Talk:On Deadly Ground

Seagaliana
by a consensus of wikipedians, it was determined that this useful category be eliminated. however, i maintain this valuable resource on my user page --Ghetteaux 13:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:On deadly ground.jpg
Image:On deadly ground.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 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) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty cool pic and should stay cos it is cool. Seagal is a cool guy and he will not mind. Ask him. he's more focussed on bigger objectives - like saving the world and global warming and stuff. It's cool.

Criticisms
The whole Criticisms section should go. Currently it's pretty much unquoted and doesn't really touch any "artistic" issues. Please do something, og we should beWP:BOLD and delete it Medico80 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By that logic, so too should the main body of the article. Let's just mark it as unreferenced and hope someone other than me will update it. It's fairly common knowledge that this film is abysmal, anyway. J O R D A N [ talk ] 13:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the section additionally seems a bit biased, in my opinion, toward oil companies. The criticisms section seems to portray said companies in a "poor me/us" fashion. I say keep the plot, and really cutting the rest of the bloody article would suffice. Slippycup (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

References to testicles?
Why is there a section called 'References to testicles'? This has to be a joke. --94.9.21.106 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)