Talk:Patton (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace

Though when translated directly into English it means 'audacity'. In french, it can have a few meanings, one of which means 'daring'. And in the sense used in the movie, he isn't saying 'audacity' but 'daring'.

Many people believe that this is of Frederick the Great, is there specific proof that it originated with Georges Danton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.163.150 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Family protests

Was the family dead-set against the making of the movie because they asked the day after his widow's funeral? The article sort of seems to imply it, but its unclear. If not the reason why they were opposed should be stated. -R. fiend 20:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speech

Is the speech from the movie under copyright? Even if it isn't I think it's unnecessarily long to have in its entirety in this article. -R. fiend 02:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2 good points, my opinions:

1. Everyone wants the speech. Of course, they could get it from many sources on the internet like I did. But given this is a reference, I think it good to have it here. The entire article is actually rather short compared to many.

2. Copyright: There are 2 copyrights associated, the performance and the screenplay. Someone obviously copied the words from the performance, but that does not make it the screenplay. The words are never written on the screen and this was not copied from the screenplay, whoever has it. This is not for commercial use and all attributions and links are made. Also, it was obtained from another non-movie web site. And, in assessing the amount used compared to the entire movie, well, you get the picture. Further, much of it was derived from Patton himself, who never gave permission to the screenwriters to use, so they don't own a copyright in it (and words spoken in public by a public figure can not be copyrighted). Bottom line --> fair use if there is even a copyright at all.

--Noitall 05:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm moving it to wikiquote. Wikipedia is not for large dumps of source material. You can pursue your copyright squabbles there. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Patton and Bradley

I have read that the film could be intrepreted as a hagiographic tribute to Omar Bradley. Does anyone have any information on this? Hi There 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Carlo D'Este makes that argument in his book Patton: A Genius for War. Personally, I don't think it's any coincidence that Bradley was the film's senior military adviser.97.73.64.164 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd Phrase - Nazi Homeland

In the Plot section, the phrase "Nazi homeland" occurs. I find this to be a very odd phrase, as a political party is generally not assigned a homeland in the same way that a people, or ethnic or linguistic group is generally thought to spring from a homeland. I would feel much more comfortable with the phrase "German homeland" but would be interested to know the points in favour of the current "Nazi homeland". Hi There 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding in Trivia Section

There seems to be a misunderstanding in the Trivia section. Where it says:

The scene at the beginning of the film with Patton delivering his monologue was actually the last scene filmed. Originally, it was supposed to have been the first scene shot, but Scott requested that he be saved for the end of filmmaking. It was Scott's belief that the scene called for Patton to be so over the top, that it would affect his performance in the rest of the film. The scene was shot in a basement room.

In IMDB it says:

Initially, George C. Scott refused to film the famous speech in front of the American Flag when he learned that the speech was going to come at the opening of the film. He felt that if they put that scene at the beginning, then the rest of his performance would not live up to that scene. So director Franklin Schaffner lied to Scott and told him that the scene would be put at the end of the film.

I did the highlightning to show up the differences. The contributor to the article thought that the problem with the scene in question was the order of shooting, whereas in the IMDB bit it is said that the problem was the order of showing of the scene... It would be nice to have a source to find out which one is the right one. (Personally, I am inclined to think that IMDB is right on this one.) Nazroon 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I've moved this bit out of trivia, I'm going to replace it with the IMDB version, but mark it with a citation needed tag. Clarityfiend 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Patton's driver

In the credits, it's listed as "General Patton's Driver...Bill Hickman," yet on here it specifies someone else. Anyone know about this? JW 09:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as Patton's and Bradley's driver are minor characters, I'm removing all mention of the two of them, so we don't have to worry about who portrayed them. Clarityfiend 05:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mules Killed

Wasn't there some controversy because animals were actually killed during the making of the film? In particular, the scene involving the mules which Patton shot? And did this lead to rules about this for later films?Jrm2007 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/pattonmules.asp --EchetusXe 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:70 patton.jpg

Image:70 patton.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Filming location

The article states that the scene at the ruins was shot in Tunisia, but I believe this is wrong. The ruins look like those at Volubilis, which is in Morocco. See the scene [1] and compare.--SkiDragon (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hobart Carver

Was this character a person in real life or an amalgam or people? This is the only principal role about whom we have no article. I cannot find anything on the web about a "Hobart Carver". --DAW0001 (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know (there are a lot of generals who don't show up on the web), but real or fictional, he doesn't rate a link. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If he were real he would surely rate an article and a link, I would think. And how many World War II generals don't show up on the web? Can you give an example? john k (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He was probably a fictional character based on a real person. Patton's chief of staff was Hobart "Hap" Gay.24.56.112.3 (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Strafing

There was in incident in the film where his headquarters was strafed right when the British promised no more German planes. There is no mention of this in the article. I read where the strafing incident really happened. Anyone have any additional information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The strafing incident did really happen. Contrary to the film's depiction, Arthur Coningham was not present for that incident. From what I've read, Patton had a meeting with some of the Allied brass to complain about lack of air cover, and during the meeting two German planes strafed his headquarters (the part where Patton ran out into the streets and shot at the planes with his pistol is fiction). I believe the meeting with Coningham took place the following day, and it was much more tense than the movie depicted. For further information, see Patton: A Genius for War, by Carlo D'Este.97.73.64.164 (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Eisenhower

One of the oddities of the movie is that Eisenhower never appears as a character. The article on Patton notes that Patton was, in fact, quite close to Eisenhower. But Eisenhower comes off as a distant, impersonal figure in the movie - he's taken out of events that he actually participated in and replaced by Bedell Smith, or he sends a letter to Patton where he really came and talked to him personally. This is touched on with the discussion of the allied conference where Smith replaces Eisenhower in charge. But it really is a rather odd fact. I suppose Eisenhower had only just died when the film was being made and released. But the same was true of Alexander, who is depicted in the film. And Montgomery was still alive, and is depicted most unflatteringly. Is there any explanation for why the writers decided to depict Eisenhower in this way? I think it would be useful for the article, if so. john k (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding Eisenhower's absence from the film. He was one of Patton's closest friends, so it doesn't make sense that he never appeared in the movie. It's really a shame. Patton's impetuous conduct really put a strain on their friendship, and I think that would have added an interesting dimension to the film. The movie also gives the impression that Patton and Bradley were close friends. In real life, the two men never particularly liked each other.97.73.64.164 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bradley was intimately involved in the movie's creation, which may also explain Malden's hagiographic portrayal, as well as the downplaying of the serious differences in strategy between Patton and Bradley. Eisenhower would have been a challenger for Bradley's position as the war's great saint.Czrisher (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Tim Considine"

In in article, the name of the soldier whom Patton slapped was given as "Tim Considine," which links to an article about an American youth born in December of 1940 who was a member of the Mickey Mouse club. Obviously, the link is incorrect (or a vandal entry). I do not know the name of the actual soldier whom Patton slapped, so I just removed the reference entirely. --Quoth the Raven (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

According to IMDB, Tim Considine is the ACTOR who PLAYED "Soldier who gets slapped". see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0175919/

According to Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943964,00.html), that soldier was Charles H. Kuhl, slapped on August 3, 1943.

Several other sources from Google name a second soldier who was slapped, Paul G. Bennett, on August 10, 1943.

Feel free to edit this information into the article as appropriate.

--DAW0001 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There were indeed two slapping incidents in real life. The one in the film seems to be based largely on the second incident, so the soldier would have been Paul G. Bennett (actually, Tim Considine's character was probably intended to be a compilation of Kuhl and Bennett).24.56.112.3 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Allmovie

• Patton at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I find Allmovie's plot synopses to be often inaccurate, sometimes wildly so. And if IMDb is not considered a WP:Reliable source, isn't Allmovie in the same boat? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Original/Adapted screenplay contradiction.

In section 6 it says the film won the "Best Original Screenplay" Oscar. 2 lines later it says that the WGA selected the "adapted screenplay" as one of "the best ever (etc)". Which is it? 59.101.33.190 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies noted by editors but not third party sources

To what extent would it be acceptable to have a list of inaccuracies in a film found by editors? The editors may provide cites to show that the plot is "incorrect", but do not have cites to show that a reliable third party source picked up on this or reported interest in such inaccuracies.

When a large list of "incorrect" scenes, dialogue etc are found, which should be kept and which deleted from the article, if they are all there solely because an editor has themselves decided that they are an inaccuracy? Alastairward (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to mind is that all wikipedia entries are subject to Wikipedia:Verifiability and thus must be properly sourced to a reliable third party source. None of these purported inaccuracies have been verified yet. Therefore, trivia or not, if the proper citation cannot be found, they should be removed. Guidance regarding the content of the section is found, in my opinion, at Wikipedia:Handling trivia. The section encourages editors to integrate trivia into the main article, whenever possible, rather than listing it in a separate section. It also emphasizes that trivia that is not sourced should be removed, as should trivia that overbalances the article, or that is just too trivial to be mentioned (this last point I do not believe applies here, but the rest does). In light of the above, an assessment should be whether the section is too long as compared to the article as a whole, and if not, whether the points can be better integrated in the film section. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd generally agree with LW and would recommend deleting it altogether. Remember, it's a work of fiction and the filmmakers often twist facts to fit the flow of the script. Patton (the character) had to be on good terms with Bradley simply because he had to have a faithful sidekick, it's how filmmaking goes. Strike out Monty, Harmon, Truscott, etc. - Bradley looks perfect in this function. This, of course, is my understanding and I don't have evidence for it; but there is also no evidence to call it "inaccuracy". As for the other points raised in the article:

"Patton's best friend was probably Eisenhower, and he never appears in the movie" - the latter part is quite easy to back up, the first is not so simple. I suspect that the editors extrapolated pre-war relations into 1945. But there is plenty of evidence that these relations changed a lot during the war, as did both men mentally and physically (my personal complaint would be that 43-year-old Scott appears and acts as a man of his age when the real Patton of 1945 was 60 and looked at least 70).

"The film only depicts one incident of Patton slapping an enlisted man" - this, imo, is a purely literary matter. The film had no place for two slappings, its a feature film and not a soap. Don't blame the authors, there's only so-and-so-many episodes they could reasonably fit in a film. The Hammelsburg raid, perhaps, deserved a place in the movie, but the omission is not an "inaccuracy".

"In real life, Patton gave this order at Lorraine about a month before the Battle of the Bulge" - same thing, writers compressed real-life event to keep the flow running.

"According to Patton's service record, and minutes kept during the actual promotion ceremony" - I don't see how official records can prove something that was done inofficially, in defiance of accepted procedure. This is perhaps the only complaint that can be positively checked against comprehensive biographies written after the film. The others must go. East of Borschov (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• no "inaccuracies" should be included without 3rd party citations about the movie This is the article about the movie. A random list of "inaccuracies" does not help a reader understand the movie. To place the "inaccuracies" in context of the movie would require third party sources that provide the analysis and commentary necessary. A wikipedia editor determining an "inaccuracy" falls clearly under WP:SYN - the editor looking at the movie and comparing it to a history book or biography and saying "this is in here but its not in there". Active Banana (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Outside View by Movementarian

To answer your question simply, inaccuracies noted by users should not be included as they are original research. Historical innaccuracies should be very easy to source, as it is a favourite topic of professional and amateur historians. It is important to remember that this article is about the film, not the man. Overwhelming the reader with trivia like that takes away from the article, in my opinion. Pointing out a few blaring errors is fine, but remember wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. Movementarian (Talk) 16:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Here.it.comes.again

Editorial View Agree with Movementarian that the material in dispute is mostly original research and therefore inappropriate. On the other hand, if elements of it can be supported by citations, which I think fairly likely as there is lots of military history and biographical literature on Patton, then their existence might merit a one sentence mention with three examples in a section on the movie as a work of art in its culture, but no more. The movie is not a documentary film nor does it pretend to be. It is art -- a frank work of historical fiction. Creating a compilation of its deficiencies as a documentary and illustrations of its creative POV is a worthy effort, one that would undoubtedly be especially useful to younger viewers of the film who may have no idea how creative that POV is. However, including it here in Wikipedia indeed violates the principle that wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details., and the principle that Wikipedia is not a compendium of cultural (in this case art) criticism.

Suggested Editorial Fix The way I would handle it editorially in Wikipedia is this:

1. Make sure that the lead paragraph of the entry on the movie identifies it as a work of historical fiction.
2. Include a section in the movie article on the work in culture.
3. Note again in that section that the movie is historical fiction, not documentary.
4. Note no more than three examples of dramatic POV which are historically inaccurate.
5. Support those three examples with citations from existing works of history.
6. Make sure that the biographical entry on Patton mentions the existence of this movie and makes clear either categorically or explicitly that it is a work of historical fiction.

Comment In cases of original research like this, saying that the material does not belong in Wikipedia is neither a judgement on its value to society nor a prediction of the size of the audience that is likely to appreciate it. Today much of this kind of film criticism and military history discussion appears in blogs. An interesting blog entry with good tags is just as likely as a Wikipedia article to show up in search engine results.

Here.it.comes.again (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

disambiguation page

There should be a disambiguation page, since "Patton" could mean the movie, the general, or the tank. --Kenyon 20:34, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Meh, the tank was named after the general after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.71.236 (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Knutsford incident.

The film depicts Patton making a speech at Knutsford, England, in which he predicted that the British and the Americans would rule the world after the war. This was seen as a snub to the Russians. According to eyewitness accounts, Patton did indeed mention the Russians, but this was left out of many British newspaper accounts. By the time a correction was made, the damage was already done. Patton's comments were nonetheless inappropriate, since a general had no business commenting on postwar policy. If anyone other than Patton had made the statement, it probably would have been brushed aside as an innocent gaffe.97.73.64.170 (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also a lot of American opinion, especially Republicans in the MidWest, was isolationist and suspicious of Britain and of the suggestion that the USA (which had returned to isolation after WW1) would get sucked into exercising joint world domination with Britain. This aspect is not stressed in the film, which is keen to portray Patton as a latent anti-Soviet cold warrior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulturtle (talk • contribs) 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well of course not - the action of this movie takes place in Europe, not in pre-Pearl Harbor America. It would have been entirely out of place in the making of the story. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

US isolationism went on for a very long time after Pearl Harbor - it wasn't overt but it was sublimated into suspicion of the British Empire, pressure on the British to pull out of India etc. - one of the reasons Ike gave for running for President in 1952 was worry that the Republicans might otherwise nominate Senator Taft, who was not strongly committed to the US presence in Europe and elsewhere. There would not have been anything remotely "out of place" in the film stressing that a lot of US opinion during WW2 was suspicious of Britain (and vice versa) and that this affected the rivalries between British and American generals, each playing up to the press in their respective countries. See p586 of the d'Este biog - one of the main critics over Knutsford was Karl Mundt, then a Republican congressman (later Senator) from one of the Dakotas - his charge was that Patton had insulted all of America's allies except the British, and the inference from the discussion is that it was the talk of the USA and GB "ruling the world" together which caused trouble. But the filmmakers chose not to emphasise that aspect of the Knutsford Incident.Paulturtle (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"No" in what sense?Paulturtle (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Inaccuracies" section

Two things:
1. Should the "Anachronistic Props" subsection be moved to the "Inaccuracies" section?
2. A paragraph states that the scene set in the ruins of Volubilis is inaccurate because the structures depicted weren't built until after the Punic Wars. However, Volubilis was founded by the third century BCE and eventually taken over by the Romans. The film doesn't claim that the city wasn't rebuilt, so I fail to see the problem. If anything, it's inaccurate because the scene is supposed to take place east in Algeria or Tunisia, and the location is in Morocco. But given that most of the film wasn't shot at the historical locations, this doesn't seem to warrant special mention. I suggest it be deleted.

1. I'd leave them separate. The props are for the most part not really inaccuracies; it was just too expensive/difficult to get period hardware.

2. Volubilis is already mentioned in the Locations section, so I'm going to delete the redundant info. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent challenge to trivia section

There's also the statement that "A scene after Patton's bulge counterattack shows Rommel destroying documents. He was already dead by this point." IIRC, it was Steiger and Jodl destroying documents in that scene; I don't recall Rommel being there. Can anyone confirm? MFNickster (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to view the film again to be certain, but I think you're correct. The last time I remember seeing Rommel in the film was shortly after Patton began leading the breakout from Normandy. That would have been in August, 1944. I think Rommel died in October of that year.24.56.112.3 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies need to be verified by reliable sources. If the film is partially known for its inaccuracies, then surely reliable sources exist to describe some of them. Otherwise, such details that are derived from editors with specialist knowledge are not appropriate, per WP:PSTS. Let me know if you want me to help research this particular sub-topic. Erik (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont think a single user should blank the entire section. There are at least two cited statements in the section and the rest could probably easily be verified. I think discussing the problem statements in this section is the way to go, not simply blank the entire section. -OberRanks (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a new thing with this section for users to blank the entire thing without regards to the references. Given the large amount of data, the contributions of several editors to put it in, something like that needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. -OberRanks (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Blanked a third time - not at all worth an edit war, but the information about Patton pinning on Lieutenant General early was well cited from his promotion ceremony records inside his service record as verified from the Military Personnel Records Center. -OberRanks (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The cite provided was woefully inadequate. And as Erik rightly states, if this list really is worthy of inclusion, it will most likely be cited elsewhere. Alastairward (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about all the other items, but the rank pinning information was cited directly from a primary source; mainly Patton's own service record on file with the U.S. government. It doesn't matter at this stage, since I have no problem with the removal of the trivia section. -OberRanks (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot see in any way how "Service record of George S. Patton, National Personnel Records Center" could stand as "cited directly from a primary source". Alastairward (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

His service record is open to the public now, as is anything in it [2]. His dates of rank and service history can be obtained by researchers and are citable for historical essays, reference books, etc. The Lieutenant General promotion papers are actually quite interesting as they give a detailed account of the actual ceremony that took place in North Africa - believe me, it was nothing like what was shown in the film. Hope that answers your question - I don't plan to reinsert this into the trivia section, so all is well. -OberRanks (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Stating the link to the US archives is showing us a source, simply putting in ref tags that there is a service record someone isn't citing any source. That's the difference and it does matter if you've been pulling this sort of thing in other articles. I guess that's the value of a contributions link eh? Alastairward (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for this, but if you are suggesting that information from an official military service record isn't a reliable source, there are hundreds of articles on this site that directly reference info out of service records. We have have an entire article devoted to a service record, mainly Service record of Reinhard Heydrich. Also the dates of rank for Chester Nimitz, William Halsey, Curtis LeMay, and at least a dozen other military figures are taken directly from military service records. I guess if you wish to pursue this, we can start up a talk page entry on WP:Sources. -OberRanks (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The thread has been started here. We can leave the trivia out to avoid an edit war although its pretty clear you followed me to the main Patton article to continue this dispute there [3]. I've self reverted there as well to avoid any further edit wars and asked for a clear clarification about using military service records as reliable sources. -OberRanks (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My two-cents worth on this is that the inaccuracies section contains relevant information, which would be non-obvious to a general viewer (whether teenager or adult) whose interest is whetted by the film and wants to learn more. I'm a bit unconfortable about blanket deletions of material. By all means demand citations, but I didn't see anything glaringly wrong in the list. Hopefully we can be grown-up enough to recognise that any film has to make a few compromises with the strict facts, and that there is an interesting discussion to be had about how the film shows Monty in a poor light and Bradley in a saintly one.

According to Carlo d'Este Patton was nothing like the bloodthirsty cavalryman portrayed in the film, which makes me suspect that the slipup about "Arabs" at the Battle of Zama is probably a scriptwriting oversight - as a keen military historian Patton would have been aware of Belisarius' reconquest of Tunisia from the Vandals in the early 500s, for example, and how the East Romans were (supposedly) so weakened by Justinian's attempt to reconquer the west that they lacked the strength to resist the Arab onslaught two centuries later, etc etc. But who knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulturtle (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Two centuries is a long time for any gov't to "rebuild" its military - Byzantium encountered many troubles post-Justinian that slowly wore it down. However, the actual reasons for the sapping of strength of the Byzantines was Emperor Heraclius' war against the Persians. Although the Byzantines finally won this battle, the army was far too small to stop the Arab-Muslim conquering zeal that took place after 629 A.D. The Persians, being decimated by the Byzantines, also were in no condition to resist militarized Islamization. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I did not say it was necessarily "correct" - I added the word "supposedly". The Gothic Wars in Italy dragged on for years, as did the wars between East Rome/Byzantium and Persia (Belisarius had fought many of his campaigns against the Persians in the 500s). Many factors went into Byzantine decline, and doutless the Persian Wars were more important, but there have always been historians who have argued that the "Second Front" (so to speak) against the Goths and Lombards was a contributory factor. It remains a matter of debate, as do the reasons for the spectacular success of the Arab conquests - one suspects that there may have been a bit more to it than "conquering zeal", especially as the Arabs were, by the standards of the time, fairly tolerant of those they conquered. Anyway, this is a tangent - my point is that Patton would quite likely have been perfectly well aware that North Africa was not inhabited by Arabs at the time of Zama, so that little error is probably one by the scriptwriters.Paulturtle (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I kind of agree with PT. I have noticed over the past several months a wave of trivia removal from articles, by several users and I'm sure that they thought they were doing the right thing. Wile that might be the rule, I think it should not be so blindly followed. As for this article, maybe we should just ignore that rule since I think it makes the article better. -OberRanks (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Trivia is just that, trivia. Its trivial by nature. Just because you think its interesting, doesn't mean its useful. As the onus is on the editor adding material, perhaps we might have a reason for this list to be here. What other films (and I mean good articles) contain such a shopping list of items? What is useful about knowing that a film uses artistic licence and props that aren't the real thing? Is that really so surprising that every one has to be listed.

And I've heard the ignore and rules pleading before, a very good way to cut that line of argument short is to ask "how does it improve the article?". Alastairward (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion on this matter. Alastairward (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious we need more opinions on the matter. I am also a little bit concerned that there may be a conflict of interest here, given this edit about reviewing user contributions and finding other articles I'm involved with [4], especially in light of past conflicts that AW have had on other articles, such as this one. I apologize in advance if that sounds like I'm accusing anyone of anything- indeed, if AW states that my presence on this article has nothing to do with these reverts then I offer my most sincere humblest apology. -OberRanks (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A "conflict of interest"? You mean you suspect me of having involvement with the production of the film Patton? All I did was buy the DVD from a bargain bin in a supermarket... Alastairward (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Might be on my end as well. I've self reverted, third opinion has been asked for, so that sounds good to me. I'm bowing out to the majority here. Whatever is decided will work for me. -OberRanks (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The only items I consider worth keeping are: Patton and Bradley not being friends, Patton slapping two men, and maybe the chaplain's prayer (with a reference or three). The rest have no particular significance to the plot. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to restore those specific items, and have removed this discussion's listing from WP:3O. --Andrensath (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That said, I will add the citation needed template to each item for the time being, as I have no particular desire to go RS hunting right now. --Andrensath (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Patton's rank

You asked why the mention of Patton's rank keeps getting deleted. The reason I got rid of it is that IMO it's trivial and has little bearing on the film, unlike for example the Patton/Montgomery rivalry. Now that I think about it, the l'audace item should also be trashed. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really trivial; the entire scene is simply made up and should be listed under the inaccuracy sections. Patton never put on LTG early and the producers simply added this in the movie to give the character devleopment that Patton thought of himself most of the time. While that was true, Patton took medals, badges, and ranks very seriously and never wore a medal without authority and never put on a rank before he wass authorized to do so. Also his service record has a fairly detailed account of the actual promotion ceremony that took place to Lieutenant General and it was nothing like what was shown in that film. -OberRanks (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I had always wondered about that scene. Patton certainly had his faults, but he had too much respect for military protocol to pin on a rank insignia prematurely. This is just one of several scenes that, in my opinion, depict Patton unfairly. On the other hand, the movie is too easy on him in other areas (it doesn't mention his anti-Semitism, for instance), so I guess it all evens out.97.73.64.170 (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Revisited May 2010

I see no reason to exclude the promotion scene information, especially since its well cited from ceremony minutes out of Patton's service record. I've readded that information as well, with the proper citations. -OberRanks (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're applying undue weight to that item of trivia (and for goodness sakes, you have not cited it well and you've been told that by other editors). This is an article about the film, try to make whatever is added germane to that subject.

I can see no reason to add the promotion scene and the onus is always on those who would like to add material. This is not a documentary film, there is artistic license at work. Patton received a promotion earlier in his career according to the film, than he did in real life, is that the gist of this? If so, what is the real significance to the film, as an entertainment piece.

OberRanks, read the film reviews and see if anyone pores over the minutiae as you do, or the actual acting and direction of the film, that should give you an idea of what is important and what is not. Alastairward (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's cited directly out of his service record and three users at WP:SOURCE stated the source was good. In fact, of all the items re-added, this is the only one that has a cite. Its also one of the most glaring inaccuracies in the film, i.e. a totally fabricated scene that flat out just didn't happen. There is no reason for its removal, especially in light of the agreement to reinsert the inaccuracies section. -OberRanks (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

3rd party opinion requested, in light of statements that info from the service record isn't a good cite. As stated above, Patton's record is now public and information within is frequently being used by researchers [5] -OberRanks (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, I would agree with Alastairward that it's a bad cite, purely on format grounds, but disagree about it not being worth including. OberRanks: I would suggest including a link directly to his service record, if obtainable. If not, I'd say {{cite book}} would suffice. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think by tomorrow I can find a book that also states what the service record reveals. -OberRanks (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that we're simply seeing the trivia creeping back in here, which is a bad idea. A third opinion was sought in addition to other user's existing opinion and to be honest, I can't see how the article is being improved.

This is a work of entertainment, not a documentary piece. If the factual accuracy were a big issue, we would have seen a lot of third party sources providing that opinion. At the moment the trivia section (which is what the "inaccuracies" translate to) is just a regrowing list of what film buff editors have spotted.

In comparison with other film article (and not in comparison with articles on actual historical figures), where is the value of this list? What other good film articles feature such lists? This is something that is just not being answered here. Alastairward (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Brief list of other film articles with equivalent lists: Michael Collins (film), Ray (film), and Alexander (film) (all links lead directly to relevant section). --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Andrensath, that's my point! Look at the articles. The list in the Michael Collins article is long, rambling and uncited. In such a state, the article is not rated as good (I had asked you to use good films as comparison, remember?). The article on the film Ray, lists only two examples, not a shopping list of trivia. The section in the Alexander film is the best example of all. It isn't a long list of editor's notes, it's actual criticism, from third party sources. Many different independent sources noting historical inaccuracies and cites provided to back that up.

That is the difference between an average and a good article. Good articles do not rely on synthesis and editor opinion. Alastairward (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there seems to have been some misreading on my part. I interpreted 'good film articles' to be asking for *good films* whose articles included equivalent sections, as distinct from *good articles* on films that included such sections. My apologies. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a further reference from a biography text on Patton which details the Lieutenant General promotion ceremony. If we still see fit to cut this out, then there shouldn't really even be a section for any of this- otherwise it looks as if we are picking and choosing what is going in, especially since the other items presently in the inaccuracies section are uncited. -OberRanks (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks, that is a very good point, who should decide the bar for these inaccuracies. It's at this point that we must take a third party source on board to guide us. Alastairward (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this suggestion is that, as I've gotten involved in the discussion, we've gone over the limit for WP:3O. Unless *both* Alastairward (talk · contribs) and OberRanks (talk · contribs) are still willing to accept me as a neutral third party for the purpose of deciding which inaccuracies make the cut (presently I'd say *only* the Lt Gen. promotion ceremony one should, as it's the only cited one in the article as-is, and, AFAICT, was the only one with even the semblance of a cite pre-dispute), I'm not sure how we should move forward from here. Ideally, of course, all the inaccuracies would have third-party sources mentioning them, but the bracketed compromise seems the best one possible at the moment, as we lack RS mentioning said other inaccuracies. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Andrensath, that's the problem. I can't see why any one editor should be a judge of how much of this information is germane. You said the promotion information is cited, how so? Even if OberRanks does come back with a proper citation to show that the promotion was awarded to Patton in real life, at a time different to that indicated in the film, then what?

The point here is that by including this "inaccuracy" we're deciding the intent of the films' writers. Did they intend to accurately reflect the film's subject with high historical accuracy? Did they make a genuine mistake or was it the way that Patton's records were written up at the time? There are a lot of what ifs here.

This film is a piece of entertainment, so whether something is an inaccuracy or artistic license is something that we as editors cannot decide on.

What we can do however is let people know if, as in the case of Alexander above, perceived inaccuracies have gained notability through the use of reliable third party cites. Has anyone noted such a problem, a film reviewer or academic say, and written or spoken about it? Alastairward (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The promotion information is cited from the currently available version of his service record indirectly, and directly from the biography of him written by David A. Smith.

I do however grant that no one editor should decide how much of this information is germane or not, and am therefore discussing it in an attempt to reach a consensus on that issue.

On the inaccuracy/artistic license front, would a formulation along the lines of 'these events as depicted in the film do not match the currently available historical record {{As of|2010|May}}' be acceptable? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

On further thought, what do you two think of filing a WP:RFC? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC might be a good idea. One of the problems here is that AW is continuing to make statements that the promotion statement "isn't cited properly" when it now has a primary and secondary source to back it up. -OberRanks (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that certain users (see section below) are getting very hung up on citations. Cites aren't the problem (that they have been insufficient to date is a problem, but that's an issue), its whether any of this is useful, whether or not its trivia, whether or not its something that is given undue weight in this article. Trivia can be cited in many articles, but scrubbed very easily.

When production information, and critical reviews are outweighed by a huge list of "inconsistencies" (and we may include anacronistic props in there too) you have to wonder. If we give it so much weight in this article, shouldn't that be an indication of importance? That we might find third party sources to highlight this inconsistency? Alastairward (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

To close this dispute (if that's possible), I move that either the section be left in or removed completely rather than picking and choosing what stays or what goes. This isn't worth this big of a dispute or an edit war. -OberRanks (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation for Patton's Rank

This will have to be dealt with for once and for all as its taking this discussion off course. OberRanks, nobody has said that a cite has not been provided for Patton's rank. Got that, nobody. What I have said (and other editors have confirmed this) is that the cite is insufficient.

Simply saying that you've got a record of Patton's promotions is not enough. You must show us that you've actually located the specific information available. The guide on citations should show you how to do this, how to show us where you found information in a book with reference to an ISBN number and page, or a website with notes on how to show us the URL and date it was accessed etc.

I hope that settles that issue and stops us muddying the water above. Alastairward (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is now a second reference to a formal biography of Patton which details his promotion in North Africa. In the biography, there is also text that references how the film is inaccurate and how Patton never pinned on Lieutenant General early. So, there are now two citations- one primary and the other secondary. -OberRanks (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ISBN appears to be 0313323534. I would have to investigate the exact page number. -OberRanks (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Its still a Strawman argument, the title stands. The citation isn't the problem per se, but it is still incomplete. OberRanks, if you've added the material to this article on the basis of the cite, how come its taking you so long to remember the page number you found the information on? Alastairward (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't have the book in front of me at this exact moment, of course I can not rattle off a page number. To the original issue, I suggest RFC on this issue if there is still dispute about the validity of these citations. Both the service record citation and the citation for the Patton biography seem to be perfectly acceptable. If they are not, we probably need to hear from impartial 3rd party users as to why. -OberRanks (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of the erroneous lieutenant-general promotion scene is I think that it is being used as an example of Bradley portraying Patton as an egoist, whereas in reality he stuck to military protocol? Perhaps we are losing sight of that. Some film articles do go to town on inaccuracy, eg. Ken Russell's 1970 film about Oliver Cromwell and David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia", both of them fine films which get played a lot on TV, and people do get their ideas about history from watching films - we are not talking romantic comedy here. The article on the latter covers the matter by means of "historians have criticised the film thus". WRT reliable historians criticising this film's inaccuracy iirc Carlo d'Este criticises the film's account of the Sicily campaign in his "Bitter Victory" of which I sadly don't have a copy to hand. On the other hand some of the nitpicks actually are necessities of filmmaking (no authentic Sherman tanks available) or obvious licence to streamline the plot (only one slapping incident is shown otherwise it would be tedious) and yet seem to me worthy of mention, even if it's hard to immediately think of a strict justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulturtle (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, I'm going to step out of this conversation for now since Alastairward are having difficulties due to other issues and I feel the hard-core attitude to reject the LTG promotion ceremony info has more to do with the fact that I added it rather than what it actually says. I've added the cites to the best of my ability and we appear to have three people who agree that's its valid material. If AW continues to remove it, I leave that situation up to other editors. -OberRanks (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks, make up motives for my edits if you wish, you are free to. There are good reasons for rejecting your edits in this article, I feel I have articulated them pretty well. I have yet to hear you provide a proper rebuttal to them by the way.

Paulturtle, the criticism by Carlo d'Este sounds along the lines that I was thinking of. Check out the links in article for the film Alexander, there's something similar in there. I would disagree though that its worth mentioning the use of certain props through necessity, it just seems to dive into minutiae a little too much. Alastairward (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How did Harry Morgan's name get in the credits?

Harry Morgan was NOT in this movie.

He's listed on the IMDb credits for Patton as "Senator (uncredited)". Presumably he's supposed to be "Senator Clayburn Foss" in the newsreel following the "Knutsford Incident", calling for Patton to be severely disciplined for supposedly insulting "our Russian allies". That's the only senator I can think of in the entire movie.

The voice of the senator in the movie does have a superficial resemblance to Harry Morgan's voice, but he bears no facial resemblance to Harry Morgan other than general age and structure. For that matter, he has darker hair and a more receding hairline and looked a bit older than Harry Morgan did when Patton was being filmed, which was also around the time Morgan, then in his early to mid-50s, did such films as What Did You Do In the War, Daddy?, The Flim-Flam Man (where he actually did act with George C. Scott in that instance), and Support Your Local Sheriff, as well as the 1960s reprise of Dragnet. For all we know, this may have been a real newsreel of a real politician, although there's no indication that a Senator Clayburn Foss ever existed.

I've submitted corrections on IMDb on both the Patton and Harry Morgan pages, but so far they've been ignored. Erroneous crap tends to stick around forever on the web. PhantomWSO (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Easy enough to fix by just deleting all the uncredited actors. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Harry Morgan wasn't in the film, but he should have been. He bore a much closer resemblance to General Walter Bedell Smith than Ed Binns did.97.73.64.153 (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Fictional Characters

After reading the excellent article on the Lawrence of Arabia page i think this page needs some verification of fictional characters. From what ive tried to google, i can find no mention of Brigadier General Hobart Carver, Lieutenant Colonel Henry Davenport or Colonel John Welkin in anything but the film. Are thes fictionalised versions of real people or fabricated purely for dramatic purposes? Any help would be gratefully welcomed. --The Mercenary 73 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

reincarnation

Patton was a devout Presbyterian. Presbyterianism believes in predestination and reincarnation and regardless, Patton believed in it. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Presbyterians argue that Scripture does not teach reincarnation; it points us toward eternal life in the presence of God. Moreover, believing in reincarnation is a very severe form of believing in works righteousness, because reincarnation teaches that you must live your life over and over until you have attained to a level of goodness that frees you from the rounds of human existence." - this is from the official Presb. site, so, NO, they don't believe in reincarnation.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oscar refusal

CMIIAW, but I thought that the reason that Scottt rejected his Oscar was because the Oscar system did not compare like with like, that is to say, several Patton films made at the same time.

Back in the day I remember reading that he did it because he thought it was beneath actors to compete against each other for an award. For those who don't know, "CMIIAW" is short for "check me if I am wrong". And CMIIAW is NOT an anagram, which far too many people today seem to think.209.179.57.76 (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)