Talk:The Frogmen

Cleanup
This is in dire need of cleanup. At the very least, we need a plot and possibly some critics reviews, both at the time of release and now. This reads like a rant article, someone angry at the mistakes of this movie. Hbdragon88 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree fully, but I haven't the inclination. I did eliminate one "criticism" because it was false--UDT pre-invasion ops were done without tanks or wet suits.--Buckboard 09:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I think I may rent this movie later on. Hbdragon88 01:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Frogmendvd.jpg
Image:Frogmendvd.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded page Image:Frogmendvd.jpg's usage explanation. Anthony Appleyard 06:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Errata
On the errata section, there are some mistakes (or debatable questions): Kintaro (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rebreathers would not have been used by UDT operators at anytime during WW2.: really??!! how to be sure about that? rebreathers are known since the 19th century and were commonly used by some navies during WWII (Davis apparatus in the British Royal Navy, Dräger rebreathing helmets -DM20 and DM40- in the German Kriegsmarine, 1939 Cousteau's prototypes...)
 * The Frogmen did not acquire any type of SCUBA gear until after the 2nd World War: False! (but maybe those sets were only experimental and never were used in combat action...)
 * The OSS Maritime Units did have Lambertsen rigs which were an early type of rebreather: yes, we saw that... but they weren't at all an early type of rebreather, in my opinion the Lambertsen breathing apparatus (patent's official name in 1944) was a modern, efficient, well developed and reliable rebreather. Anyway, the word early, applied to a 1944 rebreather, is meaningless or inaccurate, rebreathers were much older than that (1849 for the first recorded rebreather in history).
 * The UDT operators relied on their ability to breath hold: may be... I don't know...


 * Errata section is inappropriate per WP:FILMHIST anyway, so deleted. 173.11.183.118 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have restored the errata section. Mistakes in making a film are relevant to many who are reading about that film. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * wikiipedia consensus has always been vy clear on this, mistakes sections aren't appropriate, and historical inaccuracies should only be pointed out if the movie was dramatizing actually events, which is not the case for The Frogmen. It is taken for granted that fictional movies take literary license. Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To those concerned with the history of scuba diving, these errors by the film makers may give a wrong impression about what diving gear was used by WWII frogmen when and about when open-circuit aqualungs came into use. These errors should be pointed out. It is NOT in the same class as e.g. a character's gloves appearing or disappearing between shots. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FILMHIST does not address continuity errors like a glove disappearing, it specifically addresses historical inaccuracies like we are discussing here. Unless you can find a secondary source that specifically discusses the movie Frogmen using historically inaccurate equipment, the errata section is synthesis, which violates Wikipedia's "no original research policy". The information was interesting to me as a PADI Rescue certified diver, but I have learned that such information isn't appropriate for fictional movie articles. I ran into a similar case early in my tenure here on the US Marshalls movie article. I found a legitimate secondary source that stated the US Marshalls do not shackle prisoners to the seat or the floor of an airplane, because FAA regulations forbid it, even when transporting prisoners. I added this to the article as a factual inaccuracy of a major plot device in the movie. It went to dispute resolution, and consensus was that type of information is not appropriate. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming an Errata section "Plot Faults" does not fix the problem that such sections are addressed by WP:FILMHIST, no matter what you wish to call themMmyers1976 (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted YET AGAIN. Anthony Appleyard: WP:FILMHIST states that sections on historical inaccuracies in fictional films can only be incorporated "if ample coverage from secondary sources exist about a film's historical or scientific accuracy." Your external reference is a post by "conradb212" on a scuba diving internet discussion board. This source does not meet Wikipedia standards per WP:USERG which states "...For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Though this guideline goes on to states "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications," neither condition is the case for your source. Wikipedia policy has been explained to you OVER AND OVER yet you continue to re-add the same content which violates it. I have reported this to The No Original Research Noticeboard. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, point taken. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)