Talk:The Pacific (miniseries)/Archive 1

Edpisode List and Plot Synopsis Would be Useful
Now that the series is out, an episode list with a brief plot synopsis of each would be useful for readers. (More on critical reaction might be helpful too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.103.124 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Pacific fansite > www.pacificfans.com/
Add new link to pacific fansite - original one we removed because it's no longer available. -  - 02:58, 30 July 2007

Episode list
Removed the episode list from the article. This is purely speculation as far as anyone can know, and without any sort of official confirmation, it has no place on Wikipedia. - 206.45.69.88 (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't add the rumoured episode list back in. As likely as it may be, it's still from an unconfirmed source and HAS NO PLACE IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. - 206.45.69.88 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Redundant Sections
The intro section and the storyline section had redundant phrases so I cleaned it up a bit. Someone needs to decide whether the storyline section is necessary seeing as how nobody has seen it yet. For now, the bit about the authors and John Basilone are in the storyline section and the part about Hugh Ambrose as a consultant is in the intro. Also, the sentences which contained the citations were kept over the other redundancies. - Ace blazer (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the storyline section is not needed until the show actually comes out. Could you perhaps delete it and put a link on the talk page to the most recent version of it so that it can be retrieved and corrected when the final cut is aired?Trilobitealive (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin McCann: This is the wrong Man
Martin McCann - Corporal Robert V. Burgin, its the actor not the DJ--McNoddy (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - 4.240.165.122 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Trailer 2 Release
The second trailer was released before True Blood last night (June 14th, 2009). It hasn't been uploaded yet that I can find save a shaky-cam capture. Contributions/71.244.0.55 (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Sledge interview footage
Not sure where to add a reference to Eugene Sledge interview footage licensed by HBO for The Pacific. HBO licenses Eugene Sledge interview footage for ‘The Pacific’ --Historynh (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg filmography entry
Should the filmography actually be here in the article? He is one of 4 producers and it seems strange to just have his listed. PenfoldNorway (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

White House screening photo
In less than 12 hours User:Richmondlake has 3X deleted a White House photo of the screening of the series which featured a photo of executive producers Spielberg and Hanks. Richmondlake has no other contributions other than deleting the photo. This clearly has hit the 3R. I am putting the photo here so it doesn't get lost.Americasroof (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Deleted the photo itself, or removed the photo from the article? In that case, its been removed by someone again. Maybe someone see it as a political provocative. Jørgen88 (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Channel 7's Australian Marketing
It looks like 203.58.0.242 has removed the words 'erroneously' and 'misleadingly' from the paragraph on the Australian Marketing. Whilst I can understand the word 'misleadingly' being removed as it's a value judgement, the word 'erroneously' is not a value judgement and is, a statement of fact - furthermore it's a correct one; the battle of Pelelieu was NOT considered part of the Battle of Australia according to contemporaries and has never been considered part of the battle for Australia in modern times either. While Guadalcanal may have been considered part of the Battle of Australia in contemporary circumstances, the Battles of Milne Bay and Kokoda had been fought and won by the time Guadalcanal was secured. The previous editor was quite correct to factually state Channel 7's marketing as erroneous. While I'd go so far as to Opine that it transcends error and delves into deliberately cynical B.S., this is an encyclopedia - so I'm simply going to re-add the word 'erroneously' and leave it at that. If anyone wishes to remove it, please respond here with your rationale. Cheers... :) Xlh (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the word should be removed. The trailer wasn't actually saying that the battle was part of the Battle of Australia, it was saying that it was the battle that saved Australia (from being invaded by the Japanese), which is the opinion of the writer - I have no idea why it was linked to the Battle of Australia. Now, whether the reader believes that the opinion is correct or not, it is ultimately up to the viewer alone to decide themselves with a neutral point of view preceding.  F orenti talk  01:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If there aren't any objections within 7 days from now, I will remove the word 'erroneously' and remove the link to the Battle of Australia from the quote. F orenti talk  10:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The trailer which was taken down did indeed say that it was the 'Battle for Australia', which is what the statement refers to. Additional Channel 7 marketing since then (Which is still available on their yahoo7 site btw) still erroneously markets the show as 'The Fight for Australia'. If you want to re-phrase, by all means have a crack, but my view is that the verifiable fact that this show has been, and still is being, cynically and erroneously marketed in Australia should not be ignored. Xlh (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, the statement being made by using the word "for" means that the statement being made is a statement of fact (ie that the battle is part of the Battle for Australia; I linked the text to the Battle of Australia article as it's directly relevant in that whilst Guadalcanal may have been a contribution to saving Australia from invasion, it is not considered part of the Battle of Australia, or 'For' Australia. The initial trailer, and the subsequent marketing are making just such a statement of fact, and not a statement of opinion, thus the word erroneous is appropriate. Xlh (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is "The Pacific" a racistic series?
I don/t know, if anybody has taken notice of it, but there are only white amercan actors fighting against the Japanese. i cant believe, that such kind of movies are still produced in this century. Also i dont believe this can be truth. Many blacks fought in WWII, so why dont they take part in Stephen Spielbergs new movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.91.81 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not racism on the part of the series makers. The series in this regard is simply reflecting reality - The USMC in World War Two had VERY few African Americans in it to my understanding (if any), and a prevalence of Southern Officers (although enlisted men were more widely geographically represented from the American population). African Americans didn't really start making appearances in the USMC in large numbers until after Korea. Many African Americans did indeed fight in WW2, but in the Army (Which had a limited to non-existent role in the Central Pacific campaign which the TV series depicts, as opposed to the South Pacific Campaign not depicted by the series) and the Navy (although again, their representative numbers back in the forties would've still been in the minority compared to their presence today). In short, no, the show itself is not being racist, it's depicting a United States military which, at the time, was racist. Hope that helps explain things.... Xlh (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The US forces were racially segregated until the Korean War. Varlaam (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Where in Wikipedia the role of Afroamerican soldiers is being described? -- Eynbein (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because it isn't on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not truth. Why don't you make a study on how African Americans were segregated by other Americans, and you may find that they were rejected from the Marines till korea. --AnyGuy (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking up the article on Desegregation in the United States Marine Corps you get that the Marines first started accepting African Americans in 1942. But only into segregated units, which means the units depicted would not have a single African American in them. African American Marines were first assigned to the 51st Defense Battalion in '42 and later they were assigned to the 52nd Defense Battalion. Both units were assigned to the Pacific, but not to the front lines as is depicted in the miniseries. -annonymous 1/08/2012 11:47 PM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.14.97 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In general, their role is described in Military history of African Americans. -- 188.109.8.36 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What I find even more unusual is that there a no pacific islanders in any episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.229.235.226 (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for discussing the topic. This is a page for discussing the maintenance of this article. --Falcadore (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Awards
Hey, I added a new table in the Awards section. A few data is missing: the nominees and a few episodes. If someone has time I'd appreciate when he/she would copy the infos from the IMDb. Cheers, PrisonMan (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I added all of the missing nominees and episode numbers (expect a few episode numbers - they are missing from the source - and the outstanding miniseries infos because there is no information about it yet). A few category is pending, their award ceremony will be held this Sunday. I will refresh the awards table as soon as the results are public. BTW I'd have an editorial quetsion: There are several red links in the table and its really annoying. Should we just put the names without links which dont have Wiki pages? And I had to make the episode numbers bold. Should I undo this? Cheers, PrisonMan (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sledgehammer in 5th Marines
In honor of Eugene Sledge and his comrades at Peleliu - He served in the 5th Marine division, not in the 1st Marines as did Leckie and Basilone. Joedrummer1966 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, actually, Sledge did serve in the 1st Marine Division. Basilone served in the 5th Marine Division. He use to serve in the 1st Division, but he was transferred. And when you say "Marines" it refers to the regiments, not the divisions. For example: 1st Marine Regiment is known as the "1st Marines", while the 1st marine Division is not. --SonnyBobSampson (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bloopers
I do not understand the map shown in the first scene of episode 1. Island has never been invaded by the Nazis. -- Eynbein (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you referring to when you say Island? From what I can see on the map in that scene the only Island prominently shown as under Nazi control is Iceland which would be incorrect, however the Nazi Flag with the arrow pointing to the country indicates to me that the map was not implying that Iceland was under German control but that the Germans were expected to attack the British occupying forces (who at the time were transferring control of the country to incoming American troops) which was indeed the perceived game plan of the Nazis at the time. Syko Conor (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see "Given the superb quality and attention to detail of this series, the map was a shock. Looks like something a gradeschooler scribbled out." in http://www.moviemistakes.com/tv8474 -- Eynbein (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: I meant Iceland. Sorry. It is Island in my mother language. -- Eynbein (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Veterans Day
Series just aired again on Veterans Day and with also extreme weak titles usually mainly only the main title of the Pacific for each segment and never showing which of the 10 segments was being shown... and this article has the same bad design, as the many very major battles covered in the series - as Okinawa, Iwo Jima and Guadacanal, are not discussed and included and such major battles need to have their part of the series mentioned, and summariezed so that persons wanting to find out ab that segment can do so ... as presently, there is no info in this article ... gunny tierail joanz 00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.45.30 (talk)

Cast
The cast list seems excessively long, with lots of names with no corresponding article, and lots of very small roles listed. This should be cleaned up. In addition to that, the only nicknames that should be given are those used in the series, not those found in outside sources. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 17:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to have a discussion here about discrepancies in the cast list. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  00:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I will change one name only which is Joshua Biton, coz the correct spelling of his last name is actually Bitton. Alcohkid (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do that. The rest of the changes that need to be made can be discussed here, if some other editors will get involved. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  02:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Running time - 540 minutes
Isn't running time the amount of minutes that one single episode lasts? Jørgen88 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Awards infobox
Why do we need the awards infobox at the top of the article, and a more thoroughly descriptive table in the awards section? I think the infobox is redundant and should be deleted. Anyone have any thoughts on this? --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with TOJ... The awards infobox should be removed at the top because it is well documented in the section below... I actually was thinking the same thing when I visited the page a month ago... Alcohkid (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Film categories
As this is a television mini-series, why is it in so many film categories? --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's edits
I just reverted a long series of edits made by Niemti because, for one, no edit summaries were provided explaining why the edits were made and why he felt they were necessary, and, two, none of those changes seemed necessary or helpful. If Niemti would care to come here and offer an explanation for this edits, I would be happy to discuss it. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

All of these edits were not only absolutely necessary and helpful, but also totally obvious for anyone who has edited Wikipedia for a while (and the tags are even explaining themselves, and one has a hidden text comment too). Btw, you don't know what the term "Synopsis" means, do you? --Niemti (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And if you wonder how the article should look like: something like that (this one was written about 95% by me). --Niemti (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Your snide comments and attitude are not helpful. You have not answered any of the concerns I raised in my comment above, so I have reverted your changes again.  The burden is on you to prove that your edits are helpful, not to simply repeat yourself, pound your chest, and bellow about what a good editor you are.  I have read your talk page and seen your blocks, so we both know what your bad attitude has done for your in the past.  Now is the time for you to discuss your edits in detail and explain why they are necessary.  Do not revert again until you have a consensus for your changes.  Thanks. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  18:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your snide comments and attitude such as "none of those changes seemed necessary or helpful" are not helpful neither. Now is the time for you to discuss any of my edits in detail and explain why they are not necessary ("or helpful"). Btw, I don't need your approval for absolutely basic copy-editing, because you don't own this article (or any other). --Niemti (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Your ridiculous accusations aside, I have never claimed to own anything. Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, you were reverted, now you have to discuss your changes, which you have not even attempted to do. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your ridiculous behaviour: An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. You don't own this or any article, I don't need your review of my edits (which is just basic copy-editing) to be accepted, so now revert yourself and don't ever do it anywhere else. (Also.) --Niemti (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, The Old Jacobite called me in here, even though I have never touched any article related to this, presumably because I have a standing offer to block Niemti for WP:CIVIL violations. I'm... not seeing that here. To be honest, I'm going to give you the "consensus" that you want, since a 1 on 1 disagreement isn't a consensus on either side: I agree with all of Niemti's changes to the article. Seriously, it tightens it up a bit, fixes formatting and grammar issues, the tags he placed were appropriate, and the article he posted above as his model is a heck of a lot better than this one. It is a big change to the article, and like you said, BRD is a thing, but he was bold, you reverted, and now is the discussion- and you're (TOJ) not discussing. You've yet to explain why you didn't like even one of the 19 edits Niemti made to the article, several of which were innocuous by any standard. Mass reverting is a bit much, and I do kind of agree with Niemti that you're getting a bit OWN-y if you can't explain why you don't agree with his edits.

To sum up: TOJ, please explain what you don't like about Niemti's edits, and those edits can be changed to something everyone agrees on. If you are unable to explain why, then you'll have to let it go. Niemti, remember that while acerbic is fine, make sure not to cross the line into insults, though I don't think you have here. To both, please keep the discussion here rather than my talk page. -- Pres N  16:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with PresN. These modifications do not change anything significantly (e.g. the meaning); they are just minor technical and copyedit changes. If one disagrees with anything specific, please fix what exactly you disagree with. Wholesale reverts in such cases are disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have made some changes I feel were necessary, and though I still disagree with some of the recent changes, I am willing to let the matter go. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  12:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

John Basilone the actor?
On the photo caption in the infobox, it says the lead actor is John Basilone...

I am pretty sure he was KIA, and even if he wasn't, he'd still be like 90 by now...

Someone please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.11.54 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)