Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark

Sentence makes no sense.

“Actors Clint Eastwood and Toshiro Mifune, and the James Bond character were the basis of Jones' own” ???? 86.179.71.216 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It means that the character Indiana Jones was based in part on actors Clint Eastwood and Toshiro Mifune, as well as the character James Bond. —Matthew  / (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis in the lead section

The critical reception in the lead currently singles out specific aspects that were supposedly praised by critics (its modern take on the serial genre, its non-stop action and adventure, and the performances of the cast, particularly of Ford, Allen, and Freeman). MOS:FILMLEAD says that any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources.. That guideline was the result of this discussion, if anyone's interested. The summary statement in the lead doesn't seem to be supported by the RT critics' consensus, as is the case for many other film articles, or any other source supporting this type of summary statement. Unless sources are found that explicitly summarize an overall consensus, these cherrypicked aspects should be removed from the lead or alternatively be replaced by those mentioned in the RT critics' consensus. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That type of lede where "the film is praised for (list of stuff) but criticized for (list of more stuff)" is really poor poor writing for film articles, and a problem overall. Masem (t) 17:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that it is a chronic problem in film articles, I have no doubt that these summary statements are written by well-intentioned editors. What needs to be understood is that WP:SUMMARY does not supersede WP:SYNTH. Determining a global critical consensus ourselves solely based on the select few critical reviews featured in the reception section is a form of original research. This type of analysis, i.e. the determination of a broad critical consensus, needs to be done by a reliable secondary source, not by Wikipedia editors themselves. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree, putting together a summary from individual reviews is WP:SYNTH. The current sentence is written as a general overview not mentioned/cited in the Reception section. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not the same as editors adding "it was praised for its cast, music, cinematography, crew, colour choices, the lighting, the costuming, etc, etc." I've just changed it to a bland replica of Rotten Tomatoes basic-ass and uncomprehensive summary because this discussion is a) boring, and b) another example of those who don't do the work criticizing the work that others do. Huzzah for pedantry. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not the same as editors adding "it was praised for its cast, music, cinematography, crew, colour choices, the lighting, the costuming, etc, etc." -How so? Both are the result of Wikipedia editors looking at individual reviews to determine what critics generally praised/criticized. It might be your opinion that your synthesis is more accurate, but it is synthesis nonetheless. Re: criticizing work that others do; If you can't take criticism on Wikipedia, you might as well stop editing. Mind you, I did not just criticize, but I also suggested a reasonable alternative, the "basic-ass and uncomprehensive" RT critics' consensus. Taking issue with an unverifiable claim about the general critical response to one of the most popular works in film history, prominently featured in the lead section, is not "pedantry". Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot summary description of the headpiece to the staff of Ra

I’ve been trying to improve the plot description of the headpiece to the staff of Ra, but it keeps getting reverted. As presently stated, the description is just plain wrong:

>revealing that one side bears a warning against disturbing the Ark, and the other bears the correct measurements for the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark.

Both statements about the headpiece are incorrect, and as a result the description is both wrong and confusing. First, there is no "warning" on that side of the headpiece, but rather a command to "honor" the God of the Ark by taking back one unit of length. Second, contrary to the current description, the first side (while it does have a "warning") does not have the correct measurements; the whole point is that the measurements are incorrect due to the instructions on the other side. As presently phrased, there is no foundation for the subsequent statement about a "correctly-sized staff of Ra" because there's no indication of what is wrong with the original size. My proposed revision fixes this by identifying why the measurement is wrong:

>revealing that one side bears the apparent measurements for the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark, while the other side says to take back one unit of length to honor the God of the Ark.

If brevity is required, the final clause could be removed:

"An imam deciphers the medallion for Jones, revealing that one side bears the apparent measurements for the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark, while the other side says to take back one unit of length."

I understand why people are protective of this article, especially given the timing, but the text as currently written is wrong and in my view should be updated along the lines suggested. (I was being diplomatic in my original description by saying the change was "more precise", but as noted the current phrasing is factually incorrect.) That said, I’m not attached the exact phrasing of my proposed change, so suggested improvements are welcome. Mhartl (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The text is not wrong, you should try watching the film before commenting. The first words out of the imam's mouth is "this is a warning not to disturb the Ark of the Covenant." Yet you are saying it is wrong and there is no warning. So how can you be right about anything else? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I watched the scene in question last night. The warning, which is incidental to the scene, appears on the side with the incorrect measurements, not on the side to take back one unit of length. Thus, the current contrast between the "correct" measurements on one side with the "warning" on the other is simply incorrect. If you must include mention of the warning, you could update the article as follows:

>An imam deciphers the medallion for Jones, revealing that one side has a warning not to disturb the Ark and bears the apparent measurements for the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark, while the other side says to take back one unit of length.

What’s critical about the scene is that the reverse side of the headpiece contains a modification of the instructions on the side burned into the Gestapo agent’s palm. The current description misses this detail entirely. Mhartl (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(You’re right that my phrasing was incorrect when I wrote "there is no 'warning' on the headpiece." What I meant was "there is no 'warning' on that side of the headpiece." I've updated my comment accordingly.) Mhartl (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The warning is not incidental, it is why Indy closes his eyes at the end to avoid witnessing the Ark. You're also not accounting for the context around this sentence stating that they Nazi's only an incomplete version and they are digging in the wrong place. The existing sentence says the correct (I have changed to "complete" measurements. Complete could be replaced with "missing" or "final" measurements, but only that one word would have to change. However, nothing about the current statement made is incorrect, one has a warning, the other the correct measurements, which is accurate, without the measurements on the reverse side the measurements are incorrect. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I actually just posted another comment within seconds of yours, which I hope makes my perspective clearer.

The warning is incidental to the scene because Indy and others have been repeatedly warned already; what’s crucial to the scene is the two details mentioned in my new comment. (Note that “incidental” doesn’t mean “completely irrelevant”; it means that it’s not the focus of the scene, as evidenced by Indy’s lack of interest in the warning and urgency to find out if the staff length is specified.)

I believe the current phrasing is still wrong because the reverse sided not contain the "complete measurement" but rather a correction; the point is that both sides are necessary to get the correct measurement, whereas the Nazis have a copy of only one side. In my view, the current text does not accurately communicate this critical point. Mhartl (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

How about this phrasing?

>revealing that one side bears a warning against disturbing the Ark and specifies the length of the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark, and the other side bears a correction to the length specified on the first side.

That change includes the crucial details of the scene while retaining the general phrasing of the current text. Mhartl (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

A clarification: The current text refers to the main (obverse) side as having a "warning", which is correct but unimportant to the scene, and it omits the crucial detail that it also contains an incorrect length for the staff. Meanwhile, the current text describes the secondary (reverse) side as having the "correct" length, but this is wrong; it has a correction to the length on the obverse side. Indeed, the current wording is so confusing that I initially interpreted the text as referring to the sides in the opposite order.

The critical details are (1) the obverse side of the headpiece has a staff length that appears to be correct and (2) the reverse side has a correction to this length. Having obtained only the obverse side (from the Gestapo agent’s burned palm), the Nazis have the wrong length, which Indy and Sallah realize after hearing the meaning of the markings on the reverse. Since detail (2) is incorrectly phrased ("correct" rather than "correction") and detail (1) is missing entirely, there is no way to infer the correct meaning of the scene from the text as currently phrased. My proposed revision was designed to remedy this. Mhartl (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not critical to mention one side has measurements and the other a correction and it hasn't been confusing for the many readers since it became an FA. In fact, I had changed it to "complete" but "correct" measurements immediately suggests the Nazis have the incorrect measurements without going into the specificity that it is a correction to the previous side. The same outcome occurs without having to elaborate any further. You could just as easily add "and the other, which the Nazis are missing, bears the correct". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Error in discussing Production

This text is inaccurate

> On a beach near Mauna Kea, Lucas and Spielberg discussed their next projects.

The cited source here refers to the beach at the Mauna Kea resort:

> What beach was that? At the Mauna Kea. On the big island

> A white-sand beach? White-sand beach.

The article "the" indicates Spielberg was talking about "the Mauna Kea" rather than "Mauna Kea". See: Mauna_Kea_Beach_Hotel. 2601:602:8980:7310:D169:915E:26B6:4C6E (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)