Talk:Hidalgo (film)/Archive 1

Untitled
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)

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)

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. 

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. 

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.

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". 

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)

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 [ http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/h/hidalgo-script-transcript-viggo-mortensen.html ] 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 [ http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/h/hidalgo-script-transcript-viggo-mortensen.html ] 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.[ http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/h/hidalgo-script-transcript-viggo-mortensen.html ]. 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

No, there are no pictures of him, but Frank Hopkins did carve a statue of him which which is in the Photo Gallery on the Frank Hopkins website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janice M. Ladendorf (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

Anne Blunt
Does somebody have a reference for Anne Davenport being inspired on Lady Anne Blunt? --Error (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hidalgo (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612194625/http://www.frankhopkins.com/articles.html to http://www.frankhopkins.com/articles.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612194625/http://www.frankhopkins.com/articles.html to http://www.frankhopkins.com/articles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hidalgo (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111142157/http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=7 to http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=26134&d=13&m=5&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

rating?
Where is the MPAA movie rating on Wikipedia? I assume Wikipedia recognizes the value of movie ratings? Do I want to watch a movie to decide whether I want to watch it? This is non-sensical. So I assume Wikipedia is working on a rating system of its own to fill this need? Is this need recognized at Wikipedia? We're talking about facts. Facts about choices. Choices made to reach a particular audience that has been conditioned to respond to certain stimuli, for example, sex/violence, reward/punishment, duty/obligation, domination/submission. When those choices are revealed in text, the public is able to identify whether the story will be enjoyable or not. In the context of the large pile of other factoids chosen by Wikipedia to present, what is the value of this information, to those making decisions at Wikipedia? Zero? Rtdrury (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:FILM, we don't report film ratings. There are many other sites that report this, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)