![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
76 | escaped from the camp |
-50 | shot dead |
-11 | returned to camp |
-3 | made it out of Germany |
12 | unaccounted for* |
* 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)
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)
Shouldn't Commandant be Kommandant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Microchip08 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 April 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 Sublette Mark 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)
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)
Shouldn't there be an atricle for The Great Escape book by Paul Brickhill? Emperor001 ( talk) 13:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has been renamed from The Great Escape to The Great Escape (film) as the result of a move request.
The result of the proposal was - 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)? — Val42 ( talk) 01:42, 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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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. — Val42 ( talk) 03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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—
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)
What is the purpose of the Notes section containing dialogue from the film?
Jim Dunning |
talk
14:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)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. [2]
← 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)
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.
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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [4] "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)
There was a considerable change made recently to the plot section with no explanation except "clean up plot". [5] 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:
Para 3: acceptable
Para 4:
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:
Para 12:
Para 13: unchanged
--
Bob K31416 (
talk)
13:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
76 | escaped from the camp |
-50 | shot dead |
-11 | returned to camp |
-3 | made it out of Germany |
12 | unaccounted for* |
* 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)
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)
Shouldn't Commandant be Kommandant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Microchip08 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 April 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 Sublette Mark 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)
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)
Shouldn't there be an atricle for The Great Escape book by Paul Brickhill? Emperor001 ( talk) 13:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has been renamed from The Great Escape to The Great Escape (film) as the result of a move request.
The result of the proposal was - 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)? — Val42 ( talk) 01:42, 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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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. — Val42 ( talk) 03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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—
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)
What is the purpose of the Notes section containing dialogue from the film?
Jim Dunning |
talk
14:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)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. [2]
← 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)
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.
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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [4] "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)
There was a considerable change made recently to the plot section with no explanation except "clean up plot". [5] 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:
Para 3: acceptable
Para 4:
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:
Para 12:
Para 13: unchanged
--
Bob K31416 (
talk)
13:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)