Talk:Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

African diaspora

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Songs

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Film: American

	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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

NPOV[edit]

Does anyone have any thoughts on potential judgement or bias in this article? Wikipedia is not here to tell us what is or is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a guide to moral right or wrong. Description seeems fine, but statements like "deplorably irresponsible both at the time and now" seem a bit moralistic. This isn't Bing, it's not a decision engine. Kjarvis86 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The way the article is written is preachy and moralistic. It doesn't follow the Wikipedia neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy. Most of the "Controversy over content" section appears to be original research or the opinion of editors, and should simply be struck from the article. The last paragraph purports to quote Walter Lantz, but there are no verifiable references.—Quicksilver^{T @} 08:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see this "bias" that you speak of. Pointing out why the short is controversial is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. "Morals" have little to do with it -- utilizing rationality and sensibility(both of which are well within the guidelines of Wikipedia) realize that the short does contain offensive material which can be highlighted and explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.163.254 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjarvis86 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Yes the 'controversy over content' section should be rewritten and does seem like some of it could be here-say. But I don't feel like talking about how controversial this cartoon is is a biased position. I'm a young white male. I just watched this short for the first time and was incredibly offended. I'm not sure there was anything I noticed about the depiction of blacks in this short that wasn't degrading. --71.205.211.194 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kjarvis86 and Hydrargyrum. Although the cartoon may be offensive, it is not Wikipedia's place to pass judgment. Wikipedia does, and should, contain information on topics that some may find inappropriate (see WP:NOTCENSORED). I think that the section should be deleted until we have sources that can verify that there is in fact controversy over the cartoon. The section obviously contains original research and an editor's opinion, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia. --BurtAlert (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted until correctly sourced and not just POV andi064 ^{T . C} 17:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

While the short is in the public domain, I doubt that the lyrics to the song are, so I suppose they should be removed. I'm not sure of their status, though, considering they're intrinsically part of a larger work that is no longer copyrighted. 108.1.102.69 (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is to be found as sheet music http://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/handle/10315/17899

--78.51.89.105 (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]