Talk:Factual accuracy of The Great Escape

Title

So far, a useful fork from the main article, but requires some good sourcing; fortunately, there IS good stuff out there to compare the reality with the fiction; however, we have an unwieldy title which is to me more journalistic than encyclopedic; if anyone can come up with a better version, let's hear it. --Rodhullandemu 23:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Be careful about who is doing the "comparing": WP:NOR and WP:SYN prevent WP editors from making the comparison and drawing conclusions. Also, Film Style Guidelines tell us that differences must be put into real-world context and that merely listing and describing the differences are discouraged.

Consequently, the focus of this article should be on why the screenwriters and Sturges decided to deviate from Brickhill's book and reality (i.e. what production and artistic goals, realities, logistics, and opportunities caused them to make the changes). This is the real-world context that is required to truly make this article interesting and of value. This approach would require extensive sourcing. As it stands right now there are many problems with the article since much of its content lacks development and production relevance (not to mention appropriate sources). For example, it references as "differences" the original prisoner band being replaced with a choir and the locations of the tunnels being juxtaposed, but gives no reason why these changes were made or what significant effect resulted for the audience. And what are changes from the book as opposed to historical fact? These are only two examples among many.

Finally, I question why this treatment — which would nicely augment the Production section of the film's article if done well — is being done here rather than the article? Especially since that and related sections in the film article are sadly deficient.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for deletion. The discussion page is here.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see this article remain. I won't dispute the points made above. The article needs references and could do with some rework. However, I didn't stumble upon this article. I specifically looked for it. That would indicate some real-world interest in the topic. I do respect the guidelines. They are there for a reason. I will say there is certainly a place for this article in Wikipedia. Perhaps it needs to be renamed or recategorized to avoid guidelines issues. I've looked at Film Style Guidelines. The reference from that link is from the linked article real-world context. The title of that article contains "writing about fiction". This not a fictional film. Maybe those guidelines don't apply directly. If you're talking about the difference between the movie Jaws and the original book, these guidelines make sense as there is little value in the just stating the differences without the artistic reason. With non-fiction, there is value to the differences alone. Many people will learn of this important piece of history from the movie alone. Without a great deal of research, they could find it difficult to learn what actually happened. This article can help a great deal in that regard. (Though many would be interested in seeing the reason for the changes as well). I will be sad to see this article removed. Wantnot (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read this comment above. It is a fictional film, not a documentary as implied above.173.72.140.146 (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I should have said that the film is "not entirely fictional" in my comment. Of course it is not an entirely factual account of the historical events. It is however based on a book which is a factual account. Therein lies the value of this information - learning what parts of the film are factual. As I mentioned, I came to this page looking for exactly this information. Information which I feel is both relevant and significant. Wantnot (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've copied these comments to the deletion discussion; you may want to keep an eye on it. --Rodhullandemu 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Donald Blythe and Geneva Convention not original research?

Surely if you quote an well-known source this can hardly be called original research. It can only be original research if you quote facts that can't be verified. -Paul 78.144.206.230 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What "well-known" source are you referring to? The Geneva Conventions say nothing about the fictional character Colin Blythe. It is original research for a WP editor to look at the Conventions and say, "Oh, that applies to Lt. Blythe's situation" in the film and draw the conclusion that if he had been a real person in a real situation the Germans should have sent him home. That is not allowed in WP. However, if a credible source can be found who makes the connection, then that can be considered for inclusion.173.72.140.146 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Luft III records supports the claim. They record one of the escapees being repatriated to Britain due to mental illness (which he faked). It was a standard practice of the Germans to release POW's who could no longer fight. Wayne (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very interested to see what the "Luft III records" has to specifically say about Colin Blythe.173.72.140.146 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if general records will deal with individual cases, however, preliminary research shows that the case of his real-world counterpart should be documented somewhere. That just leaves the link between Blythe and the real person which, again, should be documented at least in some reliable commentary. Library tomorrow, I think. Rodhullandemu 23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the GCs support sending disabled prisoners home. It's just that WP editors can't make that observation; we only can quote a credible source who has made the observation. Am I missing something here?173.72.140.146 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're missing anything, and I agree with you. General policy cannot be synthesised to apply to individual cases. Rodhullandemu 00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we make the observation if sources refer to the repatriation, for a lesser injury, of another Luft III prisoner depicted in the film? SBO G/C Massey (G/C Ramsey in the movie) injured his leg (Ramsey uses a cane in the movie) and was sent back to England not long after the escape. He was the one who told the government of the executions. Wayne (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Massey told the Swiss before his repatriation, and they informed London. But we need the link between Massey and Ramsey; without a source, we cannot say "because they're injured and repatriated, therefore Ramsey must be Massey". That's the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH problem. Rodhullandemu 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Both were the SBO of the camp and both had the same injury. Ramsey in the movie is also the same age as Massey was in RL. The connection is supported by this link which also mentions the repatriation. Wayne (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• <outdent If that is a reliable source, we can use it, but I don't know about the reputation for accuracy of that website; leave it with me, I'm taking a look at the whole article at present. Rodhullandemu 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The link looks reasonably reliable if you check the parent home page as it appears to be primarily a teaching website. The link is already in the article so can probably be used for other incidents using <ref name="film"/>. Wayne (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Time To Remove Uncited Material?

This article has an awful lot of uncited material and I see this caused some controversey earlier but no one has done anything to fix it. I just spent alot of time looking for some sources for the statements and can't find anything to support them. Whoever wrote them really needs to step up and provide support for what she or he did. Maybe time to start deleting stuff.173.72.140.146 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is why we have a responsibility to be more diligent about sourcing material we add to articles: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked. Wikipedia's reputation improved mightily as a result of how quickly editors first tagged the fraudulent quote (within two minutes) and then removed it within hours.

"Fitzgerald stressed that Wikipedia's system requiring about 1,500 volunteer "administrators" and the wider public to spot bogus additions did its job, removing the quote three times within minutes or hours. It was journalists eager for a quick, pithy quote that was the problem."

To put things into perspective regarding the disputed material in the Great Escape articles, it has been in either this "factual accuracy" article or the film article without attribution since at least March 2006, some of it since 2005. It had been repeatedly tagged for needing sources in the film article and when it was finally removed (with numerous requests for and attempts to find reliable sources), an editor copied it wholesale from the film article to this article, knowing it was questionable or unverifiable.

Read the numerous news stories about WP's Maurice Jarre article and decide for yourself if we are doing WP readers and fellow editors proud by continuing to leave questionable material in this article for over three years. I'm not saying the copy is bogus, but we don't know! So save it someplace while editors who are interested can work on it, but remove it while that's being done to maintain the integrity of WP.173.72.140.146 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst appreciating your point, the editor who created the fork hasn't been around that much to see it through and this article has already survived one AfD. So we can't just userfy it on the basis that it contains unsubstantiated material. If we did that, half of Wikipedia would vanish. What it needs is some attention, which I have offered to provide- except that the libraries aren't open until Monday. Some patience, please. The world will not collapse; weasels will still dance the hornpipe; and peasants will still make merry after the storm. Rodhullandemu 19:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WRT above comment, & sourcing

The author who split this article from its parent doesn't seem to be around that much, but that's no reason to abandon it. However, there is an issue at present over how we source the differences, leading to this exchange about WP:SYN:

• That guideline says, "Plot summaries do not normally require citations", but other sections do. The sections with the "accuracy" analyses are not part of a film article's Plot description, so any material must be cited. Validation of the contents of a Plot section is performed differently than for other sections (consensus). More importantly, the section is comparing two works; WP editors cannot do the comaprison. It must be done by a reliable source, such as a reviewer or critic. So, a reliable source who makes the comaparison between the numbers of escapees in the film versus reality must be found, otherwise it's WP:SYN.HaroldPGuy (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • A careful reading of WP:SYN suggests otherwise to me; the two examples shown there, and commentary thereon, lead to the conclusion that we may state X and Y as properly sourced facts; what we may not do is state "X and Y, therefore Z". If we merely state X and Y, the reader may draw Z as a conclusion, but us doing so is the synthesis. Rodhullandemu 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned this discussion at WP:NORN to seek further input, as I believe the film itself is source for plot item, and other reliable sources for the reality. I don't believe juxtaposing two facts is either WP:OR or WP:SYN, since we are merely presenting facts and not drawing a conclusion from them, which is the harm addressed by WP:SYN. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re HaroldPGuy's remark, "So, a reliable source who makes the comaparison between the numbers of escapees in the film versus reality must be found..." - Here's a source and an excerpt from it:

"The plan was to get 200 men out of the camp (not the 250 stated in the movie)." http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=afc753d5-bb92-4c7f-87c1-103a4e1b1611

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a great starting point; I doubt my local library has a copy, but I'll see if they can get hold of one. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 02:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting point? I don't understand. Doesn't this satisfy the need for a reliable source? Why go to a library for a copy of this? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The citation is fine for a few specific points. I mean, however, that the book cited in the article may have more information to offer. Rodhullandemu 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Good luck with the article. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

250 versus 200? I'm not sure how important that is in the greater scheme of things. Doesn't it fall into the realm of Trivia? There's no context or explanation of the significance of 50 POW difference. Now if it was 50 vs. 250 or 200 vs. 500, that might be of interest, but I'd also -- as a reader -- would want to know why the producer and writers changed that aspect of the story. That would be something interesting to add to the Production section of the film article.173.72.140.146 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One problem with Rodhullandemu's suggestion to execute an end-run of WP:SYN by placing a sourced fact about the film next to a sourced fact about the actual escape and have the "reader [...] draw [... the] conclusion" is that this is an article about the film and any copy not directly related to the film would risk removal. Also, it results in just plain sub-standard prose (paragraphs full of unconnected sentences?). What is wrong with doing the work and finding credible sources who have found discrepancies? If editors have to play games with the Pillars of WP to add copy to this article just because sourced information cannot be located, than maybe the article shouldn't exist.173.72.140.146 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should judge the finished result, or at least when I've had a chance to do some research. I live in the country and find it difficult to get to a library; however, get there I shall. Neither am I proposing that I lower my writing standards; they have, after all, given me a reasonable income for over 30 years. Obviously third-party comparisons, if they are available, are to be preferred over bald juxtapositions of facts; but the prevailing opinion at WP:NORN thus far is that if we can cite an event in the film (which we may, per WP:FILM) against the same event in reality (which is also feasible), there is no breach of WP:SYN, and no playing of games. Rodhullandemu 14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Making of The Great Escape (a video)

Here's a video from Youtube, in four parts, about the making of the movie The Great Escape, including some comparison of the movie with the real-life event. According to the Youtube notes, this video came from the movie's DVD.

1 2 3 4

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. I assume it's the DVD with extras, just as citable for WP:V purposes using {{Cite video}} as the original film, and should appease the nay-sayers. I'll make a start sometime tomorrow. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Real Virgil Hilts: A Man Called Jones (a video)

Here's a video from Youtube, in three parts, about the real-life person that was the inspiration for the character Virgil Hilts. According to this video distributed by from MGM Home Entertainment, which made The Great Escape, the man was David Mudgett Jones.

[1] [2] [3]

Presently in the wiki, Mahon is given as the real-life person, which may be partially correct. It appears that Jones was the inspiration for the character but possibly some of Mahon's experiences were added to the character.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Bob. I got to the library earlier, without much optimism, but they did have one book- Professor Vance's. He mentions neither Mahon nor Jones in it, so we might have to rely on the film clips for that; meanwhile, I have the book for three weeks so should be able to sort this article out. Rodhullandemu 16:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and good luck. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

David Jones and Jerry Sage were the prisoners who made the alcohol for the real July 4th party that is depicted in the film. According to this site many of Hilts scenes were real incidents by different prisoners. As well as the above, Hilts and Angus Lennies interaction in the film was based on that of "Shag" Rees and "Red" Noble and Hilts cutting the wire was an incident involving prisoners named Toft and Nichols. Mahon was apparently a friend of McQueen as well as a tech advisor for the film. No one prisoner can be said to be the Hilts character but it seems more incidents were based on Mahon than the others. Wayne (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "many of Hilts scenes were real incidents by different prisoners" - Here you seem to imply that Hilts wasn't largely based on any one character.

Re "it seems more incidents were based on Mahon than the others." - Whether you meant, than all the others combined, or the others individually, this may or may not be true. If you meant the latter, then this comment doesn't necessarily imply that Hilts was largely based on Mahon. If you meant the former, this doesn't seem to be shown by any source that I've seen so far, even if we do our own original research synthesis of sources.

From the video on Jones and Hilts, it appears that the personality of Hilts was based on Jones. From all the sources, it appears that the incidents that Hilts was involved in were based on a number of real-life people and partly pure fiction (e.g. motorcyle incident), and I don't think we can say that the incidents of Hilts are largely based on any one real-life person, although the personality of Hilts may be largely based on Jones.

Regarding the personality of Hilts, note that both he and Jones are Americans and being American would differentiate the personality of Hilts from the personalities of the real-life British officers. It seems that Hilts was based on Jones, like the video said, but they added incidents from real-life British officers to give McQueen a bigger and more interesting part. Not an easy situation to unravel! --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This suggests that Blyth was a comp0site, although I'm still Googling away for Hilts. Rodhullandemu 18:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional note. Hilts was a captain, and Jones was a major at the time.[4] --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time accepting Jones for the inspiration as his role and actions in the camp were so different from Hilts character. As for "personality", McQueens personality in the movie is not much different to that in several other movies he made. I also notice that his official obituaries for the organisations he was a member of all mention Luft III and that the great escape was the basis of the movie but none mention him as an inspiraction, only the obituary in the newspaper did that. It is quite possible it is just a claim to appeal to American audiences. Are there any sources from the movies directors or McQueen etc? Here's another source for Mahon. Wayne (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed Mahon as an inspiration for Hilts; the main source (history in film) cites "an internet correspondent"; the Daily Express say "is believed to have been". Neither is reliable enough for our purposes. Vance doesn't mention Mahon at all- worse than that, he doesn't even mention 121 Squadron, so I think we can discount that story out of hand. Rodhullandemu 12:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, none of the sources have reliably said that any one person is the main inspiration for Capt. Hilts. Please remember that The Great Escape is a work of fiction that is only based on a true story, and is not the true story itself. I suspect that the writer who originated the Hilts character, used a palette with more than one real-life POW on it, for painting the character. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding singling out Foster, in the present form of the wiki, as the inspiration for Hilts, I don't see that the case made for Foster in the cited references is any better than the case made in other references for other people. I suggest that Foster shouldn't be singled out as the inspiration for Hilts. And after considering everything on the subject so far, I now feel that there isn't anyone that should be singled out as the real-life Hilts.

Furthermore, in addition to the motorcycle scene, there are other significant incidents and aspects related to Hilts in the film that aren't connected to any real-life people. Like the tunnelling by Ives and Hilts alone in a shallow tunnel where they poke air holes in the ceiling of their tunnel. And the baseball bouncing in the cooler by Hilts.

The baseball bouncing in the cooler was one of the most memorable aspects of the character IMO. It may have symbolized Hilts ability to endure the cooler (and the stalag), rather than being broken by it. The relentless bouncing of the ball against the cooler wall might also have symbolized his relentless drive to escape. There was no baseball bouncing in the cooler that was attributed to any real-life person. Also, there were at least hundreds of real-life POWs that appeared to have a relentless drive to escape.

I don't think any one real-life person stands out as being Hilts, and there is no consensus among the sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Written comment at beginning of film re composite characters

A written comment that is found 2 min 15 sec into the film, as viewed at Youtube,[5]

This is a true story. Although the characters are composites of real men, and time and place have been compressed, every detail of the escape is the way it really happened.

I don't think that it is correct to say that any character is based mainly on one real-life person, unless possibly there is a consensus of sources, or there is a source that recounts a writer or the director of the film saying that. It seems that people in the media who write articles, obituaries, etc. about real-life POWS of Stalag Luft III are coming to conclusions that are based on their work that is not sufficiently thorough or well thought out.

BTW, how does one cite something that is in the film? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Last point first; {{cite video}} has a "quote" field for dialogue etc, and a "time" field for pinpointing events, dialogue, etc. On the other point, I've been thinking about the "composite" problem, and am coming to the conclusion that we could say "The character of Hilts is a composite of several inmates; contenders include....", then list them with sources. In this way, we are not saying that this is the truth, merely that others have made the comparison, and we avoid the WP:OR problem, as long as the sources are reliable, e.g. reputable journalists or film critics. I'm still trying to pin down the BFI's press notes from the original release, which I believe deals with this topic and is an authoritative source. Rodhullandemu 18:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and I agree with your suggestion regarding composite etc. Regarding BFI, I would be concerned that the author of the BFI info might make the same mistake as others if he/she says that Hilts is mainly based on one real-life person, unless the film writer or director is mentioned as the source of the info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

An example of what I think is the most reliable type of source for who a character is based on, is this part of the narration of the video The Real Virgil Hilts: A Man Called Jones[6] It comes 20 seconds into the video.

"Sturges said, 'One of the characters in the actual story that we based Steve's part on, was a man called Jones. We wanted to be able to substantiate the fact that there was an American in this thing who had the kind of go-to-hell atmosphere around him that they all had.' "

Unfortunately, regarding who was the real-life inspiration for a character, this is the only case I've seen of a source getting info from a quote of a writer or the director, which I believe is the most reliable type of source. In this case, it was from the director John Sturges. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sturges says only the "go-to-hell atmosphere" not events. It is clear that Hilts' actions were not inspired by Jones and this comes back to the oft seen phenomenon of needing to appeal to an American audience by Sturges mentioning Jones and excluding others. This phenomenon is clearly seen in the movie about the Enigma machine, inspired by real events/people etc, but actually having no American inspiration at all despite the movie infering otherwise. As per Rodhull I think "contenders include...." is a good way to go. We can say with a degree of confidence Jones was the inspiration for the personality with the events depicted being inspired by X, Y and Z and perhaps adding specific events tying these together such as I mentioned earlier. Wayne (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "Sturges says only the "go-to-hell atmosphere" not events. It is clear that Hilts' actions were not inspired by Jones and this comes back to the oft seen phenomenon of needing to appeal to an American audience by Sturges mentioning Jones and excluding others."

Please note that Sturges made these comments just before he died in 1992, so in this interview it doesn't appear that he was trying to appeal to American audiences for his 1963 film. Also, we don't know that these were the only comments that Sturges made about Hilts. Don't forget one of your previous comments regarding Jones, "David Jones and Jerry Sage were the prisoners who made the alcohol for the real July 4th party that is depicted in the film." And note that in the film it was Hilts, Hendley and Goff, that made the alcohol. (See the part that begins 3 minutes into the Youtube video and lasts for about 2 minutes.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

One added note regarding a possible way that the characters were developed. What the creators may have done was first create fictional characters without being too specific, and then they connected a mixture of real and fictional incidents to those characters in order to tell the story in an entertaining way. Perhaps McQueen's character Hilts got the greatest amount of screen time because McQueen was one of the most popular and entertaining actors in the world, and would make the movie more entertaining. -Bob K31416 (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to Sturges McQueen, Bronson and Coburn were all given parts because they were in the Magnificent Seven. The success of that film gave Sturges enough pull to make the Great Escape (this was Sturges' third film in a row to use McQueen). At that time McQueen was not the "most popular actor in the world" as his wife has stated that while he was a rising star the Great Escape was the film that launched his career. While McQueens' motorcycle action was included in the revised script when production began (Hilts was to escape by train in the original script), the Hilts character was a much smaller part. After filming started McQueen objected to James Garner's character (Hendley) having more screen time and lines than Hilts and held up production for six weeks by demanding the script be rewritten to make his part bigger. According to Garner and Pleasence (Blyth) McQueen stormed off the set and refused to return until his part was rewritten. This rewrite not only added many of the events based on real incidents that we see but also added Hilts baseball tossing in the cooler. Wayne (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point and info! (Care to share the link for the source?) I crossed out the "world" sentence that was in my previous remarks. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A little bit of this n' that:

1) Regarding the baseball bouncing in the cooler, here's something interesting I found on p. 24 in the book POW baseball in World War II by Tim Wolter.[7]

The task of chronicling the history of ball playing at Stalag Luft III is a daunting one. The size of the undertaking alone is a challenge, for this camp represents the absolute pinnacle of POW baseball. Nowhere else before or since have so many POWs participated. During the peak summer of 1944 there were probably upwards of 200 teams active in the six compounds of Stalag Luft III.

The escape earlier that year caused most escape activity to be suspended, which freed up the energies of POWs for sports.

2) At the end of that page 24 is this.

Although the film makers did employ numerous former Kriegies [POWs] as technical advisors and therefore did depict many details of camp life faithfully, the overall tone of the movie is a bit deceptive. Americans play a prominent role in the film, whereas they had a minor role in the escape, which was largely a British affair.

3) In the video about Jones, he talks about his experience of being among a pretty select group of 20-25 POWs who were diggers in the tunnels and he said that they were of various types and he mentioned a few: Canadian, South African, Australian, ... . He talked about how he and the other diggers had to wear dirty, clammy, long johns on the outside of their clothes as coveralls so that they didn't get the distinctly colored dirt on them that might tip off the guards that they were digging. He gave some other details that weren't in the movie either.

I'm beginning to get the impression, that of the Americans in the camp, Jones was the one that was the most involved in the escape preparations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Break re "Cooler King"

I'm still working on this, but it seems it wasn't uncommon for disruptive inmates to be consigned to solitary for lengthy periods. Mahon, who I removed as being unsourced, could be a contender, although Vance doesn't mention him; he did spend some time in solcon, and was a pain in the side of the Germans, but didn't take part in the escape itself because he was in the cooler at the time.[8] I've also found yet another contender, Bill Ash, who is mentioned briefly in Vance but more completely here, and I've emailed the author about this. I think we have to have regard to the disclaimer already cited as to composites, and accept the weakness of some of our sources in the interests of a defensible article. I'm coming rapidly to the conclusion that perhaps Hilts was actually more McQueen than anyone else, given his invention of the motorcycle escape. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember Jones was on the original escape committee before he was transfered to the American compound. I recently read a NYT article on the movie and it said, based on what the other actors in the movie have said, Hilts personality was actually McQueens own. So it's likely the inspiration for Hilts was McQueen. Wayne (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, I would take Sturges at his word when he said, "One of the characters in the actual story that we based Steve's part on, was a man called Jones. We wanted to be able to substantiate the fact that there was an American in this thing...". Jones may have been the main American in the escape preparations, and then there was the July 4th hooch making, so he was interesting, relevant, and a reasonable choice to start out with. So Hilts started with Jones and stuff was added from many others and motorcycles, etc.

So, maybe it's this way: The initial inspiration for Hilts was Jones, then there were the incidents from other POWs added, and also McQueen's ideas of what the character should be like, with McQueen's own personality and motorcycles, etc. added into the mix. Make sense? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Replace this with an article on the real event?

Perhaps this wiki should be replaced with an article on the real event and maybe titled The great escape from Stalag Luft III. For discussion of possible problems with the present wiki, see the discussion at Hippo43's talk page and at a section of WP:NORN.

The most significant comparisons of the film and reality can be made in a section of the wiki on the film. I suspect that one can pick apart every film that is based on a true story, but it wouldn't be worthwhile, in my opinion. Feature films are media for entertainment, not education. Making a film for the purpose of attracting moviegoers is an art in itself. I don't think mentioning minor details that aren't correct is worthwhile. The few major ones can be mentioned in the film's wiki. It can also be mentioned that the film is rather accurate.

There is also inaccuracy in the sources that describe the film. For example, there's a small army of POWs that are said to be the most heroic character Hilts, some with little reason, when in fact none of the POWs fit this character well. BTW, this is done by authors, not by the POWs themselves. Another example is the sources' failure to mention that the movie portrayed most of the 76 escapees as British, where in reality most were other nationalities that served in the RAF or their own countries' air forces. The nationalities of the 3 that made it all the way home, 2 Norwegian and one Dutch, weren't mentioned at all in the film.

These problems wouldn't exist for an article on the real great escape which can be used for comparison with the film by the reader. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that this would be best in a short section within The Great Escape (film). I don't think there needs to be another article on the event itself. We already have articles on the film, the book and the camp, and the latter (Stalag Luft III) contains a good section on the escape. --hippo43 (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the Stalag Luft III wiki, I see that it already covers a lot of the great escape so I certainly agree with you that a new article on the real event isn't useful. Thanks for pointing that out. However, there may come a time when the escape section is split off and becomes a separate article. It's quite large at the present, compared to the other parts of that wiki. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I wouldn't argue with splitting it now. --hippo43 (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a great opportunity to merge the excellent work done on the "inaccuracies" page into the film article's Production section and make it even better. 71.171.109.2 (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Refocus and merge

Please take a look at WP:NORN#Factual accuracy of The Great Escape where this article been under discussion. I very much agree with the idea (expressed above) of shifting the focus of this article to the historical event (which would include a short section on how the film differs from the historical account). I would also suggest that the bulk of this article be merged into The Great Escape (film).

The crux of the argument consensus at NORN seems to be that is that it is not Original research to point out the differences between a film and the historical events the film is based upon... but a lot of it is Trivia. The movie is a work of fiction and not a documentary. Yes, it is fiction that is based on reality, but it is fiction never the less. We don't expect a work of fiction to have factual accuracy. This raises the question as to whether the film's factual accuracy is a notable enough topic to warrent it's own article.

Personally, I don't think it is. The factual accuracy of a work of fiction is an interesting topic, but not a notable one. It best belongs as a short section in either the article on the film, or an article on the historical event (or both).

Finally, for what it's worth (although this is sort of an "other stuff exists... or rather doesn't exist type argument), I will note that this seems to be the only article on the factual accuracy of a work of fiction based on history... for example, we don't have an article on "Factual accuracy of Gettysberg (film)" or "Factual accuracy of The Six Wives of Henry VIII (TV series)". Some of our article on films may have factual accuracy sections, but not an entire article devoted to the topic. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(You might want to rephrase your "crux" statement because it might be interpreted to mean that the discussion at WP:NORN#Factual accuracy of The Great Escape found that it wasn't OR, which wasn't the case. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC) )

(Done. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC) )

(Not what I meant, but never mind for now. Have a good one. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC) )

Proposal

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.

At the same time, I suggest we split the section on the historical event out from Stalag Luft III and create The Great Escape (Stalag Luft III) (or a less clunky title). The section on the real escape takes up the majority of that article, and should probably exist outside the article on the camp. --hippo43 (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time this has been suggested: go for it! 71.171.109.2 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

In using information about film production from Rob Davis' site "The 1963 film of the Great Escape", one should consider that none of the "sources" for the site appears to deal with the film's production or adaptation process. 71.171.109.2 (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, what is the "Vance" source in the references section? 71.171.109.2 (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to consider when describing the film as based on a "factual" (implied) autobiography "with a few fictitious additions", is that Brickhill's "autobiography" is categorized as a novel (fiction), and a book (fact) on Clavell's career states that when he wrote the script for the film, he based much of it on his own POW experience on the other side of the world from Stalag III and "tempered it with the fantasy Hollywood demanded" (p. 5). "Few", therefore, might be a bit of an understatement. It is, afterall, a fictional adaptation of a novelization of an event. About the only thing of real interest as far as adaptation differences mentioned in this article is the enhancement of the Americans' roles (the "demands" of Hollywood), which did spawn a reaction from some critics (otherwise known as credible sources); all the rest are trivial changes that are always made in film adaptation. What is the point of having this article? Merge the significant (and sourced) stuff into the film article and put this puppy out of its misery. 71.171.109.2 (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than the problem being the prominence of Americans (plural) it seems to be one American character, Hilts. Perhaps the Hendley character alone, an American in the RAF, would have properly represented the American involvement in the escape.

Americans, be they in the American or British military, were a part of the escape. We should be careful not to overcompensate for the inappropriate prominence of Hilts. For example, Johnnie Dodge an american in the British army who escaped; George Harsh, an American in the RAF who was in charge of security and was 1 of 4 on the executive council; David Jones of the USAAF who was one of the 20-25 who dug the tunnels; and Barry Mahon an American in the RAF. Please note that this doesn't mean American involvement was limited to just these four, who are the ones that I recall were specifically mentioned in the sources that I looked at.

Here's an excerpt from an article that is an example of the type of information that we have to be careful about.

Excerpt from http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/56001

The Cooler King character is believed to be based on a British officer, Flight Lieutenant Barry Mahon of 121 Squadron RAF, who served as a technical director on the film. Mahon was shot down in August 1942 and sent to Stalag Luft III, where he was imprisoned in isolation, “the cooler”, for his many escape attempts. Although he’d been due to go through the tunnel first, his decision to decline no doubt saved his life.

McQueen is said to have taken a liking to the ex-POW and asked to have Barry’s background written into his own character. According to film blogger Tom Cleaver: “Barry fought like hell to get the movie as real as he could, as his own way of paying respects to the dead.”

The producers’ decision to make him a US escapee wasn’t the only example of the film’s slant towards all things American. Although three tunnels – Tom, Dick and Harry – were dug as portrayed in the film, it was not during the July 4 celebrations that Tom was discovered by the Germans, although that did make for a dramatic piece of storytelling.

In the excerpt, the author says that the Hilts American character is based on Mahon "a British officer". That author fails to mention that Mahon in fact was an American who was in one of the RAF's Eagle Squadrons that was comprised of Americans. (See Mahon's biography[9].)

Another problem with the portrayal in the film, not mentioned by the critics, is that the film did not properly represent the international aspect of the escape. From looking at the film's version of the escape, it appeared that the escapees who came out of the tunnel were mainly British, which was also incorrect. In the real escape, most of the nationalities of the escapees were not British. They were people of other nationalities that either joined the RAF or were shot down while part of their own countries' air forces.[10] This goes for the executive council also, where in reality 2 of the 4 were the American (George Harsh RAF in charge of security) and the Canadian (Wally Floody RCAF in charge of tunnelling). --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "be careful about"? IMDb is not considered a reliable source for this type of information (see Citing IMDb Discussion), and, anyway, WP editors cannot decide which sources are more "truthful" than others. If two or more reliable sources contradict each other, then all must be presented. It does not matter whether Americans were actually part of the escape; if critics and authors (reliable sources) write about a perception that Americans received more attention than they should have (rightly or wrongly) — just as the Daily Express did — then that must be presented. Similarly, if other publications state that the presentation is accurate, then those viewpoints must presented alongside the others for balance. WP editors cannot decide to leave them out just because they don't believe them. Reliable sources and Verifiability are the Pillars here, not "truth": "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."

You note a problem with the film is an omission of the "international" composition of the escapees, which may be true, but if no critics or other writers note that film omission, then it cannot be placed in a WP article. I've noticed you depend on sites such as [www.trasksdad.com http://www.trasksdad.com/PopsProgress/] for information: unless those sites indicate proper scholarship through listing of credible sources, then the information found there cannot be included in WP articles. This has nothing to do with "truth" again; I do not doubt Peter Porter's veracity when it comes to telling his father's story, but since WP absolutely requires it be verifiable for it to be included, it's doubtful any of that information can be included. Now, that information may be helpful in research leading to other, but reliable, sources which may lead to inclusion of the material, and that's fine.

Also, please consider this Film Style Guideline when considering the material in this article. 71.171.109.2 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1) RE "What do you mean, 'be careful about'?" They appear to contain errors of a biased nature, in this case claiming someone is British when they are American.

• Why do you assume the writer is biased? Why not simply a mistake was made? 71.171.109.2 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2) RE "IMDb is not considered a reliable source for this type of information (see Citing IMDb Discussion)" - What you referred me to is a discussion of a proposal re IMDb which hasn't been accepted so I don't see its usefulness. Also, the fact that Mahon is identified as an American by IMDb is supported by the NYTimes.[11] (Here's a nice video on Eagle Squadrons too.[12]) Both the IMDb and the NYTimes give details about Mahon being American, whereas there aren't any details given by the source that only says he is British. Furthermore that source refers to the 121 Squadron which has the full name 121 Eagle Squadron. They seem to be hiding the fact that it is a squadron of Americans, as the Eagle squadrons were.

• I referred you to the page so you would have more information on the problems with depending on IMDb. Many of the points made in the discussion would -- rightfully -- suggest that you use the NYT's article as the source instead of IMDb (I'm unsure why you didn't just refer to the newspaper article in the first place). Also, please don't assume writers are trying to "hide" something; they might simply be in error, but with the best of intentions. 71.171.109.2 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

3) I have no dispute with presenting an RS that says the American prominence in The Great Escape was innacurate. I put it in the wiki myself.

4) RE putting in all material from all RS's. That's not the requirement. The requirement is to present the info with NPOV. Some RS are better than others and the worst can be excluded as long as there is NPOV in the Wiki. Hence "be careful" to use the most reliable sources, while maintaining NPOV.

• But please consider WP:WEIGHT as well. 71.171.109.2 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

5) RE "You note a problem with the film is an omission of the "international" composition of the escapees, which may be true,..." - It would be nice if someone could find an article that states this so that it could be put in the Wikipedia, but I wouldn't expect it.

• It would be nice . . . and it is our job as editors. 71.171.109.2 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your great efforts in improving the article, especially since it appears your work will lead to actually improving the more important film article (and maybe getting rid of a pointless "adaptation differences" article; can't understand how something can be called "inaccurate" when there never was an intent to be "accurate" in the first place; hmmmm). I do worry, however, that there is too much time spent trying to divine what the producer/director/screenwriter meant or did right or wrong, rather than just focusing on the encyclopedic practice of finding and assembling information from reliable sources. Thanks.71.171.109.2 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we have similar feelings re "...meant or did right or wrong..." etc. Also, I felt there was limited accurate info that is in sources that specifically compares the film to reality, which leads to editor OR to fill in the gaps and bulk up the wiki, or having to depend on biased or innacurate articles in RSs. While working on the wiki, that's why I came to feel that 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. That way, for example, the international nature of the escape can be displayed, which it already has been to some extent in the discussion of those murdered in the escape, as discussed in the wiki Stalag Luft III. Anyhow, happy editing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Heres a review that does mention the "omission of the "international" composition of the escapees", albeit briefly, and it also critiques the film being based in summer when the real escape was in winter. Wayne (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research - Blythe & the Geneva Convention

I have reverted Marktreut's statements about what would have 'probably' happened under the Geneva convention. This is not a point that is referenced so is original research. Citing the Convention itself is not enough - you need a secondary source which has made this point. See WP:NOR. --hippo43 (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would argue for OR exemption on the grounds that one of the major characters in the film was released under this convention shortly after the escape and for an injury far less serious than Blyth's blindness. G/C Herbert Massey (S.B.O. Ramsey in the film) injured his leg in Germany and was repatriated to Britain by the Germans very soon after the escape due to this injury. This can be cited and as his injury was also duplicated by his character in the film this provides a connection for the claim and proves "the point". Wayne (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't explained why this would mean OR should be allowed. Your argument is classic original research and, while really interesting, has no place in an encyclopedia. --hippo43 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim Healey source

Does anyone have access to a copy of this book (Timespan — Escapes by Tim Healey)? It would be good to know if the passages referenced deal with this escape specifically or escapes in general. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Merged

I've merged the material from this article into the main film article, as discussed above. Can we now look at deleting this article? I don't know what the procedure is. --hippo43 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To comply with GFDL, we should not delete the article since that would lose the required attribution of edits to editors; what can be done is to make the article into a redirect to preserve the edit history. Rodhullandemu 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If there are no objections I'll do it in a few days. --hippo43 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --hippo43 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)