Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 4

The Matrix??????
The Matrix is a white saviour film? What??? Neo certainly is a saviour, but he's saving the HUMAN race from domination by MACHINES. The racial context... is not there at all. Neo could have been played by Will Smith, Morpheus by Hugo Weaving and Laurence Fishburne as Smith without changing a word of the script. Looking for the source, it's a book, one book, without any quotes from that book, so unless I buy that book, I can't find out the argument for inclusion, and can't dispute it. And the same book is the sole source for including 8 films. All sourced to two pages in a book, where I can only assume someone made a list. So one guy put a list in a book and we must accept this person as infallible. Since people rarely write articles saying "XXX is not a white saviour film", any film that anyone ever used the term about in any context will suffice to include it. So even though 99.9% of reviews of The Matrix (an underestimate) do not describe it in those terms, it's proudly certified by this Wikipedia article as a racist film with a white supremacist message. 202.81.249.110 (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * PS. The description of the film: "a white computer hacker (played by Keanu Reeves) is rescued from being plugged into a computer system, by a black character, and becomes a messiah figure who confronts all-white villains. Black characters serve him as disciples." Again -- What??? Keanu Reeves is "white"? 50 years ago he'd probably have been called "Coloured". The "Villains" have white complexions, but they aren't Caucasians, human, or living creatures at all. They're artificial intelligences, parodies of 60s FBI agents. And "black disciples"? I've only seen the film two or three times, so I must have fallen asleep each time they were on the screen, whoever they are. And what about Trinity? Not mentioned at all, because she contradicts the theory. Apparently all the people (sorry, "Disciples") on the Nebuchadnezzar or who are in the resistance, who aren't black are so white they're invisible. 202.81.249.110 (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Forget it, man. Erik found one article that claimed that the Matrix is a white savior narrative. That automatically trumps all objections to having the film on this list. If a bunch of clickbait articles is able to keep 12 Years a Slave, a film that's is entirely centered on a free black man who got kidnapped and was forced to be a slave for twelve years on this list, do think pointing out that Neo (who is played by a person of color) was saving the entire human race and not just a oppressed group is going to move the person who has total of this article? 2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You know you are doing an excellent job of ignoring any criticism people have with this article. 2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles cannot be written based on personal opinions. Such opinions do not overturn sources. I do not see any value in continuing this discussion, which is one I've had multiple times before. I'm not going to continue this. I do recommend reading all of the sources in the article, and especially the book The White Savior Film, for answers to the questions you are not really looking answers for. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles cannot be written based on personal opinions." Yet you have no problem using them as your sources. 2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You "do not see any value in continuing this discussion" because you've made up your mind. I make one post and you refuse to answer the points I made  because you're bored with people disagreeing with you. Maybe these are obvious points that people keep raising and you keep blowing off.  Despite having no one agreeing with you, you declare your opinion correct. So much for WP:CONSENSUS. Of course anyone who can't see the obvious racism in these films as you do must therefore be a racist bigot who doesn't like being outed by your perceptive analysis. "I do recommend reading all of the sources in the article" I CANNOT BECAUSE THEY ARE PRINTED BOOKS WHICH I HAVE NO ACCESS TO. The ONLY link on the film The Matrixis to a printed book by a person I've never heard of.  Anyway, the reason people are attacking your classifications of films is that you (and it is you, personally and no one else) are in effect declaring that these films are racist tracts pushing racist ideologies. That is a deeply insulting characterisation of the people who made the film and anyone who liked the film, by extension, since it implies if I like a film I support this racist message, a message visible only to someone who sees racism everywhere and in everything. Therefore I'm a racist who refuses to admit it. The description of The Matrix is completely unsourced and complete bullshit, unrecognisable to anyone who has actually watched it. I'm sure other films have been equally maligned. 202.81.248.27 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The content here is not written because of my opinion. This is what sources write about the topic, and we as editors need to combine that coverage. We can't say, "I disagree with what they wrote, therefore I will not include it." Also, references are not required to be online, but most of these should be searchable via Google Books. The White Savior Film is not quite as searchable, but I have it on hand. I think it is unfair to talk about racism here. That word is not even used to describe the trope. Look at Mississippi Burning where the director's comment was also shared. This and Professor Fitzgerald's comment (in the lead section) show that the trope appears because of the circumstances of society. Hollywood makes these films based on the industry and the audience with no intention of being racist. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Erik, I really don't think you understand why this guy is objecting to having The Matrix on this list. For the vast majority of the people who believe in the existence of the white savior trope (including me and 202 here), a white savior film has to be: a) a film that is essentially about the struggles of people of color that b) somehow still manages to have a white person as the central character that said film revolves around. That's why 202 objects having The Matrix on this list, and why I object having 12 Years a Slave on this list; The Matrix has nothing to do with the struggles of people of color, and the central character 12 Years a Slave revolves around is the black guy! 2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This article does describe a real "trope" in film, but instead of examining it and using a few, clear examples and analysing them, it instead opts to list every film that anyone ever used the terms about and supports their inclusion with frankly ridiculous and incorrect plot descriptions and links to obscure, inaccessible books and random online articles by even more obscure "critics" well known only to their Facebook friends. What is the point of making a list and insisting on including films where the trope is marginal or disputed? There are plenty like Dances With Wolves where no one would dispute the idea. To decide that humans in The Matrix are "black" and the computers are "white" to make it fit the trope is just inviting ridicule. The reason the trope is "White savior" is to distinguish it from "Savior". Not every "Savior" film is a coded form of "White Savior". If Neo in The Matrix" is a "white saviour", why isn't Jesus in King of Kings? All those Semites, they're not white so they must be black, and Jesus is played by Jeffrey Hunter, a guy who looks white, so it fits. 202.81.248.27 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree this article is in need of serious work. I don't doubt it is a trope in film, and quite a racist one at that, but I'm not convinced the Matrix is such a film. The description given for it also seems seriously POV-pushing. I think we need to see some more accessible reference. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , there are numerous references highlighting the white savior in The Matrix. This does not mean that is the full focus by sources. Some films are very notable for their white savior, while others have elements that very much overshadow it, such as The Matrix being groundbreaking in science fiction. As for references, which ones do you need to access more readily? Online access is not a requirement, but some of book references can be looked up in Google Books. I also have The White Savior Film handy if needed. I am not sure why you think that the description is POV-pushing, the white savior is not a trope commended by others. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Numerous references"? You only give one, a printed book that only you have access to. It's obvious that Neo is a "saviour", but that he is a "white saviour" in the sense of your article (let's be serious, its 100% your handiwork) -- no. The role of Neo was first offered to Will Smith (an extremely non-white person). That counts for nothing as to the race blindness of the story? Anyway, Reeves isn't "white", he's very mixed race. Your description of the film says there are "black characters serve him as disciples". Who are these "disciples"? "serve him" How? Neo isn't a white outsider, riding it to save benighted natives, his background is no different to any other of the oppressed humans, who live in a 1990s western-style city (actually shot in Sydney). Neo is not distinguished by race or culture from the people he "saves". Yet you describe him as "white" and the people he "saves" as "black". You describe both Neo, a mixed race human, and the Agents, artificial intelligences, simply as "white", to fit your narrative. You ignore the fact that Morpheus is as much a leader, if not more, than Neo. Anyway, looking at the history of this page, I know that you will just shrug and cite some commentator with a racial axe to grind. The only hope of removing this weird crap is to expose it to the light. 202.81.248.27 (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the point of discussing this with you if you overlook my replies? See my comment at 20:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC) in which I link to an older thread mentioning other references. To keep this succinct, the book The White Savior Film lists The Matrix as part of the set of films it assesses. Your opinion does not overturn that. You should contact the author and ask him these questions, but there is no policy or guideline to support applying your personal disagreements here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so you can base a whole article on the opinions of one racially obsessed critic, and then go around maligning dozens of films accordingly. So you sourced the ridiculous description of The Matrix from this book? "White" Neo with his "black disciples" fighting the "all-white villains" and all? Whoever made that up is either a professional axe grinder or has severe tunnel vision. Glad to hear it wasn't you. No matter if it is in print, this is a purely subjective opinion by one person. WP:UNDUE should apply; there are thousands of reviews and analyses of The Matrix. What proportion describe it as a "white saviour" film? One? Two? 202.81.248.27 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The book is not a layperson coming up with their own "purely subjective" opinions. See these reviews of the book to get a sense of its academic approach to the trope:, , . In regard to WP:UNDUE, a film's article must find a balance based on everything that has been written about it. For The Matrix, there are many sources writing about the science fiction and philosophical elements of it. The white savior trope is only a piece of the whole conversation and would not warrant as much attention as the aforementioned elements. For some other films, that trope may overshadow everything else about the film. For example, Dangerous Minds is probably one of the most referenced films with this trope, and it should have its own sub-topic on that article (but it does not, which is an unfortunate omission). In regard to compiling a list of films, it is within the context of this sociological topic. WP:NOTESAL says, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not which aspect of The Matrix' is most important, it's whether this racial subtext you see is there at all; or if you prefer, is seen by anyone citeable aside from your one and only source. Because there are thousands of reviews and articles, a dozen books written about the film The Matrix. Why does one book with this outlier opinion make this true? Again, WP:UNDUE-- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Just finding one among thousands who agrees with the line you like is not sufficient to close the topic. I have not seen any cogent argument, from your source or otherwise, to support that. And you still refuse to source the description you put in the article, the "black disciples" who you see but no one else noticed. If not sourced to the above book, it is presumably your opinion; you must therefore substantiate it. Also, I don't appreciate being compared to an evolution denier for daring to disagree with your opinions. I believe in provable facts, not making up facts fit my political worldview. The article you wrote opens "In film, the white savior is a cinematic trope in which a white character rescues people of color". That does not happen in The Matrix. QED 202.81.248.27 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about the white savior trope, so it is fully about the trope itself. The list of films is part of that. The ideal article about The Matrix would not weigh as much attention to the trope as other elements. The ideal article about Dangerous Minds would weigh a good portion to the trope. Here we have a list that includes a film if there is coverage by reliable sources of the trope in it. They are different scopes. Hughey's book has a chart that shows scores for different films. The Matrix, from what I recall, is average or below-average in its scoring, where Dangerous Minds has one of the higher scores. So there is a range of films with this trope to be had here. Many sources about The Matrix but not about the trope does not mean it is exclusionary. Most of the sources focus on the science fiction and philosophical elements. Some even focus on other kinds of racial elements (e.g., multiraciality) beyond this trope. In essence, this article is about the trope, and films listed here have this trope highlighted, even though outside that scope, the trope may or may not be minor compared to everything else about the film. Just because you have questions a source cannot answer does not mean it can be overturned. The approach would be to review everything that is said about this trope in the film to see if a better explanation could be provided. For example, this has more commentary about the trope in the film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. It's comments like this that makes me wonder if you even know what white savior trope is actually about. I mean, you clearly heard of the term, but I don't think you know what the term actually means. Also, I love how you haven't followed up on our discussion. That's a typical Erik move, just walk away whenever someone has legitimate grievances with this article. 2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. I looked at your fount of wisdom on Amazon's preview. The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption by Matthew Hughey. The index lists "The Matrix" on 3 pages. Two are just lists. The only discussion at all is on p 31, in its entirety:
 * p31 - After entering the unsettled lands of the western plains (Dances with Wolves), the multicultural landscape outside computer simulated reality (The Matrix) ... the white protagonist must begin, through his grace, to save nonwhite people from impending disaster.
 * Anyone who has seen the film must find this a strange interpretation. The "multicultural landscape? No idea where that comes from. The "real world" is grungier but no more multicultural than the simulation. But more importantly for this article, he says Neo will then "save nonwhite people from impending disaster". Which doesn't happen at all. He tries to save THE HUMAN RACE. White, nonwhite, brown, yellow, freckled, albino, etc. But most of those shown in the film are, as a matter of fact WHITE (or at least, as approximately "white" as Keanu Reeves). Maybe this guy forgot to take his sunglasses off when he was watching it? Would explain all the coloured people he sees that I don't. And no mention of "black disciples" or "all-white villains". So you did in fact make that up yourself. How sad. 202.81.248.27 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to look at a reference? The footnote for The Matrix references the Hernan & Vera book, which 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... 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." The book The White Savior Film does not analyze The Matrix in depth; the book selects some of its set of over 50 films and analyzes these, such as Dangerous Minds. The rest of them are part of his sociological chart. There is also the book I just linked above that discusses the trope more. Please assume good faith; the content here is indeed based on sources and not made up by me. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So the author doesn't even attempt to explain why he considers The Matrix a white savior film. Good to know! 2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I figured you would say that, which is why I made the point that he analyzes in depth only some of the set of films in his chart. This does not mean an analysis was not performed; all films were scored based on the approach he used. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is yet another source analyzing the trope in the film. We can expand the article's paragraph about The Matrix to explain the sociological consideration of the trope. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tell you what. You write a paragraph about the trope in The Matrix and put it in The Matrix and see what happens. You've already done the research, so instead of wasting it on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT anti-Darwinist me, put it in an article you don't control and see how it goes down. Your description of the film here  remains a complete misrepresentation of the film. 202.81.248.27 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I already explained about due weight and individual film articles. Detailed mention of the trope in the article for The Matrix is much less warranted than in the one for Dangerous Minds. We should be in agreement on that, at least. The main issue is whether or not to list The Matrix here at all, and I find that it has been listed and analyzed to different degrees by different sources to warrant inclusion. You want the cutoff to be something that excludes it, based on your own personal opinions of it. I'd rather follow the sources, even if I have personal disagreements. You don't think I've summarized negative film reviews for a film I've liked, or vice versa? It's part of editing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why don't just remove the link to this article on the "see also" section if you feel like The Matrix doesn't even warrant a small paragraph about the accusations of Neo being a white savior? 107.77.227.149 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't patronise me. I edit books for a living. All I see in the article is one note to one book and a ridiculously biased description with no relation to the film I saw. And don't tell me you "follow the sources". You aren't acting as an honest broker. You have an agenda, you are defending your own personal point of view. You never allow any contrary views to appear in your article. You say that this racism crap is a small part of the film, but when challenged, enlarge the coverage and make it seem as if it's a film designed to denigrate blacks. The only people who write articles about racism in film are predisposed to see every film as an example of that. Any film with people of different races can be twisted to fit the agenda. (See "King of Kings" as above. Just as plausible as this bull, and you have a "saviour" as a given.) Just pretend that Neo is white, all the humans are black peasants, the computers are white, that Morpheus is a "disciple", FFS. The thousands of reviewers who didn't notice any racism DO NOT MENTION IT. So for the 3rd and final time WP:DUE applies. The idea that The Matrix is a "white saviour" film is held by a tiny minority of strident writers. The 99.9% of reviews that do not mention your "white saviour" interpretation are not included in your analysis. This is the same standard of proof as required by a witch trial. Any hysteric points a finger and says "I see a white saviour" and you drag them off to the town square to be ritually humiliated, brand the film's article with your sign to let everyone know it's a certified racist tract. Again, if your analysis is so evenhanded, well sourced and incontrovertible, put it in The Matrix article and prove it can stand outside this walled garden. 202.81.248.27 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my god! This is amazing! Erik is getting attacked on both fronts! 107.77.227.149 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddd this conversation went nowhere. Erik has once again responded to the criticism by walking away, preventing us from making any change to an article that he has de facto control of. Because god forbid we make any changes to his shitty article. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, the person most obsessed by a topic can take control of it. Everyone else just gets sick of dealing with them and walks away. Every now and then someone comes across this article, says "What is this shit?" and might try to fix it. Erik just cites his books and tells them logic doesn't matter, consistency with the definition he gives in his own article doesn't matter, due weight doesn't matter, white is black and black is white if it fits his narrative. Nothing matters except the opinions of a couple of guys who see a racist agenda in every film with a whitish protagonist. Rinse and repeat. 202.81.248.208 (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At least The Matrix has a whitish protagonist so you can stretch it to claim it's a white savior narrative. 12 Years a Slave doesn't even have that! The entirety of 12 Years a Slave, a film that is perhaps the first film to finally exposed United States's slavery system for the wickedness that it was, is centered on Solomon Northup... a free Black man. But because this is the internet, meaning that there are always going to be a small number of people who wants to be different and shit on a movie that is most likely to be listed as one of the greatest films of the decade if not all time, and because Brad Pitt's character shows up and helps Northup off-screen allowing said people to throw in the term "white savior" so they can go "well-beloved anti-racist film is actually loved due to racism!", Erik gets to characterize it as an example of the white savior narrative in film. And since the vast majority of the people who loved the movie have never felt the need to explain why it's ridiculous to apply the "white savior narrative" to a film that's directed by a Black-British director, written by a Black screenwriter, is based on a memoir/slave narrative of the same name, meaning that the film is centered on the person who wrote it, and famously had a hard time getting financial backing from Hollywood, all we can do is get Erik to go "Well we can always just rename the article, I don't have a problem with that. Isn't it enough for you that this article acknowledge your criticism?" 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

FFS, Now Erik has enlarged the description of "The Matrix" in his blacklist to two paragraphs, 11 lines; four or five times more than any other film. "Dances With Wolves", one of the most blatant "White savior" films, gets 2 lines. So now in his universe "The Matrix" has become the most prominent and important "White savior" film ever made. Mission accomplished, he's proven he has no perspective or common sense at all. Still ignores the thousands of articles about the film that never mention his trope, while now quoting at length the couple that do. Yet he's still afraid to make his case in The Matrix article, because he knows he can't get away with this except in an article he controls. This article begins with the definition In film, the white savior is a cinematic trope in which a white character rescues people of color from their plight.. None of these things are true for the film The Matrix. Erik has turned his own article (he created it in 2014, has made virtually all edits to it, deleted anything not congruent with his worldview) into a parody of political correctness. 202.81.248.208 (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See, I don't think it's political correctness. I think this is more to due to with the fact that ERIK HAS NO GODDAMN CLUE ON WHAT THIS TROPE IS ABOUT, so he just looks up the term "white savior" and just grabs any article by some hack and takes their word for it. We're lucky that the contrarians went with the "LBJ was demonized!"-angle when it came to Selma, because you know Erik would have no problem adding a film that mainly focuses on Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery march to this list once he comes across an article that reads "Selma: Another White Savior Film from Hollywood". 2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT (After looking at said description): LMAO! Good job, Erik! Instead of just admitting that The Matrix doesn't belong on this list, you decided to double-down and made it the largest description on this page; larger than Cry Freedom, Dances with Wolves, Dangerous Minds, The Last Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia, Avatar (now there's a film that you can use as proof that you don't need literal people of color to be a white savior narrative), Mississippi Burning, Radio, To Kill a Mockingbird, and the fucking Blind Side. Well done, Erik! *slow clap* You have just delegitimize everybody who had complained about Hollywood's obsession to make the struggles of people of color all about whitey. Bravo! 2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources, and the content here is based on such sources. Personal opinions do not overturn these sources. Having the trope does not make a film racist. Multiple sources exist for The Matrix, 12 Years a Slave, and the other movies, and their descriptions in this particular list have to be based on such sources. It is not within policy to apply personal opinions to mold such sources or to exclude them and their content entirely. It is within policy to see what sources exist and for what films and to reference them here, not to ignore such sources because one thinks they came up with a good counter-argument. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Erik's article is based on a tiny number of sources that share his viewpoint. IMDB e.g. links 309 professional critics' reviews. He choose two or three that say what he wants to hear. The vast majority of reviews, articles and books that discuss the movie did not find his "White savior" in the film. Every other theme you can imagine is detailed and analysed in depth. According to the Neutral point of view policy: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The only viewpoints in the article that are even mentioned are those that support Erik's minority view. This article thus violates policy. 202.81.248.208 (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE says, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." This article is devoted to the sociological topic. On a given film's article, the relation of that topic to other aspects of the film will vary. For The Matrix, other aspects of the film surely overshadow this trope. For Dangerous Minds, coverage of the trope would be well-represented in its own article. The page also says, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." You have made derogatory statements about the sources' credibility, basically saying simplistically that they who write about race in film unnecessarily see race in everything. So your comments are merely driven by your personal interpretations and challenges on the whole topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have no respect for the writers you cite, since they describe factual elements of the film incorrectly in order to bolster their conclusion. But that's by the way, I know WP doesn't care about truth. My formal, policy-based objection is simply based on the fact that they form a tiny and unrepresentative minority of reviews, and so, you guessed it, you are violating WP:DUE by presenting them as if they were the consensus view. 202.81.248.208 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you know that Wikipedia does not care about truth, then you must know that it cares about verifiability. The sources are verifiable. You and I are not. I've quoted WP:DUE above. It would violate WP:DUE to write in the film's article, "The Matrix is a white savior film..." or to have a whole section in that article devoted to it. How much to write about the trope in an individual film's article depends on how much has been written about it out there. The Matrix is not a seminal example of the white savior in film. If I wrote the best article possible about The Matrix, maybe there would be an academic section with several subsections, with one about race in general and some commentary about the white savior trope within that. But it is in this scope that The Matrix is worth listing. The connection of a film with a particular trope will vary. Consider genres. Some science fiction films will be obviously science fiction, where some are less obviously sci-fi. We follow the sources in listing a film under a particular genre. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep insisting on this being racist? Generally, films with white saviors are popular with almost everyone. Through a sociological lens, it is seen as a trope that can be interpreted in certain ways, depending on the film. In addition, do you realize that you've been restoring "Wachowski Sisters" on The Matrix? That's vandalism that you are endorsing, unless you are not paying attention to your edits. You complain about it not being clear why the trope applies to The Matrix, now you're complaining that there is too much about how it applies to the film. As I have repeatedly stated, it is not the epitome of all films with white saviors. Dangerous Minds is a much, much better example. But this is a full list of films. How else do you want to indicate the degree of how much the trope applies? You're in complete denial of any connection between the trope and the film, even as I have provided additional sources and related commentary. I don't think this article is perfect or complete, maybe we could have a synopsis for each film before we provide a paragraph's worth of analysis for each one (based on sources). But you want to apply the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is nonsense. Most commentators are not going to consider every single possible aspect of a film, especially sociologically related aspects, before writing it. You want to believe that it has to jump out to every single layperson for it to be accepted here. That's not the way it works. Some films will have that trope very highlighted, while others are less expected, like this one or 12 Years a Slave. I don't see why I should be attacked for following the sources. You've asked questions about this film that I can't answer because I am a fellow layperson. Maybe these questions were considered, maybe not. Sources are not obliged to spell out every single answer to every possible challenge. If a newspaper reports that critics loved a film, maybe they did a good assessment of all the reviews published. Maybe they just looked at the Rotten Tomatoes score. We don't know for sure. It does not mean we cite ourselves to cancel out a source. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't accuse me of vandalising The Matrix. I have never, ever edited that article. For that matter, I've never edited this article, only the talk pages. And of course you're declaring that all the films in your list are racist in theme. It's absurd to pretend otherwise. But that is simply my shorthand for your term. Just pretend I wrote "exhibits the trope white savior" if you prefer. 202.81.248.208 (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize since the discussion has involved dynamic IPs. That's why I asked someone's name earlier. (Was that you or not?) Are you saying that all films listed in Hughey's The White Savior Film are racist in theme? What are you even defining racism as? Explicit hatred toward nonwhite people? Can racism be incidental or unintentional? These are aspects that are beyond our purview. If you want to read "white savior" to imply that the filmmakers wanted to exercise white supremacy on purpose, that's your fault. As far as I can tell, there are different reasons why this trope emerges. You can push for that to be explained more, certainly, but your perceived definition of it is fairly cheap. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be pretty damn obvious who is who since your other main critic has a massive IPv6 IP. And all my IPv4 IPs have the same first 2 blocks. Anyway, as to your "absence of evidence" idea: If I ask 50 people who watched a film to describe the protagonist, of those 50 one states that he had a third eye in the middle of his forehead. You would therefore feel justified in adding that as a fact to your article, as the other 49 did not contradict this since they didn't mention the number of eyes at all. My point is, if this trope is in the film, most reviewers, whose whole raison d'etre is to discuss such things, will notice and discuss it. They did not. Only your handful (if that) of professional racism-sniffers. People who look very hard at any film, especially popular ones, in order to make them fit their agenda. As for "racism"; if I were a film maker I would be highly offended to find my work listed here. It implies that I am either deliberately writing a story to denigrate "people of color"; i.e. I'm a racist, or at best too stupid to realise what the themes of my own work are. So your addition of a film to your list is not the same as calling it "noir" or "thriller", it's a very unpleasant allegation. 202.81.248.208 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my god Erik! When people used the term "white savior film", it is always in the context of "Wow Hollywood! Even when it comes to the struggles of people of color, you still managed to find a way to center it on whitey." And it's absolutely true! Hollywood does have a terrible tendency to make the struggles of people of color all about whitey. 202 and I are completely aware of this trend. We are not one of those idiots who'll come by and demand this article to be deleted for being nothing more than "SJW talk", we just want 12 Years a Slave and The Matrix off this fucking list! And holy shit, dude. You're the one who thinks that racism can only equal white supremacy? Really? 2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I outlined my own skepticism about The Matrix in an earlier discussion, but the entry itself is now accompanied by four scholarly sources so it is very difficult to formulate a policy based reason for removing it. While Neo obviously isn't a white savior in a literal sense, the sources seem to be drawing analogies with black power movements. That's a completely valid way of looking at the topic, and if scholars are discussing the film within the context of white savior tropes then it seems reasonable to include it on this list. While I am sympathetic to the arguments for its removal (as my earlier comments indicate) the point remains that editors should not be arguing from their own analysis of the film, and four scholarly sources seem to overcome any possible WP:DUE concerns of a "lone voice". Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Black Power movements? How is that even possible? That's one group that quite definitely didn't have any "white saviours". And WP:DUE does apply. Hundreds of published reviewers don't see this unicorn, Erik finds a handful that do, who don't even describe the film accurately, and voila, it must be true -- sorry "verifiable". Reviewers who don't see any "white saviour" don't say "There is no white saviour", they just don't mention it at all.  And  of course it's also irrelevant that it fails to fit the definition in the first line of the article. This lunacy would be tolerable if this single-author article were isolated, but Erik  is backlinking it from every film on his list. Thanks to Erik, and Erik alone, the Matrix is now a Wikipedia certified racist film and no one can say otherwise. 202.81.249.106 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Betty, you know that this entry is bullshit. Stop defending Erik, and join us! We can also remove the Blood Diamond entry; I know you had a huge problem when Erik tried to justify that! 2600:8800:5100:38E:F44F:EA83:4DC4:4A22 (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear: in my own personal opinion I do not consider The Matrix a "White Savior" film. I think that is obvious from my previous comments on the subject. If I were to draw up my own list of White Savior films I personally would not have included it, but here's the kicker: there are currently four academic sources in the article that say it is. We are free to disagree with those who interpret it as a white savior film but ultimately a couple of editorial opinions do not trump FOUR reputable sources per WP:NOTTRUTH. If you feel that strongly about it I suggest that you run it by WP:NPOVN and see what they say. Betty Logan (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that you personally don't consider The Matrix as a white savior film; that's why I would like for you to join our side and end Erik's bullshit. And as 202 points out, the main problem with having The Matrix on this list due to four "academic sources" (and I really question if they could be considered academic) is that reading The Matrix as a white savior narrative is such a very uncommon interpretation that I doubt that anyone who has written extensively on the movie is even aware that it could be read that way. This isn't like Free State of Jones, McFarland, USA, or the potential John Brown biopic where the premise of those films (white man helps out people of color in one way or another) is going to invite a debate on whether or not they can be considered white savior narratives. Nobody is going to feel the need to write an essay on why The Matrix is not a white savior narrative. The same thing can be said with 12 Years a Slave, especially since the majority of the sources that justify it being on this list are fucking op-ed pieces. Also, that still doesn't explain why films like Cry Freedom (a supposed Steve Biko biopic that's actually about some white journalist who'd met Steve Biko) only has two sentences, while The Matrix HAS TWO PARAGRAPHS AND IS THE LARGEST ENTRY ON THIS PAGE. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You could mitigate the inclusion of The Matrix by elaborating that the Neo role was originally offered to an African American actor. The black power movement seems like a valid analogy to me, but if it is a white savior film it is only by accident rather than design, considering that a black actor was originally pursued for the part. Betty Logan (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Betty, I know I can't edit the article, Erik would just revert anything I do immediately with a "revert vandalism" comment. But why do you ask his permission? You're just validating his ownership of the article. Why not just fix it yourself? Anyway, aside from "Neo" being originally intended to be a black actor, as if that isn't enough, the whole point of the trope is that a white person rescues black people who are incapable of doing it themselves, thus demonstrating the innate superiority of the white race. This can be abstracted, so "white/black" applies to "Humans/Naavi" in Avatar, etc. But in The Matrix, Neo is the SAME ethnicity, the SAME culture, as the "blacks" (who aren't "black" noticeably). Neo was born and raised in the Matrix world, same as everyone else. He's not a tourist from a superior civilisation, not a missionary, he's just a schlub until Morpheus finds him. He might be a "savior", but cannot be a "white savior". Whatever magic power he has, it's personal, not racially derived.  Which is why of the hundreds of articles, reviews, books about The Matrix, only the handful of commentators with racism axes to grind dug up by Erik mention this "white savior" bullshit. And even though Erik has now devoted 5 times as much space in his article to The Matrix as any other film, he's afraid to put his findings in The Matrix because he knows it could not stand the bright light of scrutiny away from the dark corner of his own article. 202.81.248.114 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How interesting. Erik is also the creator and major contributor to Whitewashing in film. Same format as this, a short description and then a long list of any and every film that anyone ever complained was too white. So he can link any film he puts on that page to it, as he has been doing for this page. Between them he's given himself a licence to smear any film whose racial politics he finds not up to his standards. 202.81.248.219 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, I got to admit, that list is a bit better than this one. (Although I am bit annoyed that the largest entry on that is The Hunger Games whose protagonist's ethnicity wasn't even mentioned. Still, since the author of the books did state that the Katniss is most likely mixed, its entry is a lot more justified than the Matrix being on this list.) However, if I want a list of Hollywood's trend of giving non-white roles to white people, I'll just stick with this article (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RaceLift). 2600:8800:5100:38E:B929:FF85:508:4FBF (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. It has been days since Erik last responded. You think it's safe for me to delete both the Matrix and 12 Years a Slave entry? 2600:8800:5100:38E:9D4E:1776:E4CB:1285 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. If you feel that strongly about it, I'd suggest starting a WP:RFC. clpo13(talk) 22:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Very funny, you know it's hopeless. Erik has got his "reliable sources" lined up. Since the only people who write in respectable media (as opposed to blogs, etc.) who write on the racial subtexts of films only mention films they see it in, there is no way to remove any film that has ever been charged with this. It's like the No Fly List. Once your name is on it, you're blacklisted (no pun intended) forever, one published opinion by anyone is enough. While Wikipedia's policy of WP:RS and WP:OR stop a lot of crap from being included, they also enable any opinion or interpretation to be validated and be impervious to criticism if it gets published and no one bothers to refute it. Erik can just lay low and when we get sick of it, just keep adding films to his rogues' galleries and then backlinking them from the film articles. It's an important issue because labelling a film  like this is a slur against everyone involved with it -- it's not a trivial "genre" label, it implies that the people who made the film are bigots. As such, it really is a WP:BLP issue. 202.81.248.11 (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I am really getting annoyed by how the people who are trying to uphold Erik's bullshit keep repeating "well maybe you should have a discussion, then!" Sure, I'm down for having a discussion... if anyone is actually interested in giving me one! How the fuck is it so hard to remove one godddamn link to this crappy article. Why do I need a RfC for that? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Well there's now a RFC on the 12 Years a Slave page on removing the link to this page. 202 can you help me out? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I have made a comment there -- and you should link it Talk:12_Years_a_Slave_(film) -- but can't in conscience vote, since I'm afraid I haven't seen the film. 202.81.248.43 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I've been on vacation. I emailed Matthew Hughey, who wrote The White Savior Film. Here is what he had to say: ''"I outline the 'common denominators' of white savior films, which I empiricalyl demonstrate are made of seven categories: (1) crossing the color and culture line, (2) his saving grace, (3) white suffering, (4) the savior, the bad white, and the natives, (5) the color of meritocracy, (6) white civility, black savagery, and (7) based on a true story: racialized historiography... Second, piggybacking off the first point, a particular film such as '12 years a slave' and 'the matrix' certainly does have White Savior Film elements, as do many other films. Therefore, I would certainly characterize both film as 'white savior film', but I also realize that those films have other elements that might contradict the white savior trope, too.  That is, the categorization of a film is not a zero-sum definition, but can co-exist with other genres and categories.  I.e., I would also argue that the Matrix is a 'magical negro' film. Both claims are empirically supportable and do not require only one or the other to exist in solitary. Hence, when we speak of whether or not a particular film is or is not a 'white savior' film, its more than a question of whether it is or is not, but it’s more accurate to say that it’s a matter of how much it is or is not, which can be measured by how many of those seven categories are met and then, how quantitatively frequent and qualitatively intense those categories are in that particular film." Based on this, WP:UNDUE needs to be applied differently. This is not an instance of where the Flat Earth minority view is at odds with the majority view. As Hughey states, it is not a zero-sum definition. So I find there to be a stronger case to link to this article as a tangentially related topic. I suggest that the editor(s) who had all their questions about The Matrix and 12 Years a Slave'' contact the sociologist with the questions. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

, do you think it is appropriate to mention the casting if it is unrelated to this particular topic? It is not a point of debate in sources. It could possibly be meaningless in the sociological sense since the final product had a white savior after all. I could email Hughey for his thoughts on how to consider the near-casting of Will Smith. Erik (talk &#124; contrib)(ping me) 17:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC) ( I was re-reading the discussion and wanted to point out that Adilifu Nama's commentary actually argues against the white savior element. I found it in my research and included it as a counterpoint. I wanted to let you know in case you want to re-evaluate your argument. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC))
 * "the final product had a white savior after all." IN YOUR OPINION which we've heard before. 202.81.249.75 (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been sharing just your personal opinion all along. The one time I step away from the sources and speculate offhand, you criticize me? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your sociologist seems to have discovered Wittgenstein's concept of Familienähnlichkeit. Well, it is not at all easy to use, its grid can filter out too much or too little, so you should not continue with your one-man show article, but "sociologically" you should compare your opinion with the other editors. IMHO, The Matrix has more items for not be added to this list than the opposite. It's a messianic, Christological, Augustinian history, with the love of Neo for Trinity and the betrayal of Judas [LU]Cypher. Do you think Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano are people of color? Perhaps Keanu Reeves is more colored, with his blood half Hawaiian, Chinese and Portuguese. Then there are the other characters, but the core of the plot is this, and the salvation ("soteriology") of Neo is for the whole world, interracial and multiethnic, not only for the non-whites. I have a mountain of objections also on some other films of the list (for example Gran Torino), but if the article is a your own property, then go ahead alone. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if Erik "go ahead alone" if it wasn't for the fact that he lazily slaps a link to this article after he adds a film to this list. 2600:8800:5100:38E:35B0:664A:1171:4151 (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I know there is a lot more to be written about The Matrix. I added it to this list because it was named in sources. I see no reason to find the sources invalid, especially when the sociologist says that it is a zero-sum definition and that the definition is empirically supportable here. I am not comparing my opinion to anyone else's. I am defending basing Wikipedia's content on sources and not having it be overturned by editors' own musings. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

At least we finally have an argument to look at. According to Mr White Saviour himself, Matthew Hughey, these are the criteria:
 * (1) crossing the color and culture line,
 * Does not happen in The Matrix. Neo is the same culture and colour as the other humans. Unless he means the the Matrix simulation's green colour scheme. Or choosing the red pill?


 * (2) his saving grace
 * True, but that may make Neo a saviour, but not a white saviour.


 * (3) white suffering,
 * Whites are suffering, blacks are suffering, Asians are suffering, EVERYBODY is suffering. Even the computers aren't happy.


 * (4) the savior, the bad white, and the natives
 * "the natives"? Who the hell are "the natives" in The Matrix? This is the question I keep asking, and is never answered, since it's central to the concept.


 * (5) the color of meritocracy
 * If I understand this at all, it means whites have more merit than coloured people; so Morpheus has no merit? Really?


 * (6) white civility, black savagery, and
 * What "black savagery"? No idea what that could refer to. "White civility"? Neo is a slob. Did this guy even see the film?


 * (7) based on a true story: racialized historiography
 * Sorry, this is a fantasy/SF story set some centuries or millennia in the future. The only racialization is in his and Erik's head.
 * If you can see a historical racial allegory in this, you've drank too much Kool-Aid. The point of the film is philosophical; not sociological, about current or past human relations, it's about our possible future relationship with inhuman intelligences. Trying to force it into this racism/colonialism/white vs black paradigm by arbitrarily dividing the cast into "black" and white" (when neither is true in any sense) is perverse. The film is not about race at all.  202.81.249.75 (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You are not a reliable source. The sociologist is. You do not get to project your own interpretations to override that source. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You contacted your buddy and he gave you a definition. His stated criteria clearly fail at almost every specific point to apply to this film. He didn't bother to explain how they did -- WHO ARE THE FUCKING "NATIVES"???? It's so lacking in detail I really wonder if he ever saw, or can remember the film. If when asked he doesn't bother to explain how he came to his conclusion, he is not a source I would rely on. Feel free to ignore anything that doesn't support your opinion and cite any half-baked jumble that does. 202.81.249.75 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please look at the source. The criteria is in general and does not apply for every film. Some films score very highly under a particular criteria, and some do not. For The Matrix, it scored 0 under "based on a true story" because duh. Do you want to know the scores the film has under the other criteria even though your opinion on this is irrelevant? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hence, when we speak of whether or not a particular film is or is not a 'white savior' film, its more than a question of whether it is or is not, but it’s more accurate to say that it’s a matter of how much it is or is not, which can be measured by how many of those seven categories are met and then, how quantitatively frequent and qualitatively intense those categories are in that particular film. This definition of your sociologist is absolutely correct (Wittgenstein ...) and your measurement of those seven categories applied to The Matrix is absolutely wrong. Matthew Hughey is a reliable source as much as you are unreliable as his interpreter. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's evident that nobody is looking at the sources. Hughey's book on pages 20-21 shows "Table 2.1. White Savior Films (1987-2011)" in which The Matrix is listed. I am not interpreting anything. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked a the source. It lists the film. It does not say WHY. Neither did your communication above. 202.81.249.75 (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This only means that the sociologist is the first not to be able to apply his own criteria. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that? By all accounts, the book is well-reviewed. I hope you're not citing your own reading of the movie to say that the criteria does not apply? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope. As 202 wrote, your sociologist does not motivate why his 7 criteria would apply to The Matrix. List with explanation, thanks, and not only a list. Can you grasp the difference between the criteria on one side and the simple list on the other? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. Each film got scored under each criteria. The Matrix got 0 for "based on a true story" but had nonzero scores under the other criteria. Are you looking for a written-out explanation for why The Matrix got a nonzero score under these criteria? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, and it's time to know the reasons for each of his scores. I gave the college sociology exam, and I learned that there is a serious sociology, experimental, and a journalistic one made by opinion makers: flatus vocis ("breath of voice"). --Mauro Lanari (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't find that this disqualifies identifying the white savior trope in the film (especially since this is not the only source). I do see what you mean but am not sure what that means for listing films? Some films may seem vaguely science fiction, and experimental criteria could be applied, but at the end of the day, the categorization has to be done explicitly. Hughey does not explain why he scored each film the way he did (the list has nearly 90, I believe) and analyzes maybe a dozen or so in-depth. But I don't find that lack of in-depth analysis to disqualify a film. The whole list of films in his "White Savior Films" table should qualify. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * But you'll agree that there is a great difference between the dozen or so films analyzed in depth and the whole list of nearly 90 titles. Do you intend to include all of them in the article? What are your criteria? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What great difference is there? It is unrealistic for all 90 films to be analyzed in depth. The book has related ground to cover such as historical context, critics, and audiences. The fact is, the full list of films is stated by the source to have this trope. It is not a list of films in general from which he selected the ones with the trope. They all have the trope. My criteria is that I follow the sources. If they state that a film has a white savior trope, then it can be included and referenced. One mention by one source is not enough, which is why I did not include The Revenant. The films in this list article do have more than one sources. Many of them do not reference the Hughey book, and that book can be used as yet another reference for the film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Erik, I got a question, why is the main person that you're using to justify your BS entry on The Matrix a sociologist, and not, I don't know, A FILM CRITIC? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you not understand what sociology in general entails? The book even studies how film critics wrote about certain films; that is the high-level scope that is taken. Here is a book section that can explain it better than me: Image and Influence: Studies in the Sociology of Film – Patterns of Meaning (see page 211). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And if we only used film critics as sources, I don't think we'd be able to list Dangerous Minds here. Film critics do not necessarily take the long view (though some do). The white savior trope in Dangerous Minds appears to have been explored later on. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "If we only used film critics as sources, I don't think we'd be able to list Dangerous Minds here." "If we only used film critics as sources, I don't think we'd be able to list Dangerous Minds here." "If we only used film critics as sources, I don't think we'd be able to list Dangerous Minds here." THAT HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE MOST STUPIDEST SHIT I'VE EVER HEARD, ERIK. I'm looking at reviews that are being paraphrased in the Dangerous Minds article, and while the term "white savior" might not appear in their reviews, they are definitely complaining about the nature of this trope, especially Roger Ebert. This is what I mean about you not having any idea what the hell the term "white savior narrative" is about. All you know is that there are people complaining about this trope, so you just Google it and add any film that pops up. And I am sorry, but your sociologist that you keep promoting has clearly demonstrated that he lacks the basic ability to analyze a film. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact is, that Erik will include any film that anyone ever said was a "white saviour" film. He doesn't care if it makes sense. He doesn't care if it satisfies his own or his buddy's definition. He doesn't care how offensive it is. If one of his pet sociologists put it in a list, then he can label it as a racist piece of shit and add his tags to its article. It empowers him, he gets to put down all these white bigots, so why would he not do it? As for "And if we only used film critics as sources, I don't think we'd be able to list Dangerous Minds here. Film critics do not necessarily take the long view (though some do)." That film was made in 1995, before the trope was named and publicised. Anyway even without the guidance of sociologists, some film critics do look below the surface. See e.g. Chris Perry's review: "movies like this one, and Rush Hour, and Lethal Weapon 4, which take a tiny little tinge of anglo-superior thought and take it to an extreme." etc. Can you find any reviewer who says anything like that about The Matrix? No, because most film reviewers actually watched the film and tried to work out what it was saying, not trying to force it to fit into their trope so they can score a hit on a popular film. 202.81.249.48 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hell, look at Roger Ebert's review. Despite not actually naming the trope, that has got to be the most excellent and accurate analysis of the "white savior narrative", breaking down everything that is wrong with this trope. Seriously, how hard is it to find a film critic complaining about the white saviorness of Dangerous Minds? In fact, why is it that the majority of the sources are not coming from film critics? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)