Jump to content

Talk:12 Years a Slave (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Teaser poster

Hey ;3

When I created this film entry I put the submission for the 'Twelve Years a Slave' teaser poster, which is located here, http://collider.com/12-years-a-slave-image-synopsis/124115/ ,but it didn't appear so I was wondering whether someone would be kind enough to put it in this page.

Thanks a lot. --Bartallen2 (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot ;3 But how did you manage to submit the image so quickly? ;O When I did it during October it didnt appear ;O --Bartallen2 (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 move. And before I get some comparisons to the closure at Talk:Ocean's Eleven, the distinctions here are that (a) the book is apparently primary over the film here, whereas the two Ocean's films were about equally primary [hence the prior disambiguation landing page], and (b) the book has been released with the numeral in the title. -- tariqabjotu 07:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12 Years a Slave (film) → 12 Years a Slave – The book uses the word Twelve and the film uses the number 12. Film Fan 12:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The applicable policy here is WP:NATURAL, which says, "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. Many such differences involve capitalization, separation or non-separation of components, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Red Meat and Red meat; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey. While each name in such a pair may already be precise and apt, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other; so use appropriate disambiguation techniques, such as hatnotes or disambiguation pages, to help readers find the article they want." The question is if "12" and "Twelve" are already "precise and apt" and not interchangeable as to introduce ambiguity here. For example, in common use, when one sees either Twelve Years a Slave or 12 Years a Slave by itself, will they really be able to tie "Twelve" to the book and "12" to the film? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 12 and Twelve are not distinct. This just will confuse readers and the film clearly isn't anywhere near WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because I find "12" and "Twelve" to be interchangeable per my comment above. This is the book cover at Amazon.com, which reflects that interchangeability. Other books use both "Twelve" and "12". Therefore, "Twelve Years a Slave" and "12 Years a Slave" should point to the primary topic, Solomon Northup's book. The film adaptation is derived from the book, so per WP:PRECISION ("titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"), it is appropriate to have the disambiguation term here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISION. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, Lugnuts. You supported a move just like this with Ocean's Eleven/11, and even with the same reason. Did you mean to say support? --BDD (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was wondering. User:BDD, what part of WP:TWODABS are you citing? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2013 (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.

Screenings

This mentions the film's US premiere at the New York Film Festival, though this mentions a sneak peek at Telluride. We should update the article accordingly. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Already taken care of.--96.250.5.229 (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final fate of Solomon Northrup

The article for Solomon Northrup states that after touring as an abolitionist, Solomon Northrup dissapeared a second time. His fate remained forever unknown. The movie ignores this point. The article for this movie should mention that this fact is ignored in the movie. Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It's mentioned at the end.--96.250.5.229 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The credits include text saying the end of his life is not known. -- 109.76.224.73 (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that itself was drawn from Wikipedia as I note here. -- Robert Brockway (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Epps and Patsey

Please do not describe Edwin Epps relationship with Patsey or his attitude towards her as that of love or affection in the wikipedia article. Nowhere in the Solomon Northrup's book or in the movie does it say this. In fact Solomon in the book and in movie only describes Edwins relationship with Patsey as one of lust and hatred. Epps lusted over Patsey and did not love her. He abused and raped her multiple times because of his racist views about blacks being less than humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3800:2AE:80A3:103B:416E:B59D (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Hey @Aichik:, I'd love to take this GA review, but want to hold off until I see the movie myself (hopefully, in the next week or two). I imagine someone will beat me to it in the meantime.

At a glance, though, it looks like the lead section is going to need work to reach GA--it doesn't seem to cover some important aspects like the critical reception, or have much about the production besides the names of the director and major cast. Good luck with this one, I really appreciate your taking it on! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Khazar. I'll work on it tonight, if no one else gets to it;)--Aichik (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Aichik (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to use

This may be a good reference to use: Horrendous Acts in a Beautiful Way: Behind the Scenes of 12 Years a Slave

Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 22:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:12 Years a Slave (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments will hopefully be posted soon. --1ST7 (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

  1. Well-written
    • The word "universal" (or "universally") is used twice in the lead to describe the film's acclaim. While I don't doubt that it was very well-received by critics, I'd suggest that a less all-inclusive term be used for accuracy's sake. For example, you can say "Ejiofor was widely praised for his work". The opening sentence of the "Critical response" section should be altered likewise.
 Done--Aichik (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second sentence in the second paragraph of the lead is a bit of a run-on. It should probably be split into two sentences.  Done I compromised, because I don't agree it needs to be split in two: It's well-known among filmgoers that Chiwitel played him and that he's up for all of these awards. But I replaced the semi-colon with an and.--Aichik (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Given the name 'Platt' to conceal his true identity as a free man..." Is "Platt" supposed to be a given name or a surname? Not done: Unclear, definitely not the previous slaveholder's name as was sometimes the practice for naming enslaved people. It could have been a mononym given that enslaved blacks were treated like animals at the time, but can't say.--Aichik (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some parts of the plot section are confusing. Please explain the part about John Tibeats a little more - his relation to Ford, and why he is able to violently abuse and nearly kill Northup despite not being his "master".  Done Cleared this up. Lots of verbal abuse and no physical until the one time when Northrup fights back. --Aichik (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Patsey required to pick more cotton than the other slaves?
 Done No but the film leaves it deliberately ambiguous as to why she does. --Aichik (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The structure of this sentence is a little strange: "Despite his wife's (Paulson) extreme jealousy, Epps lusts for Patsey for her service and repeatedly rapes her."
 Done Fixed.--Aichik (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The style is inconsistent when naming the portrayers of the characters in the plot section. Some of the actors are credited by their full names while others are only by their surnames. Done Made more consistent and added two more actors' names.--Aichik (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence should probably be cut: "Notably, 34 of Metacritic's reviewers gave the film a score of 100, which (as of this writing) is more than any other film has on the site." Both the word "notably" and the relative time reference are discouraged by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
 Done--Aichik (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Accuracy" section is a bit disjointed. Can you please make the quotes flow better?
 Done--Aichik (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    • Ref no. 3 and 64 are bare URLs. Please give the full references.
 Done--Aichik (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Broad in its coverage:
    • I read through the article on the book 12 Years a Slave, and it doesn't seem to mention Patsey. Do you know if her character is historical or fictional, or if she is perhaps a composite of a few different individuals?
 Done This interview with Lupita Nyong'o reveals that Patsey was real. It's totally weird that the article on the book doesn't mention her so I'll leave a note on that Talk page when I have a minute.--Aichik (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral:
  2. Stable:
    • No edit wars or serious content disputes.
  3. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

I'll put this on hold for a week to give you time to address these things. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Kay done. Let me know what you think.--Aichik (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the changes look good; there's just one thing left. It looks like more information was added to the "Accuracy" section (fourth paragraph), but there is no citation for it. Can you please add one? --1ST7 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Should be covered now. If not, let me know.--Aichik (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to go now, so I'm passing it. Congratulations, and thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brought up after GA review: Plot word count

Corvoe (speak to me) wrote on my Talk page that he was bothered by the use of Platt in the plot section, an awkward sentence which I've since fixed, and the plot section exceeding the word limit of 700 per the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines (it is at 952 now). I responded with the following:

...I've reviewed the article again and see where I can cut 98 words, but getting it down exactly to 700 is impossible, given that this movie is so plot-driven. I appreciate your concern but the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines say "should be between 400 and 700 words" not that it has to be.--Aichik (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His response:

I feel like you took this super personally for some reason, and it wasn't meant to be negative. I know it's established that he's called Platt, but nowhere else after that, except for the sentence I noted, is he actually referred to as anything other than Northup. It just seems out of place. Also, this is directly from WP:FILMPLOT, the very next sentence after "should be between 400 and 700 words":
"The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)"
While I see your point, that it may need to be longer than the limit, there hasn't really been a conversation in relation to the length of this section, and one should probably take place. I'm sure someone could find a way to shorten the plot section by a bit. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My response, edited for here:

I looked into cutting, but if you can't be talked into a compromise, I'm not going to bother: I'd rather move onto other articles. 1ST7  wasn't bothered by the plot section's length. As you well know you or anyone else are free to make the changes as you see fit.--Aichik (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)--Aichik --Aichik (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am about to watch the film tonight. Tomorrow I will see if I think I can bring the word count total down. It is currently 815. Almost all good movies are plot-driven, but that does not mean that every aspect of the plot needs to be recounted in the summary. (The summary is not intended as a substitute for watching the film.) It is also often possible to contract the prose somewhat without doing violence to the meaning. Invertzoo (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The plot summary is now 667 words. I think it still contains all the most important aspects of the plot. Although I left out a few more minor plot points, in most cases I was able to trim it down primarily by tightening up the prose. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move reverted

NuclearWarfare renamed the article from 12 Years a Slave (film) to 12 Years a Slave (previously a redirect to Twelve Years a Slave) without explanation. As this contradicts the outcome of July's move request, I've reverted.
Certainly, some circumstances have changed recently, and I'm inclined to support moving this article to the base title. But a new WP:RM discussion is needed. —David Levy 04:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Levy: Fair enough. I looked at the history of 12 Years a Slave and didn't see any previous move history, so I kind of just assumed without looking at the talk page here. The previous move request seems to be in direct opposition to WP:DIFFCAPS, so if you or someone else would suppose such a thing, I would be happy to open it. NW (Talk) 14:00, 5 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Had I participated in the July discussion, I probably would have supported the move request (though the use of "12" in the title of some editions of the book is a valid concern). Now that the film's profile has been greatly elevated (including via major awards), I would support the request unless a compelling argument against it emerges. —David Levy 14:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the current setup is in direct opposition to WP:DIFFCAPS since it does not specifically comment on writing numbers vs. writing out numbers. I think in general that it is a good idea to disambiguate certain sets to avoid confusion. One example that comes to mind is The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. In that case, readers would not necessarily remember if the film they want to read about uses the numbers or the numbers' words. I think it is worth considering this looking-back for this set of articles in the long run. What is the likelihood of readers getting "Twelve" and "12" mixed up in their search term, especially months and years down the road? One outcome can be that we have Twelve Years a Slave for the memoir and 12 Years a Slave for the film with hatnotes guiding the readers if they typed in the wrong term. However, if we do not use any disambiguation, then examining these topics purely on their titles (with no context), the topics can seem interchangeable. Right now, I think some disambiguation would be useful. It could be the current setup, or we could do 12 Years a Slave for the film (with Twelve Years a Slave redirecting there) and Twelve Years a Slave (memoir) for the memoir, accessible via hatnote from the film article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved/no consensus. It is clear that opinion is relatively evenly divided on the question of whether the original book or its film adaptation is the primary topic: some commenters endorse the prominence of the Academy Award, while others argue for the possible undue weight of WP:RECENTISM. David Levy's argument is well-taken: technically, _12 Years as Slave_ is the official title only of the film, and not the memoir. However, as Erik suggests, general confusion surrounds the proper WP:COMMONNAME, and with recent additions of the memoir adopting the film's name, "12" and "Twelve" can be said to be interchangeable. There is also no consensus here for disambiguation pages at the base titles, which was not directly contemplated in the original RM. Xoloz (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


12 Years a Slave (film) → 12 Years a Slave – Numbers and words can separate titles. For example Ocean's 11 and Ocean's Eleven. Unreal7 (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's matter of opinion as to whether the most sought topic is the primary topic. I can think of plenty of articles where the consensus is that is not the case. That is just one criteria we are obliged to consider. Enduring significance is another: the memoir is a legacy of American slavery so will endure as long as slavery is deemed important to American history. The film on the other hand is a popular culture event and its importance will gradually fade. I'm not convinced the film will be considered all that important 15 years from now, let alone 150 years. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel that we have an obligation to make the article titles and in extension, the search engine searches, as simplified and as direct as possible for the majority of readers. If most people are searching for and wanting to read the article about the film, and the article traffic statistics confirm that the film article is more popular than the book article, then we shouldn't create an undue amount of work in order for people to get to the article they are searching for. Why do that? It makes no sense. Yes the book has lasting importance, but the film, which is now the Best Picture winner, will most assuredly have lasting importance. There is very little proof that the films importance will fade. All we have now are the facts and the facts prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the film is the more popular of the two articles and the primary topic title should reflect the facts. JOJ Hutton 00:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what "work" exactly is it for the eyeball to see the word (film)? If I was looking for a film article and saw a title without film I'd think it was the book. The traffic shows the title (film) is recognizable as being about a film, which it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the reading, it's the search. Someone searching for the film in a search engine won't likely add the extra "film" to the search bar and will get likely get results to the book when the film is what they are looking for. In addition, all searches done with iPhones, no longer give automated results, which will also result in false readings (if that makes sense). JOJ Hutton 01:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to type in "film" though. If you type in "12 years a slave" into our search box you get four options. If you type it into google it brings up the full name of the film article. The disambiguator probably aids searches more than it hinders them. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually iphone users, who are 50% of all smartphone users in the US and 25% in the UK, no longer get drop down options. Something's been wrong with the code for a while now. So millions of people doing searches on their phone will go to the wrong page. It's a shame, but something we've been dealing with for a few months now. So it's not really as simple as all that. I wish it was, but there is sometimes more here than meets the eye. Not to mention anyone using a search engine looking for the film and get the link to the book instead. I'm sure the book will have lasting effect. Nobody's arguing that. I'm just saying that as of right now, the film article is clearly the most popular article and is the hands down primary topic. JOJ Hutton 03:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jojhutton. Interesting, I'm not an I-Phone user. On my Android mobile search box at en.m.wikipedia.org inputting 12 years a slave produces: 12 Years a slave, 12 Years a Slave (film), 12 Years a slave (soundtrack), 12 Years a slave (soundtrack) - are these the 4 choices you're getting on an I-phone? or no choice at all? I should say that if it was up to me the book would move to 12 Years a Slave (book) - but currently that's impossible as a major objective of WP:DAB is to make primary titles ambiguous. Until WP:DAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC catch up with mobile phone users the best we can expect at WP:RM is limiting the amount of really egregious article-hiding. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a DAB page. 12 Years a Slave (disambiguation). Perhaps that should be moved to 12 Years a Slave. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 04:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per both WP:DIFFCAPS and, were it to come to it, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Red Slash 04:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Firstly, it's rather far-fetched to suggest that the film — which won the Academy Award for Best Picture — will fade into relative obscurity.
    Secondly, this debate is a red herring, as no one has proposed that the film be deemed more notable than the memoir. Both are extremely notable, and they happen to be known primarily under different titles: Twelve Years a Slave (the memoir) and 12 Years a Slave (the film). (Recent editions of the memoir have been marketed as 12 Years a Slave specifically due to the film's popularity.) This isn't a request to redirect the memoir's title to the film's article. It's a request to stop redirecting the film's title to the memoir's article.
    Certainly, some users arriving at 12 Years a Slave seek the memoir's article and some users arriving at Twelve Years a Slave seek the film's article. That's what hatnotes are for. Let's not make things more difficult for readers than they have to be. —David Levy 11:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is quite a lot of precedence for oscar winners slipping into relative obscurity, even films as recent as Shakespeare in Love and Chicago have fallen to the wayside. This movie has been around for less than a year, so we're not exactly talking Citizen Kane or Casablanca here, which have withstood the test of time. Betty Logan (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is quite a lot of precedence for oscar winners slipping into relative obscurity, even films as recent as Shakespeare in Love and Chicago have fallen to the wayside.
    On what do you base the assertion that those films have "fallen to the wayside"?
    This movie has been around for less than a year, so we're not exactly talking Citizen Kane or Casablanca here, which have withstood the test of time.
    Agreed. And if this were a proposal to deem the film the primary topic for "Twelve Years a Slave", I would oppose it on that basis. —David Levy 13:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS as I explained in the discussion stated above. 12 and Twelve can be interchangeable and are especially interchangeable nowadays. During the last discussion, I found one book that used 12 Years a Slave as the title. Now I am seeing at least four more (on Amazon.com, anyway). I think in the light of this, we need disambiguation here. We can either leave it at the status quo (it does not make things "more difficult" since it has not to date), or we could disambiguate the memoir's article and make this film the primary topic for 12 Years a Slave/Twelve Years a Slave. (I'm reluctant to support that because we're riding way too high on recentism here.) If readers type "12 Years a Slave" and get to the memoir's article, they will not be astonished any more than if they type Avatar and not get to that major film's article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    12 and Twelve can be interchangeable and are especially interchangeable nowadays.
    I don't think that anyone disputes the fact that this will occur. I once mistakenly typed "Twelve Years a Slave" when seeking information about the film. Undoubtedly, people also type "12 Years a Slave" when seeking information about the memoir. No matter what setup we use, some readers will fail to reach the intended article on their first attempt. We can only try to make things as efficient as possible.
    During the last discussion, I found one book that used 12 Years a Slave as the title. Now I am seeing at least four more (on Amazon.com, anyway).
    As noted above, this is because publishers of the memoir (which is in the public domain) are exploiting the film's popularity by switching to its title (as well as mentioning the film in marketing materials). This sudden surge only illustrates the strong association between the "12" spelling and the film. (Otherwise, publishers would simply continue using "Twelve".)
    I think in the light of this, we need disambiguation here.
    The combination of distinct spellings and hatnotes fits the bill.
    We can either leave it at the status quo (it does not make things "more difficult" since it has not to date),
    The status quo (compared with the proposed setup) increases the number of readers accidentally reaching the wrong article. They can utilize the hatnote, so I'm not suggesting that this is a terrible way of doing things. It simply is suboptimal.
    or we could disambiguate the memoir's article and make this film the primary topic for 12 Years a Slave/Twelve Years a Slave. (I'm reluctant to support that because we're riding way too high on recentism here.)
    Yes, I would oppose that for the same reason. I don't understand why you regard the two extremes (deeming one topic or the other primary for both spellings) as the only viable options. The memoir is known primarily as Twelve Years a Slave. The film is known primarily as 12 Years a Slave. Provided that the appropriate hatnotes are in place, what's the problem with relying on that distinction? What issue(s) would arise that wouldn't also arise (to a greater extent, I assert) under the other two scenarios?
    If readers type "12 Years a Slave" and get to the memoir's article, they will not be astonished any more than if they type Avatar and not get to that major film's article.
    Agreed. If a reader seeks the article about the film or the memoir and accidentally reaches the other, he/she is unlikely to be astonished. That's why we can safely rely on the difference in spelling without worrying about causing mass confusion. It's impossible to send everyone directly to the intended article, but we can maximize the success rate without creating any new problems. —David Levy 13:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of me is wondering whether it might be better to have the articles' titles as "Twelve Years a Slave (memoir)" and "12 Years a Slave (film)" and keeping "12 Years a Slave" / "Twelve Years a Slave" as a disambiguation page. I know that is contrary to the guidelines, but this is a pretty rare situation where you have two very noteworthy topics multiple centuries apart that are intimately connected. NW (Talk) 16:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no advantage to such a setup, which would ensure that almost no one arriving at one of the base titles reaches the desired page on the first attempt. Conversely, if we simply use the two works' actual titles as their articles' titles, most readers will be sent directly to the articles that they seek. Perhaps more importantly, the hatnotes will accommodate everyone else, for whom the number of additional clicks (one) will be identical to that which a disambiguation page would have required.
    In other words, we can force some readers to follow an extra link or force all readers to follow an extra link. —David Levy 16:31, 14 March 2014 (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.

Critical response

I think the "Critical response" section has gotten a bit overloaded. Yes, almost everyone has agreed that it is an excellent movie, but we don't need to quote almost everyone to that effect. - 64.81.170.123 (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two Historical Accuracy Questions

I would like to see this article address two questions of historical accuracy that I am not qualified to answer myself.

One, the scene where Northup tries to run away and encounters white slave catchers preparing to hang other runaways. Director Steve McQueen says that the tree in this scene had actually been used to hang slaves. But is it accurate to show slave catchers hanging the young men without even first getting the permission of their masters? Wouldn't that be considered destruction of property, and make the slave catchers liable to pay damages to the slaves' owners? And why would the escapees be hanged out in the forest, when the point of this cruel killing would presumably be to terrify other slaves?

Two, how did Mrs. Shaw and Mr. Shaw get married? (In the script, Northup calls Mr. Shaw "your husband" when speaking to Mrs. Shaw). Was it legal for black people and white people to marry in Louisiana back then? Pirate Dan (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Maybe the slave owner was one of the slave catchers and he simply didn't care to make a show of it.
2) It probably wasn't strictly legal for inter-racial marriages there, but there on the plantation the masters could surely have themselves addressed anyway they wished, especially by those of lesser standing. Optionally, there may have been a pastor who did wed them for their own sake. They probably didn't go into town as husband and wife.
These two aforementioned points are speculative, but are realistic. Alandeus (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actors starring in Infobox

There are 3 additional actors (Nyong'o, Paulson, Woodard) listed on the poster than are listed in the poster's billing block. I would like to use the poster list (not the billing block) for the "starring" since it is in larger font and I think more reflective of the "stars". I would just like to get consensus before changing it since it has been setup as billing block (and commented as such) in the infobox. Any comments or other thoughts.AbramTerger (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your approach. Per WP:FILMCAST, it's appropriate to use the poster's billing block as a rule of thumb for listing cast members. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But just to clarify I was suggesting that we IGNORE the billing block and use the actors billed in the larger print on the poster instead of those in the smaller print of the billing blockAbramTerger (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works too! I forgot how many names 12 Years a Slave puts above the title. Depending on the article, the billing block is used, or the names above the title are used. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to change it to the above title actors. Nyong'o has a nice role and I think deserves to be listed as one of the stars, even though she is not in the billing block. If you disagree and want to revert back to the billing block, I won't fight it, but I didn't sense you had a strong feeling either way.AbramTerger (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AbramTerger, this whole thing was actually my doing. Someone, awhile back, changed it to the billing block, and someone else restored the poster names but didn't remove the note. I saw the note, figured there was consensus, and reverted back to just the billing block. It's irrelevant now, but I would've supported this change had I spotted it :P Corvoe (speak to me) 14:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cast order

I changed the cast list to billed order per WP:FILMCAST. There seems to be some disagreement on how the order should be done and the order it has been changed to seems very subjective. Please do not change this without getting a consensus. I have been using the order billed within the film. Other objective options are to just just the names of the actors as they appear on the poster before the title (the one currently being used in the infobox). Another option is to use the objective list of the billing block on the poster. Finally the cast list order could be used, but then some consensus of how far to go down on this list since it seems too long per WP:FILMCAST. It seems to me that any other order is subjective and would essentially be based on some OR. I think one of the objective orders should be used. Billing in the film seems to balance the shorter lists from the posters and complete cast list. AbramTerger (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billing in a film (as well as on a poster) is not entirely objective- at the end of the day, it's a person or persons who decide the order the performers should appear in. Their own opinions aren't just based on how prominent the actors are either; name recognition plays a role in billing. Lupita Nyong'o was a virtual unknown before this film came out, so she wasn't going to be billed highly, regardless of how much screentime she received.
Now WP:FILMCAST does not say the cast list must follow the on-screen billing. It says it should be based on the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film. 12 Years a Slave 's billing is simply not an appropriate rule of thumb because the majority of it is alphabetical. WP:FILMCAST states that one of the key elements of a cast section is "the prominence of the cast in the film" and alphabetical billing does not reflect prominence. The billing order is incidental and only based on the last names of the performers. Benedict Cumberbatch and the rest would have billed in those positions, regardless of who they played in the film.
Two examples of why alphabetical billing should not be used for the cast section are present in The Man with the Iron Fists and Smokin' Aces. Both of these movies used so the biggest star would get top billing (Russell Crowe in the former and Ben Affleck in the latter), while the title characters (RZA and Jeremy Piven) were billed noticeably lower. Also, while Crowe at least had a prominent role in The Man with the Iron Fists, very few, if any, would argue Affleck was the main character in Smokin' Aces; he dies early on. If the entire main cast section of 12 Years a Slave was alphabetical, Cumberbatch would receive top billing and Chiwetel Ejiofor would be billed fourth.
I don't mind cutting the cast down to the actors who appear in the title credits, but I cannot in good conscience support an alphabetical cast order because it is an inaccurate representation of how prominent the individual actors are. Bluerules (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As editors on these pages, we are not discussing he objectivity of the billing. It is rarely objective, it is about stars and their contracts. It is obviously not objective since we have 4 lists (6 poster billing block, 9 Poster pre-title [6 billing block + Nyong'o, Paulson, and Woodward), 16 billed actors [ordered as 2 stars, 11 then alphabetically, then 3 additional], or a cast list of 36 actors] and the order is not consistent. An objective listing would be consistent. In those lists Nyong'o is 6th, not listed at all, 8th, or 38th, respectively. When I am discussing objectively, it is how we editors choose the order of the cast. It is really irrelevant to me which list we use. I chose billing per WP:CASTLIST since it comes from the film a primary source and the the poster which is secondary and it is the cast list is just too long to be justifiable IMO [And a truncated cast list would remove some of the billed actors, it would take truncating at over 38 actors to even have Nyong'o on this list]. But moving Nyong'o anywhere above 6th in the list can not be done with the film information and would require OR at least a reference. If you showed a citation with a different listing, explained the justification for that listing to us, then got consensus, I am sure we would be willing to change the order. But as editors, we need to be objective and thus choose one of the available orders: One of the 2 from the film or one of the 2 from the official poster. Anyone's opinion on a different order is what is subjective. I see nothing wrong with alphabetical if that is what is listed in the film. Some even go by order of appearance. Both remove ego from the equation or the OR of counting how many lines or words or scenes all the actors are in. So which of the 4 lists are you proposing or do you have a citation with a different list order? We need to know your source and list if you want to discuss it. Do you have citation of the cast in "order of how prominent they are" that we can cite? AbramTerger (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the billing comes from a primary source, using it goes against WP:CASTLIST's guidelines. Billing is just a portion of one if WP:CASTLIST's three key elements: the prominence of the cast in the film. Of course, neither the alphabetical title credits, nor the appearance based ending credits reflect prominence. That's why alternative rules of thumb are provided to determine the order of the cast. Here, it's more accurate to base the order on the actual speaking roles. The more prominent the speaking role, the higher the performer is placed.
Creating a brand new cast list, one that does not rely on citations, is not as sacrilegious as you might think. To begin, as I mentioned above, this is still per WP:CASTLIST; it's just following a different rule of thumb. What sources could we use, anyways? Other than the filmmakers and ourselves, I don't think anyone else is concerned with the prominence of each performer. We are doing what the filmmakers should have been doing; ordering the cast in an objective manner. Yes, it is difficult to be entirely objective when it comes to the cast order. Yes, it is an objective fact that the cast received their own billing order in the film. But it's also a fact that those who decided the billing order are just as subjective as we are. The order was based on their own opinions. Having actually worked on the film, I understand that they have more authority than Wikipedia editors do. But since the filmmakers here didn't use prominence as their criteria, that's our job now.
The order I created was intended to be as objective as possible. I looked at the characters, not the actors and actresses. For example, I put Nyong'o third because of her overall amount of screentime and impact on the story. It's an objective fact that her character is mentioned seven times in the plot summary, more than most of the characters placed above her. She's also mentioned 18 times in the Movie Spoiler summary, which is also more than everyone other than Solomon and Epps.
In a nutshell, alphabetical billing breaks the guidelines of WP:CASTLIST, there are other approaches we can use, manually ordering the cast is the most appropriate thing to do here, and we're not any more subjective than the filmmakers are. As I said in my last message, I don't mind the cutting down the list to just those mentioned in the title credits, my last edit only used them. I'll gladly explain the order I created if you have any issues with it. However, it's more accurate than the one in place because it actually is per WP:CASTLIST. Bluerules (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Billing in the film is still billing and it is an objective list for WP editors, no matter how the filmmakers may determine it. It seems to me that the key point is your statement: "the order I created". This seems to me to go against WP:NOR. You must find a citation which gives the order you are seem to want. It can not be created by yourself. Where has an expert (with a citation) used a different criteria for listing the cast members you want to include? AbramTerger (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read WP:CASTLIST. You are going against its guidelines by using an alphabetical cast list. The billing was created by people with opinions and biases. If assembling a cast order without citations was not allowed, then "speaking roles" would not be mentioned as an "appropriate rule of thumb." Editors are allowed to order the cast list themselves as long as they're focusing on the prominence of each cast member. This is what editors have done on the Smokin' Aces article. Jeremy Piven is not billed in first the credits, nor on the poster. But even without any citations or experts, they've agreed to put Piven first because it's an objective fact that he plays the title character and he's the main focus of the movie. Just like it's an objective fact that most of 12 Years a Slave takes place on the Epps plantation. My research- like the other editors- comes from the film itself. Bluerules (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you are misrepresenting several facts. The billing list in 12 years a slave is NOT alphabetical, which in some ways negates your argument. Secondly, even if it were, my using the billing list as given in the film is the FIRST criteria listed in WP:FILMCAST: "so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, ..." which is exactly what is being used. We are using the billing directly from the primary source of the film without going against the policy of WP:NOR as you seem to be suggesting. Even if the billing list is alphabetical, the filmmakers do NOT have to use WP policies. In an effort to try to resolve this question with you, could you please provide a relable source with the actors listed as you think they should be listed so I can review that list. It would be best if they gave their criteria (counting lines in the film, amount of time on screen, or whatever) so we can understand it. As I mentioned, personally I prefer using the billing directly from the film or if the cast list is not too long using that. The 56 credited cast members to me is too many and goes against the WP:FILMCAST: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". But, I have mentioned before, I can live with just the 6 actors on the poster billing block or the 9 listed on the main poster if you prefer either of those orderings. As far as I can see, we have only these 4 lists from WP:RS to choose from. You have not provided another and you have suggested that it may be an ordering that you have created personally which goes directly against WP:NOR. AbramTerger (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the way the cast list is currently organized works perfectly. It only includes notable people, and it's based on the opening titles, where the most significant actors go. We shouldn't retroactively move Nyong'o up just because of the response to her performance or her screen time. I'm sure if this film could somehow come out after itself, she would've been fourth: however, that's literally impossible. I feel like I'm making myself seem ridiculous, but I'm hoping my point makes sense.

Basically, the list as it is works off of the film itself without being alphabetical. If we were to change it, I would agree with Bluerules, but I can see both sides.

All that said, I think this is a non-issue and should just be left alone. The cast list reads just fine, and it's not like anyone is tough to find since it's being kept to a minimal. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also usually inclined to use the billing when it comes to ordering the cast and I have no issue with trimming the list down to the notable people. Had the billing attempted to follow prominence and Nyong'o still received relatively low billing, I wouldn't have an issue with it. The problem is the majority of the billing is alphabetical, so the order is incidental. Cumberbatch, Dano, Dillahunt, Giamatti, McNairy, Nyong'o, Oduye, Paulson, Pitt, Williams, and Woodard. This violates WP:CASTLIST, which says the order is supposed to be based on prominence.
I know it's a small issue, but I feel the cast is misrepresented by having most of them listed alphabetically. Cumberbatch is guaranteed third-billing, regardless of how much screentime he has. If necessary, I'm open to having a discussion over how the 11 alphabetical actors would be listed. We'd be using the speaking roles rule of thumb and our research comes from the film. Bluerules (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I reiterate, your issue is with the filmmakers. We use the film or poster as the source. But remember some of the names are NOT alphabetical and that means that there was a process by the filmmakers to order them with some reasoning. Because of that we do not know if Cumberbatch is #3 due to the alphabet or if was judged to the #3 starring position, just as we do not know about Woodard since since is also listed with an "and" which would put her at the end of the "stars" no matter what her prominence in the film. But yours, mine or anyone other WP editor's personal opinion on how "prominent" they are remains original research. If you want to continue the discussion, either suggest an alternative listing from the 4 we have, justify it and get a consensus, or post a citation which has an alternate listing so we can discuss that. It would be (IMO) against WP:OR for us to count screen time or lines of dialogue in the film, but if some reliable source did that research that we could cite, then it would be okay for us to use that list. But even with that, the consensus still may be to use the primary billing from the film. Right now, we have only 4 choices that have been presented and the consensus seems to be to use the film's actual billing.AbramTerger (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the billing is not an appropriate rule of thumb for this article and if using the speaking roles for the cast order was not allowed, it wouldn't be mentioned as another appropriate rule of thumb. Now what you've done with the cast order can just as well be deemed original research. You took the title credits from the film and put them in the article yourself. You have not provided any sources that state the film's billing takes precedence over other rules of thumb.
As for the alphabetical issue, only two out of the thirteen actors billed individually are not alphabetical. That leaves eleven actors billed alphabetically, which is too much to be a coincidence. Cumberbatch is among them because he is not separated from the rest of the alphabetical cast. Compare this to True Romance, where Patricia Arquette is billed separately from the alphabetical cast. Although her name also comes before them in an alphabetical order, she's placed at the top of the poster while the others are at the bottom. Furthermore, her name appears before the title of the movie in the billing block; the alphabetical actors appear after it. By contrast, Cumberbatch is put right next to all the other alphabetical names without any indication of his placement being coincidental. Woodard does not have an "and" before her name.
Being alphabetical is still why the billing cannot be used to order the actors from Cumberbatch to Woodard. It is a violation of WP:CASTLIST, which views prominence as a key element of the cast section, not the billing from the film. On a final note, there is no consensus over which order we should use. The other order was in place since the beginning of the 2014 (and perhaps even earlier than that) and the only editors concerned with it are ourselves. Bluerules (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again you misrepresent. There are at least 5 that are not alphabetical, not just 2: the first 2 and the last 3 are not in alphabetical order in the billing, so there was some thought by the filmmakers about the order, it seems to me. But we do not know if Cumberbatch is third due to alphabetical or because he is the last of the "starring 3". Also Woodard seems to be a coincidence that she is last alphabetically of the "co-stars" since she is an AND and would have been last in that section even if her last name was something else. I don't see your logic in saying that the choosing the billing order violates WP:CASTLIST. As I have indicated before it states: "it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, ..." which is exactly what we are doing. Your complaint continues to be with the filmmakers who do NOT have to follow WP guidelines when they choose the billing order. Are order is just reflected the order they have chosen and contracted with the actors and agents. Prominent involves many things, onscreen time, number of lines, stature of actor, etc. Some get first billed, some go near the end and have a WITH some (like Woodard), use the AND and go at the END of the stars, no matter how many lines or screen time. But again, if you want a different order, please provide us with a citation where they have ordered the cast, based on some criteria you are happy with. Then we can discuss this. As I have stated your opinion on the ordering seems to be a violation of WP:NOR. If you don't like the film billing, Would you be happier with the Poster "star billing" or the Poster "billing block" instead? AbramTerger (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said two out of the thirteen actors billed individually. Chris Chalk, Taran Killam, Bill Camp aren't part of that thirteen; they're billed together. Furthermore, that does not negate my main point; eleven actors appear in alphabetical order, too much to be coincidental. The alphabetical order has to start with someone and it starts with Cumberbatch. Again, there is nothing to indicate he is more prominent than the other actors. Woodard is not excluded from the alphabetical order because she does not have an AND credit. Rewatch the credits. Now the full sentence for WP:CASTLIST states: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." This means there are other appropriate rules of thumb and billing is not always the most appropriate rule of thumb. Billing is not the only appropriate of thumb; the sentence makes that clear. The sentence is also part of a detailed description of one of the three key elements of WP:CASTLIST: "the prominence of the cast in the film." That is why the current cast list is a violation of WP:CASTLIST and that is why the billing is not the most appropriate rule of thumb for 12 Years a Slave. The majority of it is not related to prominence. Just because the filmmakers don't have to follow these guidelines doesn't mean we don't have to either. After all, isn't this discussion about which order adheres to the guidelines better? A citation is not needed to alter the cast order for the same reason you didn't need a citation. You used the billing rule of thumb, I used the speaking roles rule of thumb. Both are separate from the "cast lists in reliable sources" rule of thumb. Why would "speaking roles" be mentioned as a rule of thumb if citations were needed? So, in short, WP:CASTLIST says nothing about the billing being the mandatory order and all the other rules of thumbs requiring citations. Bluerules (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are other guidelines, since some films do not have a pre-made lists of actors within the primary source or have no secondary source. But the initial guideline is to use billing which we have done. As editors we are fortunate as the primary source provides us with a list of billed actors that has been put into some pre-arranged order, so we don't have to just truncate or rearrange the cast list. We also have a billing block from the poster that we can use or the poster "stars". But on some level your issue of "prominent" seems misguided in an effort to just raise one particular actors position. She is not even prominent enough to be listed at all in the billing block. But i reiterate: which of the 4 listings we currently have are you a proponent of, or do you have a citation of a different list that we can discuss? Otherwise I see no need to debate your issues with how the filmmakers chose to create the billing list. It seems to me to be irrelevant to the WP style guidelines. Your entire premise is flawed since the filmmakers did more than just use the alphabet to order the actors. As editors we do not even need to understand their logic, we just have to accept the billed order.AbramTerger (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in WP:CASTLIST does it say billing takes precedence over the other guidelines. In fact, the "guidelines" you're using to justify the billing order aren't even found in WP:CASTLIST. That portion of WP:CASTLIST is mainly focused on which actors to put in the cast section, not the order they should be placed in. That's why there's a link to WP:INDISCRIMINATE; it's advising against making the cast section too long and I've already agreed to trimming it down. Thus, using the billing order is not per WP:CASTLIST, and your usage of it is based on a misinterpretation of the guidelines. Likewise, nowhere in WP:CASTLIST does it say an original order must have citations. "Cast lists in reliable sources" is referring to actors whose roles are unconfirmed. The editors of Smokin' Aces and True Romance had no issue with creating their own cast lists because they recognized that the billing was alphabetical. 12 Years a Slave has eleven alphabetically billed actors, more than both of those films. Having a few actors billed non-alphabetically does not change the fact that the filmmakers billed most of them by the letters of their last names. If you have any guidelines that actually say we must use the billing and original cast lists must have citations, then provide them. Until then, we are not going to use an inaccurate list that has no guidelines to justify its existence. Bluerules (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed first " name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing...". It is also the local consensus to use this billing order. While the WP:CASTLIST does not indicate it requires citations for a different list, your order, as mentioned in several places, seems to violate WP:NOR since it is your own opinion and does not use any established listing. Please get a consensus before changing the order.AbramTerger (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is referring to which actors to use, not the order. Hence the mention of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no consensus; this order was in place for months before you changed it. 22:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Please read this discussion to see the local consensus. Please don't start on editing war, do not change until you get a consensus. I have proposed one of the 4 listings that the film and poster offers, none of which you like and you refuse to offer a list from a reliable source using some methodology that you find appropriate. But to change to your list you still need to get a consensus. How about, if you don't like the alphabetical, it seems to me that the billing list has 4 sections of people. Ejiofor and Fassbender are the main stars and seem to be in the order. The "secondary stars/ costars" would be: Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, and Pitt who round out the billing block on the poster. So within the sec stars we as editors would have to decide what order (if not in billing order) they should be in. The next group (tertiary / supporting actors) would be: Nyong'o, Paulson, and Woodard who are billed and also in main poster billing but NOT in billing block. Again, there would need to be a consensus about what order these 3 should be in compared to each other if not as billed, but it seems it should be after the 2 main stars and 4 "co-stars". After the 3 tertiary/support stars would come: Chalk, Killam, and Camp who could probably stay in that order since it is not alphabetic and is as billed. Thus if you don't like the order billed, how about: stars, then co-stars, then support and the rest of billed: Ejiofor and Fassbender then (Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, and Pitt) then (Nyong'o, Paulson, and Woodard), then (Chalk, Killam, and Camp). Is it okay by you to be alphabetical within those groupings or do you have some objective means to differentiate them?AbramTerger (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only conversation focused on the order of the cast members. The only person other than ourselves to take part in it was Corvoe and he was neutral on the issue. You have not provided any guidelines that say we cannot rearrange cast orders without citations and you continue to ignore the articles on Smokin' Aces and True Romance, both of which do not follow their respective film's billing. The order that did not follow the billing was in place for months and you changed it without getting a consensus. Now the problem with those sections is the "secondary stars/ costars" and the "tertiary / supporting actors" are still rooted in an alphabetical order, not an order of prominence. This is evidenced by the filmmakers' decision to list them alphabetically when they were all paired together in the billing. Another problem is the sections are also based on star power, not prominence. Absence from the billing block does not mean an actor or actress has a smaller role than those who appear in it. For example, Juliette Lewis was absent from the original billing block of Cape Fear, even though she physically appears on the poster and has a major role in the film. Incidentally, she was billed above most of the actors on the poster in the ending credits. As editors, we have to be entirely objective and take note of the filmmakers' own biases. Nyong'o is not absent from the billing block because she has a smaller role than the other actors, but because (at the time) she was less well-known. It's an objective fact that her character is mentioned more times in the plot summary than those portrayed by the "secondary stars/ costars." It's also an objective fact that she appears on screen more than them. Cumberbatch, Dano, and Giamatti all exit the film before it even reaches the hour mark. As 12 Years a Slave is an hour and 14 minutes long, this means they're all in less than half of the movie. Pitt and Giamatti only appear in about roughly two scenes. Nyong'o first appears before the movie hits the hour mark and doesn't leave until after the two hour mark. Several scenes place emphasis on her character. I'm for discussing the ordering of all sixteen actors, but only if it's not influenced by the alphabetical billing. My reasons for ordering the actors as I did are as follows:
1. & 2. These positions are reserved for Ejiofor and Fassbender because the billing did not place them among the alphabetical cast members.
3. Nyong'o - As I mentioned above, Nyong'o has a big role for the majority of the film. The characters at the Epps plantation are the most important to the plot and this is supported by Fassbender being billed second and free from the alphabetical order.
4. Paulson - Like Nyong'o, Paulson portrays one of the major characters at the Epps plantation, where most of the film takes place. She has a substantial amount of screentime and certain scenes place emphasis on her, such as when she attacks Patsey and gives Solomon a note to deliver.
5. Cumberbatch- While he is absent from most of the movie, Cumberbatch has the most screentime and the biggest role of the non-Epps plantation characters; he's Solomon's owner before Epps appears.
6. Pitt- This is where the order becomes more debatable because the rest of the cast have relatively small appearances on screen. Despite his brief presence, the scenes that feature Pitt also focus on him and he plays a significant role in the plot by being the one who ends up freeing Solomon. This is reflected by his character being mentioned six times in the plot summary; just one less than Patsey, the same amount as Ford, and more than most of the cast.
7. & 8. Dano & Oduye- Both get these positions by appearing in several scenes, even though they disappear early on. Dano plays a bigger role, which why he's placed above Oduye.
9. Giamatti- Absent from the plot summary and only appearing in handful of scenes, Giamatti still has at least one scene focused on his character and plays an important role by selling Solomon to Ford.
10. Dillahunt- When he appears, his part is significant. However, Dillahunt only has a few scenes and he quickly disappears after his subplot comes to an end.
11. & 12. McNairy & Killam- Their screentime is limited and they don't even last 13 minutes, but they do have a major impact on the plot. As they are always together and share about the same amount of screentime (as well as essentially the same role), they should be placed together.
13. & 14. Chalk & Williams- Like McNairy & Killam, they appear together, have similar roles, and are absent from the vast majority of the film. Chalk goes before Williams because he has more screentime.
15. Woodard- Woodard appears in only one scene, though her role is significant enough to be mentioned in the plot summary.
16. Camp- No mentions in the plot summary and minimal screentime.
Those are my justifications; I am not playing favorites with the cast. I am attempting to order them as objectively as possible. Bluerules (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I was mistaken about the consensus. I was confusing this with another dispute over the rounding policy. It still strikes me that these are YOUR opinions and thus seem to me to violate WP:NOR. Your opinions do not seem to be the ones I can see offered by the film or the filmmakers. You want to not only add 4 actors [Oduye, Dillahunt, McNairy, and Williams] who are not billed within the film but put them higher to actors who have billing. To me this goes against WP:FILMCAST where billing is a criteria for even adding them to the list and only unbilled actors who are notable would be included as comments after the cast list. And you want to add 2 of the 3rd-tier billings [Nyong'o and Paulson] over the 2nd-tier billings of Cumberbatch, Pitt, Dano, and Giamatti] and drop Woodard's 3rd-tier billing below that of 2 of the 4th-tier billings [Killam and Chalk]. While there are some issues with alphabetical, you are making suggested on names that were NOT part of the alphabetical listing. [It seems to me that Pitt is the most affected by the alphabetical listing since he drops from position that should be somewhere [3-6] to after Nyong'o and Paulson who are both in the [7-9] range.]
I don't see where being mentioned in the WP plot summary is a criteria for ordering in the cast list and seems pretty subjective to me. As I have mentioned before, if you want to use "screen time" or spoken lines or some criteria, I think that it requires a complete analysis by a reputable source which analyses whatever criteria you think should be used. Then once you list that for all the actors that are analyzed we can discuss if that makes more sense than choosing one of the primary or secondary lists from the filmmakers.
I see no reason to add unbilled actors, but if you want to move away from the "partial alphabetical order" of the billed actors used by the film, I think you at least need to keep them in their respective tiers if you move away from the billed order. I propose as a compromise [Just billed actors, ordered by tiers, some tiers remain alphabetical and others not]:
  • 1) [Ejiofor, Fassbender] I would keep these 2 alphabetical
  • 2) [Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, and Pitt] If you want to move Pitt up, I can live with [Cumberbatch, Pitt, Dano, Giamatti] moving only Pitt from the alphabetical in the tier.
  • 3) [Nyong'o, Paulson, and Woodard] You seem to want to keep this tier alphabetical and I can live with that.
  • 4 [Chalk, Killam, and Camp]. I disagree with moving Killam above Chalk as you suggest. The 4th tier is already not alphabetical, so I see no reason to move away from the non-alphabetical order they use in the billing.
This keeps the billing list objective, the tiering from the filmmakers objective and adds some of the subjectivity you seem to want into the list. I don't see why this is better than the billed order, it essentially just moves Pitt up, but it is not alphabetical which seems to be the problem you are having. If desired I can also live with just listing the 6 actors from the poster's billing block [Tier 1 and Tier2] in the compromised order you want them listed [Ejiofor, Fassbender, Cumberbatch, Pitt, Dano, Giamatti] and then a comment about Nyong'o after the cast list since her role is notable since you won an oscar for it. I would also be content with the 9 actors from the posters main listing in the "compromised tier order: [Ejiofor, Fassbender, Cumberbatch, Pitt, Dano, Giamatti, Nyong'o, Paulson, and Woodard]. I am trying to find a reasonable compromise based on some objective facts. We need to work with the information offered to us. AbramTerger (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware these are my opinions, just as your stance on the cast order comes from your own opinions. However, my opinions are rooted in facts. WP:NOR says nothing about original cast orders being a violation of this guideline; my source is the film. Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, and Pitt are all in less than half of the film; only Pitt doesn't exit before the hour mark and he's only in about two scenes. Nyong'o has more screentime and more lines than all of the actors in your second tier. Oduye, Dillahunt, McNairy, and Williams do appear in the billing. They're in the title credits at the end and unlike Chalk, Killam, and Camp, they receive individual credit. In fact, they're all currently billed above Woodard and Dillahunt is placed above most of the cast.
As I've repeatedly stated, WP:CASTLIST is about trimming the cast down, not ordering the cast. You're not going to find any guidelines regarding cast order. Literally nowhere does it say billing takes precedence over any other. Since this billing is rooted in an alphabetical order and therefore inaccurate, using another order would make more sense. The plot summary is an objective overview of what happens in the film; subjective material is removed.
The problem with the tiers is they were created with the star power of the actors in mind, not the importance of their roles. Again, I'll mention Cape Fear. If we used a tier order with Cape Fear, Juliette Lewis (who was unknown at the time and thus was not on the billing block) would be billed below actors who had less screentime and importance to the plot. Among the people she'd be billed under includes Gregory Peck, who only appears in one scene. There, however, the filmmakers actually violated their own tier order by placing Lewis above most of the cast in the ending credits. Then there's True Romance, which omitted Michael Rapaport from the billing block, even though he also has more screentime than most of the actors on the billing block. Christopher Walken appears in only one scene, Gary Oldman appears in only two, Dennis Hopper has about three scenes, Brad Pitt has little to do with the plot, and not only does Val Kilmer only appear in about two scenes, his face is never shown. The editors on that recognized this discrepancy and put Rapaport third in the cast section. No issues about tiers, no issues about billing being the most important rule of thumb, and no issues about violating WP:NOR.
That being said, I'd agree to a compromise if the tiers remained consistent, but they're not. In the title credits at the end, where all the billed actors appear, the tiers break down and order becomes primarily alphabetical. This shows that the tiers remain rooted in an alphabetical order, even when split up. Had the billing at least made an attempt to follow prominence, I wouldn't object to the order, even if Nyong'o was billed low. I don't think Matthew McConaughey should have been billed fourth for appearing in three scenes in The Wolf of Wall Street and I don't think Anna Paquin should have been billed seventh for her non-speaking cameo in X-Men: Days of Future Past, but because those credits are intended to follow prominence, I won't object to them. Here, on the other hand, the majority of the credits remain alphabetical. That's why we should wipe the slate clean and create an order that prioritizes prominence over everything else, including star power. Bluerules (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cast lists in films are not billing, they are just credited cast members. WP:CASTLIST specifically cites billing. There is a difference between our the use of opinions. My opinion as an editor is not to make a subjective call at all, but to accept one of the 4 explicitly given lists from the film and/or poster. I think the cast list is too long and violates "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" item. I think the billed actors in the film is a good number. it includes 4 tiers of actors so while not complete does have 16 people. Granted the first tier appears alphabetical and the 2nd and 3rd tiers are combined together and appear alphabetical, but the 4th tier is not, so it appears to me that much of "your alphabetical complaint" is due to Pitt being dropped from 2nd to 3rd tier, the rest of the alphabetical appears coincidental. But that is all speculation. As editors, I see no reason for use to make judgment calls of the prominence of the actors in the film and/or in real-life. We just should be reporting the facts. You seem to me to want to violate WP:NOR and decide for yourself what order instead of using the any of the film's credits. You don't like their non-alphabetical listing, you don't even like the tiers that they use. As an editor, I don't care about how they made that choice, I just report it. I think the castlist is too long, but I can accept the order 16 billed names, or the 9 actors as billed in the poster billing, or the 6 names in the poster billing block. That seems to me to be the lists, as editors, we have to play with. With older films with no lists offered we may have to use alternate sources of information, but that is generally not a problem with modern films. But if you insist on less alphabetizing of the names, I can accept the tiered list I proposed earlier, which only seems to elevate Pitt and place him back with the 2nd tier actors instead of into the 3rd tier. I see no reason to add unbilled actors or rearrange the tiers that the filmmakers have already created as you proposed. I would also consider using a cited alternate list from a reputable source that used some other criteria, but you have not propose one. You have done your own research about how you want to order the cast and to me that violates WP:NOR. Prominence is not only lines of dialogue, on-screen time, but also the draw of the actor themselves, their egos, among many other factors. Billing takes all that into account. AbramTerger (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the cast list, I'm talking about the title credits that appear at the end of the film. Oduye, Dillahunt, McNairy, and Williams appear in it. So do Chalk, Killam, and Camp. In fact, the title credits are also the only place Chalk, Killam, and Camp appear in the billing. Why are Chalk, Killam, and Camp considered "billed", but Oduye, Dillahunt, McNairy, and Williams aren't? I've repeatedly agreed with you that the initial cast was too long and I'm focusing only on the actors that appear in the closing title credits, not the scrolling end credits. The fourth tier is not alphabetical because it's separate from the rest of the billing. They're all billed together whereas everyone else received individual credit. Among those who are billed individually, eleven are listed alphabetically. That is too much to be a coincidence. I know the billing block only has four actors listed alphabetically, but when their names were combined with the three "third tier" actresses, all seven became listed in alphabetical order. And when four more names were added in the title credits, that seven became eleven. Aside from the amount of alphabetical names being too large to be coincidental, this demonstrates that alphabetical order was the mindset for all of the tiers. Had the tiers not broken down and remained in front of each other during the title credits, I would support them, but title credits also have Dillahunt, McNairy, and Oduye billed above Pitt. Furthermore, Dillahunt is billed above everyone but Ejiofor, Fassbender, Cumberbatch, and Dano. This demonstrates that the tiers did not mean anything to filmmakers; the film itself didn't use them. WP:NOR refers to doing original research without using sources, not simply doing original research. You did your own research by analyzing all of the billing orders of this film. My source, just like your source, is the film. The sources of the editors who created the original cast lists of Smokin' Aces and True Romance were the films themselves. When it comes to film, prominence refers to the roles portrayed by the actors, not the actors themselves. That's why the then-unknown Juliette Lewis was billed fourth in Cape Fear, despite being absent from the billing block. That's also why Jodelle Ferland was billed above Bradley Cooper in Case 39, which actually said "In order of prominence" during the ending credits. There are also many occasions where the billing is not seen as an accurate representation of prominence. In fact, TV Tropes has an entry entitled Billing Displacement, which discusses discrepancies between where an actor's billing position and the prominence of his role. One example is none other than 12 Years A Slave, where Italian posters gave Pitt and Fassbender top billing and were pulled due to complaints. Bluerules (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you are correct, all this hashing things back and forth has gotten me confused about which of the lists we are comparing. We are going in circles. I have offered several compromises I hear no "counter-offers" from you, you only one list which IMO which the creation violates No Original Research: We should not be analyzing and interpreting the film. Even your insistence of ignoring the filmmakers and actors choices also IMO leans towards concerns of lack of Neutral POV. I reiterate, our choices as editors on these pages should NOT be dictated by our own personal opinion but to present the facts and also expert opinions from Reliable Sources. To me, the easiest and most objective way to do this is to use the cast list or billing list from the film. The cast list at 56 IMO is way too long (and you probably would not like this, even though not alphabetical since truncation would exclude many billed actors). So an objective way done for many films is to use the actors, as billed, in the film and use the roles as listed in the cast list. That is the current list. In your opinion, the order that the filmmakers created is not to your liking since parts of it are alphabetical. You have done done your own analysis and proposed a different ordering of those 16, which to me violates the no original research policy. My non-alphabetical compromise to the billed list, was the tiered list based on the subgroupings from the 3 billing lists we have. TO me that is currently where the compromise stands. While I don't think the partial alphabetical needs to be removed, this does it. This involves more research than I think we, as editors, should be doing and is bordering on violating No original research policy, so it is about the most I will compromise towards in researching:
  • Out of the 16 billed actors, it seems clear to me that [Chalk, Killam, and Camp] are respectively 14, 15, 16. They are the only ones not listed singularly on a screen, they are in a smaller font, and not listed alphabetically.
  • I think we both agree that [Ejiofor, Fassbender] are also not part of the partial-alphabetical listing you don't like, and are the 2 main stars. We both seem to agree that the order (albeit alphabetical) of Ejiofor, Fassbender should be respectively 1,2.
  • It seems clear to me that the Primary stars of the film are in the 6 actors listed in the billing block of the poster: [Ejiofor, Fassbender, Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, and Pitt]. With Ejiofor, Fassbender as 1 & 2 that leaves [Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, and Pitt] as 3 through 6. With no other facts to go on I think we can leave them this way: Ejiofor, Fassbender, Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, Pitt, [7-13], Chalk, Killam, and Camp
  • For [7-9] we get the additions to the poster billing who were not in the billing block: [Nyong'o, Paulson, and Woodard] Again while you have complaints of alphabetical order, for this small of a group I don't think it matters so the list then becomes: Ejiofor, Fassbender, Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, Pitt, Nyong'o, Paulson, Woodard, [10-13], Chalk, Killam, and Camp.
  • For [10-13] we take the last 4 billed people that were part of the "alphabetical billing" but not listed on the poster. [Dillahunt, McNairy, Oduye, and Williams]
My non-alphabetical compromise to your suggestion is thus the order: Ejiofor, Fassbender, Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, Pitt, Nyong'o, Paulson, Woodard, Dillahunt, McNairy, Oduye, Williams, Chalk, Killam, and Camp. Is that order acceptable to you. It keeps the prominence of the actors and roles, comes from the facts we are presented and while there was some research involved, it may be possible to squeek by the No original research stipulations. If you believe that more research and analysis of the their roles is required, I beleive that it would require an expert analysis from a reliable source that is cited.
I am unclear of your point about how billings in foreign countries relate at all to the billings in the film and in this country by the filmmakers. If you don't like even considering the poster billing, to me then it makes even more sense to just list the actors as they billed within the film. Do you want me to change the article to this compromise or do you have a counter proposal? AbramTerger (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited

@JDDJS: See above for what you just waded into. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't get why Quvenzhané Wallis can't be on the list. I don't care where she goes on the list, but as an Oscar nominated actress, her involvement in the film is very notable. Even if it's just a note below the rest of the list she should be somewhere on the list. We include uncredited cameos by notable actors on articles, so I don't see any reason why not to include her. JDDJS (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a cameo, it is a small credited role. You added no citation that her role was notable in the film. Being an Academy award nominee (or winner) in one film is not neccessarily indication of notability in another film.AbramTerger (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you put all those colons in, AbramTerger, but to each his own. Your argument is getting confusing, though. I'm not getting why you're saying JDDJS needs a source for Wallis's notability. His argument is actually sound. We include Bill Camp despite his lack of notability, but not Wallis? And yes, I know Camp was included in the opening credits, that's fine. Despite that, it doesn't negate that Wallis is notable enough on her own. Her appearance is notable because it's her appearing. That said, I softly support keeping the cast list how it is now, but I wouldn't be opposed to going back to the GA-reviewed version of the cast. It looks a little barren without any character descriptions or comments from the actors (à la The Avengers or something). Corvoe (speak to me) 20:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by what you mean AbramTerger. Are you saying that if Wallis wasn't credited and her part was even smaller, it would then be worth included? That doesn't make sense. How does it hurt the page at all by including her? She is notable actress, and her inclusion has virtually no effect on the overall length of the article. JDDJS (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cast list is the actors billed within the film. Camp is notable enough (combination of film and actor, I don't judge the criteria the filmmakers used, only report based on their criteria) to be billed so is included in the list. If we chose a different criteria (6 from poster billing block, or 9 from poster stars, he would not have been included). I have no problem with adding Wallis with a citation of notability. Any of our opinions on her notability is irrelevant. It is a fact that she was not notable enough to be billed in the film in any of the billing lists. If the argument is that her role is a notable cameo, or a even a star taking a small unbilled role, then that fact would be included in some reliable source which can then be cited. I don't see how a justification of notability can be done by us without the citation, however. That is the SOP used when we cast lists are done. Caneos and stars (and future stars in early roles) in bit parts have citations.AbramTerger (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the last sentence, does that mean an option is to mention Wallis in a sentence below the cast list? I suspect that she was cast because of Beasts of the Southern Wild but couldn't find anything right away in Google. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under the cast list is where I think it should be placed, if a citation is found for her notabilty in this film (just like we often do for cameos and bit parts from notable actors in other articles.AbramTerger (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a citation and added her after the cast list. Is that acceptable?AbramTerger (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the "Beasts of the Southern Wild" advert, I think it's fine. Mentioning that film doesn't seem worthwhile, she's notable enough on her own at this point.
That said, I like your formatting idea, and I think we should use it to add other cast members back, like Michael Kenneth Williams and Dwight Henry. Again, I'm kind of visualizing it the same way superhero movie cast sections are. Not to keep bringing up The Avengers, but I think its cast list is very well formatted. Discussion about the main characters from the actor and filmmakers (which there is plenty of for this film, and which I would love to take on adding), and a small paragraph at the bottom of the cast about the additional, less important roles. Obviously we'll only add people if they're sourced, but I think this cast section can look a lot better. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is for a clean cast list and any supplemental information in the production section. But if the consensus is to expand, I am not going to fight it. I do think if the information in the cast list is going to be expanded, that the film's billing (17 actors) should be tossed and we should use the 9 stars from the poster as the "list" and then add other "cited notables" after the details on those 9 main roles. I think the 17 billed is too large a list for doing that. Another option for formatting and order, if there are many notables, is explicitly putting them in plantation/location/time order (similar to The Butler). For a large number of listed roles, this may make more sense than by billing order.AbramTerger (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So does anyone else have any thoughts on how the cast should be ordered? I still stand by my initial argument. There's nothing to support claims of an original order violating Wikipedia:NOR because the source is the film and there are no guidelines that force us to use the billing for the order. Bluerules (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated several times, I agree, that there is nothing requiring using the film's billing. But that is an objective decision for us editors from the primary source. If you have an alternative order from a reliable source, I think it can be discussed, otherwise the order you keep going back to violates no original resource since it was created from your original resource, not from a reliable source (or you have yet to tell us what the reliable source is, so it would at least woud force a ciation needed note). I have proposed an alternative order using the primary and secondary sources, to determine a list based more on "notability" (in the film combined with outside the film), but you have never responded to that or the other alternative to cut thte cast list to the poster order, and then expand on that list with comments and include a paragraph listing of the other notables (with citations). Neither of the 2 current options being discussed, requires any original research.AbramTerger (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that we should follow the billing to an extent. Follow the poster order and list actors with their own subsections based on that, then put the supporting cast below. I will make a collapsible mock-up of what the cast list should look like in my mind:
Extended content
  • Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon Northup, a free African-American man who is captured and sold into slavery. Ejiofor said (insert quotes about playing the man here)
  • Michael Fassbender as Edwin Epps, a plantation owner and one of Northup's masters (not sure this is PC, but I don't know what else to put). Fassbender said (ditto)
  • Benedict Cumberbatch as Ford, a kind-hearted plantation owner who briefly owns Northup. Cumberbatch said (ditto)
  • Paul Dano as Tibeats, one of Ford's overseers who resents Northup. Dano said (you get it)
  • Paul Giamatti as Freeman, a slave auctioneer who sells Northup to Ford. Giamatti...
  • Lupita Nyong'o as Patsey, one of Epps's slaves and the subject of his affection (or something like that). Nyong'o...
  • Sarah Paulson as Mistress Epps, Edwin Epps's violent wife. Paulson... (or something about how the character treats Patsey)
  • Brad Pitt as Bass, a Canadian carpenter and abolitionist. Pitt...
  • Alfre Woodard as Mistress Shaw, a free African-American woman who befriends Patsey. Woodard...

Garret Dillahunt portrays Armsby, a white field hand at the Epps plantation. Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam portray Northup's kidnappers Brown and Hamilton, respectively. Beasts of the Southern Wild stars Quvenzhané Wallis and Dwight Henry have small roles as a young Margaret Northup and Uncle Abram, respectively, though they do not share any scenes together. Additional cast members include Adepero Oduye as Eliza, Michael Kenneth Williams as Robert, Chris Chalk as Clemens, and Bill Camp as Radburn.

Like I said, it's very much a mock-up, but it's more for visualization than anything. I didn't note it, but I'm sure McQueen made comments about their performances and takes on the character, so that would be relevant inclusion as well. We could also put the miscellaneous info on a separate line if we so choose. Also, the Beasts of the Southern Wild part would be interesting to include if we can source it, in my opinion. But yeah, that's my two cents. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with the mockup. My suggestions for are to put the secondary billed actors in appearance order to keep the roles together, but have some logical listing order for them. After the billed actors, I would put the "Beasts" stars [with a reference for Henry, Wallis has one] at the end since they are notable but not billed.AbramTerger (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the mock up over to User:Corvoe/12YAS Cast, so go ahead and make the edit there. I'm a bit stumped on how to word it and change the order, and ideally, we'll have sources for everybody. I've got a backlog of stuff I need to do (a huge critical reception section comes to mind) but I'll see what I can help with. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem remains that the billing is alphabetical. The only reason I've been given for not creating an original order is it apparently violates NOR, when I've repeatedly said the source of such an order comes from the film. I do not support the tier-based orders because the majority of them still come from alphabetical lists and they're based more on star power than the prominence of the cast members. It's an objective fact that Nyong'o has more screentime than Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, and Pitt. Bluerules (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question remains, where that "objective fact" derives from (and the answer I keep hearing is your original research). And if we decided to use "screen time" as the criteria, we would need a list (from a reliable source) of the screen time for the majority of the actors and then list with this. I suspect that the order would change and even some billed actors would not make the cut over other non-billed actors. Billing involves prominence which includes prominence of the actor inside and outside the film. But any one of the 3 billing orders we choose is also an "objective fact" that comes directly from the film or the poster so none require any original research to use. I think the tiered approach is borderline on using original research, but at least it can directly derived from the source information at hand (from the progression of the 3 different billing orders we have). Your suggestion to me remains wholly original and is much more indirect and ignores the notability of the actor as an important criteria. If we would choose "screen time" as the chosen criteria for listing, it seems to me that notable bit parts should also not be listed, which goes against the practice of many cast list. Most use the notability (ie billing which includes the actor outside the film and the role inside the film) as the criteria so includes billed actors, credited actors, and uncredited cameos and bit parts as well. Not only are you advocating ignoring the billing, but if adapted would also ignore the cameos and bit parts of notable actors, since the criteria being chosen is the very narrow "screen time".AbramTerger (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So is the plot summary composed entirely of original research? There are no citations to prove any of information detailed there actually happened in the film. Yet nobody objects to the plot summary violating NOR. That's because the source of the summary is the film itself, just like the source of Nyong'o having more screentime than Cumberbatch, Dano, Giamatti, and Pitt comes from the film. To review:
  • Cumberbatch first appears at 29:46 and leaves at 54:17.
  • Dano first appears at 33:12 and leaves at 49:09.
  • Giamatti first appears at 27:51 and leaves at 32:01.
  • Pitt first appears at 1:41:56 and leaves at 1:58:26.
  • Nyong'o first appears at 55:42 and leaves at 2:03:45.
Now while billing usually involves prominence, that's not the case with 12 Years a Slave, where eleven actors are billed alphabetically. The fact that prominence had little to do with the billing order is best evidenced by the title credits, where actors who aren't on any of the posters get billed above ones in the billing block. The notability of an actor outside of a film has no validity to his or her notability in the actual film. This is best evidenced by the foreign posters, which gave Fassbender and Pitt top billing. If the official posters gave them top billing, would you advocate putting them above Ejiofor in the cast section, even though Ejiofor is the main character? You were previously telling me the cast list needed be shortened, now you're objecting to minor roles being omitted. Bit parts and cameos are usually not listed in the first place to prevent the cast section from being too long. If they are mentioned, they're usually placed in a paragraph separate from the main order (such as Quvenzhané Wallis in this article). Bluerules (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have offered a compromise using "billing tiers" to avoid the overall alphabetical listing, but since you seem unwilling to discuss alternatives, i see no reason to continue to try to reword my response again. The alternate compromise is Corvoe's poster billing bulleted list, with smaller roles paragraph listed. My suggestion was the billed smaller roles first in appearance order and the unbilled smaller roles later (the unbilled requiring citations). I prefer the simple billed list, but I can live with the some minor tweaks to Corvoe's suggestion and prefer it to the tiered list. [One comment: you seemed to be confused about objectively relating information about a plot from a source, and doing an analysis of the source material. It is the analysis that is original research. Also the first and last appearance in the film is not "screen-time". Screen time is the total time on-screen. Northup's wife appears at the start and the end of the film but has little screen time.]AbramTerger (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accept the billing tiers for three reasons. The first is the film itself disregarded the tiers in favor of a predominately alphabetical order. Secondly, there are no guidelines that force us to consider the billing; the main reason provided is based on a misinterpretation of Wikipedia:FILMCAST. The third and most important reason is even the tiers are inaccurate. Unlike Kelsey Scott, Nyong'o is not absent for long stretches of time between her introduction and exit. She has more on-screen appearances than the four actors in a "higher" tier and she's not in the background either; several scenes are focused on her character. To give her anything less than third billing would be inaccurate. This is also based on information from the primary source; it's clear who the primary characters in the film are. I don't mind giving the actors paragraphs (that's what the cast section should have in the first), it's only the order I mind. Bluerules (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy and Differences from the book

I think the historical accuracy section needs some citations and perhaps some pruning. Some of the items in the list do not seem to be differences or errors: not specifically mentioning something in the book, but having a detail in the film does not make it wrong. Regardless, instead of listing differences from the book, I think they should probably just be cited from the source article, so anyone interested can go there instead of having a list here. It may be good to distinguish differences from the book as well as historical inaccuracies for things not neccessarily detailed in the book but put on the screen.AbramTerger (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a writeup of the differences between the book and the movie. I added these differences to the main article, but someone deleted them. There are several fictional scenes in the movie that are not in Solomon Northrup’s account. Obviously these scenes were added to make the film sexually exciting and more melodramatic, at the expense of faithfulness to Solomon’s story. 1. The movie shows a white man in the hold on the slave ship stabbing a slave to death, when in fact no such event is mentioned in the book. 2. The movie depicts nudity at a slave auction, whereas there is no mention of this in the book. 3. The movie depicts Solomon having sexual relations with another slave, but Solomon’s book makes no mention of such relations. 4. The movie depicts Solomon as having a rope around his neck and tied to a tree limb, when in actuality Solomon says he had “the rope still dangling from my neck”. The rope was not tied to the tree limb. 5. The movie shows Solomon coming upon a lynching of two slaves in the woods, whereas there is no such event in the book. 6. The movie shows the slave Patsy asking Solomon to end her life, but there is no such event in the book. 7. The movie depicts Solomon as destroying his violin near the end of the movie, when in fact he makes no mention of such an act in the book.

In contrast to this, significant events in Solomon’s account are not shown at all in the film. For example, when Solomon arrived in bondage at New Orleans, a white sailor agreed to mail a letter for Solomon. This letter was sent to and received by Henry Northrup, who shared the letter with Solomon’s wife. In this manner she knew that her husband had been enslaved. But the film has the viewer believe his wife had no knowledge of his condition for 12 years. Another significant event not shown in the movie was Solomon’s several day successful escape into the swamps to flee the wrath of the carpenter Tibeats.

Also not shown in the film is the cooperation of various white officials to secure Solomon’s release from slavery. These officials included Governor Hunt of New York State; Congressional Senator Soule of Louisiana; the Secretary of War; Judge Nelson of the U.S. Supreme Court; local lawyer John Waddill of Marksville, Louisiana, along with the local judge and local sheriff.

Also not shown was the arrest and trial of the slave dealer James H. Burch of Washington D.C. who originally enslaved Solomon.

I consider these differences to be significant. Perhaps the movie credits should acknowledge that the movie is a fictionalized account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickvale (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting difference is that the film does not mention, as Solomon recounts, that slaves were paid if they were required to work on Sundays or holidays, and that in his own case he also retained the money he received when working as a musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but who is responsible for linking this article to white savior narrative in film? This is a massive insult to both Solomon Northup and Steve McQueen to reduce one the few films about slavery that doesn't end up being all about some white guy as a white savior film. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been trying to remove 12 Years a Slave (film) from white savior narrative in film despite sources identifying a white savior in the film. Discussion at Talk:White savior narrative in film#12 Years a Slave has not gone favorably for the editor, so they are engaging in WP:FORUMSHOP to find the result they want, which is based strictly on their POV. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, shut up! Can you point me to the sources on this article that states that this fall under the white savior narrative? Seriously, tell me. Other than those two links where one of them reads likes an advertisement for a different film, and the other one is from a white guy. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Careful. Do stay civil. Dschslava (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I just don't like how a very necessary article is being controlled by this one guy. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See main discussion here. Dschslava (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere we can call a vote, calling 12 years a slave a white saviour narrative is quite frankly ridiculous, and perhaps even borderline offensive. He saves himself, he could have given up in the film at any point, but he never did. It is based off a true story, is history a white saviour narrative now? isn't that an absolutely abhorrent view to uphold?

Soloman is kidnapped and forced into slavery by white people, and in the end his character and personality leads him to befriend a man who can help him win back his freedom, the man who helps him is white but that is no consolation to Soloman he still got enslaved in the first place. Freeing someone from slavery in no way makes up for the fact they were enslaved in the first place, because they should never have been enslaved. This isn't really a white saviour narrative, by any sane definition. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Fdsdh1, reliable sources write about the white-savior element in the film. Wikipedia follows these sources. We cannot bring our POV into it. Based on what I've read, though, white savior films include "good" whites saving nonwhites from "bad" whites (Mississippi Burning being one such example). Historical films qualify too because of the creative choices made, such as in The Blind Side, the black character is portrayed as having to be taught football by the white character even though the real-life figure already knew how to play. For this particular film, there are many sources about this element that the link definitely warrants inclusion as a tangentially related topic per WP:SEEALSO. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big ass difference between The Blind Side and 12 Years a Slave and you know it!. Don't you dare compare one of the few films to show the horrors of slavery that spends most of its time focusing on the kidnapped black guy with a film that's all about how great Sandra Bullock is for helping out this black guy. I seriously doubt that you have seen this film, Erik! And stop trying to link your poorly written articles to every fucking film! 2600:8800:5100:38E:3D55:2B40:175D:FCA8 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proponents of keeping the category have supplied a number of sources supporting doing so here, where I'm providing a link because the discussion is now archived. The term "white savior" does sound somewhat smug or condescending, but it's true that Northup couldn't have relied on just his own wits and fortitude to get out of his predicament. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The film focuses on Solomon Northrup! It's one thing to say that the film has a white savior; it's another thing to claim that the film focuses on the white savior. 2600:8800:5100:38E:B10C:BA23:AD32:CB92 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2600, please read our policy on edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, people. Do you guys actually want a conversation or not? Because I am getting sick of people reverting my edits on account of "please see the talk page" when every conversation goes nowhere. It is so frustrating that just removing a link in the "see also" suction is causing so much trouble. You guys are acting like I'm removing a section from this article. Actually, if you want to be so hard ass against the removal of a fucking link, you can at least add a small section about the small group of people who claims that 12 Years a Slave is a white savior film when the term "white savior" doesn't even appear in this fucking article! 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it here as well. Start an WP:RFC. You'll get a broader range of opinions that way because of the Feedback request service. Then we can get a solid read on what the consensus is. clpo13(talk) 16:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's sound a lot of work just to remove one fucking link, man. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're getting nowhere with a regular discussion. Clearly the people currently invested in this page oppose removing it. So you'll either have to bring in new opinions or accept that the link isn't going to go away. clpo13(talk) 16:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just declined a request to semi-protect this article - the next admin might just think protecting would be the easiest thing to do. Starting a RFC seems to be your best course of action. --NeilN talk to me 16:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I JUST WANT ONE FUCKING LINK REMOVED FROM THE "See also" SECTION. WHY DO I NEED TO START AN WP:RFC JUST FOR THAT? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because other editors do not want what you want. --NeilN talk to me 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But why is everyone acting like I'm removing a large chunk of the article? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about how much content is removed - it's about how important other editors consider the content to be. In this case removing even that one line probably gives the appearance of bias (regardless of whether or not there is any), and that's why it's controversial, and requires extra discussion. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not large but it's important because "white savior" is a term used by a number of reviewers to characterize the film and because it's not mentioned elsewhere. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not mentioned elsewhere." That's the problem: NOT ONCE DOES THE TERM "WHITE SAVIOR" EVER POPS UP IN THIS ARTICLE. If you're going add a link that requires me to get a RFC, you can at least add something to justify it, instead of being butthurt whenever someone tries to remove it. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd conversation. I will close this saying something like "there seems to be agreement that it is valid to mention it in the article in which case a 'See also' link isn't necessary". So, there seems to be agreement that it is valid to mention it in the article in which case a "See also" link isn't necessary. I have taken it upon myself to revert Erik's revert of Erik's edit, thus reinstating the mention in the article, and I removed the link from the See also section. BTW, how this claim could be controversial is entirely unclear to me, given the enormous amount of highly reliable sourcing on the topic; the IP editor who has been arguing very loudly against the trope in the first place (here and in White savior narrative in film) seems to be...well...POV. As an editor, my suggestion to Erik would be to play it up a bit more in the text: if it is this important it might well deserve a separate subsection under "Historical accuracy" or some other place like that--I'm surprised that there is no separate section for "Theme" or so. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the White savior narrative in film wikilink in the "See also" section be removed? --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC) (for IP)[reply]

  • Comment: Hi. As the editor who has de facto requested the RFC, my main problem with having the White savior narrative in film wikilink is that, other the link itself, not once does the term "white savior" ever appears in this article. If we are going have such a contentious link on this page, (and I am sorry to burst your bubble, people, but if someone had added the White savior narrative in film wikilink around March 2, 2014, I would far be the only person trying to get that link removed) at least have a small paragraph in the "reception" section about how some people dismissed this movie as a "white savior narrative". 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "Wsnif" link in the "See also" section. It is a relevant article. BTW the IP may want to read WP:ALSO section of the MOS where it states "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Thus the fact that the phrase is not mentioned in the article means that the MOS is being followed correctly. MarnetteD|Talk 20:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is relevant, it should be discussed in the article, as it is obviously a controversial claim. The "See also" link looks like an uncontested label and goes to page where no opposing viewpoints are seen. 202.81.248.163 (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. My feeling is this is a POV opinion/perception, and shouldn't be placed prominently on the film's See Also. If need be, wikilink to it within a discussion in the Reception section, as the opinion of those few reviewers/commentators who took that approach -- and See Alsos should not replicate what is linked within the body text. I see no reason for Wikipedia, in Wikipedia's voice, to state or imply (as a prominent See Also would) that the film is definitively a "white savior narrative". The opinon should be stated in the reviewer's voice(s), not Wikipedia's. I also do not like the precedent set that every time someone creates a coatrack-y opinion article on Wikipedia (and I've seen them proliferate of late), all of the titles/items mentioned in it (with or without good sourcing) get spammed with that link in their See Also sections. Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, Fru1tbat: There are numerous sources mentioning the white savior element, and I link to the sources in my comment below. The "See also" section is for tangentially related topics, and the white savior is especially related. It is not mere controversy; it is a sociological topic with an authoritative book, The White Savior Film, by sociologist Matthew Hughey. Based on the sources, the white savior could be discussed in the article body along with other critical commentary. It would be undue weight to call 12 Years a Slave a "white savior film" in the opening sentence, but the "See also" section is in the article footer after everything else. It is a jumping board to explore tangentially related topics. In addition, the cross-navigation is regardless of the topic, films on a list should be inter-linked. We should not shy away from that because of simplistic assumptions on editors' part crying racism when secondary sources (which Wikipedia follows instead) are discussing the element in the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not debating the validity of the topic itself. I'm saying that the characterization of a film as a representation of the narrative, which is apparently not a universally agreed-upon characterization, should be discussed in context with sources, not merely linked as a "related topic", which I feel could be misinterpreted. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fru1tbat, that's fair. What about something like this with a similar description? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: Per Softlavender. Placing a link to a controversial interpretation in "see also" could be seen as giving validation/weight, and we should be going out of our way to avoid that. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If grouping this film with other white savior narratives in film is controversial, then that argument should be made at the linked list, and the film removed there first, if consensus dictates. For editors of this article to judge for themselves without making that argument and gaining that consensus risks leaving the encyclopedia in an inconsistent state, where others are apt to try to re-add the link in the future. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your desire that the encyclopedia remain consistent would be satisfied just as well by the point being discussed in prose rather than placed without context in "see also". --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would, as long as the discussion wasn't all about second-guessing placing the film as a white-savior narrative. Without the discussion, the See Also link is appropriate, and shouldn't warp people's impression of the film. As has been said, See Also is for articles that relate tangentially to the subject. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there are people out there (like me) who don't think that the link has nothing to do with this article. And again, how hard is it to just have a tiny paragraph about how some critics saw this as a white savior narrative? I have never seen a group of people who feel so strongly about wanting to keep a link in the See Also section, but can't be bothered to actually make it apart of the main article. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume that "don't think" should be "think" (or "nothing" s/b "anything"). In any case, there's nothing stopping someone, such as yourself, proposing wording for such a paragraph, as Erik has now done. And the RfC is expressly for the purpose of finding out who out there thinks the way you do. So far, it seems evenly split, although without much participation. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because at minimum, it is a tangentially related topic, as evidenced by the sources for it on the list article. There are also numerous sources mentioning the white savior in the film; see a list here: Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 2#Additional sources. However, the film's article itself could discuss the white savior element as part of an analysis of the characters, linking to the article in prose instead of the "See also" section. It would require some devoted writing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC) (I've added the sources and the relevant quotes below to show that it is definitely tangentially related at the very least)[reply]
Sources mentioning "white savior" in 12 Years a Slave
  • Houston, Shannon M. (March 4, 2014). "12 Years a Slave Versus Lee Daniels' The Butler: What the Academy Still Needs to Get Right About Black Narratives in Film". Paste. But we watch 12 Years knowing that Solomon's only way home is to gain the ear of a good-hearted white man. This is absolutely not a critique of the narrative, which is, for one, based on Northup's own memoirs. And as our own critic Annlee Ellingson notes, there really was no other way: 'As nuanced as Cumberbatch and Fassbender are in their performances, though, their respective archetypes as kindly and cruel are clear-cut, and when producer Brad Pitt shows up on the scene as a Canadian abolitionist, he's positively angelic, a downright savior—and white. (But then what other honest outcome could there be? This isn't a Quentin Tarantino revenge fantasy, after all.)'
  • Joseph, Peniel E. (January 15, 2015). "If You Think Selma's Snubbing Is a Fluke, Think Again. The Oscars Have Stiffed Lots of Black Films". The Root. For the kind of white protagonist (read: hero) that enables white voters to identify with films presenting black subject matter. Even 12 Years a Slave provided white characters that allowed contemporary mainstream audiences to relate, even if simply through an act of personal revulsion that allowed 21st-century liberals a measure of moral superiority.
  • Johnson, Gregory (January 17, 2014). "Opinion: On '12 Years A Slave', 'The Butler' And Hollywood's 'White Savior' Obsession". Vibe. Hollywood has become obsessed with revenge tales of bondage and servitude like 12 Years a Slave and The Butler. But why aren't depictions of blacks removing their own chains getting the big-screen treatment? ... Well, no knock on Quentin Tarantino, Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz and the like for directing or portraying decent, redeemable white characters. But those films still require a sympathetic Caucasian hero to justify their existence.
  • Seewood, Andrew. "Black Film Theory: Fighting the Illusions of White Supremacy in Cinematic Narration - Part Two". Shadow and Act. Indiewire. ...Solomon is liberated from slavery through the benevolence of a White carpenter named, Samuel Bass (Brad Pitt); a White savior.
  • Hobson, Janell (October 24, 2013). "Healing from Historic Trauma: '12 Years a Slave'". Ms. We are fortunate to have McQueen's honest eye and take-no-prisoners approach to filmmaking on this subject, not to mention the willingness of Brad Pitt, doubling as 'white savior' in both his minimal role in the film and his role as a film producer, to finance it.
  • Moore, A. (September 7, 2014). "8 Memorable Films About Slavery: What They Got Right and What They Got Wrong". Atlanta Black Star. The film's use of actor Brad Pitt to satisfy Hollywood's desire for a 'white savior,' came off as self-serving. 'It's all so credibly enacted that once Brad Pitt (whose Plan B productions produced the film) arrives in a bit part as a kind-hearted Canadian who visits the plantation and speaks out against slavery, the character's messianic qualities seem like a bit much,' wrote Indiewire film critic Eric Kohn.
  • Anthony, Iva (February 5, 2014). "Classic White Savior Movies: 12 Years a Slave". Madame Noire. In 1841, New York-born freeman Solomon Northup was kidnapped and enslaved for 12 years before finally earning his freedom. His memoir was turned into Steve McQueen's biopic 12 Years A Slave. Northup tried over and over to prove who he really was but it fell on deaf ears until a Canadian carpenter risked his life to help him out.
  • Gittell, Noah (December 24, 2014). "'Selma' and Saviors". Los Angeles Review of Books. Too many of these films continue to rely on a regressive archetype known as the 'white savior,' a character who uses his or her elevated position of power to help blacks escape from poverty, servitude, or outright slavery. It's Emma Stone in The Help, Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, or Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey in 42. Even a film as progressive as 12 Years a Slave cannot escape the trope. In the end, Solomon Northup becomes free due to the actions of a white contractor who visits his plantation and takes up his case.
  • Couch, Aaron; Washington, Arlene (February 22, 2014). "NAACP Image Awards: The Winners". The Hollywood Reporter. David Oyelowo, who won a supporting actor award for The Butler, said this year's field of African-American centered films was incredibly strong. 'To have films like The Butler, 12 Years a Slave, Fruitvale Station and Mandela -- all that have black protagonists with no white savior character holding their hand through the movie is a huge stride forward,' he told THR. (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)
  • Mozaffar, Omer M. (August 13, 2014). "History of Film: 'Lawrence of Arabia'". Movie Mezzanine. Speaking of the White Saviors of Hollywood cinema, many will recognize its obvious influences on such films as Avatar and Dances with Wolves. To be fair, as frequently as the film praises his endeavors leading the Arabs, it also critiques it, commenting that a British foreigner came in and created a mess of the Arabs. But, that recurring thread of the Caucasian elite helping the vulnerable persons of color streams through such modern films as Elysium, The Blind Side, and Django Unchained. Even 12 Years a Slave finds its White Savior in Brad Pitt. But even then, these were all, to varying degrees, emotionally successful films.
  • Holman, Curt (December 25, 2014). "A confident historical drama, 'Selma' doesn't waste a second". Creative Loafing. On the other hand, the out-of-nowhere celebrity appearances, like Cuba Gooding Jr. and Martin Sheen as a lawyer and a judge, respectively, feel kitschy and distracting, if not as obtrusive as Brad Pitt's white-savior turn at the end of 12 Years a Slave.
Sneed, Timothy. "A Year After Trayvon Martin, Who Is Leading the Race Conversation?". U.S. News & World Report. '12 Years a Slave' won the Academy Award for best picture. However, doubts still lingered about its ability to truly bring about a newfound racial consciousness among a national, mainstream audience... The film also was a period piece that featured a happy ending ushered in by a 'white savior' in the form of Brad Pitt's character.
I would like to point out that Erik is the same editor who was responsible for adding the link in the first place, and is also the main author of the white savior narrative in film article. By the way, Erik, way to reveal yourself that you're too lazy to even add your "findings" to the main article. All it would take is one paragraph! 2600:8800:5100:38E:35B0:664A:1171:4151 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "lazy" because the right inclusion of prose about the white savior trope involving assessing all the critical commentary about this film. This article does not include sources like this or this, and I would not want to shoehorn in prose just about the white savior element. Per WP:SEEALSO, the section can have links to tangentially related topics until the article is improved to Featured Article status, at which point it is likely that the white savior element is discussed as part of the whole picture and no longer needs placement in the "See also" section at the end. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, for the last time, not everyone thinks that your article relates to this film. And if you want to keep harping on those same sources, ADD THEM TO THIS ARTICLE. The fact that this link is the only thing that talks about this trope suggests that no, you're just lazy. You're lucky that 12 Years a Slave doesn't have a massive fandom like The Matrix and Stargate, meaning that I'm the only person who is actively trying to remove this link. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained why I do not want to shoehorn in prose only related to the white savior trope. The "See also" section is the permissible manner in which to make the connection (because there is indeed a tangential relationship). For example, this article has no section devoted to the portrayal of race, in which the trope could be discussed. I do not find the sources' content to be a counterpoint to the excellent reviews that the film got (since it is more a social commentary matter), so I do not think there is a place in the article to discuss the trope. Excuse me for not wanting to devote time and research on all social commentary pertaining to this film to write that up and to write up about the trope as well, because that is what it takes. The very nature of a "See also" section is to list links that would be out of place in an underdeveloped article. In a developed article, the link would already be included in the article body and not be part of the "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only you thinks there is a tangential relationship between your article and this movie (and I think that this is really important to point out that the "white savior narrative in film" article is de facto your work). Erik, there is a sentence in the reception section that is about some Black guy being tried of having these black struggle films; I DON'T THINK IT'S HARD TO HAVE ONE SENTENCE ABOUT SOME GUY WHO THINKS THIS IS A WHITE SAVIOR FILM. You know what I think Erik? I think that you don't want to deal with having people disagree with your analysis, so you're content with just slapping a link to your article in the see also and getting really mad whenever someone tries to remove it. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see the big list of sources above that mention the white savior trope in this film? If it was one or two sources, that would be too minimal. But there are over a dozen sources identifying the trope. Stop obfuscating the discussion in making it about me. I've added a sentence at the end of the "Critical response" section even though I find it very much out of place. Feel free to move that sentence to a more appropriate spot. If others are okay with it, then we can take the link, now redundant, out of the "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since Erik's article is now linked in the text, it should be removed from the "see also" links. You can't have it both ways. I'd do it myself if I thought it would stand for more than 10 seconds. 202.81.248.232 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the RfC is still ongoing, I've reverted myself. We can link to the diff to show how the link could be incorporated into the article body. Editors here can view the diff here (at the end of the "Critical response" section). Pinging editors here who have weighed in: MarnetteD, Softlavender, Fru1tbat, Dhtwiki. Would this insertion be more acceptable than either having a link in the "See also" section or having no link anywhere? (As I've stated above, I'm wary of shoehorning in the link.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not comfortable with a bare see also link, and while accompanying it with some explanatory text (as you suggested above) is a bit better, I think your edit here is the best solution. The wording could be changed, or it could be moved, but even left alone I think I prefer it to the alternatives. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also agreeable to handling it this way, and the wording, the context, seems fine to me. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I agree with Softlavender, if the sourcing is strong enough, this link belongs in 'criticism', in the voice of the reviewer. See also's are meant to be closely related subjects not 'pointy' comments on the film 'piggy-backing' their way into the article and definitely not both in the criticism and 'see also'. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since editors appear to be agreed above there are enough RS criticisms to include a para of text in 'criticism/reaction', which would include the link, why is a 'see also' preferred? Sorry but this is borderline wasting RfC-ers time which could be spent framing apt text. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, it is not that the "See also" section is preferred. It was what was in existence before, and an editor wanted to exclude the link entirely. Apparently now they are okay with it being in the article body. As I stated above, I find the write-up a bit shoehorned in and hope that it will not be "contentious" down the road. If that becomes the case, the link will have to go back to the "See also" section unless the article can be written further to comment more about the portrayal of race and to include the trope as part of that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is strong-ish, why not simply add a sentence to the criticism, there the criticism has context and is not dissimilar to other criticisms of the film. 'See also' doesn't seem the way forward, it isn't a related subject, it a clear (minority perhaps but valid), opinion about this particular film. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had added a sentence briefly as seen here. Do you find that sufficient? (I reverted myself while the RfC is still pending.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from "See also", but keep in article: I think that the topic should be brought up within the article, as has been already stated. Perhaps, rather being featured prominently in "See also", it could be placed in a "Themes" section. –Matthew - (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep According to the relevant guidelines, "whether a link belongs in the See also section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Moreover, "the See also section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Which means that the lack of related citations in the article's text about the "white savior" narrative is NOT an obstacle, and we should not feel "uncomfortable" about such lack. There is every reason to include this wikilink in the See also section; the extensive list provided above by Erik is quite conclusive. The list, and other related info, also provide material that could and should be added to the article, without this affecting the See also items. -The Gnome (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 12 Years a Slave (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 12 Years a Slave (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:12_Years_a_Slave_(film)&oldid=1242883937"