Talk:Manhunt (2017 TV series)

Historical inaccuracy edit undone
My edit regarding the show's historical accuracy was undone without explanation. I provided a source in the edit for the content and believe this should be reverted back. This type of content is allowed on other article pages, such as the Historical authenticiy section for the film, "The Patriot". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patriot_(2000_film)#Historical_authenticity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ageofultron (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that a historical inaccuracy section should be included. The series is supposed to be based on true events and any deviations from such should be included in an article on such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirab (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi... first off, please sign your comments using ~ . Second, whoever took that out should have said why, but I assume it's because the content is unsourced. You need to provide an inline citation to a reliable source (or preferrably sourceS, plural) that corroborates the information. More at WP:UNSOURCED. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The section has evidently been removed without talk page discussion. I will re-add the information. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced addition
Please note that all media is valid as a source. The criteria are that it can be verified (as a screen source clearly can) and is reliable (as the series clearly is as a source on its own dialogue and depictions). This means that the series itself is as valid a source for such things as plotting and cast as an article about it. In your version the article implies without challenge that the series portrays Fitzgerald doing things that it clearly does not actually portray, just because someone who obviously hadn't even bothered to watch the series wrote that it did. The only way to refute this is to cite the series itself. Otherwise we have the ludicrous situation where someone's incorrect allegations of inaccuracy cannot be refuted unless somebody first writes an article refuting them (themselves using the series itself as a source, obviously!). This makes no sense whatsoever. It would invalidate the inclusion of any details of a series' plot or cast unless they had been written about by somebody else first (by means of watching the series!). And in a reliable source too (which doesn't include the IMDb, incidentally). Better delete the cast list and episode list on this article now then, as they have no cited source! The point is that it is obvious what their source is: the series itself! Same with the sentence I added. The deletion of my second addition makes no sense to me whatsoever. It clarified the situation, and in this instance is clearly sourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your or my or anyone else's analysis of the historical accuracy of a TV series based on watching the TV series is original research and unacceptable. The second addition is about a plan that did not materialize. It is just verbiage as it reiterates the statement that Fitzgerald did not interview Kaczynski. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Like many people, you have misread and/or misunderstood OR. Using material from a TV show is no different from using material from a book. Both are equally valid media. I have not "analysed" anything. I have merely stated what appears in the show, just as other editors have stated the episode titles and cast list from what appears on the show (I note you have not deleted these!). And the show clearly does not show Fitzgerald present in Lincoln, searching the cabin or interviewing Kaczynski at any time prior to 1997. That is not OR; that is a pure statement of fact supported by the sources, in this case the show itself. Would you challenge a statement about the plot of a novel (not any form of analysis - that would be OR - just a bare statement of plot) taken directly from reading the novel? Then I fail to see why you would do it for a TV show. They are no different from one another. Both are published sources. Please read WP:PRIMARY, which is part of WP:OR, for the validity of primary sources: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source..." That is exactly what I have done. Also see WP:NOTOR, which explicitly states that: "A book, short story, film, or other work of fiction is a primary source for any article or topic regarding that work" and "Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading/watching the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliance upon a primary source." -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You added your own analysis of the series to reply to/attempt to debunk the reliably sourced statements by Greg Stejskal. This is original research. If you want to give a summary of the plot, go ahead. But if you want to discuss what "in fact" the series "implies", you will need a reliable, secondary source. If you think I am wrong, create a discussion at the WP:RSN WP:ORN. I am removing the unsourced additions. Per WP:BRD, do not restore without adding a source for the statements or gaining consensus for their inclusion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. I added no analysis; only plot details. Although maybe "shows" should be substituted for "implies". But I've left a note on the No original research/Noticeboard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Greg Stejskal, an unreliable source?
In the historical accuracy section, it is mentioned:


 * Greg Stejskal, a former FBI agent who was involved in the UNABOM investigation, criticized the writers of the show in TheWrap. He accused them of making "a minor member" of the FBI investigative team "into the star player who won the game", referring to the show's portrayal of Jim Fitzgerald. He said that Fitzgerald never met Kaczynski, was not in Lincoln, Montana, during the time of Kaczynski's arrest, had no part in the search of Kaczynski's cabin, and never interviewed him.[18][19][20]

Several problems with this. Stejskal claims Fitzgerald played a minor role in the investigation. To bolster his claim, he mentions the above. But these are non sequitors. Not everyone important to UNABOM was involved in the arrest, the cabin search, or interviewed him. The relevant claims he does make in the cited articles are that: 1) Fitgerald was only on the UNABOMB Task Force (UTF) for "a matter of months" and 2) “Jim Fitzgerald had no part in the [decision to publish the manifesto].” And these seem to be false (see below).

Second, his own credibility is questionable. He describes himself as involved in the UNABOM investigation, but apparently, he was never on the UTF, which is surprising, given his criticism of Fitzgerald, who was. Yet he claims in interviews that he made an important contribution to the investigation (which we should be suspicious of, see below).

Third, Fitzgerald has posted counter-evidence to the criticism, including citations to verifiable sources, such as the affidavit which led to the search warrant for Kaczynski's cabin (which singles out Fitzgerald's analysis), and a book written by three of the UTF higher-ups. The latter book mentions Fitzgerald multiple times and Stejskal zero times. The Fitzgerald rebuttal also mentions that Stejskal's contribution to catching the Unabomber was "relatively minor" and "played no role in the furtherance of the UNABOM investigation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.15.48 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I realize the above is not addressing what is explicitly claimed in the section. However, it seems the current state of the section is due to some contentious stuff being deleted and re-organized. Unfortunately, what remains is still problematic in that it has warped Stejskal's original claim of Fitzgerald's insignificance to that of mere historical accuracy (e.g. did he search the cabin or interview Kaczynski), while still subtly casting doubt on whether Fitzgerald did anything important for the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.15.48 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Between the arguments made here; the notes on edits to the Historical Accuracy section going back 3+ years; and the fact all three references on the paragraph were blogs, possibly risking libel claims; I've just removed the entire paragraph from that section. It didn't add much if anything to the article anyway. Squalk25 (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The arguments here hold no weight as they're unsigned. Nor did the tag as it was added anonymously. It states that it was according to him. If you want to impeach the man's credibility add another paragraph or two stating his credibility is questionable with reliable sources. But this is not a legitimate reason to remove his statement and Wikipedia stating he said this in no way can lead to legal issues for Wikipedia. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Please delete this admins My browser had an error and did not display something properly which I mistook for a typo.

- 84.69.136.83 (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Break Out Season Two (2019)
This entry is very focused on the Unabomber season. I think Season 2, which tells the Richard Jewell and Eric Robert Rudolph story should be a separate page. Thoughts? --FeldBum (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)