Talk:Hidalgo (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

---

If this takes place in the 1890s, and the Pony Express only existed in 1860, how old was this guy? RickK | Talk 04:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He wasn't in the Pony Express. He was a more of a mail boy, a dispatch rider. That should probably be removed, since Hopkins wasn't born until around 1865. -- The KoG | Talk 16:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Someone cut through all the chatter... 2 Inaccuracies 2.1 Reinstated Inaccuracies 3 Fair use rationale for Image:Httpwww.movie-source.comstills549 4.jpg 4 Indiana Jones Statement 5 Hidalgo 6 Question about the "reception" section

[edit] Someone cut through all the chatter...

...and tell me where the truth lies. Was there indeed this 'Ocean of Fire' race like the one side suggests or was it entirely a fabrication as the other side does? Did this fellow really compete in assorted distance races? Did he work for Buffalo Bill? Both seem suspect...especially given that both seem obsessed in proving their viewpoints. Jachra 11:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies

This edit added a section called Inaccuracies with the following:

The movie included some inaccurate portrayals of Islam, some of which are:

1- The king would not shake Hopkins' hand, referring to him as an inedible. The king's deputy said that the king "would lose his ability to foretell the future.” This is inaccurate; in fact, Muslims are not prohibited from touching a Non-Muslim or shaking their hands.

2- The king's daughter confessed to Hopkins that she wants him to win the race so she does not have to marry prince Bin Al Reeh becoming his fifth wife. As it's known in Islam. there's nothing such as marrying more than four wives. [1]

3- The King said that he would pray five times a day if his horse wins the race, implying that he would do that as a way of thanking god. In Islam, every Muslim is required to pray five times a day regardless of wining a certain race or not. [2]

4-The king stated "If any of our chaste women commit lewdness with evidence against them, so shall they be taken out and stoned". In Islam. stoning a person who commits adultery is only applied to people who perform that act outside of marriage. In this case, the kings daughter was not married, thus; this is inaccurate. Also, drowning a person who committed fornication has no basis in Islam and it's not a form of punishment.[3]

I reverted the above addition with the edit summary "Revert islamic POV with WP sources. Muslims have different beliefs and don't always follow them. It's a film, not a documentary". [4]

I don't think this film article is a good place to discuss islamic beliefs and practices. Films are often unrealistic or show extremes. I think the islamic characters in the film are fictional. Does the film claim that these things are believed and followed by all muslims? PrimeHunter 15:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstated Inaccuracies

"None" of these acts that were mentioned are followed by Musilms. Also, in the movie's page under "Reactions", it reported that F. Hopkins stories were exaggrated. So we also need to state these inaccuracies about Islam the same way we reported them about F. Hopkins. Just like people deserved to know that these stories were not entirely true about Hopkins, they also need to know that marrying five women has no basis in Islam.

These are fictional quotes (only 1 is also an act in the film) by fictional characters who don't have religious positions. The film is not about religion and I don't think it claims these things are common or accepted in islam. No matter how different muslims feel about it and whether it's considered part of islam or is just about certain people who happen to be muslims:

1- There are muslims who will not shake hands with non-muslims.

2- There are muslim men who want more than 4 women. Some leaders have lived with much more than 4 women without giving them official wife status, e.g. in a harem.

3- There must be many muslims (billions have lived) who have said they would pray more if their wishes were fulfilled.

4- There are muslim women who are killed in different ways by their family due to premarital sex (sometimes called honour killing).

It doesn't seem encyclopedic to list (and call "inaccuracies") things fictional people have said in a film although many or most of their religion would think those things are inappropriate for followers of the religion. Almost every film or novel in history has portrayed some characters who said or did things widely considered bad by their religion or society. Why should Wikipedia list such things if the fictional work doesn't claim a real religion or society generally supports it? In the case of Hidalgo, I think each of the listed things is only said by or about one character who is arabic but doesn't appear very religious. Should articles about non-religious films with criminals of christian background also say that the film is "inaccurate" when a fictional character breaks a christian rule? Actually, this film also has American and British murderers who are presumably christians. I can understand some are annoyed when a member of a certain group (muslim, catholic, lawyer, postal worker, Frenchman, albino, gay, whatever) is portrayed negatively in a fictional work, but this article doesn't seem like the right place to react.

I'm not sure the fifth wife is a mistake by the author. The 4-wife limit is pretty well-known and the character is the main villain of the film. Maybe it's a subtle part of his portrayal that he wants one more wife when he already has 4 (assuming the 4 are actually current). He is a treacherous power-hungry murderer who already acts against acceptable norms for islam and other religions and societies. Maybe he would kill or divorce one of his existing wives if he got a chance for an improvement, like a pretty daughter of a powerful leader.

Are there others who want to comment on whether Wikipedia should list these things? If it does then I think there should at least be added notable sources speaking about the film. The only sources now are Wikipedia articles about islam. A sourced rewritten section called e.g. "Portrayal of arabs" instead of "Inaccuracies" could maybe make more sense to me.

Frank Hopkins is a real person so it makes more sense to discuss what is accurate about him than a couple of fictional characters. PrimeHunter 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree with you that this movie has no religious position. But, there's no harm in listing that these were inaccurate or at least exaggrated. Islam is a religion that is followed by more than 1.5 Billions and it makes sense to correct whatever was mentioned incorrectly about it in the movie. It was very clear to anyone who watches the movie that these quotes or acts were done because they had some basis in Islam, which gives the viewer a very negative view and idea about the religion. There's a difference between how a culture re-act to a certain situation (i.e., honor killing) But you can't claim that the lord has said it - as mentioned the movie. This gives a false impression about how this situation is handled in Islam. These portryals were done more than once in the movie and it seemed like a constant theme to view Islam on that way. In other pictuers, something like this would be done, but in a very minor way.

Thank you for your time and I am enjoying this disscusion :)

The script [5] says:

"It is written, Mr. Hopkins. If any of our chaste women commit lewdness with evidence against them, so shall they be taken out and stoned. And it is then by law that the father must drown his own daughter."

It doesn't say the lord has said it but some viewers may interprete it like that. The script doesn't mention "king". PrimeHunter 15:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

It's very common in Islam that when someone says "it's written" regarding any islamic ruling, it means that it's from either the Quran or the sayings of the prophet peace be upon him. For example, :The script [6] says: "It is written that God leads astray whom he wishes and guides whom he wishes." You can see the syntax in which the phrase "it's written is used in" in which it refers to god.

You can see that in the second part of the quote, he mentions what's done according to their "law". So, the first part is what's supposed to be driven by what's written (i.e, Quran or his prophet peace be upon him). The script does not mention king but in the movie the king is the one who says it. I am assuming that this page deals with the movie, not the script.

Thank you

Lots of uncommon things happen in most movies (certainly this one) and the script doesn't say it's an islamic ruling. It's a quote by the Sheikh who has English as a foreign language and maybe just translated in his head. Whatever is written and whereever, it's probably not in English. Above I meant the script doesn't mention "king" anywhere. It says "Sheikh" but "king" is the title used several times in "Inaccuracies". By the way, please sign talk page posts with four ~~~~. PrimeHunter 13:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, Islam has been a constant theme in this movie, it's very noticable during diolauge even if the script does not say that it's an islamic ruling, it's very obvious in the movie. The assumption that the King transalted it in his mind isn't probably the best way to think about it. He masters english very well and he's of great knowledge as his daughter says "My father reads many books from the outside world. But his true enjoyment of literature,it is of Wild Bill and Calamity Jane.[7]. I would ask you to watch the moive again and re-evaluate your judgement.

Thank you 70.247.208.149 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Httpwww.movie-source.comstills549 4.jpg

Image:Httpwww.movie-source.comstills549 4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana Jones Statement

I have removed the statement of George Lucas considering Viggo for the role of Indiana Jones in a fourth film (or some other film) as no citation is provided. Rather, this statement is likely to be false. If the user can link to an article quoting Lucas on this matter, please repost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth karl (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidalgo

R THERE ANY PICTURES OF THE REAL HILDALGO,,,?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.2.66 (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the "reception" section

This has nothing to do with the film, I'm just curious. In the "reception" part of this article it's reported that American Indians are claiming that Hopkins, like others in his time, only claimed to have Lakota ancestry for "personal gain."

I'm wondering, what personal gain could there be in claiming to be an Indian? They were still considered, shall we say, somewhat less than human until the civil rights era. How would Hopkins benefit from identifying himself as one of them? 76.106.145.195 (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)