Talk:Chatrak

A fact from Chatrak appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 August 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Bengali film Mushrooms, shown in the Directors' Fortnight at Cannes, caused controversy in India when its sexually explicit scene was leaked on the internet?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/August.

Wikipedia

India: West Bengal / Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in August 2012.

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

Edit revert

I have reverted this edit because this is unsourced and WP:OR.

certain sections of the press and of middle-class society – Which section?
she was asked in by a press reporter whether this was.. – unsourced!
However, no one from the media considered Anubrata Basu 'controversial'; – WP:OR! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

okay Tito, I have the references on my computer, but i was too tired to search - I'll put it in with the references. However, it is impossible to demonstrate a negative: that anubrata was NOT asked is common sense for pppl who were in calcutta in 2011 and following the so called 'controversy' - but how do I gwet negative reference? please advise at your convenience (on the chatrak page; or the paoli page; or my page); I'll be guided by you.

Thanks for reading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs)

You have forgotten to sign again. I am adding sign for you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. which does not draw any conclusions. Also see this interview of Times of India. There might be few more. He too has been asked few questions. --Tito Dutta ✉ 22:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer is you get a negative reference the same way as any other reference, and if it can't be found you don't put it in the article. The fact is that Wikipedia does not discuss what hasn't happened unless there are sources which have already done so. Otherwise anyone and everyone is free to put in their observations about other things that haven't happened either, but that they think should have. A great many people weren't asked. The army wasn't involved. The director didn't get a medal. Indian was not brought to a halt by outraged citizens. It is only your opinion that Anubrata should have been asked. That is not good enough. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

added picture to chatrak

Manojpandeyanarchocommunist informed that he talked to Paoli Dam who requested him (not "an order") to remove these images from the article. Upon author/uploader's request the image was Speedily deleted. --Tito Dutta (contact) 08:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

added snapshot from chatrak. 'Explicit' still. Should avoid editwars here and on chatrak article. I think a still is the most NPOV one can get on this one.

Tito, specially, consider the above seriously. (see the 'chatrak' article; controversy section; picture at bottom left). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated that "explicit" image for deletion. Though the second image too violates NFCC, I am okay with it. Let's see what others feel! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the image(s) violate(s) NFCC, those will be deleted. If any editor can prove the image meets NFCC, then it would be ok to keep. Clearly the images do not meet NFCC for the article Paoli Dam; and I am not sure about this article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's already done! I have mentioned in image deletion request too, we don't need this image to prevent contentious editwar.
Please comment on the other aspects, do we need this image to illustrate something in the article? --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not have much experience in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. However, what I understand in this case (as perhaps in many other cases), the discussion primarily boils down to NFCC#8 (Contextual significance). Now, that criteria says, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.".

This criterion, at one level, is subjective. In this case, I feel the image's presence may significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic; however, it's absence might not be really be detrimental.

This scene has been the crux of many discussions in mainstream media (newspaper, TV channels) etc. Also, some versions of the film omitted the scene, due to fear of uproar perhaps. Moreover, such scene is not usual in usual Bengali (or other subcontinental language) films.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re chatrak image

Tito, your 'listing for image deletion' is fine; but you reverted the page! the reason you gave for adding my 'adding "explicit" image' is obviously fake; you could have deleted the 'uncontroversial' image there instead.

Please see my response on your paGE: I think your prudishness *in this case* is male chauvinistic. Meanwhile;I've asked the involved parties again whether they want the image there: you'll realise it is finally not their call but the potential financiers'.... so If they advise me to removve the image I'll do so myself! And be deplrived of the opprtunity of fighting test case [the govt of india v manoj pandey would be ok; but what I'd rweally love would be:the present west bengal lumpengovernment suing me for 'uploading[*] obscene material'- that is what I am trying to engineer!] which might change film censorship rules in India for the better!

(what if someone told you I am already out on anticipatory bail on 2 counts of waging war against the state; and that I was a close freind of the assassinated Maoist leader comrade Koteshwar Rao aka Kishenji; and that it would be nice to be fighting an ostensibly different kind of case - again *for* a radical left film - but govts - and - sorry, you too - are too stupid to see that!)

[*] the supreme court of india has already ruled that *downloading* anything in private premises is a person's own business. IAs long as one is not 'Distributing' material - as defined in Law.

I am not exactly anonymous: my parents are well known figures to W Bengal authorities. .. my father died 1993; my mother chandra kala pandey was cpi(m) senator ie rajya sabha member 1993-2005 elected on cpi(m) ticket by w bengal legislators.. you can look her up on the indian rajya sabha site... I am a *extreme dissident* cpi(m) supporter.

my land line number is (+91 33) 25714833. Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) The image is completely unnecessary! b) I did not use the word "fake", I used "unnecessary" c) That's not how Wikipedia works. d) e) I'm eager to revert that again, I'm strongly against adding such images in article which can only be found after turning off Google safe search. Anyway, I am not reverting right now. I'll ask second opinion! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no Wikirule that tells us to follow requests of subjects or interested parties. ~~And if they are really interested, why they don't donate free images or clippings of those scenes to Commons? --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)~~ It seems you have collected permission somehow (I just learned about the OTRS permission, though I have not fully understood the scene still. Extra-ordinary and unbelievable work! If you have got permission, the deletion request can be withdrawn (for now) until we reach a consensus whether this image is needed in the article! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Chatrak. Jafeluv (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mushrooms (film) → Chatrak (film) – Per film's common name. See the movie poster and references in the article Tito Dutta (contact) 03:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - and have removed Bengali script মাশরুম from (Bengali: chatrak). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative suggestion - why not move it to Chatrak? Sources don't call it "Chatrak (film)" (or "Mushrooms (film)") and those are improbable search terms. We don't need to add a parenthetical suffix. bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative suggestion Tito Dutta (contact) 05:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nudity

Of course , it's an erotic filmZouno uttejona (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]