Talk:The Adjustment Bureau

	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 articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Is internal link to the correct Michael Hackett?

Nothing in the bio suggests involvement with films or relationship to Isa Hackett (which I've assumed was probable). I think there is a need for a disambiguation page or an addition to Hackett's article. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I delinked the two articles for the time being. It was probably linked by me (on autopilot) when creating the article. Alastairward (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Added Executive Producer and Associate Producer using http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826/fullcredits as reference. Wanted to reference this for Infobox source of information but didn't know how to add the reference without messing up appearance. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC) a rip off of the matrix 74.70.233.68 (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

I removed the section on copyright, which appears to be OR and is virtually unreadable. john k (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section is not OR and others find it readable, accurate and informative. It cites "reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." It does not "advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources" other than resolving discrepancy of factual statements in the sources in a NPOV manner using "good research" and "balance" in accordance with NPOV guidelines.

I think adding an internal link to chain of title will improve and clarify the section for some readers. A suggestion along those lines would have been welcome. The hasty and apparently unconsidered deletion of the section seems inappropriate and appeared to be vandalism of a sort which has occurred often over the last year or so relating to US Copyright Renewal RE0000190631. The most "original research" I've done related to that is actually checking the copyright status of Orbit magazine issues after a public domain image someone else uploaded was deleted by some editor because he/she guessed it was probably protected by copyright instead of verifying its copyright status before acting. More accurately, checking citations and lack of citations for verifiabilty is the most "original research" I've done on Wikipedia. I have done some "original research" but not used it here and it would not be appropriate to discuss it on Wikipedia.

I see you are an administrator and hope this was an isolated incident. The deletionist movement made so obvious in the BLP controversy has been very discouraging to editors (or potential editors) and damaged the usefullness and credibility of Wikipedia. I hope Wikipedia will recover and improve, not be damaged further. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable published sources? Really? Your sources all appear to be library of congress copyright registrations and the like. That is pure OR. Also, please read the definition of "Vandalism" in wikipedia. What I did cannot be construed as vandalism, which is purposefully disrupting Wikipedia without trying to improve it. An edit made based on a disagreement about content can never be vandalism. If you want this material in the article, you're going to need to cite a reliable secondary source that discusses it - newspaper or magazine articles, preferably. If it's never been discussed in a newspaper or magazine article, it is OR, and should not be included here. It also seems like complete undue weight, which is a POV issue - there is absolutely no way that half of an article about a major motion picture should deal with an obscure copyright dispute that doesn't appear to have ever been discussed in any mainstream media accounts of the film. john k (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]