Talk:The Hurricane (1999 film)

NPOV dispute (2005)
For a discussion of this NPOV dispute, see Talk:Rubin Carter. Blackcats 19:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

'NPOV dispute' removed after Blackcats didn't answer in discussion. Imho this article is ok, but Rubin "Hurricane" Carter still POV discussed. See discussion there.Gray62 15:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Stub?
This article still has the 'stub' flag. It would be nice if an experienced user would give some hints about what has to be done to make this a 'real' article. Gray62 16:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Controversy ... (2007)
The author of this article notes as his first point in the controversy section, that Rubin carter "didn't stab a pedophile to protect himself and a friend, it was a simple robbery."

However, Rubin Carter himself explains in the book that the man indeed was a pedofile, he did indeed stab him, and it was not a robbery, but the pedophile himself offered the child a watch as a sort of bribe. -y


 * On March 21, 1949, Carter was charged with stealing T-Shirts, May 1951, he was charged with breaking into parking meters, June 25 1951 he was charged with assault and robbery, age 14, when he struck a man with a bottle, stealing 55 dollars and a wrist watch. No charge or evidence exists, to back his claim that he "stabbed a pedophile." P.S. This article has no "single author", it's the work of the Wikipedia community.Lion King 18:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I believe he did hit him with a bottle. I also realize now that in reference to the movie and the legal documents, these other things were not acknowleged, but only claimed by Carter himself; however, my understanding was that the movie was based on the book, and therefore the controversy would be between the movie and the book.  My apoligies. -y


 * No Problem, glad to be of help, best wishes, Lion King 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the said item from the controversy list following the comments above as the ref provided doesnt establish that the man wasn't a pedophile either and according to comments above Ruben claims he was - the facts of both the court case (against Ruben) and the movie and the book and the ref provided are not in any contradiction with each other. These sorts of historical things can almost never be established with any degree of certainity buried as they are in the deep mists of time - better to simply leave it out unless a genuine evidence can be provided to establish that the man was not a pedophile... Mattjs 15:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the robbery victim does not have to prove he wasn't a peadophile, Carter has to produce some kind of evidence that he was, which he has never been able to. I have therefore replaced the removed material. Lion King 16:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Those claims in Controversy section are highly biased. I mean practiculary those claims from graphicwitness.com (site run by Cal Deal) Those claims made by mr.Deal may seem well-documented, but on the first look it is obvious how much opinionated and biased they are. Also many of those claims on this wikipedia entry are absolutely irrelevant (For example these following: The 1940s and 50s was a prosperous time for Paterson and not a time of poverty and violence. Carter was a savage street fighter and leader of a gang called The Apaches. The Lafayette Grill did not welcome African Americans. etc.etc.) Also as you can see it contains personal opinions of their author (mr.Deal) - for example sentence about - "savage" street fighter. So those are opinions and not facts, and those opinions are voiced clearly to make mr. Carter look bad. Further I would like to say that much of the information Deal includes can be interpreted in more than one way, although he makes only his own interpretations clear. For example one can caught himself to believe that some of his facts were true...but then one will notice a disclaimer saying that they were based on a police reconstruction. Also some of the interviews he (mr.Deal) included were cut off short, not allowing the reader to see a possible response to Deal's argument. And because of these reasons I hav just cited and noted I think that site of mr.Deal called graphicwitness.com can not be used as a source of trustworthy information. And informations from that site shouldn't be used uncriticaly as a primary source of reliable informations for this encyclopedic entry.   Thank you for your time, and bye.  (Micah33)


 * Thank you for your time. Now let me see if I understand what it is your'e saying. Cal Deal has fabricated all the newspaper reports, police reports, criminal records, military records, witness testimony etc, to "make Mr. Carter look bad", and that this film is not in any way inaccurate, yes? Lion King 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Er...Micah33, are you going to respond? This matter needs to be resolved, it can't stay tagged forever you know. Lion King (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. There is much to say about the "controversy." The article, at one point, seemed to be about "the lies" about the character/film adaption/etc, rather than the film itself.  That's not what I believe an encyclopedia film article should be about.  That is to say an article should be well rounded in content. I've made many additions to enhance the encyclopedia aspects of article in the last few days.  Now what to do with the supposed litany of lies in the film?  WE ALL know, or should know, that sections with so many bullet points (like the controversy section) are a no-no on wiki and should be avoided. In addition, the litany of items seems like over-kill to me.  Many of the items are, in effect, trivia to the film proper and the section should be shortened. Luigibob (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Before you complete the "NPOV" (that's Wales' code for concealing the truth btw) whitewash, I request that you please read this Thank you and goodbye Lion King (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I AGREE with the deletion of the CONTROVERSY bullet points made by anon User:68.55.43.96. Even though a bit unclear, it seems claims made in Graphic Witness web site not cited. Again, it was/is over-kill. I will remove neutrality TAG in due course. ♦ Luigibob ♦  "Talk to Luigi!"  16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the writers mentioned, George Kimball is referred to as 'of the Irish Times'. George Kimball is syndicated and piked up by the Irish Times and occasionally writes a section in the paper however as far as I'm aware it is erroneous to attach him to the Irish Times in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.57.11 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dan Gordon Link
hello, this page has a link to the sriptwriter Dan Gordon who wrote the script. However, this is not the same Dan Gordon. the dan gordon who wrote the script is about 60 years old today. the dan gordon who which the link refers to, was active as a writer during WW2. So it can't be the same one. I don't know how to fix this. Someone who does, please fix this...ido —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.28.163 (talk • contribs)


 * Checking Dan Gordon Lion King 23:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct, the link points to the wrong Dan Gordon. I will unlink Lion King 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Please Note: The Dan Gordon that was linked, died in 1969. Lion King

Awards
"Washington was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor. Various newspaper articles have suggested that the controversy over the film’s accuracy may have cost Washington the Oscar." The reference given here details protests at the Academy screening, but does not detail newspaper articles making such a suggestion. I've moved the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMadBaron (talk • contribs)


 * The Newspaper articles that suggest the film's accuracy cost Denzil the oscar are cited in the articles "Controversy" section. Do want it cited twice, newsprint, ver batim quotes or what? And the relatives of the murder victims protesting at the screening certainly didn't help him get one. Best wishes, Lion King 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, none of the pages linked to on the page contains any claim to the effect that the controversy over the film’s accuracy may have cost Washington the Oscar. I checked.

In the controversy section, we have a bunch of links to Wikipedia pages, none of which prove anything, and the following citations: .... neither of which include the words Oscar or Academy.
 * 1) Elder's article
 * 2) Manning's page

No journalist is quoted in the section, or elsewhere in the article, as mentioning Oscars.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not at all sure that speculation that something may have cost someone an Oscar even needs a citation, and I doubt that anyone's going to sue over claims that "Various newspaper articles" have suggested this. I'm merely making the observation, since whoever stuck the reference there apparently thought that a citation was required, that the linked article did not, in fact, demonstrate the claim, which is why I moved it. I don't doubt that the claim was made at some point, or that digging around on the critics pages might turn one up. Personally, I've got better things to do.

Equally, I'm not at all sure that such speculation belongs in the article at all.

Cheers.

TheMadBaron 05:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should stay as Denzil's performance was magnificent and should have won him the Oscar. Many people firmly believe that the gross inaccuracy of the film prevented the award going to him. I also think that demanding strict sourcing in matters of of speculation is pedantic. Cheers, Lion King 06:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Btw, there is a source in the article.Ex-reporter rains on Denzel's parade. Miami Hearald Lion King

Triva section
IMO, apart from the Dylan single and the picture of Denzil as Malcolm X, the rest of it needs junking, what do you think? Lion King 05:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The bit about Sarokin can go. The rest of it seems pertinent and harmless. TheMadBaron 05:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The controversy section 2006
This section needs help. Among other things: -some of the sentences are poorly written and would be confusing to someone who hadn't seen the movie (or to someone like me, who saw it many years ago) -should be rewritten in paragraph form, I think -the little inaccuracies like "Carter did not ride in the front seat." are nit-picky. Movies about actual events often make minor changes like this for ease of filming or other reasons. -these should be sourced individually. I'm more than willing to do this editing, but think it might be a bit controversial, so I welcome comments/suggestions/criticism. Natalie 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, "Carter did not ride in the front seat" is hardly nit-picky, considering that when Capter stopped his car he was laying down in the back. Lion King 17:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be, in which case it should be explained in the section. As it stands right now, it sounds like the filmmakers made a minor change (back seat to front seat). Natalie 18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A rewrite is generally needed. In addition, I believe there was contemporaneous press coverage about the effect of the controversy on awards for the movie, and the article would be improved if someone can dig that up. THF 14:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Boxing Title
i remember at the very end of the film it says that rubin carter was awarded some kind of boxing championship title, something never done before. does anyone know anything about this?Sundar1 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Carter holds no Championship Titles. He was "awarded" along with Joey Giardello an "Honorary Championship Belt" by the WBC. The "Belts" grant no title, they are just mementos, repeated claims that they do, resulted in them being included in Giardello's Civil Action against Universal Pictures. It well may be that this was "something never done before", but it has no meaning or value - the WBC were not the sanctioning organization of the 1964 Giardello-Carter Middleweight World Championship Contest.


 * The "Updates" in this film are very misleading to say the least, it was Giardello's contention that it gives the viewer the impression that he was stripped of his title because of a "racist fix" and Carter received belatedly, something which was denied him by said "racist fix" and is outrageous. Joey Giardello was a great Champion and boxer, who was inducted into the Boxing Hall of Fame. Hope this helps. Lion King 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Hurricane (1999 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/20071028003117/http://www.filmfestivals.com/berlin_2000/competition/film_hurricane.htm to http://www.filmfestivals.com/berlin_2000/competition/film_hurricane.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111173949/http://www.pass.to/newsletter/a_talk_with_norman_jewison.htm to http://www.pass.to/newsletter/a_talk_with_norman_jewison.htm

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) 14:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
I went through those sources one by one. Some were personal web pages - obviously not fit for Wikipedia. I can't believe they survived for years in the article. Others just flat-out didn't say what the text of the article claimed they said. It looks to me like the entire section was slapped together by combining some sketchy sources with some half-truths and WP:SYNTHESIS. After analyzing all of it, I heavily edited the section down to the lawsuit about the one Carter fight, which actually has good sources. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clean up and some of it certainly did not belong. It's difficult for me to remove the Larry Elder article, since he is a notable person and the source that published it is a marginally RS. The Irish Times is a RS and the article was easy to find here: https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/truth-is-swept-aside-by-hurricane-1.269822 I'm not sure why the NYT article was removed??? Overall, at least 3 RS's in there are discussing the fact that there was controversy over the accuracy. I think it's worth adding some back in.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, that personal web page has actually received enough coverage to possibly qualify for a Wikipedia article, such as this article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. https://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20000327newsmaker3.asp The site is run by a NY Post reporter that covered Carter for years, first as a supporter, then as an adversary when he felt the evidence showed Carter was lying. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think one article 21 years ago in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (and let's face it, that's literally the strongest source mentioning it) is not nearly enough to call a personal web page notable enough for a Wikipedia article. That's a really, really, long stretch. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, not that I'm making a case for it, but notability doesn't expire. I've watched albums pass notability for a single paragraph on AllMusic, so an entire article devoted to it by a major paper should make it. However, the Star Ledger source gives the website more than a mere mention. An Irish Times article devotes 4 paragraphs to Deal and his website.. Could probably find more if I did some digging. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Niteshift36 (talk), I have a big problem with your latest revert. You are saying "The Star Ledger" is saying something, when it's clearly an opinion piece by one conservative commentator. Additionally, the writer is saying things like "Rubin Carter definitely killed three people", but he has no basis for that, other than his own gut feeling. This column is not something I would regard as a reliable source for facts on the accuracy of the film. I'm pretty sure if we brought in some other opinions, they would agree, especially since we're dealing with accusing a person of murder, for which he was wrongfully convicted (and eventually released from prison based on the wrongful convictions). In other words, if the legal system determined that we can't say Carter was guilty of murder, why are we using an opinion hit piece by a clearly biased writer who says the opposite? I think a self-revert would be a good start, and then more discussion, considering the BLP issues. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether the reporter is a conservative or liberal has no bearing on this discussion. He is an employee of the paper and there is still editorial oversight. If we look at WP:RSEDITORIAL, we see "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." That is exactly what is being done here...... reporting that Mulshine had these criticisms. If it would make you feel more comfortable, we could quote him. I'll be happy to pose the question at RSN. BTW, the legal system never exonerated Carter. His verdictwas set aside because of errors made by the prosecution. He was never adjudicated not guilty. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and posed the question at RSN. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)