Talk:Aditya Dhar

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Aditya Dhar Urban Asian.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Censorship of statement regarding his "propaganda"

Please be mindful that I actually kind of liked his movies like Article 370, but you cannot forget that both films had (likely intentionally) various inaccuracies.

Like think about it. In Dhurandhar, would an intelligence officer, even if he is corrupt, actually keep that info to himself? No, either you would probably tell someone, or leak it to the media, or resign from your job.

If you hate free speech then revoke what I said, but also remove any section of his movies detailing "political biases" as well Jdoexbox360 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I hate free speech too. Youtube isn't a reliable source and "his films have faced criticism" is a bit broad for a single youtube video being cited as the "criticism". AssumeGoodWraith (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yo, I hear you. I will add more citations but still, if people are tryign to revert the change for the time being, they clearly want to censor wikipedia. Jdoexbox360 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I added more sources and can add even more Jdoexbox360 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It is a notable source, and good enough for an attributed statement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

However, Jdoexbox360, you need to give the segment where the quoted phrases appear, (see template:cite av media) and perhaps include a full quotation from the video. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

so if I include a full quotation from the video (which may not fit well in that section) so maybe I should start a "controversies" section, and include quotes from the articles, then all should be good? Jdoexbox360 (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I made revisions but I plan on adding itto a new section later. If you want you can do that as well. Jdoexbox360 (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Dhruv Rathee is not a journalist or a scholar of the subject. Refrain from adding his opinion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk Yeah, the issue is that his video and the reactions to it has been heavily covered in secondary sources. A similar argument is going on at the article about the film, which I suspect is a better venue for this material anyway since it's the film that is being remarked upon, rather than the director. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, in that case, it should be in the film article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I added a small section to the article using toher soruces (avoiding Druv Rathee as a source ofc) regarding his multiple films. I included variosu sources on both sides of the issue in summary and if you would like, you may take a look at it and modify it as needed. Jdoexbox360 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

we need to fix the citations fam ~2026-73819-6 (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The info is there but links are broken or incorrect. I verified a few by gooling and they just cite the wrong link, so fixing the link citations itself will keep the paragraph in tact ~2026-73819-6 (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do take a look at my recent edits. Jdoexbox360 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding sentence for Aditya Dhar for being criticized for political propoganda

The only reason I undid revision 1331068075 was because it did not follow WP:CITE. Otherwise, I did also feel that the revision kind of looses it's message. If you look at Leni Riefenstahl, you clearly see that "she is also criticized for her works in the service of propaganda during the Nazi era."

Now, yes Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi. This is just "too political." So then why in the world do the pages for Aditya Dhar's movies have entire sections regarding its political biases. Is it really that taboo to just say that his films have a strong political bias? Like is it not clear from many films of his misrepresenting certain events in ways that make Congress look bad?

Just to repeat, the only reason I undid revision 1331068075 was because it did not follow WP:CITE, but that doesn't mean that I still hated it for other reasons. Hence why I am here for any further discussion on the topic. Jdoexbox360 (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I offer no comments on the revert, but do note that Riefenstahl is dead, whereas Dhar is alive and thus covered by WP:BLP (biography of living persons). Reifenstahl is also described in scholarship to have made films that furthered Nazi propaganda. Make comparisons on a BLP article (incl. talk page) with extreme caution and only with the backing of high quality RS (which a youtube video from a youtuber himself described by opponents as partisan, is definitely not). UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Contesting WP:OR and WP:POV

MarSteGeo, In this edit, you added:

Anurag Kashyap defended Dhurandhar and called it well made spy thriller,

Can you provide a quote from the source that you considered "defence" of the film and also where he characterised it as a "well made spy thriller"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Here is the source

https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/anurag-kashyap-says-dhurandhar-is-a-courageous-mainstream-film-not-propaganda-aditya-dhar-ranveer-singh-101769915366108.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-kashyap-slams-the-social-media-backlash-against-critics-after-dhurandhar-says-it-was-all-co-ordinated-lauds-aditya-dhar/articleshow/128313752.cms

Kashyap has slammed the critics and appreciated director Aditya Dhar for the way he has made the film.

https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/anurag-kashyap-aditya-dhar-courage-patience-dhurandhar-backlash-against-critics-coordinated-attack-10529913/ MarSteGeo (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I have edited and add more sources with NPO. you can check. MarSteGeo (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

He did not "slam the critics". He slammed the social media backlash that was unleased against the critics. His "praise" for the film is quite generic. He called it "courageous" but he also said he disagreed with some of its ideologies. Calling it "defence" of the film is a misrepresentation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

yeah.. i removed that he defended the film MarSteGeo (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I also don't understand why you removed the "too few opinions" template. It is easy to see that the criticisms voiced against the films on their respective pages are in no way reflected in this section. It is considered improper to remove quality templates until the issue is satisfied. You have received a WP:CTOPS alert. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Since the film is called propagandistic, it's all about that. And added some acclaimed Filmmakers POV was also added. It's not about film's detailed critical reception. People can go to that film pages and read in detail. You can expand it here with NPO, balancing both negatives and positives and Dhar's own defence statements, rather than just leaving template. MarSteGeo (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

No, we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE. The filmmaker's views about his own work are not permissible under WP:SELFSOURCE. The other filmmakers are notal sources, but not WP:RS. They do not get the same weight as the critical reviews and scholarly analyses.

Pinging Black Kite for their input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC) edited Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's about right (and I'd just point out that the TOI is a flaky source anyway). Black Kite (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Other sources rather than TOI are also attached. and Dhar's own defence should also be added i think balancing both side. rather than propaganda and propaganda. MarSteGeo (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the rationale in this. I don't see how Dhar's response to criticism, as reported in RS, and attributed in text as his opinion, won't be permissible. Not because it's "balancing both sides", of course, we don't do that. But when the maker of a work responds to its critique that is definitely relevant as long as the response is explicitly stated as that.

I don't think anything in WP:SELFSOURCE prevents us from using that. Besides, since it was reported by The Indian Express and Times of India, how is it self-published in the first place? That said, it does appear poorly written, and I also see WP:SYNTH since the Reuters interview is unrelated to the criticism. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, and that hatnote of Fan point view is also confusing. Where's fan pov ? Everything is sourced MarSteGeo (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

We almost never state what a subject says about himself/herself in a biography page except for non-controversial factual information, such as birth/family information, education, employment etc. The claims a subject makes about himself are utterly self-serving and a firm no no. This is an encyclopedia, not somebody's SOAPBOX page. It doesn't matter where such claims are published, unless the RS have validated such claims. Please keep in mind as well that the "Entertainment" pages in newspapers are nothing more than gossip columns. Nothing in them is generally WP:DUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Read WP:THIRDPARTY as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

What he says in response to criticism is not simply "claims about himself." And as for 'we almost never state what a subject says about himself/herself', I don't think this is actually true. See for instance the article of Wong Kar-wai, which is a BLP GA, and is littered with commentary from him about himself and his filmmaking, as and when relevant.

I think a single sentence about how Dhar views the criticism is due, especially since they were reported in multiple RS, but as I pointed out already, the Reuters article should not be used because it is unrelated to the critique and thus is faulty SYNTH. UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Randomly referring to other pages is of no use. If you see any violations of WP:THIRDPARTY there, then please feel free to point it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

THIRDPARTY is not a wikipedia policy or guideline. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@UnpetitproleX Where's is this so called Fan POV is in this page. All criticism and appraisal are added with sources. I think hatnote should be removed. And filmmaking and reception header can be expanded balancing both side. MarSteGeo (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I didn't add the template so you should be asking the editor who did what their specific concerns are. Once they communicate their concerns, you should try to address those. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

MarSteGeo, you ask "Where's fan pov?". You yourself seem to be responsible for a lot of it by, for example:

• gate-keeping to block out anything mildly critical, without any explanation,
• watering down third-party commentaries by adding Aditya Dhar's own spiels about how wonderful he is,
• adding bullshit WP:OR of your own with WP:FAKE citations,
• removing verification tags by adding more WP:FAKE citations, and
• removing links to places where genuine criticism can be found,

et cetra. Now that you have been alerted about Contentious topics, I hope you will quit these games and let other editors do their job. Otherwise, you will end up at sanctions boards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

All his film's criticism are, that his films are propaganda is added many times everywhere. And then other opinions as well where he has been praised.

How wonderful is he ? What he says about his film is just a opinion by him, like many Filmmakers have on their page.

What bullshit ? I have cited sources about his filmmaking style and just redirected to Wikipedia pages.

If you want only criticism to be added and to make sure how bad he is. Then do it. I am not coming back here anymore. I have seen on X (platform) MarSteGeo (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed above. Only WP:THIRDPARTY commentaries belong on Wikipedia, whether positive or negative. Your own opinions are of no value to Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Where's Fan POV in article ?? Why don't you fix that MarSteGeo (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Factual accuracy and political messaging

I think the Filmmaking and reception section is okay in the sense that it does touch about his films, but unfortunately, there's not really a section on his page about the political messaging in his films.

In fact, there are a ton of other sources, besides Druv Rathe, discussing the political messaging. I mean there is Dhurandhar § Factual accuracy and political messaging, yet somehow we can't sort of summarize and agregate the info here? Even a few reviews on Baramulla (film) § Reception toch this but ofc we need better sources to clarify (even though this film is genuine fiction so such views could also be argued as opinions). Jdoexbox360 (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit: I forgot to mention that The Taj Story is blatantly refered to as propoganda whereas Dhurandhar isn't. The only real difference I see is a bad story vs a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdoexbox360 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

This is Aditya Dhar's personal page. if someone want to read in detail they can go to film's page reception. Don't need to summarise everything here. Already many things are mentioned in Filmmaking and reception. MarSteGeo (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Bro, you're literally suppressing any mentions of his political controversies. Like you know his films are political propoganda, right?

I'm gonna open similar threads on the film's talk pages too. Jdoexbox360 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Film is alleged accused of political propoganda.. which is already mentioned in Filmmaking and reception. Why can't you read there.? MarSteGeo (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You have started 3-4 discussion on Aditya Dhar page for same reasons again and again. Film page is different and Filmmaker page is different. On films, there's a seperate header for that. MarSteGeo (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Because being alleged propaganda differs from actually being propaganda. That page just says the film is politically inaccurate instead of saying that it's an alleged propaganda film. Jdoexbox360 (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Cant you read? Propoganda word is mentioned many times in Filmmaking and reception. Go and READ carefully. And stop creating discussions again and again just because your own personal POV is not written there. MarSteGeo (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2026

Change ivolved to involved ~2026-26586-85 (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

•  Done, thank you. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)