Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Put into Chronological Order

The film list would make more sense if put in chronological order. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference either way, but if we did this, we should switch the columns. The first column should be default one for sorting. Do you want to sort from earliest to most recent? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think an alphabetised list is easier to navigate for readers. A reader is more likely to use the list as an index and look up a particular film, in whice case alphabetic order serves that purpose. There is no reason to order by date unless you are explicitly presenting a chronology or timeline. Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A sortable table with a year of release column would solve this. I think alphabetical should be the default though.--Carwil (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

More text needed

In a couple of places Ryk72 had deleted some text from the description part of the list of films. While I agree that the table reads more smoothly if the description section is brief, the main problem of this article is that it needs more discussion of the movies, placing the narrative in context and clarifying what elements of each film contains the narrative, and not less. I would like to encourage you to, instead of removing discussion of the film, to instead move it to a better spot (even if this requires making a new section, which would probably be useful in any case.)

As a example, I took the discussion of 12 Years a Slave (film) out of the list, and inserted it into the "Historical Film" section. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Skepticalgiraffe, I fundamentally agree with your comments here, and elsewhere, that the article can be significantly enhanced by the inclusion of additional prose text. I am, however, not as yet convinced that we should include extensive discussion of each individual film listed in the table in such text. On review, I conceive that some of the text removed may address the wider trope, and will endeavour to work that into the body of the article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This article needs significant rewrites

I think that part of the problem with this article is the seemingly arbitrary way films are included (or not) on the list. I suggest that instead of a long semi-random list, the article be written to have several in-depth case studies, explaining why certain films meet the criteria, and that the white saviour narrative is not mutually exclusive with race-neutral casting. The issue right now is that The Matrix has two paragraphs of text to accompany it, despite it being a somewhat counterintuitive entry, whereas obvious white saviour films have a single sentence or nothing at all. In a large list that's undue weight, but if we accept that trying to list every film which contains the white saviour narrative is pointless and focus on a few examples, it becomes less so. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The Matrix had a shorter write-up, but due to editors who personally disliked the film's inclusion here, it was expanded to reflect that several sources identified their trope. Films are included in the list if sources have identified the trope in it. All of the entries are sourced, and the vast majority of them are "acceptable" prima facie (which is not criteria to include or exclude anyway). The isolated cases are "non-obvious" where editors incorrectly think it has to be obvious to them to qualify. It is especially driven by the belief that the film is being cast as explicitly racist, which is a gross misunderstanding and over-simplification of the trope. The Wikipedia article could talk more about that in general. There is plenty in the Hughey book to outline the trope further (since it is barely used here). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

So anyone who disagrees with your list did it only because they "personally disliked" it? Obviously anyone who disagrees with you is just incapable of logical thought. Which absolves you from considering any of the grounds offered, just blow them all off, don't consider if The Matrix or some other dubious inclusions really are good examples of the trope, just dig up some more citations, which when you read them don't actually support your case. Because it's vital that the article list every film that anyone ever used the phrase "white saviour" with in the same sentence. Much more important than discussing major examples. And be sure to link your article from every film you malign here. Got to make people know how bigoted they are. 202.81.249.140 (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you so anti-sourcing? Wikipedia's content needs to be based on sources. We don't get to choose to exclude information, especially selectively, from sources. The trope in The Matrix has been identified multiple times. I don't understand why you keep attacking me for wanting to follow the sources. I did not single out The Matrix for including and linking to; a source mentioned it, and since then, there have been additional sources that also identified the trope (including the Hughey book). You're claiming that you are applying logical thought to override all of these sources? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "anti sourcing". I'm anti how you use sources, to present opinions as facts. I'm asking you to logically explain how your own definition, or Hughey's definition, applies to The Matrix. Your sainted Hughey never bothered to when you asked him, he just stated it as if it were self evident. It's just a cited form of truthiness. You can disabuse me of this notion by writing a couple of sentences explaining how The Matrix fulfils the conditions you yourself stated as necessary. Or you can keep patronising me and avoiding the question. 202.81.248.79 (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hughey applied the criteria that I listed above. They are more fleshed out in the book. Each criterion has several paragraphs about it. The Matrix thus got scored something across most criteria. I do not understand the insistence that Hughey picked the film like it was some random draw. I can email him, but why don't you? He responded to me within a day. You can list the key questions you have about how he assessed the film and see what he has to say. His email is public record. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Hughey applied the criteria that I listed above." -- No, he did not. Like you, he listed criteria, then stated that The Matrix was a white saviour film. Neither he nor you will explain or even discuss how the criteria applied to the film, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT. One of Hughey's criteria is "(4) the savior, the bad white, and the natives", and who in the film these people are is not explained. In particular, who the hell are "the natives? Your article states "a white character rescues people of color from their plight." Who the hell are the "people of color" in The Matrix? You absolutely refuse to engage on this central point, dismiss it as a "rhetorical question". The only criterion you apply is "Erik and Hughey think this film is a white savior film". Nothing else matters. A thousand published reviewers never commented on this, therefore they are deemed to agree with you. You can just smile and ignore any idea of logic or due weight to a minority opinion, because Wikipedia's system allows you to enshrine any opinion that is not refuted in print. 202.81.248.130 (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that he did not apply the criteria is nonsensical. He scored each film differently based on each criterion. In the book, he explained each criterion in-depth, but you are getting way too caught up in the high-level label and trying to figure out how the label fits. You're drawing the conclusion that he is willfully identifying the trope in The Matrix when his own criteria does not appear to fit, which again is nonsense. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You keep dismissing my question as "nonsense" or "rhetorical" or blow me off in some other way. I have no idea what you are mean by "high level label". There is only ONE label and NO scoring in this article. Every film in your list has the same "label": "This film is a white savior film" and you make no distinction between "degrees" of white saviourness. They're not distinguished by a "score". All are deemed equally racist, according to your article. You stated, in your definition, in your article: "a white character rescues people of color from their plight." Who the hell are the "people of color" in The Matrix? Why will you not address this? It's your own definition yet you can't explain how it applies to a film you have insisted must remain in your list, despite numerous editors disagreeing and questioning, you just brush everyone off. 202.81.248.50 (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the list here comprises films which at least one source has mentioned by title in an article discussing the narrative. The film may or may not actually be a White Savior Narrative according to the definitions given here, but that is not the criterion: if the film has been been mentioned on anybody's list, it's in this list. Thus, the list does not distinguish between films in which this is the main element, films in which the narrative appears as a secondary plot, and films which include some of the elements of the narrative but not others. How would you suggest resolving this problem?Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Erik created the article on those terms: his original and still main source is one guy's opinion. All he has to do is cite this guy, or anyone, and he can put it in his list, tell everyone who questions him to fuck off, as he has been doing here on the discussion page for the last two years since it was created. The article begins with a definition, but Erik treats it as irrelevant window dressing. I've asked a few dozen times for Erik to explain how the definition he cited applies and he just changes the subject every time, most recently by asserting that my question is not actually a real question. Well, who cares what this one article says? The problem I have is that Erik now uses his article as a justification to describe every film mentioned in it as a racist narrative, and he goes forth and adds his back link saying that to every film's article. There is no context, no discussion, the film's makers are all smeared equally by this process that converts an opinion held by Erik and a couple of sociologists who see racism everywhere into an unimpeachable label. Basically, the concept of "White Saviour Film" is of course valid, it's the list that includes many marginal films along with the unarguable ones (Dances With Wolves, etc) all on an equal basis, that is the problem, regardless if the trope is the main plot of the film or a minor part, if it it really exists at all. If you put a list in an article, it encourages people to add every and any thing to it that they can. This would not be a big deal if it was, say a list of films featuring the deaf, it is when the label implies the filmmakers are racists, it's a very serious and derogatory charge to lay. So I would just remove the list entirely and leave it as a prose article that cites the worst examples. As it stands, now there is more text about the marginal ones that none of the hundreds of reviewers who wrote about the film saw as a "white saviour film"; from Erik's pushback on people questioning their inclusion. The article's focus is now to defend Erik's list, not to explain the idea. Which is more important? 202.81.248.151 (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Skepticalgiraffe's edits

I reverted Skepticalgiraffe's edits because of the following issues:

• They took out "white travels to 'exotic' Asian locations" because they disagree with it even though it is sourced
• They reference TV Tropes, which is user-edited and not a reliable source at all
• "White Savior Historical Sport Film" had one sourced sentence, but the second one is unsourced and seems personally derived
• The "Relation to Magical Negro Trope" is not related to this trope; none of the sources make the comparison to that trope
• They exclude The Man Who Would Be King based on personal disagreement even though it is sourced

I've kept the "Historical films" section and only the sourced sentence from "Sports films". Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to write an encyclopedia article, not to delete material based on your personal opinions.

Wikipedia has methodologies. If something is wrong, delete it. If you think it is unsourced, however, the correct thing to do is to add a tag.

The main problem with this article is that, as an encyclopedia article, it barely makes "stub" status. It is a short, random, and poorly organized collection of words, followed by a undigested list of movies, with the apparent logic of the list "any film that anybody has ever mentioned in a discussion of this narrative." What this article badly needs is organization, clarification, and catagorization.

My suggestion is that, rather than remove material, why don't you try to add some organizing and clarifying text? The literature in the field is immense. I suggest a section "Critiques of the White Savior Narrative" and start putting in some of the many sources that have criticized and commented on this narrative. This would be some edits that would actually help make this a stronger article. In fact, I'll add the subheading-- please fill in some details.

Some specific replies to your detailed comments:

• They took out "white travels to 'exotic' Asian locations" because they disagree with it even though it is sourced

it is not well sourced. I do notice that ten (!) of the citations are to a two-page article by Vera and Gordon, but "travel to exotic locations" may be a feature of such narratives, it is not (as the article claims) a type of narrative. This instead is use of exoticism or orientalism.

• They reference TV Tropes, which is user-edited and not a reliable source at all

So, find a better source and cite it.

• "White Savior Historical Sport Film" had one sourced sentence, but the second one is unsourced and seems personally derived

Since much of the article has a single source, I'm not sure what the problem is, but on consideration, this does seem rather too little content to have its own subheading. It more sense as a paragraph under the historical section.

• * The "Relation to Magical Negro Trope" is not related to this trope; none of the sources make the comparison to that trope

The sources make the comparison explicitly. Didn't you read them?

• They exclude The Man Who Would Be King based on personal disagreement even though it is sourced

A source mentioning that in The Man Who Would Be King "the natives are portrayed in a cliched manner" does not count as showing that it is an example of White Savior narrative-- showing cliched depictions of natives may be a feature of the trope, but it is not in itself the trope. It's an odd case, however: it is in one sense white savior story: becoming "white saviors" is explicitly what the dharacters do by their own deliberate plan. But it is not according to the definition here-- it seem instead of an example of the narrative being thwarted. It is, however, definitely relevant to the topic. I'd say it might be worth its own subheading, along with other 19th century examples of the narrative such as King Solomon's Mines (both the book and film versions). Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Regarding Vera and Gordon, pages 32-33 is where the type of stories were outlined and the set of films (including The Man Who Would Be King) is listed. The films are analyzed in-depth throughout the book. Do you think we need a separate reference for each film? And regarding the type of stories, see the relevant paragraph here. I sort of see what you're saying, but perhaps word it to say it is the kind of stories in which the trope appears? I don't think we can mention exoticism being connected unless we have a source doing that. As for TV Tropes, I think the best substitute would be the book The White Savior Film. It is very detailed, and I have not incorporated anything from it in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I am fine with expanding the article since I know it needs it. The material was previously over-compressed. In expanding, though, I'm wary about presuming too much from sources and thus padding out the article. For the paragraphs, I used in-text attribution to be clear about who is saying what. For example, I removed weasel wording that was added based on Berlatsky's piece. The material that I restored was restored because I know that some passages like the Asian connection and The Man Who Would Be King were part of the same sets of details, so I found it inappropriate to selectively exclude details. I am not sure why an unsourced "Literary Antecedents" section was added, and I removed that. We need to reference sources that are making the connections themselves. Lastly, regarding the Magical Negro trope, I saw the source that mentioned both of them side by side as race-related cinematic tropes. One source mentioned that it was the antithesis of the white savior film, but the source itself was a thesis and not reliable. From what I've seen in sources, the tropes can overlap or be distinct from each other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding on... I have the PDF for the White Savior Historical Sports Film article. If you want it, I can email it to you so you can use it for the prose. I only referenced it to list a few films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The main difficulty I have here is that your deletions are making this a worse and less clear article, instead of a better and clearer one. I would like to strongly encourage you to use the "citation needed" tag when you think material is unsourced, rather than deleting material. This article desperately needs to be expanded and clarified, and if you keep on deleting every single sentence you think is unsourced, that is like slogging through molasses to do.

Thanks for the link to the paragraph from Vera and Gordon mentioning travel to "exotic" Asian locations]. They do not say that this is in any way a defining feature of the white savior narrative, but merely state that the first films they analyze happen to contain this narrative element. Based on that, I would delete the sentence entirely; I'd also rewrite the "racially diverse set of helpers" mention to more explicitly represent what they say, which is that this is an update of the white messiah myth.

I put in the "Literary Antecedents" section partly to point out that the trope dates to before the movies, but mostly as a location to put in a discussion of The Man Who Would Be King, since it's mentioned without ay ral discussion later, and the trope in the film version is simply transcribing the trope in the original. I'll have to dig out some volumes of Kipling criticism for more discussion. The poem "The White Man's Burden" gets the brunt of criticism on this front, but it's not per se the White Savior narrative, although it may be the mythos that feeds it.

I'm sorry you don't like the TV Tropes citation. In discussions of the trope, however, there are literally a thousand references to that article-- it seems to be the original source material for a lot of discussion.

Go ahead and expand the Sports section with some material from the "White Savior Historical Sports Film" article. This seems to be a significant percentage of the films discussed, it could use a lot of expansion.

Hughey states "features a group of lower-class, urban, nonwhites (generally black and Latino/a) who struggle through the social order in general, or the educational system specifically. Yet through the sacrifices of a white teacher they are transformed, saved, and redeemed by the film's end" as the White Savior Film genre, not as "a school-setting " of the genre. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been touch-and-go these days. In case you haven't noticed, I do not edit much and have really only come back to discuss this article since it can be controversial. You're the most contributing editor I've seen in all this. :) Regarding TV Tropes, it is not that I do not like it. It is a wiki, which means that the content is put together by laypersons. If they use references like Wikipedia editors do, then we should use these references. As for the teacher film matter, I took "white teacher" too literally, so my bad. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And regarding adding and deleting content, I'm applying WP:BURDEN here. This topic is definitely about material that can be challenged. I've removed sentences that have no inline citations. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What you are ending up doing is making it difficult to improve the article. Wikiipedia has a template to ask for citations for a reason. If you would please use it instead of deleting content, it would really help. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Why can you not add sourced content in the first place? Is it just an unsourced draft for you to add references later? You can use a sandbox page to do that and add sourced content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Some observations here.

• "white travels to 'exotic' Asian locations" The context of this travel may vary significantly depending on the historical and geographic setting of this story and the nature of the traveler. Are we talking about merchants/traders, sailors, soldiers, mercenaries, vagabonds, priests, missionaries, etc? European people have visited Asia for any number of reasons, and their intentions and experiences have similarly varied over the centuries. Fictional narratives often reflect this experience. In a non-film example of such a travel, the historical novel Shōgun (1975) has an Englishman trapped in Japan during the conflicts of the late Sengoku period (1467-1603). The character is fascinated by some aspects of the local culture (which he tries to adopt), horrified by other aspects (particularly the local methods of torture, executions, and forced suicide), and tries repeatedly to escape Japan (unaware that his employer Toranaga plans to keep him there for life and secretly sabotages all escape attempts). The selling point of the novel is partly its exotic local and fascinating Japanese culture, but the white protagonist is more of a pawn in a wider military and political conflict than a savior.
• TV Tropes has attracted its fair share of publicity and its articles are sometimes cited in other sources. As an old user of the site, I often find it useful to search for some concepts in fictional narratives. But I would take much of its claims with a grain of salt. Each "trope" is defined in an article of varying lengths and then readers add examples of the trope they have encountered in various media. There is no real control for addition of biased information, shoehorning "examples" that do not really fit the definition is surprisingly common, humor and sarcasm are tolerated and even treasured.
  • And a bit of a pet-peeve for me, TVTropes has no rule similar to Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Per its Family Friendly policy: "We shoot for 'family friendly' at TV Tropes. What does that mean? A couple of things. First, The thing we are marking as "mature content" is our article, not the work the article is about. We can talk about literature (media, that is) which is racy. We just can't be the racy literature." In practice entire articles and sections have been deleted because someone found the content of the work itself offensive or considered it to be porn. The current content policy specifically requires the removal of all articles which are "Pure porn, or porn with an Excuse Plot only", "Anything that has explicit underage sex", "Implied sex of preteens or younger", and "Fanservice intended to cater to pedophiles (lolicon and shotacon fanservice can count)." There have been a couple of flamewars for deletion of various articles and there are fork sites which consist only of TVTropes' deleted content.
• If only part of a sentence is actually sourced, the main concern should be that the sentence is a Synthesis. Per the relevant policy: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."
• While I do get there is some connection to the "Magical Negro Trope", since a person helps people from another race or ethnic group, do we actually have sources which discuss this connection?
• 'The Man Who Would Be King is somewhat of a peculiar example. It is not a narrative original to any film, it is an adaptation of a novella dating to 1888. The white characters from the novel, Daniel Dravot and Peachey Carnehan, are not selfless adventurers. They travel to Kafiristan in the explicit hope they can rise to power as kings and/or living gods. They succeed for a while, then their human nature is discovered. Dravot is killed, Carnehan is crucified, then released, and reduced to a beggar. If they are saviors, who are they supposed to save? They do not really help anyone and fail to save themselves from the wrath of their former supporters. Dimadick (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You can ask questions like "who are they supposed to save" for any film you like, and Erik will either 1) ignore you or 2) tell you he has a source and your question is meaningless. What he will never do is explain how the trope applies specifically to any film. The same questions about the same films have been raised over the years since Erik first pasted his list into the article and his response has been consistent. Blow you off and/or wait you out. 202.81.248.7 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Matthew W. Hughey, PhD

Hughey is the primary source for this article. From his own webpage: "My research examines the relationship between racial inequality and collective understandings of race through (1) white racial identity; (2) racialized organizations; (3) mass media; (4) political engagements with race, (5) science and technology, and; (6) public advocacy with racism and discrimination."

He is I'm sure very sincere but he has an obvious agenda. His entire career is focused on racial issues. His analysis of every issue looks for that aspect.

His article The Whiteness of Oscar Night includes this:

Many of these award-winning performances by African Americans were in films that follow the narrative structure of what I call a “White Savior” film. A White Savior film is often based on some supposedly true story. Second, it features a nonwhite group or person who experiences conflict and struggle with others that is particularly dangerous or threatening to their life and livelihood. Third, a White person (the savior) enters the milieu and through his or her sacrifices as a teacher, mentor, lawyer, military hero, aspiring writer, or wannabe Native American warrior, is able to physically save — or at least morally redeem — the person or community of folks of color by the film’s end. Examples of this genre include films like Glory (1989), Dangerous Minds (1996), Amistad (1997), Finding Forrester (2000), The Last Samurai (2003), Half-Nelson (2006), Freedom Writers (2007), Gran Torino (2008), Avatar (2009), The Blind Side (2009), The Help (2011), and the list goes on.

(nb., That's a succinct top level description of the trope. I'm adding it to the article.) Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is all quite reasonable. It's the "list goes on" that is the problem. In his book he added every film that came across his screen that vaguely fit his trope, he had a book to fill, after all. So we got the unimpeachable examples above, and a lot of very marginal ones that just make him look like a monomaniac. This article treats all the films as equally guilty, and in fact allocates much more space to the marginal ones than the ones above that best illustrate the trope. The focus of the article is distorted to the end of including every film possible. 202.81.248.232 (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is merely character assassination, especially to call a PhD "a monomaniac". If someone with a PhD is not authoritative, then who is? Also, Hughey is not the primary source for this article in the general sense or in Wikipedia's sense of the term. Your goal has always been to exclude The Matrix one way or another, so this is simply escalation of commitment. Hughey is not even the only source to identify the trope in The Matrix, so it is not like the exclusion of this source will mean the exclusion of the film from this article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You never answer the substance of my comments or questions, just look for a word you can take offence to and flounce off. And I should have said YOUR ARTICLE makes him appear to be a monomaniac. Citing him, you treat films that he mentions in passing with much more weight than ones he devoted chapters to. Anyone objects, they're insulting Hughey. Though I do know a few PhDs, monomania is practically a prerequisite for success in academia. My problem is not so much with Hughey as your using him to denigrate dozens of films. It's your article that makes him look like a loon. Didn't take you long to get back to bludgeoning, did it? 202.81.249.140 (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no point in responding to your comments or questions because they are general in nature. My answers, which would be general, do not matter. We go with the sources. You are downplaying Hughey big time, especially to imply that he would not want The Matrix listed here. As I've already quoted above, he identifies the film as having the trope and exhibited no qualms about including it here. Feel free to email him. As for bludgeoning, I've disengaged from the RfC. This is a new discussion altogether, and one based on a false premise that needs to be checked. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Again you make up an excuse to ignore my question. It's not "general", it's very simple and specific: WHO ARE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE MATRIX? Your own definition states they are necessary, yet they are nowhere to be seen in the film. I'm not asking for a citation that some guy put a film in a list and got it published, I'm asking for a reason. Prove you are a rational being and not a bot and answer the question. You created this article. You wrote the definition. You put The Matrix in your list despite it failing to fit your own definition. Or are you going to keep pleading the Nuremberg defence? 202.81.249.140 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop acting like I created the definition myself. The definition is from the web page in regard to Hughey's book. There could be an even more detailed definition in his book to use instead. I just have not incorporated the book into this article at all. Like I said, your question is rhetorical. The answer is in the film's entry in the article. You want to draw an answer to your rhetorical question to make a point. If you want to discuss defining the trope more fully, we can do that. But it is not going to lead to getting The Matrix removed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You did write the definition. And my question IS NOT RHETORICAL. The "point" I'm making is that The Matrix" does not fulfil your own definition, or Hughey's definition, or any reasonable person's definition, of a "white savior film". And as for "if you want to discuss defining the trope more fully, we can do that. " -- don't make me laugh. I've asked you about the definition 20 times and you keep changing the subject, blowing me off, attacking my motives. In any case, I don't have any problem with the definition per se, it seems quite reasonable. It's that you ignore it after stating it that's the problem, and refuse to discuss how it applies (or does not apply) here, on the so-called discussion page. And I observe that "it is not going to lead to getting The Matrix removed" is an unambiguous assertion that you own the article. Not that there was ever any doubt. 202.81.248.79 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I wrote the definition based on the source. It was before Hughey's book became available, so a definition based on one in the book can be used. Your point is completely wrong. Your take on The Matrix does not override Hughey's because he is authoritative and has been published in that regard, with his book being well-reviewed. There are other sources that mention the trope, so he is not unique in this regard. Hence what I mean that trying to discredit Hughey because you think he is racist against whites is not going to get the film removed. There are other sources citing the trope, but you are hung up on this one. You're the one who has been hostile toward me, most recently at #The Great Wall, where you continued your bile toward me. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE MATRIX? The blessed Hughey doesn't say, neither do you. That's my non-rhetorical question. Answer it. Instead of whining about my "bile", simply answer the question instead of just telling me to fuck off in various ways. Or continue to treat me with me contempt and I will do likewise. 202.81.249.43 (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Categorizing films

Trying to make the list of films a little more organized, to make it something more than just an huge undigested list, I separated out two subcategories: Historical films, and Historical Sports Narrative. I'd like to separate out the teacher films and the science fiction films, but I have to first find a good reference for these as distinct subcategories. (I think that there are, but I haven't yet had time to dig through the citations). Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I like the addition of the prose above the list, but I think this is a bad approach. This prevents being able to sort the list by year from oldest to most recent, or vice versa. Could we add a new column instead as a subcategory? That way, a reader can sort by year, or by subcategory. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I also realize that Ryk72 removed all of the actors' names. I think they should stay as reference points. What do you think? Betty Logan, any preference? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that breaking the table up is a bad idea and it would be better to add a column categorizing the films. At least then readers can order/group the list in a manner that suits their purpose. As for removing the actors' names I don't really take issue with this. I agree that knowing who the actor is doesn't provide any extra insight into the trope in most cases. I think there may well be exceptions, such as with The Matrix, which I discussed above, but perhaps it is not necessary to name the actor unless the article is explicitly addressing the casting of that actor? Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The list is an inherently bad idea as it will never be complete and puts all films on the same equally bad footing. Kill it with fire and use prose. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Erik, I'm not sure that I understand what is meant by "reference points" here. The table contains links to article on each of the films, which, I believe, should provide sufficient reference to enable the reader to obtain more information on each work. The film links also enable a reader to obtain a fuller plot summary, and an understanding of the time and culture in which the films were made.
Inclusion of the actors inline only serves to break up the description of the films' use of the trope and to distract the reader. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.'

I find it commonplace in sources that the actors involved are mentioned. Here, exclusion of their names feels like forcing the reader to go to the article to figure out who played the role that is being directly discussed in this article. I do not think it is extraneous detail. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Many things are mentioned in sources, but that does not imply that we should or must include them here (cf. WP:OSE). The subject of the article and the focus of the table is the trope, and the films which contain it, not the role or the actors; the inline inclusions are distracting to the reader. I think our views are clear; input from other editors is welcomed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Actors' names

Unless there is objection from other editors, I will go through and re-remove the actors names from the list table in the next few days. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)