Talk:Hollywood North/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Hollywood North. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WikiProject Vancouver

I am taking this article on as a part of the WikiProject Vancouver. As a film student, I had only known the term of 'Hollywood North' used to describe Vancouver as it is now the largest production centre in Canada. However, I will look objectively and research in more depth whether the term still applies to Toronto. If not I will be sure to include a history of the term. I have started work on the Vancouver section and will start on the Toronto section in the upcoming days. I have also archived the previous discussions of this page as they date back a couple months. Thank you for your patience. Mkdw ^talk 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"still applies to Toronto" is the wrong context; it's "now applies to Toronto" as, yes, this was originally a Vancouver term, and meant only Vancouver, and only secondarily the entire Canadian film industry (technically only the branchplant-productions, i.e. Hollywood material made in Canada). It didn't take T.O. long to coopt the term - within months of its coinage. But now on Entertainment Tonight Canada as well as on regular CBC/CTV arts/business broadcasts, you hear comments referring to the Toronto Film Fest as "Hollywood North's big night" or "when you want to get this xxx done, you gbo to Hollywood North, and that means more big-screen excitement featuring Toronto" and other juxtapositions of TO-as-Hollywood North, with no reference meant to Vancouver or anywhere else in Canada. They stole Big Smoke too, apparently because Hogtown is a bit too desriptive....Skookum1 22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Toronto as Hollywood North

I am having some trouble finding legitimate references to Toronto being Hollywood North. Almost all the references I have that suggest Toronto is Hollywood North relate to campaigning in the means for publicity. Either for politics or travel guides. Relatively Vancouver has had several books written about the subject specifically, along with analytical studies, and journal stories. If anyone could possible find some references that would be ideal. Thanks. Mkdw ^talk 07:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hollywood North Report and various travel guides are the only current accounts that Toronto is in fact Hollywood North. In my research, I found that it is most likely that the Hollywood North Report has only included Toronto to increase its scope and reader-base. The same could be said about the travel guides which discredits the factual accuracy of their accounts. This topic is controversal but unless someone can provide more evidence than a 5 year old news article summary, there are no appropriate references that Toronto is Hollywood North. Mkdw ^talk 20:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely in TO's press kit and the Global and CBC styleguides; I hear it all the time on-air; Ziya Tong uses it obsessively (Entertainment Tonight Canada); but I'll see what "hard copy" I can find. As for the 2002 provenance date, I'm sure the term is much older than that; I began my acting classes in 2001 and it was already an old and established term by then; dates to the X-Files days or even before. Have to think who to ask for a cite ("I'll talk to my people....").Skookum1 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Although media is using the term, they still may be using it incorrectly. It's a 'catch phrase' that media hosts may be using as a selling point or 'catch' to their stories on Toronto as is common with news media. News media is world famous for creating terms that already exist and even more so incorrectly using names. Until I have some further references of credibility, I hestitate to make a factual statement about it. Mkdw ^talk 07:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should in the introduction agree that it is a nickname shared by both cities. There is obviously alot of regional bias going on. If in Vancouver you say "Hollywood North" they take it as a nickmame for Vancouver. likewise in toronto that nickname is taken to refer to tornonto. As well as the fact that up until 2002 toronto did lead canada in international film production revenue. If you search google you actually get slightly more hits for Toronto/hollywwod north [1], than you do for even vancouver/hollywood north [http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=vancouver+hollywood+north&spell=1

Duhon 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually in 2002, British Columbia was the leading film centre in Canada by a considerable margin. I refer to the Statistics Canada Hollywood North: The Canadian film industry Report. Also your search results are misleading. You searched for Hollywood + North + Toronto and Hollywood + North + Vancouver. Naturally there will be more pages about Toronto. There is no solid way to see the true number of articles that refer to Toronto as Hollywood North but if you search for the phrase "Hollywood North Toronto" you will find about 205 search results. Where as if you search "Hollywood North Vancouver" you will find about 2,080 search results which is roughly 10 times more than its Toronto counterpart. It may appear biased but I am trying to be as objective as possible. Again, if someone can provide some credible references that would help a lot, but so far really the only true credible reference we have is a 4 year old campaign speech summary from Toronto and a bunch of travel guides. Vancouver in this case has a huge number of references. In this case it may be the use of a slang word being inproperly used or adopted. The article does give credit that Toronto is often described as Hollywood North. Mkdw ^talk 06:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your points and somewhat where your coming from but i think your somewhat over analyzing what the term "hollywood north" truely means; especially with your emphasis on "credible" refferences. the fact that mainly promotional materials and travel guides as opposed to written books as is the case for vancouver, refer to toronto by that nickname, does that really change the fact that "hollywood north" is a somewhat widely used as nickname for toronto? As an example if the only written sources you can find reffering to new york as the "big apple" were promotional and travel guides would that mean that it is not a nickname for New York? The article even refers to the fact the toronto media if not the greater national media in canada and in the US does occasionally refer to toronto as "hollywood north", that is a fact stated in the article. So whether Toronto is as deserving of that nickname as Vancouver (which is up to people's own opinions) it should be stated that it is still a nickname for Toronto. >]]Duhon 08:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Over analyzing and doing research are two different things. For example, upon my own research I found numerous quotations, fact sheets, books, and magazine articles describing New York City as "The Big Apple". In fact the very first search I did on Google for "The Big Apple New York City" is a link to the City of New York Government describing New York as "The Big Apple". The Government of New York City is not a travel guide and a very credible resource. Names that have a clear history dedicated to a city usually have substancial referencing much like Vancouver does with its documentries, books, and magazine stories written about it. For example in the early 1980's many travel and advertising campaigns marked Vancouver incorrectly as being home to 'the' largest gay community' in North America. So far this article has not denied that Toronto is nicknamed Hollywood North, but it is clear that Vancouver is the most common, and original name for the nickname. While you could say my argument is biased. I also encourage you try and keep a NPOV such as your contributions about the Toronto mayor: "outgoing mayor Mel...". While you may think its not important for an encyclopedia, I do not share that opinion and neither does Wikipedia, especially with a disputed article. See any featured article. Mkdw ^talk 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you deleted the refference in the article about Toronto leading canada in film an television production in the year 2000? that source was from the government of Toronto website. To paraphrase an earlier statement by you "the government of toronto is not a travel guide". Duhon Jnauary 1st 2006.

If you review your version, you linked Toronto Access it says nothing about Toronto leading the film industry in 2000. The article by Toronto Access says:

"Toronto continues to lead Canada as the most attractive city for film and television production. Production companies lavished $1.322 billion in Toronto in 2000 according to statistics released today by the Toronto Film and Television Office of the City's Economic Development Division."
That says nothing about leading the film industry in Canada in 2000. The reference quotes the $.1322 billion in Toronto to which my direct link to Statistics Canada has a largest number quoted for Vancouver. Further reverts to this will be considered as vandalism. Mkdw ^talk 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you compare the statistics released by the Toronto Film Commission and the Vancouver Film Commission, you will see that Vancouver led the television and film industry in the year 2000. BC Film Commission Stats and Toronto Stats. I consider this debate closed. Mkdw ^talk 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising the citation templates. All the citations for Toronto had their publisher, accessdate, and proper title. Do not remove that information and only leave the url. You are continuing to vandalize this article and I will have to report you. Mkdw ^talk 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Worth noting that the opening line of that quote: Toronto continues to lead Canada as the most attractive city for film and television production. is exactly the kind of self-flummery associated with Toronto's notion/promotion of itself as Hollywood North. If it's the most attractive city in Canada for film and television production, why do the bulk of the American productions go to Vancouver? Because you can't "attract" hometown productions; they're already there whether they want to be or not; attractiveness to film production means attracting productions, and Vancouver easily outpaces Toronto on that score. But again, this isn't a pissing match. It's who the name rightfully belongs to, and I hold to my own position that the variant meanings need separate definitions, explanations, with TO's coming in third place (behind Vancouver/BC on the one hand, and Canada as a whole on the other-which was the original secondary meaning before Mel Lastman's appropriation of the term).Skookum1 00:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Adjustments

Just a couple of touches for now; I'll try to respond to your other requests later but I lost my reading glasses last night and am typing this through blurry low-diopter ones (well, they're kinda dirty too). Made some adjustments to the intro as follows, a bit POV but essentially true; not edit history comments associated with this edit. What's the mention of "Asian" in your last edit comment btw? Guess I'll look back at the history; it's true that kung fu and bollywood stuff gets made here, but that's not part of the Hollywood North machine; they've got their own machine; the one exception is that recent Bollywood-in-Canada thing, whatever it was called. Transplant HK and PRC productions are surprisingly few and far between, given the scale of Chinese capital and Chinese-language markets in BC.Skookum1 06:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hollywood North", an allusion to Hollywood, California as the most notable film centre in North America, is a nickname originally coined for the movie industry in Vancouver, British Columbia and later adopted by Toronto, Ontario as part of its promotional image. The erm was used by Mike Gasher in his 2002 book, Hollywood North: The Feature Film Industry in British Columbia [1][2]. It originally referred only to BC and was first used to describe Toronto by Mayor Mel Lastman [3]. The term has also been used to describe the entire Canadian film industry[4]. To date, the term is used separately by two groups, the film industry in reference to Vancouver, and the Canadian media in reference to Toronto.

Rather than making a million edits to this article, by inserting references and then finding conflicting ones, I've moved the work over to my sandbox. See: User:Mkdw/sandbox for my latest updates. You may find that version has solved some of the problems with the current article. Mkdw ^talk 07:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes/rejoinder to Duhon's input/changes

Mkdw got this via email during my recent block, now revoked, when I was unable to respond here. Essesntially the gist of what follows is that Duhon's interpretation of what Hollywood North means is decidedly itself a Torontonian perspective; it's (the original usage) not about dominance in the Canadian film industry, or about number of productions, or about celebrity/glitz/notoriety; what follows are relatively uncitable, short of lots of work that is, citing media coverage/usage, about the difference between what Hollywood North means vis a vis Vancouver and how it's used in Toronto's self-promotional image-mongering:

Duhon's context is typically T.O.-ian on the Hollywood North thing. He thinks it's about scale of production, as if simply being a film production centre made one "Hollywood North". The big differences are in that T.O. gets the lion's/hog's share of Canadian film and T.V., whereas Vancouver's core and bread-and-butter is branchplant productions from the US. That's part of it, another part is the obsession with glitz and glamour and, as Michael Buble put it on ET Canada the other night (I only get CBC and Global so I'm stuck with that crap) there's a Canadian star system now....focused on Toronto (espite Ziya Tong's origin in Vancouver). Another catch is that T.O. people do not mean all of the Canadian film industry, they mean Toronto's role as the "second Hollywood", as it fancies itself. Vancouver's Hollywood North is much more workaday; it's about being interconnected with L.A., about the similar cultures between the two cities (despite the rain v. sun), the non-glamour environment in which Goldie and Kurt can go shopping on W. Broadway with no one hassling them, or Bob Hope could stroll the 'Strasse and not get mobbed as he would have in L.A. (and T.O.). Vancouver's blithe indifference to celebrities, relative to TO's obsession, is another big difference; it's changed with the star/gossip columns in the Sun/Province in very recent years, but who's-in-town buzz was much more casual here, whereas in Toronto it's a matter for bragging. Another BIG difference is that the film biz - the "import" film work done here instead of the U.S. - is a huge sector of our economy, much more important than being part of a p.r. package; we don't have the big banks, the corp HQs (not on the same scale), the auto industry and other heavy sectors; film and TV for us was a branching-out from the Resource Economy behemoth, and lots of people, proportionately, are connected to the industry; it's part of the working fabric here. That's not the case in Toronto, despite the concentration of the Canadian entertainment industry there (not by choice, but by boardroom power and political patronage), as film/TV is just one of amny industries; here it's a central one.

Hollywood North in Vancouver is about infrastructure, work culture, identification/proximity by the real Hollywood, and that kind of thing.

Hollywood North in Toronto is a star-machine glamour-image thing, a point of boast for that city, and yes Duhon's right, promotional usages count, especially the regular repetion of the Hollywood North-means-Toronto mantra that started with Lastman (who first appropriated it) and continues with Ziya Tong, Evan Solomon, the Znaimer CHUM crowd, and again, they use it in a different way than waht it means in VAncouver, or in Hollywood. The only equation of Hollywood North=Toronto comes from Entertainment Tonight's US program, when it very stiltedly (on occasion) introduces Toronto's Entertainment Tonight Canada, or has some Canadian story (Howie Mandel bringing Deal or No Deal here, for instance).

But, primarily, my point about Duhon's recent posts/additions is that the term is NOT about how much film production there is on a per-unit basis. IKn Vancouver it's about a culture, a state of mind, a practical extension of Hollywood's sets northwards (to somewhere that like LA vs NYC, has a year-round filming climate...). In Toronto it's about something to brag about, to claim the focus of Canadian entertainment/film/TV life. Lastman's and the then-Ontario regime's changes to their own tax credits were also, pointedly, an attempt to siphon off B.C's burgeoning film sector to their own city/province (long story with union politics re why the UBCP exists to fend off the dominance of Toronto's main glob of ACTRA). Glamour, glitz, boasting/promotion - that's how Hollywood North is used in/by Torontonians (and those corrupted by their definition of it); work, career, climate, talent pool (esp. animation, stunts, lighting/sound, set deck/design) and other aspects which aren't about self-promotion. It's a nickname we were conferred with, not one that we seized and tub-thumped loudly to convince people we were just as famous/interesting as Beverly Hills etc. Hollywood North in Vancouver when it began took fame in stride, which is what many of the stars/celebs commented about - it was NOT a high pressure, high-glitz environment, not obsessed with celebrity or glamour but WORK. And creativity. In Toronto it's all about the ersatz Walk of Fame and all those award shows they hold for themselves year-round. In Vancouver/BC Hollywood North is a phenomenon. In Toronto it's a promotional package and self-glamourizing hype machine. The difference in definitions/usage should be laid out but it will be hard to research/cite (and many/most of the T.O. usages are on TV, rather than in print). So citing is going to be hard, I guess.

Of course if I stay blocked from Wiki (when I submit my unblock request later I'm refusing to apologize and protesting the block as unfair and also biased given the heavily-politicized ongoing changes AND the AFD at the Erik Bornmann article) I could just start writing columns/books on this and other stuff that you guys could then use as cites.........hmmmmmmm.

Just keep the Hogtowners from taking over the Hollywood North page, which was all about T.O. when I found it, and downplayed Vancouver; it's been back-and-forth. This is the most "together" the page has been, but I think the tangent about scale of film production is irrelevant; esp. when the reality that Toronto hogs all the Canadian film budgets (English ones anyway); it's the farmed-out stuff from L.A., and the close proximity/culture between the two West Coasts that is the context in BC; not an invented media campaign (particularly of the p.r.-rebranding type that does not use the word/name in its original context, i.e. Vancouver is not usually heard of at all in T.O.-centred media scripts as being Hollywood North, while Toronto incessantly is).Skookum1 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is i am not not trying to "take away" Vancouver's role of that title. however it is evident that is a large ammont of regional bias going on here. Only individuals in Vancouver themselves would try to take away the fact that the term "hollywood north" is a term that has and still is used to describe toronto (even its only the media that does that as some of you say). if you or whoever wants to do an article on film production in Canada and refer to Vancouver's dominance there that's fine, but this article is about the term or nickname "hollywood north". The fact that half this article references toronto's connection to that name but it is continually being demoted in the introduciton here is incredibly biased. Duhon 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Toronto page doesn't even have the phrase "Hollywood North" on it, for one thing. And no, no other individual from Vancouver is trying to "take away the fact that etc"; but you don't hear BC media referring to TO as Hollywood North; at most they'll use it to refer to the whole film industry, but its local context is so established there's no reason to shoot down TO for its "me too!" appropriation of the term. Your focus on the TO content has been to focus on film production figures and celebrity presence, but that's not the root meaning/origin of the term. Fine, so Toronto uses it now; it should also be stated clearly that Toronto uses is as if it were the only place that carried the name, and behaves as if it's natural that it should have that name; in the industry, Toronto is Toronto, Hollywood North is Vancouver....Skookum1 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does state how toronto and its media if not the greater national media (most of which is based in TO anyways) does use the term as mostly a "catch phrase" at times or however you see it. If you want to detail the "original" meaning of the term fine, but do not take away from the fact that it is used to refer to the entertainment or celebrity aspects of Toronto a great deal. The fact that you do not personally like the fact that toronto uses that name (which is wholly evident), is irrellevant to what should be in this article...also on a side note i beleive the toronto page does not mention "Hollywood north" is due to prospective users like yuo comming in and deleting it.Duhon 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Toronto's taken away lots from Vancouver in its time, including two nicknames (Hollywood North and the Big Smoke); the issue here is that the word has a different meaning IN Toronto and TO Torontonians than it does to anyone else. Toronto use of the term specifically omits or downplays Vancouver's role, focussing on TO as the Hollywood North; my position is that there are TWO definitions at play, and Vancouver's is the a priori one, partly because it's the one in use in the industry itself, where the term originated. I may just have to write Katherine Monk about this and see what she might provide from her books/articles as citations of some sort (she lives in Vancouver now; and she uses the term for the whole Canadian industry); so there are at least three meanings; the phenomenon of "branchplant L.A" in Vancouver, the Canada-wide branchplant film industry, and Toronto's redefinition of it around glitz, glamour and its own position as the focus of Canadian film/TV production (ie. Canadian-market/produced films, whose budget/financing it controls); the term originally was also about brancplant U.S. productions, not involving the Canadian film/TV industry which always WAS concentrated in T.O.Skookum1 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Duhon, your cleanup effectively reverted all the changes I made. You didn't take an earlier revision, modify it, and overwrite the latest version as a 'cleanup', did you? Carson 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I also spent the last 30mins restoring all the publisher and title information for the Toronto section. I no longer feel your contributions are benefiting this article. We are all trying to make a strong, decisive, and factual document, and in the meantime you have removed information to citations, improperly quoted and added references that did not support your facts along with the insulting our methods of diligently pushing for the use of references to an encyclopedic level. Mkdw ^talk 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that you added several references that did not support your argument, removing other references that even supported Toronto for some reason, reverted grammatical and spelling corrections, and lastly you fabricated false facts about Toronto such as it leading the film and television industry. I'm sorry if you think we're making Toronto less of what YOU'D like it to be, but Vancouver has 250 more articles in the CBC News article, 10 times more hit results on Google, and about 30 more credible references other than public media. So, please do not tell us we're being biased when you have no evidence. Mkdw ^talk 16:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on top of this; just wanted to comment that that assertion that we're "trying to take something away from Toronto" can only make me grin somewhat sarcastically; part of the story here is how Vancouver got a good thing going because Toronto wouldn't let it have any of its own cake, and when Toronto saw Vancouver was getting somewhere , it not only brought in tax credits ro try and replicate the phenomenon but also rebranded itself with Vancouver's nickname and pretended to be the centre of the industry that Vancouver actually was (and still is). The story of UBCP v. ACTRA T.O. might get told here sometime, too, although I wasn't in the biz then. The "take away" thing is especially, um, poignant, because it bespeaks the prevalent insecurities built in to the Canadian mentality, all the more tellingly because the claim of "taking away from Toronto" is on behalf of the most powerful, most acquisitive, most arrogant and most egotistical city in the country. Yeah, I know that's POV, but this isn't the article....Skookum1 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

TV/Film credits/lists

I'm not sure they're even relevant to the article, especially in the contest of a pissing match between Vancouver and TO meanings; it's not about the number of productions, it's about the nature of the business and the working climate (in Vancouver). But given that Hollywood North in its proper meaning is about American offshoot productions in Canada, it's only them that matter; Canadian shows produced for U.S. syndication like Relic Hunter count, but not purely-Canadian-made stuff like The Sweet Hereafter (even though it got US audiences/syndication) Toronto's various knock-offs of American-format crime and legal dramas (i.e. the ones set in Toronto which other Canadians are forced to watch, thanks to the networks, but are never seen or marketed to the States; the exception being Da Vinci's Inquest because it was marketed to the States right off the bat...). The important productions are the ones that defined Hollywood North, e.g. X-Files, Stargate, certain big features; a full production list is constantly changing and will always be incomplete; and incredibly lengthy (I don't think there's a List of shooting locations in Vancovuer as there is for List of shooting locations in Toronto or whatever it's called; it would be way too lengthy and would have entries like 400 block W. Hastings, 200 block W. Hastings, 100 block E. Hastings; nearly everywhere has been a location.....Skookum1 00:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

removal of map

The map which was at the head of the page was not illustrative of Hollywood North.....how could a map be? It looked like an old elections-results map, in fact, with ON and QC in red, BC in a darker red, and everyone else in blue. What does that have to do with "Hollywood North". More illustrative would be a set/production pic, i.e. a bunch of trailers parked outside the Vancouver Art Gallery or Marine Building, maybe, or set deck and makeup people fussing around the DoP and Prod Mgr. Either that or maybe a map of Greater Vancouver/Lower Mainland showing the locations of the main studios, from old Panorama in West Van to Winston Ryckert's stunt ranch out in Stave Falls.Skookum1 (Talk) 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Torontification reversed

Someone (Ckatz) beat me to the undo/revert, but the Toronto "me too, me first" theme was placed again by IP address editors overnight; even in one edit replacing Vancouver with New York City in one paragraph, as if Vancouver's name should be downplayed. I'm almost of a mind to think such edits are coming from someone at the the Toronto Film Commission or the City of TO's marketing department...but that's just paranoia from dealing with certain professional p.r. men - or rather unprofessional p.r. men - on certain other pages lately.....Skookum1 (Talk) 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Hollywood North Map was not a bad image to have. It represented Hollywood North refering to BC and Ontario as the 'Canadian Film Industry'. Maybe it should have been moved to the bottom rather than the top, but still an image of explination. Mkdw ^talk 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia are also centres of film production; and Quebec is really its own Filmy-wood. And why should ON and QC be brighter than BC, since BC's the most important and the namesake? And really, of course, it's effectively on the Lower Mainland/South Island.Skookum1 (Talk) 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the Toroto intro stating the term was first used to describe toronto in 2002. I have a link from Time magazine refferencing to Toronto as Hollywood North two years prior to Lastman's statements. [2] 6th paragraph. As of now there is no deffenitive date as to when Toronto was "first" dubbed Hollywood North. Duhon January 12 2007

The line reffering to the media using it as a catch phrase or "cathcy phrase" when reffering to toronto is POV . The article already states that both the mainstrea media as well as promotional media use the term to describe toronto. as well it insinuates its only a catch phrase when reffering to toronto (as if "hollywood north" was thought of by vancouvers founding father's). Hollywood north is a catch phrase regardless if its reffering to toronto, vancouver or canadian prodictions in general.Duhon January 14 2007

Fine, de-POV the phrase, BUT it's still true: Toronto uses the phrase in a different way than the reason it was coined, or in the context it was originally coined, and uses it exclusively to mean itself. I'm confronted by this every time I turn on ET Tonite or see Evan Solomon or Strombo holding forth about Toronto-as-Hollywood North; "catchy" is POV but "catchphrase" is not. And the term of course wasn't invented by the founding fathers of Vancouver (who used "the Terminal City", without the connotations of "terminal" now current because of "terminal disease") - it was invented by film industry people/execs, which is what I've been trying to tell that yellowsnow guy. Toronto has co-opted the phrase to be about glitz and glamour, and Toronto's role as the Centre of the Universe in Canadian film - but it's not about Canadian film, or wasn't meant to be; it was in reference to "runaway productions", the kind yellowsnow is bitching about so loudly. The Beachcombers wasn't part of Hollywood North; X-Files was....The phrase now can refer to the whole of the Canadian subsidized-foreign productions thing, whether they're in Alberta or Nova Scotia; but Toronto never uses it that way - they speak of "of course THIS is Hollywood North", meaning Toronto (nearly quoting Evan Solomon there....) or "where else but Hollywood North" (meaning Toronto) and so on. Vancouver does NOT use it so self-consciously, or in reference to the glam; here it's about the working environment, technical milieu, and particular close relationship with L.A. - a much closer relationship, historically and at present, than Toronto has; Toronto sees itself as a second Hollywood; Vancouver as a neighbourhood of Hollywood....Skookum1 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW marking the deletion of a whole sentence as a "minor edit" is deceptive; that's for punctuation, typos, missing link bits and stuff, not for contextual changes.Skookum1 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide citations for your opinion please do so. until then it just that POV. Frankly the fact your citing your dis-pleasure of etertainment tonight as one of your arguments furthers my point that it is a weak argument. Duhon 14 January 2007 (UTC)

New POV attack edits by User:Donteatyellowsnow

The name of this user is starting to make me realize it's meant to be a reference to Canada being snowbound (which, although it is today, Vancouver usually isn't, but what do Californians know anyway?). I moved the entire section he's begun after placing fact templates on things that aren't citable - outright POV statements that are part of the p.r. spin coming out of Hollywood. Hollywood North was NOT invented by CAnadians, and the Canadian government didn't pave the way for the "runaway productions", the BC government did - at the encouragement of investors and producers from Hollywood who were looking to get away from the various obstacles and escalating costs and union problems there - as well as location burnout. Dumping on Canada is fair game in US trade wars and the p.r. slags that go with it; it's not OK in Wikipedia (even if I do dump on Toronto, but Toronto's fair game...especially because the TO point of view that's being trotted out in this article is every bit as wrong as Don'teatyellowsnow's/"official Hollywood's"....).Skookum1 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section entirely, as it needs a total rewrite before reinsertion. User:Donteatyellowsnow has added a series of extremely POV edits in the last day or so, most notably at History of film, Runaway film, and now here. I've had to revert the changes at "History" and ask for input there, as well as rewriting "Runaway" (using "Dont"'s own sources). I think it is worth incorporating some of the information at "Runaway" in to this article, to give some background to the issue and to strengthen this page. (It's interesting to note that while "Dont" want to shape the runaway issue as a Canadian "theft", California actually defines it to include productions that go out of state, not just out of country. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd bet that the IP address used in previous edits (probably "dont's") traces to a Hollywood CA film office; i.e. not a production company but a part of the Hollywood machine or its branding/p.r./spin department....I've seen similar language before from "professional" p.r. men elsewhere..."Don't Eat Yellow Snow" was also a California-film-loyalist slogan/buttopn/bumper-sticker campaign about us nasty Canadians....Skookum1 21:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

---

It figures that you self-obsessed Canucks would be so egocentric as to think that my screen name has ANYTHING to do with you (rather it existed BEFORE). Much like the name you are trying to steal, "Hollywood", it has nothing to do with you.

Personally, I think wiki should remove this whole page as NO ONE in Hollywood refers to Canada as Hollywood North except for Canadians trying to steal away film industry jobs from the United States -- so it therefore is advertisement and for commercial gain and has no place in an encyclopedia. Canadians are the only ones who have anything to benefit by the misappropriation of the term "Hollywood" whether it is "Hollywood North" or any other bastardization of the name that has been built over centuries in the *real* Hollywood.

Everybody knows that HOLLYWOOD is Hollywood! And the city of Hollywood has protected their name with various trademarks and by inferring that Canada has any right to that name, you are probably violating Hollywood's trademark on the name. I resent that you aren't open-minded enough to realize that the term "Hollywood North" only came into existence because of runaway production (as I wrote which you deleted). That is a fact. The two terms are NOT mutually exclusive and you must include runaway production as part of this page or you are being disingenuous. Otherwise this is nothing more than an advertisement for Canada film production, and the arguments between the competing cities of Toronto, Vancouver and B.C. prove this.

What was deleted without cause:

History of Runaway film and Origin of Term "Hollywood North"

The reference to "Hollywood North" was given by Canadians as part of the desire and effort stemming from the late 1990s to build a "Hollywood" north in Canada; that is, to prop up a heavily government-subsidized film production community in Canada. The goal of Canadians was to stimulate the growth of a film production community by effectively stealing away film productions from the United States. To do this the Canadian government began an aggressive program to lure American film productions into Canada by doling out financial incentives including subsidies, tax benefits and other incentives. Groups such as FTAC (The Film and Television Action Committee) have lobbied the U.S. government to enforce WTO (World Trade Organization) agreements and to protect U.S. workers from unfair trade practices such as these subsidies and from U.S. jobs being wholesale outsourced up "north" to the Canadian self-proclaimed "Hollywood North".

For more information see: Runaway film

Be advised that your re-insertion of this uncited and incorrect material is verging on vandalism, especially given its POV content. And for the fourth time (or is it the third?) the term Hollywood North was coined by Americans who were working in Vancouver, and it also made its rounds of L.A. filmco boardrooms before the media up here even became aware of it. I'm not going to delete your "contribution" again because of the WP:3RR rule (which you would do well to read about) but I know someone else will; and don't be surprised if what's left of your paragraph gets re-done; the issue of "runaway film" is definitely of issue, here, but not in the POV tone that you have written it up as. And get over it - the Hollywood-proprietary thing; unless perhaps you've also gone and similarly added rant-flavoured "contributions" to Bollywood and other neologisms based on "Hollywood" - which as of yet is NOT trademarked and not the property of the city of Hollywood or L.A. OR the California film industry, which it refers to.Skookum1 00:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you think the article should be deleted, add the delete template; but the verdict on any such AFD will definitely be "keep", whether or not you like its existence and what it's about.Skookum1 00:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold - There is no need for this debate. The newly written information is completely irrelevent to the topic of Hollywood North. If anything it has to do with the history of cinema in the United States to which should be included in the article Cinema of the United States. It should also be noted that the term "Runaway Film" does not exist. If you look more closely at the article, none of its references use the name "runaway film" except links to the production company, "Runaway Films". Mkdw ^talk 07:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The section, if it remains, should also recount the position/POV of the film productions that left California - why they didn't want to shoot in California; I don't think we've even got that much detail on Canadian policies and political debates for one thing, and certainly not as one-sided for the other. Yes, it's a political football in the industry but productions aren't obliged to California to shoot there; same as our forest companies aren't bound to log here, but can go to Borneo or Brazil. Hollywood doesn't own the film industry - but it's pretending like it does. Fine; so if its legislative politicking is present, then so should be the reasons why the productions didn't shoot here (not just numbers as to what it cost California, but what the problems with California were - and stuff like this is documentable). But also, since there's this big section now on U.S. laws and politics - there's none on a similar level of detail for the Canadian/provincial legislation/politics. The APOV problem that's encroaching hereis similar to the one on Alaska Boundary Dispute and even more on Oregon boundary dispute - the story is treated as if it were entirely about the US and what the US has to say about it; "U.S. Reaction" is fine, but only if it's balanced and also deals with why the productions don't like being in L.A. anymore, criticisms of the protectionist attitudes coming out of D.C. and Sacramento, and obvious things like why Brokeback Mountain needed to be shot in cattle country, not condo country, and so on. So all of that makes a huge new section, and none of it is really about "Hollywood North" - and neither, from my point of view, is a lot of the stuff on the size and details of the Canadian industry in the first place, which is about Canadian film (T.O. film esp.) rather than the "migratory Americans" phenomenon which spawned the Hollywood North thing in the first place; there are eerie echoes here of the old Hongcouver article, now deleted, which was increasingly not about the name/word, but about a whole phenomenon - "topic stretching". Hostility by some U.S. magnates and politicians is certainly part of the story of Hollywood North; but detailing U.S. laws/tax-breaks on a page about Canada which doesn't detail Canadian laws/tax-breaks to the same degree is just, well, kind of odd....Skookum1 19:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have to say it is very relevant, as the U.S. reaction to "Hollywood North", and the actions taken stateside, have a very direct impact on the Canadian industry. I agree that there should be some detail on the reasons for migration, as well as what made Canada so attractive, what problems it faces from competition, the exchange rate, and so on. (One of the first links I found for "Runaway production" was a BC government report challenging some of the Director's Guild's charges about the incentives, for example.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is related, but has nothing to do with THIS article. Read the thesis statement, Hollywood North", an allusion to Hollywood, California, the most notable film centre in North America, is a nickname predominantly given to Vancouver, British Columbia. Does the definition, orgin, and evolution of the term 'Hollywood North' have anything to do with American opinions about the Canadian film industry. No it doesn't. It very clearly doesn't. Yes it affects the 'Canadian Film Industry' which would be covered in the article Cinema of Canada. This article is about a nickname. Langara College 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In the same light, the internal "trade war" within Canada is a big part of the story; the undercutting of BC's subsidies and policies by Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta, whomever; the "bidding war" as it were....and the "recent" (fall '05 as I recall) "moment" when it looked like BC wasn't going to up its tax credit rate to stay in competition with the other provinces and various state jusridictions (Louisiana, e.g.), and then finally caved in when enough pressure from the local industry/unions reared its head ("we" don't have a lot of votes relative to other sectors, not directly anyway, and apparently don't kick into ruling political parties' campaign budgets as much as resource and realty/development companies do...). So, given the presence of the trade-war stuff with "old Hollywood", it's obvious that the infraCanadian trade war is also talked about; which points in the direction of a whole article on Subsidies and policies for film production in Canada and corresponding articles (with a hopefully simpler title....).Skookum1 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we'll be able to rationalize with Langara College - he/she is already throwing around "WARNING" messages, having slapped them on my talk page and on Duhon's. Quite frustrating, actually, as I'd really rather have an intelligent discussion about this. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I got a CFM from Langara College, too, and I agree that this "going to the process" while debate is still going on - this is a debate, and other than yellowsnow not an edit war; I'll take part in the CFM - as if I weren't damn busy enough with a host of Wiki work (as I'm sure you're aware; otherwise see the range of my recent Contributions). And I grant that my amendments to the Toronto section are giving a Vancouver point of view of the situation (I've also got a burr in my ass about their cooptation of the nickname Big Smoke, but that's a side issue, and I share most non-Golden Horseshoe Canadians' disdain for Toronto's navel-gazing and self-promotion; and there's no way I'm a Vancovuer hypester - anything BUT, as various comments of mine on Talk:Vancouver and related pages serve to prove). I slag everybody on equal time ;-0

"Hollywood North" is NOT - not out here - about the volume of productions, but the character of the productions and the production environment, and also public and government attitudes towards it (which are nonchalant, which was one of the attraction-points with Hollywood; celebs could come here and be left alone, or even go unnoticed; now the gossip columns are increasingly sightings-oriented but it never used to be that way; but again that's the media, not the public). And I continue to maintain it has a different meaning when Torontonians and Toronto media use it, vs. how it's used in Vancouver and why Vancouver came to be called it (as an internal term within the industry, apparently in both L.A. and Vancouver - until our media got hold of it and like "Highway of Death" and "Killer Highway" for Hwy 99 became a headline theme); it's true that it's now in general usage for the whole of Canadian-made film (not "Canadian film", which is its own baby like Franco-Canadian cinema, although it has a love-hate relationship with aspiring to but not wanting to be like Hollywoo flicks IMO) but whenever it's brought up in Toronto-produced news, talkshows and bumpf, it's spoken of as though Toronto was all it could be about, since it's the largest city and the longtime home of Canadian film....but it's not about "Canadian film", as I just said. It's about the runaways, granted, which is why the US reaction is important (as would be a comparison table of respective provincial and state tax breaks and funding programs and film offices etc...), and why Toronto's role in it is not what TO thinks it is. Fine, Toronto uses it to mean something different - it's own "Second Hollywood" star machine that has emerged in very recent years, and deliberately so, with the Walk of Fame and the whole schmeer. But there it's about getting people to believe in Toronto; here it's about getting work....I'll leave off for now and await the CFM, but I do think Langara College was hasty and bear in mind that the recent round of edits - after the article was stabilized by Mkdw - were "attack edits" and, while raising issues that need addressing (as I do agree with you, Ckatz, about the conditions that produced/created H.N.), created some chaos that it would have best been left to resolve by rational editing, instead of recourse to the milieu of potentially uninformed mediation/arbitration...I grant that a lot of my observations are from personal experience and are hard to cite (not all, just laborious to find again in print/online) and so verge on "original research". But it's obvious as day to me when I turn on Entertainment Tonight Canada or am subjected to yet another Toronto self-hype show or column about its new rising role in the film industry as Hollywood North in the papers or on TV; like I said, out here in BC it's not even given the same level of government p.r. support that it seems TO and ON give their branding of "Hollywood North" - the resource-and-realty types in charge of BC didn't give a fig for the industry (until realty and service sectors joined the film industry chorus to match other provinces' - Onatario's, in fact, I think - undercutting of our subsidies and threatened to shut down BC; here it's an organism - there it's a project.Skookum1 02:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I should add, given Duhon's complaint about the Toronto section, that his original Toronto-tainted edits downplayed Vancouver altogether (if I could cite that, I would...I mean, if Wikipedia edits were citable references/examples....) and, as Mkdw corrected him, a promotional quote about Toronto which was used as a footnote to state that it was the most important film centre in Canada didn't even say that. So while this isn't a tit-for-tat, I'm pointing to clear demonstrations of the nature of the Torontonian usage/view of the term, which is (to me) so clearly different from Vancouver's, and has little to do with its genesis within the industry, who didn't invent it as a form of hype or branding but more like a quip about the way things were (more than are). Tourism Vancouver barely uses it, unlike Toronto's tourism office; it's a difference between experienced environment and rebranding hype. Vancouver had a good thing going, and TO saw it, went "wait a minute, we can't let Vancouver have something we don't", and copy-catted it (as BC columnnists opined at the time, as I recall....). Now H.N. is seen as a make-work project and promotional thing by other provinces; the government of BC barely cares, and the CoV has to grapple with public issues against/about the film industry, e.g. overruning streets for days/weeks on end, on a regular basis; it's a different environment, a different context, a different agenda, a different meaning. Duhon's past edits are proof enough of that all by themselves (no offense Duhon, but they really are!). This should probably have gone on the mediation page - but this is where the debate is at the moment, and should have remained....Skookum1 02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote Ckatz:

I wil certainly participate in an RfM, if need be, but be advised that I do not take kindly to your actions in this matter.

In my opinion, that is a complete forfeit or you expressing your willingness to have a 'intelligent conversation'. You're reverting work with out discussion. You're reverting grammatical changes. You're wiping certain topics while including topics that should be on other articles. You're then saying there's no concrete proof when I'm listing them in the handfuls. You're not arguing the points with your own examples or explinations, rather just "I cannot reason... you have no proof" statements. So please, explain. Langara College 02:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, here's what I actually posted in that message:

"I wil certainly participate in an RfM, if need be, but be advised that I do not take kindly to your actions in this matter. Without any pause for discussion whatsoever, you jumped into the fray and began leaving "WARNING" messages on my page and on those of other users. This is not the appropriate manner in which to achieve consensus, and I think that an RfM would indeed highlight that fact. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the portion of the message that Langara College chose to omit. In fact, the editor posted the entire message, and then went back and deleted the highlighted portion one minute later. I'll certainly stand by anything I say or do on Wikipedia, but I would prefer it if Langara College could at least present my material as it was originally delivered. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Langara, I'd also like to ask you to explain your accusations. You claim I'm "reverting grammatical changes" - but your message shows that you are referring to my reverting your deletion of the entire "US reaction" section. Speaking of that revert, you claim I'm "wiping entire topics" (which you have not proven) while actually deleting an entire topic yourself. You've placed "vandalism" warnings on my page and on Duhon's page (twice). You've also claimed to have taken the "US reaction" section and "moved (it) to Cinema of Canada", when in fact you did no such thing. Finally, you have filed for an RfM over this matter, in which you indicated that an RfC and an AN/I had already been attempted. In fact there hasn't been an AN/I, and the RfC request wasn't filed until 20 minutes after the RfM filing. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's curious that I would see that your edit just now restored material of mine which Duhon "inadvertently deleted", as Duhon left a complaint on my page that I had reverted something of his on the talkpage. I NEVER alter other people's posts on talkpages, other than to indent them for continuity/dialogue-clarity, and told him so. But now it seems the shoe is on the other foot, and "inadvertently" is what the rationalization was - while accusing me of something that's so far outside the pale of even my Wiki behaviour that it's not confusing, it's a bit suspicious.... (retraction, please). And re Langara College, could you please tell us if you are one or several persons; according to User:Langara College you are the "UBX Facility" at Langara, which is nice enough; but what's a UBX facility and, again, are there more than one of you? What struck me with teh suddenness of your CFM is you have only a few prior edits on Hollywood North, and were not part of the debate when suddenly you announced you were hauling us to mediation (sans yellowsnow, and yeah I don't think I'd invite him to a dinner party either), without actually trying to mediate anything yourself (!). And when I went to the CFM page, only Duhon and Langara College are listed (or were when I looked), apparently eager for official process when reason wouldn't do.Skookum1 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears a lot has happened in my absence. I've seen UBX used before on Wikipedia to refer to Userboxes. See Wikipedia:Userbox_migration#Userbox_Migration_Codes for a reference. As far as this mediation, I also received a message from User:Langara College. Who ever this user is, we definitely do not need a mediation to resolve this issue. I am sympathetic to the points he is bringing up in it, but again, we can all resolve this in another matter. I do suggest to show progress, we discuss new sections being input as to avoiding edit wars. Mkdw ^talk 08:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, all this infighting proves my point. That this page is all about Canadians trying to steal away film production work 1) from the U.S. and then 2) from each other. You guys claim that using the slang amongst yourselves -- "Hollywood North" -- that it has absolutely nothing to do with the United States or runaway film or runaway production (however you want to nitpick the name). But misappropriating the word "Hollywood" shows the scheme for what it is. Canada is not Hollywood! It is not a place that Hollywood stars go to "relax" as you guys put it. "Hollywood North" simply put, was part of the Canada strategy to lure FILM PRODUCTIONS that were SUPPOSED to shoot in the U.S. (as they always had for a hundred plus years) NORTH to Canada. It is a Canadian business scheme using the tactic of fighting below the belt -- i.e. CANADIAN GOVERNMENT FUNDED SUBSIDIES. In other words, when unable to develop your own film production industry you guys decided to violate the WTO (World Trade Organization) rules of fair play and for the government to entice American film production companies and movie studios to Canada with big fat paybacks in the form of government subsidies. Obviously the American workers whose families have worked in this industry for generations and whose livelihoods depended on this work which they had done for decades were not going to be able to compete with 30 to 50% of the cut in wages for unskilled Canadian labor propped up by the Canadian government. It temporarily worked until Canada got "out Bollywooded" by Australia, New Zealand and even the U.S. (in an attempt to get back what was taken from them) and a host of other countries jumping into this government subsidation game. That's when CANADIANS themselves began to use the term "runaway production" or "runaway film" to name the films that they had stolen from the U.S. but which were subsequently being stolen from them and "running away" to yet other countries with even more subsidies! It's bad karma all of this! I think you guys think you are going to attract U.S. film producers with a page like this which is an attempt to be an advertisement for Canada, but which really ends up looking like an unprofessional cat fight (hey, much like the failed Canadian-produced runaway film "CAT WOMAN"). How about this? Canada starts competing on fair terms (i.e. stops the subsidies) and perhaps they would attract the film productions that they claim that they attract "naturally" based on "actors just wanting to hang out in Canada". Instead of all of you guys fighting over whether Toronto is Hollywood or if Vancouver is Hollywood (neither is!) why don't you guys start writing letters to get your government to compete fairly with the U.S. labor force. Let's see if it works. Let's see if there really is a "Hollywood North" that can exist independent of the government subsidize scheme called luring "runaway productions" from the United States. Note: "Hollywood North" not to be confused with the REAL "North Hollywood", an actual Los Angeles community where film professionals and a movie industry has existed for a hundred years. I'd put a link on this page, only one of you fascists will remove it and then you will call me the vandal! Oh, the irony. -User:Donteatyellowsnow 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, and the irony of Hollywood being founded by runaway productions from New York, for many of the same reasons that productions came to Vancouver when L.A. became too expensive and location-burnout was maxed out. But get this yellowsnow - the reason BC came up with the tax credits is because American producers lobbied them for the tax breaks, as they wanted to shoot here but needed incentives; "to feel welcome". Believe me when I tell you this - the BC government, neither then nor now (different regimes/parties) has ever had enough vision of its own to branch out from the resource-and-realty addiction this place is on; the tax incentives were the film industry's idea, and by that I mean the American film industry. Canada (the feds) and Canadian capital couldn't have been less interested, which is the whole point about why all of a sudden BC started to have a larger production industry (we already made a good chunk of your television commercials since the early 1970s) despite no support at all from Ottawa or the media-concentration types in Toronto. The tax incentives here were the result of an iniative by Hollywood money looking for cheaper shooting turf - they WEREN'T a local idea; we had to be led by the nose to come up with them. As for the in-fighting here, that's because it's the Toronto crowd who see the "Hollywood" name and project it to mean something it didn't mean when the industry coined "Hollywood North" for Vancouver, which wasn't in reference to building a second Hollywood but rather in the sense of us being the backlot, the northern sound stages. That's why the in-Canuck argument; TO-ites see it differently, and use it differently. But out here in Vancouver, it was a creation and byproduct of American production money/infrastructure and NOT an effort by the provincial or city governments to "steal" American productions - that may be Toronto's motive, and it's "stolen" productions from Vancouver (and always "steals" talent) - but it's not how Hollywood North emerged in Vancouver, where it had a lot more to do with American initiative than anything ANY CAnadian government has had the vision to conceive on its own. Ask to build a chainsaw factory or "modernize a sawmill" and you can get huge grants; but even getting the tax credits for film here was like pulling teeth, and still is....Skookum1 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And you should also note that both Ckatz and I have agreed that mention of the controversy within the US film industry should be part of this article; and not in the least because it was American film money that came up with the idea to approach BC about the tax credits in the first place...so the content you want to see, or something very much like it, is going to wind up here; just not in the hateful, whiny POV language you'd like to see it in....Skookum1 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Donteatyellowsnow", Your arguments might carry more weight if it wasn't for the fact that your own edit history reveals a pattern of rewriting existing articles to add a very obvious point of view, that being the supposed "supremacy" of the Hollywood production system. I've seen the changes you made at History of film, as well as your first version of Runaway production (formerly "runaway film"). Many of your changes at "History" involved downplaying the role of film industries in other nations, while heavily promoting the American aspects. "Runaway" read like a press release from the FTAC, and required heavy editing - using your own sources - to bring it closer to what constitutes a Wikipedia article. I'd suggest that if you wish to have other editors listen to your views and concerns, you attempt to express them in a more collaborative manner. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Catch Phrase in Toronto but not in Vancouver

The nickname Hollywood North is by all defenitions a catch-phrase on its own. Yet on this page it is being insinuated that somehow for Vancouver it is not. The media is as responsible for perpetuating the term Hollywood North for Toronto as it is for Vancouver. Yet this article continues to try and portray that name Hollywood North as simply a media invention for Toronto that has no actual basis. If the article is going to state it is used as a catch phrase in Toronto the same should be said about vancouver.

Compare the sections for Toronto and Vanouver. The majority of the Vancouver article states fact and figures about movie productions and studio's while the Toronto section seems to be filled with conspiracy theories about the "Toronto dominated media" which has little to do with the actual movie or televison industry in Toronto while the Vancouver page goes to great length about its own film and TV industry.

--Duhon January

The mention of it in the Toronto section underwent several edits mainly because the point of that it was used as a marketing selling tool over an industry term. 'catch phrase' was the decided upon concensus until now. If you wish to mention marketing-selling point in Toronto and industry term in Vancouver, you may do so. Langara College 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, for all the 'new' people who have come here. Look over the archived discussions, check the previous versions. This article in the last two months has been the target of huge NPOV issues that you are only now just coming upon but making jurastic decisions that have already been faced. Not doing so makes this process repeated. Langara College 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The marketing aspect is already mentioned in the opening lines several times. The whole "catch pharase" line appears to be rubbing it in. Its stated the term is used in promotional materials and as for economic factors. How much more does it need to be stated? Catch phrase or "catchy" as the article states, is an inflammatory wording that cheapens the article. Duhon 15 January 2007 (UTC)

New Toronto POV from User:Brodey

Well, it seems recruits are on the way, and the cavalry too. But everything that Brodey just added serves to prove what I'm saying about what Torontonians think Hollywood North is supposed to mean, or what they're intent on making it mean, and trot out justifications why it's Toronto's term most of all; why else go on about how important Toronto's film industry is? Hollywood North in its inception, and in general usage, and still out here, is a reference to the presence of out-of-country productions taking advantage of Vancouver's lifestyle, year-round shooting climate, light, diverse restaurants, and all the other attractions that entice Hollywood people to hang out there (even when they're not working on something); and even in general usage, the core of that part of the industry in Canada is focussed in Vancouver (if we're counting numbers): the value of Toronto's English-language programming exports vs the rest of the country is irrelevant to the concept of Hollywood North;

Amd gee, if TO has the biggest export market for Canadian-made TV productions, that's because private Canadian money doesn't invest in Vancouver-shot projects, and also because CBC is focussed on its own Torontonian navel at M5W 1E6 (any Canadian who listens to AM Radio knows that postal code); claiming priority when the reason for that priority is overweening political priority is exactly why film in Vancouver grew up around American backing and investment - because Toronto, and English Montreal before it, had and has a stranglehold on entertainment-venture capital. And that would also be because Toronto gets the lions share of federal patronage and private investment ventures, not because there's any fair ground in this country in any economic sector. Unless you're from Toronto, apparently, and that's my point. Toronto wants to "own" the term, and redefine it around itself; the edits by Brodey and Duhon are proof enough of that, clear as day. Brodey's edits are cited, but on the one hand POV, and on the other highly irrelevant to the subject of what Hollywood North. Again, what it means outside of Toronto; if it means something different to Torontonians, as it obviously can be shown to be (including by these two users' edits), then the different contexts should be spelled out. Toronto types use Hollywood North as a self-promotional brag; Vancouverites, even film industry ones, use it kind of cynically/wrily, like a "ain't that the way it is", just a workaday thing, and damn those circuses clogging up certain streets all the time anyway; it's never used as a brag out here except by the most starry-eyed, and by the growing crowd of celeb-infatuated reporters.Skookum1 05:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

false claim by Duhon in edit comment

Well, first as mentioned above in a reply to Ckatz, Duhon plopped a complaint on my page that he'd undone my deletion/reversion of his material on the talkpage; and above Ckatz returns it, politely saying it was "inadvertently" deleted. Well, I'm sorry, but there's a skunk in these woods - I just looked at edit where his edit-comment says "rv vandalism". But the "vandalism" he reversed was MY POST - as if it was vandalism. So what gives, Duhon? For somebody who signed up pronto at the mediation thingie you're sure starting off on the wrong foot, by deleting my stuff, saying I deleted yours and putting "vandalism" in the edit comments so admin would think that _I_ had done something naughty when it was you who did it. What's wrong? The truth in what I was saying hurt too much? Sheesh. Kudos to Ckatz for catching it or I might not have noticed. So, I repeat, what gives? This is not a way to start a CFM, especially for the person whose troublesomeness at this site caused the recent round of edits which prompted Langara College to start behaving like a hallway cop...and now that I think about it, and look at the history again, Langara College had NO problem with Duhon's "rv vandalism" and went on to make a series of other edits; this doesn't look good for Langara College's motives here, either. Remember, in politics as well as in community orgs, optics is everything; and in the absence of fairness and decent conduct you have to assume the opposite is true in both cases.Skookum1 05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed this when looking at the history. Please do not remove comments other than your own. This is a poor character and is reportable offence. Be considerate and we can work this out. Mkdw ^talk 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I am personally going to disagree to the mediation. See: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hollywood North for my comments. Mkdw ^talk 08:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and after reading those comments I totally agree. I had been waiting to add my name to the mediation to see if anyone but Duhon and Langara College signed up; now that the cool-headed and methodical Mkdw (take a compliment when you can get it!) has opted out, I feel right in doing the same thing, despite my earlier "well, OK, if I have to...". Especially in the wake of Duhon's hostile edit of my talkpage comments, and Langara College's very unimpartially looking the other way on it....Skookum1 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A mediation IS a form of discussion. It assures its done in a civil manor per WP:CIVIL. You rejection for wanting to do it is a contradiction of what you're saying. Langara College 00:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Geez, for someone who wasn't part of the discussion and then plopped down an arbitration on us - without exhausting the prescribed prerequisites for same - you're hardly in a position to lecture us on being civil; Duhon - who eagerly signed up for the Mediation - even less so, given the evasive and highly sneaky deletion of a talkpage post as if it were "vandalism". The discussion was taking place here just fine, testy as it was, until you invoked procedure - without following procedure - after not actually taking part in the discussion yourself. And you didn't seem to have a problem with Duhon's vandalism of my talkpage post, or his/her calling it vandalism in the process of deleting it. Give your head a shake; Mkdw is right - proper prerequisites for a mediation weren't followed, period. And I'd still like to know "who" the "UBX facility at Langara College" is, as it seems to be a multiple-person account; are you one people or several (asking again, since you ignored me the first time).Skookum1 01:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also declined to participate in the RfM. Despite reservations about the way in which it was called, and the broad nature of the disputed issues, I was initially prepared to join. However, it is apparent that this discussion is in no way ready for an RfM. We would essentially be asking a moderator to rewrite the article for us, which is not their role on Wikipedia. This discussion needs to occur here first, and then any unresolved issues can be presented coherently. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to Runaway production

Donteatyellowsnow added it, GeeCee deleted it minutes later. I've now restored it, without discussion (my apologies) in an attempt to prevent another edit war over a minor (and related) link. We've got bigger issues to resolve, and if there's even the slightest chance that one link can help calm things down. I think it's worth trying. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problems with Runaway film being there, but what's Stockton, California got to do with the price of tea in China? (that's an old expression, for those who don't recognize it). If Stockton's there, why don't we add, say, oh, Campbell River, British Columbia, where The Last Warrior was shot?Skookum1 05:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)