Talk:BlacKkKlansman

Requested move 18 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

BlacKkKlansman → Black Klansman (2018 film) (or similar) – The movie poster shows "BLACK K KLANSMAN", which likeliest is intended to be read as merely "Black Klansman", with an interpolated small-capital extra K as a stylization. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no evidence this is just a stylization and not the film's genuine title. The film was directly retitled from "Black Klansman" to "BlacKkKlansman" earlier this year, so removing the third K would make the title out of date and incorrect - and it's not like it means nothing, it's there to signify KKK. Plus, since every reliable source out there uses BlacKkKlansman         it would look pretty stupid for Wikipedia to be the odd one out and not use it. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note. The only other film with a similar title is 1966's The Black Klansman, thus this title, unless it is considered to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, would only require the qualifier "(film)" to distinguish it from the main header of the Black Klansman disambiguation page.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I oppose moving the page, I see no reason why it can't occupy Black Klansman if that's the decision. The other page is really only marginally notable. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 's arguments. There is no "diluted" form (in this case, Black Klansman) used by reliable sources like there may be if the title was treated as mere stylization. Wikipedia follows what is out there, and there is nothing out there to support writing this film as Black Klansman. The title BlacKkKlansman is the only one in play. Hatnotes and disambiguation pages can guide readers along if there is some aurally-prompted query, as would be the case for similar-sounding topics written out differently. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy oppose The nom's personal speculation of what's "likeliest" is a poor reason to open up an RM, esp. when every ref, as Nohomers indicates, disproves it. Close and WP:TROUT. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as mentioned by Nohomersryan, every source/ref out there shows it is spelled BlacKkKlansman. The only exception are articles from when it was first announced that the book Black Klansman was being adapted, but that's because they were using the title of the book as a placeholder for the articles. As soon as it was announced that Spike Lee was signed on, it was also announced the name of the film would be BlacKkKlansman which is why it has been used that way everywhere since, from articles, reviews, entries on IMDb and RT, to the official lineup for the 2018 Cannes Film Festival. That's also ignoring all first party sources, like the official Twitter account, official trailer, the hashtag on the official poster, etc.. which is all BlacKkKlansman. The only time it's different is when some places use an all caps spelling, or all caps with a small middle k, but either way the middle k is always there so suggesting it be moved to Black Klansman (2018 film) is simply not correct. TheSameGuy (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. That is the official title of the movie, and obviously intended for the KKK reference. There is no indication that it is stylization. --NiTen (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per as well. Not much to add to that argument.  Sock   ( tock talk)  15:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Flip Zimmerman
Did I view it wrong or was Flip the person they somewhat hinted was under that hood during the cross burning at the end? I just want to make sure, for plot purposes.Trillfendi (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just watched this and I wondered the same thing. I thought it could be Flip or Landers. They definitely left it ambiguous. It's also unclear if they were continuing the investigation or if Flip truly believed in the Klan. Good flick. Minnehaha850 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

At this point it’s vexing that no one who has watched it seems to have the answers so I might have to investigate this myself by watching the ending again. If the facial hair wasn’t a dead giveaway, I don’t know what is, but it certainly wasn’t meant to be a cliffhanger.Trillfendi (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It was ivanhoe, the arms are too fat to be philip, and philips beard wasn't as grown out as the one shown in the last scenes


 * Pure speculation of course, but the man under the hood in the close-up had to be Chief Breachway. It makes sense for the plot in light of his orders at the end. And the eyes looked like his. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Time Line
They seem to condense the timeline. The movie is clearly set circa 1972, as they reference Nixon and Agnew a few times and they're running for reelection. 1972 was the year the real Stallworth became a cop. The movie makes you think he started the Klan work started soon afterwards, yet the real investigation didn't start til 1979. Minnehaha850 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In real life Stallworth became a cop in 1978, not 1972. 1972 is the setting for the film to coincide with (avowed racist) Richard Nixon’s election and also the blaxploitation films of that era.Trillfendi (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and David Duke probably wasn't in that exact position in 1972, and was about 22 years old. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only that, many of the blaxploitation films discussed between Stallworth and Patrice were made after 1972. Also one of my problems with the film involved the use of the Richard Nixon posters. Real racists were actually looking to elect George Wallace, not Nixon. -User:DanTD (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you all know that the film wasn't meant to follow the actual timeline of events let alone have continuity. Shaft (1971 film) came out before, Coffy came out in 1973 and such. And yeah, an actual racist would have adored that goblin George Wallace as president but he lost the primary (thankfully).Trillfendi (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I NEVER expect Hollywood to be 100% accurate, yet I do expect them to have internal continuity (usually they don't). But I do think it's important in a move "based on a true story" that the public know what Hollywood changed. That way at least a few of us will be aware of what in the movie isn't true. Sadly, most people don't bother to find out what wasn't true and accept the movie as gospel. See Hacksaw Ridge, which has a whole section on this. Minnehaha850 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You should start a section in this article on this, if you feel that strongly about it. Just make sure you have reliable sources. Amsgearing (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The film has a lot of inaccuracies
The film is mostly lies. Ron Stallworth's book shows this. Family Guy Guy (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific examples that you'd like to have added to the page? Maybe you could start a "Inconsistencies between the film and real life" section. Just make sure you have reliable sources for anything you add. Thanks. Amsgearing (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, listen to the interview with Ron Stallworth and Spike Lee on the Today Show. Ron doesn't say what is inaccurate, but he alludes to it. Also Kwame Ture isn't violent, he's an intellectual. If you listen to David Duke's interview on JFG, what he says doesn't contradict what Ron Stallworth says in his book, which is different from the movie. Family Guy Guy (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * more inaccuracies: 'They also challenge the historical accuracy of the film. Feeling so strongly about it, they’ve created a Gofundme page with the heading “An Open Letter to Spike Lee From The Young People Of the Charlottesville Attack.” ' Family Guy Guy (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization and title
The article title’s current capitalization, BlacKkKlansman, is unsupported both by any actual rules of correct capitalization that I know and by MOS:TM. It is merely a stylized capitalization used in marketing and generally mimicked online, as indicated by its frequently being put in quotes. All actual rules of capitalization that I know and MOS:TM would seem to require the capitalization Blackkklansman, being as the title is presented as a single, unhyphenated word.

Or is it? Everyone I’ve ever heard pronounce the stylized BlacKkKlansman has pronounced it as “black Klansman.” The extra ‘k’ seems to be a purely stylized way of visually inserting a reference to the KKK into the marketing for the film rather than actually part of the film title. Note that the extra ‘k’ is written in lowercase on the poster, unlike the rest of the title. By this more likely interpretation, the film title is actually Black Klansman, and this article’s title should be something like “Black Klansman (2018 film)”. The first sentence of the lead would then add something like “(stylized as BLACKkKLANSMAN and BlacKkKlansman)” after the title. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine as it currently is. MOS:TM allows for CamelCase, which seems like the best way to describe the stylization used here. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a case of camel case, as camel case fails to account for the “KkK” (as a reference to the KKK) in the title, which is entirely unpronounced and purely stylized. And note that the article on camel case is actually titled “Camel case.” The first sentence of that article does exactly what I am recommending, “Camel case (stylized as camelCase; also known as camel caps or more formally as medial capitals) is the practice of [...].” Why would we do anything different, and plainly incorrect, here? It was really odd of you to direct attention to that particular article, and rather misleading and even deceptive to rename it the way you did. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I copied the way that link was written on MOS:TM, which says "Trademarks in "CamelCase" are a judgment call; the style may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable." (Ironically, CamelCase isn't a trademark, so it doesn't fall under MOS:TM.) MOS:TM also says "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent sources." In the references section of the film's article, there are links to reviews from the Guardian, IndieWire, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc. They all use the same name, capitalized in the same way this article currently is. Therefore, I believe the current style that is already in use in those independent sources should be kept. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 2
— Assignment last updated by Thebananabaker (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)