WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Bhabhi, disambiguation or... edit

This article was made a disambiguation page only after edit wars where material on sexualization of Bhabhi in the context of South Asian extended families was summarily deleted and reverted several times by various members of the Wikipedia community.

I would like to launch a civil discussion on whether sexualization of this word is a legitimate Wikipedia topic. Some notable examples are the pornographic cartoon strip Savita Bhabhi, serious literature (Tagore's Nastanirh, and film (Satyajit Ray's Charulata is an adaptation of Nastanirh). This phenomenon can also be explorted by Googling Bhabhi (it helps to know a bit of Hindi). Intrepid participants could even visit http://desi-fantasy.blogspot.com/2006/09/stories-collection.html for particularly graphic illustrations of how extended families may be sexualized differently from nuclear families. LADave (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

A lot of words and phrases in a lot of languages have some sexual subtext (see Sigmund Freud, who would probably say that the word "it" is symbolic of sex with goats or something). None of that is sufficient grounds for notability. I'm afraid that google searches are misleading and biased in favor of sensationalism and popularity, neither of which are particularly useful metrics for a scholarly entity such as wikipedia. The normative meaning of the indic word "Bhabhi"is non-sexual and simply familial, and that is what should be mentioned. A lot of English language writers have found sexual subtexts in basic English words and familial relationships (the most obvious example is William Shakespeare, who finds sexual subtext in the Mother-Son relationship in Hamlet;similar phenomena can be seen in Japanese manga as well), but those subtexts are not notable enough for disproportionate diatribes on wikipedia. Note that the articles Mother and Son don't contain lengthy paragraphs of Shakespearean analysis. Please see WP:SOAP, WP:POINT and WP:LEAD 117.194.193.99 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I want to hold off on my personal response because I am more interested in getting a sense of the spectrum of opinion in the Wikipedia community than in having a "soapbox" for my point of view.
Nevertheless there is one thing I want to ask. I notice that you are responding from an IP address rather than a username with a user page and so forth, which makes you anonymous. Your IP address seems to have been issued by an ISP in New Dehli, so I suppose you are responding from inside India.
I have been contemplating asking for Semi-protection for the Bhabhi and Savita Bhabhi articles. This would prevent edits unless someone logs into a user account, because my material has a number of what I would call "drive-by" deletions by anonymous IPs without the courtesy of discussion such as you have provided. At the same time, I am wondering if the subject of sexualization of Bhabhi and the broader topic of the sexual economies of extended families are so extremely controversial and sensational -- inside India and for expatriate Indians -- that semi-protection would discourage Indian Wikipedians from responding via logins with usernames, pages and other things that might make them more identifiable. Excluding or discouraging Indians from participating freely in this discussion is the last thing I want to do. So do you think requiring login IDs would have this unwanted effect? LADave (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Semiprotection is only done in the case of overt vandalism, which this is not.117.194.193.99 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply


I would strongly protect this word relating with sexuality.it can be related in only one sense that 'she is the lady about whom you cannot and you should not think regarding sexuality'.that's why the word is ambiguously used for other ladies of you age group to give respect and keep that sense alive always.for some people who use this word in their language or society her position is akin to mother or any other care taking lady in family.staying neutral on this topic i suggest not relate it with sexuality and any website like savitabhabhi.com as it might hurt some users and that information would not be of any good use for readers and only the controversies will be created.And by the way in series in savitabhabhi.com the word is just used to create controversial popularity it has to do nothing with this word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitendra.paliye (talkcontribs) 18:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just Google "bhabhi" and the vast majority of links will actually be of a sexual nature. How is this? And now are readers from outside South Asia to make sense of this, if Wikipedia declines to explain it? If Jitendra puts his bhabhi on a pedestal, evidently others do not or they also use the word in a figurative way, with sexual overtones.
Neutrality does not equal censorship. If the word bhabhi is controversial, both sides of the the controversy should be aired. If the cartoon series "Savita Bhabhi" creates controversy, shouldn't Wikipedia endeavor to enlighten its larger readership, instead of instructing them to "just look away"?
In general, Wikipedia doesn't shrink from exploring sexual matters. There is Portal:Sexuality leading to an abundance of articles that might well offend Indian sensibilities. I suppose what it comes down to is whether Wikipedia articles having to do with India should be overseen by Indians who are happy with the kind of censorship that exists inside their country. Is India entitled to censor Wikipedia content about it? If so, why not let China censor Wikipedia content just as it censors the whole Internet inside the country? LADave (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply