excreationist
Married mouth-breather
In the talk page the other guy never said it was against the no original research policy........It sounds like Wikipedia is applying its "No original research" policy. They don't want an explanation of what's wrong with the movie unless the explanation comes from some other published source that they can cite -- which means if you haven't been published in a real journal then your criticisms aren't what they consider it their job to report. So I'm guessing if instead of saying what's wrong with the movie, you add a paragraph to the "Critical Response" section reporting what Catholic Answers Magazine says is wrong with it, and you cite "Catholic Answers Magazine", and you put in a footnote with the issue number and date and so forth, then I expect they'll leave it in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...curacies_regarding_the_Horus-Jesus_connection
The critical response section already has 8 paragraphs and some are really long.
In the talk apparently there is "...a policy preventing articles about documentaries from including opinions about whether parts are accurate or misleading"
The other people in the talk page never ever suggested any way in which any of my four sentences could be added to the Religulous page - it seemed they just wanted to use any excuse they could think of to remove any mention that the Horus section is inaccurate. They claim that The Straight Dope is a "dubious" site.... though The Straight Dope is "published in the Chicago Reader and syndicated in eight newspapers"....