Talk:Frank Hopkins

After finally seeing the movie "Hidalgo", two years after it came out, I searched for information online about Frank Hopkins and his horses, and only then became aware of the huge controversy surrounding Hopkins' claims about his life, and the particular set of stories on which the movie was based. Concerned about the passionate emotional involvement of the Long Riders-sponsored debunking of Hopkins, I read some of Frank Hopkins' biographical comments and articles he wrote. I have a bachelor's degree in history, and have worked with local historical society museums and archives in Colorado. I also breed, raise, and train Arabian and part-Arabian horses, so I have some qualifications to be able to judge Hopkins' expertise with horses, or lack thereof.

While I agree that there was probably never a 3,000 mile Arabian endurance ride such as the movie describes, we do know that the Arabian horse was bred for endurance and stamina in desert and semi-desert conditions, and there is every reason to suppose that there are and were endurance rides, staged primarily for Arabian horses, to improve the breed.

The major point which stands out, to my mind, is the allegation by the debunkers that Hopkins did not know very much about horses. This would seem to be disproved by the article "Gentling", which carries his name, and was apparently written for the The Vermont Horse and Bridle Trail Bulletin in the 1940s. Whoever wrote this article knew a good deal about training young or unbroken horses. If Hopkins was the writer, his expertise is proven by this article alone. The methods he describes are not what a modern gentle-method trainer like John Lyons or Monty Roberts would use in every detail, but strongly resemble the procedures they teach. The similarities are impressive. The methods Hopkins describes also do NOT resemble those used by many of his contemporaries who favored a more quick and violent approach; an exponent of this latter approach to horse training as unfortunately typical of of pre-World War II era trainers is shown in Monty Roberts' description of his father in Monty Roberts' book "The Man Who Listens To Horses".

I cant say anything about Hopkins credibility and the other aspects you are mentioning, but endurance races are regulary held on the Arabian peninsula. Which does not mean that the specific race that Hopkins claimed to have taken part of really existed. For someone with an scientifical approach to the topic, turkish or arabian print-media or regional print media of that time may be the only real source for fact based information, that is if they still exist somewhere.-- 178.115.249.139 (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

On the question if its likely that a Mustang or any foreign horse could beat Arabian (Asil) breed horses in such a race - Some years ago there was a german lady who regulary took part on such races with her european breed horse (that was specially trained for endurance races) in some of the Arab Gulf states (dont know which it was) and with great success.-- 178.115.249.139 (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

From the article:

[...] his 1905 photo, reprinted on this page, is clearly not that of a 20-year-old, indicating that the 1885 birthdate is highly unlikely"

Is that quoting a source, or is that just an author's opinion about the photograph? This sentence looks very much like OR. If this opinion on the photograph comes from a source, the sentence should be rewritten and a source provided. If not, it should be removed. What seems clear to someone here has no bearing on the issue. — Marvin ^talk 23:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I found the edit:[1]. I will ask the editor tomorrow. — Marvin ^talk 00:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

No idea, the whole article needs work; Hopkins had a pretty casual relationship with the truth, so verifiability is tricky. Good luck with all that. Montanabw^(talk) 17:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've been asked to comment on this edit, but sorry I don't recall it. I can say this: normally I do not venture opinions, only facts which I can source. However, I believe that, where facts are lacking it is not unacademic to venture speculation as long as it is so identified. In the present instance I believe it might be re-written to remove the word "clearly" and state that the picture does not "appear" to be that of a 20-year-old, in which case it seems that either the birthdate is incorrect or the dating of the picture is incorrect; however, this is speculation pending verifiable information.Flyingw (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

What I've Done to Help --Girlsman14 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've gone to Google^[1] and researched and found cites FOR you! So please to save some of the stress cite your contributions or edits.

Thank You --Girlsman14 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi MontanaBW. I don't understand why you keep reverting corrections I make to the Frank Hopkins page. Let me try to explain. If I am wrong, perhaps you can guide me. 1) What is "e" supposed to mean in Other names? This makes no sense. 2) There is no reference where info came from for his birth date in 1893, and that is why I added "citation needed" 3) There is no reference where info came from for the marriage certificate. Was it his or someone else's marriage? 4) I placed the Vine Deloria sentence with the section regarding Disney later in the article. It makes no sense being with the birth and marriage certificate info. 5) I may not understand this, but www.whoislog.info/profile/frank-hopkins-2.html does not link to anything that I can find. I am guessing this is what you are referring to as removing footnotes. 6) Again, there is no reference where info came from for Hopkins being a construction foreman. 7) The part about the Vermont Races reads better separated from the "Up until the time of his death" part. 8) I cannot find any valid academic reference (I did research) for Vine Deloria having a PhD. He had a master's degree and was a professor, but that does not give him the title doctor.

This whole Wikipedia page is poorly written and I will make no further attempts to fix it as you seem to sabotage any effort to do so. I simply came upon the Frank Hopkins entry, saw it was poorly written and thought I could clean it up a bit. I have many years of experience as a journalist and editor, as well as having edited a few books, plus I have a Master of Journalism degree. I just thought I was helping. 05:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Davidforbes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidforbes (talk • contribs)

@Davidforbes: I would be he first to agree this article is very low quality, but the solution is improving it by finding better source material and adding it. I actually cleaned some of what you are concerned about in subsequent edits, if you cared to take a look. The best way to handle things here is to tag things that need citations with the ^{[citation needed]} tag (looks like this: {{cn}}) and to place appropriate tags on on dead links, such as ^{[dead link‍]} ( {{deadlink}}to indicate they aren't working. Just removing stuff can lead to difficulty finding the original source, which may be archived at wayback. Similarly, just removing things also can create problems, better to add a tag like ^{[dubious – discuss]} or just look for source material. Glad you have writing experience, shouldn't take you very long to pick up on the use of the markup language, use of tags, and so on. Montanabw^(talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have done extensive research on Frank T. Hopkins in both published and unpublished material. In reviewing this article, I found various errors and information based on opinions or assumptions, instead of verifiable facts. For example, the Gulf of Syria does not exist. There is no evidence that Frank ever worked for Ringling Brothers Circus, was born in 1893 in Pennsylvania, married in 1933 in Los Angeles, or had any descendants. Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, provide source material that meets WP:RS (which excludes self-published work and original research). God knows that Hopkins lied about his backstory and it's very difficult to figure out the reality. Any solid help would be useful. Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Frank Hopkins is a common name and much of the misinformation comes from those who were not the real Frank Tezolph Hopkins. For example, there was a Frank Hopkins who was foreman of a construction crew in Philadelphia. Evaluation of the physical description and photograph published in the 1926 newspaper article revealed he only claimed to be the real Frank T. Hopkins. Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Like I said, show us actual sources that aren't your own. Montanabw^(talk) 07:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC

I've already been advised not to cite my own work. In my opinion, it's up to the author of this article to provide back up citations for the birth and marriage dates, as well as the statement he had no descendants. My current understanding is that public records can be quoted to support such factual information. Relevant information is in the 1940 census and his 1929 marriage certificate

You won't find the Gulf of Syria on any map. The author may be quoting Anthony Amarel's 1962 article where he uses the phrase Gulf to Syria. This article is on the Hopkins website.

According to Peter Shrake at Circus World, a Frank Hopkins did work for Ringling Brothers as a baggage stock handler in 1914 and 1915. The Long Riders Guild has this information on their website. Personal communication to me from Peter Shrake stated he does not have enough information to identify this man as the real Frank T. Hopkins. He also sent me information on what a stock handler does and they were grooms, not performers. The Long Riders website also has a copy of the 1926 newspaper article with a photo of the interviewee. Since the author references both links, I assumed he should be aware of what is on them.

I am not comfortable with changing what anybody else has written without first discussing it with him or her.Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is no evidence for Hopkins claim that he was of Native American ancestry. Especially not for the claim that his mother was a fully functioning member of a Native American group. This is connected with his book where he made other claims that are clearly false. We need to focus more on reality, and less on the persona and image he set forth in his works that seem to have largely been works of fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply