to go ahead with the redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.233.105 ( talk) 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No redirects. Yeh, it doesn't say anything about being commercial or non commercial, but it is the common name for the Hindi film industry and everybody would agree on that. There are books named after this name, it has entries in major dictionaries, so there is no need to redirect. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So tell me why Hollywood has a redirect. Nsrav ( talk) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Nsrav

Because Hollywood is a state in the first place, and the redirect is to the state, and the Cinema of USA is named so because it is mainly settled in there, and we can't use one redirect to two different articles. On the other hand, Bollywood is not a physical place, but a common name. It is very relevant, famous and used by everybody. It is known like this internationally, because foreigners do not even know what Hindi cinema is, they know what Bollywood is, and here there is a clear explanation. Apart from that, all the other Wikis use this very common name, dictionaries cite this name with clear explanations, there are books named after this name. It is not a rare nick, but a well and internationally recognised term. Many criticised this name for being an over the top inspiration from Hollywood but the article also mentions that in the lead. It actually has come a long way, and is almost official today, if not completely official (as I said - books, dictionaries). Also see google results for "Hindi cinema" - 443,000; "Bollywood" - 56,200,000. The results are clear. And if dictionaries and reliable encyclopedias cite it as Bollywood, I can't see why Wikipedia cannot. My best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not Hollywood is a state, we wouldn't be using one redirect for two articles because they could have used a disambiguation like most other terms which refer to more than one thing. Meaning a page that says Hollywood can refer to either: the Hollywood city, the Hollywood movie industry, etc. But they didn't. Hollywood is also a 'very relevant, famous, and used by everybody.' Hollywood is known internationally, NO ONE not even foreigners says 'cinema of the US' everyone says Hollywood. Hollywood is not a rare nick but a 'well and internationally recognised term used in dictionaries BOOKS are written using that term etc. The only reason we're talking about Hollywood so much is to show you that all your excuses for having the Hindi movie industry be listed under Bollywood do not apply because if they did, they would have to apply for Hollywood too. Nsrav ( talk) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Nsrav

What? You must be kidding! Hollywood is not the common name for Cinema of the US. It is just the center of the American film industry. American films are mostly shot there, so they are called like this - Hollywood films, because most of the studios, film locations, film stars are settled there. One more example, a Hollywood star - a celebrity who lives in Hollywood or works in Hollywood films -- the physical place. I think you misinterpret something here.

I repeat, Hollywood is the center of the American film industry in Los Angeles, not a formal/informal name.

On the other hand, Bollywood is not a physical place, but a common name, and almost formal and official (I repeat, internationally recognised), regardless of what is happening on the Hollywood article.

The fact that we use the term Bollywood here, has nothing to do with the Hollywood article, it is their problem. And comparisons won't help -- we are not trying to copy the article. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Every Wikipedia article in all possible languages, all film and actor articles link to this very name - Bollywood! There is no way to move this article. And btw, nobody would never agree to that, Ieven if I did. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood is not the common name for Cinema of the US? Reread what you just wrote. Also, reread what you said about 'almost formal and official' key word ALMOST. It is not the formal and official name. The other stuff exists is talking about DELETION and it is saying that just because x is wrongly put, doesn't mean y should be wrongly put as well - aknowledging the fact that BOTH are wrongly put it is a different situation. so are you aknowledging the fact that the Hollywood redirect is wrongly put?? you can't have a double standard and say its okay for one thing and not okay for another when they're subjectivley the same issue and even OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesnt support that. And what do you mean by there is no way to move this article? Familiarize yourself with a redirect and you'll see that even the links won't be affected. And I know that many people would search the term Bollywood, but redirecting is not renaming. So redirecting would NOT make it difficult for them to find this article because it will show up in searches for 'Bollywood' only thing is, it REDIRECTS them to this page. So redirecting the page will not stop it from showing up when people type in 'Bollywood'. I really don't see what the problem with redirecting it would be, I'm not proposing a reNAME, just reDIRECT. Unless you are offended by 'Hindi film industry' you shouldn't have any problem with the redirect because your favorite name 'Bollywood' is still going to work! it will not be erased or disqualified or unrecognized, everything will be the same, only thing is when the user actually looks at the page, the title will change from Bollywood to Hindi film industry. But everything else works the same, they can still type in Bollywood to get the article! they arent going to be forced to type Hindi film industry, searches will still work with Bollywood, everything will be the same except when reading the page the top will say Hindi film industry. So i really dont see what the problem is - once again it is not a reNAME, it is just redirecting the Bollywood page to the Hindi film industry page, not deleting bollywood and replacing it. The only logical problem one might have with this is that since so many people call it Bollywood, they won't be able to find the page. But that isn't going to be a problem as I just explained so I dont know what other problem there is. Please look at WP:SELFIDENTIFYING You need to respect what the subject calls ITSELF, what it wants to be called. and most of the industry calls itself the hindi film industry and NOT bollywood.

"I would rather call it the Hindi film industry", J.Abraham [1]

"I think the name Bollywood changed from being "Bollywood" to just Indian cinema or something like that [...] Naming is not my job, but it's called Indian cinema.", M.Ratnam

"Moderator: I wanted to talk about Bollywood...

Abhishek Bachchan: [correcting [the moderator]] The Hindi film industry." [2]

"there is nothing called Bollywood. There's the Hindi film industry or the Indian film industry.... And let me assure you, we don't have any hill with a sign saying Bollywood. No property would ever want to sell land to advertise it. [....] It's like calling New York, Bombay....", R.O.Mehra [3]

"the Hindi Film Industry (name usually prefered by scholars to the term Bollywood)" [4]

"A lot of learned people in the Indian FIlm Industry dislike the term “Bollywood"" [5]

"the Indian film industry was not happy with the word ‘Bollywood’ and were disgusted at its usage in the media." [6]

"many in the Bombay film industry find the term derogatory" [7]

want more? the industry itself does not use this term for self-identification and im sorry but i cannot paste you quotes of every single person in the industry but those are some of them. therefore even though it is the most common name, the self-identification criteria carries more weight

"A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.", Wikipedia So even though you think it SHOULD be Bollywood because so many people call it that, that is not what it IS. "Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. ", Wikipedia

please see WP:SELFIDENTIFYING

Nsrav ( talk) 08:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Nsrav

I have to end up this discussion here, because it goes nowhere. Bollywood is not MY favourite name, but the common name, and I'm sorry to say that I don't really care what is going on the Hollywood area on Wikipedia. All the languages of other Wikis, books, dictionaries etc refer to it by "Bollywood", and Hindi film industry is not the official name - it can be Hindi cinema, Hindi film, Hindi film industry etc., but the common name is -- Bollywood. That's how it has been known for over five years on the Wiki, and if the majority view is that this article has to be named Bollywood (as I pointed out - google, and Wikipedia itself), I can't see a reson to redirect it. Please don't come up with the Hollywood case. And I stand on my earliest statement and stuck by it. Hollywood is a more of a state rather than a common name and Bollywood is a common name by all means.

Oh yeh, and giving me 7 sources, is nothing to backup your claim that "most of the industry calls itself the hindi film industry and NOT bollywood." because the fact is that most of the industry calls itself Bollywood, not Hinfi film industry, and I don't have to even give sources for that. It's plain as day. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay so 7 sources isn't enough to validate the claim that most of the industry calls itself by that name, and you expect me to give you a source for every person in the industry. yet you can claim the industry calls itslelf bollywood without listing a single source. 'plain as day'? more like, an assumption made by yourself. I think my point about naming the page considering what the group calls itself remains valid because you have no backing to say that the industry calls itself bollywood. Nsrav ( talk) 02:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Nsrav

Hi, I have made some some changes to the finance section. There have been very minor deletions such as "Bollywood budgets are modest by Hollywood standards" this is not necessary or significant. I have instead given figures for the budgets with the celing of $10 million, the highest so far and future project budgets(Mahabhatata)

I have also mentioned something on the hiring of international technicians and given examples of Krrish and Love Story 2050, as they are particularly notesworthy in hiring reputable international talent.

I intend to write something on Hollywood and Bollywood co-productions later, as that is another area of finance appearing for Bollywood today.

No major changes. We've been patrolling for major vandalism, but small things slip past our guard. Possibly the only contentious edit will be my addition of material re the language of Bollywood films. I stressed that dialogues tend to be written so as to be comprehensible to the largest possible audience, and added a comment from Suketu Mehta re initial composition in English. I need to buy my own copy of that book, and get a page number for that cite. Zora 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Bharatveer edited roughly (mangling the sentence) and removed all mention of Hindustani and Pakistan. I have rewritten, trying to split the difference. Zora 08:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User Zora, Pls understand that bollywood films are banned in Pakistan (after 1965).- Bharatveer 08:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The ban in Pakistan is totally irrelevant. People watch Bollywood films in Pakistan and all over the world in spite of local laws. You have no business removing factual references to Pakistan. Dieresis 06:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored the references to Hindustani and Pakistan. The Hindi movie industry served ALL of what is now North India and Pakistan before the Partition, it is still extremely popular in Pakistan, despite bans, it is to a great extent run by Punjabi refugees from the Partition, and the language used, per all the references I have, is directed at the same swathe of territory served before the Partition. That's to a great extent a commercial decision, to get the largest possible audience. I also strongly object to labeling Devanagari and Nastaliq scripts as Hindi and Urdu. The underlying language is the same, only the script is different. I gather that participants in a number of North Indian/Pakistani web fora are using Roman characters to write Hindustani, so that they can communicate unimpeded by script differences. This would be impossible if the underlying language weren't basically the same (skewing of formal vocabulary aside). I strongly object to the consensus of academic, scientific linguistics being jettisoned in favor of accentuating communal hatreds and political differences.

We had a sentence in there at one point saying that the whole language question was hotly contested and that readers should look at the Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani articles to get an idea of the issues. I think that sentence was removed in one of the ethnic cleansing drives to which this article has been subjected, and I think it would help to restore it. We can't discuss the language question here, but we can point readers to the places where it is discussed. Zora 03:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the logic in the sentence that dialogues are written for audience in Pakistan , when the no sale of bollywood movies can be distributed legally?- Bharatveer 05:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, I apologize for the revert. I didn't your the edit summary or your username. I just saw the difference. However, in this situation, I do support Zora's version. Please note that Urdu is not only spoken by 10.7 million persons in Pakistan, but by 48.1 million persons in India. Also, even though they may be banned in Pakistan, Bollywood movies are still viewed by those in the state (please see BBC:Bollywood movies). Consequently, the text you removed in the article should be kept. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam ^Talk 06:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Leave out the popularity of urdu in this discussion .The issue in discussion is not about that .The issue is about a sentence which "claims" that dialogues in bollywood films are written for "AUDIENCE IN PAKISTAN". Now when No bollywood producer can sell his film in pakistan legally, then how can one write dialogue for "audience in pakistan.Are bollywood producers that naive??- Bharatveer 06:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, do you think that there is not one person in the entire world who have watched a Bollywood film, understand it comfortably (so they have a good understanding of Hindi/Urdu) but only know how to write this language in the Arabic script? If you do think this, then I think you're wrong and if you don't, then the Arabic script is for these people. Gizza ^{Chat ©} 06:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't revive a year and half old poll. Nor is the input from editors who don't work on film-related articles particularly helpful. Zora 09:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Woah, I didn't realise that. Well the poll may be dead but the problem is ongoing as seen here. Gizza ^{Chat ©} 06:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a really good article. I saw interviews on Film 2006 tonight with Bollywood producers etc, making the point that over the next decade they will produce in more varied genres - presumably spy thrillers, horror and so on. Anyone know more about this? Thanks.-- Shtove 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did Centrx remove this? It is a valid category regrouping many articles. If you remove the one in this article, why not remove them on all the others? Sfacets 07:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason is explained fairly clearly in the edit summary. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so articles are categorized by their subject, not by the etymology or type of word that represents the subject." We do not have Category:Nouns or Category:French derivations, Wiktionary does. We do not have Category:Numerals, we have Category:Numbers. The Portmanteau category is the only category like this, and yes, it should be removed from all articles. Is there any reason why it should not? — Centrx→ talk • 07:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, you should take it up on the Category talk page rather than here. Excluding a category from one article and not the rest seems dubious, and undermines the category maintenance. Besides that, nowhere in wiki policy is it written that a category cannot regroup grammatical terms. Sfacets 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I did bring it up there, and asked you to comment there. For related policy, see Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Centrx→ talk • 07:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out your reply there? I cannot see it. Sfacets 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's right there, and there is no reply, it's a new section that has received no reply. — Centrx→ talk • 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone added an academic article to See Also, where it didn't belong. I thought at first that this was self-promotion, but after checking out the conference at which it was presented, I discovered that BASAS was a reputable organization and that the paper had in fact won special mention on the association web page. So I set up a new selection for the paper. Links to other academic papers would be good. I found a paper on Roja, for the same year -- is that considered Tamil cinema only, or is it a Bollywood film also? Zora 07:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is a magnet for linkspam, and various editors keep removing it. That is a nasty but necessary chore and I very much appreciate everyone who does it. However -- fairly often, editors also remove Upperstall. That is not a fansite, it's non-commercial, and it's good, academic-quality information. I think editors are removing it just because they haven't looked at it.

I'm open for argument on the subject -- if after looking at the site, other editors want to remove it and there's a consensus that we should, I'll bow to the consensus. Zora 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new link which i think it VERY INFORMATIVE and USEFUL, Bollywoodistan.com

What do you think?

Bollywoodistan is commercial. We don't do links to ecards, jobsites, etc. I removed the link.

If you're here to help out, there are lots of movies that don't have articles yet. Zora 08:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

C'mon www.bollywoodistan is a DIRECTORY which links to everything bollywood. It is very useful Zora!

Google links to everything Bollywood. We don't need commercial directories. We won't host your advertising. Zora 22:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Bollywoodistan.com and Google. Google doens't have half of the links that this website does. PLus google also displays ads in thier directory and there seems to be no porblem. You both gota a point! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.129.16.122 ( talk) 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

This is the only reference in the entire article that refers to the Bollywood moral film codes. Please expand. SchmuckyTheCat 20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a nice introductory article. It seems a little bit lightly sourced, but what would I know. I knew nothing about Bollywood except it was Indian film before reading this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Powerlad ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

       Bichhdey abhi to hum, bas kal parso,
       jiyoongi main kaisey, is haal mein barson?
       Maut na aayi, teri yaad kyon aayi,
       Haaye, lambi judaayi!

       Devanāgarī: "बिछड़े अभी तो हम, बस कल परसों,"
       "जियूँगी मैं कैसे, इस हाल में बरसों?"
       "मौत न आई, तेरी याद कयों आई?"
       "हाय, लंबी जुदाई!"

(This is not Nasta'liq, Nasta'liq is a very specific font, ie Times New Roman, and this is not that font. I changed it to just "urdu" in the main article, if there is a better word to describe things written in the urdu alphabet please change it to that. ***see wikipedia entry for Nasta'liq***

       Nasta'liq: بچھڑے ابھی تو ہم، بس کل پرسوں
       جیوں گی میں کیسے، اس حال میں برسوں؟
       موت نہ آئی، تیری یاد کیوں آئی؟
       !ہاۓ، لمبی جدائی

       Translation: We have been separated just a day or two,
       How am I going to go on this way for years?
       Death doesn't come; why, instead, do these memories of you?
       Oh; this long separation!

Does anyone else find this wording confusing? "Over 90% of the Pakistanni population watch Bollywood films alone," Do they really watch them alone, as in 'one ticket, please'? Or do they watch only Bollywood films? What is this supposed to mean? And where does this statistic come from? Should somebody add one of those 'citation needed' stickers?

I think writing the Devanagari and Nasta`liq spellings of "Bollywood" is just not relevant. This word is made of two English words so what do these other scripts have to do with it? And Indians themselves almost don't use it. It makes no sense to me. BernardM 09:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody opposed my point of view, I removed them. BernardM 09:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry, BernardM. Your view has merit, although facts mentioned therin are incorrect. Indians do use the Devanagari and Nastaliq spellings. For example see here (Devanagari) and here (Nastaliq). It makes prefectly good sense to use the Devanagari and Nasta`liq scripts next to the English spelling when the film industry is in the Hindi/Urdu language. The term Bollywood is also uttered by Hindi/Urdu speakers more so than English ones. This situation is like Hindi/Urdu adopting words like doctor so much so that they also become Hindi/Urdu words. In addition, other film industries such as Kollywood and Lollywood also retain native scripts. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam ^Talk 00:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

With "almost don't use it" I was referring to the word itself, not the Devanagari and Nastaliq spellings. By the way the examples you showed (BBC) aren't Indian but English. Using Indian scripts usually brings info to articles because of how totally unreliable are transcriptions, but since the word Bollywood is an English word, it's not the case here. Anyway these spellings aren't wrong, just useless so I won't insist. BernardM 16:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they are useless to you. Others will find them helpful. Dieresis ( talk) 12:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole entire section of how popular Bollywood is supposed is around the world is full of nonsense. Nobody in America except for South Asians or maybe Middle Easterners like Bollywood movies. In America, actors in musicals are expected to act, dance, AND sing. I suspect Bollywood is not at all popular in any other country where acting requires more than just physical appeal and movies are expected to be more sophisticated.

"Bollywood" is not "popular" in America. "Popular" would infer at least a majority of the people know something about it, let alone watch it. The claims of popularity in this article are biased and far-fetched. It would be good if there was some legitimacy on that part. What do you others think? While I do not deny it is impressive, how is the 100 million that is reportedly brought in yearly by Indian films even close to the many billions Hollywood brings in? Seriously, this article is inflated. rotinajeht —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have references so if YOU personally don't like Bollywood, you should keep your opinions to yourself. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are refs. Secondly, you say "Nobody in America except for South Asians or maybe Middle Easterners like Bollywood movies." - Even if that's right, what's the problem? Nobody said that it's popular amongst local Americans, but it's popular in Amercia. There is no matter who the audience is and who watches it. The fact is that it's popular there. And remember that South Asians constitute a HUGE population of the US. And BTW, just for the record, many many westerners and Americans watch Bollywood films and it is hugely popular among them too. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So basically if it has been shown once in any country, it is considered popular? Given the fact that the majority of Americans do not know what Bollywood is, it is more unpopular than popular. Honestly, this article is all about glorifying India! Look at the article on the cinema of the United States and you will find facts and not rhetoric on implying it is the "best". While I understand the majority of people that edit this page is of Indian descent, it is apparent your pride is writing this article. rotinajeht

Why majority? I see you hate India from what I read here, but it doesn't mean that the majority of Americans don't know about it. you have references. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I live in the US, and the only people I know who even know about Bollywood are Indian people. Do a poll here and maybe some people will know about it given the National Geographic article on it published some years back, but hardly anyone will know about it. How is it popular? 100 million, total? If a Western movie here doesn't rake that much in, it is considered a failure! And have you ever heard of neutrality on Wikipedia? Sure,I don't care for Bollywood, and obviously you are smitten with it, however,it must be written from a neutral point of view! Like the US cinema or any other cinema page is. user:rotinajeht —Preceding comment was added at 18:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is my last reply to you. This discussion goes nowhere. You have references for every such claim. There is not matter WHO in the US watches Bollywood films but HOW MANY. And sorry to disappoint you but you're not a reliable source for that. I don't care how many people from the US who watch Bollywood movies you know. You may be someone who lives in a little town and has no connection with the entire country, so how can I know? Why should I rely on your personal claims? And please don't clarify yourself in this matter cause it doesn't matter at all. And a Wikipedia poll is literally nothing when it comes to measure poplarity. There is a HUGE population of Indian Americans in the US, particularly in New York, and it still means nothing because there are many native Amricans who are fans, and many successful Bollywood world tours there, is a perfect proof to that. I live in Australia, and there are MANY non-Indians there. I watch Bollywood films weekly, and half the spectators at the cinema are always non-Indians. So please keep your pwesonal dislikes to yourself. Wikipedia cannot be based on personal opinions. That's why the article (or this particular section) is well referenced. I have references. You have no references, and I don't think you can find a source which says that Bollywood is not popular there. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

HUGE population of Indian Americans? Hmmm! Um it's only 1% of American population according to even Wikipedia where India seems to be omnipresent. I have no choice but to support user:rotinajeht point here. Believe me, I hate you! ( talk) 02:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bollywood is not mainstream.

100 Million = number of dollars Bollywood gets per year in the US. According to http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm, the average cost of a movie ticket is $6.55 in the US. $100,000,000/$6.55 = 15.3 million. <--That is the maximum number of people that could have even seen a Bollywood movie in a year, if each person watched only one. There are 300 million people in the United States. Now, given that some people (like you) watch Bollywood weekly, rent movies, buy DVDs and VCDS or get satellite subscriptions, I'm sure the number is much lower. So how is that popular? Mainstream cinema in English in the US consists of many hundreds of billions of dollars while Bollywood is just 100 million.

Less than one percent of the population here could understand what is in those films! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_in_the_United_States) 320,000 speak Hindi? Wow! Thats one person that could understand any of those movies for every thousand people here. Hardly mainstream or "pop culture", implying popularity. Therefore, would it not be wise to change the blatant, inflated statement of "Bollywood is popular in North America" to "Though Bollywood is largely unheard of in the United States, it sees some growth" or something like that. Look, I hate to break it to you, but seriously it's not popular. You should come here and ask people, well over the majority don't give a hoot about Bollywood. I live here. user:rotinajeht —Preceding comment was added at 06:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Which part of "there is no matter how many Indians there are in US" you have problems in understanfing??? Bollywood is popular there, and among non-Indians too. See the sources. You're sources don't prove the opposite and they're actually unreliable, sorry to say that. I have sources for these claims. Your personal analysis is literally nothing. I have no time and energy to discuss it any longer. There is no sense. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You have no basis for your claim while user:rotinajeht is presenting pure facts. You don't say "See the sources" and "I have sources for these claims". You actually provide sources and stats to support your claim. You are here spreading a bad name for India by making exaggerated claims. Think about it. Believe me, I hate you! ( talk) 23:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal analysis? Let me quote you. "I watch Bollywood films weekly, and half the spectators at the cinema are always non-Indians." Do I smell hypocrisy? Keep your personal opinions to yourself. Now look at the references down below, and tell me what you think. user:rotinajeht

http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=13258 That states that Bollywood is only "popular" among the south Asian diaspora. http://www.bollywoodworld.com/whatisbollywood/index.htm This states Bollywood is "slowly getting noticed". Your sources show the same thing: Bollywood is popular among the South Asian diaspora. However, you interpret that and believe it is scholarly to slap the label of "popularity" on the whole United States.

Bend it Like Beckham grossed $32,541,719 in the US( http://the-numbers.com/movies/2003/BECKH.php)

Bride and Prejudice earned $6,601,079 in the US ( http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2005/BRDPJ.php)

Now, The Incredible Hulk, which was widely considered a flop, grossed $132,160,047 in the US. ( http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/Hulk.php). Since all these numbers are based on the same priced tickets, they indicate viewership (eliminating the fact that tickets cost lest $$$ in, lets say, India). These films were produced by Indians and yet they hardly compare to even the worst films here.

Therefore, here is my proposed edit:

Though Bollywood is largely unheard of in the United States, it has seen growth, particularly among the growing Indian Diaspora. [3] Yash Raj Films reported in September 2005 that Bollywood films in the United States earn around $100 million a year.[3] Down the last decade, Bollywood films have been filmed in New York, Los Angeles, Vancouver and Toronto.

^^^That says more than all that pedantic fluff. User:rotinajeht

LOL,,, unheard??? Look I don't know who you are and what you want, but I won't let you to do that. Your above message is yet anotther insignificant analysis (despite using sources, it doesn't matter. It is mainly based on your opinions... LOL) and I can collect a distinguished group who will support me here. To be popular in the US, Bollywood doesn't necessarily have to earn like Hollywood. It's popular in its own way, and the source on the article says that "it is becoming eancresingly popular" and nothing you say can disprove it. As per WP:RS your sources are not reliable, and even if the were, it would do nothing. Nothing of that disproves the claim. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should anyone believe you? You obviously do not want debate, seeing as you simply deleted my statement the first time I posted it...

Anyways =], you slap the label of Bollywood as "popular" on the US. That implies that many, many people here watch it, or a large percentage of the population watches it, that it is mainstream, that it has impacted society. I gave you sources (which are not unreliable...I used Wikipedia to tell you the number of people here that could even understand a Bollywood film, which is 0.1% of the population), among other things, and yet you continue to believe they are popular here.

Definitions of popular (first four in google search: "define: popular"):

1. regarded with great favor, approval, or affection especially by the general public; "a popular tourist attraction"; "a popular girl"; "cabbage ...
2. carried on by or for the people (or citizens) at large; "the popular vote"; "popular representation"; "institutions of popular government"
3. democratic: representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large; "democratic art forms"; "a democratic or popular movement"; "popular thought"; "popular science"; "popular fiction"
4. (of music or art) new and of general appeal (especially among young people)

So basically, it implies that the general public knows something about it. Now tell me how Bollywood can be considered popular here, with 0.1% of the population being able to understand it, generating 2% the revenue of Hollywood, etc. Rotinajeht ( talk) 05:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Shahid, you reject Rotinajeht's sources as unreliable when your sources are largely Indian which cannot be trusted because of conflict of interest. You have clearly refused to accept perfectly valid sources and arguments. Such behaviour is diruptive, time-wating and unhealthy, and could result in a formal complaint agianst you. Believe me, I hate you! ( talk) 10:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear friends, please don't tell me what I have or don't have to do. I didn't remove your message, especially because you vandalised the page before. Bollywood world is unreliable, and please see WP:RS. As for DrParkash, I don't think I need someone like, who has so many warnings and self-blanks, to give me lessons in Wikipedia behaviour.

You say, "why should anyone believe you?" - well exactly, you shouldn't. I have sources. Reliable sources. See the sources and then change the page, unless you want me to take it to ANI. Do you have a reliable source which says that Bollywood is unknown there? Do you have a reliable ref which states that it is not popular there? Do you have a ref that says that Bollywood is popular only among South Asians? Well you don't. But I have a reliable ref which says that it's popular. Thanks and best regards. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to be more specific here, certainly you are wrong in saying that an industry which generates $100 million in the United States isn't in the slightest bit popular but indeed you need to clarify who forms the strength of the market. Howver even in the source given it is important to show that much of the revenue is generated from the major cities and indeed amongst the south asian communities rather than evenly across America. I'm sure there are many white americans in the United States in the cities who have seen Bollywood films but I;d imagine if you did a survey of the gross earnings of the industry in North America you;d find much of it is generated from the larger cities where watching indian movies amongst the south asian diaspora has become a significant part of their culture - the source states that "Amongst south asian populations, in the larger cities, mega stars like AMitabh and SRK are bigger celebrities than Pitt or Cruise. I'm sure though that to generate $100 million there would have to be a significant watching of the films by other ethnicities also -you can't make a generalization either that nobody in America watches them. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Blofeld of SPECTRE, thank you for helping Wikipedia more fact-based by helping remove nonsense claims by ________. Believe me, I hate you! ( talk) 02:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I made changes to the History section of the article to reflect the fact that although Bollywood did start shooting movies in colour in the late 1950s (for instance, Mother India, which was released in 1957), the majority of films continued to be shot in black-and-white until the mid-1960s. Although there were quite a few successful colour movies in the early 60s (e.g. Junglee, Taj Mahal, Mere Mehboob) there were also many more B&W films to balance it out (e.g. Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam, Bandini, Woh Kaun Thi?, etc.). I personally date the transition from majority B&W to majority colour as being around 1965, with quite a few colour films I can think of (Waqt, Guide, Jab Jab Phool Khile, Arzoo just to name a few) being released in this year.

Also, I made changes to the history timeline which describes what was popular, in particular altering the dates. If anyone disagrees with my edits to this or the B&W/colour issue, it's open to discussion below. Gujuguy 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question from a North American. Is there a reference to the ban or censorship of Bollywood media? The popularity and appeal paragraph assumes prior knowledge of "the ban" which I assume relates to Censorship in Pakistan. Although, that article and a related one about internet censorship do not refer directly to censorship of movies. I would also assume that not just Bollywood, but an entire spectrum of film media might be restricted. Group29 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Everybody in Pakistan watches Bollywood films.

Don't agree with that. In countries like Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, Bollywood is quite popular. Pages like Mundo Bollywood, with almost 2.000 visitors per day, are the best example. Bollywood is becoming popular in Spain, but it IS popular in Peru.

The article had some info on Peru removed - a google search shows over 6000 hits for "Bollywood Peru" so it does appear significant. I have therefore included some basic info. Fanx ( talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a tag saying that the citations on this page need to be removed. Oceania, Africa, and Plagiarism all make very strong claims about numbers, laws, and popularity, with not support to back them up. I've added a few {{ Fact}} tags as well. 17:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There are still no citations for Oceania or Africa, and a single citation in nearly an entire page of information on finances. Is there a reason the "needs citations" tag has been removed? Reyemile 02:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== sharukhan background

sharukhan is from AFGHANISTAN he belongs to pashton background

The article says: Bollywood films have been misleadingly classified as musicals, because few films are made without at least one song-and-dance number. This classification is something of a misnomer, as a Bollywood film is expected to contain a number of elements, and one of the essentials is catchy music in the form of song-and-dance numbers woven into the script. Indeed, a film's music is often released before the movie itself and helps increase the audience. Song-and-dance numbers are default content for Bollywood films, and defining the films as musicals would not be done by the Indian public. This seems very much a non-sequitur to me. How does the fact that an essential element of a Bollywood film is "catchy music in the form of song-and-dance numbers woven into the script" make it misleading to classify them as musicals? That seems like the definition of a musical to me. As the article on musical film says, "the musical film is a film genre in which several songs sung by the characters are interwoven into the narrative." PubliusFL 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

They frequently employ formulaic ingredients such as star-crossed lovers and angry parents, love triangles, family ties, sacrifice, corrupt politicians, kidnappers, conniving villains, courtesans with hearts of gold, long-lost relatives and siblings separated by fate, dramatic reversals of fortune, and convenient coincidences. ^^this line is confusing, long, and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.94.221 ( talk) 23:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with this page was the section "Popularity and appeal" which was a full POV, full of admiration, exeptional claims and in need of an urgent clean-up. Therefore, I did the clean-up:) Toned down, removed unreferenced and disputed statements, unencyclopedic and POV claims. I've gone trough the whole page, and chacked it. It looks good (It was previously written by the great User:Zora).

As major clean-up was done, and a lot of improvement was shown down the last 24 hours, I've removed the tags.

If someone feels that tags are still needed, my requests are:

• Please cite here your reasons for tagging it, your explanations for specific tags and above all, examples that would illustrate and prove your claims and reasons for these tags. A discussion is needed as it is considered to be a drastic edit overall.

• I would also like to add that if your examples are not very serious and/or problematic, further improvement can be made at the moment, without tagging it in vain. It is better to work together on specific concerns and get good consequences rather than adding tags which usually do not significantly contribute to the article. So you're welcome to introduce concerns here.

• Apart from that, tags on the top of the page are not helpful (if helpful at all), because they don't provide specific concerns/problems and where they exactly are. Therefore, it's way better to add respective tags (and as I said, they are not helpful) on the top of specific sections which include content that violates the policy in the representative tag.

My best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to share a web which has a great library of bollywood songs so I would like to contribute this link in the bollywood songs article the link is http://www.zekty.com/songs/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.77.46 ( talk) 18:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this link is merely a spam and cannot be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed one of the last sentences in the intro paragraph to flow a bit better. Hope the editor group doesn't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.19.42 ( talk) 15:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you very much, but the result eventually contradicted your intention. It was not well written, so I reverted. Feel free to make any new changes. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Over the years, Bollywood, whose annual output of over 800 films a year, and an audience of 3.6 billion people has shown progress in its popularity, and has been entering the consciousness of Western audiences and producers.[9]

Really? Half the world watches movies they don't understand? The source for this claim only says 3.6 billion tickets sold, and I'm assuming it means the sum of all tickets sold from every movie made that year. Can someone change this? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.228.136 ( talk) 05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is bullshit. Bollywood doesn't make 800 films per year and the audience is not 3.6 billion people large. The source is ridiculous. There is a tiny reference, that this is the "national" outcome. Every film industry in India is included. -- Thirusivaperur ( talk) 01:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I was able to get a reference for your claim. Feel free to correct the whole article, which seems to be messed up. -- ComingPresident ( talk) 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of saying what Bollywood is not, can we please mention what it is?

Bollywood is often incorrectly used to refer to the whole of Indian cinema; it is only a part of the Indian film industry.

However, unlike Hollywood, Bollywood does not exist as a real physical place.

Though some deplore the name, arguing that it makes the industry look like a poor cousin to Hollywood, it seems likely to persist and now has its own entry in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Bollywood is commonly referred to as Hindi cinema, even though Hindustani, understood as the colloquial base common to both Hindi and Urdu, might be more accurate.

The use of poetic Urdu words is fairly common. There has been a growing presence of Indian English in dialogue and songs as well. It is not uncommon to see films that feature dialogue with English words and phrases, even whole sentences. There is a growing number of films made entirely in English.

How is this an introduction to what Bollywood is?

• There is no mention of the types of films
• No mention of the songs and dance
• No mention of History
• No mention of who sees it

Nikkul ( talk) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since plagarism is a big thing in bollywood, there should at least be a section that links it to the Bollywood Plagarism article. I put it in yestarday, but someone deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.229.176 ( talk) 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's back - the text you added was actually originally written by me - so I further added my entire text which remained on the plagiarism page. It was reverted by someone back in time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the introduction, there should be the reference, that the Hindi film industry is also known as Bollywood. This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing company. -- Thirusivaperur ( talk) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood is the most recognised name of Hindi cinema, it is almost formal. This was discussed in long threads many times before so I'm not going to elaborate - but just to inform you, the term Bollywood is used in dictionaries, books and --- encyclopedias. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

show me the discussion please. I'm not able to find it. -- Thirusivaperur ( talk) 17:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Many discussions - too much. I said, "This was discussed in long threads many times before" - not specifically/only here but in different boards related to India, talk pages etc. And as I said, it does not even matter. Bollywood is a common name for the Hindi film industry - it is not a fansite/magazine nick. It is internationally recognised, it is used in dictionaries, books and encyclopedias, so I can't see why Wikipedia shouldn't do that. Foreigners do not even know what Hindi cinema is, they know what Bollywood is, and here there is a clear explanation. Also make a Google search - it will make things much clearer to you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I know we have been through this before but since the sentence has reappeared in the article and if I'm correct, since an edit war is in place on this issue, let me reiterate. Bollywood in the sense of Hindi film industry is NOT the largest film producers in the world. If you are talking about whole of Indian cinema industries included, then this is not the correct article for the claim. The reference given wrongly calls whole Indian film industry as Bollywood, so we shouldn't use that reference. What amazes me is, List of Bollywood movies released in 2007 has only about 100 names. So where are all the remaining 800 movies if Bollywood indeed produces 1000 movies per year? Not logical, is it? Gnanapiti ( talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I think, and agreed with what you have said (I was not the one to add that back and did not know it was added back). The fact is - Bollywood is one of the largest film producers, BUT nowhere the largest and it does not produce 1000 films a year. So it needs to be rewritten - in the way you did that a few months back, Gnanapiti. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference given to that claim says that Bollywood produces 1000 movies per year, which with little common sense, out-rightly disqualifies that reference to be used in this article. And I believe "largest" is very subjective and we need to compare number of movies released in all the languages in the world. If Bollywood's number proves to be "one of the largest" then I'll be very happy since it applies to almost all movie industries in India. Gnanapiti ( talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the article you have cited here from Wikipedia is not a good example, because it only mentions the famous big films, there are many lesser-known low-budget and independent films. Also good to note that the number of films has been reduced, and we are talking about the average number of films per year over the decades. Don't forget also that "one of the largest" does not necessarily apply to films made per year, but can also represent the entire number of films ever done.

Except that, there is no need to make comparisons. It will be our own POV. Many sources can show that Bollywood in particular is one of the largest film producers. The fact that businessweek may have given a mistaken view does not affect the fact that Hindi cinema is big enough on its own. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It would also be good to note that all I'm asking for - references for the above claims. Gnanapiti ( talk) 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done, it's exactly what I said, "Many sources can show that Bollywood in particular is one of the largest film producers. The fact that businessweek may have given a mistaken view does not affect the fact that Hindi cinema is big enough on its own." Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, many sources - where? Not on the table at least as of now. Gnanapiti ( talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not now, later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been long and any source hasn't been produced supporting the claim. I'm removing the sentence from the article. Gnanapiti ( talk) 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gnanapiti, "any source hasn't been produced"? You removed a sentence supported by three new reputable book sources, and claim that "any source hasn't been produced"? So please read the sentence again. It was changed - please see the wording and the newly added sources - many book sources support the claim that it is the biggest in India (it is a fact, you can't deny that), and one of the biggest in the world - and there is no confusion here: I had gone through the sources delicately - and they clearly mention the Indian Hindi film industry of Mumbai. And the writers of the books are very aware of the general confusion surrounding the issue. Now, the current status of Bollywood has nothing to do with its general achievements. And your own view and calculation do not count here. It's not our business how Bollywood's enormity is counted by these sources (number of films, size, actors, money, budget etc), the matter is that it is one of the largest. And as I said, "Many sources can show that Bollywood in particular is one of the largest film producers. The fact that businessweek may have given a mistaken view does not affect the fact that Hindi cinema is big enough on its own." - the sources are there. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been a tremendous tie between the 2 institution of Bollywood and cricket. Perhaps a small section can be in the works? You have first the kashmir ki kali (what's her name?) and pataudi. then lagaan, and various other films. can be in the offing? Lihaas ( talk) 21:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can split of the international section into something that can talk of the foreign popularity and India's politics soft power?

In this regard, I added back the South Africa stuff. I also moved back some stuff with currently dubious sources/unsourced info, with tag (for a shortwhile) new sources can be found.

The "tidbit" on South africa that follows the gandhi, my father part may not appear directly relevant, but it gives context to the enduring legacy (chamber of commerce head is quite high-profile), and political gain.

Also the addition of the following is important and is shows the reason for the popularity vis-a-vis Hollywood. Or maybe this has more relevance the question above

The latter choice was a failure because "they don't base themselves on the problems of the people," where the former is based socialist values and on the reality of developing countries emerging from years of colonialism. Indian movies also allowed for a new youth culture to follow without such ideological baggage as "becoming western"

Also not sure why this was removed: "Additionally, many more movies have shot songs or significant scenes in countries like Mauritius and Kenya."

Also not sure why the Carib. stuff was removed? Lihaas ( talk) 12:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lihaas and thank you for working on it. I think it's a good progerss, but I have a few important points:

You cannot add such unreliable and sleazy blogs like bollywoodsargam and desifans, which are a joke. Most of what was removed is sourced to these sources. The info you added is interesting, but as you yourself stated, can be cut. I made my copyedits, considering Wikipedia's policies such as POV, OR, UNDUE, MOS etc.

Also, you cannot add info and follow it with a ^{citation needed} tag.

Furthermore, the Gandhi My Father premiere is hugely irrelevant and breaks the context heavily. It's got nothing to do with the discussion of Bollywood's popularity, nor is it notable enough. It does not show the popularity of Bollywood. Premieres can be help in different places. Too many quotes are definitely not needed. More so when it comes to a quote of .... Upen Patel(!!??). Who is he? He is just a model, whose work as an actor has been constantly criticised. His quote also does not make any sense whatsoever, so the whole premiere bit should be added. Additionally, all that was sourced to other blogs, which worsens the situation.

I removed the mention of " Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar and post-Soviet states", because it cannot be proved. This is that kind of info that is problematic, because it's random. Saying, "Bollywood is popular in X, Y ,Z" - is too hard to deal with, and it's been there for too long. I tried to find sources for this particular sentence, but no results. The Germany part about RTl and so on is much more easy to deal with obviously, because it is not as generalised and factual. If it's true, there must be some sources.

Finally, all the other bits such as piracy in Pakistan etc. should be sourced properly. The Australia bit about Commonwith is really odd and hard to understand.

I would also request you to see {{ cite web}}. This will help you understand how citations should be formatted.

Thanks again, Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya, ya, i totally agree with the sources. Will look for others. The following with the fact tag was for this reason, so as to get to sources or see if someone else can. (it's been done across wikipedia)

For the gandhi, my father part the context behind would probably go more to my other suggestion for a split-off above. Likewise upen only adds to the fact that is shows how bollywood has penetrated the markets, not for itself.

Fair with the other countries, I only wanted to add it in there lest it be construed i was arbitarily moving others' addition. (although for malaysia and indonesia it can be corroborated as Hindi (and tamil) movies were shown weekly in those countries un until at least 10 years ago, though not sure if it still is).

Yep, can get on piracy in pak, not too hard. (im working on poli articles for a bit, so i'll get back here. but the tags are generally good for at least a month) Fair enough, with the commonwealth games then.

Also, generally a bot comes along and sorts the tags though.

Also, what about the split? It can cover two angles with that. Working through Indian foreign policy's soft power initiatives and bollywood's global stand.

Not sure why you removed the socialist part again. What part is confusing? It is a prime corroborating theme to explain the legacy and popularity (also for Russia's Raj Kapoor movies, though I read that a long time ago and not sure where)

I also added the support for the Kenya citation, and Mauritius has a few incl. some Salman movie a while back.

And you still didn't explain the Carib. part. But fact tag and notify here so I can change what needs be done. The rest were agreed. Lihaas ( talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait for a reliable source for the video piracy in Pakistan.

The socialist part, in addition to being very confusing, contains some hidden original research. There is some over-emphasis on the message of the whole text - "Hollywood bad, Bollywood good" - the message is better understood without it through the previous sentences. If you can explain what it means at least, who this "The latter" refers to...

The Carib part is sourced to "desiclub" - a blog. Feel free to restore it with a reliable source.

Also, Lihaas, there is something very wrong here. The fact that a Hindi film was shot in some foreign country does not mean that Bollywood is popular in this country, and does not even serve us as an implication that it is. And I don't oppose to all the mentions, but with... --->

The following is particularly unnecessary, "Additionally, many more movies have shot songs or significant scenes in countries like Mauritius and Kenya ( Company)." - A) Unsourced. B) This addition is just so unnecessary. I have no problem with mentioning countries where Bollywood films have been shot, but by common sense, this is very redundant and does not imply any popularity Bollywood may have in this country whatsoever. Also, it is quite bad to mention Company after Dil Jo Bhi Kahey, when Company was shot earlier. Company was shot in little parts, and DJBK almost entirely, so the mention of DJBK would suffice.

Another problem is also with the so many additive terms you use, such as "in addition", "additionally", "aurthermore". And such other terms as "many" - which in this case can be considered POV. It's better to avoid it, and use instead "several", "numerous", "a number of" etc.

Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Will get to it in the next couple of days.

2. Not sure how it is OR though. There is a sourced citation to say how they feel about it. I'll clarify the latter part.

3. Okay, fair enough. But adding a cite tag temporarily is better though. I know for sure there is another source on this. It is more than the company's mere mention in Kenya.

4. The source is the movie itself. But fair enough. Although, for the same reason both would then be negated.

5. It is poor grammer though, i'll give you do that.

I'll adding the stuff mentioned with a fact tag though, and editing the nigeria bit. Lihaas ( talk) 17:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For the mention of the "latter" part. I just re-read it and it mentions bollywood and then compared to hollywood. thus the latter follows. Adding hollywood again (only 3-odd words later) reads quite poorly w/ repetitive words. Lihaas ( talk) 17:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with adding info with fact tags. It's just illogical and unacceptable. Find sources first and then restore it with a source. You are the one who added the Pakistani piracy and the other stuff. If you have sources, please add them. If you don't, then remove it. I've been adding many sources to the article lately. I think you should do the same. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove as of yet the socialist part, but I again must say that this is a redundancy - the message that they appreciate Bollywood more is already well understood. I repeat, there is some over-emphasis on the message of the whole text - "Hollywood bad, Bollywood good" - the message is better understood without it through the previous sentences. That's why it is redundant and not so well written. Do you understand what I mean?

Could you please first elaborate on the split template you have added? I think it is misplaced and unexplained.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1. it happens across wikipedia w/ controversial sources (ie- dubious enough to remove, as you [rightly] did), with sources following. That's why the tag has a date, to know if it has been uncited long enough and no one comes through. In my experience, it usually does, on other wikipedia pages, and if it doesn't by the end of the month (the date on the tag) then it can go. I have seen others do it, and I have also seen someone tell me (when I was starting here), that he would put the fact tag on till the link comes up. In a matter of days it was placed on.

Okay, well, let's disect it bit by bit over there and get consensus. Lihaas ( talk) 22:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Desiclub may have a web log, but this cited source is an interview. Listed in wikipedia guidelines as acceptable for citations. (There's another, though it seems web log-ish [8]). I added more links, maybe too many, so feel free to delete 1 or 2, whatever you think is best.

Also on this, "For the most part, Bollywood movies are watched on cable television in Pakistan, and there is a huge market for Bollywood movies in local video stores. Historically, video piracy was another accessible venue to watch Indian movies." the and doesn't quite flow, how about "television in Pakistan; there is also a huge market..."

I also left some notes on changes in the page. so as not to go back and forth.

Here's my [updated] take on the controversial part. (add your revision here and we work this out)

The latter choice was failed to capture the African imagination because "they don't base themselves on the problems of the people." Bollywood, however, was based on socialist values and consequent reality of developing countries emerging from colonialism. Indian movies also gave root to a new youth culture without the ideological baggage of "becoming western." Lihaas ( talk) 22:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources you have added is reliable. Desiclub and all the other blogs can never be used, under any circumstances whatsoever. This must be sorted. The yahoo is also a bloggi section. As you see, I'm adding info only from notable newspapers (TOI, The Tribune, The Hindu) and major reputable websites (ie BBC). If the info you're adding is correct and notable enough, there must be a reliable source for that. Don't worry, I'll also look for sources for that, as I did fo all the other stuff. Didn't I?

And no, you cannot add info yourself and tag it. You can tag other info, and those who added it should tag it, but you yourself must source everything you add. That's not according to me, but according to WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS.

Again, I ask you to please go through WP:CITE - that will help you to format references properly, not just giving the link.

Also, please do not complicate sentences. The Pakistan part is written well - all the decade hiatus complicates it and makes difficult to understand. The format of films listed is important, and the mention of Taj Mahal and Mughal-E-Azam too. No need to leave hidden notes for things that can be left in the talk page. If you have a better source to add for the piraacy factor, do it. No need to leave a not on the article.

The mention of three particular films that were legally released is not important. The matter is that "a few" films have been released. Again, this is not supported by the sources, so cannot be mentioned, but even if it does, what's the sense in having that mentioned? Three films, can be four, five... Does not matter. What does matter is the fact that several films have been legally released in Pakistan despite a long ban.

We'll discuss the socialist part later. As of not it's on there.

The part you rewrote in the Advertising section has many grammar mistakes and unecyclopedic language. See:

"Bollywood movies, with it's mass base, is uses product placement, as does Hollywood, to advertize products and recoup money for the producers"

"it's" means "it is"

"is uses" is not proper English.

"advertize" is American spelling. Indian-related articles use British.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

«There is a growing number of films made entirely in English[citation needed].» PROVE IT!!!

Why do I always see statements exaggerating in the use of English language & promoting it on purpose. The received message is: "English is the best of the best & if you don't use it, you are an ignorant. :( ENOUGH -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 11:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A source has been added. Be happy! But next time, please, contain yourself and calm your expressions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can split of the international section into something that can talk of the foreign popularity and India's politics soft power? On the Kabul embassy bombings page, as one such example, the article talks about India's soft power, one such reason was the spread of Bollywood. On this article, as there is already a section on the global popularity, we can then split that section off into a "Global popularity of Bollywood" or some such article to cover both. Instead of having one seperately on this aspect of India's soft power and non-aggressive policial maneouvering, and then facing a merge debate, it could be a good idea to merge here. Lihaas ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I ask you to first discuss it here rather than adding the template again.

Well, I sincerely appreciate your efforts, but this will nowhere be acceptable, nobody (including me) would agree to have such a page. Just imagine such articles as "Hollywood's popularity" or "Angelina Jolie's stardom" - it's fancruft at its best. Secondly, it belongs to the Bollywood page directly. It's not trivial info. The section's notability lies in the fact that it belongs to the Bollywood article and describes one of its major aspects. In the article Bollywood, we discuss what Bollywood is, how it works, and there should also be a result (which is its popularity and appeal). That's why this section cannot stand on its own as an article; it belongs to this article.

Let's see what others have to say. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Popularity and Appeal -> Russia and Eastern Europe

"Bollywood films have been dubbed into Russian, and shown in prominent theatres such as Mosfilm and Lenfilm." This does not make sense, as neither Mosfilm nor Lenfilm is a theatre. They're both cinema studios. I believe this reference should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.155.218 ( talk) 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

who keeps on deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.248.7 ( talk) 04:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4bJz7s9h4WAC&pg=PA16&dq=history+of+Bollywood#PPA19,M1
• http://www.museum-gestaltung.ch/Htmls/Ausstellungen/Archiv/2002/Bollywood/press%20release%20bollywood.pdf

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)

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)

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 [9] is used by many dictionaries and defines Bollywood as the film industry of India. Dictionary.com [10] 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 [11]: "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)

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)

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.

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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. - Spaceman Spiff 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)