Talk:The Pentagon Wars

message: Why split a stub article into two stubs?
Just leave it alone until there is enough information to warrant subdividing...
ComputerGeezer (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why split? 

message: The film mentions that it's based off a true story, but the article somehow seems to not touch that. Can anything be added to give context to the film? Was this really based on a true series of events? If it only brushes the truth, that may be worthwhile mentioning too. The article Bradley Fighting Vehicle suggests it probably has some correct storylines, but some events don't seem to line up. effeietsanders 19:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's technically based on a true story, however differs greatly, notably in the fact of making Col James Burton the good guy. He claimed foulplay and that everything was rigged (which is false), and it's generally assumed it's because the Airforce rejected one of his designs that he had an axe to grind. 217.128.134.89 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

text: The biography of John Boyd by Robert Coram has a whole chapter (Ch. 29) on these events, given that Boyd was a close counselor/mentor to James Burton.  The chapter provides reference to other publications; all stuff that can be used for cross-checking.  I have not read Burton's book, but if you look around, it is talked about and classified as non-fiction. EscKeyStroke (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

text: The film is largely nonsense. The whole story about the Bradley is gibberish, it was always intended as an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) rather than an APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier) similar to the Soviet BMP family of vehicles, as the US didn't really have anything that fit that role. The testing scenes being "rigged" was just Colonel Burton seeming to not understand that just blowing up a vehicle isn't a great way of learning anything about it's weaknesses. 2A00:23C5:4F09:8E01:25C0:D3E3:B5E3:843A (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  True story? 

message: Strictly speaking, the synopsis doesn't require the two references listed underneath it (nor should it, as a synopsis is just a summary of the events in the movie and shouldn't rely on outside sources), even if the movie is based on Col. Burton's book. In either case, the second reference is completely superfluous, akin to suggested further reading, but that in itself doesn't draw the necessary association to the movie. --114.152.191.222 (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Any objection to removing these templates?
This article relies too much on references to primary sources.  (August 2010)
-There are multiple sources now cited. 
This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary. It should be expanded to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context.  (December 2020)
-I added some additional sections on production and reception for real-world context, but I agree that the summary could be cut down quite a bit.
This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations.  (August 2022)
-in-line citations added Bobbinthreadbare (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove issues templates