Talk:The Conqueror (1956 film)

message: For a second test I picked The Swan (1956). Only 14 actors members are listed. 8 have cause of death (or have died). 4 died of cancer. 50%......again....hummm...?
*Filming Locations for The Swan (1956):
**Biltmore Estate - 1 Approach Road, Asheville, North Carolina, USA
Must have been downwind of a tobacco cigar rolling factory?
WikiDon 23:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a hole in the "logic" that smoking caused these cancers rather than exposure.  Smoking is known to cause or contribute to mouth, throat and lung cancers (among other sometimes fatal respiratory diseases), yet Hayward died of brain cancer, Armedariz was terminal with kidney and bone cancers, and Moorehead died of uterine cancer.  I know of no oncologist who would attempt an argument that smoking was the cause of these deaths. 12.22.250.4 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, but I know many anti-smoking ads that use that logic 69.219.238.88 02:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  RE: I think there's a hole in the "logic"....That is the POINT! WikiDon 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Those are interesting bits of fact. Cancer is the cause of death of a lot of people in this country, but from a statistical viewpoint, the figures are just that - figures. I don't think one can conclude coincidence or causation from looking at the listed deaths of 15 of 42 persons, or 8 of 14 persons, without doing comparative studies of the deaths of the others, and against the population as a whole from the same time period. In any case, it at least deserves a mention since it has been at least an urban legend for at least 30 years. Wildhartlivie 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we need to find credible outside sources, and quote & cite those sources, and show BOTH sides of the story. When need to say: "XYZ says: blah blah blah. But, ABC counters with: blue blue blue." WikiDon 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Test Two

message: The Conqueror/Caine Mutiny test above doesn't include the crews.  I ran the numbers including the crews and found that 23% of Caine's cast and crew had died of cancer issues (14 of 61), while only 12% of Conqueror's cast and crew (9/73) had died of cancer issues.  However, the average age of death from cancer was 68 for Conqueror and 74 for Caine.  It must be noted that Caine was made two years earlier, which I suppose could be construed to mean people had two more years to die in.  (Coincidentally, both films had actors who committed suicide after a cancer diagnosis, Pedro Armendariz and Richard Farnsworth.)  
I ran another test -- this one potentially more telling.  I ran the same numbers for The King and Four Queens, which was made the same year as The Conqueror, but more importantly was also filmed in St. George, Utah.  Only two out of 32 cast and crew (6%) were listed as cancer casualties, but the average age at death for them was 62.  One of them, Chuck Roberson, was on both films.  There are two or three other films filmed within the same year or so in the same location, Run of the Arrow being most prominent among them.  I didn't run the numbers on them, but a glance at their cast list suggests relatively few cancer deaths, certainly quite few within a short period after the film.  
There is nothing scientific about these tests.  They're merely suggestive.  And The Conqueror not only shot almost entirely in the one location, but brought dirt back to the studio for use in interiors.  Some of the other St. George-shot films may have only been there a few days.  Also, the crews listed for any of these films on IMDb are but a handful of the people who would actually have been on set.  Add those additional  people to the ones listed for whom no cause of death is noted, and the figures start to be extremely unreliable in terms of whether there was a real effect from radiation.  But, as I say, mild inferences can be made, and it looks more and more like The Conqueror death myth is just that. Monkeyzpop 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another test

message: This article needs more about the film. 
How did Powell (an actor who had one previous directing credit) get to direct such an all-star vehicle ?  -- Beardo 14:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot, etc. 

message: The article mentions twice that the movie was shot "downwind" of the nuclear testing site.  I seriously doubt that the movie was always downwind of the testing site the entire time shooting took place.  Can't we just change it to "near" the nuclear testing site? DarthJesus 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the article of St. George, Utah, apparently fallouts from one Nevada nuclear test was blown by wind to the filming location. So we need to better word the sentence, rather than simply say "near". Also, it is possible that the area of St. George could be usually "downwind" due to the local weather pattern. I think it can be kept as is. --Revth 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Radioactive dust follows the wind, causing there to be more radiation downwind 128.193.8.124 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downwind? 

message: Thats fine, but radiation does not follow the wind! Radiation goes every way!--Apemonkey1 (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Radioactive dust follows the wind, causing there to be more radiation downwind 128.193.8.124 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 2019

message: :Image:The Conqueror DVD cover.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 Wikipedia: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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Conqueror DVD cover.jpg

message: I added the NPOV tag, this article is almost entirely about the bad aspects of the film, the cancer controversey and how bad it was. Production info and other pertinent information is unrepresented. See undue weight. There needs to be more balance here. Even if it was a bad bad film. IvoShandor 13:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that NPOV is violated here. Along with the cancer allegations, there is substantial information about the film in the article. The infobox gives the director, writer, actors, cinematographer, editor, distributor, running time, producers and language. Also, additional information about the film is given in the "Cancer controversy" section. -- Kjkolb 08:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Anybody want to write about some of the jistorical innacuracies of this film?
This is a popular thread for historical films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.158.84 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Innacuracy 

message: The Mayo clinic states that the lifetime incidence of cancer is 44% for men and 38% for women.  I'd say this heavy smoking hard drinking Hollywood group got off easy at 41%.  Can't we have a little more objective entry rather than repeating old Hollywood stories?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.115.147.16 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one thing to have a 44% chance to get cancer by age 80 and another thing to have so many young people get cancer so early in their lives.  But it's not up to us to do original research, we have in this article a reliable quote about the issue, find another reliable quote that points to the other conclusion and you are free to add it. man with one red shoe 18:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Has anyone with any expertise in radiation medicine, public health, or even statistics ever evaluated this claim? As-is, the article smacks of "conspiracy theory". Exposure time is a factor in radiation-related cancer deaths. More salient would be the death rates in people who frequented the area - like area residents - and the type of radiation in question. Are days spent filming more important than decades of cigarette smoking and the constant inhaling the side-stream smoke of others? Smoking is a risk factor in many disease conditions (pancreatic cancer and bladder cancer are examples), not just mouth, throat, and lung cancers. And where did "Dr. Robert Pendleton, professor of biology" publish his statements? People Magazine! PM may be considered a reliable source for celebrity news, but is it also one for the evaluation of radiation effects on human health? I am by no means a nuclear lobbyist, but someone who doesn't want to see cigarettes get off the hook so easily, either. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Added - What other factors have been evaluated and eliminated in the film group in order to say with any confidence that the cancers were caused by the film location? Sheer coincidence cannot be dismissed out of hand, either. Wordreader (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancer

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Conqueror (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/20111117083443/http://www.dbcult.com/movie-database/conqueror-1956/ to http://www.dbcult.com/movie-database/conqueror-1956/
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) 12:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: >> [...] Several cast and crew members, as well as relatives of those who died, considered suing the government for negligence, claiming it knew more about the hazards in the area than it let on.[12][18] Statistically, however, the odds of developing cancer for men in the U.S. population are 43% and the odds of dying of cancer are 23% (slightly lower in women at 38% and 19%, respectively).[19]
What is the point of the last sentence? "However" what?
It's unclear how, or if, the cited cancer death rates are supposed to contradict the previous report by Dr. Robert Pendleton. - 86.131.209.59 (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes more sense read in conjunction with the sentence that follows it. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "However" what? 

message: Temujin falls for Bortai and steals her away... Bortai spurns Temujin and is taken back in a raid. Temujin is later captured. Bortai falls in love with him...
:Confusing. Needs a little flesh on the bones. Valetude (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's written in classic "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl..." Hollywood plot-summarizing style. AnonMoos (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop, go. 

message: You cannot just use the life-time cancer risk in isolation like this in the article. For example, while life-time risk of getting cancer is 1 in 2, the risk of getting stomach cancer is 1 in 96 (John Wayne). He was also diagnosed well before the median age of being diagnosed with stomach cancer of 68 (John Wayne died at 72 and he has been battling with cancer for over a decade)
The director passed away from lung cancer at the age of 58… the median age of being diagnosed of lung cancer is 65.
You can see how misleading it is quoting just the life-time cancer risk aline. TonAMG53 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the life-time cancer risk in isolation is EXTREMELY MISLEADING