Talk:Disclosure (1994 film)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  new zealand? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sander's wife is a successful attorney who retained her maiden name for professional reasons. Mgrē@sŏn 14:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Sanders + Susan Hendler 

message: Lets talk.117.215.192.12 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Onel5969, state your concerns 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view