Talk:M. F. Husain/Archive 1

India & Apologies

The movies he made recently are a small aspect of his life... they should probably not be in the introductory paragraph. --Hemanshu 09:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are right. I have shifted them to the bottom of the article. utcursch 10:40, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Arrest for nude painting

M.F. Husain recently had some issues in India having to do with a painting in which he represented the country as a nude goddess. I'm not familiar, but does anyone have objections to developing this section? I'll do so when I can, if not. If so, we can discuss. Zenosparadox 22:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving your comment to a new heading. I haven't been involved in editing this article, it's just on my watchlist because I tracked a vandal back to it one time. Someone has already added a link to a report of his arrest. Just go ahead and add what you think is pertinent about this inciden to the article. It doesn't look like this article gets a lot of regular attention. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed it, I'm fine with the link. Thanks for the feedback though! Zenosparadox 18:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Section

The controversy section is very short and need to have more details. During research I came across a good webpage provideing many details on this issue. I think it is good idea to add it as external link. If anybody has time, please try to go through the page and add infomation about recent exhibitions and protests about this issue. Currently I am adding it just as external link. Will try to add more specific deatails over the time. Hindu Shastri 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal actions and death threat

Let's be clear that Husain left because 900 legal cases were brought against him by Hindutva organisations who want to endlessly harrass a man in his nineties. One group also offered an 11 million dollar reward for his murder! The paintings in question were thirty-odd years old, and are very mild middle-of-the-road avant-gardism, which are tame in the extreme in comparison to Picasso or Ernst. Is he the Picasso of India? Well that flatters him, for sure. In many ways his work was less radical than Souza's, and there were also fully abstract artists at the time. But the phrase has been used, and it really only indicates that he was the main figure identified with avant-garde values in Indian art and that his style has some similarities to Picasso's. Paul B 07:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NOT A FORUM... please follow talk page instructions. Thanks --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I know perfectly well how to use talk pages, Your policy comment is irrelevant, since you have no idea what you are responding to. That comment was a reply to an editor. Please do not make comments on old additions when you know nothing whatever about the context. Paul B (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Extreme POV by Paul Barlow

Paul Barlow is a case of extreme POV. I have been trying to make introdcution section neutral by giving proper references to recognised news website and references. He has dubious agenda.

There is nothing remotely 'extreme' about the version I presented, which is a short summary. Your version, in contrast, seeks to create the impression that Husain is some sort of criminal on the run. He stayed away because he was advised to do so. You have also deleted the well-established fact that hje received death threats. Paul B 08:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not reverted the basic theme.I have cited the truth. I have supported all my statements with references and news.Where are your supporting references which are acceptable to Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.89.135 (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC).71.117.89.135 06:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

They were in the footnotes that's where, where else? Paul B 09:25, 9 May 2007If (UTC)

I won't revert again because I have reached my limit, but be clear that we need to have a neutral into. Type "Picasso of India" and see how many hits you get. I didn't add the phrase here, and it's clearly being used as marketing catch-phrase for Husain, way beyond its art historical significance, but it's common. The death threat has been very widely reported. Nobody has treverted references to the fact that he is controversial, but you have deleted the fact that he was not controversial at all until recently, and that's not because he has created anything new but because of the rise of Hindutva extremism. Paul B 10:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any kind of extremism . I have supported each statements with references from reliable websites and news resources and NOT from any websites which belong to any ideological agenda.None of the statements are my view and all are from resources in footnotes.You seem to have an extreme "commie" or "psuedo secular" agenda. The true fact is that MF Hussan has been controversial for a long time [over 15 years] and hence it is not recent and that is the time when he also reached fame. Both fame and controversy surrounded him at this time.This has been mentioned in lots of references and I have mentioned only a few. Calling "Picasso of India" would be too much of hype. I don't have problem unless you provide me at least good amount of reliable resources .Only some writer in Forbes at one point has called him with that title. The reality is that he is more known for controversy in India than "Picasso of India". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.89.135 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

"Pseudo secular" is a phrase in the Hindutva lexicon that is meaningless to non-Indians. And the equation of mild-modernism with Communism might have had some resonance in 1950s McCarthyite America, but is laughably ancient in the West. The writer in Forbes was quoting. She didn't create the phrase. Given that he is in his nineties, being controversial for 15 years means he became so when he was 81 years old (1996). He hadn't been beforehand and he did nothing at the time to create controversy. Paintings from the 1970s that no-one had previously bothered about when they were exhibited were suddenly declared to be insults to Hinduism. He was always well known to people interested in art. He had already been awarded the Padma Shree and Padma Bushan and appointed to the the Rajya Sabha. The only difference is that he is now known to people with no interest in art, only in inter-ethnic conflict. Paul B 14:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Twice you have tried to turn the discussion into religious theme[I would not let this happen ] and let me repeat I have tried to present neutral statements with references.Extreme "commie" POV or extreme religious theme is not my agenda.Henceforth please do not bring these theme[ but bring references from neutral sources]. Pseudo-secularism is a wikipedia accepted term and not a particularly owned by a religious group.Please again avoid making religious accusations.Forbes writer was to first to give him "Picasso of India" title.I don't see any references where he has been called with this title before Forbes article.If you have any references where he has been called by this title before,please provide references[neutral of course].Use any search engine on internet and search on "Picasso of India" and on words "celebrated and controversial painter" and you would see the difference.You said .."Paintings from the 1970s .." . 1970 's was the not the era of information media .TV[massive reforms in late 1990s] and Internet[late 1995] came late in India.This would explain you why there was mass reaction during this time.I have never disputed awards given to him.Awards does not make a person undisputable and non controversial.71.117.89.135 06:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The "controversy" arose from a newspaper article. They had newspapers in the 1970s. TV and internet had almost nothing to do with it. The organisation of militant Hindu-extremist groups and the fanning of inter-ethnic conflict had everything to do with it. I don't know why you disingenuously claim that I have "tried to turn this discussion into a religious theme" when the whole controversy is about religion. What else is it about? Paul B 09:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

TV penetrated to masses only in 1990s because of massive reforms at that time.[I was rightly assuming you will jump to this statement]. In 1970's TV were restricted to metros and selective audience and the controlled by government owned DD channel.Same with newspapers. Third time-do not bring religious bias or agenda in discussion.Present facts and references for the things which I have requested earlier.I will not let this discussion to turn into religious agenda or Communist[Psuedo Secular] Agenda.By the way,there are several instances in this article which are not of wikipedia standards and seemed to follow certain agenda. I am currently studying them and would be talking about them in few days.71.117.89.135 06:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Even though it is just a list of numbers, it helps to clarify who is discussing with who. Just type ~~~~ at the end. Religious bias is essentially what this contrversy is about, nothing ekse. It's not about art criticism. TV may well have penetrated to the masses in the 1990s, but the point is that that's not what caused the controversy. It just meant that more people saw reports about it. The controversy is fulled by organisations that have grown more powerful. The culture in India was different in the 1970s. That's the essential point. Paul B 15:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

..Busy right now.Don't revert introduction.I have already asked you references .You have failed to provide those . This is unacceptable .71.117.89.135 06:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying this. References to what? There are references there. If it'sd such a big deal we can drop the Picasso thing. I never even added it in the first place. But it is referenced. Paul B 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont have problem with "Picassso" as long as wording is proper. It should be "Forbes has dubbed him Picasoo of India rather that "He is called .." . It is surprising that you are putting back again controversial statement "After a long, successful and largely uncontroversial career, his work became enmeshed in violent religious controversy in the late 1990s, to such extent that he left India after of threats to his life[3] .." The reference is NOT of wikipedia standard. It IS a blog. DO NOT EVER PUT such references.This is unacceptable and is NOT of Wikipedia standard.Put references from neutral resources .Again,even from reliable resources[news etc],the references should not be from a view/opinion of a writer:It should be from news section.I am removing such controversial statment which IS a POV.All my edits are from reliable,neutral and reputed references and are exact wordings.71.117.89.135 14:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop ranting. Blogs may be acceptablew in some instances. Read the guidelines. The article never said "he is the Piccasso of India". It said he "has been called...", which is entirely accurate. I don't know who first used the term, but the Forbes author does not claim to have originated it. Paul B 13:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No.Blogs are NOT at all acceptable.You need to go through standards before commenting.Read this carefully and think before you comment:Biographes of Living persons."He has been called" or"He is called " does not make any difference . It is a fact that this has been referenced ONLY in Forbes and that too by a writer. Despite of asking you reference whether he had been ever called with this "Picasso" title before Forbes dubbed him,you FAILED to provide reference. You are arguing for the sake of arguing.Anyway I have included "Picasso" thing with proper accurate wordings.But again you have reverted the controversial statements from a blog.Please refer my previous talks. This is unacceptable.71.117.86.106 03:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. There is a massive difference between "has been called" and "is". The reference is there, and there are many other examples. THE FORBES AUTHOR DOES NOT SAY SHE ORIGINATED THE PHRASE. How often do I have to repeat this fact. Paul B 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I never denied there is no reference. I asked for verification. If the writer says "He has been called" ...Please provide me reference.There must be reference in the past.You could not provide that reference if it was there.Still I included "Picasso" thing of Forbes.You should be thankful to me :-) instead you are cursing me :-).

You are making no sense at all. I told you I have no idea who originated the phrase, but that the Forbes author clearly states that she didn't, so "has been called" is accurate. There is no problem with it, since it is referenced. Paul B 22:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Effigy burning and violent demonstrations are common in India.Again the demonstrations were done by various parties and also the bounty thing issued by so called The Hindu Personal Law Board you are trying to refer in not at all any known Hindu organization.It is hilarious to think [and also there is no evidence/reference] if this led MF Hussain to leave India.However ,I am planning to put these in controversy section and introduction is not the place where you shpuld be putting these. MF Hussain is such a known figure who has supporters too.Government has awarded Padma Shree and Padma Bushan .Since He has been previous Rajya Sabha MP,if he has wished he could have easily got police protection at door step.But he did not.Instead the confirmed and well referenced reason is here:When several cases were filed against him,he choose not to respond until non bailable warrant was issued . The Indian Government law ministry recently has examined half-a-dozen works by Husain and told the government that prosecutors would have a strong case against him if they sued him for deliberately hurting religious feelings[there are lots of references for this comment and I can provide references for above if you ask]. 71.117.86.106 04:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)71.117.86.106 16:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's hilarious that he left after death threats. I'm sure he was laughing all the way to the airport. Don't delete established facts Paul B 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You have refernced mattersofart.com etc particularity refer to artist community .Hence are not reliable enough to included in reference.Please do not include such references.You have also removed references calling him "best known artists as well as most controversial artists" .These references are direct from reliable news website BBC.DO NOT revert this. You need to understand that references should be completely neutral and that is why I have asked you to re read Wikipedia standards. None of my editing are referenced from biased website and none of my editing depicted views of any kind.All are exact wording.Again, you have managed to provide reference from International Herald tribune which is OK but it is a "stay" not the decision.Even in that if you read that,it clearly also says "..After the court's ruling, Husain's lawyer, Akhil Sibal, said the painter plans to return soon to India..." .This confirms that he was staying out because of fear of arrest.This is not my view,it has been references in reliable news DNA which I had provided in my edit but You removed it.It said "The artist, now living in Dubai and London, continues to stay away from India reportedly due to fears that he may be arrested in connection with these cases."[Police attach MF Husain's property in Mumbai] Your own reference in breitbart.com says " The law ministry has examined half-a-dozen works by Husain and told the government that prosecutors would have a strong case against him if they sued him for deliberately hurting religious feelings...".This also need to be mentioned.Basically I would be presenting both IHT and DNA reference in controversy section.Introduction is not the place to be put.Introduction should finish after Forbes thing.71.117.86.106 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I provided THREE references. Your attempt to descridit Matters of Art is feeble in the extreme. Being abpout art does not make it baissed. My edit contained both references to the legal claims and the death threats. Yours did not. It was thoroughly biassed. I don't need to listen to policy pronouncements from the likes of someone who posts anonymously an spouts stuff about "Commies". Do you know anything about art - or even about the numerous nude images of Hindu deities created by Hindus? Paul B 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not removed your bounty thing reference from IHT.I have placed in controversy section. Introduction is not the place to put controversial disputes as there is a separate section.Dont get emotional.Just as you strongly feel giving reference from mattersofart.com somebody may feel strongly from religious hard line website!!.Try to understand that references should be from neutral and reliable news.Also now introduction is neutral.Do not edit it.If you want to put more about IHT reference put it in controversy section.But make sure you dont put our views.Put full anf exact and neutral wordings.Also study my reply above.I am not here to discuss and debate about what is wrong or right about nude dieties etc. This is not a forum to discuss this. Just concentrate on providing reliable,full, and neutral reference and I will be fine.You cannot force me to sign,it is my choice. I know I am more honest in my editing that you.Again dont get emotional.Please now onwards talk on talk section "Introduction Section is now neutral" so that I can read your comments71.117.86.106 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You have no honesty that I can see. I have replied to your point repeatedly and you just repeat it again blindly. I have produced reliable full references. There is nothing non neutral about the matterofart website. Paul B 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Honesty? and Look who is talking.71.117.86.106 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Section is now neutral

Please see above talk and my references. Introduction is now completely neutral.It does not contain any views and it is supported by proper references.All controversy related sentences have been dumped to controversy section which still remains controversial and I will continue to edit controversial section.But DO NOT revert Introduction unless you find references in introduction to be wrong [which is not possible:-)].From now onwards Controversy section is the section which would need editing. I plan to divide into subtitles and expand it after research and make it completely neutral and free from both religious and communist/biased views and references.71.117.86.106 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to well referenced and neutral edits

Satement1 :M F Husain, is one of India's best known artists as well as most controversial artists.Wordings best known/celebrated and controversial for MF Hussain goes side by side and is necessary. You would find tons of reference in resources directed towards MF Hussain if you search for key words celebrated and controversial painter [even if you don't even type the name MF Hussain along with these words!] .One such reliable source is BBCIndian painter in court reprieve and it starts with exact wording "best known and controversial ".So it is important to mention both these words when you introduce MF Hussain as these words go side by side in lots of reliable references about him.Period.

Yes, but he wasn't "controversial" before he was 81 years old, was he? So adding that fact places a context for the controversy. Paul B 07:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to put that but in neutral words.And discuss that in controversy ,not in introduction.,71.117.86.106 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Satement2 :Forbes has once dubbed him as "Picasso of India".Exact reference is hereThe Picasso of India.The 2006 Collectors Guide. Forbes Magazine..No reference up to date has been found which mentions him as Picasso of India before Forbes article. Hence this statement is neutral.Do not revert edit it unless you provide reference earlier than Forbes to verify Forbes's writer claim.

Nionsense. Forbes says, in its own words "he has been called the Picasso of India", so they are attributing the satement to anyother, unnamed person. Why is this so difficult to understand? Paul B 07:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Provide and verify reference in other sources before Forbes.It is that simple .71.117.86.106 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now lets look at your edits:

Satement1 :M F Husain, is one of India's best known artists and you have referenced from same BBCIndian painter in court reprieve BUT you did not include "and controversial ".Hence your edit is not neutral.How could you forgot to include exact wordings from your reference??

The reference to controversy is in the next sentence, so your argument is nonsensical. The sentence explains when he became controversial. Providing more accurate detail does not make a passage non-neutral. Paul B 07:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is your view.Hence not acceptable.

Satement2 :After a long, successful career his work suddenly became controversial in 1996, when he was 81 years old.. .This statement has no reference and is edited as one sided.It looks like "complaining baby" attitude. Do not put your views :Put exact wordings and that too from neutral source.

Nonsense. If we only used exact wording we would be plagarising. Using ones own words is proper procedure. It is not may view; it is fact., supported by all the evidence. Paul B 07:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is all sense talk.71.117.86.106 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement3 :According to Forbes magazine, he has been called the "Picasso of India. Whether Forbes magazine claim is accurate or not,we need to verify it.There is no reference which mentons him with title Picasso of India before this article.Hence the statement is partially accurate.

Nonsense. It says according to Forbes he has been called that. That's the truth. It is verified by the fact that Forbes says he has been called that. We don't need to verify what they say. It may not be possible to do so, since they don't say he was called that in print. If I had written, as you did, that Forbes called him, that it would have been inaccurate. Paul B 07:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is all sense talk.71.117.86.106 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hence you edits are not fully accurate and mutilated with your own views . Hence liable to be edited.71.117.86.106 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"It is all sense talk"? Is that supposed to mean something? You have turned this article into barely legible gibberish in your attempts to delete or bury materiakl you don't like. I am going to try to turn it back into a readable coherent article. Paul B 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section needs more inputs

Current section appears to be too small . I would be doing research and expanding it with proper references from neutral sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.89.135 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC).71.117.86.106 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have started adding and enhancing controversy section with proper neutral and reliable references.71.117.86.106 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have cut out material related to support for Husain, while adding any quotes that express criticism. You have eliminated the evidence about death threats. You have pushed to the bottom the reference to the attacks on his house and art works, which should go in the controversy section. You have created an almost unreadable mess in the main controversy section. Your edit is POV pushing all the way. Paul Bg 17:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have removed important key phrase which describes MH Hussain:"best known artists as well as most controversial artists".This has been referenced in tons of neutral reliable resources. Any change to this key phrase is unacceptable.Introduction should not contain any wordings which describe any POV.Put them in controversy section under Supportrs and Critics section with references.Period.Reg Death threats : I would add in subtitles controversy section:Don't worry.This section is in continuous expansion.More inputs to come.It was a "mess" before I interrupted your one sided "efforts". 71.117.86.106 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Really. I recommend that any editor look at the versions created by you and compare them to the versions created by me (that is edited into some sort of coherence). Pre 71.117 version [1]; my most recent version [2] most recent 71.117 version [3] Paul B 12:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was a mess before I intervened.And because of my neutral editing with references the article is not at a disputable stage at large right now.Now the article is not Totally disputable and hence I have removed the tag.Some wording remain contentious which we will sort out.71.117.86.106 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW since when Shashi Tharoor became artist?His reference is POV and unrelated in Artist Community.Also I am suspicious of including Hindu and its associalte Outlook references .Though they have good readership in TamilNadu yet they have a communist supportive mindset.71.117.86.106 03:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean The Hindu? You seem to use the word "communist" to mean anything that is not Hindu-nationalist. The Shasi Tharoor reference is not "POV" since it is attributed, nor does it anywhere say he is an artist, as if that's relevant. I did not remove the reference to his being controversial. I simply added the fact that he only became so at the age of 81. This is fact, fact, fact. Compare the intro to the Salman Rushdie article, which lays out the specific circumstances in which he became controversial. It does not just say "well known and controversial author". If anything, there should be more in the intro, not less. Paul B 07:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a POV no matter you deny it 1000 times. Check th wordings After a long, successful career his work suddenly became controversial in 1996, when he was 81 years old .Clearly you are trying to blame others for his art becoming controversial by using the word suddenly.It is hilarious that you keep denyin when it is back and white a POV. You said :

I simply added the fact that he only became so at the age of 81

But the big question is Why do you have to put your words when there are already well references phrases to describe him.If you are too concerned about how he became controversial,put this in Controversy section and I do not have problem. But Introduction should be the place which describes a person .As I said [See it in BIG BOLD LETTERS] ,that if you search for controversial painter India in resources you will find tons of references to MF Hussain.So best known and controversial is an apt phrase as it is well referenced. DO NOT REMOVE IT . Since it is well referenced and hence I will not tolerate its removal at any cost.I know Salman Rushdie article and it is well written with 71.117.86.106 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I know I am being rude but I find it impossible not to be because you are so spectacularly obtuse. Are you saying that it wasn't sudden? Are you saying that he was not 81 years old? Why do I use my own words? Because we are supposed to, genius. Otherwise it would be plagiarism. I don't think you really even get this point. Information should be referenced, but we write the text. The intro should lay out the notable features, as with Rushdie. I don't know why I have to explain this so literally, but the point of referring to Rushdie is that he is the most comparable case I can think of. He became conroversial after a specific incident. The difference is that his book was controversial alost immediately, not thirty years later. These are circumstances worth laying out in the intro. Paul B 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out that controversial keyword is synonymous more with MF Hussain than Rushdie.About Rushdie--Yes...that is what I want to point out...He at once became controversial because his work was published in information age around 1990's when TV's and later internet age came.So now stop this barking.71.117.86.106 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It had very little to do with the "information age" and a lot to do changes in modern Indian politics and the rise of Hindutva as a major force. As I have already stated, newspapers already existed in the 70s. If anyone had wanted to make an issue of MOR modernism they could have. However, you again miss the point about the Rusdie analogy. It's about what the intro should say. Paul B 00:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Amusing argument.It certainly had to do with TV channels and then internet age. I cannot buy your argument that it had to do "very little" with information age. Otherwise,the controversial paintings would have never surfaced and MF Hussain would have enjoyed "best artist" crown without being called "controversial" in tons of references.Agreed your so called "Hindutva" politics definitely was behind for exposing the unlawful activities of MF Hussian in the name of art. But the fact remains that it was wrong and unlawful act by MF Hussain according to Indian legal system and Law ministry is also of the same opinion. It is irrelevant who bought his controversial works to a larger public domain:The fact remains that it was an unlawful act under Indian legal system. This is the fact.71.117.86.106 04:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The controversial paintings had already "surfaced". The had been exhibited and reproduced. When they were made controversial it was in a periodical. You evidently know little about history if you think controversy depends on the TV and internet. It can be created through social networks, pamphleteering etc. Portraying deities in the nude is contrary to no Indian law. Paul B 08:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Was it available to larger public domain? No.! It only surfaced in 1990's due to TV and internet.MF Hussain could face jail under various sections of Indian law-I am not saying this-Law ministry is of the same opinion based on the charges filed by PIL.[Please refer references].Almost all legal experts voice same opinion.If you wish , I can provide tons of references.He already is convicted and absconding.[Please refer references for this statement]. Only after recent Supreme court stay,he has decided to come[Please refer references] but I doubt if he can escape jail and conviction if charged.71.117.86.106 15:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Naked Sita

Can someone please upload a high-resolution image of Naked Sita Riding on Hanuman Tail? I couldn't find any on Google. Also, data about the price of the masterpiece may be included. i heard it was tagged at well over $2 million. Anwar 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is copyrighted, but may be fair use. It's readily availible on the web. [4] Paul B 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that image. Its a low-resolution. Also, there is hardly any information about the painting itself like dates of exhibition, testimonials, reviews, awards,...Anwar 09:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to use a high resolution image, and it's a lot easier to justify low resolution ones as fair use. The one on this site is better [5]. A high resolution one would have to be scanned. Husain painted many pictues. This one isn't unique apart from the fake furore it 'caused'. Paul B 12:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Half-clear citations

There are a lot of citations here of news stories that, while containing links, fail to give dates and (in some cases) even the name of the publication cited. If someone feels like taking on a project, cleaning this up would be great. - Jmabel | Talk 05:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Link

The site linked from the "external links" section as M.F. Husain's site does not appear to me to be an official site, but a quickly thrown together site about him. - Jmabel | Talk 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"leading Hindu leaders"

Resolved

- Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

An odd phrase from the article: "leading Hindu leaders". Almost a pleonasm. - Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hindu idols"

Resolved

- Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the last paragraph refers to Husain as depicting "Hindu idols in the nude". Shouldn't this be "Hindu deities"? The depictions are of the deities, not of "idols" which could either mean "religious sculptures or paintings of the deities" or "false deities". The former would be inaccurate; the latter rather offensive. - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ironically"

Resolved

- Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

From the article: "But ironically M.F. Husain has been criticised by many Muslim groups..." The claim of irony seems to me to be an opinion that does not belong (unattributed) in the narrative voice of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

His art?

The article, as it exists, looks rather shoddy for an artist of Husain's stature.

How come there isn't much discussion of his art or his style at all? The article only gives his career highlights and is rather heavy on the controversies. And how come there aren't any examples of his paintings? Compare with Pablo Picasso.

I remember watching a documentary about him in the early 1990s which mentioned that he also painted a number of movie posters (possibly early in his career). I don't have a proper citation for this but see this [6]. --Innerproduct (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I second that; we need to view him as an artist first, then get into the whole morass of socio-political tussle. --Muthu 21:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 59.164.66.96, 9 June 2011

Change the grammar

Now living in Dubai and London, he continues to stay away from India. to Lived in Dubai and London

59.164.66.96 (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Has been  Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)