Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 1

Concern with topic
While I agree with the single opinion article that this entire encyclopedia article was borne from, I do disagree that it deserves its own article. --174.69.62.173 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:N, Wikipedia articles need to cover notable topics. This topic is notable. Look at all the references in the article. There are more out there. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be deleted, Wikipedia is not a Social Justice site. 72.73.24.60 (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is reporting on a topic that is already being covered out there. See WP:DEL-REASON; there is no reason to delete this particular topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur. Someone put this article out of its misery. So "black people" are aliens in this respect? Thanks a lot. 72.208.73.90 (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's rather debatable how you define such films as having a "white savior." Sure Django Unchained has the lead rescued and trained by a white man, but after the first act Django is the hero and the "white savior" ends up putting him into a deadly situation no better than the one he started in. District 9 and Avatar are about white men fighting for Aliens, not people of color. And seriously Cool Runnings and To Kill A Mockingbird? That's a film about a coach and a lawyer, they're not saviors and the races could easily be swapped in either story.

Overall this is a poor faulty article and rather embarrassing. An attempt of some failed Liberal Arts Major to generate controversy. Karnov622 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see the references in the article. The topic is a valid one. Being snarky is not going to accomplish anything here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Tell me how a movie about a white Bobsledding Coach helping an inexperienced Jamaican bobsleding team shows the "White Savior" cliche and I'll stop the snark. Or how "The Blind Side" is "tripe" when it's based on the true story of how Michael Oher was adopted. Just because it references opinion pieces doesn't excuse this Wikipedia article from being poorly researched. Karnov622 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like in Cool Runnings, a group of black men need a white man to help them succeed. In The Blind Side, a white family is responsible for helping a young black man succeed. It's not about whether or not the stories are true, it's about these stories being chosen. The book The White Savior Film mentions The Blind Side in this regard. The book also says it evaluates 50 films from 1987 onward; that will be a comprehensive list to include here. (The book can't be previewed yet except for the first chapter.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A perfectly illustrative failure of logic (though that would suggest you were trying in the first place). The black characters were successful track runners (one of whom was from wealth) who by unfair circumstance took what initiative they had available to them in a field in which their country had no base. But even that is irrelevant to the larger point that they overtly and unambiguously saved the decrepit, downtrodden, disgraced white coach more then he saved them. The pretense is objective, deducible, completely unexamined anti-white schadenfreude, self-admittedly and without any exception whatsoever more concerned with the intolerable gratification of the white subject then it is with any kind of suffering at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.135.118.184 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I suggest we re-title this article "White People helping other people of different skin colors narrative in film" since a "savior" is someone who actually "saves" someone from peril. John Candy does not save the Jamaican Bobsled from any danger, neither did the characters in several of these films. Or someone can just remove those films. 68.227.15.21 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
This so called "narrative" is entirely fabricated from one source and is purely racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.101.233 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What a shameful attempt by Social Justice Warriors. Not every racist thing thought up by Salon writers deserves a wikipedia page. --104.34.200.144 (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The topic has been covered by multiple reliable sources, not just Salon. Please don't obfuscate the matter. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 06:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This has to be a joke? So Wikipedia is now into publishing opinon articles as fact? I am personally sickened by this.... Avatar BLUE ALIENS are you kidding me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.218.146 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can have articles on views; see Neutral point of view. Regarding Avatar, see this for this particular view of the film being published in reliable sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted that films based on actual historical events are included alongside fictional films where a white saviour is introduced as a Hollywood meme. Lawrence of Arabia and Glory are based on actual, important, historical events. Its hard to make sense of middle eastern 20th century history without Lawrence, and the story of the 54th was instrumental in leading to the 15th amendment. Amistad accurately showed that both blacks and whites were in the abolitionist movement (though the Tappans are real, and black character is fictionalized) And Lincoln ?!?!!? Is the life of arguably the greatest President of the United States a "white savior story"? I will need to check the sources, as I doubt the list can actually reflect what they intended. Ricardianman (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, Sirota actually does compare "Lincoln" to "Indiana Jones" Not only that he undermines his own assertion - he says that the white savior acts single handedly - yet obviously Abe Lincoln did not. So the problem here seems not to be with this WP article but with Sirota. The article is accurately reporting an idiotic meme.

I suppose The Life of Emil Zola or Schindler's List do not belong here, though there are obvious parallels, because they are about folks saving Jews (there are quite a few others of course) and not saving people of color. There does not seem to be a parallel discussion, though there is definitely a parallel kind of film, likely serving similar psychological needs. However Jews do not seem to be offended by the genre, for the most part. Admitting there have been historical eras when they very much needed gentile saviors does not seem to be as much of a problem for them, nor does it seem to contradict the fact that they can and have helped themselves. That Spielberg, who is Jewish, made Schindler's List, a "gentile savior film" adds contect to his making "white savior films." Perhaps its not a colonialist discourse at all - perhaps he just is a sentimentalist who likes to show people from the privileged group realizing and fighting injustice - Oskar Schindler as John Quincy Adams, Lewis Tappan, and Abe Lincoln. I am surprised that Mr. Sirota did not mention this. Perhaps I should not be. Ricardianman (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
I saw the film 12 Years a Slave and I also read the titular memoir by Solomon Northup. It is both incredibly inaccurate and outrageously offensive that whoever wrote this article would call this a "white savior" film. This is the true story of a man who endured the horrors of slavery and used his own courage and willpower to escape. By risking his life confiding his story to Bass (Brad Pitt in the film), Northup was able to get the legal system on his side. To say that Northup's salvation happened because some white people just heroically stepped in is stupendously simplistic and insulting to the memory of Northup and his incredibly gut-wrenching story of survival. This film is not about Bass and it is not about white people fighting against other white people for the rights of African-Americans, this is the story of Solomon Northup and his unimaginable courage in one the most disgraceful chapters in American history. Whoever says this is a "white savior" film should be ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.176.24 (talk • contribs) 21:39, September 9, 2014

October 2014
This article should be considered for deletion. The films listed are very subjectively related to the already tenuous "subject". By this criteria I guess "Hurricane" with Denzel Washington fits right in. This and the "magical negro" page should both be removed. They are racist in themselves. This is not encyclopedic, it's racist propaganda. When will Wikipedia quit being a mouthpiece for every liberal trope of the week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.33.46.98 (talk • contribs) 22:33, September 30, 2014‎


 * The narrative has been discussed in books like Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness and The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption. It is a valid topic for the encyclopedia and not at all "racist propaganda". The films themselves have been reported to be racist propaganda because as the article says, it makes white people feel good. This set of films is being called out for doing that. I suggest reading one of the more in-depth sources to get a better sense of the critique. I'll try to incorporate the books further so a more academic rather than journalistic source is upfront. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add on to the sentiment that this article should be seriously considered for deletion, or reworked until it bears almost no semblance to its current state. Captain Stack (talk)  01:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , why should it be considered for deletion? The "References" section shows that reliable sources cover the topic, which makes it notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted or severely truncated. While the concept itself may be notable, most films in the list are a major stretch and do not have a consensus as being examples of the topic. Just because you can find an opinion article or two that names them as such it doesn't make their inclusion encyclopedic. The article is not about the views of the individuals cited, and if it is, it is indeed not notable. 68.4.70.16 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Notability only applies to whether or not a given topic warrants its own article. Notability does not apply to details within the article body. In addition, there is one reference for each film for simplicity's sake. The films have been mentioned in more than one reference. For example, the book The White Savior Film lists fifty films, many of which are already on here, and a few more that will be added soon. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the topic is notable but it needs some work. The article relies too much on the Identity Politics paradigm and references mainly opinion pieces from the Salon/Slate/HuffPo echo chamber as well as less-than-rigorous collegiate cultural studies dissertations. There needs to be better academic sourcing and more film industry/film critic sources. Spike Lee, Gene Siskel, Scott Foundas, Gillo Pontecorvo, Roger Ebert, Armond White and Denzel Washington have all commented or written about this trope, and the article should be balanced out with some of those voices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.214.187 (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is using Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness as a reference. The book The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption can be used as a reference, and I can vouch that most films in the list are included in the book as well. I don't see why the Sirota and Berlatsky quotes need to be replaced; the sentiment matches what are in these books as well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Seeing as at least two of the films trashed here are by Spielberg, bimself a liberal, I don't think this is a liberal trope - its a radical cultural trope, that finds its enemies in liberalism. Ricardianman (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The notion that anything that makes white people feel good is ipso facto racist, seems to me to be intellectually very weak - as as particularly pointed out by the fact that films which accurately report historical fact are placed alongside fiction. Unfortunately that is original research, and in the absence of a citation (and again, this barely notable meme has not drawn published criticism from the types of people who might be expected to disagree with it) there is no clear way to indicate tha tin the article. Ricardianman (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure the article should be deleted. It meets notability, barely. It's incoherence is due to the intellectual weekness of the meme it reports on. It would be well to quote criticism of the meme, but apart from the film Lincoln, it does not appear to have become notable enough to attract critics. Ricardianman (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
This entire page should be deleted. All's it is, is criticizing films in which a white hero with non-white characters becomes deemed as a racial propaganda film. Should the Lion King suddenly be listed because a black man voiced Mufasa, but a white man voiced his son and became the new king and ended tyranny within his kingdom? This entire page is ridiculous, and the fact that a few pop-culture critics referenced it doesn't mean it's a legitimate train of thought. It's blatantly racist in its aims at attacking white individuals for being white in film, literally. There is no way around this fact. Aside from the morale outrage that this insane article has rallied thus far, it also begs the question of the film-makers ideas and goals in the first place, which is a fallacy. How come there's no pages on "Playing the Race Card" in film/media in general? I have a source for it  so where is it? Hoplite12 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the vast majority of sources are from opinion pieces published in internet magazines/tabloids that hold a bias towards sensationalism (Salon.com., The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, Bitch Magazine,  The Huffington Post, Complex.com). How is this considered reputable and credible source material for a wiki entry? Should every opinion be given it's own page? 71.179.24.116 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

April 2015
I believe this article violates Wikipedia's objectivity policy. In particular, the two paragraphs that describe the topic are (i) authoritative, as if the view they present was undisputed; (ii) rife with veiled criticism of the white race and stereotypical attitudes ascribed to it. "Equality" does not mean we will whack whites over the head; it means it shouldn't matter what colour your skin is. Are we truly unable to find a better way to promote equality than to vilify whites? (iii) poorly sourced. There is exactly one academic work cited, which does not represent academic consensus. The rest are articles from popular magazines; that hardly counts as source reference for a putative topic in sociology. Furthermore, all the sources except the book are *exceedingly* recent, leading me to believe "white saviour" is the latest media hype and may be afforded more credibility here than it has so far garnered in the legitimate research community. Finally, (iv) I would like to add on a personal note that with the tone of the text, the list of movies below it is practically begging to be read as a "prohibited movies list". Those in the former East Bloc know what that was; Americans are encouraged to look up McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Wikipedia is not the moral police; this list reads like that. Wikipedia is also not a soapbox, as it states in the Statute. It's not so much the incidences of the trope as the way the text introduces them.

My opinion is that the article should be kept, but should be rewritten from a neutral and objective point of view, that is, one that presents the topic in the fashion that "white saviour is a film trope which some experts [reference] believe serves to aggrandize white people, etc.". A contrary point of view also wouldn't be a bad idea, if one could be found. I will check back here in a few weeks; if the current state of the article persists, I will take up the issue with one of the senior admins, on the account of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines violations that I believe the article's current form constitutes. Now, just to be clear, I wouldn't care one bit if it were just a badly written article on a random topic; it's that the topic is politically charged (as seen in discussion here), and the article is not, IMO, written to a sufficiently high standard for such a potentially polarizing topic. 89.102.133.166 (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The topic is a sociological one, and Matthew Hughey's The White Savior Film was reviewed by several sociology-based outlets with commendations for his studious approach to the trope. In addition, the topic is covered in the peer-reviewed Journal of Popular Film & Television. There are numerous other academic sources discussing the topic that can be found in Google Books Search. Per WP:NPOV, which is the objectivity policy I assume you are referring to, there is no serious contesting from reliable sources of this particular sociological perspective. This talk page is not evidence; WP:UNDUE says in a footnote, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." In regard to sourcing, Hughey's The White Savior Film covers the vast majority of the list, and there are also additional sources that can be easily found through Google Books Search and other means. For example, someone asked about The Matrix, and I provided multiple sources to support the film's listing. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm pointing out. It's a topic that has had one book written about it. Per the policies you cite, the article could easily be written as "in the book [Hughey], white saviour narrative is...". Which would of course make it seem like fiction. I'm not saying it's not a valid topic, I'm saying the way it is presented gives undue weight to a single opinion, that of Hughey. The fact that other opinions do not exist is no excuse; in that case the topic is probably not deserving of an article at all. If it has an article regardless, then the article should reflect the fact that the source for most of its material is a single book; in particular the list heading should say that most of the list comes from one work. Normally though, Wikipedia has objective articles only after reasonable scientific consensus has been reached; otherwise ideas are presented as "hypotheses", "beliefs", etc. Note that this trope has a page on TVTropes.org; the difference is the text as presented there does not make me feel like my race has just been insulted (despite sharing much of the same objective information content); unlike this one. Furthermore, a quick review of Dr. Hughey's academic profile reveals that he has written several other articles and monographs, all with a content that many would call "anti-white" and that, if written about any other race, would be considered racist. I'm willing to grant Dr. Hughey his right to an academic opinion, but you cannot expect me to consider this person a reliable authority on the topic when they have such an apparent bias.


 * As a small addendum, I cited the talk page only to make the point that the topic is politically charged, not to borrow views from the discussion to put into the article. 89.102.133.166 (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hughey is not the only person to have written about this narrative. Vera and Gordon wrote a chapter about it in their 2003 book. Schultz wrote a recent article about it in a peer-reviewed journal. There are numerous books about this narrative that appear in Google Books Search results. Hughey's book is the most authoritative to date, and not all film genres or narratives get a whole book about them. Like I said, the book was reviewed by sociology-based outlets and commended for its studious approach. By that, I mean that there are charts and graphs and sociological tools being applied. It really is worth a look as a proper academic source. And like I said, there are multiple sources covering this narrative. Avatar in particular was heavily scrutinized about this narrative, for example. Other films have a good amount of academic commentary about its narrative too. I've seen detailed commentary for Amistad, Avatar, Blood Diamond, Dances With Wolves, Dangerous Minds, and The Last Samurai from sources not mentioned in this article. You can search for these titles and the term and find them as well. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Honestly, I think that this type of article shouldn't be on Wikipedia. It feels more like TV Tropes to me. In fact, TV Tropes already has an article on this topic. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . The topic is notable, meaning that it has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. This is the threshold for creating a Wikipedia article. I don't think the existence of a topic at TV Tropes means that it cannot exist on Wikipedia. For example, would we really not want Wikipedia to have an article about the antihero? On the other hand, there may be topics at TV Tropes that do not exist here, either because they are not notable enough for Wikipedia or because no one has decided to write about them yet. For this particular topic, there are numerous sources at the end of this article that are referenced to make up its contents. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of these summaries reveal less about the "white savior trope" and more about a more fundamental issue-authority figures and people with power in American society tend to be white.70.5.3.243 (talk)

Single handed savior
, you are incorrectly stating here that topic started with Lincoln. The white savior in film has been covered long before that. A look at Google Books confirms this here. Since this is the case, Lincoln is only another in trend of films possessing this narrative. We are not scrutinizing each individual film here, and like I have said, the narrative can be mentioned at Lincoln (2012 film) with the counterargument. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't need a full paragraph about what basically pertains just to Lincoln. The key point from the CNN article that is relevant to this article is that Lincoln's status as a "white savior" film is disputed due to the fact that it is mainly a political drama about white men, and the subject matter of the bill that Lincoln is trying to pass is tangential to the actual plot i.e. the plot isn't about helping black men, it's about beating white men. If the categorization is being challenged that should perhaps be mentioned in the article, but all it needs is a single sentence "note" reference. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess we can add that. Ricardianman, would that work? It would be something like Panic Room, which will mention Zimmerman's counterpoint. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be King
How does this movie even fit with the topic? It has some white leads, and a lot of blacks, but they're not saviors to those people in any way. Is this topic just a catch all for movies with whites and blacks in them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.11.178 (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The reference is from Screen Saviors, which analyzes the film at length in this regard. I will quote from it, "The Man Who Would Be King is a similar story of a mythic superhero, a great white god come to enlighten the ignorant heathen... [it] seems at first to demonstrate the delusive nature of the sincere fictions of the white self. Unfortunately, it ends up reaffirming them by glorifying its roguish heroes and stereotyping the natives." Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Stereotyping natives and lacking self-awareness is not the same thing as being a White Savior film. Are they saviors of someone? Who do they rescue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.11.178 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The natives are portrayed as in need of white saviors to rule over them. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In what way? They do a pretty good job of overthrowing the white people they "need" to rule over them at the end of the movie. And the goal of the leads isn't to help them, it's to steal from themJohnM.Kelly (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Matrix
This one is really a stretch. The audience doesn't even see Zion in the first film, and the bit about "becomes the leader of a mostly nonwhite group of rebels" is wrong. Of the cast we see, certainly Dozer, Tank and Morpheus are non-white, but Trinity, Mouse, Switch, Cypher and others are white. If anything it's just a varied group, not a racially homogenous one in the least.

Morpheus is rescued, but the agents don't hold him for any racial reason beyond him being human. He being black has no bearing on that or any other part of the movie.

This isn't even a stretch, it's just wrong.

To list this movie just because the source did doesn't make any sense. You define what kind of movie it is, and then have it's own list of movies that fit that type. Having items on that list that don't match the definition is just pointless. You might as well list every movie made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.11.178 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Screen Saviors says, "Finally, two recent films, The Matrix (1999) and Three Kings (1999) demonstrate how the myth of the white messiah persists in Hollywood cinema, except now that the white hero has a racially diverse team of helpers." Think of it as it always a white person being the so-called Chosen One character. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth pointing out that Keanu Reeves is half Chinese. I don't believe his character's race is explicitly stated, meaning it's hard to claim that the character's race is different from the actor's. Captain Stack (talk)  01:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Then the definition should be changed in the article to fit that, not movies crammed under a list for a definition that doesn't match them. Also, this would mean "The Passion of the Christ" should be listed, or any movie where a white character saves other whites, like "Robocop". If there's not a racial element to this beyond just the Chosen One being white, this opens the list up to hundreds or thousands of entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.11.178 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's another passage from the same reference: "Nevertheless, the movie's potential critique of white racism is contradicted by the mythic plot, in which the black characters—Morpheus, the Oracle, and Morpheus's crew members Tank and Dozer—are disciples who serve the white Messiah Neo." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've revised the description to be closer to these passages. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to say I am a bit skeptical about the writer's interpretation of The Matrix. It's a valid interpretation at face value I suppose, but it's called into question by the fact that Will Smith was first choice for the role, so maybe that should at least be mentioned. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hah, good point! For what it's worth, most of the chapter is visible between Google Books and Amazon.com Book Preview, so you can review the content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To revisit this briefly, Searching the film title and the trope in Google Books shows a few more results making the connection, so it is not just Screen Saviors doing this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * But who cares who says it? The main character literally isn't white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.213.224 (talk • contribs) 12:16, November 7, 2014‎


 * There's no such thing as someone being literally white. Race is a social construct, so in this case, in this racialized society, Keanu Reeves passes as white. He is portrayed as a white savior in the movie Hardball as well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Having matrix in this list is hardly even laughable at best, the "races" of the characters are incidental, and take Seraph for exanmple — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.45.93 (talk • contribs) 02:02, November 15, 2014

Even by the incredibly loose specifications we're working with on this trope, The Matrix doesn't seem to qualify. "a white character rescues people of color from their plight." Neo saves humanity from its plight. Does this include some people of color? Sure it does, but there was no racial component or motivation regarding the people he saved. If The Matrix is a white savior film, then wouldn't Star Wars: A New Hope be one too? How about Harry Potter? Is there any "savior film" with a white protagonist, that would not qualify as a "white savior film"? To fit The Matrix in, the definition needs to be broadened to "a white character rescues people from their plight." I think the trope needs to be more specific than this, but at the very least we should be able to agree that whatever definition the article specifies for the trope should be consistent with the films it lists.

And yes I read the discussion above and am aware of the disciples thing. That's really a different discussion, but it's a bit beside the point because the trope is not that the savior leads or works with minority heroes. It is about the race of the savior and the race of those saved (at least as defined by the current version of the article). Captain Stack (talk)  05:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A movie from the 1960s: a white man leading an African tribe to safety when their land gets flooded.
If you know or can find the title of this movie from the 1960s where a white guy in Africa leads to safety an African tribe whose land is about to get flooded due to the building of a dam please add it. Three more things: (1) the movie is in color (2) the white guy leads the Africans on an elephant (an elephant that actually adopted him) and (3) he is given by the Africans the nickname of "Moses" Contact Basemetal   here  13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of Mister Moses? Theo (Talk) 15:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup ! That's the movie ! Thank you Theo! I saw it as a child before I'd even heard of Robert Mitchum and later never connected Robert Mitchum with my faint recollection of this character on the screen. Don't you think this movie deserves to be added to this article? Contact Basemetal   here  18:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Original Research?
Is the list of films in this article WP:OR? I feel like external sources should be cited before including an article in this list, or am I misunderstanding the policy? Ultrauber (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , the end of each passage has a footnote that leads to a reference for the given film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops, should have read more closely! Thank you. Ultrauber (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Blood Diamond
Dicaprio's character is Rhodesian, not South African.210.55.212.94 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only is Danny Archer Rhodesian, the biggest villian in the film is the white mercenary Colonel Coetzee. Furthermore, if the source cannot get his nationality correct, then I would question the quality of the source altogether. I'd also like to see the specific citation that backs up the claim that Archer is racist. I viewed him as a realist who recognized the position blacks were in, not someone who considered them fundamentally inferior. Captain Stack (talk)  18:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you need an alternative citation, the sociology book The White Savior Film says of Blood Diamond, "The savior's paternalistic carnage and bloodshed is often rationalized as unavoidable, and the savior is the only one with the moral fiber to get it done. Such a pattern demonstrates the colonialist logic of these films. Simply put, (white) father knows best." There is additional commentary about the film from pages 61 to 69 about this film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, the source did say "Rhodesian" elsewhere in the book. It might have been my mistake to put "South African" since "Rhodesian" is not mentioned at all at Blood Diamond (film). If you want, you can read what is said about Blood Diamond in Critical Rhetorics of Race either in Google Books or Amazon.com. Your viewing may be partially limited. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD feedback
Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film closed with the outcome being to keep, but there was some feedback provided in the AfD. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , what would you say needed cleaning up?
 * , are you disagreeing with a comprehensive list of films with this narrative? What about if we added some prose to the existing prose that highlights major films from the list? We can cover inner city films and highlight Dangerous Minds, cover science fiction films and highlight Avatar, etc.
 * , do you think we would be better off having two articles -- one prose, and one list? The Hughey book has a lot of detail that can be used for a prose article, and we can write about overlapping genres (inner city, science fiction) with the most noteworthy examples.


 * I was going to post on much the same topic. I voted to keep since the concept is certainly notable.  However a list of films saying or implying that these are certainly examples is another thing.  For one thing a lot of people are going to disagree and this will distract from the non-controversial point, which is that many people have made this criticism of films.  I am also going to make a post to the BLP board.  Saying a person, Stephen Spielberg for instance, is a maker of white savior movies with flimsy citation doesn't seem right to me. Borock (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The disagreements have been editors' personal opinions, and these cannot override observations from reliable sources. Editors are welcome to debate the quality of sources, but if a source is reliable, they are not qualified to counter it. As for Spielberg, nobody is saying that he is racist. He's not consciously deciding on presenting white supremacy. However, reliable sources have identified some of the films as fitting the narrative. Amistad in particular is a film hugely derided by historians because the dramatization of events is white-focused. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think that when you say Stephen Spielberg is a maker of racist films and so stupid he doesn't even know that he is doing it that is a problem. Borock (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Non-fiction films should be removed. By including factual reality we appear to be claiming that the real coach of the real Jamaican bobsled team was really motivated by crypto-racism; can we seriously suggest that Donald Woods was a racist? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Historical films should not be removed. They are especially well-covered in both sociology-related books and elsewhere as well. Historical films have to be dramatized, so this means there is a racial element to their structure. This says, "Historical films often conform to the white man's burden theme. In Mississippi Burning, blacks are confined to the background and shown as unable to act during a period of fervent social activism among blacks. They are submissive, dull-witted, and frightened. Two white FBI agents are the heroes of the story, solving the civil rights worker's murders. Another historical movie set during the Birmingham bus boycotts (The Long Walk Home, 1998) gives credit to white women for the boycott's success. Black people are shown as suffering, not as heroic or creatively solving problems. The movie Amistad glorifies the role and intentions of John Quincy Adams and celebrates the Supreme Court." In the case of Cry Freedom, Donald Woods is not being called a racist. It is listed because the narrative is designed to be focused on Woods rather than Biko. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did vote to keep the article. The concept is notable and important. Even this stupid white person has noticed it in movies. However WP shouldn't present opinion as fact, especially about living people. That's all I'm trying to say.Borock (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In reply to the question specifically directed at me - I'd be quite happy if the outcome is separate prose and list articles, so long as the prose article is linked to clearly enough from the first sentence of the lead (or some other method is used that makes it clear to a relatively casual reader than the prose article is where to look for a deeper discussion of the topic). PWilkinson (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to keep the prose and the examples together. For one thing you would avoid a AfD nomination of the list article.  It seems to be the part that some people object to, not so much the prose explanation of the topic. Skylark777 (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

, you should not remove the science fiction films. They are an appropriate cross-genre with Avatar being the most significant example, and more importantly, they are all referenced. This from the Journal of Intercultural Studies says of Avatar and District 9, '"They are movies where the '[m]ain white characters realise that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of colour'". Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Fair enough if the source says so. I saw both movies and it was very clear one was about colonialism and the other about apartheid. However in District 9 I thought the alien leader was more pro-active in trying to save his people. The white guy was kind of a victim of the system.  In Avatar the hero is kind of an American tough guy, who could easily be mixed black and white. It was hard to tell since the movie is semi-animated. Borock (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any use to debating certain films if they are backed by reliable sources. If you think a source is not reliable enough to make a determination, that is fine, we can see if better sources exist. If none do, they can be removed. However, I've seen most of the films listed here repeated in other places too. The Hughey book lists many of the ones already included, and we're not even using it as a reference. (There are some new films to be added too.) If you really need an answer for District 9, the book Visual Difference: Postcolonial Studies and Intercultural Cinema says the following, "On the one hand, the film plays out the familiar conventions of of the buddy movie a la Blood Diamond in which a morally bankrupt white man befriends a noble and benevolent non-white man whose friendship enables him to get in touch with the better angels of his being." As for Avatar, the book Monster Culture in the 21st Century: A Reader says, "Playing alien absolves Sully of his guilt over his role in the Sky People's genocide of the indigenous population. It allows him to become their white savior. And since Avatar is told from Sully's perspective and he provides the 'white audiences' point of identification, [the film] also symbolically purges white America of its responsibility for the terrible plights of Native Americans, past and present.'" As for the casting, it is not about what could have happened differently, it is about what did happen and contributes to the cycle of this kind of messianic portrayal. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think we should be careful not to get caught up in a race/color debate. It is fundamentally irrelevant to a degree because the focus is on narrative i.e. it is about a particular trope. It manifests itself in two identifiable ways: a member of an oppressive group assists the oppressed, or someone from a more advanced/civilized group assists the less civilized group in some way. The trope is named the "white savior" narrative simply because this is its most common form in film. For example, if the aliens had been white in Avatar and Will Smith had saved them that would still be an instance of the "white savior narrative" even though the colors are reversed due to its fundamental "going native" story. It is also on these grounds that I disagree that The Matrix is an exponent of the trope, but ultimately reliable sources trump my own personal opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment. I will write a longer explanation of this later, but fundamentally, the white savior narrative is just a savior narrative, and most of the racial components of this article are wildly speculative. For instance, 'This both makes white audiences feel good about themselves by portraying them as benevolent messiahs (rather than hegemonic conquerors), and also depicts people of color as helpless weaklings—all while wrapping such tripe in the cinematic argot of liberation.' Fascinating, but I don't appreciate being told why I appreciate a film. Blood Diamond is one of my favorite movies of all time and I promise you it's not because it makes me feel like a benevolent messiah. I know the source is supposedly academic and reliable, but there is literally no way to substantiate this claim. It would never hold up in a reputable scientific study.
 * Also, there's noting that says this narrative is exclusive to film. These 'reliable sources' do the narrative a disservice for treating it like it's somehow unique to film. Even if it never existed in a book (which it has), the application of the narrative is completely separate from what the narrative is itself. Captain Stack (talk)  11:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to Critical Rhetorics of Race covering Blood Diamond, the sociology book The White Savior Film also covers it. The latter uses sociological measurements for its set of white savior films, and there is even a chart scoring the different traits of each film. These are reliable sources, and your personal liking of the film is no basis for challenging them. As for a "white savior" article apart from film, I agree that one can be created. There is a lot that can be said in such an article, ranging from Nicholas Kristof's editorial efforts to Teju Cole's coining of the term "white savior industrial complex". Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have just ignored some important points of both my post and the one before me. You have never substantiated that these articles are reliable, and just being in Google Books is not enough. I used my personal liking to explain a point, but it is literally impossible to make a broad statement about why an entire race/class of people like a film. The mere fact that any of these sources do this makes them not reliable. And I don't think that a "white savior" article apart from film should be made, I think this article should be changed to be a "white savior" article, perhaps with an "in film" section. Captain Stack (talk)  18:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on policies and guidelines, but none of these have been used to make your case. You say that the topic is notable, but the outcome of the AfD clearly proves otherwise. This article is not going to be removed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about deleting the article. We have already had that discussion and closed it for now. Right now, I am arguing against how crappy large portions of it are, such as the quote I pulled out of it several comments back and how necessarily unreliable any source that makes such a claim is by default. I do not see you addressing this besides by repeating again and again that the source is reliable. I say a source that makes an unreliable statement is unreliable. Captain Stack (talk)  18:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree with the commentary does not mean that it is "crappy". The commentary is the same across multiple sources. The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption by Matthew Hughey, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Connecticut and published by Temple University Press, has the same kind of commentary. It is not used in the article because the book was not as readily available as the other sources, but it can be used, and very little would change in the way of description. Taking issue with a film like Blood Diamond despite The White Savior Film and Critical Rhetorics of Race (the latter written by a chair of a university's communication department and published by New York University Press) describing it as having the narrative is why proposals to change the article or reduce its scope to just a section is questionable. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not that I disagree, it is that they are making statements that are impossible to prove or even measure. The fact that you have multiple sources claiming the same thing makes them all suspect. I could find multiple sources that said women are unintelligent or that Jews are shifty. The statement itself is unreliable and therefore the sources claiming it are too. Captain Stack (talk)  23:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

,, , , you have weighed in about this topic as impartial editors. wants to remove content. I question this effort because the editor has expressed disagreement with the topic (supporting its deletion, but the consensus was resoundingly to keep) despite it being reliably sourced and without ever invoking any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. What do you think? Is the removal appropriate or not? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy I invoked was Wikipedia Neutral Point of View (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). I did want the article deleted, but if that can't happen then the least I can ask for is for it to be halfway decent. Neutrality would be a baby step in the right direction. <b style="color:Blue;">Captain Stack</b> (talk)  23:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are pushing for less content after not succeeding in the article's deletion is a concerning example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Under WP:NPOV, the passage you are trying to remove satisfies WP:SUBSTANTIATE in identifying who said it, rather than treating it as a general conclusion, the latter which you are incorrectly assuming. The commentary is also similar to the other commentaries, so it is not an opinion out of line with what else has been said about the topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am pushing for better content, which begins with the removal of bad content. You should have brought up WP:SUBSTANTIATE sooner, as it does appear to address this case quite clearly. You also certainly shouldn't have ignored that I brought up WP:NPOV. Ignoring the criticism of editors is a concerning example of some Wikipedia rule I'm sure. I don't mind the inclusion of that content, but I do think the article has overall neutrality issues. Also, content like that usually should be under a "critical analysis" section or something like that rather than the intro, which should just explain what the article is about. <b style="color:Blue;">Captain Stack</b> (talk)  23:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(comment) Drawing on my comments above in regards to The Matrix I do not support removing something solely on the grounds that an editor has a different interpretation. We are not dealing with verifiable facts here, but rather subjective critical analysis, so by accepting the outcome of the AfD we are accepting that type of commentary i.e. whether something has a "white savior narrative" or not is always going to be determined by someone's opinion. I think there probably is some mileage in discussing the type of opinions we should accept: academic writing is a given (and the Blood Diamond source meets this criteria); serious film criticism, and maybe high quality journalism by writers on race/sociological issues. I sympathise with editors who oppose the "if we can source it we should include it" mentality: for example, what qualifies The Daily Beast columnist—which the list attributes quite a few entries to—to write on this topic? Is she a serious film critic, does she write in the area of race issues? Is this just her assignment for the day? The criteria for using someone's opinion I feel should be a bit more stringent than the regular RS criteria. As for the most recent dispute (the comment by David Sirota of The Salon), Sirota is educated in both journalism and political science: while I think we could probably find better appraisals of white savior films in academic writing nothing jumps out at me that renders his opinion illegitimate. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I can do to strengthen the sourcing further is to replace the current references with those to the Hughey book where applicable. (He analyzed over 50 films in the book, many of them listed here, though a couple that can be added.) I've been meaning to do this, and I suppose in the long run it would help to point to his sociological work rather than a journalistic piece. I can also locate commentary in the book that is similar to Sirota's if absolutely necessary; I am just confident in the existing passage because it is the same sentiment echoed in other places. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the problem is Sirota—I am quite happy for his comment to be included—as so much there isn't an opposing position in the article. He seems highly critical of these films which makes it appear the article is adopting a stance which I think is at the heart of CaptainStack's objection. If an opposing position can be found then the lead would be much more balanced. If we omit these viewpoints then it will be a bland article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if an opposing position truly exists in academia. The Hughey book actually has a number of interviews with people, before and after they watched certain films. There may be some summary on his part from the interviewees' responses about why some did not see a racial element in the films they watched. That might be a good place to start. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't believe in the "every issue must have two exactly equal sides" mentality. The crux of my problem is the number of qualitative and value-based judgements that are used. I'll write up a longer explanation soon, but I don't think we should make broad assertions about why an entire race of people enjoy a film both because it's a hasty generalization and because it's impossible to prove or even quantify. If it were reversed, and I said that black people loved Independence Day because it depicted white people as needing a black savior I would be considered quite racist for speaking on behalf of an entire race. This is really just one example of a problem that I think manifests itself all over this article, perhaps most obviously in the films that are included and the reasoning behind it. These interpretations may be valid, but they're just a single interpretation, but it could easily be inverted. A movie like The Last Samurai can be interpreted as the nonwhite people showing Tom Cruise a higher morality and called a film about going native. <b style="color:Blue;">Captain Stack</b> (talk)  00:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is always two sides to everything. I don't think anyone is saying that you like Blood Diamond because Leo saves a black dude. That would be as ridiculous as saying everyone loved Titanic because he saved the posh English totty from drowning. However, there is a common theme here, and also a common criticism: that white savior films are ultimately white stories, and the black experience is often relegated to a secondary consideration. There is a cynical way of looking at it (black people need white people to solve their problems) and a positive way of looking at it (white people righting the wrongs of their ancestors, overcoming their prejudices etc). Betty Logan (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are always two sides but I don't think they're always equal. The side that suggests global climate change is real is far stronger than the one that says it isn't. They should not be given equal weight. My problem here is not that I believe the article needs an opposing side added to it. It's that we are basically making an article for a trope so broad that almost any movie can be twisted to fit it. Does it mean that it doesn't exist? Not at all. It does. Does that mean the article is neutral and encyclopedic? Not at all. Too many of these interpretations are stretches. Too much of the analysis is subjective. <b style="color:Blue;">Captain Stack</b> (talk)  01:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A longer explanation isn't needed. Discussion needs to focus on content from sources and how to incorporate it or not, as opposed to our own personal assessments. The Independence Day example is completely void of context; whites have never been in an oppressed position. Hughey explains this kind of thing a bit when he collects certain interviewees' responses that there is nothing racial about the films. Another example discussed in sources is 12 Years a Slave. It's considered an excellent film, but the choice of story for this, Lincoln, and others perpetuates the white perspective. It's extremely rare for a film like that to lack white redemption, though it appears that Selma is one. This says, "It also makes Selma the rare studio movie about black American history to not focus on (or invent) a white savior figure." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whites have never been oppressed, but my point is that just because the lead is black says nothing about the message of the film, why it was made that way, or why people like it. If I were to make this claim, it would be impossible for anyone to prove me wrong, but it also wouldn't make me right. The question then is why was it worth making the statement? A sign of a weak statement/argument is one that can be applied to too many things, and that is vague enough to be impossible to disprove. <b style="color:Blue;">Captain Stack</b> (talk)  01:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In a truly colorblind society, a statement about white or black saviors is meaningless. The context is everything here and why one trope can be defined and the other cannot. In addition, it is not impossible to "prove" the trope (whatever that means). Like I have said before, Hughey engages in sociology to assess this film genre, as the book reflects. It is not layperson musings going on here. That's why it is unhelpful to have this general discussion; we do not have the background that Hughey, Pierce, and others do, so we as editors should not be contesting their conclusions. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's called appeal to authority and it's a logical fallacy. Just because he has credentials doesn't make his statements any more true or his argument(s) any better. I am not talking about proving the trope. I'm talking about proving whether or not a statement about why white people like a certain movie is true or not. Regardless of who said it, the statement I edited out is speculative at best and racist at worst (something we should avoid on a page intended to reduce discrimination on Wikipedia). <b style="color:Blue;">Captain Stack</b> (talk)  01:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The commentary was attributed to a specific figure per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. It does not say, the audience thinks this. It says, this figure says the audience thinks this. The commentary is not without basis either; a characteristic of white savior films is to position the white protagonist so he rescues people of color from white racists. This means the audience identifies with the protagonist, and that is why commentary exists about people thinking that racial discrimination is a thing of the past. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of this quote, especially in the intro rather than in a "critical analysis" section implies that the article is making the statement about the audience. There might not be a Wikipedia rule that it's breaking, but I'm a writer and an editor and I know how the placement of a quote like that can make implications. Also, "a characteristic of white savior films is to position the white protagonist so he rescues people of color from white racists." This apparently only counts sometimes because in Blood Diamond the description says they're rescued from black oppressors. See what I mean when I say this trope is broad enough to apply to everything? <b style="color:Blue;">Captain Stack</b> (talk)  01:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote was originally in the first paragraph but moved to the second when the sociological sources were used to provide a more straightforward definition of the trope. In addition, this uses the same Sirota quote that is here to discuss white savior films, and per WP:USEBYOTHERS, it is valid to use. It does not have to be the only thing said about the film, but that is a case for expanding coverage on the topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a similar passage from the book Screen Saviors, "As in To Kill a Mockingbird, the [white savior] device has multiple effects: first, it ensures the dominance of a white perspective; second, it absolves the white audience of complicity by presenting the point of view of an innocent white observer of horrific racial conflict; and third, it connects present and past but distances us in time from the events, implicitly congratulating the audience that we live in a more enlightened age." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jennifer Pierce (professor of American studies) inverts the question in her book Racing for Innocence; she suggests that the appeal of white savior films could be that Americans can overcome racial prejudices and become political allies and friends of "people of color". Her main point is that white savior films are more about white racial progress, although by doing so they neglect ethnic minorities as "agents for social change". There is a whole chapter on it, and it takes a balanced view of the positives and negatives of this trope. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good source to use. The article could be expanded with her commentary and Hughey's as well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I had nothing specific in mind at the AfD, others were making clean-up critiques and I was simply noting that clean-up is not a valid reason for requesting AfD. The intro is a bit long for a List article, but is fine for now; If it gets any longer, the article may need to be split between prose and and list. Meclee (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the lede is a bit on the short side and would benefit from a more thorough description of the topic. A split certainly isn't warranted per WP:SIZERULE. Betty Logan (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Chiming in here as a random person who following links from Lincoln (film). I think the most problematic issue with this article is how much of the entries are sourced to single sources. While a source like Slate might be reliable, when critics are essentially giving their op-ed opinions it seems inappropriate to list an article here unless it's a sentiment agreed upon by a number of high-quality sources; similarly to how we would not call a film "the worst ever" unless a number of sources agreed (even then, we usually couch it in terms of 'films considered the worst ever'.)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hughey brings up Lincoln (along with Django Unchained) in his book The White Savior Film toward the end (having mostly covered films from 1987-2011). I would say the vast majority of the films listed here have other sources available too. I don't think "films considered the worst ever" is comparable because that is about agreed-upon consensus, where this is about a genre, and these films match the characteristics of this genre. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Who says it matches the characteristics of a genre? There's no reason not to support every entry on here with multiple assertions that the films listed do, in fact, meet the requirements of the list parameters. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)