Jump to content

Talk:Mother India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMother India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 1, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
March 17, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Fair use rationale for Image:Mother india (dvd cover).jpg

[edit]

Image:Mother india (dvd cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mother India/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –MuZemike 20:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's fairly well-written, and, after taking some time to look at the sources, most everything seems to be properly verified. I went through and made some minor grammar/punctuation tweaks as well as remove some noun plus '-ing' and other wordy stuff. Just a couple of minor issues before I go ahead and pass for GA:

  • The title of the film is taken from American author Katherine Mayo's 1927 polemical book Mother India, in which she attacked the Hindu society, religion and culture of India. → Did Mayo attack Hindu society and the religion and culture of India? It doesn't readily make sense after reading it. Could you tweak that so that it makes more sense?
  • Part of the major success of the film ... which is relevant to many. → I think that sentence is a bit long and drawn out and couple help readers if that was split into two sentences.
  • In the lead, is there a reason why there are inline citations in the first paragraph and nowhere else (aside from the quote, in which that citation must stay there)? To me that is a little inconsistent per WP:LEADCITE.

On hold pending resolution to the three issues noted above. Otherwise, it's pretty good so far; if you can expand a bit more and tie down all the MoS stuff, this could conceivably make a run for WP:FAC. –MuZemike 20:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Thanks for your edits.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. Everything looks good. –MuZemike 02:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References for improving article

[edit]

--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conventions

[edit]

I suggest we follow the following for consistency:

  • British/Indian English
  • Harvard notation {{sfn}}
  • Title Case for names of references including Book, articles, chapters, website titles etc.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regarding title case and sentence case, do we have any recommendation anywhere? During the FA review of Kolkata, SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) suggested use of sentence case. I understand most important is internal consistency, and the article at present has a mixture of sentence and title cases. I do not have any problem using title case for book names, unless recommendations already exist somewhere in MoS against it! Indeed we grew up using title cases for book names etc.
What about the names of chapters, or names of articles? Do we use sentence case or title case? --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no MOS saying sentence case or title case is right/wrong. Only that this should be internally consistent. Modified above. I am used to Title case (suggested in Ahalya FAC or PR, don't exactly remember, too lazy to search), sentence case is also simple. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's use title case then for everything, I mean book, articles, chapters, website titles, newspaper name etc. In any case, this article would mostly be based on book and journal articles, and newspaper articles won't be that much. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title case, yeah.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page range convention (currently used): Remove overlapping part. Please restrict page range to 2-3 pages maximum. examples
    • 114 to 115: 114-5
    • 119 to 120: 119-20
    • 199 to 200: 199-200

--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable references

[edit]

I am adding references that feel may be questioned (not reliable accusations) at a FAC here. We can discuss and remove it.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps the pale blue book can replace it? Do you have it yet Dwai? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have it now! I have started reading it. Will soon work on the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Mayo para

[edit]

IMO, we need to rewrite this one in a shorter and compact format. WP:UNDUE. Statements like "Mayo singled out the "rampant" and fatally weakening sexuality" sound like an accusation, we need to mellow this down in a neutral way. May be "Mayo was accused of singling out ... " --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think much of it preceded what I'd written. Feel free to remove anything.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spitting "Reception section"

[edit]

IMO, as in Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), we should split Reception into

  1. Reception: Critics,box office, awards
  2. Legacy: influence on other films, Greatest film list, superlatives etc.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was thinking to crate a whole new section named "Influence and legacy". This section should be the last section of the article, like the concluding chapter of a novel. Reception section should retain box office, critical reviews, and awards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

[edit]

Do we have enough information to have such a section? Else let us merge it with "cast". Putting "casting" information in "cast" for now. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree on that one. I think its suited to its own section, although I think I've added a fair bit since you left this comment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that. Keep them separate. I personally hate to read essays in cast section. I assume all readers, just like me, want to use the caste section while reading the plot section. Just to understand who is who and not why who is who. Reading two essays simultaneously is just jumbling. Keep only "Actor as Character" format. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, we have a casting section. However, I suggest "Actor as character, a line description of character". --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Redtiger's last proposal. There should be one-liners for each of the characters in "cast" section. Casting section looks meaty now, will add more meat soon!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info

[edit]
  • International success: The CNN-IBN documentary talks about the film's international success. We need to add more info about this.
  • shortened Oscar version: what was removed? promotion or something. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the book has information on international success. I will add that. Did not read any information on what was removed in the whitened version for Oscar nomination.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The CNN-IBN part 4 documentary says that the sickle and hammer logo of mehboob productions was removed to appease the Americans. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of sickle and hammer logo is mentioned in the book as well. But no more information on what exactly (songs/certain sequences) were removed besides the screen display of the logo is available.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

premier in Delhi?

[edit]

Premier suggests a large event to mark the release. So is premier right or release/open should be used? --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, released should be used instead.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Present names

[edit]

I am changing to present city names and location names and adding (then called) on first instance. New names include: Mumbai, Kolkata, Maharashtra, Gujarat.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

Excited to see the hard work of editors on old but important movie of bollywood. Rather than jumping into editing I would like to suggest here, though its not much necessary.

The lead shall specify about her (Radha's) struggle was after her husband tragedy and left the family, Though the section Plot mentions it but we can write it in few words in the lead.

The current lead read as:

it is the story of a poverty-stricken village woman named Radha who struggles to raise her sons and survive against an evil money-lender amidst many troubles.


It can be written as:

it is the story of a poverty-stricken village woman named Radha who struggles to raise her sons after her husband went missing/left the family and survive against an evil money-lender amidst many troubles.

Or something similar, so that the readers will get the clear concept of movie and her (Radha's) struggle to raise the children in the absence of husband. Hope i am clear to put the point. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I neither agree nor disagree with this suggestion. I get your point, that stating this in the lead would help further to clarify her adverse situation. I'd like to wait to see what the other major editors (Redtigerxyz, Dr Blofeld) or any other editors opine. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it is the story of a poverty-stricken village woman named Radha, who, in the absence of her husband, struggles to raise her sons and survive against an evil money-lender amidst many troubles." That would be OK.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Dr. Blofeld's suggestion. Same essence as Omer123hussain.Redtigerxyz Talk 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestion 2

Hi sorry to bother you all again, another suggestion is at the section Reception's subsection Release.

the sentence read as:

it did exceptionally well business in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka (then called Mysore State) and Maharashtra.

I think we should replace "Karnataka (then called Mysore State)" to just "Karnataka" because the film was released in October 1957 and at that time the state was already called Karnataka. According to article Karnataka it was "formed in November 1956 and the state name Mysore was renamed to Karnataka since 1973". Hope it helps, Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the state was formed in 1956, it was still known as Mysore from 1956 to 1973. The name was changed to Karnataka in 1973. Please see Mysore State.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it was my confusion to understand the sentece from the article Karnataka. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

Congrats on the FA! A few suggestions that I couldn't find time to give at the FAC:

  • Cast section: this section is redundant to Plot (where more actors' names can be added as their characters show up in the prose) and Casting, and should be removed.
  • I agree with your point that this may seem redundant. However, this is a convention followed in nearly all film articles, and is not discouraged in the wiki project film guidelines. From a users point of view, I feel this gives a scope to the reader to quickly check the cast, and thus acts as a quick reference even when reading the rest of the article.
  • The films Manual to Style seems to say that "basic cast list [which is what we have here] in a 'Cast' section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways".
  • As for other film FAs, some don't have it, like Mulholland Drive (film). Some that do, like Manhunter (film), seem to double-up as a Casting section.
  • Those became FA in 2007/08, ~five years ago, are probably due for a review. Besides that doesn't address the fact that the films MoS (linked above) discourages such casts list; that it is redundant to the plot section; and that it interrupts the flow of prose (and hence readability).—indopug (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes section: can you divide this very long section into 3/4 subsections like Production and Reception?
  • Possible, but some paragraphs of the current section has mixture of different themes. I mean, this section, inherently, is not clearly divisible into independent subsections. But it can be divided into inter-dependent subsections. And that would need solid planning. Any suggestions?
  • Yes, I see Hindu, nationalist and feminist themes, but these are wonderfully interwined and fused together. :) Tough! But I don't see too much of a problem of leaving the text as is and adding subsection titles that may not exactly conform to their content, but only mostly do.
  • If it comes down to opinion: I prefer using whatever was there at the time (for eg: I would've said Bombay (now called Mumbai), instead of the existing Mumbai (then called Bombay), but that's moot), so I !vote Rs. Otherwise we might set a weird precedent for writing even Mughal- and British-era articles with the symbol. :)—indopug (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The symbol did not exist, but the currency did. Mughal rupee or British Indian rupee is not the same as the rupee of the independent Indian state. (they are ancestors, but not same) So I don't think it will be wrong to the symbol for Indian rupee after 1947. Many authors talk about shooting in Gujarat, Maharashtra and release in Karnataka regions; names not in existence in 1957. So we decided to use current names for consistency. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood vs Hindi Film

[edit]

I know this is a contentious topic, so I will try to keep it brief. I recently edited this article and changed a few instances of the term "Bollywood" to "Hindi film"/"Hindi Language film" as syntactically/semantically appropriate that were reverted (in good faith) by Redtigerxyz (who gave me the benefit of doubt as well). He/she may have noticed that I didn't change all instances, but left many instances of the term (Bollywood) in the article alone, either because of the context or when they were in a title/reference (naturally). The film in this article and the artists significantly predate the term Bollywood, including all the events described therein. My edits preserve the redirects correctly, e.g. Hindi Film which internally redirects to Bollywood, so there are no broken links etc. What is the general consensus on referring to the films/artists/personalities etc of the yore when the term Bollywood was simply not in existence? For instance, I wouldn't consider replacing the term Bollywood for anything modern (say after 1980 or even a little before), regardless of my personal preferences, but for anything before 1970 Bollywood is an inaccurate appellation. Bmurthy (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember whether any consensus was built regarding the use of the term Bollywood for pre-1970 Hindi films made in Bombay. Perhaps the term is used (in Wikipedia) interchangeably with Hindi film for all Hindi films irrespective of the release year. I do not know about the use of the term in scholarly articles.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then there is a bigger concern. If the terms can be used interchangeably, then Hindi Film should be perfectly acceptable. The fact that it was reverted to Bollywood seems to indicate that Bollywood has appropriated all cases where the term Hindi film should be used. I find that not only objectionable, but even inaccurate, for two reasons 1) Bollywood, for all that can be said about popular parlance, is not an official term 2) Bollywood is a relatively recent term for a film industry which had a rich history known as the Hindi film industry, and co-existed with many concurrent film fraternities exclusively based on language. There is another serious flaw with calling it Bollywood, what about the Hindi films that were made in other centers, e.g. Calcutta (e.g. New Theatres), Pune (Prabhat Pictures), Madras (AVM, Gemini etc), Lahore etc. They cannot possibly be called Bollywood. The term Bollywood itself first came about roughly in 70s by some accounts, but not really an accepted term until the 1990s. I have serious concerns calling the original Hindi cinema as Bollywood. Bmurthy (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to any Hindi film as a Bollywood film is just like calling any English language film as a Hollywood film (the Harry Potter and the Middle-earth films cannot qualify as "Hollywood" in my view as they were produced largely outside US). Moreover, "Hollywood" seems like an informal alternative for American cinema (but it is the formal name of a district), which should restrict our usage on the term "Bollywood". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash29792, I am not fully clear on whether your response advocates preserving my edits, or have the article use the term "Bollywood", can you clarify? I want to make sure there is consensus before I change it again. Bmurthy (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably a debate that will take a lot of talking, and potentially end in no clear decision. Without going in to the debate let me analyze the revert that Redtiger did on your edit (this diff). The first one, where the piped link Hindi Film was changed to Bollywood was essentially done to avoid double redirect. Hindi film redirects to Bollywood. The reader does see neither Hindi film nor Bollywood, the reader sees Hindi (since it is a piped link). So, it is better to keep Bollywood in this instance.
  • The second one (The film was the most expensive Hindi cinema (Bollywood) production ): to begin with, I cannot remember why Bollywood was used in parenthesis after Hindi cinema. I am ok with either keeping it or deleting the Bollywood within parenthesis. I feel Redtiger wil lfeel the same unless he remembers the reason why Bollywood was used within parenthesis immediately following Hindi cinema.
  • The third instance ( Dilip Kumar, an established Bollywood actor): I agree with your version, (an established actor in the Hindi film industry). Fine, please go ahead and change Bollywood to Hindi film industry in this instance.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OMG !!! I didn't know I created such a storm here. Dwaipayan summarizes point 1 correctly. Changed Dilip Kumar. I will suggest that we keep Bollywood as it is because many lists call it as a Bollywood film: "Top 25 Must See Bollywood Films", TIME's "Best of Bollywood". A non-Indian user should not be confused when suddenly the term "Bollywood" is used. PS: Bmurthy, please link the username so that the concerned user gets a notification. Redtigerxyz Talk 10:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Redtigetxyz, et al, thanks for the edits. I don't fully agree (especially the second edit), but this is a good compromise for now. As I mentioned right at the outset, I have known this to be a contentious topic, so thanks for agreeing halfway. Unfortunately, I do not have much time to devote towards a discussion, but rightly, the current Bollywood page should be named Hindi Film and Bollywood should redirect. Specifically, because Bollywood is neither accurate nor a formal/official term. Likewise, the Bollywood category should also be renamed Hindi films. A proper redirection would mitigate all potential confusions, but also correct perceptions without sacrificing the accuracy. But, it appears there are some people very highly emotionally invested in the term Bollywood to describe Hindi film of all time, and regardless of where they were made. If and when I have time, I may make an effort to get a discussion going, but not optimistic about the outcome. Bmurthy (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar/Calender

[edit]

@Kailash29792: Actually I've now seen that the source says "calendars"; my fix was correct. Google Books search. I'm not sure how a "representation of Mother India" would be displayed on a paper-making machine! -- John of Reading (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remakes

[edit]

Redtigerxyz, Mother India has a Tamil remake titled Punniya Boomi (Sources: This book and this article) and a Telugu one titled Bangaru Thalli (Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, p. 112). Where will information on them fit in this article? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, Legacy probably.--Redtigerxyz Talk 09:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Mother India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mother India in the public domain since 2018?

[edit]

According to the Indian copyright act of 1957, all movies become part of the public domain 60 years after publication at the latest. In 2018, it would concern all indian films released in 1957 which includes Mother India. I'm quite uncertain if the 1957 dispositions still holds (even though there doesn't seem to have been a major reform regarding copyright length since then), but if true we would be able to import the film on Commons and display illustrations/exceprts on the article… Alexander Doria (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mother India

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mother India's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "boi57":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography section

[edit]

I converted the "Bibliography" section to a subsection per MOS:BIB. As a section it is misplaced normally belonging first in the appendices in biographies or "Works or publications", "Discography", or "Filmography". As sourcing, along with text source integrity presents citations so related deserving a subsection. Otr500 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

With a budget of within ₹40 lakh, Mother India could not have been the most expensive Indian film to that point, as Box Office India says Jhansi Ki Rani (1953) was made at a budget of ₹60 lakh. Redtigerxyz, please make necessary amendments. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The cited source says that the EARNINGS were a record, and exceeded later by MeA, not the BUDGET. Fixed.Bollyjeff | talk 14:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire film in page?

[edit]

Are wp pages supposed to have the entire film on the film's page? Isn't this copyright violation of some form or the other? Tetrahedron17 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the film is more than 60 years old, perhaps the copyright has expired. It seems to be sixty years in India: List of countries' copyright lengths Bollyjeff | talk 22:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tetrahedron17 and Bollyjeff: The copyright has expired in India, but since Wikipedia is an American website, the movie had to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons as it is still under copyright in the United States. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mother_India&oldid=1230724623"