Talk:Mandingo (film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mandingo movie poster.jpg
Image:Mandingo movie poster.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 ensure 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) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sylvester Stallone is in Mandingo!
Although IMDb had him listed as a young man in a crowd with his scenes deleted, he was also an extra in the scene where the locals capture a man called "Cicero" and put a noose around his neck. I know this because I got the film on DVD and spotted him in the background. Cicero defiantly claims it's their land too in response to his people being used for slavery, and during the scene, you can see Stallone standing near him wearing a red hat, although he is quite young and not easy to recognize. It is worth noting that this film's star (Perry King) was also in The Lords of Flatbush with Stallone, which was out during the same year.PeterMan844 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Reevaluation lead
Please could we discuss our dispute about how to phrase the reevaluation in the lead here, in order to prevent an edit war? @FMSky. I've already explained my thoughts so the floor's all yours Stephanie921 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

And please don't accuse my edit of being garbage. That's not constructive. Talk about why you have a problem instead Stephanie921 (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your origial concert was "Peacocky", which doesnt apply here: "Retrospectively, the film's reception changed, with more recent reviews being more favorable." I removed the "much" so it should be fine now. My problem with your wording ("However, it later became positively re-evaluated") is that it implies that there are only positive reviews/reevaluations now which i highly doubt FMSky (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The re-evaluation described in the article is only positive, with scholarly and critical praise for its handling of race. It was originally criticized upon release, but has been positively reassessed. Ty for removing 'much'. Stephanie921 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently the text in the section Critical re-evaluation says "In the years following the film's initial release, the reception of the film became more favorable", so not ONLY favorable.. --FMSky (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Well in that case I think the critical re-evaluation section should be rewritten to say 'become favourable' - as well as the lead - to reflect the body cos the re-evaluation only mentions sources praising the film. Would you be okay with me doing that? Stephanie921 (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well i mean if its really true that there are only positive evaluations now then i guess yes... FMSky (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome, ty. Ty for the constructive discussion, I enjoyed talking with you. If you can find newer sources still critical of the film then feel free to add them and change the wording, but all the ones in the article atm are positive so I'll say it's been positively re-evaluated for the moment Stephanie921 (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)