"== Revolution ==
Steve, are you preparing for your FAC run?  I haven't been keeping up with your edits there, because I hurt my back badly and am ... drugged ... so please give me a heads up before you go to FAC, so I can read it.  Best,  (Talk) 

Hi. I don't think the article is too far off FAC now; I've added about 20,000 bytes since the peer review closed. In hindsight, I should have left the PR until after I got the Stoneman book, but I didn't think I'd get much from it (Stoneman has a COI in that he was the head of the Irish Film Board at the time and essentially greenlit the film). Used carefully, however, it's been a real goldmine of production information. I'm still working my way through it, but I don't think there'll be too much else to add other than fine detail; he does tackle the 18 specific points of contention from the petition, but I'll probably err on the side of caution and leave that for the existing sources, which have a little more distance from the subject. Of course, I won't take it to FAC without consulting on its talk page first. Sorry to hear about your back; I really hope it clears up soon (and that the drugs are at least offering some measure of fun; if they're not ... get better drugs!). Best,  T • C 
 no fun, no relief ... better drugs tomorrow if something doesn't improve!   (Talk) 

  The Barnstar of Integrity To Steve, an awesome editor, for bringing a piece of propoganda ... errrr ... ""documentary"" to featured status, with aplomb, scholarship, diplomacy and neutrality!    (Talk) 

So, at last! It finally staggered across the line like a drunk uncle in an unfinished simile. On the plus side, I've now got the experience of seeing an otherwise excellent article receiving little input because it's on a niche subject. I couldn't have done it without your help; and the same goes for the other editors, who charitably stood aside when I arrogantly started throwing my weight around and rewriting the thing. Hopefully now I can relax by tackling something a little less in-depth or controversial. -) Cheers again,  T • C 
 In my role as FAC delegate, I'm pretty steamed about how you were ignored.  In my role as a Venezuela editor, I'm even more steamed that your neutrality was questioned, since the article is more neutral than I like )  Best,  (Talk) 
I guessed that'd be the case; I know you'd have liked the article to be a little lot more scathing, but had I taken that route I don't think it would have come as far as it has. Instead, the only option was to give enough information about both views of the film to allow intelligent readers to make up their own minds. I think it pretty much does that. As an aside, I'm currently in e-mail correspondence with Stoneman, who says he'll dig into his boxes of material to see if there's anything I can use to clear up Jayen466's last unresolved comment about the conclusion to the BBC investigation. Hopefully, I can get that in before the inevitable main page nomination next April. -) Best,  T • C 
  I don't think anyone should reasonably expect the BBC to come clean on their role in promoting propaganda )  You really did a superb job you can tell because one reviewer wanted you to add more negative, and another wanted you to add more positive, while the POV warriers zipped up!  [[User: