Talk:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Archives
April 25, 2005 to January 25, 2007

Title wording

This article currently states "Indiana Jones 4 is the working title of the anticipated fourth and final film in the Indiana Jones series." This is inaccurate. The actual working title is "Fourth Installment of the Indiana Jones Adventures." It's understandable that the title of the article is "Indiana Jones 4", but stating that the working title is the same name is inaccurate. Obviously this will change when an actual title is announced, but I think accuracy is important. 69.231.236.39 02:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, who cares what IMDb chooses to write? WikiNew 11:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, it's not just IMDb. It's what the studio released as the official working title. That's the current *offical* name, which is why everyone online (except Wikipedia) is using it. Please revert. 69.231.236.39 18:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're that offended, by the way, you should change the "working title" wording on the article. Since the official working title is Fourth Installment of the Indiana Jones Adventures, that's what should be stated. NOT lame. 69.231.236.39 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Use some common sense. Look at every news article as well as more reliable sources like Rotten Tomatoes, Yahoo and Empire. It is just IMDb. WikiNew 18:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have a bug up your rear, so I give up. Just remember that you're wrong, and, as a result, Wiki is wrong. Paramount has released the working title to the media and other studios, and the title is Fourth Installment of the Indiana Jones Adventures. If you were to call any of your friends at Paramount, Rentrak, EDI, or any other studio you'd know this. NO, wait, you don't HAVE any friends at those places. I do. You're wrong. 69.231.236.39 00:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's enough. If you want to be argumentative and abusive, then go ahead and get yourself blocked. WikiNew 10:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If that weren't enough, the official image is Indiana Jones IV. WikiNew 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, than, shouldn't the title of the article be using roman numerals, instead of the number 4? Not sure what the official policy is at Wikipedia about numbered titles, but it's just a suggestion -- if you want to be technically correct. 207.12.38.25 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters considering the film will be titled Indiana Jones and the... It's the ... that will be filled in on come the shoot. WikiNew 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Title for Indiana Jones IV will be "Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods" according to various sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.214.95 (talk • contribs) 21:17, July 8, 2007 (CDT) (UTC)

And according to other various sources, it's Indiana Jones and the Pharaoh's Crown, and people keep adding that too. See how we can't just trust people without a concrete citation? ColdFusion650 11:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

2 recent news articles have stated the working title of the film is INDIANA JONES AND THE CITY OF THE GODS: http://www.courant.com/entertainment/stage/hc-filmbiz.artjul10,0,5596294.story?coll=hc_news_local_ec_promo & http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/hundt0706?coll=hc_news_local_ec_promo Is it time to reflect this in the body of the IJ4 Wikipedia article? Even if the article states something like: As of July XX 2007, media reports suggest the title for the upcoming film is... As far as I know, Paramount/LucasFilm has not verified this. But it is in print, and it would have been fact checked at their respective newsrooms. I'm guessing it was seen on a slate or production call sheet? Anyone with more information on this issue? Codymr 05:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should just change the title to Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods, what is the big deal, if it ends up its not than we just change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.214.95 (talk • contribs) 18:24, July 18, 2007 (CDT) (UTC)

So, posting potentially wrong information is fine with you? ColdFusion650 23:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It should not be included just to change it later. Especially if it is incorrect. But, it should be included one way or another if these papers are deemed to be reputable - which they seem to be. So I ask again if anyone else has information on this... If for no other reason then to satisfy my own curiosity. Codymr 03:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed cast

Unless Lucasfilm, George Lucas, or Steven Spielberg specifically confirms a cast member, they probably shouldn't be listed. There have been tons of articles about Cate Blanchett being in negotiations for a role in Indy IV, but she has not officially signed on. Same goes for Sean Connery. As far as I can tell looking at the most recent news articles about Indy IV, the only actor who has officially signed on so far is Harrison Ford. (incidentally, the sources indicated for Cate Blanchett and Sean Connery are both for rumors sites- one of which has already retracted its statement that Blanchett is "official." ChrisStansfield 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the Blanchett citation with one from The Hollywood Reporter. The citation at TheRaider.net had corrected itself saying that Blanchett was in negotiations, not actually signed on. As for Connery, I'm not sure why the URL leads to ComingSoon.net but the publisher is Scotland on Sunday. Might be something that needs to be fixed. In any case, here's a link about Connery expressing interest in the film at Variety. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the Scotland on Sunday citation, but it was from January 2007. I've replaced it with the April 5, 2007 citation, and I don't think that a description from ComingSoon.net is valid enough. If Connery was on board, there would be more press. That should address the issues you've brought up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I added Cate in since the USA Today article unequivocally quotes Lucas saying she's onboard.—User:mcnattyp

Jim Broadbent is listed as playing a "Yale professor." It was revealed that he would be playing a professor; this much is certain. And filming has taken place on the Yale campus in New Haven. But Yale is only the stand-in for the film's fictional "Marshall College," where Indiana is teaching. So in all likelihood Broadbent's role is a "Marshall College professor." I tried to change the entry to reflect this but it was changed back. Kinda weird since I added the entry in the first place; now that I want to correct it, y'all won't let me. Someone should probably clarify that entry, if it can't be me. Slowpogo 04:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. ColdFusion650 11:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just was left a rather curt message by Alientraveller suggesting that I vandalized the IJ4 page by changing John Hurt's casting from "an unnamed role" to "Abner Ravenwood (rumored)". My intent was NOT to vandalize and only to add new information found on IMDB (http://imdb.com/title/tt0367882/). It was also picked up by many news services... I work for AP and we reported on it. I think the critical part of the change is "rumored," it is not confirmed yet, but it is an interesting piece of potential casting. As long as the reader is made aware that this information is not 100%, my feeling is that it should be included in the casting information, as long as it is updated when newer information becomes available. Anyway Alientraveller said I had to post the information on the discussion page for review... so here you go guys... it is RUMORED that John Hurt is playing Abner Ravenwood in IJ4. Do what you will with it. Codymr 07:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is not a source. It's user edited. I mean come on. Odds of you working for the AP, slim. And if they did report on it, why not cite that source? So many people have attempted to post that exact same rumor without a source that, yes, it has come to the point of being vandalism. ColdFusion650 12:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do work for that particular news organization, but I would not consider myself a "source" on it's own if that is what you are implying or if I was unclear in my original post on this discussion page. All I meant was that working in news, I did hear about it and was curious why it was not included in the wiki article. That said, and as you already know I'm sure, many news feeds do report information that turns out to be incorrect or inaccurate... especially with entertainment related items. To your point about IMDB being user edited, I think information is user submitted... but then verified by the people at IMDB is it not? As far as I know, changes are not made automatically like on Wikipeida. It does raise an interesting question: Why is IMDB used as a source for further reading in many wiki articles if the veracity of their information is questionable? They are used by news organizations as a starting point for gathering information all the time. Which raises another question: If IMDB is user edited... So is Wikipedia. To my mind it is interesting that one user edited site is not valid for another user edited site. Also, there is a disclaimer at the head of many film related articles: "This article or section contains information about one or more scheduled or expected films. The content may change dramatically as the film's release approaches and more information becomes available." This tells me to take ANY information from the IJ4 atrticle like this with a grain of salt until the film it released. Anyway I am new to adding information to Wikipedia so your point is taken. I will try to find that AP feed if it was picked up by www.ap.org and submit it for review. Codymr 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it needs to be verified. Changing dramatically can refer to restructuring and copyediting information, and verification for a poor article. Which this one isn't. Alientraveller 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference between IMDB and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia must cite all sources. IMDB doesn't cite its sources, making its claims, other than information from the credits of already released films, questionable. And I don't mean any offense about your job, it's just that people come on here all the time claiming that they are a high up in Organization X and have inside information. ColdFusion650 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. BTW glad you removed the "scoop" that the film is titled: Indiana Jones and the Pharaoh's Crown the other day. That was bunk. Codymr 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

Um, how official is that Indy 4 image in the infobox. It looks like something a fan made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think someone said it was from the Star Wars site. Alientraveller 18:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it pops up at www.starwars.com, which is an official site. Thus, it's not fanmade, but it's probably a very preliminary marketing bit, like that skull-and-bones poster for At World's End that didn't really surface everywhere. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Are they using it, or is it on a forum (at work, can't see at the moment). It seems like something they are just releasing for that site, and not something for the mass market.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a forum at all; there's a slide show of image links on the main page, and clicking on "Indiana Jones 4" leads to the news article that mentions that the film will be made. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have to check that out when I get home (not to discount).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but just thought I should mention, Spielberg has mentioned that he's enlisted many fans of the series as crew for the film, not simply people "in" the industry. Apparently he thought it'd make for a more exciting venture. So, arguably, yes it is "fan made", but also official by the same token. --linca^linca 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

• Aaron Parsley (2007-04-23). "Shia LaBeouf: How I'm Getting Buff for Indiana Jones". People. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Title says it all. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Lucas: Indy 4 Wants Connery". Sci Fi Wire. 2007-05-04. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Info about script written with Connery in it, but would be rewritten if he didn't return. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• 'Indy' producer a hands-on kind of guy —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncited addition

I had to remove this thrice as it had no cite:

"Sources within Paramount have confirmed there is growing friction between Spielberg and Lucas. Also problems have surfaced with Sean Connery who as of late April had not signed a contract to appear in the film. Sources reveal that Connery was asking for too high a percentage of the domestic box office gross. Some executives don't believe the start date, which is in June 2007, can be realistically met. With other projects looming for all the major parties involved, doubts have been raised if there will ever be a fourth installment for this lucrative franchise."

First off, what sources? If this can be confirmed with a reliable news outlet, please add this back. Don't try to fill Wikipedia with rubbish. Alientraveller 15:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New Haven

I don't know how to make citations in Wikis... so if anyone can help me, the New Haven shot was revealed here http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18340968&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7576&rfi=6

-Streetsim

First, let me get over my excitement of a car chase being confirmed. Now, to cite information place your citation within <ref></ref> and plop in a {{cite news | author = | title = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate=}} template for information on the article's title, publisher, author, date etc. Alientraveller 19:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I made the corrections! I'm so excited to spy on the production. (Hmm.. I used to have an account here.) -Streetsim

No sweat, I can also advise you that if you come across a magazine or newspaper, use the {{| pages = |}} attribute instead of a url. Alientraveller 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett

Stop putting that Cate Blanchett is the villain. USA Today, in an interview with George Lucas, said she was a love interest. The only sites that say she is a villain are no name sites that bank on anonymous sources. Credibility comes into play here. USA Today trumps Leroy's Indy 4 page. ColdFusion650 11:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Being a love interest != Not a villain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.216.98 (talk • contribs) 16:00, June 24, 2007 (CDT) (UTC)

Being a love interest != a villain (necessarily) The point is, until there is a concrete source that definitely contradicts the one and only US national newspaper, with an interview straight from the lips of the man himself, it stays like it is. ColdFusion650 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, the whole "love interest and villain" is so 1989. ;)
Seriously though, I completely agree with ColdFusion650: there's no reliable source stating Blanchett is the villain. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Title, or working title, confirmed?

[1] should it be taken as a reliable source? Alientraveller 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to report it as a tentative title. You could mention the New York Observer in the article so it's not widely assumed that this is the case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. This article claims that IJ4's title is: Indiana Jones and the Pharaoh's Crown. Has this been confirmed? In the talk back section of various IJ4 articles posted on AICN, the author claims that the person who is Jettl93 is an internet troll and that none of his scoops are verifiable. Perhaps it should say that Indiana Jones and the Pharaoh's Crown is the RUMORED title... at least until this is verified. Codymr 07:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah that guy added it, i reverted it and told him to cite something if he was going to cite it, and he reverted me, i dont want to fuel his vandalisms, so im waiting for others to correct it, and for him to revert 3 times... he changed the ij3 page to reflect this title too. Robkehr 05:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rumours are not encyclopedic if they are just that. We don't need any more evidence of how the whole world is excited and goes to make up titles. Alientraveller 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

2 recent news articles have stated the working title of the film is INDIANA JONES AND THE CITY OF THE GODS: http://www.courant.com/entertainment/stage/hc-filmbiz.artjul10,0,5596294.story?coll=hc_news_local_ec_promo & http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/hundt0706?coll=hc_news_local_ec_promo Is it time to reflect this in the body of the IJ4 Wikipedia article? Even if the article states something like: As of July XX 2007, media reports suggest the title for the upcoming film is... As far as I know, Paramount/LucasFilm has not verified this. But it is in print, and it would have been fact checked at their respective newsrooms. I'm guessing it was seen on a slate or production call sheet? Anyone with more information on this issue? Codymr 05:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Photos of a setting

See here: http://thismodernworld.com/3833 Haukur 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we add them? They're copyrighted. Anyway, looks very 50s. Alientraveller 14:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything in particular, just thought it was interesting. If you wanted to add one of them you could write to the blogger and ask him for a free licence. Haukur 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

New link

I'm looking to add a new URL to the External Links section but I'm running it by the discussion page first.

The website is Indiana Jones - Movie Chronicles and it has regular updates, with 2 or 3 posts a day at the moment. It has been providing the latest on set news whilst hiding spoilers from readers not wishing to know them.

I feel it adds something that the current links do not adequately provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fofr (talk • contribs) 07:59, July 5, 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there are a good number of similar sites that profess to provide similar detail about the film's production. In addition, looking at your site, I don't believe that tipsters' reports would be attributable, and whatever reiteration of media sources (such as Variety) would already be in the Wikipedia article if it had encyclopedic value. Fan sites are, by nature, tricky to define because there's always a handful of them to go with films that have very strong fan bases. It wouldn't be appropriate to include only your site, and if we included all of them, it would become a link farm. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also looking to add a new URL to the External Links section.

The website is Indiana Jones 4 at The-Numbers.com. It now contains basic information about the movie, and until it gets released it will just be updated with cast updates, official website announcements, synopsis. But once the release is coming close, it will be featured in box office predictions, but will also be updated daily with domestic (US) box office performance, and weekly with international box office and, once released on the home market, also with weekly details of DVD sales and rentals. The site also has a unique way of categorizing each movie based on 6 different criteria, which makes it possible to easily compare box office performance with similar movies. Especially the DVD sales and unique categorization make the site unique to anything else out there and I feel that it adds a lot to the current external links. With an archive of over 10,000 movies, 3000 stars and 500 directors it also contains pages for all stars in the movie, containing links to their other movies.

I tried to add the link yesterday, but wasn't aware of any restrictions. I saw it was removed today, so I try to do it this way, and hope to get some motivation in case it is declined. (PimBeers 02:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

To put it plainly, it doesn't offer anything Box Office Mojo, Yahoo or Rotten Tomatoes doesn't. Alientraveller 08:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to push this link, just trying to get some more information so that I know where Wikipedia stands on this. Clearly from the three sites you mention Box Office Mojo has the most overlap, because The-Numbers' focus is also providing box office figures, so let me focus on what The-Numbers offers and Box Office Mojo does not offer. The-Numbers offers a DVD sales chart, that as far as I know Box Office Mojo does not offer. Also, I find it very convenient that The-Numbers shows all data for free, while for Box Offce Mojo, you have to get a subscription if you want to get the details, e.g. the daily box office numbers for past movies. Finally, The-Numbers normally lists references, for example where budget information is listed, to my knowledge this is not frequently used at Box Office Mojo. On a side note, I find yahoo movies and rotten tomatoes indeed also very useful sites for movie information. I already noticed a lot of links going back and forth between wikipedia and the-numbers and this is actually the first link i have tried to submit. Of course I am wondering whether my arguments have convinced you the-numbers does offer something other sites do not, but I am also wondering whether this is a general Wikipedia point of view or just for the Indiana Jones movie. PimBeers 13:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason is, the movie is not out yet. Therefore, all the information you mentioned does not exist yet. When the movie comes out, and the information is posted to that site, the link becomes relevant, and more likely to be included. ColdFusion650 16:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes perfect sense, indeed at this moment the page added value is a lot less. Thanks for explaining PimBeers 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Harrison picture

Photo to Harrison Ford by Steven Spielberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zondor (talk • contribs) 03:08, July 8, 2007 (CDT) (UTC)

Yes? ColdFusion650 12:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Release date

The 22 May 08 release date is a planned released date, should the page say planned release? indianajones.com says planned release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robkehr (talk • contribs) 04:12, July 8, 2007 (CDT) (UTC)

I think it's understood that it's planned, especially with the giant banner at the top of the page saying that it's an expected film but that information could change. ColdFusion650 12:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris Columbus Indy IV draft

There are still a lot of people around (e.g. here) who think that the script by Chris Columbus titled "Indiana Jones and the Garden of Life" (aka "Indiana Jones and the Monkey King") was written with "Indiana Jones 4" in mind. However, I have also read that Columbus' script was originally planned as a script for the 3rd film installment (1989), which is supported by similar aspects in the plot (eternal life etc.). Other sources say that it was a script written for a never-developed video game sequel to the IndyIII-game. The latter interpretation you will see quite often, but it doesn't seem likely: I have read the script, and it's definitely a movie screenplay. So, since some people (a lot?) still believe that it's a rejected script for Indy IV, shouldn't this be mentioned in the production history, at least in a footnote? What do you think? —Eickenberg 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody's really sure what the script is for, except it's some script for something to be fit in somewhere at some point in time, I'd say no. ColdFusion650 21:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Indy IV part of a trilogy plus Indy VII

According to this article based on allegedly "rock solid" studio intel, Ford has signed a 3-picture deal for Indiana Jones IV, V & VI. Shia LaBeouf signed up for a total of 3 sequels, which would eventually add Indiana Jones VII, possibly to relaunch the franchise with Indy's son. Maybe this can be included in the article or in the article on Indiana Jones or Harrison Ford. Or is this too much of a rumor? EDIT: In addition they're reintroducing the aliens-as-gods/Area51 narrative again. —Eickenberg 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's too much of a rumor. Usually, we shouldn't rely on the "exclusive" coverage of movie sites unless they are reporting it in an open manner (like from the studio, the director, or cast members). This surreptitious report doesn't meet the verifiability criteria yet. If this information is true, it ought to be more publicized soon enough. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rumor busted. Any inclusion of future sequels will be considered false information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought so. A last straw is grabbed here: "I'm not convinced that Singh [from Lucasfilm] is being completely truthful. Even though it sounds a bit ridiculous for Ford to keep making Indy films at the age of 65, studios are notorious for locking in their actors, just in case the film is a big success." —Eickenberg 15:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Karen Allen in IJ4

LucasFilm's Indianajones.com has confirmed that Karen Allen is reprising her role as Marion Ravenwood in IJ4. The casting announcement was made at Comic Con 2007. This should be included in the casting section of the IJ4 article. Codymr 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It already is. The Wookieepedian 04:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. You are right... took a quick glance and must have missed it the first time. Codymr 07:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

People do that all the time, chief. They request something be put in that's already there, or they put something in that's already there. And then they always get mad that you remove their dupe info. All you can say is, "Look two lines up." ColdFusion650 12:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who think you have a lock on the title, from the lips of Mr. Spielberg himself

Watch this video. Officially, the only part of the title that has been released is "Indiana Jones and the". It seems that no matter what some b-grade film site tells you, the title has not been released. ColdFusion650 20:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that was funny. Alientraveller 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Viral Marketing

What is the problem with these lines ? :

"The serial numbers on the crate have been understood by many fans as a clue to the website http://www.9906573.com/ owned by the viral marketing agency 22Digital (http://whois.domaintools.com/9906573.com), which is blank except for the numbers "52208", the release date for the film, with a link to the Wikipedia article on the Ark of the Covenant."

Please explain yourself before deleting my mods without any justification...

Please note WP:V first off. We cannot source whether this is Paramount's marketing campaign or not. Alientraveller 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean that : -"The serial numbers on the crate have been understood by many fans as a clue to the website 9906573.com" and : - "9906573.com is owned by the viral marketing agency 22Digital" are not verified facts ?

I'm unsure of whether this is intentionally Paramount though, which is often the problem with viral marketing on Wikipedia. I suggest waiting for other editors to determine consensus. Alientraveller 19:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

...Obvously, you're looking for truth, not facts, "If it’s truth you’re after, philosophy class is right down the hall.” lol. Take care of YOUR article about Indy 4. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.176.98 (talk • contribs)

Oh, it's not my article. Alientraveller 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's right. It's my article. Alientraveller, as a member of the cabal, was acting on my behalf. It can be verified that the number on the crate on IndianJones.com is indeed 9906573. It can proved that 9906573.com says "52208". It can proved that it links to the Wikipedia article on the "Ark of the Covenant". It cannot at this time be proved that they are all related. Remember, no matter how logical, original research is original research. We can state the facts, however, with no definitive connection to Indiana Jones, they don't meet the criteria for notability. So, at this time, it should be gone. ColdFusion650 19:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thing, the serial number on the side of the crate seen in Raiders of the Lost Ark is "9906753", on IndianaJones.com the number is "9906573." I don't know if this was a mistake or done on purpose. Now the viral website for the incorrect number http://www.9906573.com/ has changed. It is now a black page with Ex.40:34-38 in red. Exodus, Chapter 40, Verses 34-38. 34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 36 And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys: 37 But if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. 38 For the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys. The Ark of the Covenant resided inside the Tabernacle. A website with the correct serial number http://www.9906753.com/ has also been launched and features a large picture of the crate with the correct serial number on it. This picture now links back to IndianaJones.com According to http://whois.domaintools.com/9906753.com, this new site does not seem to be a 22Digital creation. Again this proves nothing, as there is no "difinitive connection" Solidfrit 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear coldfusion650, master of the cabal, you probably don't understood it but I was refering to the fact that Alientraveller erased my contributions two times less than 1 minutes after I started editing the text, when I was currently working on the article, which is not fairplay and gave rise to an edit conflict.... My first intervention was intended to answer to your question in the page history : "prove who owns it"... Signed : other Ip but same guy as before.

There's no way for him to know that you were currently working on it. He wasn't messing with you on purpose. Edit conflicts happen all the time. ColdFusion650 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Other products as "Indiana Jones IV"

I've removed the italicized link at the top of the article to the old video game Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, which claimed that game was also known as "Indiana Jones 4". It was not. There have been countless tie-ins called "Indiana Jones and the..." and none of them purported to be "Indiana Jones 4." No one will come here by mistake looking for that old video game, so the link was not just misleading, but unnecessary. -- Mecandes 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be right that no one will be confused, but the game is quite widely referred to as Indiana Jones 4, including by its developers; the Macintosh version’s four-letter creator code is even ‘Iny4’. David Arthur 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, the default install directory was C:/INDY4/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.10.26.91 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it was known as Indy 4. Definitely. I remember those times all too well. ;-) 213.114.117.147 22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Shia LaBeouf confirming title?

I'd say no, but would Shia LaBeouf's supposed confirmation of the actual title (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) on the MTV VMAs seal the deal on what the title of the film's final product will be? --GVOLTT ^{How's my editing?}\_{My contribs} 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In what context was it delivered? I didn't see it myself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

He did say he was sworn to secrecy about the title by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg about the title, but stating that he was 21 and feeling he was old enough to make his own decision and just say it, he said the title anyway. Still, should it wait until it's confirmed in a more reliable source? I'm not saying his announcement isn't reliable; it should be confirmed by the production/film company or be used in a news source. --GVOLTT ^{How's my editing?}\_{My contribs} 02:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be best to assume good faith here. I think it would be silly for him to throw out a fake title to such a big audience; that would be too confusing for marketing. Obviously, we should see some follow-up shortly, but in the meantime, I think it's best to stick to this title since people are gonna be coming in and wanting to make the change to it anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A new citation has been provided. It talks about the rampant speculation about the title, so I think this information should be included, being publicized here and now. Anyone willing to expand with this citation? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the title is now a news item on the Official Site so I guess its confirmed.Misterkillboy 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I would just like to take this opportunity to say, everyone who thought they knew the title was way off. See, we had good reason to constantly revert them. ColdFusion650 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. Alientraveller 09:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Logo image

What is the point of the image? It is merely the title. Don't be blinded by hype. Alientraveller 19:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any harm in using the image until a proper poster image is available, especially since it is obviously an "official image" of some sort. Anything to stop the childish revert war is fine with me. -- Scjessey 19:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but it's just the freaking title. This is not something to have fair use for. Still, if people just want pointless decorations, fine. Alientraveller 19:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a shame that the infobox does not offer the option to include an image title attribute. Then we could remove the name and use the image instead (to avoid duplication). -- Scjessey 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Woo Hoo!!! NOVAMAN1056 19:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point? Alientraveller 19:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that if the previous title image was kept, there shouldn't be any reason to remove this one. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the identifying title -- it does mimic the Indy style of previous films. Heck, we don't have that creative of an identifying logo at The Dark Knight... and I think it's likely that keeping the article clear of the image will just warrant constant re-additions. The title image can go away when the teaser poster or some more visual image comes out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

TV Guide

• George Lucas Hails Maverick Filmmakers, Teases Indy 4 —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Shia isn't his son!

He said it was a false rumor in an interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.26.94 (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't even know what his role was then. And to be frank, nobody actually said he would be. Alientraveller 10:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tyler Nelson

I just added the section about the extra who gave the interview. Thought it was newsworthy enough, as it is all over the media, plus it is such a taboo thing to do in that industry. I could find news sources all over the web, but the original article was removed from the Edmond Sun. I know Reuters had it too, but couldn't find it. James Dylan 18:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We aren't Wikinews. Nelson is unimportant in the long run. Alientraveller 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I know we aren't Wikinews, which is why I didn't mention any of the plot lines. But the plot leak is quite noteworthy, which is why it is all over the blogosphere at the moment. Who are you to judge? After reading the article, I now know the previously secret story behind the film. That sounds somewhat important to me (and the film makers). James Dylan 18:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel devoting a section to some extra who ignored his contract is less important in future when the actual plot is confirmed. Secondly, don't ask who am I to judge, considering I'm another editor taking care of the article. Assume good faith. Alientraveller 19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but when I post an entry related to something that is harming to the film and it's attempts at secrecy, and you are an admitted Steven Spielberg fan and think he is the greatest director ever, it is hard to assume good faith. Kind of hard to be unbiased when you let everyone know you worship the guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdylan (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a big Spielberg fan, and so what? That is completely irrelevant. Now I wonder what on Earth is so important about Tyler Nelson that he needs his own section. Now if you're upset if you felt I was being Mr. Mean in removing your addition, please remember this at the bottom of the editing page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Now, onto more relevant things. Alientraveller 19:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with people editing my comments, if they have better material, but I don't censor things related to the article. Also, I didn't create an entire section for Tyler Nelson, I created a "Controversies" section, which is what the entry was. What would you have preferred, a "Miscellaneous" sectiuon? And no, I don't think you are being "Mr. Mean", I am thinking you are trying to keep any negative info regarding the film out of this article. Sorry, but when some actor comes out and blabs the secret storyline of an anticipated film, I consider that relevant to the article. I won't put the entry back in because I already know where this is going.James Dylan 19:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with James Dylan. This is certainly noteworthy enough to be included in the article, so I have restored the section and properly-referenced it with a reliable source (broadsheet newspaper, not tabloid). Other sources are available if necessary. -- Scjessey 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unsure of how important it all really is, but I'll assume good faith and leave it. Alientraveller 19:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a better man than I. ColdFusion650 13:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored your removal of the section, which frankly borders on vandalism considering the talk page discussion. As has been explained above, this is a noteworthy scandal which has been well-reported in the mainstream media and is a significant embarrassment to the studio. As long as the section does not actually mention the leaked plot details (which are not actually relevant to the news story), it should remain. -- Scjessey 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bordering on vandalism? Oh come on. This discussion has not come to a consensus, as you insinuated. Alientraveller just got tired of fighting it. It is still definitely irrelevant. 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdFusion650 (talk • contribs)

Keep as per Scjessey. BTW, I added link to Google cached copy of the original article. --213.216.199.10 16:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Links not working

The page belonging to Reference #33 no longer exists. Please, find a replacement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.129.9 (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I found the same AP article on USA Today. Alientraveller 10:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Theft

I'll let those looking after this article decide upon its relevance and/or notability, but the Los Angeles Times is today reporting the theft of computers and photographs which contain "confidential and proprietary materials" related to the film. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think this (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2182597,00.html) should be included under "Controversies." Some sources are suggesting that the FBI are now involved. Codymr 13:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is the original article: http://www.latimes.com/la-me-indianajones3oct03,0,1983208.story?coll=la-home-center. Codymr 13:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would appear to be the same story, a regurgitation of the originating story from the LA Times. Why "Controversies" though? Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would put all information that has leaked from set into one section. Therefore I would include this theft with the plot info that is already in the article. Perhaps the subsection should be renamed "On Set Controversies" or some such thing. Unless you think the theft is relevant enough for its own section? Codymr 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either story will be particularly relevant in the long run, so it may be worth waiting until more is known/announced before including anything more than a "on [date] some stuff was nicked." Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. time will tell how serious the theft is. The LA Times article is rather short on details. Although missing some 2000 missing pics does have the potential to be noteworthy. Especially if they are a record of production so far. Codymr 14:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I went and made a short entry under "controversies", just the basics. I'm sure this will lead to something in the near future, and the story in general just adds to the craziness of the theft and leaks of the production.James Dylan 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't call it "Controversies". A controversy is "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." Call it something else, like disruptions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The section name isn't really appropriate so I've changed it. Someone else may be able to come up with something better. -- Scjessey 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

There have been claims by some editors that citing a cached version of a web page taken down by a newspaper is a copyright violation. This is complete and utter nonsense, and demonstrates a lack of understanding with respect to copyright law. There is no legal reason why a cached or archived version of the story cannot be linked if necessary. Once the article was published, it was "in the wild" and fair game for anybody. That being said, another perfectly acceptable reference already exists, so there is no need to linked to the cached web page. -- Scjessey 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has been removed by The Edmond Sun. Again, I don't feel why we should link to an article which contains a nondisclosure violation within. Either way, detailing the controversy surrounding it is enough. Alientraveller 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Edmond Sun publishes its articles with full knowledge of them being archived/cached.

This in my opinion adds to the article, it's the root of this matter after all. I take this as nonsense. --213.216.199.10 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but why even bother link it? We already cover this minor controversy in sufficiently cited detail. Alientraveller 20:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the article was removed is actually irrelevant. You cannot "unpublish" something, especially on the internet. The nondisclosure violation (not the same as a copyright violation) was done by the extra, and not by the publication. No laws would be broken by linking to a cached or archived copy if Wikipedia so desired; however, another valid source exists as I indicated earlier.

Please forgive me for saying so, Alientraveller, but you seem to be on a bit of a crusade to protect the interests of the director judging by your editing of this article. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia strives for impartiality. -- Scjessey 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So why link it? The paragraph is absolutely fine. Alientraveller 20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article removal was done out of courtesy, not out of fear of a lawsuit. I'm referring to both, The Edmond Sun and Wikipedia editors. --213.216.199.10 20:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)