Talk:Roots (1977 miniseries)

message: Hi wheres the source that says roots was the 3rd highest rated nieslen program
:The author gave a link to the Nielsen ratings page.  Did you check it out?  Quill 01:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Link is dead. 81.178.214.127 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: I would like to suggest merging "Roots: TV Miniseries" with the page, "Roots: The Saga of an American Family," for consistency (the synopsis is same for the book and the movie) and clarity (readers who want to know about the book will probably also want to read about the movie, and vice versa). I already created a small section about the miniseries in the body of the book article. Yoninah 3 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
I personally think it is good as it is, with a small section about the miniseries in the body of the book article, but with an internal link to this artice. I am removing this page's entry from Wikipedia:Requested moves, but if you still want to suggest a merge, please do so, following the instructions at WP:Merge! --Lox (t,c) 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Move

message: Roots is out on DVD.  Can anyone find out when Warner Home Video will release The Next Generations?  I reall y really  I haven't seen it since 1981 (and then only piecemeal)!  They make a nice story right up to the 1970s.  Also, it is about the only story that makes World War One of any interest to me.  It's also cool when Haley goes to The Gambia, finds his home village, finds the reference to "that old African", Kunta Kinte, and then meets a distant cousin also descended from Kunta Kinte's brothers. GBC 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD releases

message: Burl Ives' character may be listed erroneously as "Sen. Arthur Johnson." There is a scene about one hour and ten minutes into Episode 6 that includes a shot of Senator Arthur's office window. It says "Arthur J. Justin, Attorney at Law."75.62.125.128 07:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: Anyone? --Howard the Duck 04:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running time? 

message: Isn't the summary a bit short for a nine and a half hour series? If any one has the time maybe it should be expanded either by the dates in the series or by the episodes (the episodes may be difficult since 8 originally aired and the DVDs edited them into 6 episodes). Also an episode page could be made summarizing each episode (again difficulty rises because of the different number of episodes). Just a suggestion if someone has seen it enough times to just know what the summary is or if someone wants to take the time to do it.Allwham (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary and Episodes 

message: http://www.imagebam.com/image/0cc1a2102327307  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  source 

message: Based upon guidelines in WP:OVERLINK, I have removed wikilinks to the following pages:
"What generally should not be linked" 
*"everyday words understood by most readers in context;"
**auction
**childbirth
**debt
**English
**forgery
**moniker
**stillborn
**tobacco
*"names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; common occupations; and pre- and post-nominals;"
**Annapolis, Maryland
**Caswell County, North Carolina
**Spotsylvania County, Virginia
**Tennessee and Henning, Tennessee
**blacksmith
**cook
**physician
**warrior
This is not "ill-founded tampering" nor is it "imposing personal preferences" as labeled by DocRushing, and does not require "prior discussion". AldezD (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you are about half right. Those places aren't considered "major geographic locations." Major ones would like Los Angeles or London, etc. Blacksmith and warrior would not be "common occupations," and about half of the words in the first group are not "everyday words." While it's true that we shouldn't have overlinking, we also shouldn't assume everyone knows all of these words. Also it's better to discuss before removing. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section and overlinking 

message: This section on the page is terribly written. You can't precede a list with another list when it causes such ambiguity. Saying you're giving me a list of historical inaccuracies, improbabilities, exaggerations and such does not help me tell to what degree they got certain things right. Also, stating that the screenwriters were biased is itself pretty biased since there's no quote to such a degree. The same goes with the bit about long-standing American political traditions. Stating a miniseries as a continuance of a political tradition would be asinine anyway. The parts that are useless have been cleared up to provide more room to expand on the aforementioned issues. Or should I call them inaccuracies, exaggerations, and lazy writing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.6.193 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you're referring to the current version as of today or not, but I find the one that exists now pretty good and have no complaints about it. In fact, I'm quite pleased with it. 71.171.89.90 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Steven Mintz is a scholar and his correction seems to be relevant (increased that part now). The other part however is just pov, opinions like "myth-perpetrator" should have a viable source, a book of a non-scholar according to that for example "In the Old South, white people were the outlaws, while African-Americans were considered safe and never incarcerated." (and the person who added it also added elsewhere on basis of the book without irony how awesome slavery is) is not viable for facts and looks to me like advertising. The actual controversy was btw. of course not if slavery existed and was inhuman, terrible etc. (not really by historians doubted) but more if he really tracked his ancestry or took over the biography of other slaves, but that is covered in the main article. --Larsenat (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Accuracy 

message: Does anyone have information about re-broadcasts of the series? I know that I watched the whole miniseries as a kid, but that would have been in the middle to late 80s at the earliest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bricem (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-broadcasts 

message: The infobox seems broken on the main article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.210.123 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox broken