Talk:Rosemary's Baby (novel)

message: The article (Rosemary's Baby,) states that Sharon Tate was a member of the Manson family.  This doesn't match with anything else in the article, or in the article on Sharon Tate.  Because I'm not an expert on "the whole Helter Skelter thing", and am new to Wikipedia in general I don't feel comfortable editing this article myself.  The statement is in item two under "Movie Trivia".  Perhaps instead of "member", it should say "murder victim", but then what does that have to do with Anton Levay?
Oprah's interview with Tom Cruise discusses a book that Tom says compares his daughter, Suri, to Rosemary's baby, after rumors that Suri is not actually his child.  That could be an interesting pop reference to include. Pastaffo (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree with the above.  I came here to add the same point and saw somebody already has.  A plot summary, in an encyclopaedia (or, indeed, anywhere) should summarise the plot and not omit the important end part as if it were some sort of cinema advert.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.217.0 (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: completely agree. the last line of the plot summary:  Ultimately, Rosemary finds that she is wrong about the coven's reason for wanting the baby... but the truth is even more horrific than she could ever imagine. is a teaser. it's like the promotional material you find on the back of a book. it just needs the ending altering. Flagpolewiki (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Image:RosemarysBabyBook.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I think that this article should be split into two articles; one on the film and one on the novel.  They're both very well-known and rather influential, and I think that each should have their own page.  Also, it seems to me that in most cases where a movie is made from a book, the movie and book have separate article pages.  Thoughts? -Elizabennet 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: :Image:RosemarysBabyBook.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RosemarysBabyBook.jpg

message: Rosemery's Baby was among the first movies to deal with the the birth of the Anti-Christ. The movie seems to have generated a whole conspiracy theory line of thought about Satan's supposed plans for kids.Johnwrd (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First to deal with The Birth of the AntiChrist? 

message: The Church of Satan idea needs a better and unbiased resource as it's generally accepted that the biography linked to was written under LaVey's supervision and LaVey, well, lied a great deal about his involvement with the film. This is not the place to promote personal myths - use your own website to do that. Even if the information is verified as true, it isn't important enough to be included in this article's opening paragraph. 129.234.155.12 (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of Satan 

message: Reviewing Rosemary's Baby in The New York Times Book Review, Thomas J. Fleming wrote:
Mr. Levin's suspense is beautifully intertwined with everyday incidents; the delicate line between belief and disbelief is faultlessly drawn. Mr. Fleming was less impressed, however, with the novel's denouement:
Here, unfortunately, he pulls a switcheroo which sends us tumbling from sophistication to Dracula, the review continued. Our thoroughly modern suspense story ends as just another Gothic tale.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/books/14levin.html?pagewanted=print
~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The New York Times Book Review