568:. I think justifying its presence in mediums that are beyond our control is not an option. So, I really don't have a justification for why the book only references "item" songs as boosting the film's "repeat value". The origin of the term item song comes from the colloquial term "item" used in Mumbai and parts of India, to sexually suggestively refer to a woman. I am not able to think of a closest English word / phrase that is equally suggestive and demeaning to a woman. Now, the presence of such a song in the movies has been colloquially referenced as "item number" i.e. a number which has an "item" in it. Now, this is the path towards legitimacy. The question is do we want to yield that legitimacy or not. One way would be to reference the song back to what it really is - i.e. a type of song / video that is quite popular in Bollywood movies. That said if the overwhelming view is that we should have this as a title article. I guess I am in the minority, and will yield to you folks and your judgement.
657:, I agree with most of what you are saying. If I were to deconstruct the point at hand there are two topics. Songs in Bollywood movies that depict women as objects (and extremely sexual at that), and the second one being giving legitimacy to the term "item number" to refer to the former. Like it or not, I definitely (and perhaps many folks on this discussion thread) will not be able to change the former. The point is about using an extremely demeaning term to grant legitimacy to the practice. I am trying to make a case that having a titled article will do just that - i.e. grant legitimacy to this demeaning term. Can we convey that Bollywood has songs that are extremely sexually suggestive and demeaning to women without having a titled article. My premise is yes, we can do that by having most of this content folded into an existing article e.g. Music of Bollywood.
624:, I do understand the point that you're making. The term is demeaning to women, and the presence of these sequences in Bollywood movies promotes the idea that it's okay to treat women as objects ("items") that exist to satisfy the sexual needs of men. The term should be challenged and criticized. I think what people are saying in this discussion is essentially that having its own Knowledge page offers the opportunity to present the history and the critique of the term. I read the Tempest article that you linked to just above, and I actually just added a quote from that post to the WP article a few hours ago. :) The existence of a Knowledge article doesn't mean that we like or approve of the subject. â
546:, which is cited in the article, describes the practice and says, "These sequences, referred to as "item" numbers, add to a film's "repeat value"." The book was published in 2004 by Routledge (New York). So it doesn't look to me like this is a new term, or one that's been hyped by unreliable sources. It looks like that's what they're called, or at least what they were called in the past. â
764:" legitimises the practice or the term? Should it be moved to something like "Sexual exploitation of women in the film industry"? I don't think so. Terms usually only get a Knowledge article after they've already achieved widespread uses and some amount of legitimacy. The sources used in the article are older than the Knowledge article itself. Times of India, considered a
464:. As long as this article is at AfD, I would appreciate somebody clarifying something in the article: "However, second-generation South Asian women are more commonly featured in item numbers than men." What do they mean by "second-generation"? Are they talking about children of immigrants or something like that? --
685:
At the heart of it, what is granting legitimacy - when a trusted voice that you go to when in doubt about an expression, phrase, has that as the title -- that is granting legitimacy. If you are playing scrabble, you look up a word in the dictionary, that is legitimacy. When someone hears the phrase
759:
I don't see how having an article on some subject "legitimises" the subject? If you're talking about the term itself, then it's already legitimised through it's very widespread use; not having a
Knowledge article won't change it. Does the article
522:
Is there a way to drive focus to this practice without labeling as a top level topic / article name? Yes. That can be achieved by merging this topic into an existing page, and clearly introducing a subset of the content from this page onto
244:
Marking this article for deletion. The term is a derogatory one, and as the article calls out at some point seems to be directly leading to objectification of women. Recommendation is that content of relevance be merged into
496:- I was the one who started this effort. But, I may have done something wrong procedurally (as one of the commenters above notes). Happy to remediate that, if someone can help me with that process. Thanks in advance.
516:
Now, is this term a formalized one? No. It has come into colloquial speak, and is seeking formalization based on the widespread usage. My two cents is that a high level wikipedia article will only give it more
213:
686:"item number" and goes to find it as a title of a Knowledge article that is legitimacy. Given the influence that we can, we should be responsible about the way in which we choose our article / page titles.
343:: Clearly notable. The article correctly discusses the objectification of women in the lede; having an article that discusses objectionable material helps readers to understand the history of the term. â
264:. The article also details criticism of the practice in it's own section. Deleting a Knowledge article won't make sexism go away. Also, the nomination seems to be incorrectly formatted. Regards,
745:
Another thought. Why not change the article to "Sexualized
Portrayal of Women in Bollywood Songs" and introduce in the preamble that these songs are demeaningly referred to as Item numbers.
768:, used the term in 2010. Knowledge is influential, but not that influential that deleting an article will cause a word to lose widespread uses. Knowledge shouldn't be used to
207:
414:
166:
320:
300:
113:
98:
796:
Clearly notable, and I don't see anyone disputing that. I don't think a rename would be wise but that would be a discussion for another time.
173:
479:- no valid deletion rationale was provided. That said, I don't have a problem with retitling or adding a disambiguator per Andrew.
260:: completely bunk rationale. It's notable term that has a Knowledge entry, just like many other similarly derogatory things like
139:
134:
93:
86:
17:
143:
593:
360:
as the nomination states only that the nominator doesn't like the term and does not provide a reason to delete the article.
390:
228:
195:
126:
377:: It has notability to guarantee an article. The subject might be sexist but that doesn't mean it should be deleted as
107:
103:
328:
308:
287:
822:
452:
365:
40:
468:
382:
189:
65:
801:
444:
361:
818:
542:
378:
324:
304:
283:
185:
36:
805:
776:
754:
715:
633:
604:
577:
555:
536:
488:
471:
456:
430:
396:
369:
352:
332:
312:
291:
268:
68:
750:
711:
600:
573:
532:
448:
422:
406:
501:
Now, back to the topic at hand. My request is not to 'censor' any information that exists out there.
765:
629:
551:
465:
348:
235:
221:
410:
246:
798:
484:
82:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
817:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
440:
279:
130:
746:
707:
621:
596:
569:
528:
418:
250:
592:
Some additional reading material to understand what "item" in the item number refers to.
201:
740:
680:
654:
625:
563:
547:
344:
53:
769:
761:
261:
480:
61:
160:
443:
for readers not familiar with
Bollywood as they will be expecting something like
773:
265:
122:
74:
278:: Knowledge is not for correcting great wrongs and is not censored. Clear case
511:
Should it be removed from an encyclopedia because it is a sexist term - No.
506:
Is this an extremely sexist term that is offensive at multiple levels? Yes.
60:
there seeems to be a problem with the title, then kindly go through
56:. A clearly notable topic. No need to waste community's 7 days.
813:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
156:
152:
148:
220:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
825:). No further edits should be made to this page.
319:Note: This discussion has been included in the
299:Note: This discussion has been included in the
415:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 5
543:Bollywood: A Guidebook to Popular Hindi Cinema
234:
8:
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
321:list of India-related deletion discussions
318:
298:
301:list of Film-related deletion discussions
249:and this page be deleted. â posted by
7:
24:
99:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
413:). I have transcluded it to
405:This AfD was not correctly
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
842:
64:. Regards, âusernamekiran
379:Knowledge is not censored
815:Please do not modify it.
806:07:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
777:05:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
755:00:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
716:23:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
634:23:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
605:23:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
578:23:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
556:21:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
537:19:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
489:15:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
472:14:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
457:11:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
431:21:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
397:22:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
370:21:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
353:21:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
333:20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
313:20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
292:20:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
269:19:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
69:14:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
560:Thanks for the comment
253:, unsigned 5 July 2020
445:Universal Product Code
87:Articles for deletion
766:newspaper of record
385:Field Marshal Aryan
770:right great wrongs
403:Automated comment:
247:Music of Bollywood
772:anyway. Regards,
433:
429:
335:
315:
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
833:
744:
684:
567:
439:The title is an
425:
424:Talk to my owner
420:
401:
393:
387:
325:BhaskaraPattelar
305:BhaskaraPattelar
284:BhaskaraPattelar
239:
238:
224:
176:
164:
146:
84:
34:
841:
840:
836:
835:
834:
832:
831:
830:
829:
823:deletion review
738:
678:
561:
428:
423:
391:
383:
362:DiamondRemley39
251:User:Kaisertalk
181:
172:
137:
121:
118:
81:
78:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
839:
837:
828:
827:
809:
808:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
525:
524:
519:
518:
513:
512:
508:
507:
503:
502:
498:
497:
491:
474:
466:Metropolitan90
459:
434:
421:
399:
372:
355:
337:
336:
316:
295:
294:
272:
271:
242:
241:
178:
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
838:
826:
824:
820:
816:
811:
810:
807:
804:
803:
800:
795:
792:
791:
778:
775:
771:
767:
763:
762:casting couch
758:
757:
756:
752:
748:
742:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
717:
713:
709:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
682:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
656:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
635:
631:
627:
623:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
606:
602:
598:
595:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
579:
575:
571:
565:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:
540:
539:
538:
534:
530:
527:
526:
521:
520:
515:
514:
510:
509:
505:
504:
500:
499:
495:
492:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:
473:
470:
467:
463:
460:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
432:
426:
419:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
398:
394:
388:
386:
380:
376:
373:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
314:
310:
306:
302:
297:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
274:
273:
270:
267:
263:
262:casting couch
259:
256:
255:
254:
252:
248:
237:
233:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
183:Find sources:
179:
175:
171:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
91:
90:
88:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
814:
812:
799:Usedtobecool
797:
793:
541:
494:Delete/Merge
493:
476:
461:
436:
409:to the log (
402:
384:
374:
357:
340:
275:
257:
243:
231:
225:
217:
210:
204:
198:
192:
182:
169:
80:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
517:legitimacy.
407:transcluded
358:speedy keep
208:free images
123:Item number
75:Item number
50:speedy keep
747:Kaisertalk
708:Kaisertalk
622:Kaisertalk
597:Kaisertalk
594:Link here.
570:Kaisertalk
529:Kaisertalk
441:Easter egg
819:talk page
741:Toughpigs
681:Toughpigs
655:Toughpigs
626:Toughpigs
564:Toughpigs
548:Toughpigs
345:Toughpigs
280:WP:CENSOR
37:talk page
821:or in a
167:View log
108:glossary
39:or in a
481:Rlendog
462:Comment
437:Retitle
427::Online
214:WPÂ refs
202:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
54:WP:SNOW
774:TryKid
523:there.
469:(talk)
449:Andrew
411:step 3
266:TryKid
186:Google
144:delete
66:(talk)
52:. per
229:JSTOR
190:books
174:Stats
161:views
153:watch
149:links
62:WP:RM
16:<
794:Keep
751:talk
712:talk
630:talk
601:talk
574:talk
552:talk
533:talk
485:talk
477:Keep
453:talk
417:. â
392:talk
375:Keep
366:talk
349:talk
341:Keep
329:talk
309:talk
288:talk
276:Keep
258:Keep
222:FENS
196:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
451:đ(
236:TWL
165:â (
802:âď¸
753:)
714:)
632:)
603:)
576:)
554:)
535:)
487:)
455:)
447:.
395:)
381:.
368:)
351:)
331:)
323:.
311:)
303:.
290:)
282:-
216:)
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
58:If
760:"
749:(
743::
739:@
710:(
683::
679:@
628:(
599:(
572:(
566::
562:@
550:(
531:(
483:(
389:(
364:(
347:(
327:(
307:(
286:(
240:)
232:¡
226:¡
218:¡
211:¡
205:¡
199:¡
193:¡
188:(
180:(
177:)
170:¡
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.