Talk:The Bridges at Toko-Ri

message: I have my hands full with several aviation and military history articles, so I won't make these edits myself. However, I feel that the "Features" section of this article needs some work. Suggest a few changes:
*Needs NPOV. Statements such as "an extremely realistic war movie", "the scenes... are well shot and the action is superb", and "the cast is successful" sound like fawning admiration, not neutral analysis as would be expected of an encyclopedia.
*The history of USS Oriskany is awkwardly written and interrupts continuity. It seems like unnecessary clutter in an article that is about a movie, not a ship. If readers would like more information about Oriskany, they can look it up seperately with a link to the Wikipedia article about the ship.
*In reference literature, it is common practice to omit the word "the" preceding the name of a ship.
*The F2H Banshee is a fighter, not a bomber. In Korean War era Navy practice, a bomber would carry the "A" prefix, i.e. AD Skyraider or AJ Savage. Yes, but.... Fighters are often used for tactical bombimg missions, the F-4 Phantom being the most obvious. F-4U Corsair were often used, and in actuality the Navy fighters were most often used as bombers, not air supeiority fighters, Ditto, Air Force F105, F111, they even used F104s as bombers in Nam. Often the A or F designation was about funding. In "The Lonly Sky" Bill Bridgeman talks about out dog fighting a Mustang ( P51) in a Skyraider(AD-1)
*It seems unnecessary to mention that the Banshee is a predecessor of the F-4 Phantom II. Again, the article is about a movie. The Phantom was not a direct decendant of the Banshee. They were both made by McDonnell, and were twin engine jets, but no direct connection.
*The section implies that there was a "real attack". The story is based on actual raids during the war, but the events shown in the movie are entirely fictitious. There is no real place called "Toko-Ri" and therefore no "real attack".  See Article in Naval Aviation, found in search engine: Supposedly Michemer's notes were found about an attack on a rail road bridge in a  heavily defended  valley on the  Kowon-Yangdok-Samdong-ni rail line.  This article claims Ads and F4Us, all prop planes were used.  But Hollywood and the Navy proablly wanted to capitalize on the sexy Jetpilot image. It used to mean something! Note this is source material, not the "Real Battle"
*The section incorrectly implies that actual Korean War footage was used ("aircraft used on the same missions in the Korean War of real footage"). The Panther flight sequences were filmed for the movie. They are not stock footage. This sentence is awkwardly written and a rewrite could clear this up.
:This is the tip of the iceberg. There are so many unwarranted and questionable assumptions and interpreted conclusions that the entire article is virtually OR. --Reedmalloy (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits needed to this page

message: In the US Navy, the rank of Rear Admiral is abbreviated RADM and RDML, depending on whether the officer is in the upper half or the lower half of the promotion list. However, this is relatively modern. At the time of the Korean War, RADM was the abbreviation for all rear admirals. I don't think, though, that it should be used in the list of characters, unless all the ranks are changed to the correct abbreviations for the period.
--Tex 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank of Rear Admiral 

message: A few counter-arguments regarding the comments added to my earlier proposed edit list...
*A Banshee is a small, light, fast, short-range, single-seat airplane designed for aerial combat, and is therefore a fighter. The word "bomber" used by itself implies a large, heavy, relatively slow, long-range airplane with a crew of at least 4 or 5, e.g. a B-17 or B-52. I am well aware that there are many ongoing arguments about the definition of each word and whether certain airplanes are properly categorized as a fighter or a light bomber (the F-105 and F-111 come to mind). However, as this article is about a movie, not an airplane, I feel that it is confusing to the general public (most of whom do not care about such esoteric arguments) to describe the Banshee as a bomber when its designation says it's a fighter. I suggest describing it as a fighter-bomber and leaving it at that.
*The article uses the word "predecessor", not "descendent". "Descendant" implies a direct design connection, "predecessor" does not- it just says that one thing came before another from the same source. However, this issue is a red herring that sidesteps the point of my earlier comment... in my humble opinion, the reference to the Phantom II is unnecessary clutter in an article about a film, as is the trivia about USS Oriskany.
*Regarding "real attack"... yes, I'm aware that James Michener based his novel on actual events, I just think that the wording in the article is misleading. The story is a highly fictionalized composite at best. The repeated use of the phrase "real attack" implies that there was a real bridge that was really destroyed by the US Navy at a real place called Toko-Ri, which is not true on any level.
*It was James Michener, not the Navy, who changed the airplanes from prop-powered AD Skyraiders to jet-powered F2H Banshees to capitalize on the "Sexy Jet Pilot" image. 
*I've been told that the airplanes were changed from F2H Banshees to F9F Panthers simply because all of the Banshees available to the filmmakers had already been repainted in the Navy's then-new light grey and white paint scheme. Supposedly, the filmmakers felt that they would not show up on the screen well enough to emphasize the action, so they opted to use Panthers that were still wearing the Navy's older solid navy blue paint scheme (which is ironic, because the whole purpose of the new paint scheme was to make the planes less visible in the air). However, this is only hearsay, so this should not be included in the article unless someone can find a verifiable source.
That's all from me for now. Carguychris 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitpicks re: edit list

message: :Image:The Bridges of Toko-Ri.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Bridges of Toko-Ri.jpg

message: Overhauls are often begun serendipitously, and such will it be with this. Although many of the "issues" above have been relegated to wiki-history, real issues with organization and documentation remain. Since I have opened the can, I will take on the chore of the worms, starting later tonight with an overhaul of the overly-long and personally accented plot summary. Bzuk, if you read this, I cordially invite you to assist! :-) --Reedmalloy (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 2012 rewrites

message: Who is the "his wife and children" referred to at the end of this paragraph when obviously Brubaker's current wife and children are still around?
"The Savo Island returns to port in Japan, where Brubaker is given a three-day shore leave in Tokyo with his wife Nancy (Grace Kelly) and their children. The reunion is interrupted when Gamidge comes to Brubaker asking his help in bailing Forney out of the brig after a brawl. Nancy expresses her bewilderment to Tarrant, who explains that Forney saved her husband from freezing to death when he had to ditch his jet at sea and warns her that when they return to Korea, Brubaker will have to attack the dangerous bridges at Toko-Ri. He advises her to face the reality that Harry might be killed, which neither his wife nor daughter-in-law did, and thus were crushed by despair. Late that night Nancy asks Brubaker about the bridges. "
71.178.191.144 (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing