Talk:Horace Greasley

Image "Himmler inspects POW camp.jpg"

There seems to be some disagreement whether the image in the infobox, "Himmler inspects POW camp.jpg", actually depicts Greasly or a Russian POW. Can anyone confirm or deny these claims? Zujua (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The photo appears here http://worldwar2database.com/gallery3/index.php/wwii0205 and is captioned as "Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler Inspects Minsk Labor Camp" which seems far more likely given that the soldier is wearing a what appears to be a Red Army 'pilotka' cap and the other prisoners are in civilian clothes. --195.137.46.194 (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Photo is odd:

1.The Medal ribbons of the Nazis are worn on the wrong (right) side; surely more attention would have been made by a serious 'Pedia contributor to publishing accurately? 2. The forage cap of the prisoner is emphatically not British issue of the era. This begs a few more questions;

    a. Would a POW knowingly wear the headgear of a 'foreign' nation?
    b. If a 'Commonwealth' POW had lost his headgear, would he use another nations; in contravention of Kings Regulations given that 'esprit de corps' would have meant so much, or would he have just remained without?

Who has written this 'Pedia article?

Has any attempt been made to contact any living relations of Greasley to verify fact from fiction?

Rumour is that a Film (Movie) is proposed on this mans alleged exploits; hard evidence? Family corroboration?

This Article seems a little contrived for the purposes of the Mass Media Machine; is it a genuine library contribution or a stooge for publicity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trearddur72 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed not Horace Greasley but an unnamed Soviet POW. The photograph is from Himmler's August 1941 visit to Minsk.

There was also a film crew present: [1]

The footage probably shows the tail end of the photographed encounter. The bare-chested man that begins to sit down at about 2:15 appears to be the man in the photograph.

Some more sources that show the same POW camp in Minsk: [2] and even [3]

Finally, the comments under this page [4] quite possibly show exactly where and when Kevin Greasley's camp found and decided to appropriate this photograph. 68.5.0.13 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Section "Strange Wording"

"but forever remembered for his kind heart." Really, is that suitable phrasing in an encyclopedic context? "or Rose, as he called her" - is that relevant? Actually the whole thing seems to be essentially nothing but a summary of the book "Birds Still Sing in Hell?" Stefanmuc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Section "Publications by Ken Scott"

Seriously? What has it do with Horace Greasley? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.166.247 (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Over-cites

It's really not necessary to put a ref to Scott's book after every single sentence. One per paragraph should be plenty, unless someone adds a "cn" tag. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Emotive Language and Clear Bias

To me this article seems to have been created to promote the book "Do Birds Still Sing in Hell". Call me cynical but I would say the original article has been written by the ghost writer behind the book and other parties interested in promoting Horace as a War Hero regardless of the facts of the matter for the purposes of books sales and a possible upcoming movie.

The following statement is highly emotive and seems a deliberate ploy to undermine Guy Walters.

"the late POW a liar, much preferring to acknowledge a German propaganda film of the time"

His article in the Sunday Times "Blood, tears, sweat and tall tales" is more an attack on Ken Scott and his kind for elaborating historical fact to enhance book sales and movie deals rather than an accusation that the POW is lying.

The statement should be changed to something like :

"Guy Walters accused the author of Do Birds Still Sing in Hell of elaborating the story for commercial gain. He used archive footage which appears to be filmed at the same moments the photo was taken to debunk the claim that the photo was taken of Horace " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.113.124 (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Guy Walters' Sunday Times article

Since a subscription is required to read the article at the Sunday Times perhaps there should be a link to its text reproduced in a post by Walters at https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=194983 08 May 2013, 18:50 and/or in the post by O.M.A.at http://ww2f.com/threads/of-course-thats-my-horace-in-photo-of-himmler.47277/. Mcljlm (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Himmler inspects POW camp.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Himmler inspects POW camp.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed article for deletion

I have proposed that this article be deleted (see top of main article). I believe it fails WP:Notability, particularly but not exclusively WP:GNG. I also think it fails on WP:V and WP:RS (I can find no reliable secondary sources confirming claims). The article is based on a memoir by an individual who claimed that he was the soldier in a specific picture with Heinrich Himmler and that he escaped 200 times from a German POW camp. These claims have been proven to be false in non-deprecated sources (e.g. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/historians-debunk-claims-of-200-escapes-in-memoir-of-pow-horace-greasley-bxr8fp7mn). Claims proven to be false can be notable because of wider ramifications; in this case there are no such wider ramifications and so the notability is based solely on the legitimacy of the claim. The claims have been shown to be false, and since the proof of falsity is not of itself notable to WP:GNG standards, the article fails WP:Notability and should be deleted. Emmentalist (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The Prod above was reverted by @thilsbatti on the basis, I think (I have replied to their Talk page) that the proposed deletion would be better done through discussion as an AfD. I have therefore inserted an AfD tag. Emmentalist (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Emmentalist (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)