Talk:The Tuskegee Airmen

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: War / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

New variation

I will provide a more extensive update to the article in the next days. Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Plot Summary

The plot summary here is pretty inadequate. It talks about characters without introducing who they are, discusses points of the plot without explaining their context or significance, leaves large portions of the plot and important characters out, and contains some inaccuracies. I haven't seen the movie in 10 years and even I remember that it wasn't a "court" that was convened to discuss the black pilots, it was a congressional hearing. Someone who has seen the movie recently should go through and clean the plot summary up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.34.169 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not an inconsistency in the fact that the plot summary says that the airmen shot two German planes down (when Cappy crashes) but the congressional hearing makes an uncontested statement that the unit had never shot down an enemy plane ? --JustinSmith (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New revisions

Recently, a large change was instituted under the euphemism of "cleanup". Comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Accuracy Sub section

I don`t agree with the comment/implication that a link to the Wikipedia article (on the claim that the 332nd never lost a bomber) is invoking Wikpedia to verify Wikipedia. It is simply directing readers to another article which examines the subject more closely, and it is then verified there, or at least provides references. The use of Hyperlinks to other sections of Wikipedia is well established and to be encouraged. --JustinSmith (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very simple way to make a link is a wikilink to one word then provide secondary or tertiary sources. FWiW, see article now. Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Very good. Would it not be better if the internal link went straight to the relevant section of the article ? --JustinSmith (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's like linking inside Wikipedia; just isn't done. FWiW, you can't use a Wikipedia article to validate another Wikipedia article, what you use are outside sources to provide an authoritative statement. Bzuk (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Rename article?

I propose renaming this article "The Tuskegee Airmen (Film)" to avoid confusion with the main article on the Airmen themselves. Scyg (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New variation

Plot Summary

New revisions

Historical Accuracy Sub section

Rename article?

zproxy.org