User talk:Cianan

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Harmil 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

JFK II: The Bush Connection

 * comment duplicated from IP address talk page

Harmil, to say something like, "Ths film also cites popular culture as evidence", is a misleading statemnet, leaving the reader with the impression that clips of the Simpsons and South Park are as good as evidence as Hankey has, or that Hankey was even using those clips as evidence. This is flat out misrepresentation of the subject matter and sources of the film. How can you not mnention in this section (I know you mention it in a later section) about Hankey's most credible evidence, such as declassified documents and historic video footage and interviews?

I know that the article in question is a film review and not the JFK discussion article, which is elsewhere. But the film review should be objective and not mislead people about the actual content and sources used in the film. I felt that my edits more objectively portrayed the actual subject matter and sources of JFK II.

Again, who gets to be the arbiter in a situation like this? I think you are being biased and unreasonable. Who do I go to?

I just created an account "Cianan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cianan (talk • contribs)


 * Administrators on Wikipedia typically try to stand back and let people work out their problems. If you want to add something, then you should either cite it well enough that others simply cannot question it, or seek consensus with the other editors who track whatever the topic at hand is. That said, you have misunderstood the nature of the page in question. It is most certainly NOT a film review. Wikipedia is not a film review site. The article is (or must become) a factual account of the film and is relevance to other topics.


 * Just a random question: how many books or films have you read/watched about the JFK assassination? I've watched a few documentaries (not dramatizations like JFK) and read quite a few books on the topic, and I have to say that this film is very rough; poorly sourced; and very poorly constructed as a logical argument compared to most of the more serious work out there. Now, that's just my opinion, but it does come through when the film does things like showing the Simpsons' reaction to a cartoon Nixon. That's not really the kind of source that most serious documentaries are going to use. It's certainly entertaining, but that's really all it is. -Harmil 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)