Talk:Bob Clark

message: He directed Turk 182 too... That's a popular one in Latin America... --dalegrett 04:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turk 182

message: Please do not add the POV tag to articles without adding a comment explaining why you feel this way.  Sirkumsize 04:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, as often as anyone removes it, the same person keeps adding it in.  Can anything be done, or do we just keep removing it?  --Paploo 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed POV tag

message: Death reports assert Mr. Clark died at the age of 67. This article claims he was 65. Is there a source for the birthdate we're using? --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, why not? IMDb is full of user-generated information. How do we know they're right and the AP is wrong? --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the L.A. Times says he was 67. szyslak (t, c) 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see there have been footnotes added to the age issue, indicating that the police put his age at 67. Which means they presumably have seen his driver's license by now. Given the choice between a government ID and the IMDb, I'm going to believe the ID every time. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 65 vs 67?

message: Many sources agree he attended the U of Miami. Some other sources say he was at Hillsdale College and Catawba College, but these seem less credible. Neither is listed in his Canadian Film Encyclopedia bio. I'm leaving them out for now; they don't seem to fit chronologically. --Dhartung | Talk 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Solved it ... --Dhartung | Talk 10:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: A number of editors have been adding unsourced and potentially libelous claims about the driver of the other vehicle in the crash that killed Clark. The most common claim is that the driver is an illegal immigrant, but there was at least one edit that said the vehicle was stolen. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before making such edits. Reliable sources state that the driver was under the influence of alcohol and driving without a license. I have found nothing about his immigration status, nor have I found evidence that the car was stolen. The driver is a living person, and thus is protected by WP:BLP. szyslak (t, c) 20:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are starting to identify the other driver as an illegal. But the question of relevance still remains unanswered - is it worth including that fact in this article? My first thought is no because his immigration status does not have any apparent importance in this case. Maybe if Bob Clark was an INS agent, or someone who championed the cause of immigrants, it would matter. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really for us to decide, we're not journalists. If the mainstream press is reporting on something, inclusion is fair game. --W.marsh 14:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We're not journalists but we are trying to maintain objectivity. Including irrelevant facts about the other driver presents a tainted portrait. I'm not passionate either way on this issue, I just find it to be a worthwhile point for discussion. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 16:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the man has been booked on suspicion of drunk driving, it appears this was the cause of the accident.  Noting that the guy is an illegal alien is irrelevant, as that has no bearing on whether or not he was intoxicated.  The driver could have been a US citizen--the president's daughter, even--and Clark's death would still be due to drunk driving.  A person's immigration status has nothing to do with his or her ability to operate a vehicle while intoxicated, and thus has nothing to do with the circumstances surrounding Bob Clark's death. Peace --buck 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the tone of these additions truly sad. Free speech is one of this country's great rights, but the Wikipedia page of a film director is not the place to address topics that were not a part of the director's work, much less hateful diatribes. I would offer, however, that when one crime is committed in the course of committing another crime, both crimes are notable to the discussion of either. It is a crime to be in this country illegally. I don't say that as loaded political dogma, merely that this is where the "illegal" part of "illegal immigrant" comes from. This is why amnesty is a part of the dialogue on this issue. Were the immigration laws to change tomorrow, and amnesty granted, it would be Wiki's imperative to remove the mention tomorrow. If the man were driving drunk away from the scene of a bank robbery, that would seem to rate a mention. If the man had illegal drugs in his possession, even if they were not in his system, or an unlicensed firearm, that would seem to rate a mention as well. Indeed, it has been mentioned he was driving without a license, which is itself a criminal act separate from the reason he had no license, despite the fact it was not in and of itself the lethal act that caused these two men's deaths. (One might draw the apparently incorrect conclusion that his license had been taken away as the result of previous DUIs, so in either event it hints at another crime and that crime may as well be noted.) Whether we are extremists on one side of an issue or the other, or have no position on the matter, the facts are what they are, and if it is a fact that the driver was an illegal immigrant (and I have no personal knowledge that he was), I think it should be noted in as brief and unloaded a way as possible. People's personal reactions to the statement will be what they will be, and some will unfortunately fill in the ethnocentric hate or politically correct affrontery they may read into it. But to redact the mere fact of this other crime the man was committing is as irresponsible as to spew fear- and hate-mongering throughout its mention, and would seem to come from its own place of sociopolitical dogma, rather than sensitively balanced objectivity. The bottom line, however, is as was written in the initial post in this thread, it is libelous hate speech if this is based on rumor or a supposition based on the man's name, and a mention like this MUST be a sourced fact before it appears here. Unsourced additions of this claim are vandalism. Incidentally, to respectfully respond to the previous writer, had the driver been the president's daughter, that would certainly be in the article, despite that such a fact would not be a crime. I do, however, certainly and wholeheartedly respond in kind to all with your greeting of "Peace." Abrazame 21:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Contrarily, it seems that editors are attempting to keep this article as neutral as possible, especially regarding the controversy involving Clark's death.  Call it what you want ("political correctness"/"white-washing"), but not allowing an encyclopedia to be used as a soapbox for politics is absolutely essential.  Alternatively, using the tragic circumstances surrounding a celebrity's death to gain leverage in an entirely unrelated issue is hardly unbiased and objective.  We saw this same type of thing with the Columbine tragedy.  The pundits and columnists jumped on the opportunity to place blame on Hollywood and the entertainment industry.  Nowadays, most will agree that playing video games and listening heavy metal music are not the roots of violent psychopathy.  Likewise, a person's immigration status is not related to drunk driving.  I agree with Abrazame's suggestion that his status may be worth an unloaded mention, but to imply that illegal aliens are killing US citizens because of their illegal status is a gross misrepresentation.  Suppose the guy was not a drunk illegal alien but a drunk homosexual, a drunk Asian, a drunk Scientologist--would you say that Bob Clark was killed by a gay man?  An Asian man?  A member of the Church of Scientology? "This is what happens when we allow gays/Asians/Scientologists in our country." Or would you consider that slanderous, and say he was killed by a drunk driver? Peace. --buck 20:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about you, but I heard of this news story because the director made well-known films that were prominently pointed out in the headlines of his obituary. I feel the mention of the driver's immigration status is relevant as secondary sources have discussed it, but it is not a primary consideration and should not be given undue weight. --Dhartung | Talk 14:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. And thus a discussion of the current US immigration controversy is relevant to articles on US immigration laws, US-Mexico border relations, prosecution of illegal aliens, etc.  Not in an article about a celebrated film director who was recently killed in a drunk driving accident.  My point is that Clark died because someone was driving under the influence, not because someone was in the US illegally.  You claim that no one is politicizing this issue.  I was simply responding to your previous claim that implied the opposite.  Regardless, it seems to me that the issue of how it's addressed in this article has been handled appropriately, and we seem to agree on this.  Therefore, I have little else to say on the subject.  Peace.  --buck 03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "He faces charges of gross vehicular manslaughter, along with deportation to his native Mexico, as he entered and was living in the United States illegally."
I would agree that this is an appropriate, completely non-inflammatory summary of the driver's criminal charges, given that the secondary sources are clear on his illegal immigrant status. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 00:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. This is an article about Bob Clark. While his death is notable, not all the details about it are. Morenooso 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The other driver

message: This article states that his earliest success is with Porky's and Porky's 2 wasn't Black Christmas a success? Aaron Bowen 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Earliest success

message: Several reviewers (and IMDB.com) refer to Deathdream as Bob Clark's first feature film. This article says that Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things came first. Which is correct? Incidentally the release dates given in the Filmography section of this article are not consistent with the dates mentioned in the earlier sections (1972/73/74). Muzilon (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early films - year of release? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bob Clark. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927222503/http://www.martyangelo.com/bob_clark.htm to http://www.martyangelo.com/bob_clark.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091640/http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?layid=46&csid1=3517&navid=87 to http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?layid=46&csid1=3517&navid=87
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified