Jump to content

Talk:Whitewashing in film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shinobody (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 26 February 2016 (→Ghost in the Shell). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

list title

Title of this list strikes me as inherently pejorative, and the narrative doesn't support using the term "whitewashed" as an accepted description of what the list contains. I respectfully suggest reconsidering the title and/or description in the narrative. Townlake (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article use the term "whitewash". Per WP:UCRN, it is recognizable and natural. It has been the key term used for the recent Aloha as well as the upcoming Stonewall. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but nevertheless, isn't it effectively an alternative usage of a common metaphor that itself shares its name with a common painting process/solution? I don't think it's without its share of confusion and we may be engaging in whitewashing if we ignore this. Even our article on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy isn't listed as "Climategate." (Albert Mond (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
The term is pejorative and POV; I say this because it is my POV and I use it pejoratively. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Climategate redirects but Deflategate is its own article. What is the criteria in naming these topics? As for this topic, looking through the guidelines, WP:NPOVTITLE seems applicable here. First, it's definitely not "a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors", as evidenced by the sources. The subsection WP:NPOVNAME talks about the prevalence of the term in reliable sources being a factor in actually using it for the Wikipedia article's title. The term "whitewash" and its variants seem to be more common in the 2000s and 2010s to date, so I don't see it as merely a trendy slogan that will pass. It has come up in distinct cases, which seems to be from 21 (2008) up to the present. Older films are recognized as having whitewashed roles more retroactively. (Does not mean that blackface and yellowface and similar notions were not discussed before that, but there is some interchangeability happening here.) Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a POV title. How about List of films featuring white actors in non-white roles? Because that's what this article seems to be about. StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list title (and even the article/list itself) is inherently problematic for numerous reasons, including: (1) The term "whitewash" has an entirely different and un-related meaning in its common figurative usage, so it's confusing if not misleading here. (2) Using Caucasian, or part-Caucasian, actors for non-Caucasian, or part-Caucasian, roles is so ubiquitous and longstanding (more the rule than the exception) that the list should comprise hundreds or thousands of films, especially if non-lead characters are being included. (3) The fact that non-lead roles are being included makes the list problematic in that every single film with even a tiny non-Caucasian character played by a Caucasian or part-Caucasian actor could be WP:COATRACKED into the list. (4) The text part of the article is simplistic, POV, pointy, and polemic, and does not by any means adequately cover the reasons that any given actor is cast in any given part; instead, the lede resorts to POV-pushing and politicizing of the very common practice. (5) Nor does the text cover Japanese characters played by Chinese actors (and vice versa, etc.) or any other Asian cross-casting; European characters played by Americans (and vice versa); gay characters played by straight actors (and vice versa); and so on and so on. (6) The list currently includes screenplays based on source material where races were changed (not cross-cast) in the screenplay, which is a different issue entirely, and therefore should not be included in the same list. There are more problems, but I'll stop here for convenience's sake. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. Maybe the article just needs to be deleted. It is, after all only List of films allegedly featuring whitewashed roles. It depends what one means by "whitewashing", but if we are using it in the pejorative sense, or if we are hinting at racist undertones, then (a) we only have the opinion of certain critics; and (b) in many cases producers have denied any wrongdoing. StAnselm (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an AfD. The article is full of pointy POV and cherry-picked WP:OR. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three more comments: (a) the WP article is actually called Racebending, so that would suggest we need to change this title; (b) I followed the link to the Salon article, and there it is suggested that "whitewashing" means changing the ethnicity of a historical person. That applies to many of the films on this list, but not (for example) to Breakfast at Tiffany's; (c) the fact that this article was created recently (a little over a week ago) makes me lean towards deletion. StAnselm (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletion, per WP:NOTESAL, there are numerous reliable sources about the list topic. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." There were many films on this list reiterated because of Aloha being whitewashed. There are reliable sources talking about Stonewall being whitewashed. When Pan gets released, the topic will come up yet again. Wikipedia summarizes coverage from reliable sources, and that is being done here.

Regarding renaming, I said above, "...looking through the guidelines, WP:NPOVTITLE seems applicable here. First, it's definitely not 'a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors', as evidenced by the sources. The subsection WP:NPOVNAME talks about the prevalence of the term in reliable sources being a factor in actually using it for the Wikipedia article's title. The term 'whitewash' and its variants seem to be more common in the 2000s and 2010s to date, so I don't see it as merely a trendy slogan that will pass."

Lastly, this list does not mean that there are not other kinds of racial casting disputes, but white actors playing nonwhite roles is much more prevalent because of the lack of either nonwhite actors or nonwhite roles in Hollywood. That's why the article states that it is prevalent in the film industry. The news articles, writing about whitewashing in the past decade, talk about this. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've moved away from favouring deletion, and requested a page move (see below). StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I'm still deciding whether I think the list should be deleted or just renamed. But it raises the issue of scope - what is the list meant to be? The point is made above that it could potentially include thousands of films. But the only two categories are both U.S.-based: Category:History of racism in the cinema of the United States (which is certainly tipping our hand that "whitewashing" means racist) and Category:Lists of American films - even though there are British (Lawrence of Arabia) and Australian (The Year of Living Dangerously) films included. StAnselm (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The article needs more context first. I've removed the category. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List criteria

Regarding Softlavender's concerns about the list criteria, we can establish specific criteria. WP:NOTESAL says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." I agree that we would not want to include thousands of films, so we should limit this list to films that are named as part of a group. I believe that all of these films already appear in a list. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSC is a similar guideline to consider here. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

I am starting a separate thread for discussing this article's neutrality. It appears that the concern is that decisions to cast white actors in nonwhite roles are not being explained enough. I will need to track down the specific commentary, which may be more available in non-list sources, but generally speaking, it has to do with the prevalent whiteness of Hollywood and so-called racially blind casting that reinforces that. For some individual films, especially the most recent ones, there is a lot more commentary that can be included. Exodus has Ridley Scott saying, "I can't mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such. I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up." So we can include that kind of commentary to show why decisions were made. This is not available across the board, though, due to the normalcy of the practice, so some listed films will not have much more to say, and we should definitely avoid opining. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added commentary now, which essentially cites white vs. nonwhite bankability on the studios' part. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The major neutrality problem is, of course, the title (see below). StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, leaning not moved. While the current title is clearly POV and that is generally a good argument for renaming, those opposing have given reasonable arguments that "whitewashed"/"whitewashing" is the clear common name in reliable sources and those supporting have not provided sources for their preferred title. Deletion arguments are outside the scope of RM and so were largely ignored in assessing the consensus here, but I do agree with them and think this article belongs at AfD – I fail to see what benefit it provides the encyclopedia. In the event it does survive AfD, I'd say no prejudice against renaming it to List of films featuring whitewashed casting as most of those who want the "whitewashed" title preferred that alternative. Jenks24 (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


List of films featuring whitewashed roles → List of American films featuring white actors in non-white roles – I would also be happy with List of films featuring white actors in non-white roles if there is consensus to make the scope of the article broader than just American films. But the current title is hopelessly POV. Even the wikipedia article on the subject is a racebending. "Whitewashing" is a pejorative", and suggests "racist". Allegations of "whitewashing" in a negative sense have been denied by producers of various films. The proposed title is a neutral, objective way of expressing the same thing. StAnselm (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. In this case, "whitewashing" is a term that violates NPOV. ONR (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a false claim. WP:NPOV does not say that non-neutral article titles are in violation of policy. It says at WP:POVNAMING, "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." We can discuss the prevalence of the term "whitewash", but it is incorrect to say that the policy bars its use here. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since this well-meaning suggestion doesn't solve the list's fundamental and unsolvable criteria problem. What is a "non-white role"? Where do you draw the line? The only place I can see this list ending up is AFD. Townlake (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Townlake and the fact that we don't seem to have similar lists for other categories of "racebent" roles. In case it is out of process for a requested move to result in deletion, I regard the proposed title as one iota better than the current one, but it is still terrible. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If (for whatever reason) there is no consensus to move the page, I intend to nominate the article for deletion, on the basis that an article should not exist here under this name. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your goal is to ignore the consensus if the article title remains unchanged and to game the system by applying the same argument used here, instead pursuing deletion instead of renaming? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. Deletion is my second choice, but it is preferable to keeping the article at this title. In any case, my comment was not about ignoring the consensus, but what to do if there is no consensus (which may well happen if people who favour deletion oppose the move). StAnselm (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It contravenes deletion policy to pursue outright deletion of a topic when the outcome of the RM is that there is no clear consensus for changing the title of the topic's article. It is not one of the reasons for deletion. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You realise, don't you, that the list you linked to says "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following"? StAnselm (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting a topic because of the title of its article is unprecedented. In any case, it is not doable. WP:TITLECHANGES says, "Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." It even says, "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is 'right' in a moral or political sense." Therefore, nominating the article for deletion after a no-consensus decision on determining the article title is inappropriate. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it will be up to the AfD discussion to determine whether deletion is "doable". As the above talk page discussion indicates, I have been on the fence on this issue, and I have gone for RM in the first instance. We'll see what happens here first - it's still early days. StAnselm (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NPOVNAME because the term "whitewash" and its variants is used "in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources," therefore, "Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title." It appears in many reliable sources, especially as it has pertained to the recent Aloha (as seen here) as well as the upcoming Stonewall (see here) and Pan (see here). Furthermore, WP:POVNAMING states, "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." In addition, WP:CRITERIA supports going with a recognizable as well as a concise title. It is unnecessary to make this list article's title wordier when this term can apply. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Per below, I would be okay with a move to List of films featuring whitewashed casting. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note you've just linked to the google search pages rather than specific examples. But running my eye down the list, I see things like has come under fire for “whitewashing”, accused of “whitewashing” the cast, etc. These are accusations, since "whitewash" is not a neutral term. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say it was a neutral term. I said it was a very commonly used term that is well recognized by readers because of its prevalence in reliable sources. I've linked to and quoted to the applicable policies in this regard. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "non-white roles" is wrong. That is only a portion of whitewashing. Other roles are converted from non-white to white roles; or where a non-white was used in a non-specific-race role, a white is substituted for the non-white. That's two different cases that are not the same as the proposed title but are still "whitewashing". Roles where white people pretend to be non-white, are relatively rarer nowadays, unlike a while ago. Whites using blackface for instance, is relatively rare. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Other kinds of racial casting disputes cannot be equated here. There is extensive commentary in the sources about the lack of racial diversity in the film industry. They say that the problem is that white actors disproportionately get racially neutral roles and that when it comes to characters or historical figures of nonwhite origin, white actors get the roles based on these too. Black actor Michael B. Jordan being cast as Johnny Storm in the latest Fantastic Four cannot be equated to this historical trend. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 10:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has Fantastic 4 got to do with anything here? Jordan is not white, and did not wear blackface to pretend to be black. His role did not switch from being Asian to being white. Nothing I have stated has any bearing to your response. What I said is that "whitewashing" is much bigger than just "non-white roles", in the very many ways that whites replace non-whites. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right! I thought you were saying you wanted the list to encompass nonwhite actors playing white roles. (I might have lacked my coffee when I responded.) I'm not sure what you mean here, then? Do you mean Hollywood being generally whitewashed? A white actor is more likely to be cast than a nonwhite actor for any particular role? If so, I think that can be discussed, but I am not sure if the term "whitewash" applies there. The sources I've seen talk about that tend to talk about racial diversity or underrepresentation. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or suggest List of films featuring whitewashed casting. The role is non-white. The casting is white or whitewashed. GregKaye 09:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support List of films featuring whitewashed casting too. The term "casting" did not occur to me. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but will add that "non-white roles" could be interpreted as implying a white default. Would have greater support for a title involving some variant of "racebending" or "racebent," but it would be hard to pull off without coining something new, I suspect. Not in support of deletion. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Racebending is synonymous to whitewashing, though? There have been other kinds of racial casting disputes, like Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm in Fantastic Four, but sources do not consider that as part of a historical trend in which white actors have played characters of color. From a sociological perspective, white actors (as well as other jobs) are the so-called "default" in the film industry, which is why there is also coverage about the lack of racial diversity. The term "whitewash" has appeared repeatedly in reliable sources, especially for the films of the past few years. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying they're synonymous, hence why it would be hard to pull off without coining something new. That is, my idea for a title with "racebending" or some variant of the term would have to be something like "List of films featuring white racebending" or "List of white racebending in film casting," not that I'm suggesting either of those. And, obviously, "white racebending" could be probably singled out and argued to be a coinage since I'm not sure what the conventions of "racebending" in common speech are. Plus, it's admittedly a mouthful. I've covered my opposition to a "whitewash" title in a previous post on this talk page, though. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Yes, you said the following, "Isn't it effectively an alternative usage of a common metaphor that itself shares its name with a common painting process/solution? I don't think it's without its share of confusion and we may be engaging in whitewashing if we ignore this. Even our article on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy isn't listed as 'Climategate.'" I do not find that it would cause confusion because reliable sources writing about films have frequently mentioned the term in their articles as well as their headlines, so per WP:CRITERIA, the term would be recognizable. It is especially more recognizable than racebending, which is not as often brought up in the sources. "Whitewash", in addition to paint, also means censorship, the result of a sports game, and a legal procedure. Can you clarify what you mean by "engaging in whitewashing" here? The term has been used by underrepresented parties themselves; I can't tell if you are being recursive in saying that the current title title racially whitewashes some other title that would work better. This is a sociological trend that will presumably fade over time, where other racial casting disputes are not such trends. If we had a racial diversity in film article (not just actors but filmmakers as well), the whitewashing trend would be a substantial part of the casting section. (As an aside, I do find "whitewashed casting" more suitable to use here.) Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Racebending" may not be entirely recognizable, but it is certainly pretty forward. The usage of "whitewashing" later in my post was intended to be demonstrative. What it meant was willfully ignoring or underestimating the potential for confusion of this article's title, but what it demonstrated was also the potential for confusion of this article's title. What's more, I think there's a possibility that whitewashing (as in racebent white casting) enjoys most of its usage in a political niche which is liable to create additional confusion - it's like if "Climategate" (which we don't use as the title of the associated article, in spite of its common usage and its recognizability as a coinage) had just been called "Watergate." (Albert Mond (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: It should be noted that most arguments in favor of changing the article title incorrectly reference Wikipedia's NPOV policy. There have been general claims that the article title is "POV" and "not neutral", as if WP:NPOV clearly supports this. As I argued above, this is not the case; most of the policy page focuses on article content. On that page, there is a single "Naming" section (WP:POVNAMING), that states, "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." This language is repeated on the article title policy page: WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:NPOVNAME under it. I've stated that "whitewash" is a term that is commonly used in reliable sources to be used here as well. The degree of application can be debated, but they have not been here, with the claims being unduly broad and thus inapplicable. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question

Are we going to list all 200 Cleopatras in film? If not, why are we listing one? Plus why are we implying that Cleopatra was a person of color? She was a Macedonian Greek, like Alexander the Great. Plus even had she actually been Egyptian, why would we then not list all other early Semites played by white Americans: Moses, Jesus, and so on? And are we going to list the 100 filmed Othellos played by white actors? And every Western from the dawn of filmmaking up through and including The Last of the Mohicans and beyond? And all of the tens of thousands of other films that contain white or part-white actors in non-white roles? This is only the tip of the iceberg of the problems with this article. Can anyone else see how ludicrous (and POV, cherry-picked, OR) this endeavor is? Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC); edited 07:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, please see the thread I started above: "List criteria". Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should add as many films as befit the trope and when its use can be sourced. To be honest the inclusion of Cleopatra as a non-white role is questionable to me. She was a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty who had no prominent Egyptian ancestry. There is a theory that her paternal grandmother was a native Egyptian based mostly on a single fact: Ptolemy XII Auletes, her father, was considered a "Nothos" (bastard). His actual mother is unknown. From the silence of sources, modern scholars have speculated that the mother was a concubine of lowly origin.

With Semitic people, the problem is that racially they are typically classified as part of a Caucasian race. They are not all that different in appearance to your average Indo-European speaker. Are they really non-white? With the Moors, the issue is that the term has been applied to people of Arab descent, people of Berber descent, people of North African descent, people of Sub-Saharan African descent (blacks), people of Iberian descent who converted to Islam, to Muslims in general, and even those of mixed ancestry.

Not all Westerns "from the dawn of time" actually had non-white roles, and when they did they sometimes cast non-white actors. For example, one of the earliest Western with an article on Wikipedia is the Buffalo Dance of 1894. The three dancers playing Native Americans were Sioux. Some of the 1970s revisionist Westerns actually cast notable Native Americans like Chief Dan George. Dimadick (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Cleopatra, I believe there is more commentary available about her being a person of color or not. We can gather reliable sources discussing this (ideally as it pertains to the film) to summarize for readers that situation is not all that clear. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This (page 171) could be worth including. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting addition, though the author there seems to be favorable to the view that ancient Macedonians were not all "white". I have heard such arguments before, mostly because the origins of the historical dynasties can be traced to Greek mythology, which also includes non-Greek ancestors of its dynasties. The Macedonian royal dynasty, the Argead dynasty, traced their lineage to the city of Argos. Whose legendary kings and ancestors of that line include Danaus and his nephew and son-in-law Lynceus, both Egyptians. Danaus was the ancestor of Perseus, founder of the Perseid dynasty. The Perseid descendants include Heracles and the Heracleidae. The historical Argeads claimed direct descent from the Heracleidae. Philip II of Macedon was an Argead king of Macedonia and Ptolemy I Soter, Cleopatra's ancestor, was said to be his illegitimate son. Assuming that the entire giant genealogical tree has some bases in fact, Cleopatra would have genuine Egyptian ancestry... but dating to the 2nd millennium BC. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that Cleopatra is being touted as a "person of color" in these lists just points up how unreliable and deliberately POV these clickbait articles are, even HuffPo. None of them are reliable, not even that spurious revisionist "this is how Cleopatra looked" POV nonsense. She was a Macedonian Greek. And even if she had actually been a Semite, so were and are all Hebrews and other Jews. Assuming this article stands (I don't personally think it should), I would say the only films worthy of inclusion are those whose casting was provably and demonstrably controversial at the time of the movie's release, not afterwards. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whiteness of Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra has been discussed in many places. I found yet another source here about it. We can have a good-sized paragraph discussing what different sources have to say about this film. Also, please see "List criteria" above for establishing specific criteria for including a film. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources is accurate, sensible, or reliable, as I have repeatedly pointed out. It's all just POV-pushing for page-clicks or agenda-pushing. And you have also not addressed the other myriad problems I have pointed out with this list or with your List criteria. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For certain films that require more context, such as Cleopatra, we can include additional sources, such as the two that I linked above. We can repeat the same for other films. For example, I added Ridley Scott's response for Exodus: Gods and Kings. What other films do you think requires more context? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming films

While this is not a reliable source, it highlights upcoming films where whitewashing appears to happen, and these films can be researched as they come out to see what is said about them in reliable sources. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over Zealous?

Some of the listed roles/actors are listed willy nilly. If this is really an article about prominent roles filled by "people of color" (a rather loose term) being taken by white/Caucasian actors then it should focus on the most egregious ones. Of course this would necessitate a uniform definition of race but instead of wading into that quagmire let's just compare some cases where the article and the sources actually whitewash to fit their own agendas.

The Social Network: "In the drama film, white actor Max Minghella plays the Facebook co-founder Divya Narendra, who is of Indian descent", well Max Minghella, while British is largely of Chinese descent. If half (or slightly more) white counts as "white" then many more roles would need to be put on this list, including many roles filled by biracial people or potentially even light skinned people of color or those that fit a "Eurocentric" standard of beauty.

The King and I (1956 film): "In the musical film, white actor Yul Brynner plays the Thai king Mongkut." Once again, Yul Brynner was also of Eurasian descent, he might have been sufficiently ambiguous to "pass" in Hollywood but as his own article notes, he was open about his Eurasian background.

Aloha (film) & Star Trek Into Darkness: Pale skinned, blue eyed anglo actors are shamelessly cast to fill (Eur)Asian roles (forgive my focus on these accounts but as a person of mixed descent I feel compelled to speak on this). While I am somewhat sympathetic to Emma Stone’s characterization of a partially Chinese woman who has to defend her heritage to those who think appearance=ancestry, Emma Stone’s character is supposed to be half Asian. No amount of genetic handwaving can get over that. Having Bennedict Cumberbatch play Khan is also particularly insulting to Sikhs. While it is (nigh im)possible that someone from India could look like that thanks to the miracle of genetics, the explanation for that would belong more on a Stormfront forum post than a casting sheet.

The House of the Spirits (film): A film no more guilty of colorism than Univision, Chile does indeed have white people. Demanding that a White-Chilean actor play a White-Chilean role and setting the same standard for all films would then widen this list exponentially. My German and Flemish Chilean forefathers who came to America were no less “White” than those Europeans who came directly to America, it did not make them people of color. The film also accurately depicts the racial stratification left over from Spanish colonization, though Antonio Banderas is supposed to play a mestitzo man.

I will refrain from further clogging up this thread but I felt compelled to present my case. Peranakan-24 (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points about the descent of both the fictional characters and the actors. I would like to see some sources that raise the same issues. Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've researched these titles and have only found that additional reliable sources out there have reinforced these films' listings here. The exception being Aloha, which has more coverage of the cast and crew's defense of the whitewashing on the film's own article that can be imported here, like what was done for Exodus and Noah. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the description of Yul Brynner as "white" is grossly misleading, given his Russian/Buryat descent. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Russians are white. I'm not sure if Brynner's Buryat ancestry has been verified. Obtrisgo (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement about Russians being "white" is hugely ignorant. Russia the biggest country on Earth by land area and contains a wide variety of different ethnic groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.153.209 (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Network

The Social Network 2010 [5][27]

This article states that "In the drama film, white actor Max Minghella plays the Facebook co-founder Divya Narendra, who is of Indian descent", but Max Minghella is only half Caucasian. His mother is Chinese, and he is dark eyed, black-haired and tan skinned. So, technically, with India being included in the continent of "Asia", he is at least the same (vague) ethnicity - "Asian". His father was the son of Italian immigrants who moved to the UK - also dark featured. So, I don't think calling Max Minghella a "white actor" is fair or accurate. This film shouldn't be listed in this article, simply because the one example of whitewashing in the movie is not whitewashing at all - it's a different ethnicity choice.

Celticcherokee (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The casting in this film is covered in this piece under The Wall Street Journal. Perhaps it can be placed in the "See also" section as tangentially related. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noah

What ethnicity were the characters in this film, and what ethnicity should have played them? It's misleading to say the film was "whitewashed" and had an "all-white cast" without mentioning that two of the actors were Jewish. If Jews can't star in a biblical movie based on the Old Testament, then who can? Either mention they're Jewish or remove the note about Noah. Obtrisgo (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources, The Week says here, "Noah cast Australian Russell Crowe as Noah, American Jennifer Connelly as Noah's wife, Welshman Anthony Hopkins as Noah's father, American Logan Lerman and British Douglas Booth as Noah's sons, and Briton Emma Watson as Noah's daughter-in-law... Noah's screenwriter explained his all-white cast by saying that the movie was 'mythical.'" CNN says here, "The same cannot be said for this past spring's 'Noah,' which has an even less diverse cast than 'Exodus,' and with greater racial implications, seeing as how all of humanity is supposed to have descended from Noah and his entirely white family." If there are sources that directly analyze the casting in a contrasting manner, they can be reviewed here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This quotes Handel saying that the Caucasian casting was on purpose, "We looked to make a cast, both on the boat and off the boat, who had as little difference as possible. And I want to be clear that there's no reason that that cast had to be Caucasian. We could have cast any Noah and built the world around him. In the end, as you know, we cast Russell Crowe, who is a tremendous actor and was a great fulfillment of Noah. And the rest of the casting followed from there." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"American" isn't an ethnicity. What does their being American have to do with anything? Again, what ethnicity should they be from? For a film to be "whitewashed", an actor of one ethnicity has to be playing a different ethnicity. So which ethnicity are they playing? Who made Jonathan Merritt the deciding standard for what gets written in Wikipedia articles on whitewashing? I notice you didn't include The Nativity Story, which Merritt does include. Is it because Keisha Castle-Hughes isn't white, even though her ancestry obviously doesn't match the character she's playing, Mary? And the text you wrote on Noah says the characters are "Biblical" while the actors are "White". Ari Handel doesn't make the same contrast in either of the references, so that's "original research", too (btw, nowhere is it said that we have to repeat others' mistakes. For example, if someone calls Max Minghella "a white actor", it isn't original research for Wikipedia to mention his biracial background instead. There's no obligation to incorrectly report Minghella as "white"). Obtrisgo (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., Russell Crowe's great-grandmother, Erana Putiputi Hayes Heihi, was Maori. I suppose he could be called "White", but he's a bit biracial. However, I know that this isn't really relevant to him playing a Biblical character. Obtrisgo (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Week and CNN are reliable sources to use here, and there are others that talk about whitewashing in Noah. Handel himself said he intended Caucasian casting for specific reasons that I've added to the entry. For Biblical films in general, much has been written about white actors being cast, so I am not sure what the issue is here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which piece of information are they reliable for, and which "POV" do they override? We do not have to report everything in every source ever. "Caucasian" encompasses many different ethnicities. Stating actors' ethnic backgrounds on a page about ethnicity is not "POV". If you refuse to include the ethnic backgrounds of the actors (and I have no idea why), even though they're relevant to the ethnicity of these specific characters, then I'm sticking a factual accuracy tag at the top of the article along with the POV one already there. Obtrisgo (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous sources that write about whitewashing in Noah, and the sources address the whole cast. Even the filmmakers explain why the cast is fully Caucasian, which is used interchangeably here. I do not see why it should be considered otherwise. The gist of whitewashing is to cast actors who pass as white in roles that would be considered nonwhite. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Cultural Politics of Colorblind TV Casting also comments on the matter as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say Noah should be removed entirely, I said it should be modified to include all the relevant facts about the actors' ethnicity. If you're going to stress that the film is "Biblical" and features "Biblical characters", then the actors' Jewish backgrounds are relevant (as they are for any other biblical movie). Omitting it is as absurd as omitting actors' Mexican backgrounds in a film about the Mayans, or their Norwegian backgrounds in a film about the Vikings. Obtrisgo (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below, it needs to be perceived in a sense about actors who pass as white playing roles that are expected to be nonwhite. It is not only about actors' backgrounds. For example, Keanu Reeves is not 100% white in his actual background, but he passes as white to be considered a "white savior" in the films The Matrix and Hardball. That is the essence seen here. The list topic is about actors who do not pass as white not being able to get roles because an actor who does pass as white is preferred, which sometimes warrants redefining the character and sometimes not. There are some cases where this is the opposite, but whitewashing, as sources say, is a long tradition. I am always on the lookout for sources to better discuss this topic, especially to address certain nuances brought up here, but I have not found them to date. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Whitewashing" is about casting white actors (I guess) in roles that they aren't ethnically appropriate for. Keanu Reeves being cast as a part Indigenous/Hawaiian character would not be considered whitewashing, because it fits his own background. To say that Ashkenazi Jews are ethnically inappropriate to play biblical characters would be at best a disputed statement, so their backgrounds should at least be mentioned (then readers can decide for themselves if it makes a difference). You oddly didn't include Keisha Castle-Hughes in The Nativity Story, even though Jonathan Merritt lists her, too. Obtrisgo (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Obtrisgo, Biblical epics have long been questioned for whitewashing. It happened for Noah, and the filmmakers did not even apply your argument in defending it, but a different kind of argument, which has been included in the article. I looked into your claims out of curiosity, and the figures of lore are not even Jewish. So the actors' backgrounds do not even apply here. There is zero source about this film that mentions their backgrounds as part of an argument or counter-argument, so I see no grounds for mentioning it as a counterpoint to whitewashing. Are you still believing that the actors' Jewish backgrounds, in spite of their characters preceding Judaism in biblical lore, help "protect" this film from the claims of whitewashing? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I didn't say Noah should be removed, I simply said that the actors being Jewish should be mentioned. I have no idea why you oppose the inclusion of this one sentence, referring to two of the seven main actors in the film. The characters are not actually Jewish, but the story originates from Jewish culture and the characters precede Jews in their genealogy, by several generations. It's like how the Vikings were not actual citizens of Norway or Sweden, but they are part of the culture of those countries, and in a film about Vikings, the actors' Scandinavian backgrounds would be mentioned. The "Gods of Egypt" were not actually Egyptian, either, they weren't even human; but we would mentioned an Egyptian actor starring in that film. Obtrisgo (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source stating the actors' Jewish backgrounds as a counterpoint to the whitewashing claims, then. Otherwise, we cannot synthesize: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." I just do not see any sources that mention it as part of the debate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing else to say. Add the information or keep the tag. In fact, you seem to have reached consensus among yourself to remove the tag, even though it was put on this article long before I came here. Obtrisgo (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no source to back the claim without synthesis, then there is no grounds for adding the information. That being the case, the inline template should be removed. I am fully willing to include the appropriate commentary that is relevant here, as I have done with several other films on this list. But if the commentary does not exist out there, then we cannot put forward this particular counterpoint. For what it's worth, I've notified WT:JUDAISM of this discussion. Feel free to follow through with WP:3O and other approaches to dispute resolution. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When did you reach consensus to remove the "neutrality" tag? It was added here by StAnselm in September. His concerns nor those of others have been resolved. Keep in mind that if you remove it, you'd be breaking 3rr. Obtrisgo (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please review that revision. It is much smaller than the current body of text, which I purposely expanded to include all viewpoints, such as hiring white actors to improve box office draw or to secure financing. The editor believed the topic should be deleted. Do you really believe the same? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the editor that there are many more problems on here other than just Noah, although Noah is one of the most misleading. You broke 3rr by reverting 4 times. You should revert yourself. Obtrisgo (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking inappropriately extreme measures. I reverted another editor for adding unsourced content to The Martian, and I correctly placed the inline template incorrectly re-positioned by you. You follow up with restoring a template that was been gone for a while now and no longer applies to this current draft. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you revert another editor or another issue, it makes no difference. From Wikipedia:Edit warring: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". The unsourced content with The Martian wasn't vandalism nor was it a BLP violation, so it doesn't count as an exemption. Again, I urge you to self-revert. Obtrisgo (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Obtrisgo (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the escalation, I've notified WT:FILM requesting input about Noah and about the POV template. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm's problem with the article was its title, which hasn't been changed. Obtrisgo (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerri Miller writes that the Jewish actors are "fittingly" cast for a "Biblical story". Yet you start the Noah section questioning the casting of a "Biblical epic film". Obtrisgo (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that would work. Your Google fu is better than mine! Can you add a sentence referencing that source and fill out a citation template? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 05:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This argument makes no sense

Jews don't believe that Noah was Jewish. Jews believe that the first Jew was Abraham. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, although Noah's son Shem is considered the direct ancestor of Jews (and others), making Noah an ancestor as well. And the Noah story comes from the Jewish religion and culture. Anyway, I think me and Erik have settled this. Obtrisgo (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it's settled. WP:LAME is a horrible page! --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Eastern and Southern European

The Greeks, Spaniards, Romans and Middle Easterners (not counting those from the Arabian peninsula) tend to lookalike, and are pretty much of the same "Mediterranean race". Both have light featured and dark folks, equally. Not sure why those in Western Asia are considered a "different" race? As such, if Russel Crowe, a man of Anglo-Celtic descent, plays a Spaniard in Gladiator, who are southern Europeans, and let's face it, darker than Celts, wouldn't the role of Maximus be "whitewashed" too? This list is rather biased and "Eurocentric" on this account. Either count Middle Eastern part of the Caucasian/white race, or list all the Anglo-Celtic actors who played Romans or Greeks in film as "whitewashed", because, let's face it, the average Southern European does not look like Russel Crowe and Sam Worthington (Clash of the Titans). But nah, because Mediterranean people are from Europe, despite their darker skin and curlier hair, they'd have more in common with Celts than a Jew or a Lebanese...(*sigh*).... Meganesia (talk) 9:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If there are sources for films like Gladiator and Clash of the Titans, these can be included. But there is too much focus here on details. I don't really want to get into personal assessments here, but this list is essentially about actors who pass as white, meaning that they have played numerous characters that would not be considered people of color, and they are then cast in these roles where the characters should be nonwhite. The list topic is part of a sociological trend where this approach happens far more frequently than vice versa. There is not a long tradition of actors who do not pass as white but play white characters. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Russell Crowe is 1/8th Maori as well, by the way (and his Maori ancestry has been verified, it's not just word-of-mouth). He's also part Scandinavian, not just "Anglo-Celtic". Obtrisgo (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope so. Because it's laughable to me. I mean, the Romans would have looked more like the Levants and Jews. But somehow, the media gives them a "free pass" on this when Anglo-Celtic or Germanic actors (who are far lighter) are chosen to play them. No, you wouldn't find sources on this. None whatsoever. It is rather politically correct to get Brad Pitt to play a Greek (Troy), but hell hath no fury when you cast an Italian even to play a Jew - Yeah, because somehow, that is totally "racebending" (pfft), considering that Jews and Italians would generally resemble each other. So an Italian playing a Persian is "whitewashing" (Alfred Molina in Not Without My Daughter), but an Anglo-Celtic looking person playing a Roman or Greek isn't? Seriously....This article is biased & Eurocentric, as it only counts Europeans as Caucasian/white, but Middle Easterners (Turks, Lebs, Armenians) as non-Caucasian. Meganesia (talk) 1:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is absurd. Is there also a list of European characters who've been portrayed by non-European actors? How about black actors who've played other nationalities, like Chiwetel Ejiofor playing an Indian in The Martian? And what about Omar Sharif playing Mexicans, Russians, Germans, or the King of Siam - where's he on the list? Should casting directors only ever cast actors who are the exact nationality and ethnicity of the character? Do actors need full genetic screenings before going to a casting call? Shame on you Wikipedians - Wikipedia is about factual information, not soap-box grinding personal political axes. This nonsense has no place on here.Gymnophoria (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Greeks, Spaniards, Romans and Middle Easterners" Greeks and Romans are considered European/White people, though in Antiquity they spread through three continents (Europe, Asia, Africa) and assimilated or partially assimilated many other ethnic groups. Just look at the categories we have about Romans and you can find Romanized Greeks, Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, Celts, Germanics, Punics, Berbers, Syrians, Arabs, and Jews. Examples include

The Spaniards are also considered white, but the ancestry of the ethnic group is thought to lie in an admixture of the various ancient and medieval people of the Iberian Peninsula: Iberians, Celts, Celtiberians, Tartessians, Turdetani, Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, Suebi, Alans, Visigoths, Berbers, Arabs, Moors, Guanches, and a few minorities.

The Middle East was never really dominated by any single language or ethnic group. The history of Western Asia involves multiple multiethnic empires like Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, the Asian provinces of Ancient Egypt, the Hittites, the Greek colonies and Hellenistic Kingdoms, the Lydians, the various Elamite, Median, Persian, and Parthian kingdoms, empires and dynasties, the Armenian dynasties, the Asian provinces of the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the Arabian caliphates and their Arabic, Iranian, Turkic, Mongol, and Tatar successors, the Crusade states, and various short-lived European colonial administrations. Not to mention relatively minor states like the Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of Judah, and any number of tribal kingdoms, city-states, and loose alliances. I seriously doubt that an average Middle Eastern appearance can be described.

The Mediterranean race was a concept used to describe a sub-type of the wider Caucasian race. "It is characterized by medium to tall stature, long (dolichocephalic) or moderate (mesocephalic) skull, a narrow and often slightly aquiline nose, prevalence of dark hair and eyes, and pink to reddish to light or dark brown skin tone; olive complexion being especially common." Thomas Henry Huxley tried to further define what people are included: "Melanochroi, or dark whites. Under its best form this type is exhibited by many Irishmen, Welshmen, and Bretons, by Spaniards, South Italians, Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, and high-caste Brahmins."

Giuseppe Sergi had his own definition of what people where Mediterraneans since antiquity. "Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Persia, Ancient Rome, Carthage, Hittite Anatolia, Land of Punt, Mesopotamia and Phoenicia. The four great branches of the Mediterranean stock were the Libyans, the Ligurians, the Pelasgians and the Iberians." He considered the Ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians and Somalis to be closer to the original look of the race.

The concept of the Mediterranean race has largely fallen out of fashion since the 1960s, though some recent genetic studies seem to confirm common ancestry from the Mediterranean area for many of the populations included in the original concept.

So are we to consider this people as white or not? They were certainly as mixed in origin as some modern populations. Dimadick (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples within this article of Italian actors playing characters from other parts of the Mediterranean - these should clearly be removed if this article is to retain any level of credibility.

Regarding the supposed issue of actors of Northern European descent portraying characters of Mediterranean or Middle Eastern descent - if these are to remain, caveats or explanations must be included, as this issue is at best ambiguous or unresolved. Most definitions of the racial group "white" would include people of Middle Eastern Arab origin, and nearly all definitions would include people of Turkish or Persian origin, so the argument that these are examples of "whitewashing" is certainly open to challenge at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.220.61 (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball

How can Dragonball Evolution be a whitewash when the main character(and the antagonist) is an alien? Is he from Space Japan? If using the manga or anime as a reference, most of the characters also appear to be Caucasian or at least racially ambiguous. I guess you could probably call this movie a "yellowash", since all of the racially ambiguous characters from the source material were cast as Asians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.8.241 (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a late answer but eh. Within the story itself, the world is dominated by Asian people people with some Caucasian characteristics. Goku, the main character while revealed to be a alien in what is now the second third of the story(manga has been resumed recently), he was seen as a Asian boy with a tail and good fighting talent before the reveal. Next when he grows up, his skin takes on a darker hue. You can see this difference when comparing him to his half alien son or Asian wife. An alien black haired character in a world dominated by Asian culture whose only noted feature before his species reveal was his strength, stupidity, and tail. At best you could argue that Bulma and her family were Caucasian,specially her mother, but Bulma is not Goku and she is not the subject of discussion. So now you have a black haired, dark tone, Asiatic alien being played by a brown haired light toned white guy, not even going into the major physique differences.FusionLord (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring whitewashed roles

Regarding this, it is not necessary to have an inline citation after every sentence. The sentences you tagged are supported by the first following inline citation. In addition, you changed someone's quote from "are" to "is", and you cannot change a quote like that. I think it is grammatically correct because the key word is "shortage", not the plural forms that fall under the word. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "are/is" appeared to be typo. As for the cites, perhaps you could direct me to them, 'cuz I didn't see them. - theWOLFchild 02:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria?

What is the criteria for determining whether a role has been "white-washed"? I'm not sure all the films belong on this list. - theWOLFchild 02:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there are any. Given that there are no definite criteria for describing someone as "white", let alone describing a fictional character as "not white", I consider the list to be rather arbitrary, not to mention racist and/or bigoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.153.209 (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Whitewashed"...?

Can we come with a better term, especially for the article title? - theWOLFchild 02:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the opposite of "whitewashing"...?

For the sake of balance, will this article address roles that were originally or typically a white person, but were in some instance played instead by a minority or person of colour? - theWOLFchild 02:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is colour-blind casting. "Whitewashing" is a sociological trend where the opposite is not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you distinguish between a "sociological trend" and something that isn't one? What are your criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.153.209 (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Argo

This information is definitely relevant to the Argo section. Tony Mendez's father was Mexican and his mother was of Irish and Italian descent. Obtrisgo (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're talking. That sounds good to include. Feel free to go ahead, otherwise I'll add it tomorrow. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References to use

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whitewashing_in_film&oldid=707103228"