`  == Notes on Redeletion of material on French copyright controversy ==  On both August 3rd of this year and today (Sept. 28th),  added material to this article from the French Wikipedia about a controversy as to whether Kubrick took the design of the monolith from paintings by French-American painter Georges Yatridès. (All of this user's contributions to Wikipedia are Yatridès-related.) On the first try, I deleted it as a hopelessly bad translation from French to English. On the second try, I decided to give this user the benefit of the doubt. He claimed in his edit-summary ``Finally managed to find a professional translator to help me translate this paragraph. Hope the English is good enough now!``. Actually only the last few sentences were changed slightly. It still needed a lot of work! However, I was willing to give this user benefit of the doubt and try to massage it. I even reverted another editor's deletion of the new material (as pedantic or as  put it ``axegrinding``) and then proceeded to try to spiff it up.  However, the only thing that gives this controversy the ability to pass Wikipedia's requirements for WP:notability is the claim made in the text that an important French institute (Société des auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastique- ADAGP) devoted to copyright considerations has weighed in on the matter. Unfortunately, this pivotal claim is entirely uncited!! And I can not find anything on the web anywhere to support it. And that same claim in the French Wikipedia article has a ``citation needed`` tag on it, omitted when the material was ported over here to the English Wikipedia. Yet, as I say, this is the pivotal claim required for this to pass WP's requirements for WP:Notability.  Finally, the Yatrides site which is cited (for the controversy) never mentions the ADAGP weighing in and seems to be a self-published ``fan`` site which is written in very poor English by someone whose native tongue is obviously French.  At any rate, until we have independent sourced evidence that ADAGP has weighed in on the issue, this material cannot go in this article, IMO.  `