Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

What is this racism posing as fact doing on Wikipedia?

The only way this is not a political narrative propaganda article is if there is an article for every hue of color the current variance in pigment in the sum of the current human gene-pool allows (to my knowledge, in no country has there not yet been made films of the native people to date). But there's just this one. Curious thing.

Disappointed that this is apparently the lowered standard of today. RhoDaZZ (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a horseshit article, top to bottom, whose animating spirit is anti-white racism. Essentially ANY film could be added to the list if 1) it contains a white protagonist, and 2) at least one non-white person is in the cast (even if it is only one), and 3) the latter character is influenced by the former is some way. E.g., the ludicrous inclusion of One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest (the removal of which will not salvage this Marxist class-warfare rot in the least).--Froglich (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Most people agree. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Too bad the way articles get deleted on this site is pretty dumb. --Bullminotaur44 (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The topic easily satisfies Wikipedia:Notability, so if your personal opinions are driving you to desire the deletion of this topic despite the editing policies and guidelines, you may want to reconsider your participation on Wikipedia. Your personal opinions should not dictate how you edit. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This article absolutely does not need to be on Wikipedia. It's an entirely subjective concept, and should be treated as such. My suggestion is if we can't delete the article, we remove all the mentions and links to it in other articles. There's no logical reason it should be on any page's "See Also" section if the page in question doesn't mention it, because doing so is basically Wikipedia saying, "Yep, this is racist", which breaks the rule that encyclopedias are supposed to be neutral and uselessly puts a negative spin on otherwise great works. If anything it belongs on the TV Tropes website only. I was making edits just under my IP until now, but I decided to make a legit account to weigh in on this. The concept of it doesn't even make sense, if you think about it. It seems like it's aimed negatively at white people, but if you look at the list of examples, it clearly lists movies that glorify people of color. It is the exact definition of a personal opinion, because it's entirely about perspective. It might as well be considered a joke, or a theory. DarkMozes (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@DarkMozes: Recommend reviewing WP:NPOV. Even if you think it's a joke, it's notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That is it may be, I think more effort should be put forth into the article and the places it's linked to reflect that it's not a hard fact. Regardless of example or research, it will always be an opinion because art is subjective. The lack of proper explanation for why it's included on some movies' pages on the pages themselves is indicative of that. Is "white savior" a genre of movie now? There's too much gray area. Even if they are "white savior narratives" and I didn't disagree with that (I do), it's only fair to consider all sides of the argument, and not present the information in a biased way. Who goes behind everyone and looks for the incredibly obscure sources that are needed to list these movies as such? That's shady, isn't it? The fact that we're even discussing it should be a red flag that something is not right, especially considering the notable aggressive nature of those whom we sometimes rudely refer to as "social justice warriors". DarkMozes (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with EvergreenFir. If your first reaction is that we should not have an article, in the fact of everything that has been written about, then your input is highly suspect. I encourage you to pick up The White Savior Film to read before you minimize the topic as merely some opinion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: The "white savior" narrative is a 100% subjective concept. It only exists when the the viewer in question gains or possesses a negative view of the white person(s) in the film. It is impossible to be neutral unless the article is reworked or reworded to reflect that fact. Almost all the movies listed on the page are entirely debatable and up for interpretation, and an interpretation is not a fact, it is an opinion or a "theory" for lack of a better word. The trope has a negative connotation to it, right? So why are movies like "Lincoln" listed? Weren't Lincoln's actions positive ones? The entire concept of the trope as a whole falls apart when you present the movies as racist, instead of racist by interpretation. The page needs to be reworked, or reworded, to show that not everyone subscribes to these interpretations of the movies in question. Even the sources in the article are problematic, they're essentially just professional opinions. It's not like they put the movies under a microscope and suddenly discovered the "white savior" particle. The article also does not list any opposing views of the topic, unless I just can't find it, wouldn't it be neutral to present all views? If that's not biased, I don't know what is. DarkMozes (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

All this is layperson musing. You are not arguing from any sources and are ignoring what sources do say about the trope. There is not going to be a source that says the white savior trope does not exist. There are individual films where the commentary is mixed, and such commentary has been included. If you do not understand why Lincoln qualifies as having the trope, then you have not bothered reading anything about this trope. You are referencing your own POV to try to downplay the existence of this trope, rather than seeing what sources say about a topic, and summarizing what they have to say. If there is wording to be scrutinized, then the source must be evaluated, and how they wrote it must be evaluated, so the Wikipedia article can adequately capture it. We don't change it to what we "feel" is right. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There's really no need for name-calling. That should be all the source and evidence we need to prove that your intentions with the article may be less than honorable, and it doesn't follow the Wikipedia guidelines of not biting the newcomers as well.DarkMozes (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not calling you any names. I am saying that you are trying to insert your POV, which has no basis in reliable sources, into this Wikipedia article. You came to the talk page arguing that we should not have an article in the first place, after all. On Wikipedia, we need to start with the sources and write from them. If you think there is coverage that challenges the validity of the white savior trope, then present it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You said, "layperson", which is a name, which illustrates what you think of newer editors. It was name-calling, but you were subtle about it. DarkMozes (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I am a layperson too, as are many editors. Some editors bring their experience from the outside (but still need to use sources). I do not claim to bring any film-related experience. As editors, we have to write what the sources say. In regard to this trope, my concern is that you are dismissive of its validity from the get-go. The fact is, the trope has been authoritatively written about, especially with The White Savior Film by sociology professor Matthew Hughey. It is not as simple as saying he thought to himself for a bit, and then wrote his opinion to share, and that there are equally valid opinions to counter him and others who have written about the trope. We have to reference reliable sources. That's why I suggest reading what the coverage has to say. I can try to summarize here, but the problem is that it is going to come across as layperson too, unless I quote directly and consistently from Hughey and others. If you really are curious about this topic, then I suggest reading Hughey's book. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Merging "Classifications" (Continued)

What I'm seeing right now is an article that is getting worse, not better. I would like to address the following problem for you to address: how do we make the article better?

It reads much better if we have a section discussion why a particular film is on the list, who thought it should be on the list and what their reasoning is, who thought it should not be on the list and what their reasoning is, as a separate section. If we have this in the notes section of each item in the table, it really isn't a table any more; it is a section that has merely been formatted in paragraph style Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the problem with having paragraphs for each film? Some films need more individual discussion than others. Also, your "Classifications" section is original research. You are taking two specific examples and making broad assumptions based on them. You cannot take one film and personally state, "There is not always uniformity of opinion on whether an individual film is categorized as white savior narrative." That comes from nowhere except yourself. Same with saying "Another film upon which critics disagree." That is a high-level analysis by you. Please keep the commentary directly related to the individual items. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"What is the problem with having paragraphs for each film?" The problem is that it reads badly. That's not what tables are.

I now have the table in shape where the run-on descriptions are gone from most of the films. The remaining table entry that has an unbalanced long discussion is "McFarland USA". This discussion should also go into a separate section and not be in the table.

And, I'm sorry that other people criticize you by saying what you post is original research. Please do not use that as a justification to attack other people's edits as original research. This isn't original research; it is simply a topic sentence introducing the paragraph. Yes, I suppose you can, if you wanted to, criticize every single sentence in Wikipedia as being "original research" unless it is cut-and-paste copy of a cited article, but, really, the way encyclopedias work is that they do have summary sentences and topic sentences.

The object here is to write a good encyclopedia article, not to snipe at every single sentence that is posted by somebody other than you. That means readable text, in logical order, with discussions.

Let me suggest that, rather than deleting edits, instead why don't you work on adding content to the section discussing why films are on the list, finding more citations and discussions, rather than deleting them?Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't believe it is in the interests of the article to break off film-specific commentary from the individual entires and synthesize it into a generalization about the trope. Most of these claims were made in relation to one specific films, and take a paraticular view of the trope. We should not be drawing on specific examples to make sweeping statements about the trope when the original sources themselves were not making generalizations about the trope. The article primarily adheres to a list format and isolated discussion of individual films should be included in the "description" section for that film in the table. That said, I do think the article would benefit from a "Classification" section but it should not be synthesized from specific discussions about specific films, but rather discussions of the trope in general. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A section with "discussions of the trope in general" would be a valuable addition. Why don't you add this?

I'm not sure which "sweeping statements about the trope" you're referring to when you say "drawing on specific examples to make sweeping statements about the trope"?

In general, what the article needs most is discussion of individual films. The list format is just an inadequate place in which to do that. A list should be just that: a list; with discussion in a section with more room to go into depth and detail. In particular, the question "why is this film on the list" has been discussed here at length; it is clearly a topic that needs to be covered. The subject needs to be addressed in a format that can put in the discussion of "critics a and b critics put this on the list, but critics y and x don't". That is a level of detail that you can't really do in a list format. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Erik: you seem to acting as if you own the article. Why don't you consider letting other people edit it?

I also note that your continued reversions are removing a large number of citations; could you put them back in the next time you revert, please? Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I took a break from this exactly because it was hopeless to try to improve this article; Erik created it, wrote it and owns it and unless you are as invested in it as he is, he will just wear you down and revert anything anyone else tries to do. He justifies his labelling of any film in it as a racist tract with "Hughey said it is". End of discussion. Ask him to explain why (as I did, a dozen times) and he will just ignore you. Articles like this are what makes Wikipedia a thing to snicker about. Any poisonous statement based on a published opinion is sacrosanct and Wikipedia certifies it. 202.81.248.165 (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

In case you did not notice, Skepticalgiraffe's edits have stayed. I think it is fair to say that the list format is not the best format for discussing individual films that have a more complex dialogue, and I was concerned about synthesizing individual commentary into broader statements (and still am). Problem is, now individual films on the list have no qualifying statements that indicate that there is more to it than just stating the premise. One has to look elsewhere (and not even realize it) for more in-depth statements about an individual film. So I still find the content to be misplaced. And please don't obfuscate your struggle. We went through an RfC that was appropriately conclusive, despite how much you want to downplay Hughey. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Which RfC is being referenced here? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

#Inclusion of The Matrix. The IP editor is someone who keeps using layperson arguments to try to alter the Wikipedia article's contents. They're falsely implying that they cannot change the article because of me only, where the conclusion of the RfC reflected that the IP editor's desired change is not in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This ridiculous article hasn't been deleted yet?

I can't believe this pathetic editor Erik is getting away with hijacking Wikipedia for his BS personal crusade. He wants so badly for this article to be there, without changes, to show that all movies that have white and non-white characters are inherently racist. It's really too bad because otherwise Wikipedia would be a pretty good source of information.174.50.148.192 (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The topic is verifiable and notable as evidenced by coverage in multiple reliable sources. It is further evidenced by the article being resoundingly kept in three AfDs as well as editors besides myself contributing to this article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Typically AFD would be the venue to decide this, but it was already kept at AFD twice this year. Time to drop the stick and move on with your life. Reach Out to the Truth 13:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Keanu Reeves

Keanu Reeves' ancestry is Hawaiian, Chinese, Portuguese, and English. He is a mix the same way many other characters are a mix in The Matrix, reflecting a genetically diverse future. Not only that, but his mentor who shows him the way and does all the hard work is a black man. The power behind everything pulling the strings is played by a black woman. The evil characters are clearly and unashamedly white with stereotypical names Smith, Jones and Brown. This is hardly an example of the "white savior" trope. It's just stupid, wrong at face value, and a huge stretch. The real saviors are Morpheus and the Oracle and all Neo is anyway is a package that delivers the Matrix source code. Even if you want to call him a white man when he is ethnically diverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.63.72.3 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Reeves passes as white. For The Matrix, see the "Science fiction" section for a more detailed analysis of that film, including one detractor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

To substantiate, academics C. Richard King and David J. Leonard write this in the chapter "Is Neo White? Reading Race, Watching the Trilogy" in the book Jacking into the Matrix Franchise: Cultural Reception and Interpretation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

These views should not be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, but should be attributed, per WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not really about article content. Multiple sources identify Neo as a white savior, and the IP editor was disputing the modifier. I was providing context about why Reeves, despite his mixed ethnicity, is identified as white. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources opine that Neo is a "white saviour", and their opinions should be treated as such. Rigorous adherence to WP:NPOV's requirements on this aspect (opinion v. fact) would do much to improve the quality of this article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." There is no contesting or controversy about the whiteness of the character. This is usually treated as a given, but I was explaining to the IP editor why whiteness is indicated here, which means highlighting the notion of passing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not overly interested in the use of this Talk page as a WP:FORUM to discuss the article subject, by the IP editor or by anyone else. It remains that "Neo is a white saviour" or "The Matrix has a white saviour narrative" are not factual assertions, far less uncontroversial ones. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that is completely irrelevant to what the IP editor was talking about, then. I had included commentary with in-text attribution for The Matrix in its entry in the list of films. Skepticalgiraffe, however, moved it to the "Science fiction" section where it constitutes original research in asserting the film as a key science fiction example where no source has said that. I would like to move it back to provide the attribution. Do you want to do this as well? There are several other films that have commentary that only pertains to them directly (and not the wider topic) that has also been inappropriately synthesized. CC'ing Betty Logan to revisit this as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree that each entry's inclusion should be contextualised. We are not stating facts here. It is somebody's opinion that The Matrix is a white savior film, and this is why I preferred the original format of having the criteria for inclusion accompanying each entry. It was crystal clear in this version why The Matrix was included and on the basis of whose opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Dimadick violating policy

Dimadick blatantly violated the WP:NOR policy by adding original research to the article as seen here. It has been properly removed by Chas. Caltrop. Due to this article having a history of editors with personal agendas and not adhering to sources, please scrutinize Dimadick's edits to this article. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ideal candidate for "pending changes"

The subject matter of this article is obviously controversial given the amount of disruptive editing that has occurred on it. Ordinarily I would recommend semi-protection for an article that has endured this much disruptive activity, but it is an "open ended" list which requires continual updating, so therefore needs to be kept as "open" as possible. I think "pending changes" should be requested: this would permit all editors to continue updating the content but it would be subject to review by a confirmed account, which would hopefully curtail the unilateral removal of sourced content. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems like this article needs a savior for its narration. Do you suppose Erik has a WP:NPOV, considering the flagrant violations of WP:IRS? 2602:43:EA2A:7800:D454:D9E8:2DD7:6640 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the page from The White Savior Film that mentions Lincoln. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:IRS, indeed. 2602:43:EA2A:7800:D454:D9E8:2DD7:6640 (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the IP editor personally opined here that Lincoln and The Matrix are "bad examples" that are "frankly embarrassing" without considering the sources at all or even looking into the matter, which has been rehashed multiple times on this talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

They can still be bad examples even if they're sourced. Wikipedia has no obligation to include all examples of a trope that have a backing source. Why don't we curate it a little? Maybe then people can respect this page. White Saviour Narrative is a real thing and a real problem but some of these examples are ludicrous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.118.61 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

We editors cannot personally decide to exclude sourced examples just because we find them bad. If anything, if an example seems particularly out of place, we should pursue a more detailed explanation. For example, you also questioned The Matrix, and the thing is, that listing was more detailed until another editor forked it into prose elsewhere. I think that should be restored to the listing; same for the details for 12 Years a Slave (also forked). We will need to look at the book The White Savior Film to see if we can say more about why Lincoln is listed. Historical films can be critiqued through this particular lens because of the adaptation process that affects the scope and the details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"We editors cannot personally decide to exclude sourced examples just because we find them bad." Of course you can! This article isn't supposed to be a summary of Matthew Hughey's writings. Encyclopedic articles are edited for clarity. Bad examples, like a mixed-race actor playing a protagonist that rescues humanity from machines, just muddy the water. 2602:43:EA2A:7800:D454:D9E8:2DD7:6640 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You're saying that we editors should revise content based on how we personally perceive it. No, that is not the proper editing process. Neither of us are a reliable source to offset Hughey in these cases. These listings are not exclusively Hughey anyway. Regarding Reeves playing Neo in The Matrix, while the actor has a mixed background, the character is never presented as such. The point of criticism is that Neo is "read" as a white character by the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Erik, the point of the reductio ad absurdum talk page section that you removed was to say that if we list The Matrix and Lincoln as WSNs, then every movie with a protagonist could be seen as one. The list as it is right now is not useful, it's just an incomplete list of movies that star "white enough to be racist" leads. We do not have to list every movie ever accused of being a WSN. Let's make this article helpful instead of confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.97.172 (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The section I removed was someone venting their feelings about this topic. There have been many similar sections in the past, and I (and other editors) have explained the topic to them. However, that section was true venting—not someone asking genuine questions, but being snarky as demonstrated by their joke list of movies. The content is defined by reliable sources, and we include it even if we personally disagree with it. If it is confusing, then we need to add or improve the wording. We can't personally dictate that our opinions offset the sources. We should make it more understandable. Like for example, you're not the first editor to think that because a film is listed here, it means that it is a nasty ol' racist movie up there with The Birth of a Nation. That's not the case at all. It's not a zero-sum game like that. There can be empirical evidence for the white savior trope for a film, and there can be such evidence for other classifications of a film, like The Matrix being revolutionary science fiction or 12 Years a Slave (another contended listing) in portraying slavery authentically. The Hughey book is an entire book about this topic, and if you are inclined to make the article more understandable through improving rather than blanking, we should look for the relevant content to clear up the confusion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This article in "See also"

First of all, let me compliment User:Erik for his work on the article. It's great that it exists and I certainly would have voted to keep it in the deletion discussions. It's definitely a notable topic discussed by at least some film critics. (If I had to critique, I'd say that it could probably use more content from the "other side", but I'm not surprised if it's hard to find - many critics who don't like the idea just ignore it entirely.)

However. I definitely think that placing a link to this article in every "See also" of films listed here is a mistake and a poor use of See also. In this article, it's totally fine to list whatever critics say on the topic without much judgment, because this is what the article is about. Perhaps if the article starts getting overlong, some of the content will need to be trimmed, but it's not a big deal. But merely because a film might be mentioned in the article WSNiF in no way implies that, in the context of the film, WSNiF is relevant. And the latter is the standard for including a backlink. And yes, this will require some editorial judgment - if the White Savior criticism is just not very prevalent, and is just one critic shooting their mouth off, it's probably not worth a link. And, of course, if it's more than one critic saying it, then it's probably worth being covered in the actual text of the article rather than See also.

Basically, what I'm saying is that linking this article from, say, Dances with Wolves#Reception where I'm sure you could find lots of people mentioning this as an element of the movie, fine. (And then remove it from "See also", because per WP:SEEALSO, you don't usually need to link articles that are already linked in the article text.) If it is a criticism confined to academia or just one source, especially on a subsection of the movie, then it shouldn't be linked. That kind of weak standard would allow all sorts of random stuff to be linked from a "See also" section if "somebody said something about this somewhere" is the sole criteria, especially for films. Don't believe me? Look at TVTropes, and you can begin to see the number of "narratives" / "tropes" that could potentially be linked. I think these links should either be removed or, for very notable cases, moved into the "Reception" or "Criticism" section. I also think this will have the healthy effect of attracting fewer editors annoyed at a film they like being criticized via the inclusion of this link in "See also". Would there be any complaints to me doing so?

(Note: This came about from a debate at Hidden Figures, where this article was very puzzlingly in the See also section - it's a movie where the stars are 3 black women, the film has basically 0 scenes without them in the frame as the viewpoint character(s), and the actual historical figures were very complimentary about NASA in the era in interviews. But apparently one writer thought that having a fictional white person do an over-dramatized "good deed" that makes for good cinema makes it a white savior narrative??? Like I said, I don't want to debate the merits of this too much, but even to the extent this is a merited criticism (which I certainly don't grant, it's loony, but who cares about my opinion), it is an opinion on, like, the 5th or 6th most important character in the film. Not relevant enough for the article unless there's a lot more firepower behind it than I expect.) SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think it is problematic to have the link in the "See also" section? It is literally at the very bottom of every article. WP:SEEALSO says such sections are for exploring "tangentially related topics". It is often used to list links that editors themselves find related to the main article. We are not even doing that here; a film listed here has to be sourced, so when it is listed elsewhere, it has a much stronger relation than some link that an editor personally finds useful. A film listed here is listed elsewhere as a matter of cross-navigation, which I have done with other list articles before and after. I'm wary about giving this article special treatment and not being consistent. If a film does not belong in a "See also" section, it should not belong on this list. In the case of Hidden Figures, there is the Vice article as well as the article from The Atlantic (which even provides a helpful link to this article, heh) that talk about this trope. There are a few other sources that are not up to snuff (e.g., Atlanta Black Star) that also talk about it. For what it is worth, an expanded approach I've taken with some articles is to add more of a description (like what I've tried to do with Hidden Figures) and in some cases the inline citations themselves. I have not done this universally, though. But I do think we should avoid giving special treatment because people personally overreact to the presence of a link at the very end of an article they're reading. Removing it is not going to help because people have complained about The Matrix and 12 Years a Slave, which are both well-sourced.

On a couple of other notes, there is no criticism of the trope as a whole. The criticism generally amounts to disagreements over specific films that the trope is in the given film, usually by the filmmakers. The disagreements are included where they have happened... well, reviewing the article, I'm annoyed that some of that was moved into the article body by another editor. For example, Mississippi Burning has the director defending it. I had that in the film's listing, but someone moved it out (along with similar disagreements for other films). Ugh, I'll need to fix that. As for TVTropes and similar tropes, I don't see why not create articles and link to them if sourcing is available all around. :-P Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is it problematic? As noted above, Wikipedia is not TVTropes, and Wikipedia is especially not TVTropes's style of covering specific movies / TV shows / etc. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/DancesWithWolves . Even if sourced articles were written on some of these tropes, and sources in the article on "Expository Hairstyle Change" mentioned Dances With Wolves, it doesn't mean that the Dances With Wolves Wikipedia article should link to "Expository Hairstyle Change" in See also. Also, to repeat myself, such a weak criteria would lead to really long See also sections - it sounds like you're saying if there's a valid link from Article X -> Article Y, Article Y should have Article X in their See also. I invite you to examine https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Citizen_Kane&limit=500 to get an idea of how large of a See also section that would be.

Specifically for Hidden Figures - first off, one of the refs is not useful IMO and should be removed, the Slate one. It's a classic "mention the phrase in passing" deal. It certainly does not contend the film is a white savior film, but mentions it off-hand in one sentence on one element. Again, by such a weak standard, you could stick links to nearly everything. Maybe some other writer thought an element reminded them of a horror film. Whatever. We're talking one line out of thousands of lines of ink spilled by many critics on a movie. The VICE news source is better, but again, it's one source from a news outlet that prides itself on also doing opinion pieces and the like. Yes, it's referenced, but why call out the White Savior article based on a mere one article, and it is focusing on a subplot of the movie? Should a movie with one scene that is vaguely horror-related according to one writer have a link to horror films? I'm not trying to be trolly here, but check out your average WP:FRINGE discussion, where somebody has found one article that says what they want to hear (that global warming isn't real or whatever), and then use it as an excuse to plaster it everywhere. Even when relevant at the fringey view itself, that doesn't mean it gets to go everywhere else. This is a similar issue. I see you've been around Wikipedia for awhile; do you remember the old "Allegations of apartheid in " series of articles that basically were some editor searching for every time someone compared something in a country to apartheid? It's not good material for WP articles. There's a similar problem for stuff like "Best of X" lists - you can find a zillion critics saying that an album/book/film/video game was totally the best ever, so you have to restrict your sources list and do some aggregation. "One guy said this film was the best" is not enough. (And yes, WP is not perfect on this either, you see people add to the lede "According to SomeWebsite's Listicle, Bob Jones was one of the Ten Sexiest Actors of All Time in this movie." That isn't relevant either, and should be removed.)

I have some comments on the article as it is, but maybe best saved for a separate section to not confuse the issue of See also links elsewhere. (Short version: I'm not sure your "fix" is wise, mentioning it here. The list at the end is very problematic if there's no way to "get off." If one critic accuses a film of being a White Savior deal, does that mean that film is on the list forever, even if the director and everybody else is on record of disagreeing? That is problematic, IMO. See above the problem of "one listicle said this so let's mention the fact.") SnowFire (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not find this comparable to TV Tropes, which is a wiki that does not even source anything. Regarding your example of Expository Hairstyle Change, I looked and could not find any sources outside TV Tropes-related websites about it. There is a cutoff to whether or not to discuss a trope on Wikipedia, and it is sourcing. This topic has a full-fledged sociology book devoted to it. It's not something superficial like most tropes that I found lists of (which were pretty silly). As for this topic's sources, Slate is not used here. I saw that it was out there and was not sure of its validity here, since I recall that it is in that weird territory between blog and publication. However, Vice as well as The Atlantic are both credible, and both mention it. I just found Essence writing about it here as well. I would rather not get into arguing the judgments of reliable sources, but to draw a comparison, 12 Years Slave is listed because of a white character who appears at the end of the film. There were plenty of sources about that.

I don't recall the "Allegations of apartheid" articles but see what you mean. I think the closer comparison would be a proliferating a "list of racists" article across all notable people's Wikipedia articles. However, the white savior is a specific critique which does not make the film irredeemable. Films with this trope can still be good films in general, but seen through a sociological lens, the use of the trope can be seen as problematic. Here is what the book's author wrote about the trope, "...a particular film such as '12 years a slave' and 'the matrix' certainly does have White Savior Film elements, as do many other films. Therefore, I would certainly characterize both film as 'white savior film', but I also realize that those films have other elements that might contradict the white savior trope, too. That is, the categorization of a film is not a zero-sum definition, but can co-exist with other genres and categories. I.e., I would also argue that the Matrix is a 'magical negro' film. Both claims are empirically supportable and do not require only one or the other to exist in solitary. Hence, when we speak of whether or not a particular film is or is not a 'white savior' film, its more than a question of whether it is or is not, but it’s more accurate to say that it’s a matter of how much it is or is not, which can be measured by how many of those seven categories are met and then, how quantitatively frequent and qualitatively intense those categories are in that particular film.' I don't know if that puts the identification in context. It's not a simple matter of film has white savior = film is bad. We could even contact that author again to ask how to understand the white savior element in Hidden Figures. Do you want to do that? As for your best-films example, I've actually proliferated List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes in the articles that were listed there... should I not have done that? :-P Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is the wording I had at one article: "a cinematic trope studied in sociology, for which The Last Samurai has been analyzed". Would that be a better description at all to at least put the link in context? If the problem is based on readers getting the wrong impression? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

La La Land and Silence

• La La Land: criticism
• Silence: criticism

The above films each have a criticism piece. Putting on radar in case more appear. (Sometimes it does not happen, like The Revenant had a criticism piece but nothing beyond that.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar writes about La La Land here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

A number of editors have posted comments criticizing the subject, the content and the presentation of content in this article. I have added a pov tag because I am concerned that an article composed entirely of opinions, often ideologically based ones, and often from questionable or fringe sources or by non-notable individuals, has those opinions presented as if they were authoritative statements of facts. The whole article appears to be written in this non-neutral tone. An additional problem is the "Example films" which appears to be very pov selective (and giving the impression of being an attack list, literally being made an example of), single sourced for most claims, and with a number of the sources that appear to be not RS. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The article meets WP:NPOV sufficiently. This topic is notable, and the coverage is reliably sourced. The strongest source is The White Savior Film by Professor Matthew Hughey. For the general topic, there is no reliably sourced counter-criticism that either defends the white savior trope or denies the existence of it. As a sociological topic, the sources' assertions are valid to state straightforwardly. In regard to the list of films, Hughey's book actually lists the vast majority of the films. The list includes films for which a reliable source has identified the trope, and where applicable, sources countering that claim, such as the director defending his film, are included. In regard to editors' layperson opinions on this talk page, policy states, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." Do you consider Matthew Hughey's The White Savior Film to be a reliable source or not? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My finger slipped when making this revert. To explain it, a film being a historical event does not disqualify it from having the white savior trope. Please see Hughey on this matter as quoted here. The fact that this is inserted in disregard of the sources demonstrates the editor's POV-pushing based on personal opinions. Please do not continue this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You just asserting that you think the article meets npov does not end this discussion - I am asserting that it does not meet npov standards, due to the non-neutral language thoroughly embedded throughout the article and the rather juvenile "making an example of" listing of "examples". This is not a rehash of the AfD discussions - so why the "this topic is notable" stuff? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your assertion that this article is POV does not mean it is a valid assertion. You just demonstrated here that you personally think that historical films do not count for having the white savior trope, even though the most reliable source validates that such films can have this trope. This calls into question your judgment about what is POV and what is not. Please specify what statements you personally find not to be NPOV. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You had better start to assume good faith, and display less of the ownership issues. What I have demonstrated is your bad faith, if you are actually accusing me of sockpuppetry, of being the editor in the diff you have just cited. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize! I did not realize there were two different editors. Please go ahead and identify what issues seem POV to you. I asked you the question about The White Savior Film by Professor Matthew Hughey because he is the most authoritative on this sociological topic. I still argue that the assumption that the assertions made about the trope are seriously contested is false and that most of the films on this list are already identified in Hughey's book, despite there not being an inline citation. If you want inline citations based on Hughey's book, we can do that. "Single-sourcing" does not mean there are not more sources available elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I also think the edit detailed in that diff was OR (it did not have a source to back up the opinion), and so I think it was correct to remove it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Great Wall

I am wondering if other editors think that it is too soon to have The Great Wall included in this article. The commentary has been based on previews, and I am not finding this ideal. Commentary about the trope should be based on the film itself since previews can be misleading. (Though I think in this case, probably not.) A good example of misleading previews is The Good Lie when some commentary about previews said it looked like a white savior movie, and it turned out not to be (being very balanced instead), and lacking any commentary about the trope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

A film can't be added based on previews alone because they don't provide adequate context. No film should be added to the list until it is released. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC) EDIT: When you say previews, you mean trailers and not festival screenings, right? Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

While I sympathise with your desire to join the bandwagon to label this unreleased and unfinished film that no one has seen more than 90 seconds of as racist propaganda, it's a little premature. But I'm sure Hughey will do so as as soon as he's asked. If the dragons (?) are European dragons rather than Chinese dragons you can also add it to your other #SoWhite article, Whitewashing in film. Anyway, the way they market these co-productions, there will probably be a Chinese version with more focus on a Chinese star (a Yellow Saviour?), and a Western release with more focus on Matt Damon (your designated White Saviour). 202.81.249.43 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree it might be too soon... the "reviews" for the new Ghostbusters, for example, were off compared to the actual movie. I'd gather sources now and until the release, but keep in a sandbox or something. IMHO, it's a clear candidate for this article, but there's no deadline. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I start a discussion unrelated to the past ones, and you attack me here? Grow up. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have asked your permission before commenting on a film I'm interested in. Of course, you own the talk page as well as your article. 202.81.249.43 (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You could have just commented on whether or not to include the film. That's all this thread is about. There's no need to carry over your vitriol. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You asked for opinions on the inclusion of Great Wall, I gave them. You ignored the 90% of my remarks on the film to respond only to the asides. 100% of your reply is about what an asshole I am. So no change there. 202.81.249.71 (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Betty Logan, yes, I mean trailers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest not adding the film, or any film, unless we have a credible source labelling it as White Savior Narrative. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. For what it's worth, NBC News states the "white savior" complaint based on the previews. However, I think it is best to use sources that draw this conclusion based on the film itself. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

To update on this, the movie was released in China, but there is not much analysis about the potential white-savior element. Variety does say here, "It's heartening that a film with European protagonists doesn't cave to the controversial 'white savior' syndrome seen in movies such as 'Forbidden Kingdom.'" This may be looked at more with the movie's U.S. release. (I've made a similar comment related to whitewashing on that article's talk page.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• 'The Great Wall' Has A White Savior Problem, But The Film's Asian Cast Still Marks A Step In The Right Direction

Source about the white savior in The Great Wall. Will see if more sources emerge. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hollywood needs more diversity. Judging movies by their trailers isn't the solution at Vox

In-depth source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

98.7.98.241 added The Great Wall to the article as seen here. This write-up lacks any counterarguments (some which I have linked above). It is hard to say from WP:NPOV whether or not it should be listed since the counterarguments are especially prominent for this film compared to other recent examples. Betty Logan, do you have a take on it? I can try to list all the sources mentioning this element to get a sense of the lay of the land. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Vox.com seemed to think it didn't fit the trope, but that the trailer probably did [1]. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is a call Wikipedia should make. Reliable sources are calling it a "white savior" movie so it is a legitimate inclusion. If there are valid counter-arguments disputing its status then these should also be incorporated into the listing so that there is a balanced perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOURCELIST says we editors can discuss it. Surely there can be disqualification from the list if counterarguments outweigh the white savior arguments? I haven't seen this much of a counterargument for any other film. I get the concern that a film being in the list makes the trope seem definitive, unless we want to reevaluate the section heading to something that is more about films that have been the subject of discussion, regardless of outcome. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References to use

• Smith, Justin M.; Huber, Carl (2017). "Colombian Criminals, Moral Whites: Reproducing and Resonating Hierarchy in U.S. Film". Sociological Inquiry. doi:10.1111/soin.12182. 'White savior' films, for instance, do not simply show the white hero or the criminal 'other' by themselves; instead, they juxtapose 'nonwhite noble savages with cultural...

I do not have full access to this article, but it mentions this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln (2012)

Abraham Lincoln!? Really!? I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.39.56 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Historian Kate Masur said, "As a historian who watched the film on Saturday night in Chicago, I was not surprised to find that Mr. Spielberg took liberties with the historical record. As in Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan, his purpose is more to entertain and inspire than to educate. But it’s disappointing that in a movie devoted to explaining the abolition of slavery in the United States, African-American characters do almost nothing but passively wait for white men to liberate them. For some 30 years, historians have been demonstrating that slaves were crucial agents in their emancipation; however imperfectly, Ken Burns’s 1990 documentary The Civil War brought aspects of that interpretation to the American public. Yet Mr. Spielberg’s Lincoln gives us only faithful servants, patiently waiting for the day of Jubilee." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the movie is not "devoted to explaining the abolition of slavery in the United States;" it's devoted to portraying the life of Abraham Lincoln, whose most important achievement happens to be the abolition of slavery. While it would be preposterous to believe you could make a film about Lincoln without including depictions of slavery, this is not the only or even the main subject of the film; Lincoln is. Francisco Espinosa (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• You are free to disagree with a historian, but you'll have to get your opinions published in reliable sources before we can start incorporating them. And saying that the movie is "just" biography is really...silly, as if no context matters to his life. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Represent counterpoint better?

Is there simply a lack of citable material as a counterpoint to the POV presented in the article? The arguments contained here conflate the "white savior" as a narrative element versus the incidental differences in race when casting films. Not all the films on the list represent a deliberate white savior narrative, but instead are either mere coincidence or are a result of the racial spread of Hollywood "A-listers" and the desire for diverse casts leading to the casting of minority actors in supporting roles. Equating all these films to Dances With Wolves, a pretty textbook example of white savior, is disingenuous.

Even if there isn't a great deal of Wikipedia-worthy sources out there, the phrasing and structure of this article makes an argument; it should be more neutral. 2603:3015:3D01:4100:AD4E:B67F:B64C:ED03 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is no counterpoint in reliable sources. Deliberateness has nothing to do with it either. The filmmakers aren't trying to be racist. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that only one side of a discussion is offered by reliable sources. It would have been good to present some balance to the topic with black savior narratives such as The Book of Eli, Independence Day, I, Robot, I Am Legend and Space Jam. Hopefully scholars will begin to explore this theme with equality. TGB13 (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This field of study is steadily growing. It is reasonable to assume that added insight from multiple perspectives ought to be forthcoming as more time passes. — Spintendo^Talk 19:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Last Samurai

How on earth is this a white saviour film? Tom Cruise is a drunk American general that ultimately sees how empty and meaningless his culture is and becomes a samurai. He doesn't save anyone or have any impact on history, the samurai die. It's a romance piece of pre-industrial Japan from the perspective of a dumb foreigner. Also, he doesn't actually become the last samurai. The title is plural, indicating the end of that era of Japan, as the samurai culture disappears.

I'd love to know at what point he supposedly 'saves' the samurai according to you lot. He doesn't introduce ANYTHING to their culture, he doesn't give them guns, or show them cool battle tactics.Danieletorino2 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The sociological book The White Savior Film lists The Last Samurai as having this trope. The book has some detail about the role of that trope. We editors do not decide what films qualify to be listed; we follow the sources that identify the trope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't see any problem with listing an author's subjective, potentially politically motivated point of view on an encyclopedia? This isn't factual and there are counter arguments that should be noted.Danieletorino2 (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Narrative tropes can't be anything other than subjective opinion because they are a form of analysis. If there are published counter arguments in regards to this film then I suggest documenting them in the notes column so both points of view will be available to readers. Betty Logan (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Danieletorino2, we follow reliable sources in writing content for Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to understand this better. Also please observe that you cannot apply your own POV in these matters. Others have tried and failed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, I just think you should provide multiple arguments in these sort of articles from vastly different sources in order to be objective. I would never get away with providing this sort of argument at university.Danieletorino2 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that you read The White Savior Film. I think you are under the impression some layperson just spouted off possibilities when that is not the case. This is an example of a reviewer outlining how Hughey approaches the subject matter. If you want more detail about how the trope applies, that's fine to request, but we can't offset an associated film with our own perspective. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Then this should be contained in a Wikipedia article on the book. One book does not make this a realistic narrative. If it helped him get tenure, good for him. Otherwise it comes off as neo-nazi trash telling whites to stick to their own kind. Simply quoting one book does not kill off other perspectives, and it's not useful in talking about culture to treat one book as definitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.103.130 (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The book is only one reliable source discussing The Last Samurai. There are other reliable sources that do the same. There are not "other perspectives" that are reliably sourced, especially considering that recognizing the trope is not a zero-sum approach. Other ways of looking at the film can exist in parallel. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)