Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring whitewashed roles

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow keep. The topic unto itself is notable; to the extent that sources may differ on what counts as whitewashing, our article should outline the disagreement, per the WP:BALANCE section of the NPOV policy. Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring whitewashed roles

List of films featuring whitewashed roles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What is considered whitewashing often varies by source, and therefore this article is not from a NPOV. For example, Argo is listed here, and while it is true that there was controversy over the casting, Mendez, the person Affleck portrayed, has said that he does not identify as Hispanic. JDDJS (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the notability of the topic is demonstrated by multiple reliable sources shown in the article. In fact, Gods of Egypt opening this weekend has been written about because of its whitewashing. In addition to the sources seen in the "References" section, there are even more listed at Talk:List of films featuring whitewashed roles#References to use. Editor is being highly abrasive in wanting to delete any mention of this topic on Wikipedia because they have a concern about one film being listed. AfD is not cleanup. If the topic is clearly notable, and the actual content can be improved, then deletion is absolutely not warranted. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As TriiipleThreat articulated below, films that have been debated about back and forth have the different perspectives represented in the article. For example, Ridley Scott justifies the whitewashing of Exodus: Gods and Kings, and his statement is included with the film's entry. The same applies for various other films where such commentary exists (e.g., Hud). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, I thought that the Argo entry mentioned Tony Mendez's statement. I've expanded the entry to include his statement, like other entries have involved parties' statements when they are responses to the criticisms. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This topic was even covered by John Oliver last night; see Variety. Many of the films (if not all) that appeared in his episode also appear in this list. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list is well referenced and exceeds our general notability guidelines. Our only responsibility is that the list is free of original research and written from a neutral point of view, which it appears to be. The example the nominator mentions is verified by multiple citations. Although the subject in this particular example may not consider himself Hispanic, the sources clearly state that the role has been whitewashed. It might be worth noting the subject's opinion but this is an issue that can be resolved by normal editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly a notable topic. Blythwood (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep well referenced, clearly passes the GNG, nominator's only argument is that sources don't always agree about the definition of the term which is a terrible argument since sources disagree all the time. Wugapodes (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep if reliable sources mention a role as whitewashed, we can include it, regardless of if other sources disagree (we could always mention that they disagree, if relevant.)SatansFeminist (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, well-sourced article. I see no problem. Dimadick (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per failure to perform WP:BEFORE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a speedy keep criterion. WP:BEFORE is not mandatory and is actually largely discredited. Reyk YO! 12:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reyk, curious to ask, how is WP:BEFORE largely discredited? Editors don't have to check for a topic's notability before putting it up for AfD? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This was discussed here, and the consensus was that WP:BEFORE is not mandatory. It was also widely felt that WP:BEFORE was, and is, too often used as a club to attack nominators. There were also concerns about it being filled with unhelpful and unproductive hurdles. Reyk YO! 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the link! I'm fine with that consensus. I usually bring up WP:BEFORE to ask the nominator to do some brief research before nominating (for their future edits). While it may be too late at a given AfD, hopefully it has meant that the editor will review future discoveries more closely and nominate only the articles that really warrant it. Agree that it should not be a mandatory practice but rather just a best practice for long-term editors. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has plenty of sources. If the entries are contentious, they can be discussed on the talk page or at WP:NPOVN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. If you have an issue with one entry on the list, it's best to raise your concerns on the article's talkpage, instead of nominating the whole thing for deletion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per all above. Disagreeing about one entry on a list does not mean deleting the whole thing. Reyk YO! 12:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am troubled as I am at other articles I see at AFD by the lack of definition. The first sentence of the lede makes a sweeping statement. The second sentence mentions African-Americans. So is the topic American films or films? Does it include the Bollywood films that prefer Kashmiri and Indian Jewish actors because their skin is whiter than the nation as a whole? Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, Spanish, Italian and Latin American film industry preferences for whiter complexioned actors and, more dramatically, whiter complexioned actresses in countries with large ranges of skin-tone?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory, there used to be a sentence stating that this was common as part of the film industry in the United States. I've recalled it to life. I have not seen any coverage about Bollywood films in searching for coverage about whitewashing. That might need to be a distinct topic regarding skin tone in film, maybe the same umbrella as for advertising in general. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow up, I found this, "In India's movie industry, the world's largest, scripts often follow a strict skin-to-character correlation, with light-skinned actresses in the major roles and dark-skinned actresses relegated to supporting characters." So there is definitely opportunity to write about this topic. However, I don't think it falls under the same umbrella as this whitewashing, which is Western-focused. It could be linked as a tangential topic in the "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Erik: They use a different term, which I cannot recall; life would be easier if Brits Aussies, and English-speaking Indians spoke American. It is discussed, there and in several other countries. In some, including India, it also discussed in the context of those horrible, and dangerous, skin treatments young actresses put on their faces to "whiten" the skin. shudder. I do think a definition in the lede specifying that this article describes a practice in the American film industry is necessary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_featuring_whitewashed_roles&oldid=1073183643"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring whitewashed roles, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.