Talk:Manhattan (1979 film)

message: "Removing opinions"? There is a huge debate over this film that's being censored. No trace of it anywhere in this entry. There's a whole section on opinions ("Critical response") that only has positive opinions. Wikipedia should not be a censored PR vehicle. Would you object if these current opinions were placed in the criticism section that currently only has older opinions? Your objection to current opinions is not that they are current but that they are negative.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombatjpw (talk • contribs) 14:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship

message: This section is unsourced and a list so I've placed it here until it can be integrated into our sections or cited.--J.D. (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In Popular Culture

message: :Image:Manhattan-poster01.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) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Manhattan-poster01.jpg

message: The article currently lists April 25, 1979 based on Box Office Mojo.  However IMDb and this review both give March 14, 1979.  Variety gives both dates.  Does anyone have a definitive source?
In a related question, does anybody have a good source for when it was filmed?  from the film itself I suspect summer/fall of 1978. —MJBurrage(T•C) 07:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Release dates

message: Why is there a [sic] in the final sentence? Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you, I don't know. You can either examine the history of this article and see whether they (there are 3 sic in that section and 1 more in "Filming"), were always part of those quotes or later inserted. I checked the 1 available online source, Village Voice, and there is no need for a sic. I suggest to remove all 4. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical response 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Manhattan (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118191400/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/1894/year/1979.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/1894/year/1979.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714020940/http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0728%2Choberman%2C77195%2C20.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0728%2Choberman%2C77195%2C20.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Mask (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I deleted the referece to Allen's relationship with Stacy Nelkin, as neither of the given sources support the information given. The NYT opinion piece (written by Allen himself) in fact out-right contradicts the way it is presented in the article. 
" Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused."
This may be the first time that Allen has publicly commented on the relationship, but the tone of the article in relaying this information is far from neutral. It seems to imply duplicity on Allens part in not "acknowledging" the relationship until 2014, when the opinion piece was published. 
The other source used to support this, a link to the Howard Stern show website, does not direct the user to a specific episode or article, only to the episode listings. Searching for either name does not bring up any related infromation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utterscoundrel (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production section: reference to Allen's relationship with Stacy Nelkin 

message: definitely needs to be addressed in the "reception" section. A 42-year-old man dating a 17-year-old girl hasn't aged well (is, and always has been, predatory) JointCompound (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy regarding age gap/dating an underaged peroa