Talk:Band of Brothers (miniseries)

The Pacific

The information about The Pacific is purely HBO marketing, and does not belong in the introduction to BoB. It should be removed, or placed further down.

Deneaux (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the Henry V quote

Quotations from Henry 5th have been moved to Wikiquote - I don't know how to fix this link - any helpers?2toise 15:44, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Verifying the accuracy of Easy Company's attachment to the 3rd Battalion 506 PIR

The references in the article are likely incorrect. Alone the implied attachment of Easy Company to 3rd Battalion 506 PIR is quite obviously wrong and makes one question the accuracy of the paragraph. The HBO miniseries was based on Stephen E. Ambrose's book, which was meticulously researched.

Anyone else noticed this? I'd like to see the paragraph rewritten. 67.180.197.16 08:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

To what paragraph do you refer? Not this article? Beanbatch 03:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This was most likely the same paragraph you have recently edited in the Kehlsteinhaus article. Jbetak

easy company was in 2nd battalion (able baker, C___=1) Dog, Easy Fox= 2nd

Just one comment--Ambrose's book is replete with errors, most small but some major, and is NOT a relable source for accuracy. It is an oral history (not "meticulously researched") and relies far too heavily on the sometimes mistaken memories of its participants.--Buckboard 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Something missing

Where's Cpt Winters?

Easy Company is attached to the 2nd Battalion, not the 3rd. Or was, rather. And Captain Winters is on the list as Major Winters, his final military ranking. 65.95.232.95 22:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the above discussion of "attachment" is semantics. In military jargon "attachment" means belonging to one unit but being temporarily assigned to another. Easy Company was an integral part of the 2nd Battalion of the 506th, not "attached". During WWII the Army did not include the term "battalion" when identifying units within a regiment--it was implied. When Winters moved up to command of the 506th's 2nd Battalion, Easy Company was one of the companies he commanded. Buckboard 10:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical Errors

I've updated the entry about the mention of Hitler's death on April 11, 1945 at Thalem. It's clear that the date is simply wrong on this scene. Ambrose states that the Landsberg work camp wasn't freed until April 29, 1945. The official documents (After Action Reports) for the regiment don't show them leaving Landsberg until April 30, 1945. The scene in Thalem is framed after the events in Landsberg, and mentions the newly-received orders to advance and take Berchtesgaden, which didn't happen until May 3, 1945 (according to both sources). Actually, I can't find _any_ mention of Thalem at all in either source during April or early May. In addition, this overview of Kaufering camps lists the male camp at Landsberg as being liberated on April 27, 1945. Romalar 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would question the validity of the error that mentions the sunlight during the takeoff sequence in episode 1. I'd need to check the scene in question and the supposed time but it gets dark very slowly and very late in England in the month of June. Certainly, the sky can appear quite bright to the north-west until after midnight if the weather is good.--Chris Wood 13:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, on June 6, the weather was not good because Eisenhower faced the decision to OK the invasion or postpone it for a while. On June 5, it was stormy in the channel, therefore June 6 weather was not any better.

That's speculation without any proof whatsoever. Additionally, the paratroopers took off and were dropped on June 5th, not June 6th. --Scottie theNerd 05:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Another point to note. Britain remained on Double Summer Time BST+2 during the war making sunset an our later than today's summers. It could have appeared light in half the sky until the early hours of the morning. Chris Wood 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the previous change to dividing the errors: What was wrong with just "Historical errors"? All the errors listed are historical rather than film mistakes. --Scottie theNerd 07:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The latest edits regarding 11 April 1945 and reintroducing the section on the "possibility" of Lewis Nixon hearing rumors about Hitler's death just isn't plausible. Please reread what I wrote above and the links to the online references. The events as portrayed in the miniseries are contradicted by multiple external historical accounts and facts, and couldn't have happened on 11 April. There is no reason to speculate about rumors of Hitler's death. It seems clear to me that they simply got the date and location of a minor scene wrong.

Otherwise, I agree that the section is better as just "Historical errors". Romalar 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Joe Liebgott won a Brone Star for his actions at Brecourt, yet no mention of this is made during the film nor is he portrayed participating in this battle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.125.209 (talk • contribs).

according to the edit summary by 220.239.86.235, Liebgott was shown in the Brecourt Manor assault. I haven't watched that scene to verify. --Habap 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You've all done a wonderful job of keeping the trivia out of this section and limiting it to material errors (i.e. significant deviations from historical fact) but I'm wondering if the Market Garden reserve chute entry might be a bit trivial. Sure it was a high jump, but is that really material and do we really know that the statement was never made? I'm tempted to delete or put a {{Fact}} tag on it.--Lepeu1999 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize that the episode-by-episode-critique on "trigger time" does not read like a review by a historian but like the complaining of a man who's annoyed because he never gained as much publicity as Ambrose. See sentences like "Another point I could have advised them on, but does anyone CARE?" Although he's criticizing a lot of major mistakes, which has to be commended, he's also picking on a whole lot of minor ones leading to critique based on interviews with only one person (a way to conduct research he would critisize in Ambrose's work) or even his opinion. I'm not a regular Wiki-User, therefore I'd like to ask if there is a way to make this source appear less strong than it does now.

---

HIstorical accuracy

You have to admit that it was a tv series and that not every detail could have been put in. about the German tank running over the guy dont be critical of that it could have happened and i would bet it did happen somewhere. i thought they were great movies and were wonderfully accurate.

As to accuracy, 101st historian Mark Bando put it best--they were accurate in reviving the spirit of the division, what it (the entire 101st, including Easy) endured, and what it accomplished. Easy in that respect "accurately" stood in for the 101st. But many of the "details" either did not occur or occured to some other unit. And Ambrose himself disparaged or allowed to be disparaged many fine units and individuals within the division to elevate Easy's heroism.--Buckboard 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

running time

The running time for the film in this article is incorrect. It is listed as 600 minutes, but is actually closer to 900 minutes, as each of the ten episodes was considerably longer than one hour.

It's actually 550 minutes without commercials. you must have watched it on history channel. --Bp0 03:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bp0 is right...but the 900min. could have been from the bonus CD from the Box Set... --Yoshman

on the back of the dvd cover it says the running time is 700 minutes but that could be including special features.

105s

"During the Brecourt Manor Assault on D-day in episode two, Colonel Strayer of 2nd Battalion, 506th tells Richard Winters to eliminate a battery of 88mm cannon. The movie portrays the cannon as 88mm guns. In reality and in the book, the battery were 105mm guns, not 88mm."

I removed this because it is inaccurate. Rewatch the episode, and pay particular attention to the report Richard Winters gives to his commanding officer (Strayer?) after the assault on Brecourt Manor. "They were 105s, sir, not 88s. We disabled them and then pulled out." Romalar 07:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I had assumed that Strayer/Sink/whomever thought they were 88s because the 88s were the most famous German weapon and tolk Winters they were such, despite reality (fog of war). --Habap 13:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless of Winter's correction, are the guns still not incorrect in that they were 88's, assuming what was said is true? Granted it's not a historical mistake but rather a filmmakers mistake —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.125.209 (talk • contribs).

Actually, it is accurate. The officer tells Winters that they are 88s. Winters and his men take them out. Winters corrects his commander, as he did in real life. So, it was neither a historical or fillmaker's mistake, but rather a mis-identification that actually happened. Seeing as this was the first time the 101st had seen action AND they'd heard of 88s from those who'd already been in combat, the senior officer assumed they were 88s. By the time of their drop into Holland, all the veterans would recognize an 88 just by the sound. Also, note that the filmmaker did not use guns that looked like 88s at this point (unlike in Foy, when IIRC, it looks like an 88 in the middle of town). --Habap 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The German 88 was infamous among Allied soldiers, and it wasn't uncommon for American soldiers to refer to all forms of German artillery as 88's, however innacurate this might be.

That's because they thought that all German artillery were Flak 88's, which is incorrect, just as they had a phobia for Tiger tanks. The scene in question here is an accurate portrayal of inaccuracy in intelligence. --Scottie theNerd 09:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Brecourt

To clarify any misunderstanding, Joe Liebgott was manning a machine gun on Brecourt and was setting up a base of fire near the Company's approach to the field, hence receiving very little screen time. Winters's orders are conveyed before the scene and also stated in the book. --Scottie theNerd 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He is however neglected from recognition at the end of the episode when the list of the that got medals was displayed

Added category Band of Brothers characters

I added Category:Band of Brothers characters to index all characters from the series. Note that not all the characters have pages yet, so if you add a new page for someone on the show please add that category to their article. Dugwiki 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd to add a category for Band of Brothers "characters" when they are, in fact, real people. Visit the page for Easy Company for a better list of the real people. Note, the actors are playing real people, not characters. --Habap 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, technically, the people depicted on the TV show' Band of Brothers are characters who are based on actual soldiers. Even though they're based on real soldiers, the people you see on the TV show are still characters played by actors and the show is scripted. So while based on reality, what you see for the most part on the show are not actual people but characters based on those people. Hence the category. (As an analogy, when Anthony Hopkins played Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" would appear listed as a character in that movie, as opposed to the real person "Richard Nixon" who wasn't in the movie.) Dugwiki 15:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Jim Leibgott's page on Ancestry.com, Joseph Liebgott was born in Michigan. He appears with his parents and siblings in the 1920 census there, at the age of 14.

Christopher Award

While I did find this award[1], I don't think we should list it, as the awards themselves are not yet notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. --Habap 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

McCabe and Medal of Honor

Interestingly, Peter McCabe's great-grandfather was awarded the Medal of Honor for action at Vera Cruz. [2] --Habap 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lt Dike killed?

At the end of Episode 7, Lt Dike is shown a being killed in the attack on Foy. This is not true. After being replaced by Lt Spears, Dike was reassigned to General Taylor's staff. I really cannot recall this to be shown in that episode. Dike is relieved by Spiers during the attack, and he is not mentioned/shown anymore?? Gnorn 22:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This comes around 1:01:38 when Lipton is talking about the soldiers who were killed by the sniper. A dead soldier is shown. As he continues to walk, Picante asks if it's "true about Dike", Lipton says yes, and Picante says "Thank god for small mercies." The dialogue suggests that Dike is killed, although it doesn't specifically say this. The "small mercy" might be that he was relieved of command. The dead soldier is either Dike, or Ken Webb from earlier in the episode, but I can't tell. If it is Dike, then obviously he is supposed to be dead; if not then it's uncertain and we might as well assume the historically accurate and remove the "historical error" from this article. --Bp0 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suspect that Perconte is asking about whether Dike was relieved of command, since it wouldn't have been known to the entire company immediately. I may try to sneak in watching it on my laptop over lunch tomorrow, but I never had the impression that Dike was killed. A veteran might suggest that "killing was too good for him".... --Habap 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the movie ever said that Dike was killed in Foy. (what an idiot he was eh?)

The soldier killed in the scene is Ken Webb. It is shown in the film as well as the book. According to the book, Dike was relieved of his command. Easy Company later saw him on General Taylor's personal staff as a Captain during a parade. --Scottie theNerd 05:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For those following the miniseries version, Ken Webb was killed behind a beehive if I recall correctly. Dike was planted b ehind a haystack. --Scottie theNerd 05:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was Webb, and Dike is never shown killed in the miniseries, nor was he killed in real life. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone! Gnorn 22:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lt Dike was not killed. Frank Perconte is still alive and living in Joilet, Illinois. I have had many conversations with him, been to his home sat a watched WHY WE FIGHT and had a reall nice time with him. I had him at my son's High School for a History Class on World War 2.

I talked to Frank himself and Lt. Dike was not killed. His statement referred to the fact the Kike was transfered.

If you wish to contact Frank Perconte -- go to the White Pages type in FRANK PERCONTE Joliet Illinois. Believe me -- he will welcome your call. His birthday is next week and he will be 90 years old.

What do you think about my changes to the infobox?

I've added a lot of information from IMDB. Tiger Trek 13:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks terrible. Revert ASAP. All the details are already in the article. Just list out the names, not which part of the project they worked on. The infobox stretches the length of the article. --Scottie theNerd 14:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all the details are already in the article. The article doesnt talk about the writers, the composer, cinematographers or the editors. Tiger Trek 16:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The rest of my points still stand. It would look far better if only the names were listed. --Scottie theNerd 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies

In Major Dick Winters Memoirs “Beyond Band of Brothers” pgs 222-223 he states that it was definitely Easy Company that captured Berchtesgaden and not the 3rd Infantry or the French 2nd Armored, or even the 7th Infantry regiment.DRMAKA

Sadly, he is wrong. When they arrived there were no Allied troops there because they had been pulled out prior to Easy's arrival. So, in the perception of Easy and the rest of the 506th, they were first, but, they weren't. --Habap 11:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly for you, he is right. Major Winters was a serious officer, not a spineless civilian who has no qualms about lying. Feel free to live in your fantasy world, but I doubt you are going to accuse him of lying like you may. Of course, many accounts would agree with you, but, ironically, most of the other forces apparently never even ENTERED the buildings, thus, they were the first to occupy the Berchtesgarden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.250.36 (talk • contribs)

Your comment made me laugh. Are you saying that entering the buildings is the determining factor in whether you occupy a location? That sounds ridiculous. Second, do you really think that actual soldiers would not enter the buildings? I mean, would you feel safe if no one ever checked for possible hidden snipers? Remember, we're talking about combat veterans. Now, do you have any evidence that those units never entered the buildings? Winters was a wonderful officer and is a great and noble man, but other units were there first. (Oh, and Berchtesgaden is a town in the German Bavarian Alps., not a building.) --Habap 14:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is accusing Maj. Winters of lying. It is possible, however, that he is wrong about his facts. Winters is not the definitive source of historical facts. You don't have to have entered the town yourself in order to know who was there first, and if other accounts reveal that E Company, 506th was not the first into Berchtesgaden, then chances are they probably weren't. --Scottie theNerd 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever met a member of Eagle Company? I have. I had dinner and lunch with Frank Perconte. Even sat his house and had a few beers and watched WHY WE FIGHT. At 89 years old he's a spicy old devil. I asked come to my son's school and we shown a few clips of the BAND OF BROTHERS and he answered some questions. If you want to know more about him and to contact give me a hollar. He talked to you on the phone.

Capsource1@comast.net

http://nwitimes.com/articles/2005/04/23/news/lake_county/2f848416e95062aa86256fec000034d8.txt

Capsource1

Your story would be more believable if you got the name of the Company right... --Scottie theNerd 04:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a uniform (mis)sighting

A thing I have noticed is the Uniform of the British in Episode 5. Especially in the joint briefing scene it is clear to see that some (if not all) of the British are wearing the screaming eagle patch, which was clearly an American mark that the British would not have been wearing. Is there a reason for this? I know there are many instances in the show where it is so accurate it seems innacurate (such as the grenade exploding on impact), and if not is it mroe extensive than I have noticed so far? If it is indeed an error it surely deserves a mention! any thoughts?--Noofworm 03:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't the place to list out trivial historical accuracies. We're looking for anything that is significant in the context of the real Easy Company and events of the Second World War. --Scottie_theNerd 06:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If it were a mistake to do with the Americans uniforms it would get a mention without a doubt. But since it is the British no one seems to mind. Perhaps you have a point, as it does indeed sound more trivial than the other historical innacuracies listed, but that does not detract from my feeling that, as a British person, it still deserves a mention somewhere. Especially because of its glaring comparison to the otherwise flawless uniforms elsewhere.--Noofworm 17:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're countering alleged bias with your own bias? Trivia is trivia; other less-notable inaccuracies have been removed. No one's complaining about the omission of an over-loaded M1 Garand inaccuracy, and that's as American as you can get. Would American inaccuracies be more easily picked up? Probably; the series is based on an American combat unit after all. But, a single event over a uniform patch is hardly worth mentioning, and you haven't established the actual inaccuracy yourself yet. --Scottie_theNerd 17:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have established the innacuracy, I said it in my first paragraph. I can't find any other evidence to say it wasn't an innacuracy anywhere. There has to be somewhere for this trivia stuff to go. Not only is it interesting but it adds more substance to the article. Perhaps a new section? --Noofworm 01:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You said yourself that you weren't certain over the inaccuracy, and as of current you haven't provided any references to prove it. In case, the fact that this is a minor, trivial detail means it does not add any substance to the article. As editors, we are trying to present information in a fluid, comprehensive manner rather than listing out details as we think of them. Don't make the mistake of trying to put too much trivial information into an article. Just because it's interesting doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 01:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to get too involved with this, but it isn't an inaccuracy. The officer in questions was the BRITISH LIASON OFFICER with the 101st and, as such, would be entitled to wear the patch as he was attached to the 101st. He is positivly identified in that role in the scene in question.--Lepeu1999 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Now THATS what i'm talkin about! Thanks man :) now all is clear --Noofworm 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

-I say that it's a mild coincidence that I read this discussion today, and Episodes 1-5 were on The History Channel. So, I kept a keen eye for the "uniform incident" in question within Episode 5. Lepeu's explanation that the British Airborne colonel (lieutenant colonel, actually) is a/the liaison officer is probably correct. Even if it's not, I have an equally plausible explanation:

—If you look closely, the Brit colonel is not wearing the trademark splotched-"camo" Denison smock of the British Airborne. Instead, he is wearing the exact same US Airborne (and Army) -issue service jacket of monochrome OD/khaki (albeit a bit dark... but notice, several other officers in the room have the same jacket). What may have happened is that a US officer loaned the jacket to the Brit since, as the Brit colonel even stated, "I just swam it [the river] last night". Being that the scene is early morning, it's highly likely that, if this officer isn't a liaison, he made his way across the river, out of the danger zone, mere hours earlier, and was in need of a change of clothes. You have to admit, it's highly unlikely that the Americans would have British uniforms on hand to supply an officer with. -- HawkeAnyone 04:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Colonel's pistol

I'm a bit skeptical on one detail: is it confirmed that the colonel portrayed in the miniseries the same one referred to by Winters in his interview? As a commander of an occupying force, I would imagine Winters would face more than one colonel. --Scottie theNerd 02:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The colonel in the mini-series is based on the one from Winters referes to but with a difference - the real officer was no where near as arrogant (see Ambrose's account based on his interview with WInters in the BOB book) and the pistol had never been fired. Winters makes the point that the officer was please to turn it over to WInters as one combat soldier to another and made the point that it had never been fired - and that he was pleased with that. Winters was too and stated he still had the pistol but had never fired it either.--Lepeu1999 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Huge spacing gap

Whats with the huge spacing gap after it says Episodes list. Alot of blank space to scroll down to the actual episodes. I go to edit the spaces and don't see them. Is it due to the size of the sidebar boxes and the episode boxes?--63.163.213.245 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How should we mention?

That this mini-series received 9.6/10 at IMDB, the highest I've seen so far on the site? --84.249.253.201 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think it warrants a 'reception' section or something of that nature, you can put it in. David Fuchs 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical Errors

We need to reach some sort of consensus here. The Historical Inaccuracies section is become bloated as time passes, simply because there can be any number of errors - both significant and minor. There are things points to keep in mind:

1. Band of Brothers is based off the book of the same name, not off the Second World War in general.
2. Band of Brothers is a television miniseries. It is not a documentary. Therefore, it is allowed a reasonable amount of creative licence and flexibility as far as events and characters go.

The reason I bring this up is because editors are adding more and more errors. Yes, they are often correct and sometimes even sourced. However, it has reached the point where the article contains little else but a list of errors, and that is stated to detract from the value of the article and borders on violating WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and most of the errors listed are meaningless to readers unless they have seen the miniseries. Additionally, some reported mistakes do not regard the fact that the miniseries is based off the book, which is not a 100% accurate retelling of the events of the war, nor is it a universal record of what every other unit did.

The solution I present is:

• The Historical Inaccuracies section should be heavily trimmed. Only errors that are notable should be included. The most relevant of these is what happens to certain characters at the end of the war, such as the incorrect death of Albert Blithe and Joseph Liebgott's profession.
• Errors involving minor details, such as tactical directions, equipment, script and actions, should not be included. These are far too trivial and are easily allowable within the creative framework of the miniseries. There are other sites on the internet that act as databases for movie mistakes; Wikipedia shouldn't be used in this way.

If this is followed strictly, the current list will only contain two items, possible three: Albert Blithe's death, Joseph Liebgott's post-war career and the controversy over who was first to Berchtesgaden, the latter being a significant event and climax in history and in the book/miniseries. A fourth point could include the Colonel's Walther PP, as it is referred to significantly in the miniseries, the making-of episode and in Major Winters's memoirs.

The other details, including who was wounded when, minor details in the script and other items that fall under WP:TRIVIA should be removed, and additions to the article should adhere to the above in order to prevent it become bloated again. --Scottie_theNerd 04:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What about eliminating the section alltoghether? Pick a few glaring examples, work them into a new section entilted 'Production' with a discussion on the source material, some information on where the series was filmed, how it was cast, etc. As long as you have a section titled 'historical inaccuracies' you're going to get a list of trivia from people trying to prove how much smarter they are then the filmmakers.--Lepeu1999 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

US Army Branch Insignia confusion

The airborne boys have an odd branch insignia but I can't figure out what it is. It has the crossed rifles of the infantry, but then a flag or something over the rifles. Does anyone know what this insignia is? --MKnight9989 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In WWII it was the crossed rifled muskets - same as the rest of the infantry. In addition, they were authorized to wearthe airborne badge (opened parachute) on their overseas cap as well as jump wings on their blouse.--Lepeu1999 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but Maj. Winter's badge has something over the rifles. I'm curious as to what it is. --MKnight9989 13:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure of the particular scene you're thinking of, it wasn't uncommon for officers to have thier unit number over the crossed rifles - such as 502 or 506. This was an optional variant that was, indeed used by the 101st. Might that be what you're thinking of?--Lepeu1999 12:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That probably is what I saw. thanks mate. --MKnight9989 12:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How to pronouce "Bastogne

In the series i hear it as "Bass-stone" yet i hear some locals and documentrys refear to it as "Bass-stone-ya"

Could someone give me some clarfication(ForeverDEAD 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

The first pronunciation would probably be that of an American pronouncing a foreign name wrong. The second is the correct French/Belgian pronunciation. Morhange 04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically subjective. It's completely up to you how you pronounce it. Either version would be fine. Scarian^Talk 07:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--ForeverDEAD 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Historical Inaccuracies

Why not just make a separate page for them?

02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)~

Over the past year or so, we've seen the Historical Inaccuracies section in the Band of Brothers article grow and shrink thanks to the efforts of editors. Most of the inaccuracies identified have been backed up with credible sources, thus conforming with WP:V. However, what I am about to suggest will probably meet a lot of resistance due to the effort put into obtaining all of this information.

The Historical Inaccuracies has in practice become the centre-point of the article. The article says less about the miniseries than it does about its historical inaccuracies. The episode summaries are minimal, information on development and critical reception is lacking, and the only padded information in the article are the cast and inaccuracies. The cast is more or less static, but as time goes by, more editors will pick out more inaccuracies and add them to the list, often with credible sources, sometimes without.

I draw to your attention that this article is about the miniseries Band of Brothers. This is not Historical inaccuracies in Band of Brothers. We could go on and on about every single detail that the series got wrong, and we can do that for any film or TV series set in historical contexts. I am not suggesting that the information is incorrect. I am proposing that the historical inaccuracies be trimmed down or removed.

The main issue is relevance. Many of the sources verifiable. Very few, if any, draw any relation to Band of Brothers, which is precisely what the article is about. I therefore suggest the following:

• For conflicting information regarding BoB characters and real-life individuals, they should be combined into one paragraph with appropriate referencing to highlight the series' artistic license (or plain incorrectness).
• General historical errors (e.g. dates, equipment, uniforms, tactics) should be removed and additions should be discouraged.
• Sources that directly refer to Band of Brothers in its historical context should be cited more frequently.

WP:WEIGHT should be considered seriously: we have many editors contributing many inaccuracies, but the result is that the article is devoid of meaningful, encyclopedic information. I would be interested in hearing opinions on this. --Scottie_theNerd 09:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding idea! I firmly agree that the biographical differences should be incorporated into the cast section & the rest removed. It detracts from the article. We ran into a very similar issue with the article on Saving Private Ryan. --Lepeu1999 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Band of brothers01.jpg

Image:Band of brothers01.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Main characters

As you all know, every Band of Brothers episode (with the exception of episode 10, 'Points') has a main character. I have added them to the 'Episodes' table. I have certain doubts about my choice in episode 9, 'Why we fight', since Liebgott is the main character, but isn't really followed for a long time. I also have doubts about episode 1, 'Currahee', since the nCO's commit 'mutery' without Sobel knowing about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endin1 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why we would need to identify one main character in each episode. While I agree with what is on the chart as of this message, the purpose eludes me. --Scottie_theNerd 05:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon Pegg

What episode is he in? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He is in episodes 1 and 2 (Currahee and Day of days). He is the guy who gives Winters the letter from Sobel which says he has to go to the court marshall. In episode 2, he is the guy that Lt. Meehan goes to in the plane, because Evans (Simon Pegg) is scared. Endin1 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (GMT+1)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

9/11

Was the showing of this affected in any way by 9/11? Morhange (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the list of episodes, two episodes were shown on the premiere (09 September 2001) with one episode shown each week until all 10 had been exhausted (16 September 2001, etc). Based on this regular showing after 9/11, it seems that it was not affected. Freedomlinux (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

why are the plot summaries for each episode so short? It seems that each one warrants a paragraph not a single sentence remeber this is not a just a movie it is well over 10 hours long Meswallen (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Airborne song?

Does anybody know the name of the song that the airborne units were singing while traveling in the convoy? I've heard 2 versions of it, but can't find either.

The only lyrics I can remember are: "Glory, glory, what a hell of a way to die!(x3) And he ain't gonna jump no more!" 204.14.12.35 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was Blood on the Risers - Oldfarm (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

German teenager

Isn't one of the historical inaccuracies about Capt. Winters shooting that kid? I thought it was an armed adult who tried to kill him, but i could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If I had access to the book, I could verify. Unfortunately, I don't have it with me. I don't remember anything about it in the book, but it has been a long time since I last read it. --clpo13_(talk) 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have Major Winters book, but I am going to get it. This is from Ambrose, Stephen E., (2001). - Band of Brothers. - p.147-148. - ISBN 074322454X:

"In the lead, Winters got to the road first. He leaped up on it. Right in front of him, only a few feet away, was a German sentry with his head down, ducking the incoming fire from Reese's machine-guns [Lt. Frank Reese's squad providing covering fire for the advance]. To his right, Winters could see out of the corner of his eye a solid mass of men, more than 100, packed together, lying down at the juncture of the dike and the road. They too had their heads down to duck under the machine-gun fire. They were all wearing their long winter overcoats and had their backpacks on. Every single one of them was facing the dike, he was behind them. They were only 15 meters away.

Winters wheeled and dropped back to the west side of the road, pulled the pin of a hand grenade, and lobbed it over toward the lone sentry. Simultaneously the sentry lobbed a potato masher back at him. The instant Winters threw his grenade he realized he had made a big mistake; he had forgotten to take off the band of tape around the handle of the grenade he kept there to avoid an accident.

Before the potato masher could go off, Winters jumped back up on the road. The sentry was hunched down, covering his head with his arms, waiting for Winters grenade to go off. He was only 3 yards away. Winters shot him with his M-1 from the hip.

The shot startled the entire company. The SS troops started to rise and turn toward Winters, en masse. Winters pivoted to his right and fired into the solid mass."

Nowhere in the Ambrose Band of Brothers does it say how old the sentry was. I suspect this was theatrical license to get to the viewer.

4.240.162.56 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)