Talk:Chhapaak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The names of cast.[edit]

The acid attacker in Laxmi Agrawal case has name "Nadeem" while some rumors are moving around saying that the him name is changed to "Rajesh" in actual movie. This can create a huge controversy on religious grounds. This movie is full of controversies which may be the main source for it's publicity. Pranav jung (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citation number two in original page has wrong title- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madgilmanu (talk • contribs) 10:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JNU visit[edit]

This isn't marketing. Not sure who added it there, I have split it. Please explain with source if you disagree. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who reverted the edit, but I don't see a problem either. The section is 'marketing and release', and supposed "boycotts", along with screen count/premiere and other factors belong within release, preferably as a subsection. The marketing part of the section pertains to only the trailer/posters, not the JNU visit. DeluxeVegan (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's sufficient to have it under the release section, because it's directly affecting the film's release. A sub-section within a section for one paragraph is unwarranted, per MOS:OVERSECTION. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I am ok with the release section.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove abvp was involved in attack as it is clearly written on this page whereas Delhi police crime branch has already said involvement of leftists group, so either change it or face the trial for misleading people by providing false information Vibhu98 (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide source for your assertion. The article is already sourced. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of attacker[edit]

Krimuk. Please understand that what belongs in the body has to be summarised in the lead this is notable and in the news, please read MOS:LEAD again and express your opinion on the talk page without edit warring.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some religious nincompoops wrongly wrote articles without seeing a film is in no way notable enough for the lead. Cyphoidbomb and Fylindfotberserk, what do you think? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krimuk2.0, what you are calling religious nincompoops are actually devious right wing agents (and that includes several BJP leaders and MPs) who are using these Hindu-Muslim rumours about religion in the film as a tool to punish Deepika for siding with the JNU. In any case, almost all the mainstream newspapers are covering it e.g. [1] [2] and it has to be covered in the article in some way. Removing it, amounts to whitewashing. What has to be in the article has to be in the lead in a summarized way. Please feel free to propose a different version of the content on the talk page if you dont agree, but please do ot remove this. DBigXrayᗙ 12:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:FILMLEAD, the succeeding paragraphs should cover significant impact the film has made in society. The current situation IRL is obviously notable, but can this be called as an "impact on the society"? As an analogy, the Padmaavat article does mention the "violent protest" it received at the time of its release. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and as of now this is the major controversy, blown out of proportions by the BJP workers/supporters.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Padmaavat controversy was at a whole another level. Years into the future, Padmaavat is going to be remembered for the resulting furore, but will Chhapaak be remembered for a fake rumour as trivial as this? Although the future can be blurry, my intuitive crystal ball says its very unlikely. WP:NOTNEWS is something to keep in mind. DeluxeVegan (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeluxeVegan, your crystal ball has rusted and needs to be thrown in the dustbin for being so ineffective here. As for Padmavat fame, here is Karni Sena rising. What matters is that there are national newspapers covering this incident and rightly so.[1] [2] [3] [4]DBigXrayᗙ 14:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/fact-check/story/fact-check-now-laxmi-faces-the-chhapaak-of-fake-news-1635400-2020-01-09
  2. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/chhapaak-laxmi-agarwals-lawyer-to-take-legal-action-against-the-makers-of-the-deepika-padukone-starrer/articleshow/73165086.cms
  3. ^ https://www.freepressjournal.in/entertainment/bollywood/did-ranveer-just-react-to-deepikas-haters-with-a-meme-jacket-worth-rs-98k
  4. ^ https://scroll.in/article/949250/no-deepika-padukones-chhapaak-does-not-portray-acid-attack-convict-as-a-hindu-named-rajesh
Well, they may be unpredictable, but years ago, the same right wing tried to have Dilwale and Dangal boycotted when their lead stars took a stand. Everyone knows how "well" that worked out, especially for the latter. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it must be mentioned, a simple line summarising her JNU visit, the ensuing brouhaha, and the incorrect religion part should be enough. But again, as others have noted above, we should be wary of WP:RECENTISM. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The purpose of the lead is to summarise key details that are crucial to our understanding of the film, its production, its critical/financial performance, etc. The fact that some fringe group made a mistake while fearmongering or politicking or whatever they were doing, doesn't materially improve our understanding of the film, and in 5 years it won't even be a blip on our radar. Somebody had a knee-jerk outrage and was wrong? Doesn't belong in the lead. Incidentally, as someone who is not familiar with the film or the controversy, there is insufficient context in the article for me to even understand what the issue is. Why do "right-wingers" care who is depicted as flinging acid? Are these pro-Hindus? Are they mad that Hindus are being made to look bad? Have Hindus never flung acid? Do right-wingers feel better knowing that the antagonist is Muslim? Why would they prefer that violence be committed by Muslims? And do fictional characters have religions if religion is not part of the story? Obviously some of this is me being a smart-ass, but I really don't understand what the controversy is, because the current content presupposes that people familiar with Indian culture, politics, prejudices, etc. will naturally understand what the hub-bub is about. Needs more context. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Krimuk you are asking to do an impossible task. summarize all that in "a simple line. May be you can give it a try and we can discuss how it looks. Cyphoidbomb I have elaborated the section to include more context to answer the question. I can only write what RS are saying, so I cant answer all the questions in the section, even though I know the answer. DBigXrayᗙ 18:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is insufficient published content to explain what the controversy is about, then maybe it shouldn't be included. social media users criticized the filmmaker Meghna Gulzar alleging that she changed the name and religion of the characters in the film So? What's the criticism? Why is it not okay to change a character's name? And again, how do we know what religion a fictional character is? Babul Supriyo called the change deliberate and "absolute hypocrisy" Clearly the change was not deliberate, and was incorrect. So why do we care what this person thinks? MP Subramanian Swamy called it a defamation Who was being defamed? Hindus? And now that everybody realises that a mistake was made, have any of these cases been dropped? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2020[edit]

Add edit rights 45.112.20.230 (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 14:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020[edit]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020[edit]

A few right-wing magazines later wrongly reported that the religion of the acid thrower in the film was changed from a Muslim into a Hindu character. [This line needs to be removed.] andy (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chhapaak&oldid=1200835005"