Talk:Manhunters (TV series)

Inaccuracies section

I am glad we now have a source for this material. I still think it is undue weight and overwhelms the article somewhat. I'd like to see a further slimming down of this section. --John (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Overall the episode The Man-eating leopard of Rudraprayag completely fictionalizes the true story. Corbett's book, written by the man who hunted it as well as the only man who knew all the facts, is the only one that reveals everything about the leopard, including the fact that its recorded number of kills is not accurate. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC))

I have no doubt that you are accurately summarising the content of the book he wrote. However, Corbett's book is a primary source for this material, and, more to the point, this whole thing is undue weight on this tiny article. --John (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

On this one episode, its necessary as the story is a a primary work of fiction with almost no resemblance to the facts. Only a few scene bare even a little resemblance to real events, but even they are still heavily fictionalized in their layout. Only the fact that it shows Corbett as a smoker is fully accurate. The article says, as does BBC, that these episodes are told through the memoirs of the hunters who killed killed the man-eaters. We are not ignorant on here and Wikipedia has always been one to tell the facts. I am not trying to be disrespectful or anything like that, I simply want to stand up for Wikipedia for it being an accurate site. But I promise you this, I will not add anymore material, as the other two episodes are at least the same stories with a lot more accuracy. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC))

I understand that this is your opinion, and there is a place for that. Can you please read the two links I sent you: WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE, and tell me if you think they apply, and if not, why not. --John (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it quite applies because Corbett's book does not only account his own experiences, but it also accounts the leopard's activities before his hunt. Everything it did before he even knew about it because he was told everything about it before deciding to try and hunt it. In other words, both his experiences and the historical account of it are detailed in his book. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC))

Can you please read the two links I sent you: WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE, and tell me if you think they apply, and if not, why not. --John (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have read them both and I see your point. So you think the section could use back up by some other sources. Is that correct? STCooper(STCooper1 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC))

OK, after much toil and hardship, I hace found and cited a secondary, reliable source. Is that what you felt was needed, John? STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC))