Talk:Hindi cinema/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Use of modern technology

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

Sound

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

Recent Edits by Bigsuperindia

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

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

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

Scripts in Bollywood-related film articles

Information

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

Discussion & Comments

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

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

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

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

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

A typical Bollywood film poster, from the movie, Sholay, at File:Sholayposter2.jpg showing both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts. Presented by Anupam^Talk 23:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone who is familiar with Urdu language cannot deny that almost all Bollywood movies these days borrow heavily from Urdu. However, if someone is not familiar with Urdu and he or she believes that all of the vocabulary used in Bollywood movies is Hindi then that person should familiarize themselves with the origin of the Urdu words (borrowed from Persian, Arabic and Turkish) that are used in virtually every film. I cannot think of any Bollywood movie that does not use words like dua, Rabb, Khuda etc, all of these words are Urdu words, not Hindi.User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Out of curiosity, was "My Name is Khan an English, Urdu, or Hindi movie? I was laughing to myself when the English title was displayed in three languages (English, Hindi, and Urdu). I mean, it doesn't even make sense in the other two languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soleado (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• As I mentioned before Bollywood is Hindi cinema. In Chennai, posters have Tamil titles in addition to Hindi, so that's a bad yardstick for what languages to use. If there are some movies that have significant Urdu usage and that is in and of itself a significant element of the movie, then the Urdu script should be added to the relevant movie article. Marketing gimmicks etc should not define how Wikipedia articles are written. It is incumbent upon whoever wants to add these extra scripts to show that those scripts add value to the article(s) in question. -SpacemanSpiff 20:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urdu script has as much place as Hindi script. Both scripts encode the same language and both are widely employed within the films themselves. If one script is removed from the article, then the other must also be removed. If willful, ignorant mobs succeed in censoring Urdu script, then the article will have become a verbose lie and should simply be deleted. Dieresis (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Bollywood movies are released with English and Hindi titles. Since I come from Bollywood's locale, I am very sure of this. However, the titles may be changed depending on the screening location for obvious reasons. In UP, Hindi/Urdu would be common; in Tamil Nadu, Tamil and English would be common; in Mizoram, (if allowed) is likely to be in English. Urdu is not the lingua franca of Bollywood"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(forced unindent) I think it's important to remember that the scope of the Wikipedia for a complicated subject such is this one is to collate scholarship by experts in the field. That means that when we are talking about references, we need to keep this WP:RS in mind. While IMDB is certainly useful and helpful for film articles, it is not the kind of scholarly source we want to look towards to solve this issue. I do agree with Shahid's point that there are WP:RS sources which have referred to Bollywood as a Hindi-language industry. However, I've also found scholarship which refers to it as a Hindi/Urdu language industry. Here is one - quite recent (2009) article by Professor Vijay Mishra of Murdoch University. [1] The article is called: [Book Review] "‘The Aching Joys of Bollywood Song and Dance,’ [Sangita Gopal and Sujata Moorti eds. Global Bollywood: Travels in Hindi Song and Dance. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 2008] Postcolonial Studies 12.2 (June 2009): 247-254. The article is available online here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a911259576&fulltext=713240928

He states:

"When sound came to Indian cinema in 1931 (with the first talkie Alam Ara) these features were given greater prominence through the use of music (largely derived from the non-diegetic music of Parsi theatre) and poetic language: Hindi-Urdu for the cinema primarily based in Bombay, regional languages for cinemas based in other parts of India, although, in Calcutta-based studios especially, Hindi-Urdu flourished for a while."

One might point out that in the article, he is reviewing a text called "Global Bollywood: Travels of Hindi Song and Dance" and that he refers himself to Hindi cinema. It thus seems that this scholar is using Hindi Cinema and Hindi/Urdu cinema interchangeably, which would make sense given some of the arguments above. I think that this could be a suggested approach for us to take, keeping Zora's points above in mind. In addition, since this is a recent work of scholarship and one by a scholar who is well-published in this field, I think that it does open the floor for larger debate. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reference, User:Classicfilms. A couple additional references which I posted above also refer to Bollywood as Hindi-Urdu cinema as well; the fact that many scholarly articles do refer to Bollywood as Hindi-Urdu cinema is a good reason for keeping both Hindi and Urdu scripts in Bollywood film articles as previous consensuses established. I am attaching a link titled "About Hindi-Urdu" published under North Carolina State University. I think it will help everyone get an idea about the language being discussed here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Great sources, CF, and this can be discussed in the article. However, scholarly sources cannot override major facts which are seen as obvious by everyone. There are more scholarly sources, more books, more websites, anything more - calling the film industry "Hindi cinema" and/or "the Hindi-language film industry". And yes, I think that this majority reflects consensus. The presence of Urdu can be greatly elaborated in the body, but as said million times, the presence of Urdu does not change the fact that the primary language of Hindi cinema is Hindi and that this is the only language the script of which should be included in the article. In recent years, though, Urdu has gradually faded and English has started taking its place. As I said, the largest book made on Hindi cinema does not even mention Urdu while it discusses the entire history and developement of Hindi cinema. Books which discuss the use of Urdu call the industry Hindi cinema themselves. These very books show that Urdu is only used in Hindi films and is not the language of Hindi cinema. IMDb's list of films have only Hindi in their language field. Hindi is the primary language - it is the Hindi film industry, not the Urdu one, therefore only a Hindi script deserves to be there. If you want to discuss the growth and decline of Urdu in the body article, I support this. I do not support loading pages with scripts for no genuine reason. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to pitch in a bit, since I think I see some confusion as to what "Hindi" and "Urdu" actually mean. I'm not going to address whether Hindi and Urdu (as a whole) are separate languages, but on the colloquial level, linguists pretty much all agree that Urdu and Hindi are one and the same. Therefore, pretty much all of the "Hindi" dialogue in Bollywood films is both Hindi and Urdu at the same time (with a few exceptions, like Umrao Jaan and Ashoka, where stylized speech is used). Not all Urdu is highly Persianized poetic speech, nor is all Hindi "shuddh"/Sanskritized Hindi as used in literature/formal news. In fact, the lexicons of Hindi and Urdu overlap quite a bit, in that the Hindi lexicon include quite a bit of Persian vocabulary, and Urdu includes some lexemes directly borrowed from Sanskrit (such as dhiyaan and udaas). So, although the word "Hindi" officially appears on IMDb and other websites, and the term Hindi is used by the majority of the Bollywood audience and reviews, this does not exclude the fact that the film is also in Urdu, as, like I said before, Urdu and Hindi are largely indistinguishable on the colloquial (conversational) level.

That said, there's really no doubt that Bollywood contains strong Urdu elements. Not only is the early history of Bollywood mired in Urdu artistic tradition, it's clear that Bollywood generally appeals to both Hindi and Urdu audiences, the proof being that the language used in the films are largely devoid of Hindi-specific vocabulary (which you can argue is done on purpose), as well as the fact that Urdu script often appears in the opening credits'--' not all the time, but still often enough to be noteworthy (such as Welcome to Sajjanpur and Ghajini among recent films that I remember). Now script is a completely different issue (since language has no requirement for it) but if the openers contain Urdu script, then the film-makers are targeting an Urdu-speaking audience with what can be considered an Urdu film (as a well as a Hindi film).

What I would recommend is that the scripts on Wikipedia follow the scripts that were used in the movie's opening credits. We can sit around arguing about what is what isn't Hindi and Urdu language (especially pointless since language isn't even directly correlated with script), but if the film-makers decided to put Urdu script on the screen, it really doesn't make sense to for us to banish it from the pages of Wikipedia. And even if they only used the Roman script or Roman and Nagari scripts, what harm could adding Urdu script have on the article? In my opinion, this really shouldn't have been such a huge issue in the first place. Bʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{Speak up!} 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. There's a problem here. I would like to start by saying that this sentence alone: "'Hindi' officially appears on IMDb and other websites, and the term Hindi is used by the majority of the Bollywood audience and reviews" is enough to know what Wikipedia should reflect. Little observations (like the use of Urdu) can be discussed in the body but not made official by Wikipedia when the common facts are known and appear in most of the sources. As for your suggestion, very few films in recent years used Urdu scripts, but first, the films themselves cannot use as sources because films are generally inaccessible online and that would be a problem in terms of credibility. Other than that, as I said, Wikipedia is not a film, it is an encyclopedia. Producers' past considerations to include such scripts from time to time were mainly in order to get a wider audience, and it is not relevant to us. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again - and from a neutral standpoint in terms of my own opinion - we need to keep WP:RS in mind. Wikipedia articles are not constructed according to the viewpoint of editors but rather according to WP:RS. Please note that IMDb is not the kind of source that trumps all the others or even is ever used within the body of an article to make an argument. Clearly there are scholarly sources such as the one I gave above (and there are others similar to it) that uses "Hindi Cinema" and "Hindi-Urdu Cinema." In addition, while I have seen sources that use both, I have not seen a source that indicates that there is a conflict in choosing one term over the other. This makes me wonder if we are not verging on WP:SYNTH in stating that there is a conflict with relation to Bollywood films. In saying this I am again not advocating one position over the other but asking that this thread stays within the bounds of WP:RS in making its argument. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, I retract that quote you took me from me, seeing as there were comments above that contradict it. From what I can see, there is enough scholarly evidence that describe the cinema of Bollywood as "Hindi-Urdu," which is enough to support Urdu script for WP Bollywood-related pages. Clear me if I'm wrong, but the scripts used on such articles do not near a reliable source every time they are used-- it's the general policy of adding scripts that should be supported by reliable sources. Also, keep in mind that a simple reference to "Hindi cinema" or "Hindi-Urdu cinema" or "Urdu cinema" is by no means a support for any orthography, since that (at least to me) seems like breaking WP:SYNTH. After all, the "official" title of a Hindi film is only ever in Roman. Bʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{Speak up!} 17:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to reiterate my point that language does not mean script, and from how I see it, proving that Bollywood is only "Hindi" is not enough evidence to allow exclusive addition of Devanagari script. Assuming that Hindi language is direct and complete support for Devanagari script would break WP:OR, same thing with Urdu language/Perso-Arabic script. If we're talking WP guidelines, the only noncontroversial choice would be to only allow Roman script. Bʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{Speak up!} 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a small clarification to my post. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) stipulates that "Foreign films," usually include the original title of the film in the script of the country of origin. One example given is from Japan: Ran (Japanese: 乱, "chaos", "wretchedness"). So it is not WP:OR to include script that is not Roman script. The WP:SYNTH issue I raised revolves around the argument of this thread that there is a conflict between the concept of Hindi Cinema or Hindi-Urdu cinema. The sources offered here use one or the other or both but none indicate that there is a conflict in choosing one over the other. Thus unless we have a source stating there is a conflict, I am wondering if it is WP:SYNTH to state that there is. In making this comment,I am not saying it is WP:SYNTH but rather am trying to suggest that we need to look to WP:RS when making our arguments since our role as Wikipedians (regardless of who we are in Real life) is to simply reflect WP:RS. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What you just cited, CF, completely invalidates Basawala's mention of OR and clearly supports the use of Hindi, the national language of India and of Bollywood. A film cannot be in two languages. Hindi is the primary language and the minor use of Urdu (or the similarity between Hindi and Urdu) does not change this fact. As I just said, little observations (like the use of Urdu) can be discussed in the body but not made official by Wikipedia when the common facts are known and appear in most of the sources. And Basawala, retracting your statement would not make it incorrect because it's actually true. Every claim that Urdu is this and that remains a speculation as it contradicts what is known as common. A speculation can be mentioned but not made official. There are more scholarly sources, more books, more websites, anything more - calling the film industry "Hindi cinema" and/or "the Hindi-language film industry" than "Hindi-Urdu cinema" (a google search of the latter would show a laughable number). This majority reflects consensus. The conflict CF is talking about is not relevant to our discussion.

The presence of Urdu does not change the fact that the primary language of Hindi cinema is Hindi and that this is the only language the script of which should be included in the article. In addition to that, in recent years Urdu has gradually faded and English has started taking its place. For the Nth time, the largest book made on Hindi cinema does not even mention Urdu while it discusses the entire history and developement of Hindi cinema. Books which discuss the use of Urdu call the industry Hindi cinema themselves. These very books show that Urdu is only used in Hindi films and is not the language of Hindi cinema. IMDb's list of films have only Hindi in their language field in majority of the cases. A claim that an industry officially and widely known as Hindi cinema is actually Urdu cinema is an exceptional one, but to add an Urdu script would be even worse as it would go in violation of WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. An article about a Hindi film should only include a Hindi script. It's as simple as that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(forced unindent) I'm going to try and respond point by point. Again, stating neutrality (meaning I am not positioning one point over the other) I must respectfully disagree with this interpretation of my comments. My points do not invalidate anyone's comments and I think that both Shahid and Basawala raise legitimate arguments. My point about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) was to simply place this discussion within context. There is nothing on the page which makes stipulations about one or two languages. In fact, as Zora (and others) indicates above, it is difficult to speak of Hindi and Urdu as separate languages and this cannot be igorned. That is something that we must turn to scholarship (and not personal opinions) to decide. In addition, more or less scholarship is not the debate here but instead we must look to what important scholars, historians and so forth argue about the subject. Clearly, it is a viable point to make. I also disagree that my point about WP:SYNTH is not relevant. It is clearly relevant. It is something that I think should be put on the table and other editors to think about. Finally, the Wikipedia is made up of many sources, one not trumping the other, so no one editor here is in a position to say that one work of scholarship trumps another. And we need to address the type and quality of the scholarship as I stated in my point about encyclopedias above. In saying all this, I am again not agreeing or disagreeing with either side of the argument but asking that we think carefully about how to approach this topic so that we stay within Wikipedia:Five Pillars. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see there have been good advance on the topic but few people just keep lipping same words. We can keep going discussing language & script issues and stay strangled which I think is motive of few(most of us here want to resolve the issue). I think Nastaliq script should be used as the industry which we are talking about uses it. The best concession could be to include Nastaliq script in title of only those movies which uses them; after all if owner of movie has used it in its title who are we to exclude it from the article which claims to be representing the movie. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No one wants us to be strangled. The problem is that we are just discussing irrelevant issues when actually the main point is lost within. I oppose to the addition of Urdu scripts on articles of Hindi films. All my points above are the reason for this. A few sources (most of which cannot really be taken at face value) cannot override what is widely known as common. Maybe this should be taken on another talk where it can get a broader number of opinions, because clearly the majority of the sources (and the most reputable of them) do not support this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, CF, but there is still a good argument against even including Nagari. Here's what the policy from WP:Naming conventions (films) states: "if the native title contains characters not in the Latin alphabet, such as syllabaries or Chinese characters, treat the romanization as the common title and include the native alphabet and any other transliterations." From the context, it's clear that "native" is contrasted with "released in the English-speaking world," and thus "native title" means 'title as released in native country'. Therefore, since Bollywood films are only released with Roman-script titles, the policy stipulates only the Roman-script title of Bollywood films, since their "native title" is in Roman script. And Shahid, your statement that "[a] film cannot be in two languages" doesn't really stand, just take a look at The Shop on Main Street, a Czech/Slovak film, and Thunderbolt (1995 film), a Cantonese/English film with "characters speaking Cantonese, English and Japanese interchangeably", and not to mention the number of "Serbo-Croatian" films that exist. Anyway, from the looks of this discussion, it doesn't look like we can reach a consensus. I'd be about to suggest holding a straw poll, but I don't want to start another long discussion about whether we should or not... Anyways, my opinion is that neither Nagari nor Perso-Arabic is completely necessary, nor should either be completely banned, and I think that seems fair. And generally, in the case where there's controversy, its better to have more than to have less, to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Bʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{Speak up!} 18:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points Basawala. Thanks. You make a strong argument. I'm a little confused, however, about how the point works with the tail end of the sentence, " and include the native alphabet and any other transliterations" which implies that more than the romanization is acceptable. Am I misreading this statement? That being said, I agree with your point about moving this discussion in a new direction. I don't have a particular stake in this either way, as long as whatever happens remains within the context of WP guidelines. And I like your point about being inclusive, I agree that that should be our goal. Perhaps a new straw poll is really the best solution. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Basawala, your input is valuable and I appreciate your view as you clearly just try to avoid any intense arguments. As I said, a few sources cannot override what is widely known as common. Maybe this should be taken on an altogether different discussion page where it can get a broader number of opinions, because clearly the majority of the sources (and the most reputable of them) do not support this. A claim that an industry officially and widely known as Hindi cinema is actually Urdu cinema is an exceptional one, but to add an Urdu script would be even worse as it would go in violation of WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. An article about a Hindi film should only include a Hindi script. It's as simple as that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, what other discussion page would you propose? Seeing that there have been 3 other past discussions about this on the this same page (as given by Anupam in the first post of this section), I think there's a good enough precedent to just stick with this page, but I'm definitely open to any other ideas you may have. And keep in mind that although we each may claim that adding this script or that script breaks WP policy, none of these claims are that solid, given that they haven't been able to convince anyone else of it. The fact that we're even having such a discussion on this issue suggests that there isn't just one definitive and WP-approved solution. Therefore, we should ideally be trying to reach a solution that's agreeable to everyone, and to do so, we should try to be inclusive rather than not. Bʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{Speak up!} 22:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey again Basawala! Well the discussions Anu cited did not have any kind of consensus whatsoever. They ended before they started, were followed by other discussions, Anupam kept adding scripts, other users kept removing them, Zora herself once announced the all of it was over. This is such a mess I would really hate to see on our articles again. And I disagree that we should be inclusive just because no consensus has been gained, for the simple fact that we are talking about adding a script of a language that is not the language of the film industry. I thought of RfC but am still in some kind of a hesitation. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have had enough discussion already about this topic and one or another of the participants have touched some or other possible dimension of the discussion. Now we should have a summary of this discussion and do a vote on it(as this matter seems to be unresolvable only thru discussions). May be few individuals will hesitate from it but it seems we have no other option left. A quick discussion on nature & content of vote may be preferable owing to complex & lengthy nature of preceding discussion. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with having a vote on something as delicate as that (WP:POLLS), because what we are discussing here is not a matter of opinions, but facts. I don't think what is known as official can be disputed or consolidated by a few votes, because we are talking about adding a script of a language that is not the language of the Hindi film industry (just today the National Awards were announced, and I can't really understand why they called a category "Best Feature film in Hindi" and not "in Urdu"). As I said, this can be taken to a different board where a broader number of opinions will be given. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't think it's a bad idea to have a poll, it's not exactly going to solve things. I think RfC might not be a bad idea. Also, since this is a policy/naming convention issue, it isn't really a stone-cold "fact is fact" thing but rather an issue with multiple right solutions (if there was one right solution we would have reached it already). And it might also not be a bad idea to bring this over to WP:Naming conventions (films) or another policy or policy proposal page, since that would seem most relevant. Bʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{Speak up!} 22:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also thought of RfC but what exactly is it going to change if this will only bring a new discussion of the same sort? I'm trying to think of a noticeboard which can be good enough gor this issue. I also think this proposal thing is illogical because if we cannot reach consensus, there's no way in the world someone creates a policy without someone else invalidating it. Again, we are talking about adding a script of a language that is not the language of the Hindi film industry, so everyone should take it into account. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If an RfC should occur, it should be directed here so that other individuals will be able to read all of the comments of the discussion (or this information should be transcluded at another location). I would like to address that the last sentence of the previous comment is merely POV. As mentioned above, several scholarly sources state that Hindi-Urdu is the language of Bollywood. Two of them are as follows:

• "At the level of the colloquial language that is spoken spontaneously or is heard in Bollywood movies, Hindi and Urdu are virtually identical languages" (South Asian Language Review).
• "filmakers finally settled on one type of Hindi known as Hindustani - a mixture of Hindi and Urdu - a language associated with bazaars and trading that served as lingua franca across northern and central India" (Université de Montréal).
• "Most of the cinema produced in Bombay was made in Hindi-Urdu, but the regional studios either made films in their local languages (such as Bengali, Marathi or Punjabi) or they made two versions of their films simultaneously, one in their local language and one in Hindi-Urdu" (Cinema India).

These facts, along with the fact that many Bollywood films themselves give the scripts in both Devanagari (Hindi) and Perso-Arabic (Urdu), support the decision to continue to include both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts in Bollywood film articles as previous consensuses established in a poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Anupam, what you are doing here is reapeating everything you have already said, therefore I would do the same and collect everything I said into one detailed section. I would love to see you replying to every paragraph I write and I'd like to see if you are really able to do it.

That the industry is Hindi cinema is not MY opinion, it is a fact. Again, there was no consensus on the discussions you cited - these discussions were followed by numerous other discussions and constant removals (Zora herself declared once that nothing was set there). In fact, you had been adding these scripts way before any discussion happened. Also, this discussioon is not done in order to keep Urdu scripts, but to add them. A few sources cannot change the fact that Bollywood is officially called Hindi cinema. That's why it is called Hindi cinema by every possible literary source.

I again challenge you to prove your point: let's go and count the number of films on IMDb which have Urdu in the language field along with Hindi and compare the result to the number of titles which have only Hindi. Secondly, let's make a simple google search and check the number of hits for "Hindi cinema" and "Hindi-Urdu cinema" and you will see the result yourself. Are you ready to do it? (let's see how you ignore this question as well)

I will again mention the largest book on Bollywood, Encyclopedia Britannica's book "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema" which does not even mention Urdu. Even the books which do discuss the use of Urdu, call it the Hindi-language film industry.

• "Bollywood: A Guidebook To Popular Hindi Cinema" by Tejaswini Ganti starts with "'Bollywood' - once a tongue-in-cheek term used by the English-language media in India - has become the dominant global term to refer to the prolific Hindi language film industry located in Bombay."
• Other books you cited say, for instance, "One could argue that Urdu is the meta-language of romantic love in film culture. However, English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu." - by comparing the use of Urdu in Hindi films to the use of English, this book directly proves that the use of Urdu in Hindi films is minor.
• Another book that proves that is a book called "A Cinematic Imagination" (which you have also cited), saying, "The extent of Urdu used in commercial Hindi cinema has not been stable". The language of the film industry is Hindi.
• And I find it very funny that you omitted the second part of the title of your third source. You called it "Cinema India", while the entire title is: "Cinema India: the visual culture of Hindi film".

Also, most of the films do not use Urdu scripts today and producers did use them in the past for commercial reasons only. Producers' past considerations to include such scripts from time to time were mainly in order to get a wider audience, and it is not relevant here, on the English Wikipedia. It is the English Wikipedia, not a film with which a producer can play games to make more money. As said in the past by Nichalp on this very talk page, it all depends on location:

"Bollywood movies are released with English and Hindi titles. Since I come from Bollywood's locale, I am very sure of this. However, the titles may be changed depending on the screening location for obvious reasons. In UP, Hindi/Urdu would be common; in Tamil Nadu, Tamil and English would be common; in Mizoram, (if allowed) is likely to be in English. Urdu is not the lingua franca of Bollywood"

Every claim that Urdu is this and that remains a speculation as it contradicts what is known as common and official. A speculation can be mentioned but not made official. There are more scholarly sources, more books, more websites, anything more - calling the film industry "Hindi cinema" and/or "the Hindi-language film industry" than "Hindi-Urdu cinema" (a google search of the latter would show a laughable number). This majority reflects consensus.

As you see, books which discuss the minor use of Urdu call the industry Hindi cinema themselves. These very books show that Urdu is only used in Hindi films and is not the language of Hindi cinema. IMDb's list of films have only Hindi in their language field in majority of the cases. The presence of Urdu does not change the fact that the primary language of Hindi cinema is Hindi and that this is the only language the script of which should be included in the article. I think the use of Urdu, its developement and recent decline in Hindi films, can be fairly and neutrally discussed in the article as suggested by Abecedare, but with the exception of films in which the presence of Urdu is much stronger (for instance Umrao Jaan and Mughal-E-Azam) and which do not represent the majority of Hindi cinema, the only script which can be used in an article about the Hindi-language film industry and its films is Hindi.

A claim that an industry officially and widely known as Hindi cinema is actually Urdu cinema is an exceptional one. This speculation can be mentioned, but to add an Urdu script would be even worse as it would go in violation of WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. An article about a Hindi film should only include a Hindi script. It's as simple as that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh (Shahid), please do not delete other people's comments on the talk page just because they disagree with your position. User:Dieresis has contributed to several Bollywood related articles and it was wrong to delete his comment from the talk page, especially since it is relevant to this discussion. I have restored his comment and will reply to your lengthy post at a later time. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

His message comes in violation of WP:NPA and that's what I cited ("willful, ignorant mobs" is a personal attack). Please re-read it and I will consult an admin. I did not remove it because he "disagrees with my position". Do not accuse me of such things. I do not accuse you of trying to enforce your POV just because your mother tongue is Urdu and him because it is his mother tongue. Oh yeh, and I'm highly looking forward to your reply to my message. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, his comment still contained information valuable to this discussion. Moreover, my mother tongue is not Urdu. I support the insertion of scripts where they are helpful. For example, in this edit, I added Punjabi to the article. I feel Urdu belongs in Bollywood related film articles for the reasons I and many others listed above. I will post a summary of my arguments in the near future. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you would say that when his comment (which is clearly POV-driven, with no proper reasoning and no sources) supports your view. I'm not surprised you ignore his personal attacks. By the same token, I strongly feel Urdu does not belong in Bollywood articles for the reasons and facts I and many others listed above. Looking forward to your reply. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasons to continue to retain both Hindi & Urdu scripts in Bollywood related film articles

This discussion has been going on for quite some time now and many editors have offered valuable positions. In his previous post, User:Shshshsh (Shahid) offered a summary of his arguments. I will proceed to do the same. In the past, the same topic of discussion was held in a poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3. These consensus established a policy to permit the use of both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic/Nasta'liq) scripts on Bollywood-related film articles: "It appears that there's a pretty good consensus to leave Urdu script in the opening here" (User:Grenavitar at discussion 3). Moreover, a respected Wikipedia Bureaucrat, User:Taxman, attested to the veracity of this previous consensus in this discussion: "Additionally there was indeed in the past a consensus for including both scripts in the conversations that have been linked. Longstanding Wikipedia tradition is that consensus stands until a different one is clearly established, time doesn't invalidate a past consensus it just means it has stood the test of time longer. Since a consensus to change the practice hasn't been established yet, removing the scripts is not proper until such consensus has been established." The arguments delineated below will support the previous consensuses which established that both Devanagari and Perso-Arabic scripts would be allowed in Bollywood-related film articles. On reason to continue to retain Urdu (Perso-Arabic/Nasta'liq) scripts in Bollywood articles is because many Bollywood movies, both new and old, display both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts in the introduction to the movies. I will provide two examples of some of 2008 films, which were mentioned previously by User:Basawala:

• Welcome to Sajjanpur (Devanagari: वेलकम सज्जनपुर, Perso-Arabic: ویلکم ٹو سجن پور) click here
• Ghajini (Devanagari: गजनी, Perso-Arabic: گجینی) click here

Another reason to continue to retain Urdu scripts in Bollywood-related film articles is because many scholarly sources refer to Bollywood as the Hindi-Urdu film industry:

• "At the level of the colloquial language that is spoken spontaneously or is heard in Bollywood movies, Hindi and Urdu are virtually identical languages" (South Asian Language Review).
• "filmakers finally settled on one type of Hindi known as Hindustani - a mixture of Hindi and Urdu - a language associated with bazaars and trading that served as lingua franca across northern and central India" (Université de Montréal).
• "Most of the cinema produced in Bombay was made in Hindi-Urdu, but the regional studios either made films in their local languages (such as Bengali, Marathi or Punjabi) or they made two versions of their films simultaneously, one in their local language and one in Hindi-Urdu" (Cinema India).

Moreover, most scholarly sources maintain that the central concepts in Bollywood films are from "Urdu's Persian and Arabic derived vocabulary" ("Bollywood" Routledge, p. 23). Sources that discuss the ubiquitous use of Urdu in Bollywood films are listed below. Note, this list was kindly developed by User:Abecedare above:

• 1. Desai, Jigna, Dudrah, Rajinder, Rai, Amit, Bollywood Audiences Editorial, South Asian Popular Culture; Oct2005, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p79-82, ("Bollywood is (commonly and more importantly) inaccurately referred to simply as ‘Hindi’ cinema despite the ubiquitous presence of Urdu. One could argue that Urdu is the meta-language of romantic love in film culture. However, English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu.")
  2. Ganti, Tejaswani, Bollywood: a guidebook to popular Hindi cinema, Routledge, 2004
  3. Warsi, M.J, Heritage Language Teaching: Issues Regarding Hindi-Urdu in the United States, South-Asian Language Review, Vol. 8, January-June, 2003
  4. Rachel Dwyer, Divia Patel , Cinema India: the visual culture of Hindi film, Rutgers University Press, 2002 ("Bombay became the centre of Hindi-Urdu film after the coming of sound after 1931. ... However, once Hindi was promoted as the national language of India and the Bombay film industry came to be seen as the national film industry, the language of its cinema came to be somewhat inaccurately called Hindi")
  5. Kesavan, Mukul, Awadh and the Tawaif, the Islamicate Roots of Hindi Cinema, in Forging Identities: Gender, Communities, and the State , Zoya Hasan (ed), Westview Press, 1994.
  6. Mishra, Vijay, Bollywood cinema: temples of desire, Routledge, 2002
  7. Virdi, Jyotika, The cinematic imagiNation (sic): Indian popular films as social history, Rutgers University Press, 2003.
  8. Mehta, Rini Bhattacharya, Pandharipande, Rajeshwari, Bollywood and Globalization: Indian Popular Cinema, Nation, and Diaspora, Anthem Press, 2010
  9. Prasad, Madhava, This thing called Bollywood, Unsettling cinema: a symposium on the place of cinema in India, May 2003
  10. Alter, Stephen, Fantasies of a Bollywood love thief: inside the world of Indian moviemaking, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007 ("Though Bollywood movies are known as Hindi films, the root language is actually Hindustani, a dialect that has gone out of favour because of Sanskritisation.")
  11. Prasad, Madhava, Ideology of the Hindi film: a historical construction, Oxford University Press, 1998
  12. Anandam P. Kavoori, Aswin Punathambekar, Global Hollywood, NYU Press, 2008
  13. Philip Lutgendorf, Is There an Indian Way of Filmmaking? International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Dec., 2006), pp. 227-256 ("With the coming of sound, Persianized Hindi/Urdu with its strong literary and romantic associations became the dominant language of Bombay cinema")

In addition, reputable newspapers such as the The Times of India refer to the language used in Bollywood flims as Hindi-Urdu (source). Moreover, many of the Bollywood films, in their official poster titles, display both Hindi (Devanagari) & Urdu (Nastaliq) scripts. For some examples, please look at the posters of the following Bollywood movies; Image:Awaaraposter.jpg, Image:Waqt 1965 film poster.JPG, Image:Sholayposter2.jpg, Image:Padosan film poster.jpg, etc. In his above argument, User:Shshshsh (Shahid), states that both Urdu and Hindi scripts should not be included in Bollywood related film articles because Bollywood is sometimes referred to as Hindi Cinema. However, as noted by User:Abecedare, Shahid excised a portion of his quote which stated that "Bollywood is (commonly and more importantly) inaccurately referred to simply as ‘Hindi’ cinema despite the ubiquitous presence of Urdu." In other words, the term Hindi Cinema is a misnomer because, as mentioned above, the language Bollywood filmakers decided to use in their movies is "Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) - a mixture of Hindi and Urdu - a language associated with bazaars and trading that served as lingua franca across northern and central India" (Université de Montréal). In most of the northern India, where Bollywood movies are aimed at, the official language of these north Indian states is both Hindi and Urdu, which are in the Devanagari and Perso-Arabic/Nastaliq scripts respectively. For example, Urdu is an official language in Uttar Pradesh (source), Bihar (source), Jammu and Kashmir (source) and even the national capital, Delhi (source). Nevertheless, even though both Hindi and Urdu diverge on the literary level, they are the same language on the colloquial level (source [North Carolina State University]). For this reason, Hindi and Urdu are linguistically a diasystem, and are often grouped together as one language, Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu. Encyclopædia Britannica states that "Hindustani is widely recognized as India’s most common lingua franca" and for this reason, it was chosen for the northern Indian film industry (source). A dictionary definition of Urdu for example will state: "An Indic language that is the official literary language of Pakistan, essentially identical to Hindi in its spoken form but in its literary form heavily influenced by Persian and Arabic and written in an Arabic alphabet" (The American Heritage Dictionary). For these reaons the language used in Bollywood films could be called Hindi or Urdu: "At the level of the colloquial language that is spoken spontaneously or is heard in Bollywood movies, Hindi and Urdu are virtually identical languages" (South Asian Language Review). As a result of this fact, Hindi and Urdu are often studied as one subject in universities as Hindi/Urdu (source a, source b). One of User:Classicfilms's references from Arizona State University discussed how watching Bollywood films was an integral part of the course syllabus for learning Urdu. Another reason to keep both Urdu and Hindi scripts in Bollywood related film articles is that by simply doing a search in Google or any other search engine for a Bollywood film title in Devanagari or Nastaliq, one will yield a plethora of results. For example, try searching for Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham (Hindi: कभी ख़ुशी कभी ग़म, Urdu: : کبھی خوشی کبھی غم). Major news sources such as BBC Hindi and BBC Urdu have their own sections dedicated to Bollywood films. Finally, another reason to retain both scripts in Bollywood related film articles is that many of the Bollywood films listed in the Internet Movie Database display the language of Bollywood films as both Hindi & Urdu. For example, glance at the Dil Chahta Hai's (2001) IMDb page here. It gives the language as both Hindi and Urdu. Another example is Khakee (2004) which is available at the IMDb page here. Even though IMDb is not an authoritative source, there are many more examples on IMDb which list Bollywood films as both Hindi and Urdu. Famous poets of the Indian subcontinent such as Muhammad Iqbal have referred to Urdu and Hindi interchangeably (source). In light of all these facts, I feel that it is evident that both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts should continue to remain in Bollywood related film articles. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

One small comment, *many* of the supposedly "Hindi" films from Bollywood actually state their language to be Urdu in the Central Board of Film certification. For example, Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikandar, take a look at the certificate closely. It clearly says that the language is Urdu. Also, Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak stated this as far as I remember. --Ragib (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Anupam, but again you ignored everything I wrote in my lengthy post and your reply states nothing but repetition of other' comments which do not answer my question. Again you are talking about a consensus that never was (I proved why in my post. The fact that Taxman is a bureaucrat does not change it and it does not mean that his words have more weight, sorry), again you are ignoring the majority of the sources. I again challenge you to prove your point: let's go and count the number of films on IMDb which have Urdu in the language field along with Hindi and compare the result to the number of titles which have only Hindi. Secondly, let's make a simple google search and check the number of hits for "Hindi cinema" and "Hindi-Urdu cinema" and you will see the result yourself. Are you ready to do it?

The similarity of Hindi and Urdu are not relevant here and the languages' positions in different Indian states are not relevant to the Hindi film industry. If Urdu and Hindi were practically the same language, there would not be to different names for them.

Your posters which you are repeatedly adding here do not make sense. Producers' past considerations to include such scripts from time to time were mainly in order to get a wider audience, and it is not relevant here, on the English Wikipedia. The same with your two examples. I also cited two examples with films which have only a Hindi script. The use of Urdu is minor and the fact that one of the books states that Urdu has been gradually replaced by English only further proves this claim.

And as you see, most of the books you cite still refer to the film industry as Hindi cinema. So does the largest book on Bollywood, "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema".

As I said, every claim that Urdu is this and that remains a speculation as it contradicts what is known as common and official. It can be mentioned, but a script is totall irrelevant. A claim that an industry officially and widely known as Hindi cinema is actually Urdu cinema is an exceptional one. This speculation can be mentioned, but to add an Urdu script would be even worse as it would go in violation of WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. An article about a Hindi film should only include a Hindi script. It's as simple as that. Bollywood is Hindi cinema, not Urdu and not Hindustani. A few sources cannot change what is common and official. Few sources mentioning Urdu cannot override the entire search results the internet displays. The same case with IMDb, only a few films display Urdu as an additional languge, most of them do not. Actors, producers, newspapers, books refer to Bollywood as Hindi cinema. You now cite only few examples which call it Hindi-Urdu, so I again suggest you to make a simple Google search. Other than that, I think it's high-time this discussion is taken elsewhere because nothing is properly settled here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Shahid, what arguments do you have regarding the Central Film Board certificate of the "Hindi" movie, where the film is certified as an "Urdu" film? That's not an isolated incident ... I've watched several movies with similar certifications. --Ragib (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Raqib. That's an interesting argument which I'm willing to discuss. I do not ignore your post. I'm right now checking different movies. From the DVDs I've checked, which include Yeh Dillagi, Baazigar, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, none has mentioned Urdu. Only Hindi. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Dev.D, Wake Up Sid, Paa. Only Hindi is mentioned. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Checked Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, which Anupam just mentioned. The certificate has only Hindi on it, and additionally, only a Hindi script appears there. Same with Khakee, which Anupam has mentioned so many times. All these examples clearly show what the language of Hindi cinema is. As one of the books says the minor use of Urdu has reduced throughout the years. Bollywood is officially Hindi cinema. All these examples prove that. Anupam never answered why the National Film Awards do not say "Best Film in Hindi-Urdu" but "Best Film in Hindi". And ditto for the Google and IMDb searches I asked him to do. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a movie from the 60s that lists the language as "Hindusthani". Anyway, the existence of "Hindi" movies certified as Urdu shows that many Bollywood movies are officially made as Hindi or Hindusthani (not saying all, but definitely we can say "there exists Bollywood movies that are Urdu/Hindusthani"). --Ragib (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. First, the existence of Hindi movies certified as Hindustani does not show that many movies are officially made as Hindi or Hindustani, particularly not with two examples. I've gone through many old and new movies now and none has Urdu in it (I did not list them because I think I've given enough examples, but I can go on if you like. Just finished checking several films directed by Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Raj Kapoor, Shyam Benegal and Gulzar - only Hindi is there.). In recent movies there certainly has not been any mention of Urdu from a broad check that I just made (in fact I cited the most recent movies above). This shows that the standard Bollywood film is not officially considered to be Hindi-Urdu. As we know, the use of Urdu in Hindi movies is mainly in poetic film dialogues and songs. Of course, in certain movies the presence of Urdu is much more major (eg Umrao Jaan, Mughal-E-Azam), but it's another story. The general Bollywood film is in Hindi, just like it has been known all over. About the existence itself, no one ignores it and it is mentioned on the article. As I said, the history of Urdu, its use and recent decline and replacement by English can be mentioned and discussed. But otherwise this is the Hindi-language film industry and that's the script we should use in film articles, Hindi. Other exceptions is a different case. Still checking many many movies, all is so clear. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Wikipedia operates according to WP:PRIMARY, where secondary sources are preferred over primary ones. Most scholarly articles, when evaluating the language used in Bollywood, will state that it is falls between the substratum between Hindi-Urdu: "filmakers finally settled on one type of Hindi known as Hindustani - a mixture of Hindi and Urdu - a language associated with bazaars and trading that served as lingua franca across northern and central India" (Université de Montréal). One of your own sources even states that the tern Hindi cinema is too simplistic is minsnomeric: "Bollywood is (commonly and more importantly) inaccurately referred to simply as ‘Hindi’ cinema despite the ubiquitous presence of Urdu." Nevertheless, many modern Bollywood movies themselves display both Hindi and Urdu scripts in their introduction. Another example is Lagaan whose introduction can be viewed here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that we're getting anywhere. A dozen people remonstrate with Shahid; Shahid repeats his arguments. Why should we have an RFC because one person refuses to accept a settled policy that is supported by many other editors? Shahid might do better to turn his efforts to the Bollywood film industry and ask it to drop the Nastaliq from the titles and film posters :) Oh, and stop using Persian words like mohabbat and zindagi and use only shudh Hindi :) Zora (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And a lot of people also support what I said (see above). And no, I'm not missing any point. Prove your point that "Most scholarly articles" - you have shown only a few examples most, if not all, of which still call the industry Hindi cinema, and you call it "most? In fact, just make a Google search for "Hindi" and for "Hindi-Urdu" and you'll see the result, there you will get the meaning of "most". Also, except for the two examples from IMDb you gave me no other examples because you full know that all of the appear as Hindi films. Do not make a reality that does not exist. Not even the best of sources can override facts. The fact is that this is the Hindi-language film industry, not the Urdu one (however similar Urdu may be to Hindi).

Zora, that a few Urdu words are used in Hindi films is not something new to me and the article fairly mentions it. The primary language is Hindi and that's how the films are officially considered. The scripts filmmaker use are there for commercilal purposes which should not have to interest us. In fact, in recent years there have almost not been Urdu scripts in Hindi films. The certificates are much more valid, and I've shown you many of them.

And Anupam, please do not come up with posters of films which have Urdu scripts, as it was already said that such scripts in posters were added only for commercial purposes. You better check the certificates. I find it funny that you keep adding the same posters but when someone cites certificates, you try to invalidate. I've checked many of them. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, Zora is back! Aloha! Long time no see Zora, how is Hawaii these days? Agreed with Zora and Shahid this discussion is going nowhere. It is called Hindi cinema or Bollywood. Yes they may sometimes use Urdu poetry extracts and that in Bollywood films and it might be relevant to mention this but I do not see the need to display Urdu script within the article. Why is so much time being wasted here when 99% of Indian cinema articles are substandard? Anpam, why not dedicate more time to articles which actually need the work, like any one of thousands of films? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Only you stated that Urdu scripts were added to Bollywood film posters because of commercial reasons, User:Shshshsh. No other scripts are displayed in Bollywood film posters and in the film introductions themselves besides Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic). The reason for this is because "At the level of the colloquial language that is spoken spontaneously or is heard in Bollywood movies, Hindi and Urdu are virtually identical languages" (South Asian Language Review). User:Himalayan Explorer, thank you for your suggestion but please realize that User:Zora and User:Shshshsh state differing opinions. According to a scholarly reference given by User:Classicfilms, I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, your last quote actually discussed music and it only supports what I said about Urdu being primarily used in poetic dialogues and film songs, which is clearly a minor use. Today, most of the films prefer using English over Urdu, BTW, and it was proved already by a prominent book source.

No, not only me, but Mrs. Zora herself stated that Urdu scripts are sometimes used for commercial purposes. And as Nichalp said, "Bollywood movies are released with English and Hindi titles. Since I come from Bollywood's locale, I am very sure of this. However, the titles may be changed depending on the screening location for obvious reasons. In UP, Hindi/Urdu would be common; in Tamil Nadu, Tamil and English would be common; in Mizoram, (if allowed) is likely to be in English. Urdu is not the lingua franca of Bollywood". It all depends on location. Moreover, official film certificates have much more weight than the scripts (all 99& of the certificates state the language of the film as being Hindi, only Hindi. See the numerous examples I've given), and even there, very few Urdu scripts have been used in recent films from the examples I've given.

Most of the sources, scholarly or not, call the industry Hindi cinema. Even sources which discuss the minor use of Urdu call it Hindi cinema. A few sources cannot trump the majority of sources. Two IMDb examples cannot trump all the other examples. Again, I suggest you to make a simple Google search for both "Hindi cinema" and "Hindi-Urdu cinema" and you will see the results yourself. As one of the sources I cited, "English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu". This only proves that the presence of Urdu has been minor and clearly shows its decline in recent years. It is Hindi cinema, that's how it is officially and commonly referred to all over - by industry members, books, Encyclopedia Britannica for instance, most of the books you yourself cited, the National Film Awards, film certificates. The language of Bollywood is Hindi and that's what the articles should reflect in their scripts, just like Himalayan suggested. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually this quote:

"When sound came to Indian cinema in 1931 (with the first talkie Alam Ara) these features were given greater prominence through the use of music (largely derived from the non-diegetic music of Parsi theatre) and poetic language: Hindi-Urdu for the cinema primarily based in Bombay, regional languages for cinemas based in other parts of India, although, in Calcutta-based studios especially, Hindi-Urdu flourished for a while" (Postcolonial Studies, Volume 12, Issue 2 June 2009, pages 247 - 254).

is about the use of sound in general not just of music or poetry. The sentence construction indicates that it is speaking of more than just music or poetry since both regional languages are discussed along with Hindi-Urdu. The quote actually supports what Anupam is arguing. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not really - "When sound came to Indian cinema in 1931 (with the first talkie Alam Ara) these features were given greater prominence through the use of music (largely derived from the non-diegetic music of Parsi theatre) and poetic language: Hindi-Urdu for the cinema used in Bombay." - it only proves that Urdu is used in poetic dialogues and film songs. Urdu is mainly used in melodarmatic, poetic Hindi movies. Even there, it actually proves nothing and it's far from indicating that Bollywood is Hindi-Urdu cinema. Here you have another source which proves the minor use of Urdu is mainly in poetic dialogues. Just remember that the industry is obviously called Hindi cinema throughout.

About the scripts, yes, as several editors have already said, Urdu scripts were added back in time for commercial - just like English. Or will you now say that it is English-language cinema?

Another books which proves that the use of Urdu is minor is "A Cinematic Imagination":

"The extent of Urdu used in commercial Hindi cinema has not been stable... Although the shift was gradual and two generations communicated with each other through a blend of Urdu and Hindi, known as Hindustani, the ultimate victory of Hindi in the official sphere has been more or less complete." It further says "The Decline of Urdu is mirrored in Hindi films... It is true that many Urdu words have survived and have become part of Hindi cinema's popular vocabulary. But that is as far as it goes."

This so perfectly proves that Urdu is used in Hindi films (yet it in a minor way and it also faces a great decline), but is clearly not the language of Hindi cinema.

The reason some books even call the industry Hindi-Urdu is the similarity between the two languages, which is not relevant. I wonder why no one really bothers to reply to this sentence, "English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu". This clearly proves that the presence of Urdu has been minor and clearly shows its decline in recent years. As I said, a simple Google search will clearly show what the language of Bollywood is (just check on Google scholar "Hindi cinema" and Hindi-Urdu cinema" - over 24 thousand results for the former and less than 500 for the latter), so will a little go through IMDb (almost all the pages on Bollywood films have only Hindi in their language field), and so will a little go through the films themselves and their certificates. And I don't think that any of the sources cited have more credibility than this one. The language of Bollywood is officially Hindi and that's what the articles should reflect in their scripts. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, the A Cinematic Imagination link is much more nuanced than the interpretation you provide. I'm only looking at the search results that come up when you click on the link, but the writer seems to say that Urdu plays an important role in cinema. It points to the Urdu (and Parsi) themes in the origins of Indian cinema; clearly says that Urdu is 'often' used in film titles, screenplays, lyrics, language of love, etc. etc. Later on, the book quotes Mukul Kesavan to say that 'popular Hindi cinema is the last stronghold of Urdu in India'. An interesting book though because it outlines the political reasons for the decline of Urdu in India. (I'm still agnostic on the inclusion of Urdu script, just wanted to point out that the book reference does not perfectly prove your point.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur on all points, this pretty much sums up my response as well to the quotes above. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

'popular Hindi cinema is the last stronghold of Urdu in India' - I know and I'm aware of that. Urdu is present in Hindi movies, but it is not the language of Hindi cinema. It is only present in it, and that's perfectly supported by the book. In fact, the quote still calls it Hindi cinema. Does it not? And the decline of Urdu it discusses later is not less important. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As quoted before from a reliable source:

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

Moreover, 'Chidananda Dasgupta, the seniormost and most scholastic film critic in the country states that "The 'Hindi' film is a misnomer. "The language in most of the productions grouped under this rubric is Hindustani, with a bias towards Urdu." (International Symposium on Sound in Cinema in London).' There are other scholarly sources which also state that the language of Bollywood can be called Urdu. In relation to the previous comments, the reliable source also states that

“ another impact of Partition is that the Bombay industry became one of the few sites where the Urdu language was kept alive. ”

The opposition has not provided enough evidence to warrant a removal of Urdu (Perso-Arabic/Nastaliq) scripts from Bollywood related film articles. The safe thing to do would be to continue to keep them on here, especially since past consensuses have decided that both Hindi and Urdu scripts are permitted for use in Bollywood related film articles (given in poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3 and confirmed by Wikipedia:Bureaucrat User:Taxman twice: here and here). Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just look how your first source is called - "Bollywood: a guidebook to popular Hindi cinema". It is the Hindi-language film industry. I also don't get why you keep ignoring other sources I cite. Moreover, there was no consensus on those discussions and there is no consensus here. User:Taxman does not take here any decicions, and the fact that he is a bureaucrat does not mean he is right. There was no consensus and such scripts were removed over a year ago and have not since been added, so now consensus has to be reached to add scripts, not to keep them. What's filmsound.org? Is it reliable enough for such exceptional claims which contradict the official certificates of Bollywood films? Is it more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannice? And see the source again, the term Hindi films appears all over:

In terms of language, though Hindi was, and still is, the principal lingua franca for Indian films, the talking picture drew upon target audiences marked by the linguistic divide. Indian films are today made in 17 different languages. The earliest talkies used Hindusthani which was a strange blend of pure Hindi and pure Urdu. Today, we have Hindi films using regionally accented Hindi in the dialogue such as the Bambaiya Hindi which uses a vulgarised version of Hindi spoken in Mumbai. Or, the Telugu­stressed Hindi spoken by characters set against a Telugu backdrop. Such as in Shyam Benegal's film Ankur.

Your third quote proves nothing except that Urdu is used in Hindi films which is known to all of us. But it is not the language of Bollywood. Hindi is.

BTW, have already done a Google search? Have you seen the results? Are htere more reliable sources for "Hindi-Urdu cinema" than there are for "Hindi cinema"? What do you have to say about this sentence: "English has begun to challenge the ideological work done by Urdu"?

A simple Google search will clearly show what the language of Bollywood is (just check on Google scholar "Hindi cinema" and Hindi-Urdu cinema" - over 24 thousand results for the former and less than 500 for the latter), so will a little go through IMDb (almost all the pages on Bollywood films have only Hindi in their language field - the two films you cited, Khakee and Dil Chahta Hai, do not have Urdu in neither their certificate nor the scripts. They have Hindi), and so will a little go through the films themselves and their certificates. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Shahid, I am not sure why you keep insisting that Bollywood is "Hindi-only", there is hardly any Bollywood movie released these days that does not make frequent use of words like Rabb, Dua, Khuda etc, these are Urdu words and not Hindi. It is not realistic to claim that the use of Urdu words is "very limited" in Bollywood. Besides, I don't see the point of this whole discussion, how will eliminating Urdu script make the article any better? Either Devanagri script should also be removed from Bollywood movie pages or Urdu/Persian script should also be retained. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 22:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My arguments are not baseless. Urdu is as present in Hindi films as English. Words like "God" "Thanks", "Please" and million of other English words are used in Hindi films and it does not make the industry an English one. I would also request you to go through my previous messages in which I mention Google hits, IMDb, film certificates, book quotes and other sources and in which I offer analyses of different sources cited by others. In fact, the use of Urdu has only been reduced in Hindi films in recent years and English has started taking its place. Yes, Urdu is used in Hindi films and I fully acknowledge that and I think it's noteworthy and must be discussed, but the films still are Hindi films. Urdu is not the language of Hindi films, Hindi is. That's how the films are officially acknowledged and that's how the industry is widely referred to by everyone and by the most reputable of sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No one is questioning the influence of Urdu in Hindi films (and for that matter the language itself). However, that doesn't mean that a blanket addition of scripts to every article is warranted or reasonable. We need to use some common sense in that. If the influence of Urdu in a particular film is quite significant, add the script, not otherwise. —SpacemanSpiff 08:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. In films like Mughal-E-Azam, Umrao Jaan an Urdu script is due. Not otherwise. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: There are currently two side discussions regarding this topic that are being carried on here and here. An effort was made to merge all of these discussions into one for easy readability but this effort was stymied by Shshshsh (Shahid). In my opinion, it would be helpful to place all comments relevant to this discussion in this section so those new to the discussion will have easy access to all the relevant comments. Thanks for your comments everyone, Anupam^Talk 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, Shahid claims that 99% of all references to films made in Bombay use the term "Hindi cinema". This simply isn't true. Eros is the largest distributor of Bollywood DVDs outside India; they use the term "Bollywood" much more often than they use "Hindi films" and they put "Bollywood" first. The filmi gossip website is Bollywood Hungama, not Hindi Hungama. ApunkaChoice advertises "Bollywood movies, Bollywood news". When I talk to other non-Indians about Bollywood movies, we say "Bollywood"'; we don't use "Hindi cinema". When the New York Times talks about the Bombay movie industry, it says Bollywood (for an example, see [2]). Bollywood gets some 50 million ghits; Hindi cinema gets some 25 million.

Shahid claims that Hindi and Urdu are different languages. When faced with Wikipedia articles and numerous scholarly references contradicting this, he says that they don't count. Faced with a sentence that's the same whether you call it Hindi, Urdu, or Hindustani, he ignores it. He says that Urdu words are rare in Bollywood movies ... ignoring the fact that the most common, everyday words are the SAME. If he hears "aap", he doesn't think it's Urdu as well as Hindi -- but it is.

If you call something by a different name, that doesn't make it different. When the US went to war with Germany in WWI, some people wanted to call sauerkraut "liberty cabbage". Didn't stick. When France refused to support the US war in Iraq, they were accused of being "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and some people ostentatiously referred to "freedom fries" rather than "French fries". That didn't stick either. Insisting that YOUR language is not the same as THEIR language, that YOUR liberty cabbage is not the same as THEIR sauerkraut ... well, that's just silly. Zora (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and that's why the article is called Bollywood. But that is now was we are talking about. I'm talking about either Hindi or Hindi-Urdu. So if you make a Google search you will see that Hindi cinema is far more used than Hindi-Urdu cinema. The latter shows a laughable result of less than 500 thousand results. It's either Bollywood or Hindi cinema. Well that's actually the same thing. Bollywood is the common name for the Hindi-language film industry, and quite obviously Hindi is the language of Bollywood. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by Hindi. The language definitely isn't śuddh Hindi, as propagated by the government, it's colloquial Hindi, aka Hindustani. Here's what a writer of a popular Hindi primer has to say on the issue:

Hindustani vocabulary consists of a core of “native” lexical items, as well as a number of forms drawn from either the Sanskritic or the Perso-Arabic lexicon. It is this Hindustani that is employed by the vast majority of either Hindi or Urdu speakers for conversational purposes. Hindustani is readily understandable both by individuals who use śuddh Hindu for formal written communication and by those who use literary Urdu. Colloquial Hindustani can be easily written in either devanāgarī or in Urdu script. Since the partition of India in 1947, it has been increasingly common for citizens of India to write in devanāgarī and for those of Pakistan to write in Urdu script. Even in India however, many individuals, particularly those who received their education before the 1950s or who identify their mothe tongue as Urdu, continue to write Hindustani in the Urdu script. (A Primer of Modern Standard Hindi, Michael C. Shapiro, 1989, 2003 edition)

Note his comment re the many Indians who read and write Hindustani in Nastaliq. It is those Hindustani speakers that the film producers target (well, and the foreign market) when they release movies and advertising with both scripts. We put up both scripts to definitively identify the movie in case there's any problem with an English translation or a Roman-alphabet transcription. Removing the Nastaliq makes the article less useful, and contravenes the clear desire of the film-makers. The script takes up very little space. Why the urgency to get rid of it? Zora (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no urgency. They have not been there already for a long time. Well again what you just discussed above about what kind of Hindi it is, is not relevant to this article. The quote does not really explain much about the language used in Hindi films. Finally your last paragraph makes much more sense, but it's common sense, not must. BTW I was not the one who removed all the scripts. It's always been like this. Many different users have been deleting such scripts for the last few years. Going by what you are saying about space, we would be able to add many irrelevant things to different to articles just because they take up little space. And no, it does not contravene producers' desires. In the past, addition of Urdu scripts was purely for commercial purposes. Today, Urdu scripts have only vanished and in recent years there have been almost no films with such scripts. It only supports the quotes I presented in my below message which discusses the decline of Urdu in recent years (a message which remained unanswered). Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reinserted comment by User:Mashi6200 in, hopefully, the right place (by RegentsPark): I think it is very strong to eliminate urdu is the cultural legacy of muslims, it needs to so others can see it, there are more similarities than differences... seeeing the way we speak today. User talk:Mashi6200 21:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying that I am an American with no background in Bollywood cinema, but the situation as I understand it leaves no reason not to include both. Both are in widespread use, or widespread enough that the two have different names, and they transcribe the same things in the context of film titles. Articles on PRC films, for example (e.g. Yellow Earth), usually include both the traditional and simplified characters with the titles, even though the traditional set is not used in that nation, because they ARE used by a significant portion of speakers of the language elsewhere. Why, then, would one not include another orthography used WITHIN the nation of origin, to transcribe the title in the original language? Similarly, Romanization is used without contest as the title of English-language Bollywood articles, and translations into English are offered afterward every time. Why are Romanizations used, or why not use a translation as the article title, if the Hindi script is the One True Script of Bollywood?74.218.27.155 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Widespread languages" is not a reason to include one of them in articles they have nothing to do with. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If they are the same language and both in use, then yes, it is.74.218.27.155 (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Had they been the same language they wouldn't have been called Hindi and Urdu. The language of the film industry is Hindi, not Urdu. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Are the North Korean and South Korean languages also distinct, since they have different names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.27.155 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

An even better example: Serbo-Croatian language. Like Hindi-Urdu, a diasystem. Croats used a Roman script to write the common tongue; Serbs used a Cyrillic script. (As in South Asia, the reason was religion: most Croats are Roman Catholic, most Serbs are Orthodox.) There were some differences in vocabulary, but the common language was basically the same. For many years, the government insisted that regardless of the alphabet used, it was one language: Serbo-Croatian. When Yugoslavia broke up, Croats decided that they spoke Croatian; Serbs stuck with Serbo-Croatian a while longer, but increasingly claim to speak Serbian. Yet it's still basically the same language! What people SAY that they speak, what governments DECLARE that the people speak, is heavily influenced by political considerations. A linguist, looking at the matter from the outside, would say that people are deluded. Shahid is pointing at a common delusion and claiming that it's the only reality. Zora (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there's Hindi and there's Urdu. Whatever there, the similarity between the languages is irrelevant. The language of the industry is officially Hindi, not Hindustani. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cite some of these unignorable differences, then, rather than saying "Hindi is not Hindustani is not Urdu" ad nauseam. If there is such a night-and-day distinction between the two, this should be easy.74.218.27.155 (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire languages is a citation for you. I don't have to prove such an obvious point. Those who contradict it have to prove it. Urdu and Hindi are similar. They are NOT the same language. Even books which discuss the minor use of Urdu in Bollywood cite a few Urdu words which are used in Hindi films. The language of Bollywood is Hindi. If it was Urdu, it would have been called so all over. Zora ignored my entire message below, to which she clearly could not give a proper reply. But here you have perfect proof:

"The extent of Urdu used in commercial Hindi cinema has not been stable... Although the shift was gradual and two generations communicated with each other through a blend of Urdu and Hindi, known as Hindustani, the ultimate victory of Hindi in the official sphere has been more or less complete." It further says "The Decline of Urdu is mirrored in Hindi films... It is true that many Urdu words have survived and have become part of Hindi cinema's popular vocabulary. But that is as far as it goes."

Urdu is just used in Hindi films and it has faced a great decline throughout the years. Urdu is not Hindi, exceptional sources for the claim that they are, not Zora's opinions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing you are neglecting to consider is the fact that many sources indeed do state that the language used in Bollywood is Hindustani: "Urdu literature and scholarship in India suffered from official neglect as resources were poured into developing and spreading a highly Sanskritized Hindi. Hindi films continued to be made in Hindustani and many prominent Urdu poets worked as lyricists within the Bombay film industry. It is hard to imagine the film songs or dialogues without the vocabulary, metaphors, and idioms derived from Urdu language and literature" (Ganti, pg. 22-23). A Primer of modern standard Hindi by Michael C. Shapiro states that "Hindustani is employed by the vast majority of Hindi or Urdu speakers for conversational purposes." It also goes on to state that "Colloquial Hindustani can be easily written in either devanagari or in Urdu script." In two separate articles, Encyclopædia Britannica also states that "Hindustani is widely recognized as India’s most common lingua franca" (source c) and that "the two major lingua francas in India are Hindustani and English" (source d). Note how none of these sources state that literary Sanskritized Śuddh Hindi is the common language used in India or in Bollywood. Rather, Professor Shapiro, states that "a heavily Sanskritized Hindi...has been promulgated by the Government of India." It is clear that this is not the language of the common people. The Bollywood film industry uses colloquial Hindustani in its dialogues, which is readily understandable by individuals who use śuddh Hindi for formal written communication and by those who use literary Urdu" (Sharpio, pg. 5). For this reason, both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic/Nastaliq) scripts should be retained in Bollywood related film articles. It is clear that many scholarly references do indeed call the language used in Bollywood films, Hindi-Urdu or Hindustani language. Since this is the case, it makes intuitive sense that the safe decision is to be inclusive. I hope this helps, Anupam^Talk 06:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"both hindi and urdu scripts should be given in film articles. movies show both scripts and language can be called both urdu, or hindi. it is best termed hindustani" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.8.105 (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC) "both hindi and urdu scripts should be given in film articles. movies show both scripts and language can be called both urdu, or hindi. it is best termed hindustani. it is extremely improper to desire for these scripts to be removed and this evil act should be stopped" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.8.105 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But most of them do not. Most of the sources call it Hindi cinema. Several sources say it is Hindi-Urdu, but 99% of the sources on the Internet do not. I challenged you several times to make a Google search through "Google Scholar" and "Google Book" - the number of hits for "Hindi-Urdu cinema" is laughable. This makes the information mentioned in your sources just clear speculations. I agree that Urdu is used in Hindi films. I think it is a beautiful language BTW, and so is the script, and I think it should be mentioned and discussed, but the script should be only Hindi. You also keep ignoring this majority fact and overlooking all the sources I cited which refute your claims. The films are officially acknowledged as Hindi films, that's something all of you seem to ignore. Additionally, Urdu has faced a great decline in recent years with English taking its place. This was cited and this only proved that the use of Urdu in Hindi films is minor. It's plain as day. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)