Talk:Race-reversed casting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Photo negative casting)

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Patrick Stewart
Patrick Stewart
  • ... that Patrick Stewart (pictured) invented photo negative casting in order to play Othello when it had become no longer acceptable to perform the role in blackface? Source: Playbill

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 05:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • - Article is new enough, long enough, policy compliant, and not a COPYVIO. The sources all look reliable. Hook is interesting, within length requirements, and supported by a citation to a reliable source. The sentence the hook appears in in the article is accompanied by a citation to a reliable source. Image is free and used in the article. QPQ done. Good to go. Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I am wary of the page name and also the hook claim. Only The Guardian article calls it "photo negative casting" (and puts that in quotes). The main article, Color-blind casting, does not mention it at all. The latter article, which does not mention this 1997 Othello performance either, cites casting in the 1983 film Never Say Never Again and Batman (1989 film) as earlier examples of this phenomenon. It seems to be a neologism coined by The Guardian, and a discussion of the Othello performance probably belongs in Color-blind casting. Yoninah (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colour blind is where the colour of someone is irrelevant in casting, Photo negative is where the colour of the actors/characters is deliberately reversed. They are two different concepts. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm only finding the term, in quotes, in The Guardian and Brockett. Everywhere else it refers to photography. I'm not convinced that this is a valid page name. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted a request for other editors' opinions at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is a relatively obscure topic, you aren't going to find a lot of hits no matter what term you use. An alternative is "race-reversed casting", which has even fewer Google hits than "photo negative casting", but has the advantage of being a descriptive title which is easily understood without needing to read the article. I'm fine with either term. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, that is a good suggestion. Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you @King of Hearts:, I think that's a good idea so happy for it to be moved. All I would say though is that "Photo negative" should be in the main lead as an alternate title and I'd prefer that it remain in the DYK hook as it was what Sir Patrick called it when he invented it. Would you be OK with that @Yoninah:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The C of E:, yes, but in quotes:
  • ALT1: ... that Patrick Stewart (pictured) invented "photo negative" casting in order to play Othello when it had become no longer acceptable to perform the role in blackface?
  • I'll go ahead and move the page and update this template. Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page moved and template updated. Restoring tick per Hog Farm's review. Yoninah (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about . . .[edit]

"Death of a Salesman" is mentioned, but almost in a 'passing' sort of way.

How about mentioning the most obvious case --- Hamilton ?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indrian has correctly removed mention of Hamilton. This entire article is a very slippery slope and welcomes misinterpretation of not only the title but the concept. I am still in serious doubt that Stewart even "invented" anything new. To me it sounds like an "all or nothing" concept that is being misunderstood as a simple white actor playing a black role - or vice versa. Which I do not think is the basis of this concept or article. Maineartists (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Should Be Deleted[edit]

Wikipedia:Controversial_articles Just the fact that there are no references in the main top section. The article also credits Patrick Stewart to inventing 'Race-reversed casting', no where does it reference him coining the term, therefore how did he create it? If anything director Jude Kelly created the concept, but there's also no mention of her coining the term. How about one reference that has "Race-reversed casting" in it? My point is this is a controversial article which breaks a lot of general guidelines Ecleric (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


After some consideration, I have decided to invoke the procedures of Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion, as per that article, I added "none of the references uses the phrase "Race-reversed casting", after reviewing references, Patrick Stewart never mentioned "Race-reversed casting", this controversial article violates guidelines of Wikipedia:Controversial_articles" to the top of the article, according to that article, this starts the seven days which is required before deletion Ecleric (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the trouble to examine the DYK nomination, you'll notice that the current title was decided as WP:NDESC. I originally had this titled as photo negative casting, which is what the sources say Stewart invented. I'm happy for it to be renamed either way but deletion is absolutely the wrong thing to do just based on a title. Also you shouldn't be using that template in the talk page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am removing that misplaced template but leaving what you put in it intact. But I will also say that WP:Controversial articles is just an essay, it's not a Wikipedia policy and thus cannot be relied upon as a reason for PRODing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view 'just an essay' also? Ecleric (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there a neutrality issue? Also under WP:POVNAMING it says "Some article titles are descriptive" which is what this is The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence 'All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.' Ecleric (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I raise you from NDESC "These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view." Which is what this title does. If you check the above DYK nominations, you'll notice it was originally called Photo negative casting, which upon reading the sources, is what Sir Patrick called it. In fact, watch this interview where he said he came up with that concept. I didn't choose the current title, it was decided by consensus as you see above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not addressing the concerns about why this article should be deleted and have 'moved the goal posts' 4 times, this exchange further proves this article should be deleted and belongs on a wiki where editors can be biased Ecleric (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% for deleting this article. It is a matter of opinion concept that invokes what is happening right now with unnecessary edits. The production should be a mention in another article; if one even exists. Maineartists (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the delete, when you search for "Race-reversed casting" should be redirected to Color-blind casting (Pictured) like how the "blackwashing" does. If you want to take things from this article and add it to the Color-blind casting talk page, go for it, I'd be interested to see if you can credit Patrick Stewart with inventing Color-blind casting in 1997 with no references of him coining the term. I don't have the privileges to pull up the deleted article Wikipedia:Viewing_and_restoring_deleted_pages on "blackwashing", but I'm will to bet you can use the same reasons to delete this article like that one was. Ecleric (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How the blackwashing article was handled

The Wiz[edit]

Ecleric You know you shouldn't be editing in this fashion. The musical The Wiz completely race-reversed their cast years before. The Nutty Professor did not completely 'photo negative' the cast; just certain characters. That is why the musical Hamilton was removed from this article. Pearl Bailey played Hello, Dolly! (musical) along with Cab Calloway in 1967 but that does not fit this concept. If you want to delete the page, please do so. But do not edit based on opinion without proper sourcing. This is non-productive and will result in either a block or page protect. I'll support the deletion. Kind regards, Maineartists (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the article "Race-reversed casting, also called photo negative casting, is a form of non-traditional casting in acting. The concept revolves around reversing the race of characters being played (white characters being played by black actors and vice versa)" Ecleric (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ecleric I understand what you're trying to do. But editing the article in this fashion is not the way to go about it. The article is flawed and invites centuries of applying what this one cherry-picked line suggests. The original article was supposedly based on Stewart's concept of completely race-reversing an entire cast, similar to the Uncle Tom production where the slaves were played by white actors, and "vice versa. If you are trying to prove a point as you stated in your History Summary, this is not how to go about it. Please, again, submit an AfD. I'll support it. Maineartists (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the same justifications to credit Eddie Murphy for 'inventing Race-reversed casting ' as Patrick Stewart previously was, if you want to change the article to 'race-reversed casting' is only when white to black roles, go for it, that needs to be made clear in the top description though Ecleric (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already told you this is an NDESC title and the original title was "Photo negative casting" before consensus agreed. @King of Hearts: and @Yoninah: were involved in that original discussion. If you'd like it changed back to the original, please discuss it here, not by removing sourced information and adding unsourced opinions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Murphy VS Patrick Stewart[edit]

The goal of this section is reach a consensus about who invented blackwashing / whitewashing (Oooops I mean Race-reversed casting) I argue that since it was popularized with Eddie Murphy with the Nutty Professor in 1996. All of Patrick Stewart's claims were done in 1997 with an almost unknown play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecleric (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources, as you have been asked several times before. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide your sources that Patrick Stewart invented it, since you are making the claim and is the current protected edit in the article Ecleric (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) I have already shown you the sources here and if you check the article, there is also this and this this (which does mention race-reversed) plus this interview I already told you about. I have provided sources for my claim, you have not. Also, I'm fairly sure most theatre goers or fans of English literature would be quite offended by you calling Othello an "almost unknown play". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whitewashing_in_film I don't see any Patrick Stewart films here Ecleric (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide your sources. I've provided mine and they are in the article. You've said in the 3RR debate you were about to add them, so you must have some so please add them here so we can see them. Though please bear in mind WP:WINARS. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now I have to take issue. Supposedly, the original title of this page was 'photo negative casting'. These 2 statements within the article are what I consider confusing - "The concept of race-reversed casting was invented by the British actor Sir Patrick Stewart in 1997" - and - (infobox) "Sir Patrick Stewart, inventor of photo negative casting". In this source: here, nowhere does it state specifically what the article is claiming. That is why WP asks for "quotes" in their templates. The C of E, without "interpreting" the text, please glean exactly the line that states: "The concept of race-reversed casting was invented by the British actor Sir Patrick Stewart in 1997" and "Sir Patrick Stewart, inventor of photo negative casting". That, I think, is what Ecleric is asking for. And now, so am I. According to the article, it would seem that John Kelly coined the phrase: "Described by director Jude Kelly as a "photo negative". Maineartists (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the Hollywood Reporter source Stewart says " And then one day, thinking about the play, a notion occurred to me, what if we keep the racial element of the play but we just switch it over". And he even says later on " I want to be in a racially reversed Othello". So it's clear he came up with the idea, it justs didn't have a name yet and later became known as photo negative. It may well have been Kelly who came up with the name, but Stewart came up with the concept. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These quotes need to go into this article. And lines like: "Stewart came up with a concept he called "photo negative" ..." need to be struck. The article is too open for misinterpretation. It has to be less opinion and interpretation of the concept, and just plain hard quotes backed by sources that claim them. Maineartists (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose to merge Race-reversed casting into Color-blind casting. I think that the content in the Race-reversed casting article can easily be explained in the context of Color-blind casting, and the Color-blind casting article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Race-reversed casting will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. This article is referenced as such: "Race-reversed casting is one form of non-traditional casting" and could easily have a section devoted to its content. Maineartists (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object The two are completely different concepts. Colour-blind casting is where skin colour is irrelevant in terms of casting wheras Photo negative casting (as this article was originally named) is where the colour of the characters are deliberately switched. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, thank you for the great idea! Ecleric (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Two completely different concepts”? Building a house and making orange juice are two completely different concepts. “Photo negative casting” is an extension of “race-reversed casting”; which “non-traditionally casting” umbrellas. It all should be in the same article; as the lede states. Maineartists (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Golden Retriever is a type of Dog. What's the difference? It is acceptable to have separate articles on subsets of a main object. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Good point. But the only reason for having separate articles is: length. Similar to an actor's page having a link to their "Filmography". Yes, a Golden Retriever is a Dog and has its own page, but the main space article on Dogs has 10 extensive sections that each have multiple subsections and umbrellas a species of thousands and thousands of different breeds. Obviously that warrants separate pages for each at WP. The page on Golden Retrievers itself has 8 sections (with subsections). The articles we are discussing - this one in particular - does not fall under these characteristics for warranting a separate article; and as WP:Merge states - can easily be absorbed into the original article that deals with the topic. I think, it appears that as this page's original creator, it may be starting to become increasingly difficult to separate oneself from the article itself. I understand that completely. I've proposed the article for a merge; which is not that foreign an idea in a case such as this. You are opposed. I do not see us convincing each other; so I guess the best ideal situation would be to wait for consensus either way. Best. Maineartists (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also object to a merger as I think there should, at this point in time, be two separate articles. They seem to me to be entirely different concepts. Merging them together seems unhelpful, though I'm not fully confident this article has the most appropriate title. Unfortunately here in the UK I can't access some of the sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to oppose the merger too. The question of the title may be a different point to address, but that is a separate issue. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are different concepts and there is no need for any minimum required length for any article. Rmhermen (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle , I have decided to also oppose and keep my original stance that the article should be deleted for lack of references and not following guidelines of a controversial article. If the article stands also recommend this article to be added to Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues Ecleric (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that there are sufficient sources to establish that "race-reversed" aka "photo-negative" casting is a notable concept (which I gather is still contested), then I object to merging it into Color-blind casting. While the two concepts are cleartly related, they are significantly distinct. However, if this topic is not established to be notable on its own, then it could be mentioned as a related concept in Color-blind casting, which would be better than total deletion, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Status?[edit]

There was discussion about removing / fixing this article and it was never done, just doing a follow up. It is interesting that Wikipedia is allowing misinformation like this Ecleric (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race-reversed_casting&oldid=1207175969"