Talk:The Great Escape (film)/Archive 1

Mention?
Maybe someone should mention how The Great Escape was referenced in the opening chapter of Metal Gear Solid 3? 129.110.199.169 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. Ynos 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rowing to Sweden
I corrected:

*Ivan (Charles Bronson) and his friend Willie (John Leyton), after some trouble getting Danny out in the tunnel due to him being claustrophobic, manage to get on a boat and row to Sweden.

They board a neutral Swedish ship in port, presumably to stow away or seek help. If they had already reached Sweden, why would they be boarding the ship from their rowing boat?. Dainamo 08:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe they were on their way back to England? I cant remember, its been a while since I saw it. Astrokey44 |talk 12:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody "rows" to Sweden through the Baltic Sea. Swden was a neutral who had Germany as a commercial trading partner during the war. The port was one controlled by the Germans, as it was in the real event--Buckboard 09:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Story
The story of The Great Escape is in too much detail. I am gonna edit it to readable limits later (if others agree).Sbohra 12:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was just expanded by another editor. I notice this sort of thing happens all the time with movie summaries - one editor expands it, another cuts it down, it gets expanded again etc. -- Astrokey44 |talk 14:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a three-hour film with many sub-plots and many stars. I think the full detail of the plot is appropriate.  Besides, Wikipedia is not paper.  It's just the right length. Raggaga 16:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a paper, but we have to make allowances for readers' attention spans- at least break it up into subsections. Borisblue 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, even though I desire film pages to be more than just commercial plot blurbs, this is basically far too much detail, and needs to have some things removed to save space. Cybertooth85 04:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As other pages have done, I have added a short synopsis for people who want a brief overview. I propose that if the absurdly long "Film plot" section is to be left intact that it be moved to another page. I'm not sure who would want to read a play by play of a movie rather than just watch it; the length of the section make the article unwieldy.--Bantosh 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Except for the dialogue, we have a full script. I love the film but it's length is annoying overkill. Like somebody in a bar telling you about a movie who won't shut up.--Buckboard 09:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed; cut. Dan100 (Talk) 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that a full blow-by-blow description of the movie seems unnecessary. If you've seen the film, you know all this, if you haven't, it's too much of a spoiler. I would suggest it would be better cut down to a quarter to a third of its current length. Until then though I have divided the section into what (to me) seem reasonably sized and logical sub-sections. dawkeye 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the synopsis a bit. That should be enough; it's consistent with the length and detail of the many other movies I've seen and edited.  The overly detailed film plot should either be deleted or helped to "escape" to its own page. Clarityfiend 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of Escapees Not Explained
In the film, it is stated that 76 men escaped the prison camp.

Later in the film, Col. von Luger tells RAF Group Captain Rupert Ramsey, the Senior British Officer, that 50 men where shot (dead) and 11 would be returning to the prison camp. (Whether or not the 11 returning men included the American, Captain Virgil Hilts, played by Steve McQueen, who was returned to the camp in a separate car may be an open question.)

We know that 3 men escaped (Danny and Wille by row boat to a ship), Sedgwick through France to Spain.

So here is my question: What happened to the other 11 or 12 men?

* 11 if you considered Hiltz return not to be one of the 11 men Col. von Luger was speaking a about.

A little too literal aren't we? Presume. They were re-captured, since only three made it back to Allied control and "only" fifty were shot. There were never any mess hall shots but one presumes they ate something during all those months of captivity.

In the real Great Escape, most of the others who were recaptured (and not murdered) were sent to other POW camps. Four ("Jimmy" James, "Wings" Day, John Dodge [cousin of Winston Churchill], and Sydney Dowse) were sent to the infamous Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, near Berlin. After a short stay there, they managed to escape once again! The whole story may be found in James' book, "Moonless Night". Mhstevens 21:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Video games
Is there a particular reason why there needs to be two separate articles about Great Escape video games (see The Great Escape (1986 video game) and The Great Escape (2003 video game))? The articles are merely stubs and both seem quite inconsequential. Why not just collapse them into this article? -- Padjet1 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they are completely different games. Sorry, but this is like demanding that two films of the same name from different decades be merged under the same article. Different games with wildly different gameplay require different articles -- Zagrebo 23:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether they are different games is not the issue. Why are the games sufficiently important to warrant their own separate articles?  Not every video game in existence requires its own article in Wikipedia, particularly those which are minor derivatives of a much more well-known subject.  Without more evidence of notability, their existence can more than adequately documented in the main article. -- Padjet1 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just becuase theirs stubs dosn't mean they shouln't have their own articles. In time both articles will be greater in length. Then what, still keep them in the same page? No. Their two different games and they should have to different articles. Anyways every video game could have its own article.--Coasttocoast 04:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for the PS2/Xbox title, but the old 8-bit game needs its own article because a)It is related to the film only by theme, and b)It was (at the time) critically acclaimed.Marasmusine 07:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure both games are capable of having good, detailed and informative articles. Lumping them together would be confusing, suggests a real link between them (there isn't one really) and probably limit the detail that can be gone into. As I've said, these two games share a name and an influence and very little else. Ocean's Great Escape is an isometric arcade-adventure with a great deal of innovations and originality for its time. The console game I can't speak for but it's probably a first-person game with the emphasis on stealth. They simply don't have anything in common. -- Zagrebo 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They need their own seperate articles. If just one name was different we wouldn't be talking about merging them together--Coasttocoast 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kommandant
Shouldn't Commandant be  Kommandant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Microchip08 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Did MacQueen also play...?

 * Did MacQueen also play the ambushed German motorcylist ambushed by "Hilts" {MacQueen}?


 * He does play one of the Germans on motorcycle chasing Hilts, but I'm not sure if it is the one ambushed by Hilts. GCD1 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I saw a docu on the telly in which they reported that McQueen had one of the rare opportunities in movie history (this side of Python) to play both characters in a scene - the escaped prisoner, and the motorcyclist he downs...

Mark Sublette 01:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Didnt he play more than one??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycash316 (talk • contribs) 05:57, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Romualdas Marcinkus Citation Request
Recent edits include a request for citation on a statement about Romualdas Marcinkus and his absence from the film (with the character of Virgil Hilts being included). What specific part of these statements needs a citation? I'm not trying to 'dispute' the citation request, but simply wondering what part needs cited: that Marcinkus was in the camp at all, whether he was involved in the escape, whether his character was excluded from the film, whether Hilts' character was added to replace him, etc.? If the person who initiated the request for citaton, and/or those supporting it, could provide some clarification, I'm sure it would make the process easier. Thanks! GCD1 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Book
Shouldn't there be an atricle for The Great Escape book by Paul Brickhill? Emperor001 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There could be, if someone would like to write it. Would you like to volunteer? &mdash; Val42 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just created the article. Emperor001 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename article
This article has been renamed from The Great Escape to The Great Escape (film) as the result of a move request. - Move as no objections. Keith D (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several other things called The Great Escape. Shouldn't this article be The Great Escape (film)? &mdash; Val42 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm about to create an article for the book, and since the book came before the movie, I would say yes. Emperor001 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just tried moving the article, but for some reason, I can't. It tried the name suggested, but it says that an article with that name already exists or that it's an invalid name. A little help here? Emperor001 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried too, which is why I proposed the rename here. We should wait a week for discussion here before we bring in an administrator, just in case someone objects. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Steve McQueen and Wally Floody 001.jpg
Image:Steve McQueen and Wally Floody 001.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 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) 06:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Attenborough and McQueen in The Great Escape 002.jpg
Image:Attenborough and McQueen in The Great Escape 002.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 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) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Great escape.jpg
Image:Great escape.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) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
I was correcting another minor problem and noticed that there is a lot of British spelling. I know that in the real prisoner of war camp portrayed, the prisoners were mostly British and Canadians, so the British spelling would be appropriate. However, this is an American movie (so the sacrificed accuracy to get the American audience) and there are a lot of Americans in the movie. I'm not declaring that American spelling should be used, but since I don't see a prior discussion on this page, we should discuss this issue. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * policy on English language variations says (IIRC) that where there is no overriding cultural difference (as here), the prevailing usage should be that with which the article was created, unless there is a compulsive reason to change it. British POW's (mainly); American film production- you pays your money and you takes your choice. I see no reason to deviate from the original majority spelling, but that's only an opinion. -- Rodhull andemu  22:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Blyth's blindness
This is not going to be sorted out by posting massive amounts of text from the Geneva Convention; it is impermissible original research. A reliable third-party source saying this is fine; anything else, er, isn't. We do not draw conclusions from multiple sources here. -- Rodhull andemu  23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't label something "original research" simply because you don't like it, and have then been proven wrong. There were very well documented prisoner exchange programmes established during both World Wars by the International Red Cross.  It is not original research to note this.  If I can't post it, please read Geneva Convention of 1929, articles 68-74 plus Annex I, which specifically mentions blindness as an illness that if serious enough, should lead to repatriation].  The detaining power has no ability to refuse a genuine request.  And as stated previously, the Germans did generally follow the Geneva Convention when it came to Western PoWs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.234.158 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This entire conversation is irrelevant, as Blyth's blindness came on just before the escape (as clearly shown in the film) so the question of whether he should be exchanged or not would never have come up in the timeframe covered by the film. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. The character of Blythe could have simply requested an eye test at any time during his captivity through the elected liaison officer, and if when failed it, would be transferred via the Red Cross.  All this is in Articles 68 to 74.
 * That is irrelevant. The character of Blythe could have simply requested an eye test at any time during his captivity through the elected liaison officer, and if when failed it, would be transferred via the Red Cross.  All this is in Articles 68 to 74.


 * All that is being said here, Anon, is that regardless of how strongly you believe this, we cannot talk about it in relation to this article unless you find a third-party reliable source which talks about the Geneva Convention as it would have applied in the context of this film. Any "proof" which you yourself could write up does not qualify for inclusion as it is original research. »S0CO ( talk 17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is also irrelevant. We have established that (1) blind PoWs were required to be repatriated if they so requested, per the Geneva Convention; this was originally claimed to be "original research".  Clearly it is not, as the evidence is not hard to find.  Blythe is blind - this is not original research either.  What is now being labelled as "original research" is the tiny link between the two, which is not even explicitly made.  Some people here decided ages ago that this should not be included, presumably on the basis of their own profound ignorance, and when presented with valid evidence which is impossible to argue with, you are then using the "original research" label politically to try to prove a point.  Please consider acting a bit more sensibly.
 * You are entirely correct in citing what the Geneva Convention says, and what would have happened in Blythe's case. What would be incorrect is us, as authors, drawing the inference from the two things, because this is a synthesis of sources and not permitted by policy. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and can only rely upon what others have written as secondary sources, or to a very limited extent, upon primary sources such as film and television programmes. There is nothing political about it; what you say is fully accepted. It's just that unless a reliable third party source has drawn the conclusion you say we should be able to draw, we cannot do it ourselves, and that's the beginning and end of it. Please take it up at the Talk page for WP:SYN if you think the policy is incorrect. -- Rodhull andemu  21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations and style
Over the past few days I've flagged this article a couple times for assistance in providing reliable sources for the great number of uncited copy and factoids. Those maintenance tags have been removed, cited as "ridiculous", "unwarranted", and "repetitive". Not sure how so, unless the repetitive refers to the Refimprove tag that was buried at the bottom of the page (initially relegated to a "tags" section!). Since the original maintenance tag was "hidden" at the page bottom, I can understand the "repetitive" claim, but information pointing to its existence could've been included in the edit summary. I've relocated the tag to the traditional -- and more noticeable -- page-top spot. As for "ridiculous" and "warrantless", I think an article in which 90% of its "facts" are missing supporting reliable sources can be characterized as warranting more citations. The works listed in the bibliography may be supportive, but inline cites are preferred.

Also, unsure what the addition of the Prose and fictionrefs in the Production and Pop culture sections being characterized as "tagging" rather than "editing" means, but Films Style Guidelines specifically states that these sections "should be transformed into prose" and Trivia sections should be merged into standard Film sections. As for "tagging" not being "editing", I respectfully disagree: this article has been flagged for lack of reliable sources since May; the purpose of maintenance tags is to alert editors to the need for article improvement. Maintenance tags are part of the WP editing process.

In relocating the Refimprove tag to the top, I am also reverting its date back to the original May 2008. Interested editors are invited to begin adding suitable cites to enhance the quality and value of the article. Much of the article has been unsupported for over a year, and even with a tag in place since May, nothing has been done to improve it in this area (although the incorrect location of the tags may have contributed to this). If reliable sources are not added to the article soon, much of its content is at risk of deletion.

Also, it would be a good idea to merge the "historical inaccuracies" into Production and be verified. They aren't really "inaccuracies" since this is a work of fiction, and the significance of the departure from fact needs a reliable source to be included in the article. Jim Dunning | talk  06:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't tag it, fix it, you're the one who thinks it's broken. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's Wikipedia's MoS that says its "broken". In reality, we're talking about improving the article by making it more readable and the Production section more cohesive and focused on the film itself. Compare this article with the Production sections of such films as The Prestige and Children of Men and see how the Production section can become the heart of the article. For instance, the Production notes have seven entries which could be improved upon if a focus on a prose format was employed: the Magnificent Seven/Man from U.N.C.L.E. connections provide no significant context for relevance (or proof that a reliable source thought it of cinematic significance); the Messemer, Pleasence, and Clavell POW experiences should be expanded &mdash; and combined &mdash; to highlight relevance to the film (Pleasence is quoted as saying something about a prison camp being realistic, but since there is no inline citation to direct back to a possible source, I can't rewrite it to say whether he is talking about his own experience or the set); the videogame and awards bullets are misplaced, something that would be immediately evident if an effort to transform the bullet-point format to unified and organized paragraphs were made.


 * If you want me to fix it right now, the first thing I would do is delete most of the Lede, since two of its three paragraphs are not supported in the Body (per MoS). However, since WP is a collaborative effort, and I may not have the expertise, resources, or time to fix the section on my own quickly, I will just Tag it, letting other editors know about the issues and opportunities for quality improvement (also, the Lede should contain more information about the film). Similarly, I tagged the Production and Pop culture sections individually because of (1) Production's potential for becoming a key part of the article, and (2) Pop culture because of its potential for dragging the article down if it remains a collection of indiscriminate factoids (Inaccuracies is in the same boat). Along the same lines, most of the article should be gutted since the entries in the References lists likely don't support many of the article's assertions &mdash; and given the time it's been tagged as such. However, since I'm interested in fixing it, I'm "tagging" it instead of just doing something about it (like deleting entries). Unfortunately, the Refimprove tag placed on the article in May was hidden and even placed in an article section strangely called "tags", which may have delayed improvement work on it.

Jim Dunning | talk  15:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My proposal is to call attention to these areas for improvement to alert interested editors to the need for their assistance. We should also look at expanding Production out to include: Adaptation (the "Inaccuracies" material would make great fodder for this); Casting (how were all those stars enticed to work on it?); and Locations (this should be a rich section since they apparently built a complete Stalag!). Also, I would think a Reception section would be a nice addition, given the popularity of the film and story.

Historical inaccuracies
The Historical inaccuracies section could be rife with original research, since the majority of the entries lack citations to reliable sources. If accurate and verifiable, items in this section could add much to a more mature Production section; we should start merging vetted material in Production as soon as possible. This would also address the misnomer "inaccuracies", since they really aren't: the changes are part of the creative adaptation process.

Also, such a move would eliminate the IMDb look to this article (at this point it's difficult to say whether this article copied the Trivia section of IMDb or vice versa; either way, it doesn't say much for either). Jim Dunning | talk  16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  00:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A number of the entries don't actually appear to have anything to do with the film itself and may be better suited for placement in the article about the Escape (Stalag Luft III). I've copied them here for possible future use there or here.


 * Only 76 of the projected 200 men escaped while an air raid occurred; only three POWs escaped Germany into neutral territory: the Norwegians Per Bergsland and Jens Müller who escaped to Sweden, and the Dutchman Bram van der Stok who reached Spain.


 * The Gestapo killed 50 of the recaptured POWs, in breach of the Geneva Convention. Such actions constituted a war crime. Most of the victims were driven to isolated spots in small groups and shot through the back of the head with pistols, rather than being machine-gunned en masse as depicted in the film. After the allied victory in May 1945, a war crimes investigation led to the arrest, imprisonment and in some cases execution of those responsible for the killings. Even before the end of the hostilities, the British Government was aware that 50 recaptured POWs had been killed: Herbert Massey (senior officer at Stalag Luft III) was repatriated to the UK during the war due to serious ill-health. After arriving back in the UK, he immediately informed his fellow officers what had happened. The actual murders, and the manhunt for the perpetrators after the war, is outlined in the book Exemplary Justice.


 * There is also the fact that the figure of 50 was a compromise between Hitler and the German High Command. Hitler wanted all the recaptured POWs shot, but the High Command was afraid of what would happen to German POWs held by the Allies, especially if the Red Cross withdrew its support for German POWs.


 * No members of the American armed forces actually escaped. While many had worked on the construction of both Tom and Harry, by the time of the escape through Harry the American prisoners had all been moved to a separate compound. However, John Dodge, an American in the British Army, was one of the escapees.


 * The stealing of personal possessions such as boats and bicycles was not recommended since escapers could face criminal charges if recaptured.


 * POWs who came up with plans to escape needed permission to proceed from the Escape Committee. This was in order to avoid conflicting escape plans from canceling each other: an escaping prisoner being caught by the guards could cause the alarm to be raised and ruin another escape attempt &mdash; thus the scene where Hilts and Ives need Bartlett's permission before proceeding with their plan.


 * Paul Brickhill, who didn't go through the tunnel, claimed that, due to a miscalculation, the tunnel ended short of the tree line. According to Alan Burgess, in The Longest Tunnel (1990, Grove Press), the tunnel did reach the forest, yet it was so sparse it provided insufficient cover. The escape had to proceed or the forged identity and travel papers would become invalid.


 * Blythe's blindness would have probably been serious enough that he would have been eligible for the repatriation through the International Red Cross under Articles 68 to 74 of the Geneva Convention of 1929, and thus he would have had no need to escape.


 * Among the prisoners who tried to escape was Paramasiva Prabhakar Kumaramangalam who went on to become the 7th chief of the Indian army.

WP:OR and WP:V concerns
While attempting to locate support for some of the numerous uncited "facts" in this article, I came across something that may underscore the importance of locating reliable sources for copy before adding it to the article (as well as journalistic integrity).


 * No members of the American armed forces actually escaped. While many had worked on the construction of both Tom and Harry, by the time of the escape through Harry the American prisoners had all been moved to a separate compound. However, John Dodge, an American in the British Army, was one of the escapees.

This passage was in the "Historical inaccuracies" section up until a few days ago when I relocated it to the Talk page because it was unsupported and was not about the film. In trying to vet it I found an article in the Daily Express, "The Truth About the Great Escape". It contains this passage&mdash;


 * However, perhaps one of the greatest liberties taken is the suggestion that members of the American armed forces were among the 76 escapees, of whom 73 were recaptured by the Gestapo. In reality, while American officers had worked on the construction of the tunnels, by the time of the escape all the American prisoners had been moved to a separate compound. The only American to make it out was John Dodge, a soldier in the British Army.

Initially, I thought the WP passage was an uncited reference to the Daily Express article until I checked the dates and found the WP entry pre-dates the newspaper article – significantly. I then looked into when the WP entry first appeared and found the original form was cited to an online "encyclopedia" whose editors are the general public and provides no citations. This the material was added to the WP article from an unreliable source and, in turn, creates the possibility that the WP passage made it into a newspaper article. Now it's certainly possible that the Express journalist found the information elsewhere and the similarity between the two passages is coincidence. It's also possible the two passages share a common provenance I've been unable to find. However, if the journalist did use WP as a source, then this highlights the importance of relying on solid sources and the unforeseen consequences of not being careful when adding information to an article. Jim Dunning | talk  02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect the Express article was sourced from Wikipedia. You are absolutely correct in your conclusion that articles must be referenced more thoroughly and more carefully, and in three or four years you will have been proved right. But for now you are swimming against the tide. "In the battle between you and the world, bet on the world". -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oblique Reference to "Great Escape"

 * In 2/12 Hogan's Heros "Will the real Adolf Please Stand Up?" Klink remarks about how escapes from two other POW camps must be part of a master Plan to create Kaos by a mass POW Escape all at once..............
 * OK, but there were load of POW camps (or Stalags), and escape plans were commonplace, mass or otherwise. In the absence of a reliable source that makes the comparison you seek to make, this is original research and impermissible here. Sorry. -- Rodhull andemu  21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of Notes section?
What is the purpose of the Notes section containing dialogue from the film? Jim Dunning | talk  14:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Jim Dunning | talk  19:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Jim Dunning | talk  00:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it, but if it is of some importance, its text is still maintained in History.
 * Apparently an editor was translating German and French dialog in the film and documenting it here for readers' benefits. Unusual. Too bad there was no explanation in the article section or on this page. I still don't see how it fits into the format of a film article. If anyone has some thoughts they should feel free to discuss it here. The hard work is impressive, but unusual.

Fact vs fiction
A separate article &mdash; The Great Escape (film) fact versus fiction &mdash; has recently been created. Besides concerns with WP:NOR, WP:SYN, and WP:RS, and that much of it introduces problems with Film Style Guidelines regarding treatment of adaptations and inclusion of real-world perspective, why isn't this effort being done in this article whose Production section is in such sad shape? Properly done, this material would significantly improve the film article. Jim Dunning | talk  14:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Factual accuracy of The Great Escape also contains many more details, most importantly the fact that 50 POWs were murdered by the Germans as a result of their defiance. Since the film is dedicated to the 50 (as noted in the closing scene) I think that it is important to note how such blatant acts of murder were dealt with after the war. If people want to find out more about how the facts varied from reality then they have a separate article to go, and if not then they don't. I therefore suggest we provide a link and remove the redirect in Factual accuracy of The Great Escape--Marktreut (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's a link to the former article that doesn't redirect . --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that anyone interested in the "facts" behind the film's story can check them out at the article on the actual escape. Why duplicate what already exists? Information about the "50" and much more is in the article, and this article has always had a link to it. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with 173... . Marktreut might consider working on the article that includes a section about the actual escape,   regarding the 50, if there is a concern.  Just a friendly suggestion. Good work everyone. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundancies
As of August 29, 2009, 12:59 AM EST, there are several redundancies in the article, including two of the same photo, three mentionings of Steve McQueen insisting that the motorcycle scene be included and one other, the part that says "Ex-POWs asked the film-makers to exclude such details lest it jeopardize future POW escapes," that appears twice. I think also the article could use more facts about who made it -- on the 1998 DVD making-of it says more than those listed wrote the screenplay, that some 11 drafts were made and it was still shot on an unfinished script, with many scenes improvised during shooting, and that one of the prison survivors served as technical advisor to the film. Also the "critical reception" section seems too negative for what was obviously a very popular film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.28.223  (talk • contribs)  05:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bravo! 173.72.136.143 (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right - it was all repeated. Removed redundant material. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Context and relevance in Adaptation section
In the Adaptation section there are a number of "facts" whose relevance to the production process is unclear. Since WP should not be "an indiscriminate collection of information", I've tagged it appropriately for the reasons detailed below.


 * POWs who came up with plans to escape needed permission to proceed from the Escape Committee. This was in order to avoid conflicting escapes from cancelling each other out: an escaping prisoner being caught by the guards could cause the alarm to be raised and ruin a separate escape attempt — thus the scene where Hilts and Ives need Bartlett's permission before proceeding with their plan. It appears that the presence of this copy is to demonstrate to the audience why there's a pre-escape scene showing the two POWs asking permission of their superiors to escape. Why mention this relatively minor scene and not address more important scenes and the motivations for creating them? Is the scene completely fictional and the editor is attempting to show why the screenwriters created the scene? If it really happened, why draw attention to that particular scene and not the hundreds of other scenes in the film that are based on events that also really happened? We need some more context to understand its relationship to the adaptation process. Is it representative of a methodology the producer/director/writers followed? Then what was that process?


 * The scenes where dirt from the tunnels is hidden in bags which are hanged loosely in the trousers of POWs and then spread around the camp are genuine. The men who did this work were known as "penguins". Concerns are similar to those expressed above. Also, recognizing the film is a work of fiction, most viewers are aware it is based on fact, and by singling out this albeit interesting scene, the impression is created that it is one of the few fact-based events in the movie. Why mention this scene? Why do we need to know they were called penguins when that is not mentioned in the film?


 * Tunnel "Tom" was discovered on the 8th September 1943, long after any Fourth of July celebrations. It seems the editor is trying to show that the screenwriters rearranged or melded event chronologies since a source nicely provided by the editor states that Tom was discovered in September. By using synthesis, the editor is concluding (although not explicitly here) that for some unknown reason the screenwriters moved Tom's discovery to July. Of course, what we don't know is whether it was the screenwriters who did this, or was it Brickhill in his book and the screenwriters changed nothing? This is one of the main problems with WP editors drawing their own conclusions without reliable sources, and, more importantly here, context. Again, why draw attention to this one "difference" between the film and its "source" material when inevitably all films have uncountable such "differences", minor and significant, as a result of adaptation and production?
 * I sit corrected: apparently the contributor was not speculating on the reasons for the date discrepancy and just wished to "put in the fact" for others to read (I apologize for assuming it was WP:SYN). In that case, I'm even more mystified about its inclusion in the article and placement in the Adaptation section. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sedgwick (James Coburn) is shown stealing a bicycle and Danny Velinski (Charles Bronson) and "Willi" Dickes (John Leyton) do the same with a rowing boat. In fact the stealing of personal possessions was not recommended since escapers could face criminal charges if recaptured. Unsure what the point of inclusion of this material is. Is it a suggestion that the film event is not based in reality? Or is it just a commentary on the ethics or judgment of the character? Or the real-life inspiration for the character? Context, please.


 * 50 of the recaptured POWs were murdered by the Gestapo, though most of the victims were driven to isolated spots in small groups and shot through the back of the head with pistols, rather than being machine-gunned en mass as depicted in the film. After the allied victory in 1945, a war crimes investigation led to the arrest, imprisonment and in some cases execution of those who had carried out the killings. What is the relationship of this entry to the film adaptation process? This clearly belongs in the article about the real escape. It might be suitable for inclusion here if someone can find a reliable source who describes the process which led to the dedication frames at the end of the film, which is what I think the contributing editor is trying to highlight. Context, please.

I'm inclined to remove these from the section unless someone can connect them to the film and provide the appropriate sources. Thoughts? 173.72.136.143 (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd try to find those sources, but I don't have access to any. Perhaps, as suggested above by someone else, an editor with access to the extras DVD could mine it for significant adaptation info.


 * I started to read the Adaptation section for the purpose of considering the suggestions made here, but I realized that I needed to get straight what was meant by adaptation. A little help please.  Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No prob. In film, adaptation is the process the creative team (producers, director, and screenwriters) go through to adapt or transform a work in one medium (usually literature) to film. It takes into consideration artistic goals, as well as logistical factors such as budget and other resources. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that these details belong in a "Differences between book and film" section, and I will explain why. First, we will not have explanations for every change made in the adaptation process, but it does not mean differences are not worth noting.  (I prefer the best practice of including differences as signified by secondary sources.)  In such a "Differences" section, some changes can be explained wherever possible, where others can just be mentioned.  I took this approach at Apt Pupil (film); hope it can serve as food for thought. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Erik, I looked at the section in Apt Pupil and have to disagree with the presentation. It leaves me wanting ... uh, more. I see the list of differences is sourced, but I don't have access to those sources, so are we to believe then that those authors only provided a "in the book ... but in the film" notation without any context, whether development related or reception? Please don't take this the wrong way, but it is reminiscent of the response we might see from a tenth grader when asked for his comparison between a source work and its derivative. In what contexts did those authors treat the differences? 173.72.136.143 (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources talked about the themes, so there was not always commentary about why a change was made, which is why I made the point earlier. Such sources don't always "receive" such changes, either.  From what I recall, these details preempted their thematic interpretations in an indirect manner.  For example, the change to the shower scene showed a leaning toward the homoeroticism of the film compared to the novella, though the sources did not quite say this.  This conclusion can be drawn by readers when they read the article body and see such differences.  For example, the comprehension of the timeline is also highlighted but not quite explanation, but inferences can be made (by the readers, of course, not the editors).  While I aim to explain changes in the adaptation process with commentary from filmmakers or critics, it's not always possible.  For example, for the Harry Potter films, there are many, many differences, but there were secondary sources that identified what they thought were the major differences.  It's all about editorial discretion; what works best for the article or not.  For Apt Pupil, the sources discussed both the novella and the film, and certain differences were noted. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In looking at the Apt Pupil treatment, I recommend moving Singer's comments about reducing the violence (to dodge accusations about exploitation) to the section about his direction, and Wiater's opinion that changes made the film darker to the Reception section (and dump the rest). These two important observations are lost in the list of differences and would nicely enhance the other, more substantive sections. To return to the discussion at hand, this is my specific concern about "differences" sections: they tend to trivialize the adaptation process and significant content can get buried and overlooked (I, like many readers I suspect, started skimming through the "list" sentences once I realized they just briefly enumerated some changes and nearly missed the Singer and Wiater material). 173.72.136.143 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with the approach; the differences in the first paragraph are related to the changing or reducing of violence. The second paragraph is not one for a "Reception" section; it's not a true assessment of a film being good or bad.  Wiater is no film critic, after all.  If you want to discuss that particular article, though, we can do so at Talk:Apt Pupil (film).  I'm just of the opinion that for this article, we can't expect changes to always have such explicit explanations or reactions, so a "Differences" section with secondary sources as the lowest threshold for inclusion (editorial discretion being the threshold above it). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite to discuss Apt Pupil further; I may take you up on that. As for this article, I agree with you about the need for sources and that issue alone seems to eliminate the basis for a "differences" section in this article. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the film is largely fictional there are aspects of it that are based on the reality of camp life and the events of the real Great Escape. It's therefore interesting to know how they varied. There is more to it than just McQueen's motorcycling &mdash; which has failed to impress those who took part in the real Great Escape anyway.


 * The Escape Committee to which POWs who came up with plans to escape had to refer to for permission is genuine &mdash; it's not just superior officers meddling in a man's bid for freedom which is the impression Hilts appears to give with his "it's just a two-man job" remark. The scenes where dirt from the tunnels is hidden in bags which are hanged loosely in the trousers: some people may think that it is an idea from the screenwriters when it wasn't and codenames like "penguin" were often used to describe a POW's secretive work: take "Big X" Bartlett, "Scrounger" Henley or "Forger" Blythe. the stealing of personal possessions was not recommended since escapers could face criminal charges if recaptured was a rule which the film-makers either didn't know of or ignored anyway.


 * 50 of the recaptured POWs were murdered by the Gestapo, though most of the victims were driven to isolated spots in small groups and shot through the back of the head with pistols, rather than being machine-gunned en mass as depicted in the film: this is yet another example of fact and fiction being mixed, and it is an immportant one given the circumstances: the cold-blooded murder of brave men simply because they defied an evil regime. This film is dedicated to the 50 and it is good to know that they received justice after the war. Yes we could just put it in the article describing the real escape but knowing most people they will probably just ignore that one and focus on this article about the movie with "cool" McQueen.


 * We did recently have a separate page for things like these at Factual accuracy of The Great Escape but then someone decided to merge the two articles and put in a redirect so Factual accuracy of The Great Escape now redirects to The Great Escape (film).--Marktreut (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was such an article, and a review of its history here is pertinent. An editor relocated a number of the "differences" from this article to create that article. It survived a deletion nomination, although many of the editors supporting its continued existence noted it needed work, specifically sources and elimination of OR and synthesis. Subsequently, a number of editors did work hard to improve the article and found it significantly reduced in content after removing material unsupported by reliable sources. Consequently, nearly three months ago one of the contributors concluded: "I've removed all of the unreferenced examples from the article, and trimmed out others which didn't reflect what was said in the sources. I'm sure some of the other sources, which I haven't been able to check yet, will not make the connection that the article implies. As it stands, the article is made up of less than 10 'facts'. I propose we merge this material back into The Great Escape (film). I can't see how this merits a separate article." No one objected and one editor noted that he feels "it is better to work on an article about the actual escape, which has more sourced info available that can be used without editor OR." Consequently, it was merged back into this article last week (the redirect referenced above). Surviving copy was merged into the Adaptation section. Unfortunately, the editor who created the article chose to not participate in the deletion nomination discussion or respond to an invitation to work on the article (which might have cleared up a number of questions that arose about sources). 173.72.136.143 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still unclear on a number of things. The penguins for example. You say that some people think this part is completely made up. Don't you think we need to identify who thinks that's the case, using a source, to justify mention of it? Also, the codenames are real and there's no indication that audiences believe they were created just for the film, so shouldn't that material go in the Escape article? Same for the Escape Committee part. As for the theft rule, are you asserting that that plot element is completely fabricated by the filmmakers? If that's the case, then that would be an interesting piece of development information. Who is the source which supports that Coburn's and Bronson's characters' actions were not based in fact? This is a good addition to the article.


 * As for the executions, if I recall correctly, the film does not create the impression that all 50 were executed at one spot and time. There certainly is a truckload or two depicted (but not 50 prisoners) as being machine-gunned as a group, but others are shown individually. Therefore, I'm unsure why it is important to "clarify" this. Unless you can find a credible source who identifies this as an issue.


 * Also, I thought McQueen's dash for freedom is fictional; are you saying there is basis in fact? 173.72.136.143 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Adaptation section definitely has the problems that 173... pointed out at the beginning of this section. I looked at it carefully and noted that 173... proposes to keep the first 3 paragraphs and delete the other 5 paragraphs.


 * In addition to what 173... mentioned, the most significant problem seems to be that the wiki states that the movie is an adaptation of Brickhill's book, but the section on adaptation doesn't even discuss what is adapted from Brickhill's book. Instead the Adaption section puts forth some random differences between the film and the actual escape, with no mention of what was in Brickhill's book. Also, there's no mention of the role of the former POW  technical advisors in the adaptation of the book.


 * The Adaptation section needs a major rewrite by someone who at least has read Brickhill's book. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All more the reason why those bits should really go into a separate section; something like "Historical points" which will specify where fiction and reality diverged (4th of July, discovery of tunnel) or matched (Escape Committee, bags in trousers).--Marktreut (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that Coburn's and Bronson's characters' actions are based on fact, all I'm saying is that it was not the sort of thing that POWs were advised to do. Of course McQueen's dash for freedom is fictional, everyone knows that. My link above takes you to an article where ex-POWs pour scorn on those scenes: "To have Americans riding motorbikes was ridiculous" to quote one of them &mdash; and no, he does mean Americans riding bikes in general, he means in that particular instance: according to a book I have read about escapes it was always better to cross the border at a remote spot and discreetly at night: not when you had half the enemy army after you during the daytime. What being tried here is to tell the fiction from the reality: how some aspects were based on real events and others diverged. The Escape Committee was an important part of camp life, especially when it came to attempts to break-out. According to the documentaries on the DVDs most of the 50 were executed in groups of one or two, not en mass. When it comes to movies supposedly based on reality it is important to know where it diverges and "The Great Escape" mixes it in more ways than one.--Marktreut (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "My link above takes you to an article where ex-POWs pour scorn on those scenes" - It might be possible to have a section on the reaction of exPOWs to the film, since there were a number of news articles that mention it. But note that movies based on real events seem to routinely modify the facts to improve the story's appeal to audiences and fit into the time allotted.  Just listing miscellaneous inaccuracies doesn't seem worthwhile.


 * Just out of curiosity, is there some significance to the captured escapees being shot in small groups instead of a large group? I can see why the film makers might have done it with a large group, to reduce the running time of the movie and make it more dramatic, but I don't understand why this difference has been given significance here. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional comment - I glanced at Film adaptation and couldn't find where it discusses adaptation of a book about real events. Perhaps someone interested in this issue might contribute to that wiki and discuss how films modify the facts. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We're just going backwards and forwards with this. When are we coming to a decision? And no, I will not allow the context and relevance of the above issues to be declared unproven and removed. I think that more than enough has been done to prove their worth. For myself, I will only accept that these points to be moved to another heading, something like "Fact versus Fiction", or the re-instatement of the Factual accuracy of The Great Escape page. Thank you. --Marktreut (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one way to not address the points I made. Have a nice day. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "is there some significance to the captured escapees being shot in small groups instead of a large group": it was a major war crime and a point on how fact varies from fiction. Now, any chance of having a really nice day and coming up with a practical and final solution, please? ;)--Marktreut (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether they were shot in small groups or in a large group, it is a war crime in either case. So apparently you don't know what signficance the difference has, but thanks anyhow for trying to answer my question. However, I am still curious why you would pursue mentioning this difference, between small groups and a large group, when you don't know what significance it has. I'd try to help you with this but I can't think of any significance in the difference either. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted that paragraph since the difference between actual shooting in small groups vs movie's depiction in a large group  is of no significance and not important to the overall plot. Also note that the wiki on the actual event didn't consider it worth mentioning whether the shooting was done in small groups or a large group. The difference just doesn't seem to be a worthwhile encyclopedic fact. Here's the paragraph from the other wiki.
 * Of 76 escapees, 73 were captured. Hitler initially wanted to have not only the escapees shot as an example but also commandant von Lindeiner, the architect who designed the camp, the camp's security officer and the guards on duty at the time. Göring, Feldmarschall Keitel, Maj-Gen Westhoff and Maj-Gen von Graevenitz, who was head of the department in charge of prisoners of war, all argued against any executions as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Hitler eventually relented and instead ordered that more than half of the escapees should be shot. General Artur Nebe selected the 50 who were subsequently executed.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to see discussion factoring in these Film Style Guidelines:
 * Adaptation from source material
 * Historical and scientific accuracies
 * 173.72.136.143 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the quality of the text should not be, "Tunnel 'Tom' was discovered on the 8th September 1943, long after any Fourth of July celebrations," as it is currently (just to use a single, but fairly representative, example); this statement does not identify to the reader the "difference". It should be at least, "In the film, the discovery of tunnel Tom is depicted as occurring during the camp's Fourth of July celebration. In reality, Tom's discovery by the Germans occurred in September, months after any American Independence Day festivities would have occurred." Now, two things, one of them very important. The important one first: this more readable statement needs to be supported by a reliable source who has noted the discrepancy, otherwise it is original research, specifically synthesis; the current cite does not reference such a source. Second, the Film Style Guidelines (linked above) discourage not providing real-world context when addressing adaptation differences. This means the ideal text should read something like, "In the film, the discovery of tunnel Tom is depicted as occurring during the camp's Fourth of July celebration. Although Tom's discovery by the Germans actually occurred in September, months after any American Independence Day festivities would have occurred, the screenwriters combined the events for dramatic reasons," with a suitable cite supporting that adaptation decision. Read the Guidelines.


 * As Erik points out above, the final decision may be to include the "difference" between reality and fiction without additional information, and it may come down to a question of what level of quality is acceptable. Personally, I find the bare mention pointless, but a discussion of adaptation decisions is more interesting and valuable to WP readers. However, the minimum threshold for inclusion of these differences is that a reliable, credible source must have written (or spoken) about the specific difference in the context of the film. It cannot be only that a WP editor makes the connection; that is WP policy. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On a related point, the paragraph in the article regarding the machine-gunning of the escapees does appear to point out a difference between the film and reality, and is acceptably presented (although more context would be nice). However, I, personally, want someone to verify that the video source cited does indeed support the text and that it is accurately characterized. I am a firm supporter of AGF, but there is a history here of cites not firmly supporting content (and that is not just my opinion alone). This should not be difficult for some editor not immediately involved in this discussion to accomplish, and maybe additional info from the documentary could be added to provide the desirable real-world context. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

← I'm only checking into this discussion, but I wanted to say that I can get to quite a few resources online. If there is any particular resource that would help detail the adaptation process, I can try to retrieve it. See what I can access at WP:FILMRES. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I cannot agree that the shooting of the 50 is not significant enough to be mentioned. 1) it is another example of how fiction twisted the facts; 2) the film is dedicated to them so it is important to know that justice was served after the war.
 * Earlier today I did some editing on the Battle of Alcatraz in which some inmates attempted to escape from the prison. 5 men, including 2 of the guards, were killed in the course of events. I noted the names of the guards and the circumstances that led to their deaths - with references. Must I know prepare a case for the Supreme Court in order to justify any of these modifications, which were made without prior discussion?--Marktreut (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Re your remark "I'm sorry but I cannot agree that the shooting of the 50 is not significant enough to be mentioned." -
 * It already was mentioned in the Plot section of the wiki and here is the excerpt.
 * "Some of the other re-captured POWs, including Bartlett, MacDonald, Cavendish, and Haynes, are executed by the Gestapo and SS after they are told to get out of the truck transporting them and 'stretch their legs' in a field. In total, 50 of the escapees are killed."
 * 2) Please don't confuse the issue of war crimes with the other issue of the significance of small groups vs large group. In our previous discussions, you were unable to show any significance to the difference between the actual shooting of escapees in small groups versus the films depiction in a large group. Would you be willing to remove just the part regarding shooting in small groups vs a large group, since this has no relevance to the war crimes issue? As I mentioned before, small groups or large group, it's still a war crime. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see leaving the text in as is, but I've added a Clarifyme tag requesting that the source's interpretation be verified, as well as the interpretation of the execution scene in the film as showing 50 POWs being machine gunned (or close to that number) being confirmed. The wording of the text attached to the source has changed since it was initially added and I'm no longer confident it matches the source. If someone can't absolutely confirm that the DVD documentary specifically contrasts a difference between the film scene and reality -- as well as mentioning the war crimes trials -- then it needs to come out. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will remove the bit about about the way in which the POWs were killed. I don't agree but in the spirit of compromise I will proceed.--Marktreut (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to The Great Escape: The Untold Story video. (This is ref 7 in the wiki.) It's in 5 parts  that are the first five videos on the page, in reverse order: 5,4,3,2,1. (You may need to scroll down to see them.) I hope this helps.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob, thanks for the link; I'll take a look.

As for the compromise referenced above, Marktreut, are you saying that the source does not support that previously stated contrast? I'm not looking for "compromise"; I'm looking for verifiability. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe that documentary will give you the "verifiability". I seem to recall this being considered already but I don't know if it was accepted (I'm getting too lazy to re-read all the debate so far), but I'd like to propose something: a new heading Fact and Fiction with the following opening: Although largely fictional, the film is based on the real-life Great Escape operation of March 1944. Many of the scenes were based on real-life aspects of camp life, while others, such as Hilts's dash for the border by motorcycle, were added for dramatic effect. That will be for the opening. We can then dwell on which elements were factual (the Escape Committe, the dispersal of the dirt) and fictional ("Tom" discovered on the 4th of July, Hilt's motocycle dash to the border).


 * Like that we will be able to present to the reader examples of how the film diverged from reality without dwelling on the Adaptation aspects or the "why" the film-makers took such liberties.


 * On another note, I'd like to move the picture of the real-life Commandant to the article that deals with Stalag Luft III, where the Great Escape actually took place &mdash;. that makes more sense than having it here &mdash; and replacing it with one of McQueen chatting to ex-POW Wally Floody who was part of the real Great Escape operation and was a technical advisor on the film.--Marktreut (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Marktreut that having a picture of the real commandant in this wiki is inappropriate and it struck me that way when I first saw it.
 * I still believe that only the notable differences between the film's portrayal and the real event should be included, e.g. making the most heroic character in the film an american. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've set up a Fact and Fiction section, along with the "controversial" material just in order to see what the effect will be. Return it to the way it was if you want to but I still think that this material is relevant since it lets people know how the film diverted from reality (the 4th of July) or was inspired by it (the dirt in the trousers) and other aspects of the movie.--Marktreut (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Marktreut, Regarding the Fact vs Fiction section, some of the parts don't work well and may be innacurate themselves. For example, I don't seem to recall that the film portrayed Hilts asking permission to tunnel, but rather he let Big X know what he and Ives were going to do. I'd have to check the movie to make sure.


 * Some of the differences don't seem worth mentioning, and there are other differences not mentioned, like snow on the ground during the actual escape, the terrible cold that the actual POWs had to endure, etc. etc. etc. Perhaps we can agree on mentioning just of the notable differences and have a sentence in the section referring to the wiki that is about the actual escape: For the facts of the actual escape, see  The "Great Escape" section of Stalag Luft III.


 * Also, if I recall correctly, one of the references here on this talk page mentioned that the movie had inaccuracies like is routinely done with movies about real events. So we might want to use that item if there is a fact vs fiction section.


 * I have a problem with including any but the most notable differences. The motorcycle scene is notable because it had much discussion in the media as being offensive to some of the ex POWs.


 * I appreciate your efforts to reconcile our differences in opinion, and I really mean that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the scene where the escape by Hilts and Ives was discussed. They were going to do it without clearing it, but Big X got wind of it and called them in to discuss. At the end of the scene it looked like Hilts and Ives were looking for Big X's approval. If you would like to see the scene, start viewing 4:14 into this video.


 * This highlights exactly the problem at hand (WP:OR). Notice you say that "it looks like Hilts and Ives were looking for Big X's approval." This is your -- a WP editor's -- interpretation. What you need is a reliable source's interpretation as a starting point. Very specifically, a reviewer or critic must be found who says something like, "... in the film Hilts and Ives eventually seek (or whatever) Big X's approval for their escape attempt. Such escape planning committees were common in the stalags to ensure attempts were coordinated and met overall planning goals (or whatever)." This potential critic is the one who interprets the scene (original research) and then places it in real-world context (synthesis) for us. WP editors cannot interpret the meaning of a scene and make a connection with real life on their own. That is WP:SYN. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't confuse what is said on this talk page with what is in the wiki. We are free to express our thoughts here without concern about NOR but of course we can't do that in the wiki. Regarding your comment about that item in the Fact and fiction section. I too considered that it might be OR but then I realized that it might be in the source. I tried finding the source online to check it but only got as far as this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is the article! This is why I brought it up. And I very much doubt that the cite supports the interpretation (although I'd be glad to have someone show me I'm mistaken by confirming the source). 173.72.136.143 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I got that cleared up for myself, I can discuss that paragraph which is in the fact or fiction section. It apparently discusses a part of the movie that is consistent with some of the facts, although it is a fictional scene. But that's the case with many other scenes too, since the movie is based on a real event. So I don't understand why this scene and corresponding real-life circumstances were chosen to mention. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to include that the dramatic background music was probably a lot less noticeable during the real escape, especially during the tense night scene, otherwise the guards might have caught on to the escape much sooner. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And why not? Good point to raise in the Production section. Likewise with "like snow on the ground during the actual escape, the terrible cold that the actual POWs had to endure, etc. etc. etc." All more the reason to reintroduce the article where the fictional elements of the film conflicted or match the reality.--Marktreut (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was being facetious. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reception
While looking at the reception section, I realized that there wasn't any information about the reception the film gets from the viewing public! I added something regarding its current reception by the viewing public in the UK. I looked into this because I recalled that it is very popular in the UK around Christmas time. This somewhat balances the negative impression from British news media that report the negative reactions from some former British POWs, which might pose problems with violation of WP:NPOV.

Perhaps we need to add something about the reception it got from the viewing public when it first came out, and over the decades. Also, from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and AFI where it didn't do so well. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact/Fiction justification
I've flagged two entries in the Fact/Fiction section requesting that someone with access to the work Escapes (Timespan) by Tim Healey (and published by Macdonald Phoebus, 1979) confirm that the characterizations of the source are accurate. If confirmation is lacking, then I propose either another source be located or the material be removed from the article. These entries, among many others, were part of a group of fact/fiction entries which were removed from the article after many were found to be either sourceless or whose cites did not support the text. They were relocated to the Talk page so work could be done on them. Then Marktreut relocated them to a new article page without first resolving the OR and source issues. I lack confidence in their provenance due to the amount of copy and pasting and re-editing that has occurred.

Also, the entry about Tom not actually being discovered in July is a synthetic comparison unsupported by the source cited. It should be removed unless a suitable source can be located. Otherwise it violates WP's rules about OR. Finally, the entry about the "50" should be removed since there is no reference to the film (it isn't even a "difference", and was put in the article because the editor wants an increased focused on war crimes). Anyone interested in the actual escape can read the article on the actual escape (that's what links are for). 173.72.136.143 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who put in the entries based on the Timespan — Escapes source. I even checked the book before putting them in. I don't have it on me right now, so for the moment, you'll just have to take my word that I have never knowingly given false or misleading information.


 * The film states that Tom was found in July, the source states that it was in September. It's hardly "synthesis", just fact. Just to please you I have found this page which does state that "The party on the 4th July actually happened, although 'Tom' was not discovered on this particular day." The site looks comprehensive and reliable.


 * Actually, it is the definition of "synthesis"&mdash; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." As simple as that. I would suggest you read the policy completely, but you've already been told that many times in disputes over it with many other editors, and you've regularly expressed your disdain of the policy many times. Also, the B24 website does indeed provide the information we need, but is it a "reliable source" per WP's guidelines? Generally, WP likes to see "people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing,", but that process does not appear to be present here. It does provide a "reading and research" section, but there's no indication those sources were used in the production of the website (although we might start checking them individually; they could provide some more information for this article). What makes me more unsure about the site's pedigree is that Rob Davis doesn't appear to have done the research: it appears to have been written by F. Fedorowicz in another language and then translated by someone else, and then further edited by Davis; in fact, we don't even know if the bibliography was actually involved in the original writing or has a direct connection to the website production. It would be a good idea to find an unquestionably "reliable" source or collaborating sources. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never been to China but many sources have led me to believe that it exists. Open-source projects like WP do have to rely on an element of trust. And no, I don't agree that we can only put in WP what is mentioned elsewhere. This just makes it repetitive and dull, takes out the challenge. If we are to check the source of every single source that relied on the source of another source, we'll never get anywhere. How many historical books, documents, biographies and websites will I have to check before stating with conviction that some guy called George Washington was the first President of the United States (if indeed such a country or job even exists?)--Marktreut (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "The entry about the "50" should be removed since there is no reference to the film": Have you watched the film? What about the shooting of Bartlett, MacDonald and the others? The figure the Kommandant gives to Ramsay after the killings and which he passes on to Hendley? The dedication at the end of the movie? Given its nature, I'd say that it was the most important fact of all.--Marktreut (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Marktreut, Regarding the possible OR re material about the escape permission scene, it might help if you gave more details here. Could you supply here on this talk page, the page number of the source and the quote of the excerpt that you used? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a good idea. The publication is a 60 page juvenile picture book about famous escapes in general and no doubt covers the topics of "penguins", theft, and escape committees. What it needs to include as well is explicit mentions of this film relative to those scenes and events, otherwise this is another example of synthesis. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said before I do not have the book on me at the moment.--Marktreut (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Marktreut, you are correct in that open source projects like Wikipedia must rely on an element of trust. Specifically, it is the trust that fellow editors will follow Wikipedia rules to which they agree whenever they make an edit on which we depend. Very specifically, the rule at the heart of this discussion is Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." In fact, the next time you make an edit, look at the paragraph immediately above the Save page button and you'll see it clearly says, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." There's a good reason why that statement is placed at that location.

Regrettably, since your actions and express statements here ("I don't agree that we can only put in WP what is mentioned elsewhere") and elsewhere clearly demonstrate that you have no intention of complying with the Verifiability, No Original Research, and Reliable Source policies, then I cannot "trust" your edits in this article. I cannot "take [your] word that [you] have never knowingly given false or misleading information" in an article. It is not a matter of AGF since your intent to regularly not comply with policies to which we all are supposed to adhere is not in question; you've made it abundantly clear to many you do not agree with the policy and feel no compulsion to comply with it. Consequently, I will remove questionable contributions until I or others are able to verify them independent of your claims; there will be no benefit of a doubt. I'm sorry if this sucks even more fun out of your editing experience here, but other considerations take precedence. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement - Tom, Dick, and Harry
I reverted what I believe is spam and the editor who put it in feels that it should be in the article. I copied his message and my response from my talk page so that the matter can be discussed here. The following two messages were copied from my talk page: Hi Bob. The Tom, Dick & Harry reference you've deleted is not actually spam. It refers to both the movie and the very popular ad agency. I just noted both. It's been written about in the CHicago Tribune and other publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenpara (talk • contribs) 06:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stephen, Thanks for your message. First off, I liked the advertisement of your company, even though I don't think it's appropriate for The Great Escape (film) article. A good procedure to use when you feel your edit of an article has been incorrectly reverted (removed in this case) is to open up discussion on the article's talk page, rather than to put it back into the article. I created a section there for us and others to continue the discussion.
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen, The connection of your company "Tom, Dick, and Harry Advertising" with the film The Great Escape is pretty obscure and doesn't seem to be appropriate for this article. Thus, I removed it again as spam. Please don't put it back without consensus. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bob for your input. I disagree that this is spam much like Modernista!'s Goodby's etc are not spam. It is verifiable and inquired about - I simply thought I was adding color to the section of popular culture (which it less obscure than you think (which strikes me as your own personal judgement and does not apply to spam  and is often asked about.)  I am an employee, and so are the posters of information throughout Wikipedia.  Thank you for your other links and assistance.  --Stephenpara (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)talk) 10:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephenpara, you should be cautious here. While a conflict of interest situation in WP does not prohibit you from editing material close to your heart, the Guidelines do caution you to be very careful. A quick Google of your agency name does bring up a decent number of results, but none in the popular press (other than a blog entry or two). Googling "Tom, Dick, and Harry" produces only a single result, your website (nice placement, btw). What really makes it sticky for you is your own bio, in which you state you focus on "viral" advertising, and this cuts awfully close to being that. Please note that other pop culture references have been summarized; maybe when TDHA rises to the Saatchi or McMann and Tate level, then it could be said&mdash;by a credible source&mdash;that your outfit has "arrived". 173.72.136.143 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephen, I did some more looking at your company's website (i.e. the company you work for) and I found the reference to the film The Great Escape at the menu link "Origin". I like it! But it needs more discussion here before I can support including it in the article. Could you give here the details of a reliable source, for the purposes of making a citation, that mentions the connection between your company's name and The Great Escape, and the excerpt from that reference where the connection is mentioned?


 * I don't see a problem with wp:COI and your working for the company since that shouldn't matter if your contribution improves the article and doesn't violate any policy. If I'm missing something in that regard, I'd appreciate it if someone pointed  it out to me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The need for the credible source isn't so much for verification of the agency's name origin as it is for someone other than a WP editor (or employee of the agency) to make the decision that the agency and its connection to the film is notable enough to be considered a pop culture reference to the film. There's no indication that the business is part of popular culture, any more so than any other tomdickorharry business. It might be interesting to some that the founders named it after the film tunnels, but are we then going to allow every business (from lemonade stands to Fortune 500 firms) that have some self-generated connection a link in the article? Keep in mind it is the business here that made the connection, not the public&mdash;and there's no indication that anyone else thinks it noteworthy. Also, Stephenpara's job is to spread advertising virally across the Internet (by his own admission). I have no idea if Stephenpara's intent is to do that, but COI/Financial says that editors who "expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing," are strongly encouraged to avoid editing if it should result in controversy. Since his agency is not well-known, therefore not a popular culture icon (like the TV shows and movies mentioned in the article), then the only apparent benefit to anyone for referencing the business in the article&mdash;intended or not&mdash;is that received by the business. If we were talking about a well-known business, then I would have no concerns. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking at the entries in the Popular culture section, I have to agree with 173... with regard to notability, since Tom, Dick, and Harry Advertising would stick out like a sore thumb as so much less notable than the other entries. Also,  the way it appeared in this version gives it much more attention than the other entries, which are considerably more notable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes by edit :  22:52, 15 October 2009     Rhino131
There was a considerable change made recently to the plot section with no explanation except "clean up plot". The changes were even less clear since they involved changing the paragraph format too, which had the effect of obscuring the other changes. I investigated the changes for usefulness.

First off, the reformatting of the paragraphs seemed to have no purpose except to make bigger paragraphs that are all about the same size. The paragraph formatting should be changed back to the way it was, which better grouped sentences with related material together.

To examine the other changes, I compared the original version and the new version, without the new paragraph formatting. The following discussion is based on the comparison of the two versions in my sandbox. Here is what I found.

Para 1: The change to "no more escapes" is confusing since, e.g., the camp is new and there haven't been any escapes. The quote from the movie is much clearer and should stay.

Para 2:
 * a) The first sentence shows how determined the POWs are to escape and should be kept.
 * b) The sentence about the Gestapo agents should stay because it introduces them and it explains how they know Bartlett in a later scene. It also shows that Bartlett is severely risking his life with another escape and the threat that the Gestapo poses.
 * c) In the new version, the sentence about "his escape artists" may give the impression that they were together before they came to the camp instead of actually coming from camps all over Germany. The sentence also implies that the group conceived of the idea of a mass breakout together, whereas it actually was Bartlett's idea.

Para 3: acceptable

Para 4:
 * a) The sentence about working on only Tom gives the reason why its discovery was so crushing to the POWs, and shouldn't be deleted.
 * b) adding Cavendish is acceptable

Para 5: unchanged

Para 6: unchanged

Para 7: The part about the death of Ives, etc. gives motivation for Hilts's change of heart and shouldn't be deleted.

Para 8: Deletion of "Nevertheless" is acceptable, since problem of tunnel ending in the open was much more significant than the problem of Danny's claustrophobia.

Para 9: unchanged

Para 10: acceptable

Para 11:
 * a) deletion of footnote about war crimes is acceptable since it digresses from movie
 * b) deletion of the SBO's hearing about the killings is acceptable
 * c) adding Bartlett, MacDonald, Cavendish, and Hendley is acceptable

Para 12:
 * a) "very few" isn't as descriptive as "only three" and should be changed back
 * b) I don't have a preference about whether or not "the tunnel kings" should be deleted, so acceptable.

Para 13: unchanged

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)