Talk:Macbeth (2006 film)

Untitled
Just delete the second article (Macbeth 2006 movie). It is messy, incomplete and adds nothing new. misanthrope 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone turned it into a redirect, so I removed the merge. --RazorICE 03:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What's Lady Macbeth's name in the film? Surely it can't be Lady Macbeth as being the wife of a Melbourne gang-leader I consider it highly unlikely that she holds a landed title, lol.

Anon

Fair use rationale for Image:Macbethvictoriahill.jpg
Image:Macbethvictoriahill.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 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) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism debate - actually: repeated addition of dubious unsourced content (Sinneed title change)
There seems to be some misapplication of the term "Vandalism" here.

The information added about the sex scene between Macbeth and the three witches has been twice deleted, firstly described as "unconstructive" and secondly as "vandalism." These editors seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that this information is in some way inaccurate or constitutes an attempt to insert incorrect facts. This, however, is not the case, as the film in question does indeed contain a scene in which the character of Macbeth and the three Wierd Sisters engage in an orgiastic sexual encounter, exactly as the twice-deleted edit describes.

The information is thus equally relevant to other adaptive differences to Shakespeare's text described in the article, such as the depiction of drug deals, the Witches as Schoolgirls, Lady Macbeth's dead child etc. The inclusion of a sex scene that is absent from Shakespeare's original play is entirely pertinent to discussing the film as a work of adaptation.

I must therefore ask the following question of those who are making these deletions/reversions: are you simply assuming that this information would not be correct, or do you have you in fact seen the film yourselves? If you would please take the time to watch it, you will see that this scene is, in fact, present in the film.

Please discuss your reasons here before making any further reverts. User:PacifistPrimePacifistPrime (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No source == delete bait. Please remember that Wikipedia relies on second sources. If a fact can't be found at a wp:reliable source, it probably doesn't belong. This is a problem quite often. Sources always, if possible. If you don't have a source, and no one deletes it, you are golden. If multiple editors kill your unsourced edit, this is usually a good hint that it *REALLY* needs a source. As I said, I won't kill it again, but I am fact-flagging it.sinneed (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. It seems like to me this one part of the movie was targeted because of the sex it had in it. If you'd notice plot outlines and summaries don't have any sources in it unless it is mentioned that the part of the movie had some sort of significance outside of the movie. I would also like to remove the sources tag from the top of the plot outline section. But I'll wait a few days until I do.--M8v2 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)