I don't know why you keep repeating this incorrect notion that fiction cannot depict things in a historically accurate manner.
Some fiction is trash. Some documentaries are also very misleading and have their own narrative. One should reference multiple sources when possible.
This is a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I didn't say that fiction cannot do this. I said it is wrong to cite it as the truth. If you've got evidence of the truth, cite the evidence.
> He said the documentary nailed what it was actually like. The hollywood version, nope.
Here you are comparing a fictional film with a documentary and dismissing the ability for fictional film to accurately portray the experience. This is not the case with all fictional films, and not all documentaries are actually superior or free from fiction/embellishment themselves.
I never said "cannot contain facts". You're arguing with your strawman.
> I don't think anyone is saying you should cite fiction alone
Just about everyone arguing with me is trying to justify citing "The Jungle" as valid source all by itself. It's a work of fiction.
Then I don't get the point of your exercise which seemed focused on dismissing the power of film to portray historically accurate situations.
>Just about everyone arguing with me is trying to justify citing "The Jungle" as valid source all by itself. It's a work of fiction.
Speaking of strawmen...