Talk:Uri: The Surgical Strike

Wrong cast marked

Manish Chaudhary didn't play the role of Asma's husband, it was played by Ujjwal Chopra. Sahil9887 (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Where is the movie does Yami Gautam/Pallavi Sharma say she is a RAW agent?

I was just wondering if in the movie anyone actually uses the term R&AW, or say they are a R&AW agent? I know Pallavi Sharma says she is an "agent", but she never says RAW does she? Also, please could you you direct me to some sources saying characters in the film portray RAW officers. This is in regard to updating the popular culture section on Research and Analysis Wing with a line about this movie.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan I have seen the movie. Indeed, I dont recall this being said explicitly that she is a RAW agent. She claims she is a "damm good agent". IMHO you should let it stay at the RAW page since the movie has several references to RAW. IIRC, it has a scene showing a RAW office where it is clearly written and folks are having a meeting. The terror pads were also said to be verified by RAW--DBigXrayᗙ 09:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"‘How’s the Josh?’ (Hinglish for "How’s the ebullience?")".... a better translation is needed

‘How’s the Josh?’ (Hinglish for "How’s the ebullience?")............. ebullience!! such a difficult word! Doesn't anyone have a better translation? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. That section lacks sufficient context for a non-Hinglish speaker to understand why the heck we should care about it. A translation would help, but we still need some context. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This article teased with the title "Vicky Kaushal explains the true meaning of ‘How’s the josh?’" but then didn't actually explain what the phrase means. Insanely crappy reporting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Would any of the alternatives listed on Wiktionary work here? 2.51.18.134 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

They do help, but what's still missing is the context. I haven't seen Uri, but I have seen a clip of this. Of the characters is trying to psych up his squad, right? So is it more like "How do you feel about this insane mission we're about to embark on"? "How's the enthusiasm?" "How's the confidence?" ?? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: How's the spirit? would be much more appropriate. Neither confidence nor enthusiasm seem to fit here. 47.30.212.255 (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir vs. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in the Movie Plot section

If this was a Geographic article I would have used Azad Kashmir but this is not a geo article, it is a movie article. The only one time this word is used in the article, is in the Uri: The Surgical Strike#"Plot" section of the article, where it is expected that the names and words used in the movie will be used. The movie uses the word "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" so it is only understandable that the users are trying to oppose the replacement of a plot keyword of the movie with the word "Azad Kashmir" which is never used in the movie. Both the names represent a particular viewpoint, so neither of the two is entirely a safe option. The word "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" is used multiple times in the climax scene as a major plot keyword, so the word should be used in the plot as it is used in the movie, The movie itself is made from the Indian view point and changing the plot keywords appear as a attempts to introduce an opposing POV into the movie plot. The redirect link Pakistan Occupied Kashmir clarifies this anyway, so this is not a big question of renaming an article. It is a known fact that Santa Claus and Atlantis island don't exist. But there is absolutely no need to clarify that they don't exist in every movie article plot that uses these terms.
Hence I propose to restore the word "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" in the Movie Plot section, and use this talk page thread for a local consensus --DBigXrayᗙ 04:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, due to above reasons. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: DBigXray, maybe this approach can also be taken - "...Pakistan-administered Kashmir (referred to as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in the movie)..." DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Since this is a movie, and the reasoning above makes sense, using the terms the movie itself uses makes sense. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: When can this be closed or when can the phrase be changed in the actual article since nearly over 20 days have passed since you posted the comment and I don't see any objections. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan 3 weeks is sufficient time to discuss objections if any, So I went ahead and updated the plot with PoK. there is no need to formally close this thread. we can continue using this thread for any future discussion on this. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Should be mentioned that it's entirely a fiction

The page fails to mention the fact that this is entirely fictional and dramatized depiction with no resemblance to reality. Because there's no impartial evidence available to prove that. Hence it should be mentioned in the page. Fyslrhmn (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fyslrhmn: Are you kidding, or did you somehow miss that the lead describes the film as "a dramatised account of the retaliation to the 2016 Uri attack"? That phrasing and similar has been there since January. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@cyphoidbomb Are you kidding me? Didn't they teach you that dramatized doesn't exactly mean fictional. It must be written explicitly that its entirely fictional. Otherwise this page should be disputed. I just joined wikipedia, and I plan to do just do that. Not let biased people like you become master contributors. Fyslrhmn (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fyslrhmn: You wrote: "The page fails to mention the fact that this is entirely fictional and dramatized depiction". The page does mention that it is a dramatised depiction, so it is unclear what specific change you were proposing. Are you suggesting that we needlessly add the word "fictional" on top of "dramatised"? Or are you suggesting that we swap "dramatised" for "fictional"? Are you suggesting we also add "with no resemblance to reality", or am I supposed to somehow interpret hyperbole in that? I don't know why you're getting pissy when your vague proposal didn't clearly express what changes you wanted to make. You also wrote: "there's no impartial evidence available to prove that". What is the "that", you are referring to? Do you dispute that there was a 2016 Uri attack? Do you dispute that there an retaliation from India? Are you suggesting that this film is entirely based on nothing? That would be an interesting perspective to enforce. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

@Cyphoidbomb, Kailash29792, and DeluxeVegan: Regarding this edit. I'm in a revert situation where IPs want to change the word "terrorist", "Pakistani terrorist" to "militant" citing WP:TERRORIST, which I believe doesn't apply according to WP:FILMPLOT which is a self-contained primary source. If they mentioned terrorist in the film, that should be mentioned. Moreover, since no specific organization or person is termed as such in the article plot. The only one organization, National Socialist Council of Nagaland is mentioned in the plot and for that the word "militant" is used. Reliable sources also mention the term "terrorist" when talking about the film's plot as can be seen here [1].

Secondly the IPs want to change one of the lead sentence The film is a dramatised account of the retaliation to the 2016 Uri attack into The film is a based on alleged Indian army retaliation following an attack in Uri that took place in 2016. Not only this is a case of WP:ALLEGED, the fact that the article is of a film, makes it unnecessary to suggest whether the "real event" was that much real or alleged. The film considers that event as fact and the original sentence framing mentions it as a "dramatization of the retaliation" which is enough IMO.

I've reverted per above and status quo. If you guys could kindly weigh in. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I don't have a clear solution on this, but you might want to ask at WT:FILM to see how they handle things. This came up recently at the Sye Raa Narasimha Reddy film article where a user, in good faith, changed the description of the person from freedom fighter to independence activist, but that was in the lead, not the plot section. It would seem that the plot should describe how the people are depicted, not get into deciding whether or not X party is hostile in real life or whatever. If in a plot, people are afraid of "terrorists", then that seems relevant to include. I wouldn't mind other opinions about that from people who write film plots often, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Yup, plot section should use the terms used in the film. That being said, I'd like to ping @DBigXray, DiplomatTesterMan, and Ravensfire: and wait for others' inputs before going to WT:FILM. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, The plot can keep the word terrorist. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, I'm about as fervert of a "don't use the terrorist label" on a person as I've seen. Here though, it's plot related and should be how it's described in the movie. Does the movie have a slanted POV? Of course! It's a movie! That's what they do! Ravensfire (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Ravensfire Totally agree. It is a movie plot. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)