Talk:Inchon (film)/Archive 1

plagiarized?
A lot of this looks like this site, verbatim:

http://www.2spare.com/item_49476.aspx
 * They stole from us. BrokenSegue 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Inchon Movie poster.jpg
Image:Inchon Movie 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 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 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) 04:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I was one of the few people who saw the movie. :-) It certainly wasn't successful but I have seen far worse.  The New York Times review cited also doesn't seem to support the view that it was one of the worst movies ever made.  However that is often said so we have to report that. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Year
The article describes Inchon as a film from 1982, with a release date of September 1982. However the IMDB dates it to 1981, and says that it premiered in May 1981, before being re-edited and rereleased in August 1982. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The New York Times article says it was shown at Cannes in May 1982. I think we should go with 1982 as the release date, although it does not really matter that much. (I think IMDB made a mistake when it said it was shown in May 1981 in Washington DC.  This was probably in 1982 at some special event for Korea War vets, etc.) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw another source that said it was shown in 1981 for a charity event, so you and IMDB seem to be right. Redddogg (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible source

 * 2009 review

Moved from EL section to talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page
Laurence Olivier was cast in the lead role of General Douglas MacArthur. Olivier was to be paid one million dollars for his work, but would eventually earn more as the film went over schedule. When asked by Rex Reed why he was taking the role, he answered “Money, dear boy”. Ben Gazzara would receive $450,000 for a secondary role, and Toshiro Mifune, Richard Roundtree and David Janssen completed the primary cast.
 * Production


 * Production Problems
 * Director Andrew McLaglen abandoned a binding contract signed in 1977 with Moon’s production company One Way Productions.
 * Left-wing workers at Toho Studios in Tokyo refused to work on the production because of its anti-communist message, which ended the connection with One Way Productions.
 * South Korea had no studios and extra equipment available, which left the cast waiting for months (at full pay) while studios were built and equipment made its way through customs.
 * Typhoons Judy and Irving destroyed a recreation of the lighthouse at Inchon, requiring it to be rebuilt at huge cost.
 * An earthquake after the typhoons caused a fourteen-ton camera crane to wash out to sea.
 * The beach landings at Inchon had to be redone after an assistant director accidentally sent the ships in the wrong direction out of camera range, which ended up costing $2 million.
 * The three-minute scene where MacArthur greets the crowds in his limousine was shot three times. The first time, there were not enough people in the crowd. The second time, the shots did not match the first version. Finally, the producers hired a studio in Dublin and filmed rear-projections with Olivier at a total cost of $3 million.
 * After hearing that the movie was backed by the Unification Church, the United States Department of Defense, which had supplied 1,500 troops as extras, withdrew support for the movie and requested it be removed from the credits.


 * Reaction

Vincent Canby’s review in the New York Times described the movie as “less offensive than The Green Berets and far funnier”. He also called it “the most expensive B-movie ever made”. His favorite parts were whenever Laurence Olivier appeared wearing “ghastly Douglas MacArthur makeup that has the effect of making him look like an oriental actor playing an occidental”. Even the reviewer in the Unification Church–owned Washington Times gave the movie a bad review, calling the script “pure twaddle – a cross between South Pacific and The Green Berets”. He described Olivier’s performance as “the nadir of his career”.

Inchon has never been officially released on video or DVD. Beginning in 2000, it was seen on the GoodLifeTV Network (now AmericanLife TV Network -- owned by the Unification Church from 2001 to 2009) in the full 140 minute premiere version. Bootleg DVDs have also shown up with the GoodLife logo in the lower right corner.
 * Release

Above unsourced material moved from article to talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor source usage
- Regarding this addition by - let's please avoid usage of poor sources in this article, thanks. Let's strive to stick to independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page 2
Inchon (originally called Oh, Inchon)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Cirt (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail
There is a lot of material being added to this article and there is getting to be too much detail relative to the significance of the movie. The material seems to be well sourced but an encyclopedia should, in part, summarize the information from other sources, not collect every scrap of information that has ever been published on the subject.--RDBury (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree, and there will be much more detail added. See the size of the Featured Article, Battlefield Earth. Cirt (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, just look at the size of many of the Featured Articles in the category Category:FA-Class film articles. :) Cirt (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While it's true that some featured articles can be long, length for it's own sake isn't the goal. Details such as how much Laurence Olivier got in expenses aren't significant and shouldn't be included. As another example, the sentence "U.S. President Ronald Reagan saw the film in 1982 and appreciated it," is in the lead. First this is a detail that does not belong in the lead (which is already too long). Second, it's expanded to a full paragraph in the body of the article; Ronald Reagan is not a noted film critic and the details of his review don't need to be included in an encyclopedia article. I appreciate the fact that you're carefully citing sources for everything, but there should be some care taken about what is to be included. To quote from WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."--RDBury (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I removed the Ronald Reagan bit from the lede. :) However the rest as far as the main article text, is not simply indiscriminate information, but highly relevant. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also tend to disagree about the article being too extensive. It's comparable to the size of many film FAs, the info is well-researched and the level of detail seems reasonable and still relevant to the subject. I might object if this included a lengthy plot summary, or big sections that are hard to read, but that's not the case here. My only concern would be the size of the lead; it's longer than normal and decreases easy readability (especially for smaller screens), so paring it down a bit would be good. Jamie  S93  20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the input. I agree for the most part, and I'd like to let this sit for a bit, but will certainly think about how to copyedit the lede a bit. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note an article this detailed is only possible because this is a fairly obscure topic. An article on, say, the New York Yankees written on the same level of detail would be hundreds of pages. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tagged with the templates of POV and long intro
I think the thread's title summarizes pretty well for the reason why I have to tagg the article with POV and longintro (if I'd found the "too many details" template, I might've put it as well). I've tried to avoid commenting on any religion topics, especially Christianity-, Islam- or cult-related articles because of the inherent controversial nature. However, I spotted the article from WP:KOREA, and have long observed the tendentious battles around Unification Church. I'm also a member of WP:FILM, so I will say about my view. I've read many film articles on Wikipedia, but this is by far the most awful film article that I've ever met.(diff) Intro is a summary of main content, but should not be crammed with all unnecessary and too many details. My honest impression on the article is that, writer of the article really hates anything related to has a strong feeling against the rev. and the church. The intro with the details emphasizes how the film was totally screwed up because of the relation with the church and the alleged messiah who owns many things in the US – most of the top-rated film crews and actors to have worked for the film were deceived by the secrete scheming of the rev. However, his evil gold got some significant film stars blinded. – like that. The heavily biased tone of the article warns readers that "even after you receive the precious information regarding how hard the church tries to propagate their view, if you are going to watch or praise the movie, you're a fool", or "Watch the film if you confirm on whether this article says truth or not, that would be fun!" Unless the half of the intro is cut and the anti-sentiment POV is removed, and properly summarized, this article is really a long way for obtaining a GA and FA. Since Cirt specifically demanded me to redact the "hate" passage by comparing it with "genocide"(!), so regardless of my disagreement, I modify my words. Words in italics are added to replace those instead. Caspian blue 14:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. The title is modified per this suggestion.--Caspian blue 14:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll compare the original paragraph and my version.

--Caspian blue 06:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. I removed "Cirt's version". I replaced it, verbatim, with the version above suggested by, see . Thank you for your helpful suggestions on how to improve this article. They are most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I have worked to significantly trim down the size of the overall intro, per above suggestion to do so by, see . Cirt (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead section looks properly trimmed; I have to agree that the original version was a bit excessive. I have some other suggestions to make.  The disclaimer is not important enough to mention in the article; there is no discussion about it outside of being in the plot summary and subsequently mentioned in the lead section.  In addition, I would encourage a rewrite of "Reviews".  There are too many reviews that say the same thing, that the film was bad.  Too many reviews, in my opinion, use flavorful language, which critics tend to use for duds, such as, "...he still should be stripped of his title and spanked with the queen's ceremonial sword for this performance."  It is more even-handed to say something like, Rita Kempley of The Washington Post did not like his performance, rather than reiterate critics indulging in their own clever vocabulary.  I recommend a "Reviews" section around three paragraphs long, starting with two or three retrospective statements about how the critics' consensus was that the film was bad, then choose some reviews and extrapolate specific reasons why the film was bad.  (The longer the review, the more details there may be, if it's not polluted with flavorful language.)  I recommend this because it is easy to establish that the film flopped, but it would help to be more specific as to why, which is hard to do if most reviews are summarized in one sentence.  Let me know if you want some assistance in working on the section. Erik (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this input. I trimmed that bit out of the lede, and will begin to work on the Reviews section. Cirt (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: In response to suggestion above from, trimmed down the Reviews subsection significantly . Cirt (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The intro is significantly trimmed and improved, so I removed the POV and long intro templates, but I also notice several minor issues to be fixed such as The woman's father Saito-san (Toshiro Mifune); Korean girl's father is Japanese or still retains his Japanese name 5 years after the liberation from Japanese colonial rule, or the film made the error or the film critic site (which is broken) made the error should be clarified. I will add more about the article later. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have not come across secondary sources commenting on this discrepancy, but that is the name given for the character. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the lead section supposed to be a synopsis of the article? I don't understand leads that are filled with information that is repeated later on. That's not the way an encyclopedia is written and Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, isn't it? 209.247.21.77 (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Lead section, The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources Cirt (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Could be useful resource
The film seems not to be screened outside of the North America, so I had never heard of the film, but here are some available Korean resource. I hope this would help improve the article. --Caspian blue 14:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Five screenshots at Daum Movie
 * Adria Julia's exhibition based on the film at at Insa Art Space of the Arts Council Korea
 * Interview with a son of Audrey Hepburn, who engaged in the production of the film
 * Covered incident regarding the death of some extra during the filming at Munhwa Ilbo
 * Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 A blogger's extensive review on the film, having "very interesting screenshots"]
 * Thank you very much, I will look these over. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced additions
= please provide a source for this? Cirt (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please change the title holding the unwarranted accusation. Its IMDB is not a reliable source, but already linked there. I also provided reliable additional sources very quickly.--Caspian blue 21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a wholly unsourced addition, thus not an "unwarranted accusation" but a simple statement of fact to call it such. Also, the Infobox film field is called starring, not intended to list minor cast members. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see you linked the IMDB on the page, so that means the starring actors are automatically referenced by the IMDB. The only problem with IMDB or the sourcing is that it does not have "footnote", even the other stars in the list do not have footnote" and the reliability of IMDB. So I think the "unwarrnated accusation" is correct. Moreover, you did not need to leave the unpleasant messages to here and my talk page at that same time. If you leave the message like this for future, please don't do that. The two actors took significant roles, and they are famous actors in South Korea as I already explained to you.--Caspian blue 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The other stars in the list are all discussed in the article body text and referenced by multiple different citations. Your entries that you had added were not sourced to anything when you added them. Thus, this was an unsourced addition. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One of books sources that you used listed the actor's name, so well I think you did not try "that hard". I think your assessment is incorrect and your accusation is really upsetting.--Caspian blue 04:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:V, and specifically, WP:BURDEN. New material added to articles should be cited to WP:RS sources - as opposed to not being cited at all. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You addressed the two actor's acting in the plot, but did not mention about their name. So, I stand by the assessment that you did not try hard.--Caspian blue 04:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling my above statement of fact an "unwarranted accusation" does not lead to an atmosphere conducive to positive dialogue. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Look again your own words. Please be WP:CIVIL. --Caspian blue 04:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not nice of you to say I made an "unwarranted accusation", when I was merely stating facts. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * , I have tried to iterate clearly what I have seen at fault here - which was the addition of unsourced information and then the baseless attacks when this was pointed out in a most simple and matter-of-fact manner by myself. Apparently you feel you must have The Last Word, so I will allow you that. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * , well thank you for inventing another accusation. My time has bee greatly wasted over the originally very frivolous issue because of you. So "good bye". --Caspian blue 05:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

blanking of properly sourced credit
It is very unfortunate that the sourced info was removed by Cirt for his POV. I already explained well about why the two Korean actors should be listed in the infobox, and see no reason for this, so restored it.--Caspian blue 22:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "pov" involved here - only the issue that every single minor actor in a film should not be listed in the "starring" field of the Infobox film. It is an inappropriate usage of the infobox. Cirt (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Cirt, your second revert is inappropriate since you removed the credit first based on your belief that the credit is unsourced which I disagree. After the perfectly legitimate sources are even provided, you reverted my edit again with another reason. Please show me policy/rule/consensus that your POV is legitimate. Moreover, my edit is based on sources (other news sources that I did not add to the articles), so your claim that their roles are minor is simply untrue. I left a response to the discussion WT:FILM that you opened and forgot to tell me about the discussion. I'm a member of the project as well, so pretty familiar with how to write about film articles.--Caspian blue 03:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the below comment by . Cirt (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it POV to remove actors who play minor characters from the infobox? The film style guidelines and infobox instructions note that Starring is for the major actors in the work, i.e. the headliners on the poster, DVD case, etc. Actors who played minor characters should not be listed in the infobox. They can be noted in the plot, if their role is mentioned, or if there is something relevant in their being in the film, in the casting section. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, he tried to find a reason to revert me regardless of the fact that the provided sources fulfill his demand for sources (which is his reason for the first revert). That is why I said POV, or perhaps may be WP:POINTy would be more accurate description on his second revert.--Caspian blue 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A wholly incorrect assessment. The first instance was indeed a completely unsourced addition by  - an experienced user who knows better than to add unsourced info to articles. It was not until after this incident, that I investigated the matter further and found that these were only minor actors in the film. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My assessment is based on the truth. 's second revert with another reason appears to just revert my edit. I said about IMDB enough to him, so I'm not gonna waste my time about this. He should've behaved better than that since he is an admin to be standing on civility. I think he can not let the past. I have Korean sources that he can not access, and that tell other stories from the existent cited sources almost written by American writers. I was willing to provide them with translation for Cirt, but oh, well, I don't feel that need any more. The edits to insert their name are minor, so I'm not dying for the fact that they are not listed to the infobox.--Caspian blue 04:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per this comment from at WT:FILMS: "Yes, the infobox should only list the main stars of the film, usually the "head liners" highlighted in the theatrical poster or DVD cover. Minor appearances should pretty much never be in the infobox unless they were specifically highlighted as noted." - Then compare with the five actors highlighted in the theatrical poster . Note: These were the same five actors already present in the infobox prior to the unsourced addition by . Cirt (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I already replied to the comment, so 's repetition and "emphasis" of Colleconian's comment here to prove his WP:POINT is not what I consider "constructive" and do understand ever. He acts like as if he did not read my comment there. I'm not gonna waste my time over this. Good luck, Cirt.--Caspian blue 04:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The continued reference by to "WP:POINT" here is spurious.  added unsourced info which also is inappropriate for the infobox. Trying to cover for this by throwing around frivolous attacks is inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * , stop throwing out the false accusations which get my nerves and try to be WP:CIVIL. Moreover, intentionally referring to your opponent when responding to me as a third person is very rude. I hope you should please improve yourself.--Caspian blue 04:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is incivil of you to falsely call something "point" that is clearly not. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very uncivil and of you to falsely accuse and lecture me over and over. You have not explained why you switched your rationale for your second revert. My minor edit came from good faith to improve the article, but your knee-jerk revert and the absurd second revert convince that I should not get involved in anything with you ever. --Caspian blue 04:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * , it is simply rude to throw around attacks like "point" and "unwarranted accusations" when all I have done is make matter-of-fact statements regarding sourcing and inappropriate usage of Infobox film. AnmaFinotera correctly pointed out above that your labeling of my edits as "POV" was also inappropriate. This all reflects on your inappropriate demeanor on this page - I have tried to be matter-of-fact and polite, while you have not conducted yourself in that same manner. I see you wish to have The Last Word, so feel free to do so. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * , your inappropriate usage of the talk page, and the demeanor as well as keeping throwing out the false accusations and your inappropriate lecturing to here and my talk page speak for themselves. If you want a pissing contest, you win. So good bye.---Caspian blue 04:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer
Please do not remove this from the Plot sect. It is indeed a disclaimer, and is appropriate to start out the beginning of the sect. -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Communist invasion
Sorry I didn't make a note on that. Communism is a political ideology. People can be communist, as can political parties, newspapers, and even nations. However I don't think an invasion can be communist. Wolfview (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is as per secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Avoid long run-on sentences
Please do not combine sentences to create long, awkward, run-on sentences. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourced material removed?
Please discuss on talk page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits creating run-on sentences
Please avoid edits like this that create run-on sentences and reduce the writing quality of this WP:GA article, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was pasting in some material from The Washington Times to give more background on this publication. I was going to get back to it right away to tidy it up. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please address this here at the talk page? Why is more background info needed? Why if you are cutting and pasting did you not say from where you cut and pasted the material? -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article says the Washington Times is owned by Moon. It is really more complex than that. I was just trying to provide some more info for the readers. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that really necessary here, at this article? Would that not be better kept at other articles, for example, that are not about films and movies? -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest for this article then? Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What it currently has now. -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you think about "...owned by Sun Myung Moon's international media conglomerate, News World Communications"? Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source?
Is Allmovie a reliable source? It looks a lot like a Wikipedia type project. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a database site about movies. It is probably reliable enough for basic info, but maybe it would be better to stick to major sources like the New York Times for reviews of the movie.Jaque Hammer (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Or at least put them first. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Too much weight to Washington Times review
It is an interesting story but it is really more about the Washington Times than about the movie. I will post a shorter version in The Washington Times. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be better to make a section for all the contemporary reviews and then another for later commentary in books, etc. BTW I'm not sure how important Leonard Maltin's quote is. According to his article he edits a book with reviews of just about every movie ever made. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think that he even say Inchon, and there is nothing very special about his comments which date from 2004. Borock (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

James Whelan
James Whelan - Why was this wikilinked? Is there an article for him? Is he notable? The answer to these is probably "no". Unless this is satisfactorily addressed, this link should be removed. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see James R. Whelan was just created as a redirect. But this is not an actual article. It serves no point to have a redirect to The Washington Times, in this article here, when it is already linked previously. The link should be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He is probably notable enough for his own article. Until then I redirected to the Washington Times article where he is listed as one of the editors, also his main claim to notability. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need for this article to have a double-redirect, when the link is already given to The Washington Times, in this article, already. The link should be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. I was just redirecting to avoid a red link. Whelan should have his own article, he just doesn't yet. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So please remove the redirect, and the link on this article's page. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can do that if you like. It would also be possible for someone to write an article on Whelan. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you were not planning on writing an article on Whelan? -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I could. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I found out that he worked for several newspapers and related companies, including CNN and wrote 4 or 5 books. However I couldn't find any substantial coverage of him, more than just passing mentions. Unless we can come up with that there is not really anything to base an article on. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's relevant to anyone, I've turned the page into an actual article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious info
I took out a couple of mentions of people not knowing the film was funded by the Unification Church. They seemed kind of dubious to me since there was a major controversy going on. How could they not know? Wolfview (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of times when employees are asked about some controversy about their employer they say something like, "I don't know about that." This might have been what was going on. Borock (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro
I think the intro could be better written, and more clearly outline the major points of the article. Borock (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just did this. If you think more is needed in the intro please add it. Borock (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)