Talk:List of submissions to the 81st Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film/Archive 1

English title section
We need to address the "English Title" section. While it is fair to say that some of the titles are not direct translations, it is also fair to say that others are simply translations and not a title of the film (such as in the case of the film Taare Zameen Par - it is incorrect to call the title of the film "Stars on Earth" when that is actually the English translation).

We need to thus find a middle ground and address either possibility. I propose we make the first column - "Original title" and eliminate the section "English Title" - instead we can add distinct English titles in parenthesis next to the original title of the film in existing column. If you have a different suggestion that is open to either possibility, I would be interested in hearing it, otherwise as I said, I think we need to combine the two columns. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The other option is to change the title to "English titles or translations" which is what I have done for the moment since that is the more accurate statement. I would still like to discuss the possibility of combining the two sections. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry to have changed your edit. I should have used the discussion page right away. I'm actually not too bothered about this particularly issue....I just didn't like "translation" because of the French title. I have an idea which maybe you will find acceptable. This list is very much in flux right now....Many of these movies don't have a proper English title (i.e. the Swiss film, which is variously translated as "The Friend" or "The Boyfriend" or sometimes under the German title on English-language sites). Perhaps we can agree to use the official Academy list (it will come out in October) as an arbiter in the English title column? Until the official list comes out, we can be very free and easy and allow anything. Actually, for the Indian nominee, I have always heard it referred to as "Taare Zameen Par", even in English, so I consider that to be its English title. Someone else changed it to "Stars on Earth"....I've actually never heard that name, and had no idea that was the translation!

As long as we're talking about this issue, I don't like having the Roman transliteration in the "Original Title" section. If the original title is in Hindi, Arabic or Japanese, then the Roman is not "original". But I don't particularly care on this point. Just my idea.

When the official list comes out, I also plan to erase all the "Sources" and just link them to the official Oscar list, unless a film is disqualified.

I'm happy to hear your thoughts. Thank you for your help! -Adtran (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Adtran - Thanks for this long and very fair response! A few thoughts:
 * Film titles are a sensitive issue, particularly when dealing with multiple languages and translations, hence the legitimate issues we have both raised. You were correct in pointing out that in some cases an entirely new title is invented in English and thus simply stating "English translation" is incorrect. So no need to apologize...
 * In theory I do agree with your comment about Roman transliteration - however, again in the case of "Taare Zameen Par," the film has been marketed both in India and worldwide through Roman transliteration - thus either the Hindi title or its Roman transliteration are correct (and in some cases,people will expect the transliteration). My solution below may resolve this, however.
 * I like your idea of being a bit loose at the moment and then working with the official Oscar list (and of course deleting all of the sources which won't be needed). In fact, I was just looking at this featured article/list and believe that this style of formatting should be our goal:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees_for_Best_Foreign_Language_Film#Winners_and_nominees


 * (in which the headers are: Year, Film title used in nomination, Original title, Submitting country, Director(s), Language(s)).
 * "Film title used in nomination" makes more sense than English title or translation - also I did notice that in the section "Original Title," both the Roman transliteration and the title in its original language are offered - the difference is that a break tag is used rather than parenthesis which is better.
 * Let me know what you think. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I should add, in response to your comments above, that there are many ways in which to express Hindi in writing, as this article indicates: Hindustani orthography. Thus the use by the filmmakers of Romanized Hindustani should be considered the Hindi rather than English title (this is a common practice in Bollywood). I don't believe that the film has an official English title, but it is correct to list "Stars on Earth" as a possible translation of the Hindi title. It is rarely referred to, however, except perhaps in reviews and thus isn't really needed on this list. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) Here is another featured list that provides an even better model for us to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submissions_to_the_80th_Academy_Awards_for_Best_Foreign_Language_Film (Headers: Submitting country, Film title used in nomination, Original title, Language(s), 	Director(s), 	Result) My suggestion is the following: In this manner, we will resolve the language issue and use an established format. If you like this idea, I could make the changes. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Since it is virtually identical to what we have, we should consider switching to it now rather than wait until October.
 * 2) This would mean deleting the header "English Title and Translations" and replacing all content with TBD or TBA
 * 3) Wikilinks for films that have articles would be transferred to the Original Title
 * 4) If needed, an additional title already established for marketing purposes could be added via parenthesis


 * I have no problem with anything you said, although I do believe it's important to have some sort of "mainstream" title on the page until the list is announced in October. If we just put the Polish/Finnish/Arabic title for the submissions from Finland or Poland or Palestine, and we left the English title blank or TBA, most English-language readers who visit the page wouldn't have any idea what film had been chosen, even though the films have well-establish English titles that have played at film festivals worldwide. Your idea of parentheses is fine, but I that would make the page a bit cluttered...But since this is all provisional, I'm really amenable to anything. I added two more countries (two very interesting films!), but otherwise left your changes intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adtran (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in complete agreement with you about mainstream titles which is why I suggested the paren. option. Yes, it might be a bit cluttered but I think it is best to strive for an article which is as accurate as possible. I'm going to use the sources included in developing how to write the titles and will otherwise make the changes I suggested above. And thanks for the two new additions - looks to be a great year for films. When I'm finished I'll make another note below and ask for further suggestions. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New Format
I have reformatted the article per the discussion above. Please feel free to add and tweak as needed. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources needed
This section needs sources outside of other Wikipedia articles according to Reliable sources and No original research. Once we find outside sources, we should restore the section. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Classicfilms. I'm not sure I understand the problem. As I understand it, the below paragraph contains "facts", under wikipedia guidelines. I could technically link to ten different pages (the www.Oscars.org Press Releases going back ten years), and I have the links available if you wish me to do that. I don't believe it's "Original Research" because I have these links. However, I don't really see putting 10 links as necessary. In the history of this award, the country choose to "not" submit films are often as controversial as those that do. Since I have been asked several times for a full list of the 96 countries invited, (the Oscars won't release that, though I think I can figure it out), I think there is interest in "Other Countries". However, like with the entirety of this list, much of this is really up in the air until the list comes out. I think this section would be very interesting to users who choose to visit this page, but if you are very unhappy with it, like with the other issues, I don't have a problem with putting this on hold till the official list comes out. If, for example, a country that regularly submits films were to elect not to participate, I would find this VERY RELEVANT to the page, and would VERY MUCH push for its inclusion. -Adtran (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Adtran,
 * I don't have a problem with the material you would like to include. The problem lies within the rules of Reliable sources. The Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source for material that is added to an article here, as stated in Reliable sources:


 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."


 * The next two paragraphs on the RS page state pretty clearly that these sources must either be from the news media or the academy. All points added to the article need to be sourced under Verifiability which I will quote from here:


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."


 * So in sum, if you have sources, then the paragraph should be restored. I took it off because in its current state there are no sources which adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Hope that answers your question. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As an example, take a look at similar articles for 2007 and 2006. Both are Featured lists which means that they are the best models we should try to emulate. Every point made in each article is carefully referenced. And your instincts about the state of flux are correct if you look at these articles - eventually we will have to remove the sources which point to single films and tweak the two title columns to match these articles once the official list comes out or more articles are published on the topic. Right now, before the official lists come out, it might be a bit hard to reference material. Perhaps the key is to wait a few weeks. Here are the URLs:


 * 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submissions_to_the_80th_Academy_Awards_for_Best_Foreign_Language_Film


 * 2006:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submissions_to_the_79th_Academy_Awards_for_Best_Foreign_Language_Film


 * -Classicfilms (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Other Countries

 * In addition to the countries listed above, Greece and Portugal have each submitted films each year for the past ten years. Thailand has missed out only once in the past ten years, Indonesia has missed three times and Lebanon and Uruguay have missed four times. Among the other countries invited that frequently send films to the competiton are Algeria, Australia, Bolivia, Cuba, Egypt, Estonia, Georgia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Nepal, Peru, Puerto Rico and South Africa.

Remove individual sources?
Now that the official list is out from the academy, I wonder if we need to keep individuals sources next to every title. Last year's list, which is a featured list, only uses the list from the academy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submissions_to_the_80th_Academy_Awards_for_Best_Foreign_Language_Film If there is consensus, I think we should remove the individual sources next to the titles. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, every film in last year's article has a wikilink, so references for the original title are not necessary. I am going to go ahead and remove sources for the films which have a wikilink, since the article itself will reference the original title, and will leave the rest of the sources to consensus. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I do have a problem with your section "anticipated films". Why these films? I don't think these are the most anticipated at all, (Germany's film has gotten bad reviews, Turkey's is hardly considered a favorite and India's has not won a single award outside its home country). I personally would have cited Italy, France, Sweden, Kazakhstan and Jordan, but this shows how extremely subjective this is. Hopefully, ALL the films are hotly"anticipated". So unless you have an objection, I will delete it this section. As for the links to the old announcements, I am completely indifferent. I don't think they are necessary, but I don't care if they are still there. -Adtran (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I will reword the sentence and attribute it to the source from which the statement is taken. Why not add more sources which attribute countries that you listed? It is a statement taken from a reliable source so it does comply with Wikipedia policies but certainly we can add similar sourced statements which provide a different list. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the sentence to indicate that these are anticipated films according to the LA Times. I'll keep a watch for other articles on the topic and will add more lists as they are published. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure that I understand why "female directors" has to have a source. After all, it's a fact- not original research. You can just count them on the list of the page- that's the source. I could technically link to seven pages to the seven female directors showing that they are indeed women, but I don't think it's necessary. Ditto for the three directors who were nominated before- it's a fact, not original research. I could technically link to the Oscar website for the years in questions showing that the three men were nominated, but this seems excessive. What do you think? -Adtran (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't the content with female directors, film directors etc., but rather with the fact that we have to stay within Wikipedia guidelines when we add material. No original research dictates that material can't be added at random, even if it appears obvious, but rather has to come from secondary sources. The reason being that unsourced information then becomes a subjective choice rather than a reflection of what others write about. Otherwise articles become dumping grounds for original interpretations of fact. No original research states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."


 * In addition, Verifiability further states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."


 * So the issue isn't the content which I certainly don't object to, but maintaining the quality of this article and keeping it within Wikipedia guidelines, so that eventually we can submit it for FAC. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since sources have not been added, I have moved the section here:
 * Three of the submitted directors have received Academy Award nominations in this category in the past. Brazil's Bruno Barreto was nominated for Four Days in September in 1998 and Iran's Majid Majidi was nominated for Children of Heaven in 1999. Sweden's Jan Troell had films nominated in 1972, 1973 and 1983 and also was nominated as Best Director of The Emigrants in 1973.  Seven submissions were made by female directors. 
 * -Classicfilms (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)