Talk:Indiana Jones (character)

New WikiProject Open!

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Daughter

I think that somewhere I heard that Indy had a daughter, is this true? Emperor001 (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not confirmed. But if he did, there are rumors of Natalie Portman playing her. talk 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time, use the Reference desk :) Yes, Indy has a daughter in the television series, which was left out of the videos and DVDs once Lucas re-edited the episodes into chronological "films". Alientraveller (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Name in the lead

I find it infuriating that even this long after the start of the character, people are still changing the WP:LEAD to add irrelevant detail and changing the format. There is no reason why it should not be perfectly stable by now. Accordingly, I've changed it to a version that is supported by major sources. If anyone thinks the name of the character should be more completely specified, please say so here, and we can discuss consensus. --Rodhullandemu 22:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the difficult thing is that people want to add Colonel, which I can sympathise with as Indiana served in both World Wars, on and off the field. How does it go, Col Dr., Col. (Dr.)? Colonel-Doctor? Alientraveller (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I remain open to argument, I don't see it as a major or necessary addition, certainly not in the lead. It doesn't define him, it's a piece of back-history which was added later in his fictional historiography. It is arguably dealt with appropriately in the articles in which it's a relevant feature, IMO. Overall, although I'm only familiar with the movies, it's not a great issue to me; the whole point I detect in the character is that he is (a) an adventurer and supporter of "good values" (b) while otherwise being an otherwise pedestrian college lecturer (much like myself). His Army service, unless some point is made of it, for example in Indiana Jones and the 1917-18 war or Indiana Jones and the 1941-45 war, is detail. --Rodhullandemu 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the films he is referred to as "Dr. Jones" from time to time. How often has anyone called him "Col. Jones"? Not often, that I can think of. Or maybe never. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, he holds various titles and aliases in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, so "Dr." is the only encaspulating description as that was his title for most of his life. He's generally retired from the military until they pull him back in. Alientraveller (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As to the question of "Col.-Dr." vs. "Dr.-Col." I would say that he has a permanent title of "Dr." whereas his title of "Col." only really matters while he is serving in the military - which he isn't in the films, as I recall. As a comparison, I recall Ed McMahon talking once about having been an Air Force Colonel in WWII. How often did Johnny Carson ever call him "Colonel"? Not often, if ever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest we go with common usage. WP:UNDUE, although not directly in point, suggests we should not over-emphasise minority points of view. Accordingly, since not much is made of Jones' military rank throughout the franchise, it should not be unduly emphasised here, and I reiterate my suggestion that it can be mentioned, FWIW, in articles dealing with its relevance, but is overall of minor importance. --Rodhullandemu 23:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, let's not mention Indy in the lead either, it's a common nickname for anything to do with the state. Alientraveller (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I discussed it with the members of WikiProject Indiana Jones via email, and they said it should stay. So leave "Indy" in the infobox. Unquote. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tudors and Civil War?

The films consistently identify Jones Jr. as a professor of archeology, and never as a professor of history. And what does this have anything to do with the Tudor's or the English Civil War? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

File this one under me needing a break. [1] Sometimes you click 'undo' instead of 'diff' and mistake your own edit for someone else's. How embarassing. :D Alientraveller (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A strange allusion. Given that history finished at latest yesterday, I would think archeology would be much more to the point. At least nobody's tried to call him a paleontologist. --Rodhullandemu 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Whew! No need for you to feel any embarassment, it wouldn't be hard for you to find a long list of embarassing things I have done! I am just glad that I wasn't opening up some can of worms I was ignorant of! Anyway, if you are at all like me you always take your wikibreaks some definable period of time after you really need 'em. I am glad my edit ended up being as uncontroversial as I intended, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Burton

So you have a list of all these famous adventurers who might be the "real" Indiana Jones, and you don't include the greatest adventurer of them all, Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Childstarwars (talk • contribs) 11:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a reference that explicitly makes that connection? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but there are no references listed for the rest of those possible real life Indy's. "Many people are said..." So I SAID Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton should be added.Childstarwars (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is why they should probably ALL BE DELETED. It looks like synthesis or original research, i.e. "guesswork". To do it right, you need to go to some of the "making of" specials, particularly for the original film, and see what the inspirations were. In fact, as I recall from the making-of stuff at the time, that one scene with Indy jumping from the horse to the moving truck (like a stagecoach in the old westerns) was Lucas' inspiration piece for the first film. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there isn't WP:RS for these figures as models, they have to go. DavidOaks (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lego Indiana Jones

Not included under video games. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.102.87 (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is. Alientraveller (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Look for it yourself, then. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 04:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap that's a lot of images

There are waaaay too many images on this page. Per WP:FUC, everything but the infobox image and the concept art fail the fair-use criteria. Images for the sake of images are not acceptable. There must be critical commentary on every non-free image being used, and you don't typically find critical commentary in plot sections (and I don't see any in these either). Simply showing "what he looked like" in all these different incarnations doesn't qualify for fair-use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cynical? He does not want to be KILLED.

I suppose it would ruin the scholarly flow of the paragraph, but I think the real reason Indy keeps his eyes closed is because he KNOWS if he or Marion looks the spirits of the ark will kill them. I am no Biblical Scholar (I did go to Sunday School) but I seem to recall only the high priest was allowed to see the ark at all, and there was a lot of averting of eyes. Since this is the Ark of the Covenant, we are talking Old Testament God, and he is depicted as being very jealous and vengeful. Indy is a very well read man and he probably knew it was not wise to look. As a matter of fact he shows a greater respect for God by closing his eyes, whether me meant it that way or not. Either way, it would be more prudent not to look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.183.219 (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He knows the legend, and as he says earlier in the film, he's a "cautious" fellow, so he's taking the cautious route. A lot of that stuff in the article about Indy's alleged religiosity or not, is OR and synthesis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Say what? It's all sourced. Alientraveller (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

minor costume detail

I wasn't sure how to go about this but in a documentary I viewed costume designer Deborah Nadoolman stated that she had Harrison ford try on a whole lot of hats than deciding none would work she had one made for him. I thoguht this should be added being that the hat is iconic. More on that she had 12 made of that same hat made for various reasons as well as aging them all her self. Also if this will be used I can provide a citation Ele (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

As per WP:LEAD I'm eliminating the notation of Selleck's initial casting. It's covered in detail later in its separate section, and I don't think the otherwise interesting "What if...?" quality of the factoid is of great enough importance to be in the article lead. (We made the same shift over a year ago in the Raiders lead.) Clearly, we need to know in the first score of sentences that Jones is an adventurous archaeologist, that he appears in feature films and other media, and that Lucas helped create him. Selleck's near-miss with the role, though interesting, is not of this magnitude. Similarly, while Jones' look is indeed iconic, Staranko is noted properly and in detail later in the article. Unless we are to consider him a near co-equal "author" of the character alongside Lucas and Ford--the reason, for example, that E.H. Shepard appears in the lead for the Winnie the Pooh article--his contributions merit inclusion in the body of the article. Because of these two excisions, I've slightly expanded the remaining sentence that now finishes the lead so as to paint a fuller (but still concise) picture of Jones. --Vaudedoc (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious why Jones is described as a "soldier" in the opening sentence. Doesn't the term "adventurer" (already included) cover his military-ish exploits? He's not formally affiliated with any branch of a U.S. service, is he? As well, what aid he does offer the U.S. forces is at time gruding a due to the stresses of the moment. Maybe one of the Indy experts on this page knows more than I about some of his more esoteric appearances in other media? --Vaudedoc (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been changed, though not by me. Soldier would be inaccurate if people meant OSS agent (which replaced soldier). The OSS was a CIA precursor, that is, an intelligence agency, not special forces or military. To my knowledge, none of the movies provide a military background for him (though I've avoided the most recent iteration, so I'm taking it on faith that it describes him as a member of the OSS). --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hat: Fedora or Akubra?

The Indiane Jones article says it's an Akubra; however the talk page on Akubra states he does NOT wear an Akubra, but instead a Fedora. The Fedora article says he wears a Fedora. Someone should check the souces and verify/correct this hatting dispute... It's making me mad as... oh god, I can't say it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The most definitive sources I've seen say his hat was a fedora, made by "Herbert Johnson" of London. While the Akubra and the fedora have a similar style, I believe Indy's hat is either a fedora, or a design combining elements of the fedora and Akubra (apparently, the hat uses an Aussie style back, which would explain the confusion). ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a Fedora. Since he is an American character it would not be a foreign style. It has the bigger brim of older styles from the thirties or twenties or so.68.231.189.108 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Indiana Jones immortal

Because Indiana Jones drank from the Holy Grail does that make him immortal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.72.143 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Pure speculation here, but the movie seemed to imply that the Grail reversed aging at the time you drank from it, maybe even extended your life by a few decades, but it did not grant eternal life. The knights who found it and drank from it but did not stay to guard it (and therefore drink from it repeatedly) lived prolonged but not impossibly long lives; presumably they were returned to youth by the draught and cured of the innumerable ailments common to the time period, but once they went back to Europe they lived normal, if healthy lives. Without drinking from it repeatedly, Indy would likely live longer than usual, and perhaps into the modern day, but not forever. Of course, it's pure navel gazing in any event; fictional characters played by real life actors still have to age. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr. in full title

I've seen numerous cases where a full title includes both the "Dr." and the specific doctorate at the end, e.g. [2], [3], [4] (see the page header for the last). It's a little pompous, but it's quite common. I'm unaware of any Wikipedia policy on this, so I'm open to correction if someone has a link. I'm primarily supporting the inclusion of "Dr." because, according to the reference, it is part of the full title used in the Young Indiana Jones show. If that is incorrect, then I support whatever phrasing is used there, if only to match the contents of the reference. Does anyone have access to the episode to check? So if there is a policy on this, or failing that, the source provides an "authoritative" rendering, I'd like to go with that. I'm going to revert once more with a "See Talk", please respond here before reverting, if possible. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a scene in the first film, where the guy with the boat says to Indy, "Dr. Jones, I've heard a great deal about you. Your appearance is exactly as I expected!" and everyone laughs, except Indy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Holders of a doctoral degree are entitled to the use of "Dr." preceding their name, though the use is traditionally reserved for academic settings in the case of a PhD. I would never introduce myself to my next door neighbor as "Dr. Smith," for example, though I am referred as such at conferences and some faculty gatherings. In writing, holders of doctoral degrees almost always follow proper etiquette in appending the degree designation to their proper names (e.g., "Jane Franklin, M.D." or "Kurt Greene, Ph.D.") Referring to oneself with both is simply against standard etiquette, roughly the equivalent of "Mrs. Smith, Married Female." (See [5] for Emily Post's either/or pronouncement. See WP's own take on this at [6].) Your three examples include Timothy Leary (hardly the best exemplar of standard etiquette and academic professionalism) and one gentleman who appeared to be trying to note he holds both medical and scholarly doctoral degrees. Actually, responding to this talk discussion got me wondering as to why I'd never seen "PhD" appended to, say, "Linus Pauling," a holder of two scholarly PhDs (not to mention those two Nobel Prizes) on WP. Turns out, "Wikipedia currently distinguishes between four groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and clergy, and ordinary individuals."[[7]] In other words, Indy, rather than having both notations of his doctoral degree, should have neither. (If a future sequel finds him serving as Pope Indy I or the fourth Duke of Ravenwood, well, on Wikipedia that's a different story.) Thus, I'm striking both "Dr." and "PhD." In consolation to us, of course, this does put in him in pretty good company.[[8]] Cheers. --Vaudedoc (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (but not "Doc Vaudedoc, Ph.D.") :)