User talk:68.101.67.16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Antiquarian

Regarding your edits to Harrison Ford, Indiana Jones, and Indiana Jones 4: Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Indiana Jones is portrayed in the films as an archaeologist, not an "antiquarian". Discuss on the article talk pages if you disagree. =Axlq 05:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your comments insulting. My correction on those pages are necessary in making wikipedia a reliable source. As an actual anthropologist, I know the difference between an antiquarian and an archaeologist. I was correct in what I said. The differences are real, and you should be more careful in what you change without a proper review.

I meant no offense; however, the fact remains that the films presented the Indiana Jones character as an archaeologist, not an antiquarian. This is well established. Please take the trouble to discuss such a change on the article's talk page, rather than make a change that others consider incorrect. =Axlq 05:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well established by whom? This is not my own work in depicting Indiana Jones as an antiquarian. I can give you a link to many professor's lectures showing Jones as a antiquarian. His role in the movie is a grave robber, not an archaelogist. It seems like you just reverted my edits without regard to what I said. If wikipedia is to become a reliable source, then I think the finer points of a subject should be considered. Archaelogist to antiquarian may seem like an insignificant change to you, but to anthropologists, is an insult and improper to think of Jones as a modern anthropologist.

I am moving the conversation here for continuity.

The archaeologist designation is established in the films itself. That is how he is referred to. I fully agree with you that Indiana Jones is really a grave robber and it's insulting to real archaeologists to equate them with him. This is a fact that should definitely be pointed out in the article — but the way you did it equates to nonsense in the minds of laypeople who have seen the film. Even better would have been adding a sentence or two, or a parenthetical note, describing the distinction. As you pointed out, you should be careful what you change without proper review. A discussion in the talk pages would be in order for a change like that.

Furthermore, your categorization of Indiana Jones as an "antiquarian" is just as debatable. That doesn't really fit him either. Treasure hunter or grave robber are more appropriate, don't you think? =Axlq 06:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit that everything in this world is debatable, but it just seems that a change was, and still is needed, to all the article relating to Indiana Jones. I figured the best way to accomplish such a task would be a simple edit of the definition. I do see how a person not versed in anthropology may be confused by the distinction between the two terms. Even the page on antiquarianism is confused and, in ways, incorrect. That specific article does not show that antiquarians were the grave robber themselves, with Indianna Jones being a perfect example of their kind. I can see how my original edits, coupled with the inacurate article on antiquarianism, can lead to confusion. I think both articles need to be fixed before they are ready for each other.

I didn't realize the antiquarian page had problems, and honestly I had never equated "antiquarian" with "grave robber" in my mind (and I see grave robber is yet another article!). I'd say, go ahead and make the necessary corrections, but if you think anything you write might be contentious, post a note on the article's talk page concerning what you intend to do so that consensus may be reached. If you don't think your edits would be controversial to laypeople, just do it. Adding some clarifying sentences to the antiquarian and grave robber articles, and all the Indiana Jones / Harrison Ford articles should be no problem. =Axlq 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana Jones peer review

By the way, the Indiana Jones article just went up for peer review. You may want to participate; see Wikipedia:Peer review/Indiana Jones/archive1. =Axlq 15:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)