Jump to content

Talk:The Hoax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Budget

[edit]

It seems over estimated, especially consider the film hasn't even grossed 10 million

Additional sources to incorporate

[edit]

As the film has had some interesting reviews, we should look into incorporating more actual critical content than a single NYT review. These are good for material:

And for background material:

--LeflymanTalk 02:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Hoax film poster.jpg

[edit]

Image:The Hoax film poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon and watergate

[edit]

Here are some exerpts:

LA Times Film revives notoriety for author Irving April 6, 2007

Author Clifford Irving sounded wistful, even proud, this week as he recalled his wild adventures of the early 1970s, when he infamously duped his publishers at McGraw-Hill, the media, handwriting analysts and, as legend has it, President Nixon and the congressman who later investigated Watergate, into believing that the reclusive Howard Hughes had dictated his memoirs to him.
Despite all his issues with the movie, there is one aspect of it that he absolutely loves: its suggestion that his research on Hughes uncovered evidence of a loan from Hughes to Nixon's brother, inspiring the president to dispatch burglars to Watergate to find out whether the Democrats knew about it. In reality, Irving said, he didn't realize the nature of the information he'd uncovered. That is, until members of the Watergate investigation team visited Irving in prison to question him about it.
"I get a big kick out of that," Irving said. "If I brought down the Nixon White House ... hooray! Just tell me how to do it today."

Book exerpt [1]

Review from no name site:

The suggestion here is that Clifford Irving's (Richard Gere) proposed book on Howard Hughes memoires revealed secrets of Hughes' payoffs to Nixon, the exposure of which would prove harmful to the White House. Fears of it provoked the burglary of Democratic headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. in order to learn if they had the book or any other evidence that could embarrass the president.
But the suggestion is plausible only because the true purpose of the Watergate break-in has never been revealed, so it's a blank slate for a myriad of suppositions.[2]

Justice: The Memoirs of Attorney General Richard Kleindienst - Page 214 by Richard G. Kleindienst

Numerous surmises have been advanced as to the reason for Watergate. Nobody, I think, really knows the whole story...

Citizen Hughes:The Power, The Money and The Madness, by Michael Drosin, page 421

But it was not Bebe or his brother, not Anderson or the IRS, not Maheu or Bennett or Greenspun who triggered the final series of events that led to Nixon's downfall. It was Clifford Irving.


Travb (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

Two well-referenced quotes were removed as "too much", and I've re-added them for now - I think the quotes add a lot of information and perspective to the article, particularly the one from Irving himself. I don't think a short critic quote is unusual or problematic, and the Irving quote is almost required for any section on "accuracy" of the film. If by "too much of a quote" you mean "too long of a quote", please consider editing the quote down to what you consider an acceptable length (though I think the Irving quote is very appropriate as it is, the critic quote may survive some pruning and still be valuable) rather than deleting them and giving someone else the assignment to "summarize". Jgm (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them per WP:NFC#Unacceptable use: "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts." Considering the touchy nature of non-free content, I think it would be more appropriate to remove them immediately. Besides, Scott's review is undue weight toward one person's opinion about the film; if we restored his review in a smaller capacity, there would need to be other reviewers, too. Irving's quote can definitely be rewritten as fresh prose; another, better option is to link to the website in the EL section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the Scott quote, but other reviewers need to be added. I've also relegated the Irving statement to a link in the EL section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no definition of "excessively long"; quotes of this approximate length are, in fact, used throughout Wikipedia in illustrative ways. If you maintain that the quotes as included are too long, I think the burden is on you to shorten them to something you deem appropriate rather than simply delete useful, well-referenced info. This is a matter of opinion and judgment and not the equivalent of a clear copyvio which should be deleted outright without discussion. I feel this strongly about the Irving quote, less so about the review; but as to undue weight, again if you feel this is an issue I think the proper response is to find and include some balancing perspective rather than delete useful and well-referenced information someone else has made the effort to find and include. Jgm (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFC#Acceptable use indicates, "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." Compared to how other articles have cited quotations, the original Scott and Irving passages were definitely extensive and thus prohibited. Hopefully my amendment helps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, our discussions and edits are out of sync. I am okay with the shortened Scott quote and appreciate your effort. I maintain that the Clifford quote needs to be here; without it the section on accuracy is weak and unreferenced. Let me post a proposed version here for consensus-building. Jgm (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and cut the quote down to a minimum and re-added it. Seems to be well in compliance now. Jgm (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that seems like a fair middle ground. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hoax&oldid=1205641680"