Talk:Hiroshima (1995 film)

message: I'm siding with the original poster DirkvdM on this one.  The article needs improvement and fact-checking (isn't it really a USA TV movie, not a Japan/Canada film?).  Anyway, I added the infobox and took out the IMDB ext. ref at the bottom since it's in the box.  The movie seems to be important, even it has been forgotten, and was nominated for awards at the time of its release.  Slowmover 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added infobox

message: Cubdriver, I see you've removed the link to here from the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. Now, you may disagree with the contents of this article, but removing the link is no excuse for that - if this article exists, it should be linked to from there (from where else?). And I don't suppose you'd suggest there should be no article on this film? DirkvdM 09:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, Cub, you should flag it for deletion. The POV tag is intended to be a temporary measure until the language is improved. If the article doesn't belong, use AFD. If it's badly written, by all means please improve it. Could you provide some examples of "opinionated" language? — that will help evaluate the POV you're alleging.  In the meantime, the link from the main atomic-bombing page should probably be in "cultural notes" rather than see-also. (I came here because of the RFC; I have at present no opinion about the neutrality of this article or the notability of its subject.) —Wahoofive (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: RfC Comment: My opinions on this subject are along the same lines of Wahoofive. If there are specific POV problems in the language, please point them out and suggest improvements. However, most of the comments I've read from Cubdriver seem to point to AfD rather than a POV problem, so he should tag this page via the directions at the bottom of the AfD page and let the community come to a consensus on it. (However, please read the deletion policy- non-notability is a reason for deletion, bad writing and POV is not.) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That taxpayers would want to see something for all their money that had been invested in this is an argument that was used several times in the film, so I included that. My representation of the fiulm is of course limited, but, like I said, the idea is that others can expand on other people's work. I'd say, go see the movie and do your thing. Or if you think that constitutes origianl research, read reviews of the film and use those as a basis. Adding cast and such (so that's what you meant above?) is even easier; copy that from imdb or where-ever. If it doesn't conform to the style, do something about that. Don't complain, contribute! I reverted your edit because it was simply a deletion of most of the article. Including the duration of the film (something I still don't get - was that a mistake?). DirkvdM 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I just had a look at the history and I now notice that I made some mistakes. Looking at the times I suppose my first revert of your edits was an edit conflict I didn't notice. Mabe that pissed you off and got us off at a bad start. Next, I thought I had corrected the town/city thing, but apparently I didn't. Minor thing, though, I'd say. I've corrected that now. DirkvdM 14:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The article does need to be cleaned up (the writing is not very clear and is not very encyclopedic), but as a topic it is certainly valid. I have not seen the film myself, otherwise I would contribute. But the "plot description" is not very helpful at all and is, I suspect, not very accurate. --Fastfission 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a three hour film and I didn't watch it with the writing of this article in mind. I started doing that afterwards and wrote down what I remembered as the main issues dealt with. Of course that will be limited and (worse) biased. But, like I said, following the 'be bold' rule, I made a start for others to take up. DirkvdM 06:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to here