Talk:The Peacemaker (1997 film)

Special force unit

i think they were delta operators —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonybond (talk • contribs) 17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anybody please tell why the use of USAF Special Ops helicopters other than the real ones is considered a "goof"? They were adequately cammouflaged and marked, and I guess that it'd be difficult for the prducers to hire real USAF helos just for some shots (I guess the "Dauphins" try to emmulate the "UH-1N" aircraft operated by the USAF).
I'd move that paragraph to "Trivia" in the next week, if nobody reasonably opposes. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Peacemaker imp.jpg

Image:Peacemaker imp.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 ensure 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) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The name "Macedonia" is misleading

You must revise the name Macedonia in the main page because it creates confusion with the Greek province with the same name (written Μακεδονία).

Macedonia historically refers to the Ancient Kindom of Philip II and his son Alexander the Great who after uniting Greece marched against and defeated the Persians creating the Empire of Macedonia. No one can unilaterally claim ownership in this historical region and no one can claim it for themselves only. Moderns Greeks and of course the citizens of Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia may claim whatever they wish internally in their nations. But the truth today is that no one is truly Macedonian in ethnicity because such Ethnos (=Nation) does not exist.

Greeks have the advantage in this dispute because they speak pretty much the same language with Ancients Greeks and every single archeological artifact found from ancient Macedonia has Greek writing on it. Also, Macedonias spoke a Greek dialect which was indigenous enough to be mistaken as a separate language but in reality they early adopted the use of Athenian Greek language in their administration, diplomacy and commerce with the rest of the Greeks. Skopians on the other hand speak a slavic language, mostly Bulgarian again in dialect, which however is not even remotely related to Ancient greek or ancient Macedonian dialect. Finally, what used to be Macedonia, geographically speaking, today can be mostly found inside the borders of the modern Greek Nation, with two much smaller portions found inside FYROM and Bulgaria.

What you called "Macedonia" in the first page should be changed to FYROM which is -after all- the official interim name adopted by the United Nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.125.90 (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all.

The link clearly disambiguates the meaning here. On the other hand, some editors (wp:own) at the FYROM page play down "FYROM"'s official status for diplomatic purposes amid claims that even after 20 years it's a "provisional" designation. You're welcome to join that discussion on that talk page. — LlywelynII 22:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Cutting the wires

Out of pure curiosity, could the nuke also have been "disabled" by cutting the wires? It would have been a lot less dramatic (since less effort would be required), but would that have worked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.161.113 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)