Talk:Roots (1977 miniseries)

Television Top‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

African diaspora High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as High-importance).

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://archive.org/details/Radiocorriere-1978-36/page/28/mode/2up

Source

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)

Link is dead. 81.178.214.127 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the theme song

If anyone knows the name of that music, please tell me! I search this song for many years!

Requested Move

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)[reply]

DVD releases

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)[reply]

Hi. If anyone can tell me whether an audio described version is coming out that'd be great. For those that don't know, audio description is a version of the film where all visual events are described in speech during any pauses in audio, describing hand motions, subtitles, any other visual actions or events that aren't obvious by listening to the film's audio track.

Cast

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)[reply]

I've watched roots an uncountable amount of times, purely out of enjoyment. Thing is, after looking at the cast I'm slightly confused. I am grateful that there was something about the mistake of Arthur Johnson, but there are still other areas of which I'm confused about. Where does Leonard come in? Where is Mr. Bennett referred to as Stephen? I thought John Carrington was the auctioneer? Where are seamen Grimes and Thompson mentioned? I have no recollection of seeing Arylia (Arilia, Arrylia?) and her mother in the cast. If someone could unravel these misunderstandings and confusions for me, that'd be great. BTW, if it seems obvious to you guys, please note that it isn't to me, as I'm blind, so any references that may appear on the screen are totally missed by me.

Running time?

Anyone? --Howard the Duck 04:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and Episodes

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)[reply]

source

http://www.imagebam.com/image/0cc1a2102327307 — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of Slater in Roots

Corrected the correct character title in the mini-series Roots. Slater in the television mini series was third mate and NOT first mate. Slater may have been a first mate in the BOOK, he was not first mate in the mini series. Please review the citation, if you dispute this FACT. Please leave the edit alone and discuss on the talk page to properly dispute this fact. When answering please cite your source that claims Slater was a first mate in the mini series and NOT the book. Thank you. 65.8.137.14 (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares whether he's 1st, 2nd, 3rd... mate?? The character's name is Slater. That's all that was needed. There was no need to add anything. However, I am leaving the "third mate", and removing the botched attempt at a citation. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Musdan...who cares about the mini series Roots really? It is obvious that you do for you read it and the others who decided it was important enough to be included in Wikipedia. So, I reinserted the citation and reinstituted the third mate portion of it. Just a tidbit, if this site just included him as a simple shipmate, then I would have not put third mate and the citation correcting the incorrect inclusion of his being a first mate. 65.8.152.43 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May we please discuss this matter in an adult, objective, respectful manner without the juvenile squabbling?

Despite the credit identifying Slater as the third mate, Capt. Davies refers to Slater as the "first officer" (that is, the first mate), and Slater clearly carries out the duties of a first mate, not a third mate.

If Slater is just the third mate, then who and where are the first and second mates?

It appears that Slater truly served as the first mate, not the third mate.

Do we have a duty to adhere to an obviously incorrect or inaccurate closing credit?

That is, must we repeat that error in the credits?

Or is it OK to post what's correct and accurate?

Best wishes to all,

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section and overlinking

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;"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Historical Accuracy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have to say that that current one is white supremacists trash that has no place on an open platform. Look up How Europe Underdeveloped Africa By Walter Rodney if you need an official source in a book. Putting the racist drivel in a wiki about slave trade is also really on the nose, especially when it's in a section entitled historical accuracy. Considering the history of the slave trade was not only revised under the guise of states rights but also hidden to keep it going it's insulting that the one fact check is that whites aren't actually to blame. Please save that for stormfront. Bjornlyliterate (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-broadcasts

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)[reply]

Infobox broken

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