Talk:Whiteface (performance)

Untitled
Philippa Soo as Amélie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.98.97 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabeel Mansuri.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this really a thing
Should this be a secuton of blackface? The earliers vaudeville references are likely speaking if white oil paint used in clown acts

The later accounts are less a cultural phenomenon as a reaction to black face, a satire of blackface, or used in combination with the mocking of "othered" cultures. Meemsworldwide (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Origins of Racism/Dehumanization
The statement that the origins are not racist/dehumanizing are not factually based. Research into clowns will prove that the prejudice existed at the expense of celtic peoples (the Irish and to a smaller extent the Scots.) Even the articles on Wikipedia regarding this topic acknowledge such. Wyndesor (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Where? JimKaatFan (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced, Controversial Opinion in Blackface section + my edit blocked as "WP:SYNTH" by User:JimKaatFan
The section leads with the claim that "Blackface is widely considered racist, based upon traceable racial links to slavery and racial segregation." I have tried to edit that "blackface is widely considered racist based upon its stereotyped caricaturing of black people and traceable racial links to slavery and racial segregation," as stereotyped caricaturing of ANY race is almost uniformly considered racist in Western cultures. For some reason, this edit is being considered WP:SYNTH by User:JimKaatFan, despite the fact that it's just as, if not more, supported by the sourced article (which mentions "racist caricaturing" explicitly), which at no point singles out racial links to slavery and racial segregation as the basis for blackface to be widely considered racist.

As blackface is specifically the racially stereotyped caricaturing of black people, as stated in the opening sentence of the blackface article itself, I assume the claim that blackface is racially stereotyped caricaturing of black people is not the claim that he is taking issue with, but rather the sentiment that it's not even simply a mere part of the basis why blackface is widely considered to be racist.

I am very confused by why such a statement is being considered self-published research by an editor who was ostensibly okay with the much more contentious remainder of the sentence in question, implying that somehow the article which specifically mentions racially stereotyped caricaturing of black people as part of the basis for why blackface is widely considered racist supports the rest of the sentence somehow, but not my edit.

Please explain why you were okay with the claim that "blackface is widely considered racist, based upon traceable racial links to slavery and racial segregation" was not WP:SYNTH, but my inclusion of one of the points of the article for some reason is.

I have removed the source and added a citation needed tag in the meantime not as an attempt at petty disruption but because the only perspective I can picture User:JimKaatFan having on this is that the entire sentence is unsupported by the source, even though it's only my edit that he's removing, as I can't see any indication why one could think the article supports ties to segregation and slavery as the sole basis of why blackface is considered racist but not the racial stereotyped caricaturing the source specifically mentions unless the contention is that the article doesn't espouse on the basis of why blackface is widely considered racist whatsoever. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time even parsing this, to be honest, you're couching your point in several repetitive demands of the editor to explain themselves. Concision & brevity would be better in the future, please.
 * As for the citation, the In the mid to late nineteenth century, white actors would routinely use black grease paint on their faces when depicting plantation slaves and free blacks on stage. part seems to suffice. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Comparison to blackface seems shallow
It seems way too generalized to say "Blackface is widely considered racist due to its traceable racial links to slavery and racial segregation." and "[whiteface] is not racist". Looking at examples of both there seems to be considerable differences between makeup that is accurate (such as in coming to America) not caricature and makeup that is caricature (e.g. red lipstick or making fun of the skin tint itself rather than the stereotypes about people of a specific ethnicity/culture). 31.20.106.40 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Or maybe even "the stereotypes about people of a specific ethnicity/culture" is not correct, rather individuals that are not claimed to be representative of an entire culture. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)