Talk:Rambo III

2011 comment

"This was then edited to read "people of Afghanistan" during the post 9/11 era. A shining example of the hyocricy of American foreign policy. When the Mujahideen were fighting Russian invaders, they were "brave fighters" suitable to having Hollywood movies in their honor. But when they are fighting American invaders, they are terrorists and savages." Changing this because it's ridiculous, I've had editors nit pick minor edits so how on earth did this one get missed... N3v (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

2006 comments

Is it accurate to say "The events depicted in Rambo III eerily foreshadowed the war in Afghanistan following September 11th, 2001"?--Darrelljon 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't watched the movie recently, but don't think so. It should however be noted that the movie quickly became dated when the SU left Afghanistan. // Liftarn

Rambo was defending the Northern Alliance from the Soviet Union. The war in 2001 was primarily about the US military attacking the Taliban, but the Northern Alliance gained as a side effect.--Darrelljon 13:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true, there was no northern alliance..besidies the warriors in the movie are all pashtun and speak pashto...the traitor speaks dari or Tajiki. Omerlives

as an action movie it delivers,but its message at the end, is not worth my spit" "the brave adghan pepole" yeah right!

It's a 1988 film, pal. There is no way they would know.

Not all Aphganies are anti-american. // Godaiger

The weapons we (United States) armed the Afghanis with were the same ones used later to fight their other wars. The taliban came as a direct result of the Soviet Afghan war while groups were vying for power post war. Foreshadowing? Hardly.

I've added a link to the Moviecheat.com page on Rambo III. This happens to be my site, and there's some great stuff in our Rambo articles. It's totally legit and content-based; I'm a real person and it's a real site, and I think truly worth linking from here. I've checked the rules and it shouldn't be a problem to add this as long as it's relevant and informative. But if anyone truly has a problem, feel free to revert.Rasi2290

I'm removing the Osama bin Laden reference. He may have become the most well known person who had fought as a mujahideen, and someone can include a reference in that language if they want, but he current wording implies he was influential in the outcome of the war, or prominent among other fighters on the Afghan side, which he was note.

LOL GALLANT PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.252.8.215 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Rambo

The prescense of cultural developments and relations are so represented in Rambo III, and when it came out on my Birthday, I was sincerely in awe. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with films? This makes no sense in reality, and Wikipedia could be a little more personal sometimes. Is this such a bias idea? Tigger v/s Fox75.203.143.63 (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dedication

In the article it says:

"The original VHS release had in the end credits: "Dedicated to the brave Mujahideen fighters", although this was later changed to "Dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan."[11]"

I really have to question that because I saw it in the theaters and on VHS/TV and I don't remember such a dedication. It was always "to the gallant people of Afghanistan". Researching this further in the New York Times Archives, I came across a May 25, 1988 review of the movie (by Janet Maslin) that said this:

"'Rambo III is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan, and it clearly intends that its politics be taken seriously." I also confirmed this in a few other books published prior to 9/11/01: 'Civil War in Pop Culture' (on p.152) and 'Vietnam war films: over 600 feature, made-for-TV,.....' (on p.355). Both books were published in the 90's.

I also remember seeing 'People of Afghanistan' in 80s, but in my mind registered as 'Brave People of Afghanistan' Hydman (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this supposed change in the dedication is just a urban legend. That is, unless someone wants to say they changed it from the film's original release (i.e. to the VHS release) and then back again to the original (for a DVD release) after 9/11. That doesn't add up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you. Someone would have to buy a vintage tape off eBay and watch it. I don't think it will be easy to remove this entirely from the article because people have convinced themselves this is a real thing and may even falsely remember seeing this. I initially believed this story but having looked at the discussions on Reddit and StackExchange I now think the still images showing the Mujahideen dedication are doctored as they don't use the same background scene. I think it is likely someone started the hoax by taking a scene at the end without any text superimposed and took a still and added the text in digitally. I personally have never seen a video excerpt online of the credits showing this dedication. The problem is that the hoax has been picked up by movie trivia sites so anyone who doesn't want this removed from Wikipedia will say it is has citations (from sources that are likely wrong and themselves not sourced). Rja13ww33 can you please add a line to that section in the article saying there is now scepticism regarding the truth of this story, citing the sources you mention above to support this view? That way people visiting the page can make their own evaluation. Simgrant (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me think of a way to state it that captures both sides of the argument and I will post it here and see what you think. (I like to build a consensus (on the talk page) before I change anything to avoid a edit war.) Give me about a day or two to think it over.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: “Some have claimed that the dedication at the end of the film has been altered at various points in response to the events of 9/11. [Insert Ref to Imdb here]. Specifically it is claimed that the dedication was (at one point) “to the brave Mujahideen fighters” and then later changed to “to the gallant people of Afghanistan”. However, reviews of the film upon its release and later publications (prior to 9/11) show that the film was dedicated “to the gallant people of Afghanistan” prior to 9/11.[Insert the references I cited here]”Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fair and balanced, make the edit. Will wait and see if anyone disputes this. Simgrant (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your feedback.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone has taken out the IMDB reference for the claim of a altered dedication as IMDB is not a reliable source. I agree, but the whole point here is that it is a internet legend. Does IMDB have to be considered reliable even as proof of a urban legend? Let me know what you think. For now, I will revert the edit. But lets discuss it here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, so rumours and "internet legends" should not be sourced to it. If a reliable source cannot be found for the claim then it should be removed altogether. Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can have a reliable source for what is essentially a internet legend in the first place. If it was that reliable, it would not be claiming it. Looking around, I've seen it on reddit.com and mentalfloss.com. I've seen it debunked on some skeptic web sites. (Perhaps that is sufficient.) Maybe there is a way to ID it as a internet rumor (which wiki has debunked in its articles before) and then take it on with the info I found.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If it has never appeared in a reliable source how can you know it is a "legend"? People add bullshit to IMDB and Reddit all the time. If this claim has not been investigated by somebody with an iota of credibility then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I know it is a legend because it is all over the place. (Including a previous edit of this article that was up for quite some time before I changed it). Just Google it. If it is as wide spread as that, is it not worth addressing? As far as credible people addressing it, not sure if you consider skeptics.stackexchange.com credible, but they debunk it there.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources don't cover it then it is most likely not notable enough to include in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about earlier releases, but the newest 4k UHD version of this film includes a dedication to the Mujahideem fighters and it's a new scan of the original film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.238.218 (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ironically it turns out years ago I reverted a change which removed this edit years ago because I believed it was a true story at the time. Now that I have seen the reviews contemporary with the films original theatrical release, which say it was dedicated to the "gallant people of Afghanistan", I am convinced I was wrong. Simgrant (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Rja13ww33 and EkoGraf: There are issues being conflated at the moment. One is the neutrality of the wording, and the other is the factual accuracy of the statement. MOS:CLAIM recommends not using the word "claim" because it has negative connotations, so I have altered the wording in line with what the guideline recommends. The second issue—and more troublesome—is teh factual accuracy of the claim. Many reputable sources have repeated this claim, but worringly it does seems to be fake news. These reputable sources seem to be simply repeating the claim in good faith, rather than examining the evidence themselves. There is an interesting investigation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx4ey-EmLm4, that I think you should both watch. If you still feel the investigation does not adequately resolve the issue we can discuss it further. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. The reason I used "claim" is because I couldn't think of a better way (but looks like you have). MOS:CLAIM doesn't prohibit the use of the word....it just (as you say) cautions against it. As far as the dedication itself goes, as I said in a edit summary, I cannot find a single source written prior to 9/11 that says anything other than the "gallant people of Afghanistan". The NYT review notes it and it makes virtually no sense that it was altered after release (prior to 9/11) then changed back to the original after 9/11. My guess on this (if there is any truth to it at all) is perhaps a release in another country had this wording. But I have seen no proof to that affect. I saw it myself in it's original release (in American theatres) and it had the "gallant" dedication.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty satisfied with @Betty Logan:'s change so the sentence is in line with WP: CLAIM now. As for the factual accuracy of the mentioned change from "to the brave Mujahideen fighters", I am not really interested in continuing an edit war over it so I am fine whatever. Not going to push the matter further. My only regret is I cann't at least upload a picture of the movie's ending on my old VHS that I mentioned (confirming it says Mujahideen), since it would be considered OR. I think the reason you have not seen this version of the ending is because in Europe we had movies on VHS mostly distributed from the UK, which changed the movie titles on occasion for instance or often cut some scenes, etc. In any case cheers and happy editing! :) EkoGraf (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If you still have the video tape it can be cited as a primary source. Obviously we can't use the image but if we had sufficient citation details (i.e. distributor/year) then we can cite the tape as an example of a release that actually had this testimony. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I've got a VHS version of the movie around too. Will see if I can hunt it down. (And cross compare if necessary.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok....FOUND IT. (Lots of digging in a junk/storage room of mine.) This is a 1998 VHS release by Artisan Entertainment. And the dedication at the end is to the "gallant people of Afghanistan". Also, I borrowed a version of the DVD made in 2004 off of someone I know because it had a director's commentary version. The director said nothing about any change of the dedication (also to the "gallant people of Afghanistan") when it came up. If anyone needs anymore info: let me know. And by the way, I think I have another VHS version as well (earlier; IIRC, I got the Artisan version because it was re-mastered). If I find it, will post that as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@ArcticSeeress: Can you please expand on your rationale for this edit please. The sources all appear reliable to me. The primary source in this scenario would be the film itself, containing the dedication, not reliable sources discussing the dedication in the film. As you can see from the discussion above, I had concerns about the sourcing myself, but we overcame that issue. I do not agree with the assertion that the section advances "original research and synthesis". The core argument of the section is the existence of an urban legend that the dedication was altered in the aftermath of 9/11; this claim is backed up by secondary sources in the article. Synthesis is defined as combining sources to reach a new position that is not backed up by the sources individually. That does not appear to be the case here; if you believe it is, will you please be more specific about which elements you consider to be synthesis? BTW, I am not totally against your re-write; I think there are elements of it that are superior to the original version, but before it is re-written it would be helpful to get more clarity on the synthesis and sourcing issues. Betty Logan (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

A source can be both primary and secondary, see WP:PSTS: A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement..

The sentence in the article about the urban legend appearing in scholarly works is cited to the scholarly works themselves, which makes them primary sources for the urban legend, but secondary sources for the film. The sentence about original reviews containing the dedication "gallant people [etc.]" is also cited to the reviews themselves, which, again, makes them primary sources for the statement "this dedication appears in original reviews". Definitive statements like this need support from a secondary source analysing the urban legend, not the sources in which the urban legend appears.

Because I consider these to be primary sources, I think analysing them like this is inappopriate, per WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself.

I consider both of these synthesis because they come to a conclusion that the cited sources do not explicitly come to themselves (per WP:SYNTH: Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources.). ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't buy the sources being PRIMARY. PRIMARY refers to someone close to a particular event. The page that discusses PRIMARY talks about it this way: "An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment." PRIMARY also becomes a issue if you construct in whole (or large part) of a article about a person from their own writings. None of that is happening here....this is not a event....just a opinion of writers/scholars. If Scholar X gives a opinion on a particular issue....we don't have to have another (secondary) source repeating that opinion.

I agree it probably could be stated differently....but eliminating RS over PRIMARY concerns here is not warranted. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Along those lines of stating it differently....I propose the following (the changed part in bold):

The film ends with the on-screen caption "This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan." Some have said that the dedication had actually read "This film is dedicated to the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan" when the film was released in theaters, but then changed to "the gallant people of Afghanistan" after the September 11 attacks in 2001; the group responsible for the attack, al-Qaeda, was founded by Osama bin Laden, who had been one of the Mujahideen. Al-Qaeda then had the opportunity to grow into an Islamic terrorist extremist group under the protection of the Taliban government.[15][16] This has been repeated by some scholars,[17][18] but contemporary reviews of the film noted the "gallant people of Afghanistan" dedication.[19][20][21][22]

I think that is fairly neutral....and eliminates the who "urban legend" issue. It's just person X says [this] and person Y says [that]. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

"the group responsible for the attack, al-Qaeda" Al-Qaeda did not orchestrate the attack to begin with. Per the main article, much of the planning was instead performed by the Hamburg cell. "In 1999, the cell left Hamburg to join the Chechen jihadists fighting Russia in the Second Chechen War, but redirected to Afghanistan to meet al-Qaeda's leadership. They then worked on the hijacking plan at a Hamburg apartment owned by the cell's ringleader, Mohamed Atta. Twelve men were members: Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah—who died as the hijacker-pilots of American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, and United Airlines Flight 93, respectively—plus Abdelghani Mzoudi, Ahmed Taleb, Mamoun Darkazanli, Mohammed Haydar Zammar, Mounir el-Motassadeq, Naamen Meziche, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Said Bahaji, and Zakariya Essabar." ... "At different times between 1998 and 2000, Bahaji, bin al-Shibh, and Essabar lived with Atta in his apartment on Marienstraße (Marien Street) in Hamburg. There, the cell worked out the details of al-Qaeda's hijacking plan." Dimadick (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I've always thought about shortening that part anyway.....it just seemed a little too long....maybe down to something like "...after the September 11 attacks in 2001, because Osama bin Laden had been one of the Mujahideen.[15][16]" Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with that characterization. In the case of the contemporary film reviews, the "fact" comes from the film itself i.e. the film is the primary source. By noting what the dedication in the film says, the reviewers are making a factual claim based on another source, which makes their review a secondary source for that factual claim about the dedication (unlike, say, their opinion of the film, in which case it functions as a primary source). The article does not make a substantive claim about the reviews, it simply attributes a factual claim to a select few. I am more sympathetic to your position on the "scholar" claim, because they are not making a factual claim about another source, nor are they acknowledging the existence of an urban legend. However, I think they they are worth retaining, and I think it should be possible to turn those into straightforward attribution too, so it doesn't look like they are making claims about scholarly work perpetuating an urban legend. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Re-draft of "Dedication" section

Here is a potential re-draft that separates the claims from the attribution: Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

As noted by contemporary reviews of the film, it ends with the on-screen caption "This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan." In the years since the film's release, it has been stated that the dedication had originally read "This film is dedicated to the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan", but was subsequently changed to "the gallant people of Afghanistan" after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The rumor has its basis in the fact that the group responsible for the attack, al-Qaeda, was founded by Osama bin Laden, who had been one of the Mujahideen. Al-Qaeda then had the opportunity to grow into an Islamic terrorist extremist group under the protection of the Taliban government, in Afghanistan. It is, however, an urban legend that gained traction after a doctored screencap was circulated on social media.

References

Looks ok....it may present a issue by using "claim" (see MOS:CLAIM). Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I've change it to "rumor", but I don't think it matters too much here. MOS:CLAIM advises against applying the word "claim" in Wikipedia's voice because it calls the statement into doubt, but the "doubt" here is attributed to two sources i.e. we are literally writing about an urban legend, so we can't really write about it as an unchallenged fact. If anyone has a problem, though, it can easily be changed to "This has its basis in the fact...". Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Accolades?

The only portion listed under accolades are golden raspberry awards, which really are not accolades. Could that be changed to 'Awards'? Hydman (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan !!!

How long will you continue to impose your will here? For some time now, I have been observing that several users at least disagree with your style (film series) and they remake it into (franchise) as the name of the page bears this title and is correct. How dare you ignore a few people who disagree with you and are right? It's bad to think you're a boss, and it's even worse when you don't understand anything about movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.253.110 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I will note that several sock accounts do not constitute several users. But let's just tackle the content issue: presumably you are referring to edits such as this one, where I reverted your edit which changed "third installment in the Rambo series" to "third installment in the Rambo franchise". Essentially, I reverted your edit because it is factually incorrect. Rambo 3 is not the third "installment" in the franchise; it is either the third installment in the film series or it is the third film in the franchise. Just take a look at how Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 handles this very same issue. The film series is but one strand of the franchise, which contains novels, games and comics. Technically the first installment in the franchise is the original novel that the films are based on. I have explained this to you in edit summaries but you have continued to ignore my explanations, so I have continued to revert you. There is a reason these articles use the terminology in the way they do, and your changes introduce factually inaccuracy. Betty Logan (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Rambo Pardoned?

A recent addition to the plot section talks about Rambo being pardoned after First Blood Part II. But I don't think either Rambo II or III explicitly says that. He was offered one at the beginning of the second movie....and the movie ends with him just walking away. Maybe there is a novelization that says that?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)