Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:41, 11 October 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Great Escape (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: War films This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  War films task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: German / War / Core / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the German cinema task force. This article is supported by the War films task force. This article is on the project's core list. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Great Escape (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Fact vs fiction

A separate article — The Great Escape (film) fact versus fiction — 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)

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.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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)#Differences between novella and 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 — 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 — 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 — 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#Members' libraries. 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 —. that makes more sense than having it here — 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)

<sigh> 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)

<sigh, again>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"— "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)

(edit conflict):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 Misplaced Pages must rely on an element of trust. Specifically, it is the trust that fellow editors will follow Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages 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 word that 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 Misplaced Pages, --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 Misplaced Pages. 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—by a credible source—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—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 Misplaced Pages; 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—intended or not—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)

1. Carroll, Tim (2004). The Great Escapers. Mainstream Publishers. ISBN 1-84018-904-5.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class war films articles
• War films task force articles
• Start-Class film articles
• Start-Class German cinema articles
• German cinema task force articles
• Core film articles supported by the German cinema task force
• Start-Class war films articles
• Core film articles supported by the war films task force
• Start-Class core film articles
• WikiProject Film core articles
• Start-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• Core film articles supported by the American cinema task force
• WikiProject Film articles