Talk:Kings of the Sun

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

time?

I saw this movie when it first came out, so my memory might be wrong. But, did it really take place at the time of the Conquest? As I recall, the movie, it was a distorted story based on Hunac Keel and the attack on Chichen Itza (1194). Kdammers 05:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. I havn't seen the film and was going by some things I found with a quick web search; good to have better information. -- Infrogmation 08:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Steel"? Would Hollywood give the Mesoamericans steel? They were trying to be authentic. 71.215.233.197 (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you asking about? Where in the article or on this page is there a mention of steel? I did a "search" and could find no mention; nor did I find it bby simply reading through both. Kdammers (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mention of "steel-blade armed rivals" is in there. Paragraph 2 overall. Seems odd, considering that even later Mesoamerican cultures did not make use of iron or bronze metallurgy, and went to war with their most common edged weapons made of stone (particularly obsidian) flakes set into wooden shafts. Hollywood was in yet another "let's do the Time Warp again" frame of mind when this film was produced. 71.125.151.4 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Miss. & Miss. culture

The recent removal of the content relating to Mississippi and Mississippian culture is, I think, an over-reaction. A "citation needed" tag would be better, since the content is correct. Kdammers (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree with the rational in the edit summary? I tried googling to find a source for the statement as well as checking the available citations in the article (one likely does not exist). Unless policy on uncited editors opinions has changed, the material shouldn't be in the article. If one is ever found, I do not object to the line being returned to the article 184.190.215.159 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "uncited editors," but my understanding is that noncontroversial but useful material that has been put in by an editor (in this case, by me) that is not verified can be marked with a "citation needed" tag. My unlettered understanding of this approach is that it allows useful but unsupported information to stay in (at least for a while) but at the same alerting readers to the unreliability of taht information. Kdammers (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You left off a word, I wrote "uncited editors opinions", but maybe I should have said "the uncited opinions of Wikipedia editors as opposed to information form secondary sources". The film is so riddled with historical inaccuracies we really can't be sure what the writers and director intended. I did find this The Rough Guide to Cult Movies by Paul Simpson which at least mentions the Mississippi Delta region in a small review. It's probably coatracking to turn this into "they founded the Mississippian culture", but at least it mentions the area, unlike the film which mentions no river(the culture is named for the river, not the state) and doesn't portray a southeastern people but a plains people (with tepees and buffalo and the cacti it looks more like the Texas coast than Mississippi). Do what you wish, I'm not gonna argue about it. Peace. 184.190.215.159 (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]