|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hogan's Heroes article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Camp Nazi Flag?
I often noticed that the Nazi flag flying over the camp was a "reversed swastika" or sauwastika of the Buddhists. Was this consistent with all swastikas throughout the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Is is possible that because the flag was displayed outdoors and potentially visible from the street that there were laws against flying the Nazi flag in California? Either that or perhaps it was a way not to offend anyone so that people knew it was for production. Having a left facing flag might have been a way around that but I'm just speculating. Dbroer (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with pointing out that a self propelled howitzer was used in an episode as a German Tiger Tank. That is what historical inaccuracies is about. Otherwise most people won't know it wasn't a Tiger Tank or that it wasn't even a tank. Yes, other TV shows and numerous movies used substitutes; ironically in the movie Patton they used Patton Tanks (M-47) as German tanks. There's no reason not to point this out and no reason to delete it. Wikipedia is about informing people not keeping them ignorant.
The Luftwaffe did not keep Allied airmen officers in separate Stalags as was first written on this Wikipage (the Luftwaffe was in charge of airmen prisoners). They did mix them within the same Stalag, but generally kept them separate from enlisted in separate compounds (However, Stalag 13 only had one compound didn't it?). While they didn't put officers in with enlisted they sometimes did have a few enlisted mixed in with officers to do work for the officers (can't have generals and colonels doing all of their own stuff can we?). Someone had also written that Allied prisoners were also put in separate Stalags by nationality and that it was historical inaccurate to have British, American and Free French prisoners in the same Stalag. Nothing could be further from the truth (although they did try to keep American and other Allied prisoners in separate compounds, but it wasn't a hard and fast rule). In fact at Luft Stalag III (where the "Great Escape" took place) British, Australian and New Zealand prisoners were eager to have a Dutchman or Norwegian as an escape partner because they could more easily speak with an authentic German accent (many Dutchmen and Norwegians spoke German as a second language). Only Russian and some other Eastern European prisoners were put in separate compounds where they were often deliberately worked and starved to death.
If you want to delete everything from Historical inaccuracies that is allegedly "original research" this is what you would have left out of the entire article:
- In the episode "Hold That Tiger", the German Tiger Tank is actually an American self propelled howitzer called the M7 Priest and is not considered a tank. It has no turret and weighed less than half of what a real German Tiger Tank weighed.
- The presence of Colonel Hogan, Colonel Crittenton and occasionally other Allied officers mixed together with enlisted personnel in a Luft Stalag, other than temporarily, is partially historically inaccurate. While Luft Stalags, unlike most Stalags, had a mixture of officers and enlisted personnel, they were generally put into separate compounds within the camp (compounds were separated by barbed wire fences with no prisoner movement between each compound). Also Luft Stalags were considerable larger than the 103 prisoners depicted on the series and normally held thousands and in the case of one Stalag over 130,000 Allied prisoners.
Rather than deleting whole paragraphs until some historian or college professor writes a published book that you can reference on the historical inaccuracies of Hogan's Heroes (as if that will ever happen), ask for authentication and correction. Wikipedia is not about getting it completely right immediately or not at all, but correcting and verifying. For that matter if you were to delete everything that is allegedly "original research" about Hogan's Heroes you would end up with just a few paragraphs rather than all the information currently on the page (nearly all the information on the characters, storyline, and large portions of other sections would all have to be deleted). Tim Gruber (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I agree that "not all of this can be referenced" and agree that if you wipe everything that isn't cited, you'd have very little page left. However, this page is RIFE with OR - with the character sketches being the most egregious - much of which you and another new editor have added. Only slightly less egregiously OR is the "Historical inaccuracies" section. I simply cut out the worst of the OR in this section. In addition, some of the things that I cut had zero to do with OR - such as my edit on the Tiger Tank. This has NOTHING to do with OR or Historical Inaccuracy and EVERYTHING to do with a studio substituting "any" tracked vehicle for a Tiger tank. So please temper your argument with what I actually said and didn't say. If you can't see what you put in is OR (or most of your defense above for that matter), I'm not sure how far we can get...
- We can certainly debate the best way to do this or what needs to stay or go, although it appears removing ANY of your insertions is a non-starter for you, but the way that it SHOULDN'T have been done is for you to do a wholesale revert of my edits - all of which are justified by Wiki policy and guidelines. I don't want to create an edit war (or continue one which you are trying to create) so I will leave the text as is to see if anyone else chimes in. However, please note that what you did and the way you did it was 100% wrong and justifying it by stating that I'm some sort of literalist who is trying to ruin the page is unfair in the extreme. Ckruschke (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
- If we're going to go by shouldn't then you shouldn't have deleted whole paragraphs but rather asked for a rewrite or verification (the idea should be to improve not remove). The information wasn't added just for the hell of it or without justification and putting it back to the way it was before you messed with it was not wrong. I’ve already had one Wikipedia vigilante give me a bunch of crap about “original research” and that only almost anything that hasn't been published in written form by a historian, scholar, author or other so called reliable source in some book or article should be removed from Wikipedia (he used the same justification as you). For example if Carl Ballantine was in the movie “The Shakiest Gun in the West” you cannot add it to his Wikipedia article unless it was written in a published book or article according to this Wikipedia vigilante. So what if this fact is in the Wikipedia article about the movie or if you watch the movie and see his name and face in it, it is not allowed. People shouldn’t know that about him; leave it out until it is written in some book or article that matches that vigilante’s interpretation of Wikipedia’s criteria.
- By the way I didn’t write most of the information on the characters in Hogan’s Heroes. Most of the info was there before I ever touched it. I merely rewrote many of them (or parts of them), added some information from the videos and added numerous references to the episodes the information came from so that if anyone doubts what is written they can watch the episodes and verify it for themselves (for instance where someone had written “in one episode” I added what the episode was rather than leaving it unknown). And there are some things about the show and each character, especially their personalities, that were never published about them and may never be published in written form about them. It doesn’t mean it isn’t true (although I consider the videos of the show to be a published source as would any court). The goal should be to have good reliable information and not just information someone published in written form (as if everything published in written form is always correct or more reliable than the video itself).
- Again there is NOTHING wrong with pointing out that the so called Tiger Tank wasn’t even a tank. Most people wouldn’t know unless it was pointed out to them and they would think that’s what a Tiger Tank looked like just as some would think Hogan’s Heroes is based on actual events that took place at a German prisoner-of-war camp (unless they have information to the contrary there’s no reason for them to believe otherwise – most people simply aren’t all that knowledgeable about history let alone WWII let alone prisoner-of-war camps). The whole purpose of historical inaccuracies is to point out such things. It doesn’t matter one bit WHY the studio did it and you were 100% wrong in deleting it (it’s no different than pointing out that submarines didn’t have the technology to communicate while submerged during WWII – it’s historically inaccurate no matter why the studio portrayed it that way). Tim Gruber (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- You appear to be taking my comments and edits very personally. I never said you put it all up, but anyone can look at the page history and see what you've done. And "Reliable Information" is supposed to be independently verifiable (thus the requirement to source) and not open to someone's non-NPOV interpretation (the definition of WP:OR and what most of this page is).
- I've raised legitimate issues that you and others are inserting OR information all over the page. I'm not going to debate with you what is and isn't OR, what content is so important that it doesn't matter if its cited, or how I should have flagged sections for rewrite rather than simply get rid of them. You can look up Wiki policy of original research and how work is supposed to be cited if you don't believe me. In the meantime, have fun... Ckruschke (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
- Speaking of seeming to take it personally, being defensive or not liking it when someone undoes something you did... Forget the psychological analysis, that works both ways. Yes, you have the right to raise legitimate concerns which is why I suggested flagging the material for rewrite and verification rather than elimination. I would bet probably at least 90% of Wikipedia would be gone if people eliminated unreferenced or "original research" material. And I understand what you were trying to accomplish. It did rewriting and does need verification and I hope others will be able to do a better job than I did on both. But I hope you can understand what I was trying to accomplish too by giving others something to work with rather than have huge gaps in the information about the subject. Tim Gruber (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Ivan Kinchloe's name
A Successful Failure?
OK, I'm confused. The show ran for six years; 168 episodes. The "Reception" section notes that it was nominated for Emmy's 12 times, and awarded two. Then goes on to say that a TV Guide rated it "the fifth worse TV show of all time", based on ... what?
If the show was that bad, how is it that the sponsors felt good enough about it to keep it going for six seasons? If it was so rotten, how is it that the show averaged two Emmy nominations for every season it was on?
I submit that something needs to be said to explain this apparent discrepancy, probably in the "Reception" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Captivity, Flight and Survival in World War II" by Alan J. Levine, copyright 2000, Greenwood Publishing Group