Talk:Disclosure (1994 film)

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Fair use rationale for Image:Disclosure (1994 film) poster.jpg

Image:Disclosure (1994 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new zealand?

Who cares what it's rated in NZ? Seriously, what's the relavency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.129.194 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sanders + Susan Hendler

Tom Sanders has two kids and a wife (i think that's what the movie is telling us). In the movie she is only called Susan, but in the credits her name is Hendler, not Sanders. Why is the surname of his wife different? And did someone read the book and can tell us, if it's the same in the novel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.134.113.124 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sander's wife is a successful attorney who retained her maiden name for professional reasons. Mgrē@sŏn 14:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, state your concerns

Lets talk.117.215.192.12 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverts, because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring." But like to read the whole in simplified english.

Reasons for the edit.

1. The plot elements are not what have been written earlier. Saw it recently. 2. The intro doesn't reflect with the film theme or language appropriately. 3. By giving a clear picture of the plot, someone in the future can trim the story.

If it is O.K to revert and could be left for future edits with any other concerns, do leave a reply asap.117.215.192.12 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're now in violation of WP:3RR. Might I suggest you self-revert before you need to be reported for edit warring? When I have a moment, I'll list the several issues with your edits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to completely describe the plot. Rather, Wikipedia exists to summarize the plot, succinctly. That's the reason for the 700-word limit at WP:FILMPLOT. If some details are wrong they should be trimmed away. If some details are missing THAT'S NORMAL. There is never any good reason to go past 700 words for a film such as this, one which has only the usual amount of complexity for its genre. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Hi, @TenetW, I saw that you removed a review from The Baltimore Sun with the only explanation being, "Not every article about a movie is relevant, and this one isn't.)" Why is not relevant? It is not as legitimate as the other reviews? Wikipedia:NPOV mandates that both negative and positive reviews are included.

Also in the last big paragraph, I changed "Feminists claimed that the movie was about the male cultural fear of feminism and powerful women in the workplace", to "Critics claimed that the movie was about the male cultural fear of feminism and powerful women in the workplace." Although feminists no doubt believed this, the cited references provided are from a film critic and male journalists. Spectrallights (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]