Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleRaiders of the Lost Ark has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 15, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 10, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 29, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 10, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors  
WikiProject iconA version of this article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 29, 2020. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Opening ceremony, Plot[edit]

As a Hebrew speaker, I've noticed that:

  • During the opening ceremony, Belloq is uttering an actual Jewish prayer. This prayer is customarily said during the opening of the Torah Ark (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue#Interior_elements). As mentioned in the article, "The ark is reminiscent of the Ark of the Covenant".
  • Belloq actually omits the last verse of the prayer, in which the Jewish people are blessed. This shows that he was aware of what he was saying; someone working for the Nazis is hardly likely to bless the Jews.

However, other than knowing the prayer, there are no external sources for this. Anyone who knows the prayer (or Aramaic) would recognize it, though. Is there any way to add this to the article? The only citation can be to a Jewish prayer book.

Shapiraspire (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The source for that prayer in literature is the Zohar, although it was likely recording a prayer even more ancient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.75.128 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

In the section of popular culture, can the big bang theory episode, the raiders minimization be included? Thanks. Shelok12 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We generally do not include trivial mentions in other works. In other words: why is that notable and how many reliable, 3rd party sources covered it? DP76764 (Talk) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not worth entering there anyway, since it is complete fiction; the "minimization" the show depicts is factually inaccurate. The whole point of the movie is that the Nazis are following Jones around hoping he'll lead them to it because he knows more than they do about how to find it since he actually worked with Abner. I'm surprised they even made up such a provably false claim like that for the show, but I guess they needed to contrive something for Sheldon to be mad about.12.31.187.178 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Steven Soderberg treatment[edit]

I wonder if we can link to this site, [1], where soderberg strips the film of color and dialog, adds his own soundtrack, and discusses the filming/framing. is this a copyvio? he did it for educational/critical purposes, not to make a buck. it is a brilliant transformation, and was noted by media, as here [2].Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Secret of the Incas[edit]

There have been a recent spate of edits noting the influence of Secret of the Incas on Raiders of the Lost Ark. While it is encouraged to document the various influences on a piece of work there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Cut and paste jobs from other articles are inappropriate as is adding notes to the lead. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the main points of the article, so it should not include content that is not covered in the main body. The development section already references works that influenced the production such as The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, so it should be relatively straightforward to incorporate the The Secret of the Incas into this section. Please ensure any claims are sourced though (merely linking to another article will not suffice per WP:CIRCULAR) and please observe WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Release Date[edit]

Entry is inconsistent. It says the film was released in both august and June 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4000:4D:40D7:53A2:51D8:B1D0 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory Controversy[edit]

An anonymous editor has repeatedly added a section entitled "The Big Bang Theory Controversy" to the article, which has been removed several times on the grounds of poor sourcing. While I support the actions of the editors removing the content one of them really should have dropped a note on the talk page to explain the exact nature of the problem. Wikipedia has various policies regarding sourcing, and the sources used in the section (primarily Youtube and open wikis) fail to meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards (see WP:USERGENERATED and WP:NOYT). Even if these sources could be replaced by legitimate sources, WP:Secondary sources are still necessary to establish the WP:WEIGHT of the content in relation to the article. Before this section is re-added ideally fresh sources need to be reviewed here first and a consensus obtained for adding the content. Betty Logan (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Greatest film" claims[edit]

May I remind editors that per WP:Verifiable all claims such as this should be backed up by a source. Furthermore, List_of_films_considered_the_best#Action only lists Raiders of the Lost Ark in respect to action films, not "film in general". Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with you. Indiana Jones is one of my favorite heroes of all time, and there is no doubt that he is one the greatest action heroes, but that's about it. I too wanna see a reliable source before it gets added back. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou for the second opinion. In regards to your question as to why I created a "see also" section, it is generally understood that such sections only provide links to context relevant articles and do not make encylopedic claims, and as such that is why you never see sources in a "see also" section. That said, I agree that the ideal approach would be to integrate the link fully into the article as a claim backed up by sources. The other editor claims to have sources so we may as well wait and see if they are forthcoming. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, looks like it did happen. Someone did provide a source, but that person provided the source in the edit summary instead of the article, I fixed that. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's re-animate this topic, as it's reared it's head again. The source included int he article is Empire Magazine, and the article is entitled "The 100 Greatest Movies", and places Raiders at number 7. By default if a film is considered "greatest" without qualifier then it encompasses all genres.
Also, what you state in your edit summaries "the greatest film" and "regarded as the greatest film" is not what the article (or source) says. The claim is "one of the greatest films of all time, both in the action-adventure genre, and in general" - "One of", not "The" as you say. The Empire source corroborates this claim. However, I have also added a couple of other sources to support this.
Finally - don't disregard WP:BRD - once your edit has been reverted, you should discuss not revert again. That's edit warring. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Raiders of the Lost Ark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Fortress of Kuelap information[edit]

This seems more like trivia rather than having anything to do with the cultural impact of the film and IMO should be removed. Spartan198 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Raiders of the Lost Ark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Raiders of the Lost Ark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor addition to plot reverted - why?[edit]

I'm noticing this is happening more and more, but my minor edit to the Plot of the movie has been reverted due to being comprised of "uneccesary details". Why? The fact that Indiana Jones, after everything he went through to obtain the Ark, is understandably frustrated by the US Government's treatment of the artifact adds a bittersweet moment to the conclusion of the film, alleviated by the fact that Marion is waiting for him and suggests they go for a drink. I don't deem those to be uneccesary and feel their reversion is more than a little petty. CynicalNurse (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's definitely unnecessary details. The point of a plot summary is to tell the reader what happens in the film, not to convey little touches. Otherwise, each editor adds the little touches that means something to them and we end up with enormous bloated summaries, which have historically been a problem on Wikipedia. Mezigue (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark - the greatest and most outstanding film in the history of human beings?[edit]

‹See TfM›

The dispute has died down, and compromise has led to the current version, so I think we can regard this issue as settled.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can't believe we have to start a discussion about this, but here it goes. The following statement in the introduction:

'Raiders of the Lost Ark is often ranked as one of the greatest films of all time, both in the action-adventure genre, and in general. The film also ranks #2 on Empire's 2008 list of the 500 greatest movies of all time.'

is completely ridiculous. The fact that an average film magazine with no authority at all is calling ROTLA one of the greatest (action)-films of all time, doesn't mean a statement like the above is justified. At best you could say: 'Empire Magazine called ROTLA...'. Also the sources are highly dubious. At least two of the three sources are referring specifically to action films, so a statement that includes 'often considered' and 'in general' is already highly inappropriate. Can we get rid of this POV nonsense? Or do the fanboys want an extensive discussion? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You need to tone down your aggression. WP:NPA is applicable here. You are also not starting a discussion - I had already started one above.
Yes, we need to discuss this - but in the meantime the original version stays as it is. You hold one opinion, other editors hold another. Can you clarify why you consider Empire to be an "average film magazines with no authority at all"
You're also confusing in your vitriol - where is the second "average film magazine"? Only Empire is referenced. The other sources come from The Guardian and The Telegraph - which are acceptable sources.
The statements are also fine as they are, they reiterate what is claimed in the sources. If you don't like the sources, may I point you towards Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I'll forewarn you that both the Guardian and Telegraph have been discussed there before and ultimately found to be reliable and admissible.
And finally, I assume you're now being facetious with your section title - the article, sources, and even the editors involved, do not make the claim that Raiders is the best or greatest ever - just that it is one of the best and greatest. There's a big difference between the two claims, because Star Crystal is quite obviously the best film ever made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
No, the statements are far from being 'fine'. And you don't get to decide that. Also, I don't need to explain anything. You on the other hand, need to explain why you extrapolate one source (Empire Magazine for instance) to a general statement like 'often (!) ROFLA is considered one of the greatest film of all time'. Even a fool should be capable of seeing that this statement is completely inappropriate. Certainly if you would've had any basic knowledge of film history. And also because the sources you're using are mostly talking about action/adventure/war films specifically. Furthermore, The Guardian and the Telegraph are the opinions of two specific individuals. Does that legitimize a statement as 'one of the greatest'? The answer is of course no. I can't believe I have to explain this to someone. In fact, I can't believe I have to explain that Raiders of the Lost Ark is not considered one of the greatest films of all time. What's the next step? Bob Ross is considered the greatest painter of all time? Perhaps by his mum he is. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The point is that if your edit has been reverted - yes you do have to explain it. Three different - reliable - sources have claimed that Raiders is one of the greatest films of all time. The fact that you are still refuting the opinion of three reliable sources is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't know who Bob Ross is, but if reliable sources can be found to corroborate your statement, then yes, he may be considered the (or one of the greatest) painters of all time.
Ok, I agree that I don't get to decide that - we discuss it and come to an agreement. This is called "consensus" and is apparently something you're not familiar with! You also don't get to decide that the statements are not fine - so you don't constantly revert.
You cannot dismiss reliable sources just because they do not meet your own expectations.
Here's another source that serves two purposes - it shows that the film is widely referred to as "one of the greatest adventure stories in cinematic history – if not the greatest."[3] but it also includes a quote from Vincent Canby
And here, The Evening Standard[4] "As action adventure goes, it’s about the best there is."
Yes, I accept in those two examples the term "adventure" is used, but that still doens't lessen the validity of the original statement there are now three sources to corroborate the claim. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Reading is difficult, isn't it? 'Three different sources are claiming ROTLA is one of the greatest films of all time'? That's not true. First of all, two of those sources are claiming it's a great action/adventure film. Only one is talking about films in general. Secondly, since when are three random (rather unreliable!) sources enough to make a big claim like 'ROTLA is one of the greatest films of all time'. This makes not sense. You have to come up with sources that make the claim. What you're doing is taking a few (three in this case) random sources and extrapolate them to a statement that doesn't reflect those sources in any way. By the way, this is original research (WP:ORIGINAL). Last but not least: the people who add something to the article ought to defend what they add (WP:TALK). This hasn't been done at all. On top of that, if you take a look on this very page, you'll see that I'm not the only one taking issue with this ridiculous claim. And seriously, stop distorting sources. Your source of 'Galbes Art Cinema' (talking about: WP:RELIABLE) is about the story, not the film. Also, taking a random cinema from Miami as a source. Are you fucking kidding me? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Apparently reading is difficult. You say that you are not the only person with this issue. Yes, I know that - I joined in the discussion there. Perhaps if you could see through that red mist descending across your vision you'd know that. You'd also be able to see that the claim was questioned, a source provided, and those involved were happy with the outcome.
I think you're confusing Original Research with WP:SYNTH. You are claiming that because three sources call it one of the greatest it is unrealistic to say this equates to "Often". Is that the case? Because there is no way that providing sources when requested can be called original research. And I'm also pretty sure that a film contains a story - that just shows you clutching at straws. The point of that review was to show that even outside the major reviewers and critics the film (or story - pedant,) is considered one of the greatest.
To summarise: No, I am not fucking kidding you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Apparently not only reading is difficult, but also thinking. No, of course you can't say 'often regarded as one of the greatest' if you only have three sources, which by the way - and I'm going to repeat it again, since you keep ignoring it - are not even calling it 'one of the greatest films of all time'! Secondly, I'm not confusing 'Original Research with WP:SYNTH'. You can't extrapolate the opinion of a few people to general statements as 'often' or 'in general'. Where are you basing that upon? The answer is of course clear: on your own research. In short, you need (reliable) sources that make the statement itself.
But lets take this all aside. Like I already said: everyone with a basic knowledge of film history/film criticism knows that Raiders of the Lost Ark is not by any serious critic even considered as a candidate for the title of 'greatest film of all time' (whatever that may be). And no, not even 'one of the'... So this statement is nothing more than the POV opinion of a fan, which, how charming it may be, is not very encyclopedic. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
You state that I need reliable sources that make the statement of Raiders being considered one of the greatest, yet when provided say that they don't count - despite them stating exactly that, and despite them coming from reliable critics and magazines.

Incidentally, your statement of "everyone with a basic knowledge of film history/film criticism knows that Raiders of the Lost Ark is not by any serious critic even considered as a candidate for the title of 'greatest film of all time'" is so obviously contentious - given that the article already contains sources which claim exactly this...

Like I already said (to coin a phrase): You cannot dismiss reliable sources just because they do not meet your own expectations. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, are you intellectually incapable of understanding this? You did not give sources that made the statement at all! The statement: Raiders of the Lost Ark is often ranked as one of the greatest films of all time, both in the action-adventure genre, and in general is not provided in any of your 'sources'. You sir, made that statement. And yes, that falls under own research (WP:NOR).
Secondly - and now for the third time! - two of the three sources you gave didn't even claim it is 'one of the greatest films of all time'. They're referring to the action/adventure genre specifically. And even if they did, you can't extrapolate the opinion of one or two people to a general claim. You need consensus, preferably from critics with a certain degree of reliability (WP:RELIABLE). Hence my (implicit) appeal on common sense, serious critics won't consider Raiders of the Lost Ark as a great film, let alone 'one of the greatest'. Apart of course from dubious, unreliable (and in may cases popular) sources such as Empire Magazine or some guy from a cinema in Miami (still can't believe you brought that up...).
In conclusion, the only thing that supports the claim I contest is Empire Magazine. And do you really think that's enough to support a rather big claim like the one in the introduction? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - ROTLA does not make AFI or IMDB or All-Time top 100 list, is #39 in Rotten Tomatoes. The WP List of films considered the best puts Mad Max and Die Hard at Action, ROTLA is not shown. By WP:V, it just is not highly rated in general. Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
To be honest - probably not, but you've just been such an arse about putting forward your point of view I felt duty bound to argue in a bear-baiting kind of fashion; the more steam I could see coming out of your ears, the more I had to respond. (Starting a discussion by telling the other editor to "Piss off" is a pretty good indicator of how the topic is likely to progress...) Now that another editor has weighed in, politely and with a reasonable viewpoint I'll back off - but with the comment that had you been reasonable in discussion and not such an aggressive armchair warrior this could have been avoided from the very first edit.
Let us hope you've learned something positive about interaction, communication and collaboration with other editors during this debacle. Even if not, I don't care. As I said - Star Crystal is better anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I have to disappoint you, steam wasn't coming out of my ears by far, it was more a combination of despair and amazement by the amount of stupidity I was encountering. I do like your original way of admitting you're full of shit, very interesting! Just out of curiosity though, if you didn't believe this in the first place, why bother? Surely people who make edits like this ought to follow the rules (i.e. start a discussion on the talk page) or piss off. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You repeatedly removed sourced information because you didn't agree with it. Then, when reverted, you repeatedly used abusive and aggressive language toward other editors. You are in no position to talk to other editors about "following the rules". You should have posted here as soon as you were reverted the first time, instead of edit-warring. WP is a collaborative project, you need to understand that or leave. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The regulations are clear on this: the person who wants to add something to the article ought to give justification for it. That's indeed why WP is a collaborative project. Where do I see you or your friend on this talk page instigating a discussion on this matter? So no, I shouldn't be posting here, instead you and your friend should have.
Secondly, my entire point was all along that the information was in fact not sourced at all. Surely, the definition of something being sourced has to be that a certain statement is reflected in the sources. This is absolutely not the case with the disputed sentence: Raiders of the Lost Ark is often ranked as one of the greatest films of all time, both in the action-adventure genre, and in general which of your sources is stating this? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I told you why I bothered - because you were (and still are) behaving like an arse. In fact, the longer it goes on the more of an arse you're showing yourself to be. I should imagine it won't be long before your eventual reply simply consists of "Piss off, fuckity fuck, shitty response, your [sic] a dick," complete with a smattering of spelling and grammatical mistakes.

A glance at my editing history and talk page shows that I have an acknowledged weak spot and will often defend a tenuous position simply because the opposer is a wanker has put forth their opinion poorly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Kostrowicki, you need to get your facts straight. Neither Chaheel nor I added that information to the article – it has been in the article for well over a year, as a cursory glance at the history will show you. After removing it and being reverted, the onus was upon you to post here explaining your removal, not to edit war and attack other editors. At that point, you lost all credibility. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Chaheel, I don't begrudge you your guilty pleasure of what you would call 'defending a tenuous position', but what I would call 'behaving like an arse'. I suppose it's a matter of opinion. In any case, I happen to have an acknowledged weak spot for chauvinism and POV statements in articles. My response is usually to reciprocate or to react slightly irritated (or both). In other words, I simply don't understand how someone could make a statement like 'ROTLA is one of the greatest films of all time' other than out of ignorance or POV motivations. I detest the latter. The fact that The Old Jacobite reverted the deletion of the sentence above with the explanation that it was 'sourced material' is therefore beyond me. It's either ignorance (which I don't believe) or willingly defending a claim that stinks. In any case, it's his (and your) job to justify a statement on the talk page and to find a compromise. So since you didn't bother, I hereby made an attempt:
Since the praising part has become a standard component of Wikipedia, I suppose it's out of uniformity logical that some of the sentence remains intact. I therefore suggest to remove 'in general' and to move the 'action/adventure' part in front of 'films'. I consider this in the light of me being an arse a generous compromise. The other option is to remove the sentence in its entirety. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@The Old Jacobite, my friend, I never said you added that information to the article. But apart from that, who cares if it's you, your friend or the fairy fucking godmother who added that statement? You defended the statement in the summery saying it was 'sourced material', so it's up to you to justify that on the talk page. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Coming here as a result of the listing in RFC. I've read through the recent comments on this talk page, and also some of the recent edit history. I feel compelled to start off observing that most of the regular participants in this particular discussion have been pretty rude and I hope that won't continue. Beyond being a waste of air, it discourages people from wading in who might otherwise help steer discussions productively (like me -- I almost didn't, because who needs that?). It looks to me like the crux of the current problem is use of the word "often." Is that correct? — e. ripley\talk 19:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. The crux of the problem is that the statement Raiders of the lost ark is often considered as one of the greatest films of all time is not reflected in any of the given sources. That includes the word 'often', but also the addition 'in general' and even 'one of the greatest' (action-adventure or in general doesn't matter) is problematic (like user Markbassett pointed out above). Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Certainly seems to be at least one of the sticking points. I'll try to dissect this a little more thoroughly tomorrow, and hope to hear from the dissenting side as well. — e. ripley\talk 05:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought this had been resolved? There has been a compromise made, and the text now no longer claims it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, and additionally makes the distinction between film in general and action adventure. Both The Old Jacobite and myself have reverted to this version rather than the original which we previously championed, and Wim Kostrowicki has made no negative comment regarding it either - which is not surprising seeing as it's his addition. The RFC was made on the 19th October when the flames were high indeed, but by the time it garnered a response it was the 25th - six days later - and Wim had already made the compromise here which we now seem to agree on. As I pointed out - both ToJ and myself have reverted a lone editor who tried to reinsert the contentious text.

Whilst I thank e. ripley for coming along, I don't think any action is required, as it seems to have died a death, and stability has been found. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've requested page protection for the article. IP Vandalism just when we've agreed on a version. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) Is there an RfC here? If there is still a live RfC, could I suggest that you open it with a neutrally framed question and move most of the above to 'prior discussion' or 'hide' it. If the RfC is not necessary, perhaps you should close it so that editor time is not wasted. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I've requested that it's closed: RFC - closure Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove often That is pure WP:synth. You can't cite three sources and claim often. You need to attribute it. Also remove from the lead and put it in the reception section. AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Circling back on this. Basically agree with Aircorn above. "Often" is inappropriate here and should just be removed (it appears to be even fewer sources than three, since two of them appear to basically be the same.) — e. ripley\talk 20:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove it - the reception section does not support the claim, so it should not be in the lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indy silent when shooting swordsman?[edit]

I saw Raiders in the theater when it first came out. As I recall, Indy mutters to himself something like "Ah, hell" as he draws his pistol and shoots the swordsman. But in the copies I see online, he is silent even though you can see his lips move as if he mutters something to himself. Did they edit that in the film? If so, shouldn't that be mentioned? Phantom in ca (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raiders of the Lost Ark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Indy" and Jones"[edit]

Does anyone know why the plot mentions Indiana Jones as "Indy" and Jones"? It makes him sound like 2 distinct characters. Thissecretperson (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That lack of consistency is one of the unwanted consequences of collaborative writing... I have edited that out. Mezigue (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Did the same for Abner Ravenwood, as he is mentioned as "Abner" once while the latter is "Ravenwood". Thanks for the edits! Thissecretperson (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"Mean Mongolian" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mean Mongolian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Mean Mongolian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Giant Sherpha" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Giant Sherpha. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Giant Sherpha until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)