Clean up

Um, way too many [images]. At least, way too many non-free images on the page. Does not meet non-free criteria. No critical commentary on the DVD set, so there is no need for an image. There probably isn't any reason to have that information here, as this isn't a film page, it's a fictional character page. There is no reason to have so many images in the "Fictional biography" page either. The page suffers from a lot of problems, one is that it treats the character like it's real. That's a no-no. For all regular editors, please see Jabba the Hutt, Palpatine, and Padme Amidala for great examples of how to write up a fictional character article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of the images. The one with Sean Connery was only their to show Sean Connery, and that can be found on the page for his character. The DVD doesn't belong, I agree. And I removed Old Harrison. The others, except for Professor Jones, are there to show what each actor who played the character looked like. I'm not sure if they should be there, though. ColdFusion650 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article is written currently, it's up for grabs. If the article was written in the proper manner, then no, because the "fictional biography" would really be "Film appearances" and be much small in size considering it would only be 3 films. Then there would be "Television appearances" which would be smaller. Then probably a "Literature appearances" or an "Other media" for any other type of appearance. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, we integrate Appearances and Fictional Biography into one section, shrinking the biography part. Then put subheadings for each type of media in the franchise. Is that what you were thinking? ColdFusion650 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Palpatine is a good example, as the character has appeared in many forms of media. Though, I believe in brevity, as the film appearances information should not be equal to the size of the plot on the actual film articles. Since the article is not supposed to be about the characters fictional world. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it my best shot, but you're better at this than I am, so you'll probably need to do some cleanup. ColdFusion650

It's done. I've just stacked the image from the Biography section at the bottom of Television, so something will have to be done with them, but I figured I'd wait until we decided which ones would stay. ColdFusion650 14:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say hide them, but I'd be afraid an orphanbot would come and mark them for deletion......On second though, yes, hide them. If a bot comes along then we have like 7 days to find a "home" for them, which should be plenty of time. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've hidden them. One I think definitely can go is of the cameo role by Ford in the TV series. We know what he looks like, so there really isn't a need to illustrate that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one I already removed in the first round. The ones left are the young Indy actors and a picture of Harrison Ford in his Professor attire. ColdFusion650 14:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought that was the cameo role. What is the reason for the 9 year old boy? Was that a prominent era for the character, or just some flashback sequence. Do you know? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Indiana Jones Chronicles either focused on Jones on a child or an adolescent. Alientraveller 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TV series alternated shows between the young boy and the teenager. One would feature a 9-10 year old Indy, and the next a 16-17 year old Indy. The River Phoenix picture is just the flashback at the beginning of Last Crusade. ColdFusion650 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

River probably isn't necessary, since his appearance isn't a major portion of the film, it's more or less just an introductory tool for the Jones' father. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. ColdFusion650 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, once we get this image thing sorted out, would this article pass Good Article review? ColdFusion650 18:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal of all the images. I though they added character to the article. The one of River Phoenix in particulkar shows an important point in the life of the character. --evrik ^(talk) 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, now. The "appearances" section may be better organized, but the rest is still in bad shape. There's lists everywhere. The "artifacts" information is pure in-universe info. You might as well merge that in with the "appearances" section. The DVD information is more movie based than character based. There is no "characterization" section, which would detail Indy's personality, as seen by others, and which would include some themes about the character. He's like the epitomy of what a man is supposed to be. To Evrik, please read the non-free criteria. Images are not supposed to be eye candy. Why is it important to show River Phoenix is what the character is can be simply stated in words? There is not a need to illustrate what Indy looked like as a child. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "artifacts" section could very easily become a viable section; just trim it back to just the stuff that is actually real (or is at least wasn't manufactured for fiction), such as the Holy Grail, Atlantis, and the Ark. Stuff like Hovito Idol and Sankara Stones are just cruft. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The artifacts section is based on a similar section in the Lara Croft article, perhaps a bad idea. I don't think it needs to be preserved, as the real life artifacts are linked in the appearances section. The Indiana Jones article is not just about the character but the series as a whole. So I don't see a problem with the DVD section. The Characterization section would have to be written by someone higher than me. ColdFusion650 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Do you think there should be an catch-all "series"-type article? The list (as I suggested) would work well there, though I agree that, for the article on the leading character, it is superflous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) A list of the artifacts, whether real or not wouldn't be viable. Hence, I think it's easier to merge it with the rest of the in-universe information. Just as easily state that Indy was after the Holy Grail in such-n-such film, as you can listing it along with others. At least it would have context. The DVDs are describing those series, not the character. How does the release of the trilogy affect this character? It's information best reserved for a film series page, or the television series page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is that there is no film series page. This is it. If we have information for two complete articles, one the series and the other the character, then we should. At present, this article covers the series and the character, and that is why, at present, the DVD section fits. ColdFusion650 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the character is notable enough to be by himself, and not as part of an "Indian Jones (franchise)" type article. If there are things strictly about the films, and less about the character, I think an Indiana Jones franchise or Indiana Jones film series type of page should be created to track that type of info. If you want some examples, Erik, Alien, and I have been developing the Spider-Man film series, Batman film series (this one is about to undergo a name change) and Superman film series articles. You could use these as examples of how to develop those. It's less about knowing the films, so I could help out with that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. ColdFusion650 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the DVD stuff, I don't know what else is more about the films on the page. The DVD stuff just rather jumps out at you. I'll grab that, and create the "franchise" article linked above. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they were originally one article. There's only enough information for one. ColdFusion650 19:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to bet money there is more than enough information about the character though, and having the film information alongside just seems out of place. I'll see if I can develop the franchise page. I started it, but I'm at work right now so I cannot devote that much time to it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would prefer to get this article to Good Article status before work on the franchise page begins in earnest. ColdFusion650 19:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Chicago

It clearly states in Raiders of the Lost Ark that Jones teaches and obtained his degree from the University of Chicago, not some random college in New England. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.84.90 (talk • contribs) 15:53, June 23, 2007 (CDT).

It does not say he teaches at the University of Chicago. It doesn't say what the college is. IndianaJones.com says it is Marshall College, but alas it's not in the movie, so I left it ambiguous. ColdFusion650 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a franchise run website, can't we assume that information is canonical and say marshall college and site them as a source?--Shadowdrak 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page isn't a biography of the character then no, at least not in that section. That section is "film appearances", so you cannot contradict what a film states, or doesn't state, for that matter with another source that is pretty much referring to the character as if they are real. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remember that part of the article TBH. But since it just wasn't stated rather than contradicted by the film; couldn't we say something such as the following "the college, although not explicitly stated in the film, according to Lucasfilm is Marshall College." I realise that it is a pretty cruddy sentence, but you get the idea. I am trying to remember if it was mentioned anywhere in the computer games. Those weren't part of the canon but this article is about the franchise right? Could be in a section about the games if it is in there.--Shadowdrak 20:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: according to the website, the college in Raiders is Marshall College in Connecticut, and the college in Last Crusade is Barnett College in New York, and Indy 4 could have a different college. Instead of packing in all the information that it's not explicitly stated but on the web site, and it's here one movie and here in another movie and here in another movie, let's just keep it this way. As far as I know, nothing in the franchise, other than the website, provides this information. If it were important to the series, it would show up somewhere else. ColdFusion650 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Shadow, this article about the character. All franchise information has been moved to Indiana Jones franchise. Is this website stating where they filmed at, or where the events take place? Because Indy 4 is filming at Yale, which they very well may just say he's working there as well. Where they film at, though, is not equivalent to what the film calls it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1937, Jones left Marshall College in Connecticut for Barnett College in New York." ColdFusion650 21:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, we go by what the film says for the "film appearances" section. We can't say, "which is stated to be something else on a website", as that has nothing to do with film appearances. Fictional character biographies from a fans community tend to retcon events, concepts, ideas, etc in order to try and establish clear continuity. You should see what they do for Jason Voorhees. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh, I'd rather not. I am convinced retcons are the work of minitrue.--Shadowdrak 21:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. My point is only that is it wasn't stated in the film itself, then you shouldn't retcon it via a website, even an official website. When I read the link above, it read to me like a biography of a living person, which this page shouldn't be. That's fine to link to, but this page should be about the out-of-universe information on the character. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was trying to find a solution to what apparently wasn't a problem.--Shadowdrak 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances in video games

ColdFusion650, would you mind explaining what was wrong with my edits to video game appearances? The television and feature films sections at least offer some information about the basic story lines and settings. The video games section currently has no in-universe information.~ Dusk Knight 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to trim the fat, keep it pithy. No bloviating. That's my job. ColdFusion650 12:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I think that section's a bit uninformative compared to the preceding two. Perhaps it would it be better for video games (and anything else potentially non-canon) to appear on the Indiana Jones franchise page instead?~ Dusk Knight 23:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you notice the history page, sorry I kept editing myself before. I wasn't saying anything worthwhile after this point so I thought it was better to skip it.~ Dusk Knight 02:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part about Emperor's Tomb setting up the beginning of Temple of Doom was good. As Bignole keeps reminding me, we're trying to be as out of universe as we can. I think it would good to say how it ties into the movies. ColdFusion650 11:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are using the Star Wars characters' articles as guides, I think it's appropriate to add in-universe information to the appearances section. I'm guessing that info should relate strictly to the character's personal history; specifically, things that might not be mentioned or focused on in a plot synopsis. Aside from the Temple of Doom tie in, the only other significant event in Indy's life covered in the games (that I can think of) would be his relationship with Sophia Hapgood.~ Dusk Knight 00:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another video game with Indy in it in production, although this project is work in progress for a little while: a non-profit fan circle is creating a kind of sister game to Fate of Atlantis, called "Indiana Jones and the Fountain of Youth". They have a very informative web presence, barnettcollege.com, a demo version of the game is out, but the final realisation has just begun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.188.94 (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character Biography

Why isn't there a character biography for Indy? Most other fictional characters have them. 216.68.153.12 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because most other articles are structurally wrong. You don't write biographies for fictional characters in an encyclopedia. You can find a biograph on him if you follow the link at the bottom of the page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention there's little need for a biography. Jones' backstory is mostly consistent, unlike the constant revisionism like Superman. Alientraveller 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really no hassle to write up a biography of him, then? Oh, and WP:NOTPAPER 216.68.153.12 20:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"NOTPAPER" is not an excuse to write up what you want. Please read Jabba the Hutt or Palpatine or Padme Amidala, other fictional character articles, of characters from films, who have reached FA status. Also, you might want to check out WP:WAF. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after a gazillion conflicts):There's no need for one either. Compare Jack Sparrow to Jack Harkness: one fictional character appears in many adventures and has a straight-laced backstory, but another has multiple sweeping revelations that need to be analyzed in storyline context too. Alientraveller 20:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we split this article into two, one for the franchise, and the other for the character, like Harry Potter and Harry Potter (character)? 216.68.153.12 20:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, there's Indiana Jones franchise. Alientraveller 20:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be nice to have SOME story of his life: Harry Potter (character) shows Harry's development through the books; perhaps something similar for Indy? Or maybe a timeline of his life through the differnt media? Like The Young Indidana Jones Chronicles, then the books, then the films, etc? 216.68.153.12 21:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has that, it just isn't detailed (which it shouldn't be). It may need to be expanded a bit, but not a lot. The character isn't real, so you don't write a biograph on him as if he was. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, way to go on Jack Harkness. Doctor Who rocks. Second, there used to be a fictional character biography, and it was removed because it didn't belong. If you want more info on his life as detailed in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, check that article. More specific articles contain more specific information. This is a gateway of sorts, providing moderate detail and links to more detailed pages, including the full official biography on IndianaJones.com. ColdFusion650 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on popular culture

Symbology professor Robert Langdon, protagonist of the novel and film The Da Vinci Code....

Oh p-lease! Although hinted at a bit of a ladies' man, Langdon has none of the swashbuckling devil-may-care flare of the Jones-esque adventurer. In his stumblings through a variety of religious and quasi-scientific netherworlds, the plaid-wearing academic is more reminiscent of Marcus Brody than Jones. --Jquarry 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ColdFusion650: what, please, is your problem with our edit of the Influence on Popular Culture section to reference "Pyjama Jones"? We take on board that the GA review disapproved the "trivia" nature of this section, but Wikipedia's guidance on list-type content is clear that: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all". We think our edit is wholly legitimate and appropriate. (We think cross-references of this kind are one of the most useful ways that Wikipedia can reference popular culture, by tracing the threads to related topics.) If you disagree please explain.Bookboffin (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's the royal we. Anyway, the article cannot list every single character that is based on Indiana Jones. The list would take up several megs by itself. The list used to be like that. Everyone just added whatever they wanted, and the list was way too long and included too many obscure characters. It was decided to limit it to the most important, and I think that anyone will agree that Pyjama Jones is not important enough. He is very obscure, and basically nobody has heard of him. It just doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the explanation. Pyjama Jones is a great character for 9-11 year olds, but only known in UK/Ireland so far. Interesting issues here as to what counts as "important" in a facility available all round the world. Also as to whether Wikipedia tries to be a traditional encyclopedia (albeit openly edited) at too much cost to its wiki potential.Bookboffin (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another influence

About Nathan Fillion being influenced by Harrison Ford: He says he based Mal on Firefly on Han Solo, not Indiana Jones. I realize it is the same actor, however this fact belongs on the Han Solo page, not the Indiana Jones page. Just sayin'... 24.162.226.222 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. That reference in this article is 100% personal research and reflects the perception of a viewer. Joss Whedon and Nathan Fillion both excplicitly stated that Han Solo was an influence for Mal. If we start listing every single character that reminds us of Indiana Jones, we start into any male action hero character who might have a swagger, scruff beard, brown clothes, or sometimes shoots first. a-la Jack T Colton, Remo Williams, Matt Houston, the list can go on and on...

Medleystudios72 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

Per the WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes: Date of birth July 1, 1899, Place of birth: Princeton, New Jersey,Gender: Male, Occupation: Professor of Archaeology, Family: Henry Jones Sr. (Father), Anna Jones (Mother, deceased) — All this is in-universe and must be essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. DOB, POB, Family, that really isn't essential to understanding the character. His gender, which I think you might really mean "sex", since gender means something different, which you would need a citation for, is obvious from looking at him. The only viable thing that might be essential would be his occupation, but even, he's famous for being an adventurer and not a professor of archeology. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the difference between sex and gender. You have caused me to look it up. Way to go, and I agree on the infobox. So, where do we throw up that awesomely cool picture? ColdFusion650 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throw up what picture? The infobox picture? That's fine where it is. I'd suggest adding the creator's name to the infobox, ~~the very first appearance of the character~~, and clarifying which entries each of the actors that portrayed Indie were in, since they all weren't part of the film series, and the ones that were weren't part of every film. BIGNOLE (Contact me)

Oh, you aren't talking about getting rid of the infobox completely. Mea malum. ColdFusion650 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no. Just, I don't see any pertinant "in-universe" information that is essential to understanding the character in it. I think a creator's name, and identifying entries for the actors need to be added in the least. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any way we can get "Portrayed by" to appear at the top of the list of actors instead of the middle? ColdFusion650 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my various editions with DOB and POB. I had looked at the talk page but had not seen this discussion. However, Wikipedia lacks a consistent policy about this, since many articles about fictional characters include this kind of information (the ones that come at random to my mind just right now are Rambo and Rocky Balboa). Even in the articles of the Indiana Jones universe, there is no consistency : in Henry_Jones_Sr., there are such details (and even his date of graduation, and nevertheless, he is not real, as you said, ColdFusion650.) Mayfoev (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at that. That is why I don't like designated character boxes, I prefer to just create them by hand, because you can control it easier. BIGNOLE (Contact me)

Once we figure out how, just modify the template. ColdFusion650 15:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was in all three Star Wars movies

I am not sure why the article only listed him in 2 movies, as he was certainly in all three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.107.205 (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question refers to an event before the release of Return of the Jedi. I'm not sure whether it took place before Harrison Ford was confirmed to be returning for Jedi, however. --Herald Alberich 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

Why some characters pages were redirected to the films articles? David Pro 00:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you are referring to the character links in the infobox at the bottom of the page? Probably because they have little or no notability outside of that single appearance. Also, most of the redirected character articles appear to have been written entirely from an in-universe perspective.~ Dusk Knight 01:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Marion Ravenwood page has been restored, but the Short Round page also must be restored, given that he also appeared in a book (Into the Great Unknown). David Pro 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walden?

For some reason I thought it was "Walton"....?--Valin Kenobi (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the DVD subtitles, and it is indeed "Walton". The Wookieepedian (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humm... I always thought it was "Waldo." Rockules318 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones books

Someone with a better knowledge of the book series should clean that section up. It is just a summary of the Max McCoy books. Rockules318 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

I've nominated this page for Good Article status. It is much less of a fan page than when we started the clean up. If back then it was B class, it must be way better off now. It's now more out of universe and detailed where it counts. ColdFusion650 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

The "Influence on popular culture" section is basically a trivia section, which is discouraged per WP:TRIVIA. The relevant material should be converted into prose and joined with the main body of the article and the rest of it deleted. Also, since it's completely uncited, it reads like original research.
All one-two sentence paragraphs must be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
Far too much uncited material in the "Appearances" section. While plot details can be considered inherent when writing an article about the film itself, when writing about a character, a lot of that information needs to be cited, especially since it could be very easily done. The "Television" section is completely uncited, which certainly merits some citation, no matter how you slice it.
The prose does not flow at all; it jumps from fact to fact to fact in choppy one-two sentence paragraphs throughout much of the article. It reads more like a list, as the ideas do not connect. The prose needs to be connected in well-formed paragraphs that allow for the ideas to flow, not just merely listing things off in sentence form.
At some points, the tone worries me as well. For example, "The title is ironically fitting as, although Lucas intended at the time to do five films, this ended up being his "last crusade" for over 18 years, until Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." (Feature films) is not a very encyclopedic-sounding sentence.
Sections such as "Costume and equipment" and "Models" needs to be converted into prose if this is to become a proper article.
Because the article is lacking so much in the prose department, it's difficult for me to tell whether or not it meets the broadness of coverage criterion. At best, as I've mentioned above, it's lacking the parts that would connect the different ideas in the article.

Overall, the prose is far too choppy and lacking in in-line citations to merit even a hold at this point. I believe that this will take a lot of work to get to Good Article status, especially since it's difficult to explain exactly the problem with the choppy prose, much less fix it. For that reason, I am failing the article at this time. If you feel that this decision is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Pitt Reference

The character Dirk Pitt (author Clive Cussler) actually pre-dates Indy since 4 books were published before Raiders. His name should be removed from the "Influence" section. Further the Influence section as is is not needed since there is a Fictional Archaeologists tag. A better use would be a description of the re-introduction of the "Pulp Hero" genre to the later 20th century audience.70.79.153.158 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 19 books. The article specifically says "the latter-day adventures of Dirk Pitt". That means that we are talking about the 15 written after Raiders, not the 4 written before. If you would like to write a new section, feel free. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference - I agree that it is unrealistic to claim that Cussler's Pitt adventures were influenced by Indiana. The theme of the adventures of Pitt was established before the first Indiana film. As to 'specifically referencing the latter-day adventures', Pitt's adventures have not changed much since the novels Vixen 03 and Night Probe!, which came out in 78 and 81 respectively, so I don't see any certainty in claiming that the 'latter-day adventures' were influenced by the Jones character. I think it's most fair, with respect to both the realities of the predating of the establishment of Pitt's adventures and the lack of any significant change in the tone of his adventures after Indiana, to not claim any verifiable influence on Pitt's character until actual evidence is produced. I do understand the desire to have as many influencee's listed as possible, but for the above mentioned reasons Pitt shouldn't be listed (unless evidence is found supporting the original claim), and so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.138.252 (talk • contribs) 13:03, February 19, 2008 (CST)

Characterization

Keep in mind that his character traits as portrayed in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles also need to be portrayed. The Wookieepedian (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My source is about the films of Spielberg and the themes and autobiographical elements in them. If anyone finds an analysis of the TV show, then it'll be included. Alientraveller (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Name

When does the audience learn what Jones' middle name is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.216.254 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read the footnote [1] in the lead. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

criticism

Has there ever been any discussion of Jones as a role model? I mean this guy is effectively a thief who steals cultural treasures from indigenous peoples. It seems odd to me that no one has mentioned this. Serendi ^pod ous 12:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in characterization how Indiana models himself on a thief. But is an archaeologist a thief? It's only a movie. Alientraveller (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's also (arguably) a child molestor by some states' laws... see Marion Ravenwood for details. But only by the written plotline, because Karen Allen was older than the written character. Wnt (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article about times Indiana fouled up. [1] Alientraveller (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, but I take issue with one thing in the section about The Last Crusade; in that movie, Indy wasn't actually trying to find the Grail, he was trying to find his father. Henry was the one on the religious quest; Indy just went along for the ride after snatching him from the Nazis' jaws. As far as he was concerned, the quest was over the moment they got out of Grunwald castle.

Indy is selfless in both of the sequels (and KOTCS too). It's only in Raiders that he's depicted as greed-driven and obsessed with his artifacts. Presumably, the sight of the Ark killing everyone and the danger that his old girlfriend had to go through sobered him up a bit and made him realized that his friends were, after all, more important than his job. 147.9.177.22 (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America vs. the world

I actually think there should be a separate article or at least a section in one of the movie articles about the role of Indiana Jones as the 'real American hero' and the depiction of foreigners in the Indiana Jones movies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Then we'd have to do the same for every little article of popular culture in which an American even remotely begins to deal with the world outside of the United States.

For that matter, there is no uniform way for foreigners to be portrayed... they're showed as human beings, some good, some bad, a lot in the middle, and all of them with different motivations. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post article on the meaning of Indiana Jones

Thought one of you folks might find this helpful: Indiana Jones and the Meaningless Void, from the Washington Post. Kyle Barbour 18:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's someone who hasn't read this Wikipedia article. Alientraveller (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

This artivle needs updating a'la Crystal skull. Katana Geldar 09:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted for redundancy.

I deleted the below section because there isn't anything in it that wasn't in the intro. "Since his introduction in 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark (later retitled on VHS and DVD box covers as Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark), he has made appearances in three more feature films, a two-season TV series, dozens of novels, comic books, video games, role-playing games, and even his own amusement park rides." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.232.149 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not replace it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional colonels?

Why is to the article the category "Fictional colonels" added? There is nowhere any remark with source in the article that he is a colonel. Demophon (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the article, but it is in the movie. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the movie yet, but how? He's a scientist!? Demophon (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well why don't you see it? It's explained he worked for the OSS. Alientraveller (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, now it makes sense! Thanks! Demophon (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a stretch considering he was contracted by the OSS in Raiders to stop the Nazis. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A big part of the Young Indy stuff was that he was in the Belgian Army as a spy...that's where his rank comes from (unless of course there is some "offscreen" stuff where the US Army accepts his commission at his Belgian rank) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Belgians called him "Captain". Are you saying that "Captain" is Belgian for "Colonel" and that's why the FBI agents call him Colonel? Or is it because they specifically say that he was a Colonel in the OSS during WW2 and Young Indy has absolutely nothing to do with this? It's probably one of the two. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, you are right, Young Indy is WWI isn't it? So its "offscreen" stuff during WWII that they are talking about. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was a colonel in the OSS during World War Two and the early years of the Cold War, during which time he was paired with George MacHale from MI6 (explained in the movie). Just for the record though, the people who recruit him in Raiders are U.S. Army Intelligence, not OSS or any other independent agency. For that matter the OSS didn't even exist until after World War Two had started. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Rahn

This article talk's about Indiana Jones and how Spielberg greatly based his Indy off the work done by Otto Rahn [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

He didn't, the article is pure speculation, though it's still worth noting. Alientraveller (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion (Crystal Skull spoilers)

On Indy's religion, the article so far reads:

Because of Indiana's strained relationship with his father, a Christian searching for the Holy Grail, the character rejects the spiritual side of the profession he has followed in. The inconsistency of the three films is that after becoming a believer in Judaism (in Raiders), Hinduism (in Doom) and Christianity (Crusade), Indiana reverts back in the next film.[10] Temple of Doom, chronologically the earliest of the films, has Indiana as a mercenary, searching for "fortune and glory". Indiana uses his belief in Shiva to ultimately defeat Mola Ram.[11] In Raiders, the cynical Indiana accepts humility and refuses to open his eyes in the presence of the spirits who have been disturbed from their slumber in the Ark of the Covenant. By contrast, his rival Rene Belloq is killed for trying to communicate directly with God.

That Henry, Sr. is a Christian is strongly hinted, but not explicitly stated. In Crystal Skull, Indy and Marion have a Jewish wedding. Several possibilities:

(1) Indy is Jewish. (Though his father appears not to be.) Perhaps he converted, whether as a result of his encounter with the Ark, or for some other reason. I vaguely recall that one of the possible models for Indy, was an Orthodox Jew (that explains the hat) searching for the Ark of the Covenant. Do we know anything about Indy's mother? (From one of the novels, perhaps?) He might be the product of intermarriage.

(2) Marion is Jewish. (Do they novels say anything about that? Or her father's religion?) "Ravenwood" doesn't sound like a Jewish name, but of course you never know. Anyway, maybe she converted too, or her mother intermarried...?

(3) Neither of them is Jewish, but they had a Jewish wedding anyway. Out of nostalgia for their adventure with the Ark, for example...

Temple of Doom did not really establish Indy as a believer in Hinduism, as stated above. For one thing, we are speaking only of a sect of Shaivism (Shiva worship), not of Hinduism as a whole. While Indy does seem to affirm the existence of Shiva at the end ("You betrayed Shiva...!") this might be merely rhetorical--like U.S. politicians who pontificate about what "Islam" teaches, without being Muslims themselves. Alternatively (and this is how I always understood the scene) maybe Indy was possessed (by Shiva himself?) and therefore not in his normal mode of belief and apperception.

In any case, Indy might "believe" either in Shiva, or in the Ark, without being Hindu or Jewish (respectively). In fact, that would be the more probable reading. Hinduism doesn't encourage conversion (and we have not seen meditating or anything later), and the Ark lore is accepted by Christianity as well. Conceivably he thinks that more than one religion has spiritual power, though it might be hard to harmonize (say) Jewish monotheism with Shaivism.

One awkward feature of the series is that "magic" or spiritual power is presented as real, whether in the form of Shaivite voodoo (the voodoo dolls are effective), Jewish legend (real angels fly out of the Ark), or Christian folklore (the Holy grail). (The woo-woo elements of Crystal Skull don't count, since they are presented as science-based.) In other words, it is profoundly unclear which religion is true in the Jones universe. --Dawud

Where did you pick up on Jewish wedding? No one was wearing a small circular hat or chanting or dancing. I didn't see anything Jewish about it. I would love to see a source on Indy being an orthodox Jew. You can read about the hat in the article, and it comes from similarly garbed characters in Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Secret of the Incas. Indy demonstrates his belief in Shiva when he says of the Sankara Stones (also referred to in the movie as the Shiva linga), "I know its power now." The possession angle, I would say, is also probably just you. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As evidence I would point to (a) the ubiquitous candalabra (and lack of any other religious symbols), (b) the officiant's assistant does indeed wear a yarmulka, and (c) have to check on this, but I *think* the words of the liturgy are from JPS.

It might be that the ceremony was supposed to have taken place in the campus chapel--did anybody notice what was outside when the doors blew open?

I've been trying in vain to remember the name of the Jewish (amateur) archeologist who looked for the Ark--and later the treasure of the Copper Scroll (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) in the 1990's. Of course he would be just one of many (possible) influences on the Indy character, to the extent that the claim has merit at all.

I see that Indy's mother is named either Mary or Anna, either of which would argue against her (and thus Indy) being Jewish. More likely is that Marion is, or that it was done out of nostalgia (theirs or ours) for the Ark. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.164.58 (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's always another option, "other". I would say that "perceived (yet nonexistent) Jewishness" could be filed in there. I would say that "whoever wore the Jewish hat was Jewish, and nobody else was, and he just wore it because of his tradition and not because it was actually a Jewish ceremony" could be filed in there. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Found it! By now there are several "Jewish Indiana Joneses"--I was thinking of Vendyl Jones (actually a B'nai Noach follower--i.e., a gentile believer in Judaism), not Menachem Youlis, for whom the title is honorary. Turns out Vendyl's story is not so credible:

http://www.jewishlegends.com/displayExp.php?rumor=116

But this wouldn't affect the movie-ceremony question.--Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.164.58 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many believe that we all speak to God in our own way, that we all imagine God differently, but that we are all still worshipping and speaking to the same ultimate entity, which is too powerful for any human construct to fully encompass him and speak for him. That's the religious outlook that I feel is most reflected in the Indiana Jones universe. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all are reading way too much into this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be completely relevant, but then again, it might be helpful if someone is out there rying to figure this out. When I was in college, I read an article about religion in the Indiana Jones movies. In it, the writer spoke of Indiana's journey over the course of the original 3 films from athiest to agnostic. He (or she) said that it's not really that Indy ever became a "believer" of God or whatever, but he went from a belief in nothing to a belief that there's something and he's willing to accept more. He goes from simply acknowledging cultural religious beliefs, to respecting them, to embracing the idea that there's something to them. I wish I still had that article and could cite it. I believe it could be helpful here. It was published sometime from 1989 to 1996 (between the release of Crusade and my graduation from college.) Perhaps someone out there read the same thing and knows where it is so it can be cited. Medleystudios72 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery of the Blues double episode

From what I have read. The Special feature long episode was originally conceived as two, with the normal George Hall bookends, these were replaced By the Ford bookends for the US market. Though the later version was also shown in the UK as well. Conceived as two separate episodes entitled "Chicago, April 1920" and "Chicago, May 1920", Director Carl Schultz had already filmed interconnected bookends featuring George Hall as Old Indy, lecturing his grandson Spike and the members of Spike's band. This footage was deleted in favor of the new bookend starring Harrison Ford in an attempt to boost ratings and re-launch the series. (Halbared (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

1) It's not relevant. The finished episode aired as Mystery of the Blues. 2) Give us a source. Alientraveller (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so far we have nothing to suggest that it was conceived as two episodes. Since it's an American show, it would make more since for it to have been originally 2 hours, and then edited into 1 hour chunks for the British. ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield?

The editor who reverted the September 1985 Garfield reference [3] indirectly pointed out the risk of drawing conclusions. The strip for September 12, 1985, does indeed show an adventurer with 5:00 shadow and wearing something akin to a fedora. That sounds a bit like Indy. However, he's swinging from a rope, with a long-haired babe hanging on. That sounds more like 1984's Romancing the Stone, whose poster features just such a scene (except for the hat). I would say that Jim Davis consolidated several ideas into this one strip. I would not say that it specifically references Indiana Jones, by any means. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that; I didn't think it was strong enough an inference to warrant inclusion. If it's sourced, however, that Indy was intended, fine. --Rodhull andemu 22:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that it's ambiguous enough that it can't be specifically said to be Indy, i.e. it doesn't show (to my recollection, anyway) some identifiable Indy scene. And the film that Jon, Garfield and Odie are attending is not given a title, so there's no clue there either. It's just a generic adventure film they're watching with hints of both Indy and Romancing the Stone, and given the year, it's more likely the latter, if anything. FYI, the only reason I'm going through this megillah is to pre-empt if someone tries to add it back. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jones as forerunner to other characters

Anyone have any cites to demonstrate that Ford actually served as as a forerunner/influence for the creators of any of the figures listed within this section (e.g., Lara Croft)? That evidence may be out there, but as the entry currently stands it's nothing more than all personal conjecture. The phrase "can also be seen as a forerunner (or in some cases, a direct influence on)" Figure X [current wording] is a classic example of weasel word phrasing, inasmuch as IJ "can" be seen by someone as a forerunner to any other cultural figure that postdates 1981 and bears some resemblance to him. I mean, he could be seen as a forerunner/influence on either Freddy Krueger or Michael Jackson's appearance at Motown's 25th anniversary. Both, after all, popularly embraced the antiquated fedora just years after Raiders was released. Any evidence for any of this? --Vaudedoc (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that have cites, have cites. The ones that don't, don't. That's why there's an OR tag at the top of the list. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. My question was more as to whether or not the writer who put these characters here (perhaps an editor still working on the page?) has these cites or if anyone is currently working on them? For being in a series of pages that seem to excise uncited information immediately, these listings appear to have been on here a good long time. Reason? If somebody here is actively working on soon getting the cites, cool. --Vaudedoc (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see these come and go. If they're unsourced, I revert with an appropriate edit summary. I don't see anyone working on sourcing them. If anyone cares, they'll come back and source them. Nuke'em. --Rodhull andemu 23:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could cite TheRaider.net. They have a section of movies that Indiana Jones has influenced. It's the almost official Indiana Jones fansite, so it may count for something. Or you could dismiss it as something unofficial. It's up to you if you want to add them. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because TheRaider.net lists no sources for its own speculations and is not formally affiliated with the series' creators, I don't think that works as a solid reference. On a different note, it really comes down to a question of exactly what this section wants to claim. If it wants to claim that IJ served as an inspiration for Character X, the cite needs to establish that the creators of Character X indeed based him/her off of IJ or were inspired by the series, Lucas/Spielberg's approach, etc. So the screenwriter, director, star, etc. would have to be on record saying, "Yup. Jack Colton started out as a comedic Indy." If the listings want to claim that many others characters or films are commonly seen by others as bearing the influence of IJ, then those others would have to be numerous, notable, and on the record. Romancing the Stone, for example, is called a Raider rip-off/imitator in several reviews--among them, Ebert's. (Though this doesn't mean the creators intended it to be so; that's where the unsupported speculation comes in). Which of these general thrusts do people prefer? The former is more exact, the latter might include more items. --Vaudedoc (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there are only two characters listed under influences and both appear to have cites (but I don't have the DVDs so I don't know if they're accurate), should the OR tag be removed? Also, it might be an idea to re-write that section into prose as a list of two isn't really a list... She'sGotSpies (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition Of Influence

I forgot to log back in after adding the Indiana Jones like "reference" (for want of a better term) in the Influence section, but I was the one that included that. lavacano201014 01:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting

Please stop deleting information right after it is added. Please assume Good Faith in the future and place a citation needed. For the record I added a citation to the informamtion you deleted, next time give me time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bad at adding links.

First, I don't even know if my addition is suitable, but it's a news article and interview with Harrison Ford himself saying a fifth movie is in the think stage. I thought that would be an appropriate addition to the "feature films" section.

Anyway, I'm terrible at figuring out how to do the footnotes at the bottom, and I don't know how to put the stinking link in there. If my addition is kept and anyone feels like fixing it for me, the link is here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/10/harrison-ford-s.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushibo (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]