Talk:Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story

	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
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Clean up

I removed the reviews. --72.221.70.224 (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews (Critical reception) are considered a fundamental part of articles about movies, whether fictional or documentary.Parkwells (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Name

From the article:

The term Boogie Man in the documentary's title is a quadruple entendre that refers to:

Atwater's love of blues music
the fear Atwater evoked in his political enemies
Atwater's use of fear as a political weapon against the electorate
Willie Horton, born the same year and same state (South Carolina) as Atwater, whom Atwater used to capitalize upon white America's fear of African-American men.

In my opinion, references II and III are the same (fear), and I am completely lost as to what boogieman has anything to do with blues music. Dems on the move (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danish title : Spin Doctor from Hell.94.145.236.194 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie is the reference

The movie makes it pretty clear why the name was chosen, which meets WP:V. There is no need for a URL link to reference it. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give us direct quotations from the documentary in which it is stated that the title is a "triple entendre." Give us direct quotations from the documentary in which it is stated that fear is a reason for the title. Give us direct quotations from the documentary in which it is stated that his music preferences are a reason for the title. If you can't provide the quotations, it's your interpretation and requires sources. I could claim that Atwater looks like the "Boogie Man" as a reason for the title, but that doesn't make it true without a source. Sundayclose (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No documentary will say "The name of the documentary was chosen because ....". It's just clear from the content. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's your interpretation of why the documentary is named "Boogie Man". Sorry, that doesn't work on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is classic WP:BLUE. You don't need a reference to prove that the sky is blue. The documentary lists three uses for term, hence that's why the documentary is named that way. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a classic disagreement about the meaning of a film. When I watch it or read the transcript, I see no confirmation of any of the reasons you identify. To you, it's obvious, but that doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone. It's obvious to some people that the Sun rotates around the Earth, but that doesn't make it true. In cases of different interpretation, the dispute is resolved by consensus, not edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing the fact that the movie explains the use of the term "boogie man"? Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disputing the fact that the film identifies the reasons for the title that you claim. You and I will never agree on this because it's a matter of interpretation, and it's a waste of my time and your time to try. So please drop the stick and wait for consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article can certainly explain the how the movie uses the term "boogie man" w/o saying that it "the reasons for the title" that you are disputing. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This transcript quotes Mary Matalin saying that they turned Willie Horton into a Boogie Man. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the transcript. Nowhere does it state why the film is titled the way it is. Please stop edit warring and wait for consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the transcript? The term "boogie man" is definitely in the movie. It's not implicit !! Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, I read the transcript and I saw the film, and I see no evidence for the reasons for the title that you claim. The word "the" is in the film, but that doesn't mean that's why the word "the" is in the title. I'm not arguing back and forth with you over a matter of interpretation, so this is my last comment to you unless a consensus develops here. Sundayclose (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are leaving the talk page, I will restore the material w/o mentioning that it's the movie name, since this appears to be your only objection. You do not appear to be disputing the content of the movie's use of the term "boogie man". Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My leaving does not give you ownership of the article. Restore the material and you will be explaining yourself at WP:3RR and WP:ANI. You're being disruptive. Drop the stick and wait for consensus. Last time I'm saying that. Sundayclose (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be engaging in WP:OWN. I addressed your objection, and restored content that does not appear to be under dispute. If you're not going to engage, there is no reason to leave out undisputed content. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk)

You can avoid a block if you revert your edit and wait for consensus. I'll wait an hour to see what you do before proceeding. Sundayclose (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do what you think you need to do. I have addressed your concern and the article no longer says that those are the reasons for the title of the documentary. If you want to bring up additional concerns, I'll engage you on this talk page. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/atwater/etc/script.html references ... topic of PBS film ?

Add PBS revious edit...

``footage`` it is ... 166.252.201.27 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Footage" is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances / Cast

It features: Tom Turnipseed, Michael Dukakis and Kitty Dukakis, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Robert Novak, Ronald Reagan, Mary Matalin, Ishmael Reed, Eric Alterman, Sam Donaldson, Howard Fineman, Roger Stone, Strom Thurmond, Tucker Eskew, Ed Rollins, Karl Rove, among others. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/atwater/etc/script.html User:Arthur Rubin, in particular, why do you see this as problematic? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWHOSWHO, PBS.org may be a primary source, and "features" is a WP:PEACOCK word. There may be other problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed "features". The other problems still require explanation why it should appear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List them ... 99.181.155.158 (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. WP:NOTWHOSWHO and pbs.org may be a primary source (requiring a secondary source to confirm, if there is any controversy). If you can resolve those, we can discuss further. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all, or will you just list more later? 99.19.40.44 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that you can explain why your addition doesn't violate those Wikipedia guidelines, and you do so on a technicality, I may find others reasons, but I find those sufficient. I don't think a raw list of interviewees should appear in an article about a documentary; that's what IMdB is for. If a reliable third party provides a list of notable people interviewed, that list might be appropriate, but "reliable" needs to be a higher standard than we usually use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all (now)? 99.109.126.249 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can think of at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking carefully at the IMdB entry, many of the "cast" (formerly, "appearances") are listed as "(archive footage)". They should not be listed without that caveat. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art, you have etiquette issues ... see fatuous, from your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogie_Man:_The_Lee_Atwater_Story&diff=436850216&oldid=436812012 summary ... not conducive to optimization of wp, watch it. 99.181.157.2 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said before, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. As a stretch, I'm willing to assume your good faith and your inability to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But WP:COMPETENCE may also apply. That was in response to at least your 10th addition of the material, and at least my 5th reason (in edit summaries) for removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be prudent and judicious in your use of synonyms from now on. 99.181.147.26 (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this removed from the box ... ?

| starring = Tom Turnipseed
Michael Dukakis
Kitty Dukakis
Bob Dole
George W. Bush
George H. W. Bush
Robert Novak
Ronald Reagan
Mary Matalin
Ishmael Reed
Eric Alterman
Sam Donaldson
Howard Fineman
Roger Stone
Strom Thurmond
Tucker Eskew
Ed Rollins
Karl Rove 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's much too long a list for "starring".
It includes people who only appear in archive footage, so a rational person would not list them even as "acting".

I'm sure I'll think of other reasons, but that's certainly adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will try, but the likelihood of level-headed reason involvement, given your history (on Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin for example) is quite low. Some of them were filled for the film, not archives. 99.119.129.32 (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't yet provided a reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assumed you intended filmed for the film. ;-) 141.218.36.44 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should know, as you're the same person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know if you are the same person(s)/automation who edited previously, Art? 99.181.151.50 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same telegraphic style of writing on talk pages, misinterpreting the same guidelines, ~~same style of edit summary~~. That alone seems enough to meet the duck test. Looking over 141's edits, the edit style, except for insults, consists of copying the text added. That may be a different style. It could be a fellow traveller. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the list "too long", Art? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Starring" or "featuring" should only have at most 3 or 4 names. Now, a documentary might have more significant people, as real life is messier than reel life, but the full list is inappropriate. Furthermore, including those only appearing in archive footage is completely inappropriate. List a few major players (preferably selected by a reliable source), and point to WGBH or IMDb for the full list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Should", why Art? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for "starring"? If you do, please list it. Otherwise, one could claim that "Starring" is {{unsourced}}, and should not appear. As for the cast list, any rational person would only list the people interviewed for the film, rather than those only appearing in archive footage. As I think the article would be better without the list, I'm not going to edit it down to the maximum I would accept, but if you would add a sensible list, I wouldn't revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cast (in alphabetical order) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262863/fullcredits#cast
Trascript *with names of speakers) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/atwater/etc/script.html

99.119.131.30 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a source for "starring", and it's still the case that only those filmed for this film should be listed in the cast. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Stars: Eric Alterman, Lee Atwater and George Bush" per http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262863/ 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Player (political) instead of "Cast"? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's even worse. If you could produce a heading which would mean "appearing in" the film, then, at least, it wouldn't be wrong. I still don't see the need for the section, but I might not remove it immediately if you could produce an honest heading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but not a common word, as far as I know. "Footage" is OK. 99.190.85.220 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add figures from film ...

Footage: Some notable figures are Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Robert Novak, Ronald Reagan, Mary Matalin, Sam Donaldson, Strom Thurmond, and Karl Rove. Also in the film are Tom Turnipseed, Kitty Dukakis, Ishmael Reed, Howard Fineman, Tucker Eskew, and Ed Rollins. ^[1]^[2]^[3]

50.42.182.54 (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating yourself, with no further (or, for that matter, any) justification for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add content (the cast) of the film? 99.181.134.134 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A content-free response, Art? Clever. 99.190.86.93 (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have still not given a reason why, contrary to WP:FILM guidelines, a raw cast list should be used, particularly those which were taken from archive footage. The guidelines don't apply well to documentaries, but suggest that the people named should be linked if given, but should not be given unless helpful to explain the film. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(od) What is more raw than http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/atwater/etc/script.htm (transcript), which you (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogie_Man:_The_Lee_Atwater_Story&diff=436608319&oldid=436584262 ? Your only response, Art, appears to be Wikipedia:I just don't like it, and that is not enough to remove encyclopedic. 99.109.125.85 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given a reason why it should be included, contrary to the WP:FILM guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without an independent source, it is undue weight and violates WP:NOTWHOSWHO. --Ronz (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Article protected

The article is protected. Now editors can focus on making a better case. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lock set to expire 2012-Feb-08, currently. 99.181.131.215 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection extended two years because of lack of discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expires 04:20, 14 January 2014 UTC. 99.181.138.52 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can extend it further if needed. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Wikipedia:INTIM? 99.35.14.75 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:DR and WP:BATTLE will be the reasons given to extend it. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify George Bush please.

Clarify George Bush please. ^{[disambiguation needed]} 99.181.139.223 (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush most often refers to:

George H. W. Bush (born 1924), 41st President of the United States (1989–1993)
George W. Bush (born 1946), 43rd President of the United States (2001–2009)

99.56.123.111 (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite lock?

Why is this article have an infinite lock? 99.181.132.75 (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The article was semi-protected because of sock puppetry and disruptive editiing see here. Have a read of WP:SEMI and WP:ROUGH for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 05:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the question is asked by a Block evading IP sockpuppet; see User:Arthur Rubin/IP list NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Oops, just realized this was ancient history.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/atwater/etc/script.html

[2] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262863/

[3] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262863/fullcredits#cast

[1]

[2]

[3]