Talk:Whitewashing in film/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

one sided bashfull tone of the article

i'll give the talk page one last shot. right now the way the article is written gives it a bashful, borderline racist tone against white (anglo) actors/directors. no balance at all, only one sided claims of white people are steeling POC jobs type of tone. when in fact, there are dozens of example to the contrary, where POC are casted in white roles as was already in a more balanced page, before Erick blanked it. the article needs balance, right now it doesn't have it. AmateurFilmcritique (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The article's lead is too short, and I'm tagging it as such. It does not include any sort of counterclaims. What would be appropriate to add, though? I don't think issues of color-blind casting belong in this lead, since it is a different subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

One solution would be to add the comments of the creators already that are already on the page. For example the ghost in the shell creator said his main character wasn't necessarily asian. We could add this to the lede, Some creators who's work has been made into films refute the claims of whitewashing citing the fact that their characters weren't necessarily a POC character, an example would be Ghost in the Shell's character, XY, played by SJ. Another example would be The Great Walls character, X, which was criticized for being a whitewashed character when in fact, it wasn't according to the film creator director. or something along these lines. AmateurFilmcritique (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarize the entire body of the article. As such specific examples are not reiterated in the lead and therefore responses to specific examples would likewise be inappropriate. You would have to find a more general counterclaim for the lead.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

i'm open to suggestion. there is a viable defense in a lot of cases that have been criticized as whitewashed, that's why i wrote Some creators who's work has been made into films refute the claims or criticism and gave examples that are already on the page. and if the reader wants more examples, they'll just have to read the page. AmateurFilmcritique (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Like Muboshgu stated, the content you endorse violates WP:COATRACK. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article body, yet the second paragraph about color-blind casting and blackwashing, tangential topics, is larger than the first paragraph about the main topic of whitewashing itself. This is undue weight. Furthermore, the source that discusses "blackwashing" does not frame it as refuting the notion of "whitewashing", which is what the relevant write-up in the article body does. In addition, across all reliable sources discussing whitewashing, blackwashing is almost never brought up, so it is false to claim that both aspects should be equally balanced (see WP:BALASP.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

after re-reading what it's about, I agree color blind casting shouldn't be included in the lead, since it includes white people cast in non white roles, so it's not a viable 'counter' per se. AmateurFilmcritique (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

One problem may be that the majority of the text in this article is given in the section "Background". It attempts to give a historical background and a cultural context, but does not really go into depth into the arguments over the phenomenon, counter-arguments, or various subtopics concerning casting decisions and their motives.

The article is not fully developed, so it is somewhat unclear what should be summarized in the Lead. Dimadick (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

While not exactly a "counter," what should to be added to improve the article is that "whiteness" is an ambiguous and somewhat subjective concept. This is relevant contextual information for many of the examples, especially those concerning characters from Latin America and the Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.17.222 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit of levity

(Please don't take this seriously. I thought, given how fiery this page can get despite us all still being here with a common goal and not actually meaning to cause distress, that I'd make a tongue-in-cheek non-suggestion that the rest of you might find amusing. I know talk pages aren't normally used in this way but I've seen it done before, so...)

It's just been brought to my attention by a self-published but generally reputable (and well-respected as sci-fi opinion pieces go) source that Alec Guinness's role in Star Wars was originally written for an Asian actor.

That said, a white actor appearing in the film had his face was covered the whole time and his voice was dubbed over by an African-American. So in the end, I don't think we can include the film in this list, as the appropriate nuance would require us to violate NOR.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The List and the over all balance of the article.

The article primarily discuss white washing in the context of a white actor playing a character of another race in a stereotypical fashion. It does little to distinguish this from Racebending. It doesn't actually discuss racebending. But it lists a number examples of racebending such as in the case of Dr strange.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Whitewashing is not distinct from racebending. Cases of whitewashing are not isolated to stereotypical portrayals. Whitewashing largely has to do with the under-representation of actors of color and the lack of opportunities, especially when traditional roles of color are whitewashed. This was the criticism of Doctor Strange. In addition, it appears that "racebending" is actually applied more nowadays to actors of color taking on traditionally white roles (I updated the article yesterday and found that source). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Whitewashing is distinct from racebending. Racebending is very specific. When source material is changed to justify the use of a race other than original. Which can be used when "actors of color" (as you say) are cast in a non-traditional role. But the discussion of racebending also came up with a number of the movies listed below. Anyway, whatever, this article is unbalanced.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read the article racebending. It talks about how the term was initially used negatively (akin to whitewashing), and apparently now positively (akin to color-blind casting). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The Great Wall

how is this whitewashing? it's a chinese movie not a hollywood movie if anything its diversity seeing as china is practically 100% asian, is every black actor in a medieval movies now blackwashing? its also a fantasy movie where they fight monsters not a historical documentary on the wall's construction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.143.9 (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

China does have native "white" people after all. What's to say that the white actor isn't playing a Tajik or an Ugyhur?50.82.251.31 (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't Whitewashing, the character is a Western trader who gets caught up in the events of the film, not a native Chinese. The criticism surrounding it has been for the White Savior narrative, so it should be added to that list if it's not already.

Multiple sources cited in the article call the criticism "whitewashing". Neither mention "white savior", stating otherwise is WP:Original research. Remember WP:Verifiability, not truth.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources use term in ways that run counter to Wikipedia's definition of Whitewashing. None of the people quoted in the sources use the term, article authors are simply aggregating information, and not the sources themselves. The controversy surrounding it simply does not meet the definition of Whitewashing as laid out on this very page, and the fact that some blogger at IndieWire doesn't know the different terms and reaches for the closest available thing she can think of is not a valid reason to perpetuate confusion. I don't believe any of the authors (though I'd have to go back to check) even use the term whitewashing in specific reference to The Great Wall, but simply talking about the general controversy of whitewashing that's going on of late. If it's only being used contextually and not specifically, even if you count the article authors as "sources" (which in this case is a specious argument to begin with) it doesn't fit the bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.201.125 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thats not the way verification works. The author's opinion counts just as much anyone he/she maybe quoting. The only opinion that doesn't count is our own. We take sources at face value as to keep a neutral point of view, free of our own interpretation, biases, or beliefs of what may or may not be true. In fact here's another source from The Guardian that states, "Now, the forthcoming blockbuster The Great Wall finds itself embroiled in the same type of whitewashing controversy, for casting Matt Damon in a film depicting an epic battle on the titular Chinese structure." The fact is the film is being criticized for whitewashing. Whether or not the criticism is valid is not the argument that is being made here. Also I kindly ask you to return the article to the WP:STATUSQUO (before your initial removal) while discussion is ongoing. I already referred you to the WP:BRD cycle in my edit summary. Re-reverting can be considered edit warring. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem to meet the criteria set forth in the lede of this wiki article, since the character is not non-white. It seems to have more in common with a film like The Last Samurai. Moreover, the film is a fantasy, and is also unreleased (we don't even know the details of the plot). For all of those several reasons I advise at least waiting until the film is released, viewed by critics, and properly reviewed. Softlavender (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• I believe this article was written based on whether a film was perceived by sources/expert opinions to be whitewashing, even if that claim can be countered by reliable facts. The key example of this is Taylor's Cleopatra (when this came up before), where it has been pointed out by natural histories that it would have been entirely possible for Egyptians of that time period to have European-like features. So while it may be obvious that there is actuall yno actual whitewashing here, the fact that the film is considered to have some by some experts should be sufficient to include that, alongside the factual evidence that they may be wrong. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Great Wall is now released in China. Skimming recent news about the movie, there is not much analysis about the element of whitewashing yet. There may be some with its U.S. release. Variety did say here, "Those who ranted against the project as another case of Hollywood 'whitewashing' in which Matt Damon saves China from dragons may have to bite their tongue, for his character, a mercenary soldier who stumbles into an elite corps fighting mythical beasts, spends the course of the film being humbled, out-smarted, and re-educated in Chinese virtues of bravery, selflessness, discipline, and invention." Since the criticism surfaced based on previews, we should base the article's listing on any criticism based on the film itself. The current listing does not really explain anything in depth about the criticism. (I have not looked at this particular case too closely and do not have the full picture.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The difference is between a "source" and a "reliable source" - if an article quotes someone using the term in a non-appropriate or incorrect way, it's not a reliable source. Editors must remain neutral of personal opinion, but being selective for accuracy in sourcing is not bias. Just because a person said something once does it make it inherently useful to a given article. If you are simply reporting that "person X said (inaccurate) Y" that's not really of any import to the larger narrative of the article. I'll quote from the WP:Verifiability, not truth article here: "verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.201.125 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If the source must be considered reliable, then the term is considered to be used appropriately. Otherwise we are leaving it up to the editors to decide what is appropriate or not, which should not be the case. If there is disagreement about whether or not the term applies to a given film, then we need to compare sources and apply due weight. Failing that, all sources should be included with in-text attribution. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

forget it, you'll never win. Erik and the SJWs have decided this film belongs in their crosshairs and will continue pushing their "alternative facts"until doomsday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.15 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As was noted by 146.etc above, "Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully" so yes, it IS up to the editors to decide what is appropriate. No, "all sources" sjould not be included. You even say "we need to compare sources and apply due weight" - and clearly, multiple editors have applied due weight to this source and found it lacking. I would agree with them. I'm not really sure what the issue is, honestly. The film doesn't meet the definition as applied on the page itself. No one has argued against that. If you want to change the definition to keep the page internally consistent, I suppose you could do that, but that would open a whole other can of worms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.105.94 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not up to the editors to decide what is appropriate when reliable sources report that this film has been criticized for whitewashing (which is distinct from saying a film is whitewashed). Furthermore, the source behind the definition says, "There is also the argument that white stars in Hollywood have the biggest pull at the box office, therefore a producer will cast a white actor in order to maximise returns... But many in the industry believe the argument that films with non-white actors don't crossover or engage prized overseas audiences is fallacious... Guy Aoki believes the potential for non-white actors to do well in Hollywood is now greater than ever given the changing world market for US cinema." This is the particular criticism that this particular film has received. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whitewashing in 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151020045923/http://comicsalliance.com/arrow-ras-al-ghul-matthew-nable/ to http://comicsalliance.com/arrow-ras-al-ghul-matthew-nable/

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) 23:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Beguiled

• Sofia Coppola’s ‘The Beguiled’ criticized for leaving out a slave narrative from the Confederate South
• Sofia Coppola’s ‘The Beguiled’ Controversy and What We Expect From White Directors
• Lost In Translation Is An Insufferable, Racist Mess — Why Would We Expect The Beguiled To Be Any Different?

Listing a few relevant sources to expand this entry later. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitions?

When people divide the world population into "white people" and "non-white people", I am lost. Sentences as "Yul Brynner was not a genuine Asian" make no sense to me. Is there such thing as a "genuine white person", "genuine African person", "genuine Hawai'ian person"? Do you look at DNA, skin color, nationality, ancestry? When you move from the far East to the far West, or from the far North to the far South, you meet so many people (probably the majority of the world population) that you cannot fit into any of these artificial categories. Besides, very little is genuine in movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:523:6D00:F13B:84A9:B24D:8A8F (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia references reliable sources to list a film that has been associated with whitewashing. It also references such sources if there are any counterarguments to such associations. There is no looking at the person's background on editors' part since that would be original research. In any case, from what I've seen, race is a social construct, and ideally it should not matter, but in the real world, it does. Cases of whitewashing are brought up due to matters of under-representation in film, which varies by group. So certain films are criticized when they had an opportunity to help overcome that but elected not to do so. I suppose the idea is that films are considered to shape perceptions, and if a group is under-represented in film, the perception of them would be limited, to the point of stereotypes. At the end of the day, though, we need to follow what reliable sources publish about this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Those who accuse "the film industry" of whitewashing can only do so if they themselves believe in a racial classification of people. You cannot "whitewash" if you do not believe in any kind of racial classification (as many people do). As long as this article does not specify how "white" and "non-white" should be defined in the context of "whitewashing", it remains very fuzzy and puzzling (and a waste of time for the reader). References to general definitions are not satisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:523:6D00:F13B:84A9:B24D:8A8F (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to find a reliable source that defines whitewashing more thoroughly and to reference it. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Regardless, there must be fidelity to sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yul Brynner

... was an Asian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.208.75 (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope: "In the end it was Yul Brynner, a Russian-American actor, who won the role and made it the hallmark of his career. He won a Tony Award for his performance on Broadway and earned an Academy Award for the 1956 movie adaptation as well. He became so closely associated with the performance that many people today incorrectly assume that he had Asian heritage. Though some biographies cite a distant Mongolian background on his father's side, it is unclear how much of this was based in fact and how much was hyperbolized by Brynner himself once he became associated with his role in The King and I." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

According to our article on Yul Brinner:

• Yul Brynner was born Yuliy Borisovich Briner July 11, 1920 in Vladivostok, Far Eastern Republic (present-day Primorsky Krai, Russia). He enjoyed telling tall tales and exaggerating his background and early life for the press, claiming that he was born "Taidje Khan" of part-Mongol parentage, on the Russian island of Sakhalin. In reality of Swiss-German and Russian ancestry, he was born at home in a four-story residence at 15 Aleutskaya Street, Vladivostok. He had an elder sister, Vera. He occasionally referred to himself as Julius Briner, Jules Bryner or Youl Bryner. The 1989 biography by his son, Rock Brynner, clarified some of these issues."
• His father, Boris Yuliyevich Briner, was a mining engineer and inventor of Swiss-German and Russian descent, whose father, Jules Briner, was a Swiss citizen who moved to Vladivostok in the 1870s and established a successful import/export company. Brynner's paternal grandmother, Natalya Yosifovna Kurkutova, was a native of Irkutsk and a Eurasian of part Buryat ancestry."

The Buryats are a major northern subgroup of the Mongols. Brynner apparently had some Mongol ancestry, but he was not a genuine "Asian". Dimadick (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Connor Behan, see my comment above. (Not Dimadick's since we don't use that as a basis to decide such things.) The Carroll reference is The Daily Observer, a student newspaper, and certainly not reliable for this purpose. The UMD reference is a WordPress blog and does not even support the argument that Brynner was a correct representation of the Asian role. Furthermore, for The Ten Commandments, the Oswald reference does not discuss Brynner in any way that would dilute the meaning of the original sentence. If anything, the reference's caption indicates that Ramesses II was whitewashed with Brynner's casting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I am looking for sources to disqualify The King and I and The Ten Commandments as whitewashing examples. As I've said before, the films definitely belong in this list. The problem is that they cannot refer to Yul Brynner as "white" in Wikipedia's voice when there is serious debate about this. Just to be clear, are you saying that Brynner's Buryat ancestry is false? Or are you saying that it's likely true but not significant enough to require us to use caution with applying the label "white"?

1. I would hardly call Playbill an extremely reliable source that can settle this debate. Your quotation contradicts itself. One sentence says Brynner's Asian heritage was "incorrectly" assumed. The next sentence says that this point is "unclear" which means possibly correct. Compare to this one which calls him one quarter Buryat.

2. The UMD blog was written by students who were specifically taking a course about representation of Asian artists. If one of them had decided to post nonsense, I'm sure the professor would've removed it. And again, this source and others are not calling Brynner a correct representation. They simply say that he was not unambiguously white. If some sources confirm that and some sources deny it, we cannot take a side.

3. Of course Oswald is saying that Ramses II was whitewashed. I put that there to avoid removing the line entirely. If we continue to use the AOL source only, this is what I will have to do because it doesn't mention any Ten Commandments actors by name. Therefore, a valid interpretation is that the complaint is mainly about Charlton Heston. Connor Behan (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Race is a social construct. Keanu Reeves has a mixed background, but he passes as white. He has been identified as a "white savior" in a couple of films. Also, Playbill is absolutely a reliable source. It's only one source too. This identifies Brynner as Caucasian in his portrayal. This does the same. I have to go, but per WP:DUE, reliable sources clearly state the majority viewpoint. His ancestry is not applicable here like Reeves's is not for his films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If you really thought his ancestry were not applicable, then I don't think you'd be set on the "white actor" wording. A perfectly good sentence from this point of view is that Mongkut was played by an actor who was not Thai and could not easily pass for it. Maybe when you get back, you can explain why these sources are not reliable. Or, better yet, we can drop the source counting contest and focus on making this article more like examples of yellowface and white savior narrative in film. Both of these take an appropriately neutral stance on how white Yul Brynner and Keanu Reeves are. Connor Behan (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what you and I think. Source counting isn't a "contest" because there needs to be due weight. There are many more sources that consider his performance to be yellowface or whitewashing. It would be imbalanced to claim in a second sentence that Yul Brynner was actually appropriately cast in the role. There is actually zero refutation of the casting criticism; as Playbill indicates, people incorrectly assume he had Asian heritage. There is no active commentary to address the criticism. Asian American Culture on Stage says he was a Caucasian actor in an Asian role. Asian Americans and the Media identifies his portrayal as yellowface. Rethinking the Asian American Movement does the same. So does The Asian Mystique: Dragon Ladies, Geisha Girls, and Our Fantasies of the Exotic Orient. These are all the top Google Books results from searching for yul brynner asian. His being Asian in representation is widely rejected. Considering this is a stalemate, I suggest pursuing WP:3O or WP:DRN. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It might not be a stalemate if you realized that my criticism of the current article is very limited. If you floated minor tweaks to the wording here, there are probably many that would satisfy both of us. The yellowface and whitewashing claims are accurate because Brynner clearly did not have the skin color or epicanthic folds of ethnic Thai people. Briefly mentioning that Brynner had a small amount of Mongolian heritage (something that Playbill starts to reject but then backpedals on) would not be tantamount to a POV claim that his casting was "appropriate". It would simply be stating relevant information. From what I can see, every source about his ancestry finds no reason to doubt that it is mostly white (Russian, Swiss-German) and a tiny bit Mongolian, i.e. much less Asian than what Brynner claimed in his tall tales. The debate in the literature, in which we must avoid taking a side, is over something more subtle — what kind of actor he should be remembered as. I.e. whether authors who aren't particularly concerned with tracing family trees should emphasize that he was "white" or "Asian". I grant you that the number of sources emphasizing his whiteness is in the majority. But the others that I found above (I can keep finding more) are a significant minority. WP:UNDUE does not treat this as binary and you specifically said below that references to counterarguments should be cited as well. Why do the sources I found call Yul Brynner an Asian? Maybe they think it will help if aspiring Asian actors see a role model in him. Maybe they want to give Hollywood the benefit of the doubt before they criticize it. Maybe they are part of the movement of thinking whites should be "narrowly construed". Maybe they realize that racism against Mongolians in China is real and don't want to say something that could be seen as informed by that. All we can say is what the sources say. They show a consensus that The King and I broadly qualifies as whitewashing but no consensus that Yul Brynner was white. Connor Behan (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hellboy

If the Hellbooy reboot takes place, we should consider adding it to this list. While the final product will not contain whitewashing, this occurred in the development process and received noteworthy criticism (which was responded to). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Many problems

This page has many problems, the least of which not being that the "list of films" explicitly says that it only lists films that have caused controversy due to their "whitewashing", when it is very clearly just a list of films with white casts playing non-white roles! (don't even get me started on that second paragraph in the lede.) Kakurokuna (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The films listed have references outlining that whitewashing took place. Not sure what you are disputing here. Did you read the sources? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So I am to understand that (a) this is intended to be a frivolous list filled with any movie that anybody who's ever written for a reliable source has called "whitewashed", and (b) that really vague sources, straight up clickbait, and bastions of journalistic integrity are to be considered notable critics of whitewashing? I did read the sources. Many were fine, but there were a fair amount I wasn't impressed with (like I wasn't with your tone). Kakurokuna (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the list is intended to be comprehensive and based on sources that have noted whitewashing. (Not sure what "notable critics of whitewashing" even means, since notability has a specific definition on Wikipedia.) In regard to the sources, please add more where applicable. If you want another source for Lost Boundaries, one can be found here, for example. Many films have multiple inline citations and overlap quite a bit. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Not sure what "notable critics of whitewashing" even means, since notability has a specific definition on Wikipedia." I don't understand what this sentence means since it seems to answer itself. In any event, there are a number of sources that are much wanting of reliability. Since when does Wikipedia use clickbait to source articles? Kakurokuna (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability on Wikipedia has to do with whether or not a topic warrants its own article. In regard to article content, information has to be verifiable. Again, many films here have multiple inline citations and overlap quite a bit. Sources vary in reliability, but the numerous overlaps indicate collective agreement and that taking away one inline citation doesn't really matter. We can easily find replacements. Is that what you are arguing for? Or is there a film that you think does not belong on this list? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why films where the character is 'passing for white' are even included here. Can you imagine the outrage against a casting call that specifically asked for a multi-racial or black actor who could 'pass'? Seems like the whole point of those characters were to have an actor of white appearance.ScarletRibbons (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Blackwashing

So why isn't there a page about "Blackwashing in media" yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.255.70 (talk • contribs) 21:02, September 3, 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not a topic covered by reliable sources, essentially because white actors are not experiencing under-representation. What you're looking for is color-blind casting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is the epitome of why Wikipedia cannot be trusted.

This article should be put up for deletion. It holds no value. I only came across this article incidentally while reading another article. Anyone who wastes their time creating racist propaganda such as this really should re-evaluate their life priorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgllo (talk • contribs) 14:05, September 5, 2017 (UTC)

The article was already put up for deletion and was resoundingly kept because it is a notable (not to mention ongoing) topic covered by reliable sources outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia summarizes that coverage here. If you think the topic has no merit despite all the coverage that exists, I don't know what to tell you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions?

I understand that the examples in this article are qualified with sources, and that the list is merely a list of films "criticized" as whitewashing, not necessarily accurately. However, the way the list is composed seems to contradict the Wikipedia articles that describe the demographics and history of relevant countries. For example, the articles Demographics of Chile and Demographics of Cuba describe populations of people predominantly descended from waves of European migration and limited family mixing with indigenous peoples. When Wikipedia's own well-researched articles depict Chile and Cuba as 52% and 64% white, respectively, why does this article make a distinction between European-descended characters from these countries and the European-descended actors who have played them? I am genuinely curious to hear from the authors of the article and understand the rationale behind what appears to be an internal contradiction within Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.59.5.179 (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My understanding, from the sources I've read, is that Latin actors are under-represented in film. An assessment is not always going to be black-and-white (no pun intended), and there is probably a gray area in regard to ethnicity and "passing". There may be sources that discuss this better that this Wikipedia article can ultimately reflect. I've listed sources not-yet-used above. In regard to Scarface, the book Unbecoming Blackness: The Diaspora Cultures of Afro-Cuban America has a more detailed passage about Pacino here. As for something like House of the Spirits, the book Performing the Literary Interview: How Writers Craft Their Public Selves mentions the matter here in which the writer considers the characters to be Latin. I think it's worth noting that there is not going to be a clear-cut definition of whitewashing. Sometimes the context is different, like excluding a character of color entirely could be called whitewashing. That's part of why I list references above as I find them, so these assessments can be combined (with in-text attribution) for a reader to gauge for themselves. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not think there is a consistent internal logic to the way the examples are described in this article. Many of the examples, for instance, appear to be critiques of Caucasian actors playing Hispanic characters, but there is also an example listed of a Hispanic actor playing a Caucasian character (Not Without My Daughter). This is very odd, especially to a reader based outside of the United States. You also seem to be confusing geographic terms (such as Latin or Latino) and linguistic terms (such as Hispanic) with racial terms (such as white or non-white), and conflating linguistic differences between people with racial differences between people. Some of the sources, such as the one included for Scarface, critique casting using geographic/linguistic descriptions, but they are listed in the article using racial descriptions. I edited the article to add nuanced language describing the casting using geographic/linguistic terms, as the source does, but you removed my edit with this explanation: '"Sicilian-American" doesn't mean not white.' That explanation is not relevant to my edit, as Cuban (the word used in the article), and Latino (the word used in the source) do also not mean not white. Much of the terminology used in this article contradicts both itself and the more detailed articles explaining these terms elsewhere on Wikipedia. You admit yourself that accurate assessments are not black-and-white; so why not allow nuanced language within the article that better reflects the dynamics described in both the sources and other Wikipedia entries? My best estimation is that the authors of this article have some sort of anti-Hollywood agenda; you write above that Latin actors are underrepresented in American cinema (perhaps ignoring the source in your provided screenshot that describes Al Pacino as Latin). This is largely true, but it is also true that Italian actors were underrepresented in American films until the innovations of the New Hollywood era, which launched the careers of Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, John Cazale, Francis Ford Coppola, Talia Shire, Sylvester Stallone, Martin Scorsese and others; prior to this movement, Italians and Italian-Americans were often portrayed by non-Italians such as Edward G. Robinson, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Jack Hawkins, Stephen Boyd, James Mason, John Gielgud, and Deborah Kerr. Paramount Pictures pressured Coppola to cast non-Italians such as Ryan O'Neal, Warren Beatty, Robert Redford and Martin Sheen (a Hispanic actor) in the lead role of Michael Corleone in The Godfather, and it took Coppola's insistence that an authentic Sicilian actor be cast to deliver the role to the then-undiscovered Pacino. These are widely known events that reflect a bias against Italian actors in the early studio system (1917-1963), which coincided with a contemporary American resistance to Southern European immigration (see Immigration Act of 1924), a bias that has greatly receded in subsequent decades. Given the complex history of linguistic, geographic, and racial bias in both Hollywood and the broader United States, I suggest it is best to use consistent terminology and apply nuanced language when possible, especially when such language is used in the sources themselves. Do you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.59.5.179 (talk • contribs) 10:07, September 16, 2017 (UTC)

Isle of Dogs

Isle of Dogs has received some criticism for whitewashing as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Original research

Need other input on my revert here on what appears to be original research. An editor is trying to replace "white" with an actor's specific country of birth, which is not pertinent to the point of listing a film. The criticism is not an actor being English or American, it is an actor being white when playing a given role. These changes are completely out of step with the sources. In addition, the paragraph starting with "The term is also often applied..." is also original research because the sources say nothing about whitewashing. It is just POV extrapolation. Can other editors review these edits and share their opinion? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, see the comment in the thread above. I had overlooked it due to lack of signature. It seems like too much armchair reflection and not enough fidelity to the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Many of the sources provided for examples in the list make no mention of race. If you'd like these examples to stay, you should use correct terminology in the descriptions. Sometimes a racial term is correct to use ('white' as compared to 'Asian' or 'black'), sometimes it is not ('white' as compared to 'middle-eastern' or 'latino', which can be white). If you are using racial terms in the descriptions when they are not used in the sources, that is itself original research. 2.49.136.76 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The following sound like sensible criteria for changing "white" to something more specific.

1. The source here does not say "white".

2. Other sources also fail to say this or show somewhat of a split opinion.

3. The actor's pre-colonial ancestry is known and it's not from northern Europe.

But it really sounds like this problem could be solved by simply removing "white" in a lot of places. If we list a film and say that someone playing a non-white role was criticized by activists against whitewashing, it is clearly because this person is seen as white. Constantly reminding people of this is a bit immature. Connor Behan (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with taking it out, as long as the passage remains clear about what the role traditionally was. It seemed unnecessary to go the other way, into the nitty-gritty of where a white actor was from exactly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This seems a sensible solution, and I will make the edit now. I think there is still an underlying problem: the definition of "non-white" implied within this article is radically different from what's described elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is, at the very least, a major internal contradiction. 83.110.16.179 (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2017

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus for the originally proposed move. If anyone desires to suggest a new title other than Whitewashing (film), please start a new move request; at the present time, the alternative options have essentially added lack of a specific direction for this discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Whitewashing in film → Whitewashing (film) – As seen on Whitewash (disambiguation), all other articles carrying this title are simply titled "Whitewash" or "Whitewashing", followed by a parenthesis detonating the applicable area. I see no reason that this article should be any different. The term used when criticizing Hollywood is simply "whitewashing". Also, this article is about whitewashing (in the relevant sense) in in general, since it contains a full introduction to the subject and not just discussing the term when applied to film. The article is not about whitewashing in cinema only - as opposed to stageplays and TVshows - it is simply about whitewashing. As stated in WP:PARENDIS, the descriptive title is redundant in this case and should only use a parenthesis to distinguish from other usage of the term. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 17:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - It's describing the usage of racial whitewashing in entertainment in stuff, while the title you suggest implies it's the title of a film. Also, the "whitewash (XXX)" pages are DEFINING terms titled "whitewash" that are unique to that thing. Like, those are saying "here's a thing called whitewash, but like the sports kind", etc. I do support changing the title to "Whitewashing in entertainment", however. Just tell me if you need me to further expand my explanation of what I mean. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Response and new suggestion - Of course! I forgot that the parenthesis "film" meant an actual film. Thank you from saving me from this insanity! *smacks head*
However, I still believe that the title should be in the form of a parenthesis to conform with the other "Whitewash (Foo)" pages. Mainly since this page is indeed defining the term in this tense, as in "this article is about whitewashing, as of the meaning of the term withing film and filmmaking", whilst the current title mostly says "this article shows some examples of whitewashing in film, as opposed to its parent article which discusses the topic cross-business".
I am therefore changing my move suggestion and now suggest moving to Whitewashing (casting) instead. I may be breaking some unspoken rules about changing an ongoing move discussion, but let's not be too picky about formalities. I hope my point is still clear. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 19:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Whitewashing (casting) sounds like it could be a Casting (metalworking) method of some kind and is confusing. The current title is very clear and has no reason to be changed. If it needs to be more broad, it might be called Whitewashing in media, which I would support a move to if necessary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose leave as is WP:NATURAL In ictu oculi (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Irritated response Then what about Whitewashing (media or Whitewashing (entertainment?? Please, does no one understand that my only concern is that the extension of "in film" makes it sound like it is a part of a series, such as Cinema of the United States is a part of Cinema, Geography of Japan is a part of Japan, and Gameplay of Hearthstone is a part of Hearthstone. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn about the exact title about this article. I am only suggesting this because that the current title implies that there exists a article called "Whitewashing" somewhere which explains the subject broader, rather than the truth that this is the article of this subject. So please read my concern instead of getting hung up on exact words! Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 11:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have found nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that says that "in XXX" automatically implies there is an overarching topic. While that is your personal opinion, "in XXX" is commonly used without there being a larger article (as one example, see Rolling and wheeled creatures in fiction and legend, which has no parent article.) If you can find some kind of guideline that supports this claim then maybe you will have a point._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

    Zxcvbnm, it is not immediately obvious, but it is there. First, "whitewashing" is per WP:DESCRIPDIS the "acceptable set name for a topic", so a descriptive title is not needed. So per WP:PARENDIS, since "whitewashing" (or "whitewash") can mean different things, we would add a disambiguating term in parentheses. In contrast, to use a counter-example, if we wanted to write an article about how Native Americans are portrayed in US films, there is no one "acceptable set name" for that topic. We would have to come up with a descriptive title by consensus, something like "Portrayal of Native Americans in cinema of the United States" (or something less wordy). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

    • WP:NATURAL still overrides this. There is a legitimate alternative title besides "Whitewashing" so there is no need to use parentheses. If it was a film or book entitled "Whitewashing" there'd be no alternative term and parentheses would be required._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

      • Zxcvbnm, WP:NATURAL does not apply. That would mean that everyone would literally say "whitewashing in film" every time. Sometimes it's called Hollywood whitewashing, sometimes it's called whitewashed roles (or characters), etc. The key word is "whitewashing", which is usually delivered while talking about film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, since the article is not about a film called Whitewashing. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Whitewashing (film casting practice). There could be another article, more high-level, about whitewashing through media and entertainment in general, but the scope of this article is on film, hence wordier parenthetical disambiguation. Anything simpler would be insufficient. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whitewashing in 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512173949/http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/ethnic-casting-in-movies/ to http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/ethnic-casting-in-movies/

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) 07:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This page doesn't comprehend the controversial aspects of whitewashing

Whitewashing is still very controversial things. Because it is impossible to represent completely in the same way as the character supposed to be, making the ethic line is difficult. In the article page, there is no mention about this point thought the critiques toward the whitewashing is written in the section "Anti-whitewashing campaigns". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupa0529 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

lists of sources

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1881064062?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=8285 https://muse.jhu.edu/article/647478 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1887281117?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=8285 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1814061576?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=8285 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1882698376?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=8285 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupa0529 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Error in article

In the article it is stated that in the film "Touch of Evil" "Charlton Heston plays Miguel Vargas, a DEA agent of Mexican descent" The DEA is a U.S. agency. As stated in the Wikipedia article on the film, Heston plays an drug enforcement agent for the Mexican government, not for the U.S. The DEA did not even exist until 1973. Furthermore, Heston did not just play someone of Mexican descent, he played a Mexican period. Dwight Burdette (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Dwight Burdette, thanks for the notice! You're right, and I've changed the wording to "Mexican drug enforcement official". If you think it should be worded something else, feel free to suggest. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to editing on Wikipedia that's why I'd like to bring it up for discussion before just editing it.

- First of all whitewashing isn't just a US thing, as we've seen it in European films as well

- Second, anime (including ghost in a shell) is a mainly separate topic up for discussion as anime characters get the big eyes from a European inspiration and are therefore arguable if the nationality is not stated.

- Third I feel like the article is far away from neutral and I think we should work on that.

- Fourth we might also need to put in that (especially in earlier movies like Lawrence of Arabia) it has to do with the availability of actors of colors

I really want to help here and don't mind doing research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muecy (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene

• Mary Magdalene director Garth Davis responds to ‘whitewashing’ criticisms

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing and culture appropriation

Whitewashing in film is problematized because of the overlooked of Asian American representation in Hollywood. “Asian-Americans make up 5.4 percent of the population”. (*2)However, “only one out of 20 speaking roles go to Asian-Americans, and they are given only one percent of lead roles in film. Unsurprisingly, white actors account for 76.2 percent of lead roles, including the ones they do not deserve”. (*2) This is frustration both for Asian Americans who cannot see themselves in the films and for Asian American actors who robbed their jobs by white actors who are not deserve to Asian heritage role. (*2)

In 2017, Ghost in the Shell, which is based on the Japanese comics of the same name by Masamune Shirow, provoked a lot of disputes of whitewashing because Scarlet Johansson, a white actress took a role of Japanese character. (*1) “Johansson called her character “identity-less,” and the spokesperson for Kodansha and the publisher of “Ghost in the Shell” Sam Yoshiba told The Hollywood Reporter, “She has the cyberpunk feel. And we never imagined it would be a Japanese actress in the first place.”(*2)However, the screenwriter Max Landis saids, “[t]here are no A-list female Asian celebrities right now on an international level,” he said, admonishing viewers for “not understanding how the industry works.” (*3) It was blamed as cultural appropriation by fun of the original book who expect the role should be taken by Asian American actors, (*1) but it is considered that casting Asian American actors is risky so those who critiques about whitewashing doesn’t understand who the film industry work. (*3) The film ends up being failed and the factor is for this casting. (*2)

It is not possible, however, to represent characters in exactly the same way that the character was originally written. For example, the name of the main character, Motoko Kusanagi was changed to “Major” to make it easy to pronounce for English speakers. (*1) [2]When the original was made into a film, it was already different from the original story. Whitewashing can be considered one of these changes. Of course, the problem here could be the exploitation of the roles for Asian-American by whites, but there are many non-white cultures that tell stories based on the Western-canon. (*1) “Japan's “Ghost in the Shell” owes a debt to America's 1980s cyberpunk classic Blade Runner” (*1) Then it became difficult make the clear “line between homage and cultural grand larceny”. (*1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupa0529 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Others to add to the list

The Jazz Singer belongs in there for the blackface travesty. Also Cloud Atlas should be on the list. --KimYunmi (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

My Dinner with Hervé

Regarding My Dinner with Hervé and its listing here, Bueller 007 removed the listing based on coverage of Dinklage's statement that Villechaize was not Filipino. Researching the matter, it appears that a year ago, the HBO programming president said the family was not sure if they were Filipino. I've revised the listing to include both the president's and Dinklage's statements, and we should look out for coverage exploring this further. Do other editors want to maintain this listing with the points and counterpoints, or remove it entirely based on the current information? I think there is some relevance to retaining the matter as long as we report all pertinent details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm mostly fine with keeping it as long as the full story is presented. Although it's not clear why a listicle article like this should exist on Wikipedia at all, and the inclusion of Villechaize in the article does somewhat suggest that Wikipedia promotes this as being an instance of whitewashing. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Really, it should be called a list of associated cases, rather than a list of films. Some listings are simple, where others have points and counterpoints. In any case, curious to see how this particular case shakes out. If anything, it may make an especially good case of debating default assumptions and not challenging them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Another thought is to create a section on that film's article about all this and to remove the listing here and simply link to that film article and its section in this article's "See also" section. But I do think we need some kind of authoritative closure, like someone other than Dinklage himself acknowledging that Villechaize has been mischaracterized all this time, or some other outcome (in-depth family research or whatever). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Just found this: "Bloys said that HBO doesn't know whether Villechaize is Filipino, as is widely believed. 'His brother says they're not,' Bloys said." Not sure why this seems to contradict the Hollywood Reporter source that has him saying that the family is not sure. But the case for potential uncertainty may warrant the content migration and "See also" linking approach I suggest. We can wait a little longer for more coverage, perhaps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)