Talk:Johnny Got His Gun (film)

message: :Image:269625.1010.A.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:269625.1010.A.jpg

message: Is the Kathy Fields listed here really the same as the Dr. Kathy Fields of Proactiv fame?  If not, then that confusing situation with the redirect page should be rectified.--24.6.198.12 (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little checking and couldn't find anything to confirm that it's the same person; seems most likely that the doctor and the actress are different people.  Since the actress has only one other credit besides Johnny..., I suspect that she won't get a Wikipedia page soon.  Hence no need to disambiguate or change the redirect; best simply not to link from here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kathy Fields

message: In the One (Metallica song) article, it states "Metallica bought the rights to Johnny Got His Gun so they would be able to use it exclusively for the video for 'One'." But this article says, "Presently, World Entertainment owns rights to the film. It has released the film in Europe, but has no intention of releasing it in the United States for the foreseeable future." Anyone have a reference to help figure out which one is right? 71.59.34.157 (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights to film 

message: This article said this is an anti-war film, then it says it's not an anti-war film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.162.173 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. You can be bold and remove uncited material yourself in such cases. I agree with you; it is definitely an anti-war film.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-war 

message: QUOTE:  "his missing limbs are covered by hospital sheets."  How can something "missing" be covered?  Do you mean his stumps?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  75.80.60.230 (talk) 17:56, July 18, 2009
:I think they mean Joe's stumps and the hole where his face should be. Dagoth (takl | contibs | sbemail me) 06:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been eight years, thought I'd reword it better now.  Carlwev  18:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can something "missing" be covered? 

message: "However, it contains some brief edits, because a European print was used for the video source."
This needs to be clear whether it means the actual film or otherwise.  Someone apparently just stuck that sentence on the end of the paragraph, and needs to be reworded and/or incorporated into the paragraph properly. 
PLUS, if the info is correct, it needs a cited source. ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 09:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD release edited?