Talk:BlacKkKlansman

	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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

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)[reply]

BlacKkKlansman → Black Klansman (2018 film) (or similar) – The movie poster shows "BLACKKKLANSMAN", 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)[reply]

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retitled from "Black Klansman" to "BlacKkKlansman" earlier this year, so removing the third K would make the title out of date and incorrect - and it's not like it means nothing, it's there to signify KKK.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 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Oppose per Nohomersryan'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 | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oppose per Nohomersryan as well. Not much to add to that argument. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 15:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]