Talk:Broken Arrow (1996 film)

message: Call me a pedant but this section - "Another factual inaccuracy is the film's name itself. In official United States military nuclear incident terminology, a PINNACLE - BROKEN ARROW is "an accidental event involving nuclear weapons or nuclear components but does not create the risk of nuclear war". The actual term for "the seizure, theft, or loss of a nuclear weapon or nuclear component" is PINNACLE - EMPTY QUIVER." is misguided since at the point in which the statement is made that there is a "BROKEN ARROW" nobody is aware that the missiles will be stolen. The article linked to afterwards (US Military Nuclear Incident Terminology) specifically states "...an accidental event involving nuclear weapons or nuclear components but does not create the risk of nuclear war" which is what a crashed bomber carrying a pair of B61's would be.
:I agree partially. The 'accident involving nuclear weapons' would be the detonation of it in the mine - and so the 'title' does happen in the course of the movie. Personally I think the term was used inproperly, though. Joffeloff 12:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's irrelevant, because the discussion relates to the usage of the phrase in the film, immediately after the B2 crashes with nukes onboard. The nuke was lost under unknown circumstances and could have resulted in a blast if the missiles were armed, therefore ideally Broken Arrow is appropriate--Topperfalkon (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual inaccuracy? 

message: "Broken Arrow is noted for its impressive soundtrack, composed by Hans Zimmer."
The soundtrack is decent, I suppose, but it's no better than any other typical action movie soundtrack, if not crappier than the majority of Zimmer's work.  Why is this line in here at all?
Kestrel 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Impressive Soundtrack" 

message: The essay section does not belong on Wikipedia and should be replaced with an actual plot summary. Joffeloff 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it's original research. Joffeloff 18:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many, many articles in Wikipedia have original research (well, you'd have to define "original" for that). 80.230.153.168 16:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page I linked to defines it already - and just because a lot of articles do it, doesn't mean it's right. A majority of articles consist of one or two sentences, doesn't mean it's the norm to follow. Joffeloff 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct. By the authority given to me by Wikipedia's valid policy, I am hereby removing the essay section of this article, coinciding with the "no original research" practice of Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Effective Immediately.CommandoGuard 21:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The essay section 

message: What was the type of soil mentioned by the park ranger?  --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (it's on tv right now...she says "cryptogamic soil"). 68.146.172.65 (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of soil 

message: An error is mentioned as being that stealth mode shouldn't work when the bomb bay is open. However, couldn't it be that since it's a new design of plane, it can function in proper stealth mode even with the bay open? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.180.87.231 (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but doubtful.  Stealth works through protection by the outer skin.  Remove the outer skin from a section of it (eg open the doors) and you expose the interior.StephenBuxton 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb bay error. 

message: The film reportedly featured product placement for Addidas purely because one of the producers wanted free merchandise for his own collection.
Maybe worth mentioning? In the production section somewhere? -- 109.77.199.80 (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product placement