Talk:Whitewashing in film/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Timing

When was this page created? Is this subject noteworthy or is this a knee jerk reaction to academy awards.24.112.194.122 (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why this page even exists other than to promote racism and a social divide.24.112.194.122 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Page is over a year old. Topic appears to have been actively covered by reliable third-party sources since 2008 with the film 21. (Whitewashing in older films were identified retrospectively.) The lead section summarizes the coverage from these sources and explains the topic and why it has been considered relevant. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did not the anonymous use the "view history" button to see when the article was created? This is standard practice for every page in Wikipedia. The first edit in this article dates to 27 August 2015‎. And what do the Academy Awards have to do with the subject? Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

IP editor may not be familiar with the button. They're also referring to the resurgence of #OscarsSoWhite but do not realize that other trends have also been happening outside of that. (Though all part of the same framework of under-representation.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

About Middle Easterns & other questions

I think listing Middle Eastern people as non-white threatens the credibility of this list, even though it's a very important topic (can't believe that in the 21st century filmmakers can still get away with a white Tiger Lily...) The most obvious is the above mentioned Cleopatra for example, whose only proven ancestry is Macedonian Greek. Even if she was half Egyptian, automatically classifying Middle Eastern as non-white is problematic; there is a wide range of skin colors in the Middle East (for example, Turks and Persians are generally white, Arabs have darker skin (but the only ones I met who definitely look black are Southern Egyptians who identify as Nubian).

I don't know why a white actor playing Iranian Dr. Mahmoody in "Not Without My Daughter" is included... if we include every person who portrays someone from a different country, then Americans playing Germans could be here too. (Okay, I get it... Iran is in the Middle East, and in the eyes of whoever made this list, that makes him a PoC. Even if he looked like this and most Iranians look like this.)

Also, I'm not sure the last entry, about Linda Hunt, has a place here... there aren't many little persons among actors, in this instance they even had to cast a woman in a man's role (and this is not the only example, see Hoggle in Labyrinth), so in this case the decision was likely not made based on prejudice or ignorance (if you think it was, please name the Chinese-Australian little person actor who could have played the role).

BTW can we include films that are not yet filmed, but the casting decision is already causing furor? I mean, a white guy was cast to play Michael Jackson and it's offensive on many levels, it insults him not only as a black man, but also as a person with vitiligo and it strengthens the false rumor that he was bleaching his skin. Maybe with enough publicity the filmmakers can be made to change their mind and Wikipedia could help in that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.200.20 (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your comment. First of all, Wikipedia's coverage of a topic must be verifiable in reliable sources. Secondly, the coverage must be understood to be subjective, so if there are conflicting perspectives, they need to have in-text attribution. For example, Cleopatra is a contentious issue even beyond the film. For example, this says, "To sum up: it is quite possible that Cleopatra was pure Macedonian Greek. But it is probable that she had some Egyptian blood, although the amount is uncertain. Certainly it was no more than half, and probably less. The best evidence is that she was three-quarters Macedonian Greek and one-quarter Egyptian. There is no room for anything else, certainly not for any black African blood." I think the debate warrants the film's inclusion regardless, but we can certainly expand the coverage for that particular film to show the mix of perspectives.

Judging from what has been said in sources, there are a couple of ways to look at all this. An actor can "pass" as white. Keanu Reeves is one such example despite his mixed background. The other issue is one's ethnicity despite appearance. By and large, American and European actors can be interchangeable (though there is a whole distinct discussion about British actors getting American roles). For example, Rami Malek played an Egyptian character in Night at the Museum but passes as white in Mr. Robot. If he were cast in Gods of Egypt, he likely would have been accepted despite being able to pass as white like Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Gerard Butler do. So this can lead to some confusion. Alfred Molina has Italian-Spanish roots but passes as white in many of his roles. If he had Iranian roots instead, presumably his casting would not be controversial and be accepted as fitting. Unfortunately, there are not many sources that discuss these distinct ways to look at it. (A recent example is this where Charlie Hunnam can look like Edgar Valdez Villarreal but lack Mexican roots.)

As for films in development, on Wikipedia, we generally do not have stand-alone articles for them because there is no certainty that a film will be made. I think this stand-alone article threshold is appropriate to use for this list because it is a list of films, meaning completed or at least in production. Films that are in production are extremely likely to be completed and see a release. I'm aware of some controversies in this regard, like Ghost in the Shell or Death Note, but I think it would be more appropriate to include them in this list if they have actually started filming and thus warrant their own articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Erik, I think you might be missing the point. The many commenters on here aren't saying that Middle Eastern (particularly Mediterranean and Persian people) "pass" as white, they are saying, correctly, that they ARE white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.19.151 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the Righting_Great_Wrongs essay: "Wikipedia is a popular site and its articles often appear high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." "So, if you want to...Explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue ... On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find WP:NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."

We can not lead in exposing potentially offensive or downright racist casting decisions. We can only follow what our sources are saying. If relatively reliable sources point to the casting of a white man as Michael Jackson as an example of whitewashing, we can probably include this film. If they ignore it, then we can not write a thing. Dimadick (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Erik, I noticed you mentioned that incomplete and/or unreleased films do not get stand-alone articles. Actually, we do have Category:Upcoming films with about 1,000 relevant articles, Category:Unreleased films with 166 articles, Category:Unfinished films with 89 articles, and Category:Cancelled films with 25 articles. Depending on the level of interest on such projects, we can still get enough sources for a decent article.

The anonymous user can get registered and get working on notable upcoming films, if he/she thinks he can get enough sources for them. Non-notable films tend to not be mentioned in our wider articles, such as this list. Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am very familiar with working on articles about future films. :) I used to do that quite a bit when I started on Wikipedia. The distinction I am making is between a film that is in development and a film that has started filming. Notability guidelines for future films are the guidelines that we follow in this regard. A film in development may take a long time to get produced, if it ever does. When filming does start, it is much more of a sure thing. For example, a live-action adaptation of Ghost in the Shell has been going on since 2008. It's possible that it could finally start filming soon, or it could take another decade to get going. So what I mean to say here is that if a film has started filming, and there is sourced discussion about whitewashing, then it can be included (since it will have its own stand-alone article by then). Before that would be too premature. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell

Undid revision by 104.162.105.94, who removed Ghost in the Shell adaptation. Term "whitewashing" INCLUDES changes in characters race during adaptation (or remake) - otherwise we would have to also remove Batman Begins, 30 Days of Night, Dragonball Evolution, The Last Airbender, Drive, Hunger Games, Lone Ranger, Star Trek: Into Darkness and The Martian from the list - and it would contradict contents of the actual article.

So replacing Japanese characters from the original with characters that were "always white" IS whitewashing, just a different kind than outright casting white people as other races (so whateverface - blackface, yellowface etc.).

Besides, use your freaking judgement! Does "Motoko Kusanagi" seriously sound like a white character to you? Jesus. (And if they will make her have "Japanese ancestry" to justify the name, casting actor without such ancestry - Johansson, in this case - is still whitewashing.)

Also I really hope this isn't gonna turn into an edit war. Shinobody (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur that reliable sources have discussed this whitewashing. We do need to be mindful that there may be US adaptations of non-US source material that would not be discussed as whitewashing by reliable sources (e.g., The Departed being based on Infernal Affairs, as least as far as I know). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The film has just started shooting less than a month ago, the name of Johansson's character in it is not currently known outside of those involved in the production, for all we know she could end up being called "Matilda Kringle". I would say to wait until at least the trailer shows up before including it in such a list and I agree with Erik that it's definitely a slippery slope, why not then include every single remake of an Asian film where the characters are now white? be it Infernal Affairs, The Ring, The Grudge, Dark Water,... This list is just totally arbitrary and should be completely reshaped as I discuss below. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Retitle?

The AfD rationale (at least as I interpret it) seems to be concerned with the fact that the title gives off the impression that the whitewashing in the various roles is a definitive thing rather than something that could be left open to interpretation. Some of these certainly can be considered definite whitewashing, but I do note that the list starts off with the disclaimer "Films in the list below have been described as whitewashed".

Maybe the article should be retitled to something like List of films featuring roles described as whitewashing? That would better reflect the lead sentence of the list section and would help solve any issues that the nominator poses like "What is considered whitewashing often varies by source", in the case of Mendez from Argo or the character of Mindy Park, where the author himself said that he "perceived Mindy Park as Korean but said he did not explicitly write her as Korean".

If this has any support, feel free to consider this a formal retitle request. I just figured that this would be a happy medium. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I've thought about this as well for the reasons you've articulated. The possible retitle I've had in mind is whitewashing in film, which would be like white savior narrative in film. Like you said, it would avoid being definitive across the board, and the list of films can simply be films that have received reliably sourced criticism. Would that be a possibility? I find "described as" to add too much wording. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if this should be a "list" at all, or rather an article with a list in it. If it's "expanded" into an article, it can include cases of black people getting flack for taking "white" roles (like Michael B. Jordan in the Fantastic Four or John Boyega in The Force Awakens). I created a redirect for Whitewashing in Hollywood. Maybe Whitewashing in film is the way to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that information belongs in colour-blind casting. It's linked to in the "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah I didn't know that page existed. Now for the U.S. vs. U.K. "colour" vs. "color" discussion. :) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• I like the idea of retitling this Whitewashing in film since it makes it a bit more vague and like you said, it's really more of an article with a list than an article - and really should be more of an article in general. As far as color-blind casting goes, that's a good point. I think that this is a similar but somewhat different concept than CBC since CBC can go either way while whitewashing is seen as specifically white people playing other races and ethnicities. I'd say that we could probably get away with two different articles and just put a hatnote or "see also" in the other article since they work so closely together. Merging hasn't been suggested but I don't think that this would be a good option given that each deserves their own article. Maybe they could be pulled together in one larger article about race in film? Or at least American film, since these articles do tend to be US centric? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

  Someone tried to unilaterally move the article to whitewashing in media, which is way too broad (and there is plenty to say about film alone). I reverted the unnecessary move, but I think we should go ahead and do whitewashing in film. I have not seen as much coverage for other media. A separate article for whitewashing in media should be created, with a summary section for film (and a link to here), plus regular sections for other media until the content can be split off into their own articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  TV Tropes, as usual, has a more comprehensive list than ours; http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/RaceLift/ChangingTheMinority gives non-film examples such as Battlestar Galactica, Tintin, the musical Rent, and the granddaddy of the trope, Othello.

  Splitting this article into an empty one about "media in general" and the current medium-length one about "film only" won't work well. Wikis tend to grow in a "add to what's already there" pattern, so if we do want to broaden our coverage to other media, it would be best to use the current list as a seed for entries in other mediums. The subjects (film vs. all media) are entirely compatible, so enforcing a rigid separation is unnecessary. When the "all media list" gets too large, that would be the right time to spin out the largest section (film) as its own list again.--Father Goose (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  There is enough film-related content for it to be split off from the get-go. To unilaterally redefine the scope to be all media and to not contribute any non-film content to actually have the article fit the wider scope in a balanced manner is detrimental. This topic is highly notable on its own right, possibly more so than other media. How about we work together to create a fairly high-level whitewashing in media article? We could have a paragraph for each type of media, and the summary paragraph for film would link to the fuller article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  Doing some research on the TV side of things, it appears that "whitewashing" has a different meaning, where actors are mostly white in the first place. The coverage I found talks more about more diverse TV shows that are countering that particular whitewashing. We'll need to find sourcing that covers both definitions, that of overabundance and that of replacement. I assume this is because films are more global in distribution and can also be headline-making. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  My theory is that films are more often adapted from other media than TV series are. It isn't whitewashing if a character is depicted/cast as white from the get-go.

  I don't know what sources you came across that used the term "whitewashing" to refer to disproportionate white representation in media. But you do make me aware that we don't have an article on ethnic diversity in media, or something to that effect. Representation of African Americans in media comes the closest, though it's specific to blacks and focuses mostly on negative depictions; Good Times, Cosby Show, Spike Lee, etc. are not mentioned. I'm not volunteering to get it started; I just don't spend that much time on Wikipedia these days. I tackle things for an hour here and there if they catch my fancy.--Father Goose (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Latin/Hispanic isn't a race

I don't think (anglo) white actors playing (white) hispanic/latino roles should be on the whitewash list. Only if the race of the hispanic/latino character is specified, i.e. afro latin or mixed/mestizo hispanic. DJokerNr1 (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I am also removing Biblical figures. The Levant area is multi ethnic and has historically been multi ethnic. BTW people of the Levant (Lebanese, Assyrians, Jews) are classified as white in most, if not all censuses. DJokerNr1 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, removing additions, where race isn't specified, only speculated by fans. DJokerNr1 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Nationalities are NOT races

Puerto Rican, Chilean, Mexican, etc. These describe the persons/character nationality, not their race. Therefore if the character is not described as example afro Mexican or mestizo Chilean, the using of Caucasian characters to play characters of these nationalities doesn't fall under the category of white washing, since all of these nations/region have very big Caucasian populations. DJokerNr1 (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue with adding biblical films into whitewash categories.

Biblical setting and people usually happen in the Levant and the people and characters involved in the settings are classified as white by every census thart has racial categories(including the likes of the US, Brazil). I am removing this. Unless you want to make the argument of WASP washing is an issue in the film.DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're not going to remove them because reliable sources have written about Biblical epics being whitewashed. A very quick Google search shows this to confirm the nature of such films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You talk as if this individual was there and interacted with these people. The race and looks of these people hasn't been established. This is plain radicalized nationalist BS. If they make a film about Syrian civil war and cast a white man with blue eyes to play Bashar, you'll have a problem with the fact that he's white washed or Anglo white washed? this is such a badly written book it might as well say a white woman can't play Dilma Rouseff because she's Latin. LATIN! (for the weak mined; Dilma Rouseff is of European descent). DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, this is armchair-sociologist logic that ignores reliable sourced coverage of this topic. Your example is tangential and requires engagement of your logic, which does not belong here. If a film about Rousseff is miscast according to reliable sources, then we would include it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So you cite armchair-sociologist sources to counter mine. I bet I at least visited the Levant and know what the people look like and how they see themselves. Unlike your'e reliable racial piece authors. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I put forth no such logic on my own. The sources in this article discuss what is considered whitewashing, and the article summarizes the sources. I cannot engage your so-called logic because you're trying to draw together unrelated bits of information such as the U.S. Census to make your push. And it sounds like you're saying you personally know better than the sources here? Do you even want to follow any sources? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Tony Mendez doens't identify as hispanic

As any educated editor would know, hispanic isn't a race. This belongs on the list why again? an arbitrary race line between actors with Anglo sounding names vs actors with Spanish sounding names?DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It belongs on the list because reliable sources have discussed the whitewashing for this film. Contrasting commentary has been included where applicable, such as Ridley Scott defending his casting for Exodus: Gods and Kings. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

it isn't a relaible source becasue it can't tell the difference between cultural identity and race. Let me direct you to Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States. One of the stereotype is that hispanics are a homogeneous RACE of brown people (mestizos) which is incorrect. Oh...BUT THE SOURCE! THE SOURCE! right? DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying reliable sources should be dismissed when they say there has been criticism of the role being whitewashed? In addition, based on these sources that you personally contest, race and ethnicity are what is discussed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No i say a reliable source isn't a reliable source when the author is so uneducated he/she can't tell the difference between cultural identity and race. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

List should not include characters that were INSPIRED by a figure of anything race

Characters are inspired by multiple historical figures of same and different races. That doesn't make them white washed. Namely the film 21. It isn't a historical drama or a biography film. The real life asians counterpart are not the ones depicted in the film, they are just the inspiration for the characters. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources have discussed this film being whitewashed. In particular, the criticism has to do with under-representation of Asian actors in cinematic roles (as the sources report). Do you even care what any sources say? You seem to be shooting from the hip with your opinions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

again with the reliable source nonsense. did this reliable source specify why a film that was INSPIRED by real world characters and LOOSELY based on their story classify as a whitewash? DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, these sources cover the criticism of the film's whitewashing. Asian actors are under-represented in films, so 21 was a film where they could have been represented. Instead, white actors were cast. See this for coverage about whitewashing of such roles. 21 and other films listed in this Wikipedia article are there. Are you saying that that source should be rejected entirely? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

yes. and they should've been, IF it were a historical film, a documentary, or a biography flick. they weren't any of those. The asiannes of the films ends at them being an inspiration. The characters in the film were independent creations. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Is white ashing equal to Americanizing?

I'm asking this because a lot of the films listed take liberty in amusing the character being non White Anglo Saxon Protestant, even when the character's could be see as for example white hispanic. DJokerNr1 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Is white washing more than yellowface/blackface???

Why is it necessary to include white characters, that were inspired by asian/black figures in the list as well. And why is that whitewashing?DJokerNr1 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Problematic section heading

Can an uninvolved editor please address the problematic section heading in this article? It has a highly POV tone that was added by an editor who has been contesting many entries despite their being well-referenced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

specify. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You know what the section heading is. You're being shouty with "ASSUMED", which is extremely out of place for Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

shouty?? lol no. hihghlighted more like. But I can make it small characters if it hurts your eyes. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

DJokerNr1, you really need to tone down your rhetoric. You're making edits that are pushing a POV, and then you're coming here to the talk page with disrespectful attitude. If you continue like this, I don't think it's going to end well. Erik has made a reasonable request that you not use capital letters for emphasis. I'm sure this is somewhere in the manual of style, but, honestly, it's just a common-sense issue that shouldn't even need to be codified there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

that was meant to be playful. and i did change the characters. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Italics is not any better. The POV tone is still evident, especially considering your personal dislike of films being under this list. Consider this possibility, the article could be renamed whitewashing in film, and we could have just a "List of films" that list films for which reliable sources have covered whitewashing criticisms. Like Tokyogirl79 said above, we do not need to be definitive but to show that the films' casting practices has been discussed as whitewashing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

carefull with the accusation. I also added Twilight and taylor lautner playing a non white character. but it as removed in your reverts. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this was sourced to racebending.com. I don't think this is a reliable source. And I agree with Erik that the header still looks too POV. It looks like it's trying to throw the article's contents into doubt. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

you might want to add Twilight to the list. I added it before but was removed. Taylor Lautner plays Jack Black, a native american character. Taylor is full white and never verified his distant native ancestry, similar to Johnny Depp. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not finding any sources that would fall under WP:SOURCE that report on Lautner's casting being criticized as whitewashing. If anything, a source like this shows that his casting is embraced. While Racebending.com has been critical of a range of films, we reference third-party sources. For example, it criticized the casting in The Last Airbender as whitewashing, and this was covered by many third-party sources. This is the case for many such films on this list. Another instance of whitewashing is The 5th Wave, but I was not able to find any such sources reporting on that. This is the application of WP:NPOV, that film of such criticism is appropriate to list if sources demonstrate that weight. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've marked the edit request as "answered". I don't really see the point of including a header or note that questions the legitimacy of the list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I added the note because Latin American characters in the list are always assumed to be non white. despite the fact that neither Latin not Hispanic is a race. For the sake of a balanced article, the header note has to stay. DJokerNr1 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I also added referred to, because the term is rarely used outside the asian blogosphere and it is more of an unofficial term than an accepted one. And prior white washing was referred to as the practice in which white actors played minority characters(yellowface/blackface)DJokerNr1 (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hunger Games

The article claims that "Readers perceived Katniss and her people to be nonwhite". This seems very dubious. Which readers? How many? Was it a majority of readers or even a large number? What is the source for this claim and what is their evidence? Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is pure POV pushing. Katniss' race has never been highlighted. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

From the books, we do know that both her sister and mother are blonde. Torven (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Extremely problematic list

Is it relevant for Wikipedia to include an article about "whitewashing"? Sure. Should this be presented as a seemingly arbitrary one-sided list of films never presenting the other side of the issue? I don't think so. I propose that this article should be merged with the redundant Racebending one and turned into a general history of let's say "ethnicity-swap casting" in Hollywood over the years, using certain key examples where both sides would be presented. Such an article would additionally be able to discuss not only instances where white actors have portrayed characters outside their ethnicity, but also the reasons, if any, why, as well as instances where non-white actors were cast in what were traditionally "white roles" and what reactions, if any, that entailed, and of course not forgetting instances where one minority was swapped for another (for example the uproar over the casting of three Chinese actresses portraying Japanese women in Memoirs of a Geisha). Happy Evil Dude (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing on its own is a sociological trend. For nonwhite actors to take traditionally "white" roles is not comparable and is instead appropriately covered under colour-blind casting. The Memoirs of a Geisha instance does not really belong in any particular broad article based on any reliably sourced coverage I can recall. Perhaps there can be an article about Japanese-Chinese relations in film, referencing articles like this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The two topics are not the same phenomenon, but opposites: whitewashing is usually a form of bias (whether or not it's conscious) whereas color-blind casting is the deliberate avoidance of bias. However I agree that the racebending article is redundant; as a term it's either synonymous with whitewashing, or a muddling of two opposite phenomena.--Father Goose (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If you notice the contents of the "racebending" article, this is apparently a 2010s neologism based on the term "airbending" from the animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender. I am not certain how prevalent the term is, but it lacks a historical perspective. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

3 March 2016

I've reverted many unsourced additions, and I've restored removals based on editors' POVs in disregard of the reliable sources that exist. In addition, the scope of this article is about the sociological trend of whitewashing as contributing to under-representation in films (per the sources that write about the topic). Nonwhite actors playing "traditionally" white roles do not count because it is not a sociological trend nor a matter of under-representation. Editors' POVs need to be kept out of this article; Wikipedia needs to follow the reliable sources that write about this specific topic and term and summarize their coverage for readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

US census doesn't regard Hispanic/Latino as a race. I direct you to the US census or demographic section if you don't believe me. Also source of white wash aren't reliable, since they cannot distinguish a cultural/linguistic group form a race. if you disagree. feel free to make your arguments and provide sources. DJokerNr1 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

POV pushing is a big problem on this page. For example in the hunger games, the race of katnis has not been established, neither has been the races of the characters form Puerto Rico, Chile, Mexico etc. Taking it upon yourself to establish the race of the character that hasn't been pre established is WP:Original. DJokerNr1 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave reasons to each and every one of the articles i removed. I believe I gave sound reasons. Please look them over before you start to blank. DJokerNr1 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please observe WP:BRD before you drastically overhaul the article. You cannot bring in the U.S. Census as a source for this topic because it is not related to the discussion at all. There is no POV pushing here; all content here is based on reliable sources. There is no original research involved. POV pushing is your disagreeing with these reliable sources and changing it to how you see things. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're reliable sources are opinion pieces and blogs with questionably racial tones. Also you didn't address the sepcific changes i made. i don't just blank. DJokerNr1 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You removed the film Aloha despite many, many reliable sources discussing the whitewashing in this film. Why? I see that you even removed Exodus: Gods of Kings, which was a hugely discussed film as well. Your evaluation of sources is highly questionable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Very simple, the supposed Hispanic character in Argo doesn't identify as Hispanic <- which is a cultural identity btw not a race. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating how you originally researched the matter and pushed your POV on the matter. You're completely disregarding reliable sources in this regard. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You removed Gods of Egypt as well?! I don't understand at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, didn't realize Egyptian gods had ethnicities. BTW ancient Greece had a big presence in Egypt, with Greek blood running strong in Egyptian royalty. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You are unilaterally disregarding reliable sources discussing the whitewashing and are apparently personally trying to explain away the whitewashing. Your contributions are highly questionable in neutrality. 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to stop reverting here and let other editors weigh in. DJokerNr1 continues to partially revert and restore problematic content like this ("Whitewashing is the term given by some commentator to the casting practice in western media, in which white actors are cast in historically nonwhite character roles, who don't see it as color-blind casting") which is wording of the editor's own contributing rather than from any particular source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Run. Use words like problematic, when in reality you don't' have anything meaningful to add. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

And what's your issue with me specifying it's a western phenomena. Or are you saying people in Bollywood and Nollywood and in the east asian cinemas are falling over themselves to hire white actors to replace their own? DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that your arguments are outside reliable sources covering this topic. You're casually dismissing films like Aloha and Gods of Egypt even though many reliable sources have written about the whitewashing in them, instead applying your own armchair-sociologist logic. It misses the point of the topic entirely about the under-representation of actors of a particular race or ethnicity in these films. You also removed all the Biblical epics based on your so-called logic even though much has been written about how the casts of such films have been whitewashed. So your edits in their entirety are dubious. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. This is classic weasel wording. I agree with Erik that we should go by what the cited sources say, both for the definition and inclusion criteria. I don't see what the US census has to do with this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything. Since this is an US problem and the films listed are US produced.DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We cannot synthesize the U.S. Census to add and remove content under the scope of this topic. It has nothing to say on it and thus should not be a source for consideration. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

DJokerNr1 has made a huge POV edit here. Clearly the editor is not interested in a NPOV presentation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, are there any edits by DJokerNr1 that you think are okay? I am finding just about all of them to be unhelpful, especially after they have demonstrated their willingness to override sources with their own perspective. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Erik, DJokerNr1's edits are non-neutral and unhelpful. For the record, I am the one who moved his comments from the header to the notebox but its not because I agree with them. It was just simply better than having them in the heading. I tried to make it a little more neutral by changing "assumed" to "considered" but was reverted. "Assumed" is a non-neutral expression of doubt while they all are "considered" to be examples of whitewashing by the source. His latest addition not only pushes his POV farther but is original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we should have metacommentary in the article. The list should not label itself as having certain qualities. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly removing content credited to WP:Reliable sources based on one's own pre-conceived notions is a big "no no". It is irrelevant whether the US Census regards Hispanics as an "ethnicity"; the under-representation of Hispanics in American films is part of the white-washing issue with even publications such as The Economist examining the issue from a statistical perspective. No sections of this article should simply be removed on the basis that the editor simply disagrees with the source. All challengges should be made on the basis that the source is not a WP:Reliable source, is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a particular POV, or there are sources which adopt contradictory positions. Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

7 March 2016

Editor DJokerNr1 continues to be disruptive in removing films that are reliably sourced. I've reverted removals of A Beautiful Mind, The Greatest Story Ever Told, The Hunger Games, and King of Kings. I ask editors who have commented on these edits so far to review these removals and agree or disagree with them. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate, TriiipleThreat, Betty Logan. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the sourcing could be better, Erik. Take the Beautiful Mind entry for instance; two of the sources are hardly authoritative (even if they are technically reliable sources) but this could be easily fixed by using something like LA Times as a source instead, which raises the bar as far as an RS challenge goes. Source credibility aside it does concern me that an editor is removing a film where a character's Central American background and ethnicity is completely erased from the story, and it is difficult to see this as anything other than agenda driven. I think this could be partly addressed if the lead were re-written to make it clear that "whitewashing" is as much an ethnicity issue as it is a race issue. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I found this for A Beautiful Mind as well (referring that piece, actually). I'll use the latter since it is a third-party source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

the problem with that 'source' is that the author can't seem to tell between nationality(ex Canadian), ethnic identity( ex. Italian Canadian) and race(ex white/caucasian). It literally reads her national origin is form El Salvador and the problem is the actress playing her is anglo. <- this is mindbogglingly ignorant. He doesn't have the basic education to know these titles are not mutually exclusive. I person can be white anglo and be born in El Salvador and have a Salvadorian identity. This is just another Tony Mendez situation, where they force an identity on someone to push their agenda. Latin America is not a homogeneous place. It's a very diverse both racially ethnically and national. My problem with the inclusion of Latin Americans in this list is that their racial background is not highlighted, yet they are instantly assumed to be the stereotypical hispanic(mestizo). I direct you to the Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States DJokerNr1 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on this edit summary, I think these edits are POV-pushing based on a disagreement with the conclusions found in the sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Please! you just want to clog up the list with poorly researched additions to give it WP:Undue weight. DJokerNr1 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

To update, I've moved the article to whitewashing in film per an earlier discussion. I think this helps us get away from being "definitive" about the films and instead apply in-text attribution where appropriate. For example, for more recent films, we could state that a periodical reported that people or a given organization criticized the casting practice, rather than just stating the practice as whitewashing outright. Maybe we can do that in instances where there has been pushback, such as the Argo example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As stated before, I think his edits are non-neutral and contradict WP:V and WP:RS. Also because all of his edits stem from the same issue which is currently being discussed at WP:NPOVN, he should refrain from editing the article until the discussion is closed. Otherwise it could be considered edit warring.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The move introduces a new problem: this article is still a list, and now it looks like it was originally meant to be an article but quickly devolved into people just adding such-and-such film they aw that fitted one or more definition of "whitewashed". Also, the definition seems blurry: does it refer to characters who "should have been" non-white (they are based on real people who are not white, or fictional characters in other media who were not white) but were made into white characters for the film? This is what the lead implies. But the picture (which may not meed fair-use if it doesn't depict the subject of the article...) is of a white actor playing a Japanese character, which is not quite the same thing as a white actor playing a white character who used to be a different race. The list itself seems to be mixed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A clear definition may not be possible (as is the case for some topics). We could revise the prose based on the current sources as well as those listed above to cover this blurriness (these distinct groupings). As for the picture, it is not copyrighted because it is from a trailer from a particular time (see the file description for more details). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: the picture. Ah okay. That's cool. But the blurriness should still probably be covered. A problem with finding sources might be that the two definitions seem to cover different eras in the history of cinema. Blackface (and to a lesser extent yellowface) are largely historical problems, but replacing non-white characters with white ones is a more recent one (perhaps arising as a response to the former becoming taboo?). I also think we should be very discriminating in the list's inclusion criteria: Iron Man 3 could easily be added and sourced, but the sources that accuse that film of whitewashing generally overlook the more complicated reasoning behind the change. We could likely write an entire article on "Whitewashing in X", where X is the name of almost any film in the list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we can and should make that distinction. One list criterion we could apply is to have multiple references for a given film. That is part of why I have added on references even if a film is already covered by one, and the references I listed above could help that further. I doubt a film like Iron Man 3 would have multiple sources (much less one?) if that criterion is applied. Essentially, we can list films here that are proven to be noteworthy (through multiple references) to show that there was truly real-world coverage about them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, a lot of people were criticizing the film for casting a "white actor" to play a "traditionally Asian character", with others pointing out that a more comics-loyal portrayal of the character would have been far more offensive than "whitewashing" in the sense of changing the character's ethnicity. The problem was further complicated when the film was released and <SPOILER WARNING FOR A 2013 FILM> another, "whiter" actor turned out to have been playing a more radically altered version of the character. Then there is the fact that blackface and yellowface used to be so widely practiced that we could find probably thousands of examples if we opened the floodgates. My point is that unless we are careful this list could wind up being expanded ad infinitum. The recently-removed (unsourced) claim that a half-Mexican named Quinn was "Anglo" and that his being cast was "whitewashing" makes me worried that the list might be filled with bullshit OR... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I know the criticism you mean about Iron Man 3, but did it get covered in reliable sources or not? Sometimes criticism does not rise to noteworthiness to be published. For example, apparently the film The 5th Wave has some whitewashing, but no reliable source apparently commented on it. For what it's worth, I added Lawrence of Arabia with the write-up that you just reverted to. Some other editor inserted the second sentence. We'll have to be vigilant for such unsourced passages and keep it to the sourced ones. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hispanic roles

Right now, there are several Hispanic roles assumed to be non-white, but at the same time several Hispanic actors considered white. There are also way too many entries sources to clickbait list articles for my comfort. Considering that it makes accusations at a number of living persons, we should have better sources, and we should not be making unsourced assumptions.Torven (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources you dispute do not list films in a vacuum. If they list films, it is because the film was subject to criticism. It is easy enough to locate the originating criticism and add the sources that covered the matter and ultimately led it to qualifying to be on a list. We can revise the prose to use in-text attribution particularly with varying points of view. For example, with Argo, this can be used to state that the organization contested the casting of Affleck, and we would also keep Mendez's statement as well. Such contesting is what ultimately led to being on a list. If there is a film that you think was not criticized before being listed, we can search to see if there is any background or not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, off the top of my head would be, where is the source stating Alicia Nash is a non-white Hispanic, conversely, if we are assuming Hispanics are non-white, why is Alfred Molina listed as a white actor? Also, is there a non-list source citing the criticism of Katniss in The Hunger Games? Because the book makes it fairly clear that her family is white. Torven (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

For Alicia Nash, this says, "Nash in real life was married to Alicia Larde, a Salvadorena whom he had met while she was studying physics at MIT in the 1950s. In the film, Larde is referred to simply as 'Alicia Nash', her identity and national origin from El Salvador is ignored, and she is played by a white Anglo actress, Jennifer Connelly." For The Hunger Games, the last reference in the film's entry is a book that wrote about the overall criticism and the reasons behind it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Being Salvadoran is not an indication of color. Do you have a source that explicitly states she is a non-white Hispanic, because that is not an assumption we are allowed to make here.Torven (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The source for The Hunger Games is talking about fan theories on the character. The only authoritative statement from the author I have seen is this interview, where she explicitly states that Katniss is not biracial. There are enough actual instances of whitewashing that we shouldn't have to stretch for poor examples that undermine the entire concept. Torven (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Remember our standard is verifiability, not truth. All the entries are verified by reliable sources, we do not use our own thinking to assess the truthfulness of the source. Now, if you think a particular source may not be reliable then that is another matter and should be examined on an individual basis. Keep in mind, reliability means that the publication has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that we have conflicting sources, several referencing a theory attributed to "readers", and one quoting the author denying that theory. Torven (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Then present both sides of the argument.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The matter has been framed as whitewashing. The above source refers to this, and this also refers to it, saying, "His wife, Alicia Nash, is from El Salvador, but the movie made no mention of her ethnicity and the part was played by Jennifer Connelly, a non-Latina, who won an Oscar for the portrayal." This is another non-list source mentioning the whitewashing as well. This abundance of sources cements the film's inclusion here. We can discuss the wording, but I am not seeing grounds for removal. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would have much less of a problem with it if any of those sources actually stated that Alicia Nash was not white. The sources all state her country of birth or her ethnicity, but none mention her race/color. On a side note, the reference to Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer is a bit out of place. Jolson did wear blackface in the film, but the character he was playing was not African-American; he was a Jewish singer who performed in blackface. Torven (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing isn't just limited to race, the phenomenon extends to ethnicity as well. Casting is sometimes used to remove ethnic traits too. I think the problem here is that you are taking a narrow view of the practice, and that is at odds with how current sources commentate on the issue. The phenomenon has evolved over time: Hollywood used to use blackface and yellowface to cast white actors in non-white roles, but as this became culturally unacceptable Hollywood started reconfiguring the characters themselves as white. As sources demonstrate, this isn't limited to just race but also extends to ethnicity too. Betty Logan (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Betty said it well, that it is both race and ethnicity. For the latter, it appears that criticism arises when a non-European ethnicity is not represented by the actor. This seems to tie into the general issue of under-representation in film, in this case Latin under-representation. The scope of this article has been refined to list films that have been subject to criticism, moving away from the overly definitive scope before. This better suits combining points and counterpoints for a given film that is not "obviously" clear-cut so readers can draw their own conclusions (but still see that there was criticism). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Then that needs to be reflected in the lede. Right now the lede discusses white actors in traditionally non-white roles. If the article is about actors of specific ethnicities performing as characters outside those ethnicities, that needs to be stated and specified. It also needs to apply across the board. There are a number of Jewish, Hispanic and mixed-race actors that are labelled simply as "white actor". I'll pull together some sources when I have time later today, but you have a lot more time invested in this article, and I wanted to give you a chance to get things pointed the direction you wanted before I started changing things. Torven (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Torven, I've incorporated the Hunger Games author's statement to Entertainment Weekly in the article. Do you know of any sources that respond to the issue of the Caucasian casting call even though it was apparently not necessary to call for a white actor? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)