Talk:Bollywood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

popular Images[edit]

Currently article is 95% populated by commercially popular screen actors only, It wont look encyclopedic. Can someone with copyright knowledge help here to add the images of back-end legends Musician, Lyricist etc. I remember earlier there were images of Satyajit Ray, Guru Dutt and need to include female legends such as Durga Khote, Smita Patil etc.

Paragraph on Nepotism in "Cast and Crews"[edit]

In this section, it's claimed that "Stars such as Dilip Kumar, Dharmendra, Amitabh Bachchan, Rajesh Khanna, Rishi Kapoor, Anil Kapoor, Sunny Deol, Sridevi, Madhuri Dixit and Shah Rukh Khan lacked show-business connections."

I haven't checked all of these actors, but at the very least, it's ridiculous to say that Rishi Kapoor, whose father was Raj Kapoor, had no connections.

Nepotism is supported by bollywood which isn't mentioned in this article Super Lord (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Rishi kapoor is the son of Raj Kapoor and the grandson of Prithviraj Kapoor. Sunny Deol also has show business connections as his father is the actor Dharmendra. Please fix this section. Vuppulur08 (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Bollywood being a shit industry[edit]

Bollywood is a bitch industry Super Lord (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2019[edit]

BOLLYWOOD MOVIES 2019 VERDICT http://bollywoodfever.co.in/bollywood-movies-2019-budget-box-office-collection-verdict/ bollywoodfever 2001:420:5445:1300:F9BD:6236:90F1:6124 (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done Please provide exact details of the changes you want to be carried out. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism section[edit]

A lot claims are made for songs copied from Pakistani musicians in the Plagiarism section and cite some unsubstantiated unreliable resources with which are mostly based on social media claims. I have gone through the refs and they do not fit WP:RS at all:

  • The News18 only compares music videos and makes uncorroborated claims about plagiarism (no byline as well).
  • The DailyHunt ref is not reliable and makes similar claims to the ref above (no byline here too).
  • The Times of India article is based on a Twitter thread of a user with no credentials.
  • The Daily Pakistan articles also makes similar unsubstantiated claims to the above by just comparing music videos.

All of the "articles" are based on claims by people on social media with no inquiry into it. Just because the tunes/songs sound similar does not mean the song is copied or wasn't officially adapted/licensed.

Recent case in point being where users on social media claimed that a newly released Punjabi song was copied from the Pakistani band Vital Sings, which as it later turned out was probably based on a folk song from the Punjab.

We should be careful making claims of blatant of copyright infringement on Wikipedia and should cite proper references to published newspapers and journals rather than giving weight to online mudslinging especially on a core article like this. Also, the article should be giving a broad based overview of plagiarizing in music rather than listing each and every claimed instance of a plagiarized song.

Thus, I have removed the claims from the references listed above. Gotitbro (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

News18, Times of India and Daily Pakistan are all reliable sources that fit WP:RS. Also, News18 and Daily Pakistan never cite social media as a source, but the allegations of plagiarism come from the newspaper journalists themselves, not social media. However, I will acknowledge that there may be some uncertainty about the reliability of Dailyhunt, and that Times of India cites Twitter as its source. Other than that, News18 and Daily Pakistan are entirely WP:RS, and should therefore be reinstated, but with the wording changed to "allegations" of plagiarism. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
No the particular articles do not qualify as RS, News18 is under a blog (does not even provide a byline) and just lists different videos with no input from the artists they allege they were plagiarized from or the artists who plagiarized it and doo not cite anyone who has put up these allegations. The DailyPakistan article is also under a blog and not RS and has similar issues (it even lists songs which were officially recorded by Nusrat). We can't just makes such allegations or such hefty accusations of copytheft without any backing to the claims especially when the artists said to be plagiarized from make no such allegations. Gotitbro (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Nowhere does the News18 article mention "blog" anywhere. The only one that does mention "blog" is Daily Pakistan. However, the author of the article is a staff writer, not a user. So it counts as WP:RS, which states: "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format." Also, there are no rules anywhere that allegations of plagiarism need to be from the original authors themselves. All that matters is whether they are published in WP:RS sources, and that it's made clear that these are allegations. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Maestro2016: I'm not interested in an edit war, so please discuss it here rather reverting (WP:3RR). Blogs do not qualify as RS, I have not removed anything from reliable sources such as the one's sourced from The Hindu or Rediff. I have already mentioned why the News18 and DailyPakistan are not RS and make unsubstantiated claims. The News18 is clearly is blog under their "Buzz" section, the Daily blog is already problematic as it lists even songs officially recorded by Nusrat. I am going to undo the reverts, this can be further taken to the RS noticeboard or WP:ICTF or better sources can be looked for the allegations. Gotitbro (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
In what way does "Buzz" mean "blog"? The News18 articles are clearly news articles, not "blogs". The word "Buzz" is clearly a reference to "showbiz" buzz, not "blog". Nowhere is there any indication that it's a "blog", so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. And even if it was a "blog" (which it does not appear to be), I already posted above what WP:RS states on the matter: "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format." If a news site has a blog-style section, that makes little difference. What matters is that the authors of the articles are staff writers, which is true for both the News18 and Daily Pakistan articles. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
After looking more into it, I can say with absolute certainty that your allegation against News18 is completely unsubstantiated. Firstly, WP:ICTFFAQ lists News18 as a reliable source for Indian cinema articles. Secondly, there has never been any dispute over News18's reliability at WP:ICTF. And thirdly, the News18 "blog" section is called Blogs, not "Buzz". You're confusing two completely different sections of the site. So please, stop removing News18 with a false claim about it being a "blog". There is no dispute over News18's reliability. The consensus is that News18 is a reliable source, period. As for Daily Pakistan, I'll leave that alone for now, and first try to reach some kind of consensus regarding it. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Maestro2016: Not sure if you are interested in a discussion if you keep engaging in edit warring by reverting. News18 might be listed as a reliable source at the Project but that particular article clearly isn't, the article just lists videos and makes absolute statements that the songs were plagiarized with no substantive backing behind the claims (the Hindu and Rediff at least intrude behind the allegations) I already made this clear in the section above "only compares music videos and makes uncorroborated claims about plagiarism", it does not even have a byline of an author, no way this is passing as an RS anywhere on the wiki. The "Buzz" section is clearly a blog which lists 'trending' things on the Internet. If the News18 article has any valid backing then you can most likely find better sources for it but this particular article is not going to cut it. Gotitbro (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
No, the "Buzz" section is not a "blog". The word "trending" simply means how many hits certain articles are getting. The terms "buzz" or "trending" have nothing at all to do with "blogs". Like I already said, News18 already have a separate section called Blogs. That's where the blogs are, not the "Buzz" section. And like I also said above, News18 is listed as a reliable source on WP:ICTFFAQ. Which means that all articles published on the site are reliable sources. If there was an issue with a certain section of the site, then the ICTF FAQ would've mentioned a disclaimer or note besides the source, yet there is no such note or disclaimer. If you disagree with News18's reliability, or the reliability of a certain section from the site, then you can feel free to raise an issue over it at the ICTF talk page. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Maestro2016: Are you really telling me that an article with no byline, in the section of the website which posts things that are trending on the internet (you would know if you actually visited the section and would not be arguing about the word trending here) which are treated as blogs anywhere else on the wiki; is reliable? There is no way that this is passing as a reliable source. If there is any validity/backing to the claims in that "buzz" article there should definitely be a better source for it; if you can cannot find it then the claims and the News18 ref have to go. This is more a case of WP:RSN than ICTF and you should take it there if you believe it is a legitimate source. Gotitbro (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Your arguments are entirely based on your own personal opinions, with no concrete basis in any of Wikipedia's rules or guidelines, or the ICTF's guidelines. I have already posted above that News18 is explicitly listed as a reliable source under the ICTF FAQ. If you feel otherwise, then this is an issue that should be raised with the ICTF, since News18 is a reliable source according to its guidelines. If you feel otherwise, then it might be a good idea to take that up with the ICTF. Either way, I think it would be best to hear a third-party opinion on this matter, so I have raised the issue at ICTF talk page for now. Bollywood falls under the ICTF, so that should be the first option. If the ICTF can't resolve the issue, we could later raise the issue at WP:RSN as a last resort, if you want. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020[edit]

[1]

Please insert this citation under Genres : Bollywood films are primarily musicals, and are expected to have catchy song-and-dance numbers woven into the script. A film's success often depends on the quality of such musical numbers.[1] A film's music is often released before the film itself, increasing its audience.[citation needed] AngieWP (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done I also expanded the sentence slightly based on the source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Dudrah, Rajinder Kumar (Mar 7, 2006). Bollywood: Sociology Goes To the Movies. SAGE Publishing India. p. 53. ISBN 978-0761934608. More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
    2. Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bollywood&oldid=946497897"