Jump to content

Talk:12 Years a Slave (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Final fate of Solomon Northrup

[edit]

The article for Solomon Northrup states that after touring as an abolitionist, Solomon Northrup dissapeared a second time. His fate remained forever unknown. The movie ignores this point. The article for this movie should mention that this fact is ignored in the movie. Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It's mentioned at the end.--96.250.5.229 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The credits include text saying the end of his life is not known. -- 109.76.224.73 (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that itself was drawn from Wikipedia as I note here. -- Robert Brockway (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy and Differences from the book

[edit]

I think the historical accuracy section needs some citations and perhaps some pruning. Some of the items in the list do not seem to be differences or errors: not specifically mentioning something in the book, but having a detail in the film does not make it wrong. Regardless, instead of listing differences from the book, I think they should probably just be cited from the source article, so anyone interested can go there instead of having a list here. It may be good to distinguish differences from the book as well as historical inaccuracies for things not neccessarily detailed in the book but put on the screen.AbramTerger (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a writeup of the differences between the book and the movie. I added these differences to the main article, but someone deleted them. There are several fictional scenes in the movie that are not in Solomon Northrup’s account. Obviously these scenes were added to make the film sexually exciting and more melodramatic, at the expense of faithfulness to Solomon’s story. 1. The movie shows a white man in the hold on the slave ship stabbing a slave to death, when in fact no such event is mentioned in the book. 2. The movie depicts nudity at a slave auction, whereas there is no mention of this in the book. 3. The movie depicts Solomon having sexual relations with another slave, but Solomon’s book makes no mention of such relations. 4. The movie depicts Solomon as having a rope around his neck and tied to a tree limb, when in actuality Solomon says he had “the rope still dangling from my neck”. The rope was not tied to the tree limb. 5. The movie shows Solomon coming upon a lynching of two slaves in the woods, whereas there is no such event in the book. 6. The movie shows the slave Patsy asking Solomon to end her life, but there is no such event in the book. 7. The movie depicts Solomon as destroying his violin near the end of the movie, when in fact he makes no mention of such an act in the book.

In contrast to this, significant events in Solomon’s account are not shown at all in the film. For example, when Solomon arrived in bondage at New Orleans, a white sailor agreed to mail a letter for Solomon. This letter was sent to and received by Henry Northrup, who shared the letter with Solomon’s wife. In this manner she knew that her husband had been enslaved. But the film has the viewer believe his wife had no knowledge of his condition for 12 years. Another significant event not shown in the movie was Solomon’s several day successful escape into the swamps to flee the wrath of the carpenter Tibeats.

Also not shown in the film is the cooperation of various white officials to secure Solomon’s release from slavery. These officials included Governor Hunt of New York State; Congressional Senator Soule of Louisiana; the Secretary of War; Judge Nelson of the U.S. Supreme Court; local lawyer John Waddill of Marksville, Louisiana, along with the local judge and local sheriff.

Also not shown was the arrest and trial of the slave dealer James H. Burch of Washington D.C. who originally enslaved Solomon.

I consider these differences to be significant. Perhaps the movie credits should acknowledge that the movie is a fictionalized account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickvale (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting difference is that the film does not mention, as Solomon recounts, that slaves were paid if they were required to work on Sundays or holidays, and that in his own case he also retained the money he received when working as a musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm sorry, but who is responsible for linking this article to white savior narrative in film? This is a massive insult to both Solomon Northup and Steve McQueen to reduce one the few films about slavery that doesn't end up being all about some white guy as a white savior film. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been trying to remove 12 Years a Slave (film) from white savior narrative in film despite sources identifying a white savior in the film. Discussion at Talk:White savior narrative in film#12 Years a Slave has not gone favorably for the editor, so they are engaging in WP:FORUMSHOP to find the result they want, which is based strictly on their POV. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, shut up! Can you point me to the sources on this article that states that this fall under the white savior narrative? Seriously, tell me. Other than those two links where one of them reads likes an advertisement for a different film, and the other one is from a white guy. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Careful. Do stay civil. Dschslava (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I just don't like how a very necessary article is being controlled by this one guy. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See main discussion here. Dschslava (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere we can call a vote, calling 12 years a slave a white saviour narrative is quite frankly ridiculous, and perhaps even borderline offensive. He saves himself, he could have given up in the film at any point, but he never did. It is based off a true story, is history a white saviour narrative now? isn't that an absolutely abhorrent view to uphold?

Soloman is kidnapped and forced into slavery by white people, and in the end his character and personality leads him to befriend a man who can help him win back his freedom, the man who helps him is white but that is no consolation to Soloman he still got enslaved in the first place. Freeing someone from slavery in no way makes up for the fact they were enslaved in the first place, because they should never have been enslaved. This isn't really a white saviour narrative, by any sane definition. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Fdsdh1, reliable sources write about the white-savior element in the film. Wikipedia follows these sources. We cannot bring our POV into it. Based on what I've read, though, white savior films include "good" whites saving nonwhites from "bad" whites (Mississippi Burning being one such example). Historical films qualify too because of the creative choices made, such as in The Blind Side, the black character is portrayed as having to be taught football by the white character even though the real-life figure already knew how to play. For this particular film, there are many sources about this element that the link definitely warrants inclusion as a tangentially related topic per WP:SEEALSO. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big ass difference between The Blind Side and 12 Years a Slave and you know it!. Don't you dare compare one of the few films to show the horrors of slavery that spends most of its time focusing on the kidnapped black guy with a film that's all about how great Sandra Bullock is for helping out this black guy. I seriously doubt that you have seen this film, Erik! And stop trying to link your poorly written articles to every fucking film! 2600:8800:5100:38E:3D55:2B40:175D:FCA8 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proponents of keeping the category have supplied a number of sources supporting doing so here, where I'm providing a link because the discussion is now archived. The term "white savior" does sound somewhat smug or condescending, but it's true that Northup couldn't have relied on just his own wits and fortitude to get out of his predicament. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The film focuses on Solomon Northrup! It's one thing to say that the film has a white savior; it's another thing to claim that the film focuses on the white savior. 2600:8800:5100:38E:B10C:BA23:AD32:CB92 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2600, please read our policy on edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, people. Do you guys actually want a conversation or not? Because I am getting sick of people reverting my edits on account of "please see the talk page" when every conversation goes nowhere. It is so frustrating that just removing a link in the "see also" suction is causing so much trouble. You guys are acting like I'm removing a section from this article. Actually, if you want to be so hard ass against the removal of a fucking link, you can at least add a small section about the small group of people who claims that 12 Years a Slave is a white savior film when the term "white savior" doesn't even appear in this fucking article! 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it here as well. Start an WP:RFC. You'll get a broader range of opinions that way because of the Feedback request service. Then we can get a solid read on what the consensus is. clpo13(talk) 16:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's sound a lot of work just to remove one fucking link, man. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're getting nowhere with a regular discussion. Clearly the people currently invested in this page oppose removing it. So you'll either have to bring in new opinions or accept that the link isn't going to go away. clpo13(talk) 16:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just declined a request to semi-protect this article - the next admin might just think protecting would be the easiest thing to do. Starting a RFC seems to be your best course of action. --NeilN talk to me 16:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I JUST WANT ONE FUCKING LINK REMOVED FROM THE "See also" SECTION. WHY DO I NEED TO START AN WP:RFC JUST FOR THAT? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because other editors do not want what you want. --NeilN talk to me 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But why is everyone acting like I'm removing a large chunk of the article? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about how much content is removed - it's about how important other editors consider the content to be. In this case removing even that one line probably gives the appearance of bias (regardless of whether or not there is any), and that's why it's controversial, and requires extra discussion. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not large but it's important because "white savior" is a term used by a number of reviewers to characterize the film and because it's not mentioned elsewhere. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not mentioned elsewhere." That's the problem: NOT ONCE DOES THE TERM "WHITE SAVIOR" EVER POPS UP IN THIS ARTICLE. If you're going add a link that requires me to get a RFC, you can at least add something to justify it, instead of being butthurt whenever someone tries to remove it. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
What an odd conversation. I will close this saying something like "there seems to be agreement that it is valid to mention it in the article in which case a 'See also' link isn't necessary". So, there seems to be agreement that it is valid to mention it in the article in which case a "See also" link isn't necessary. I have taken it upon myself to revert Erik's revert of Erik's edit, thus reinstating the mention in the article, and I removed the link from the See also section. BTW, how this claim could be controversial is entirely unclear to me, given the enormous amount of highly reliable sourcing on the topic; the IP editor who has been arguing very loudly against the trope in the first place (here and in White savior narrative in film) seems to be...well...POV. As an editor, my suggestion to Erik would be to play it up a bit more in the text: if it is this important it might well deserve a separate subsection under "Historical accuracy" or some other place like that--I'm surprised that there is no separate section for "Theme" or so. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the White savior narrative in film wikilink in the "See also" section be removed? --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC) (for IP)[reply]

  • Comment: Hi. As the editor who has de facto requested the RFC, my main problem with having the White savior narrative in film wikilink is that, other the link itself, not once does the term "white savior" ever appears in this article. If we are going have such a contentious link on this page, (and I am sorry to burst your bubble, people, but if someone had added the White savior narrative in film wikilink around March 2, 2014, I would far be the only person trying to get that link removed) at least have a small paragraph in the "reception" section about how some people dismissed this movie as a "white savior narrative". 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "Wsnif" link in the "See also" section. It is a relevant article. BTW the IP may want to read WP:ALSO section of the MOS where it states "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Thus the fact that the phrase is not mentioned in the article means that the MOS is being followed correctly. MarnetteD|Talk 20:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is relevant, it should be discussed in the article, as it is obviously a controversial claim. The "See also" link looks like an uncontested label and goes to page where no opposing viewpoints are seen. 202.81.248.163 (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. My feeling is this is a POV opinion/perception, and shouldn't be placed prominently on the film's See Also. If need be, wikilink to it within a discussion in the Reception section, as the opinion of those few reviewers/commentators who took that approach -- and See Alsos should not replicate what is linked within the body text. I see no reason for Wikipedia, in Wikipedia's voice, to state or imply (as a prominent See Also would) that the film is definitively a "white savior narrative". The opinon should be stated in the reviewer's voice(s), not Wikipedia's. I also do not like the precedent set that every time someone creates a coatrack-y opinion article on Wikipedia (and I've seen them proliferate of late), all of the titles/items mentioned in it (with or without good sourcing) get spammed with that link in their See Also sections. Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, Fru1tbat: There are numerous sources mentioning the white savior element, and I link to the sources in my comment below. The "See also" section is for tangentially related topics, and the white savior is especially related. It is not mere controversy; it is a sociological topic with an authoritative book, The White Savior Film, by sociologist Matthew Hughey. Based on the sources, the white savior could be discussed in the article body along with other critical commentary. It would be undue weight to call 12 Years a Slave a "white savior film" in the opening sentence, but the "See also" section is in the article footer after everything else. It is a jumping board to explore tangentially related topics. In addition, the cross-navigation is regardless of the topic, films on a list should be inter-linked. We should not shy away from that because of simplistic assumptions on editors' part crying racism when secondary sources (which Wikipedia follows instead) are discussing the element in the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not debating the validity of the topic itself. I'm saying that the characterization of a film as a representation of the narrative, which is apparently not a universally agreed-upon characterization, should be discussed in context with sources, not merely linked as a "related topic", which I feel could be misinterpreted. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fru1tbat, that's fair. What about something like this with a similar description? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: Per Softlavender. Placing a link to a controversial interpretation in "see also" could be seen as giving validation/weight, and we should be going out of our way to avoid that. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If grouping this film with other white savior narratives in film is controversial, then that argument should be made at the linked list, and the film removed there first, if consensus dictates. For editors of this article to judge for themselves without making that argument and gaining that consensus risks leaving the encyclopedia in an inconsistent state, where others are apt to try to re-add the link in the future. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your desire that the encyclopedia remain consistent would be satisfied just as well by the point being discussed in prose rather than placed without context in "see also". --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would, as long as the discussion wasn't all about second-guessing placing the film as a white-savior narrative. Without the discussion, the See Also link is appropriate, and shouldn't warp people's impression of the film. As has been said, See Also is for articles that relate tangentially to the subject. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there are people out there (like me) who don't think that the link has nothing to do with this article. And again, how hard is it to just have a tiny paragraph about how some critics saw this as a white savior narrative? I have never seen a group of people who feel so strongly about wanting to keep a link in the See Also section, but can't be bothered to actually make it apart of the main article. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume that "don't think" should be "think" (or "nothing" s/b "anything"). In any case, there's nothing stopping someone, such as yourself, proposing wording for such a paragraph, as Erik has now done. And the RfC is expressly for the purpose of finding out who out there thinks the way you do. So far, it seems evenly split, although without much participation. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because at minimum, it is a tangentially related topic, as evidenced by the sources for it on the list article. There are also numerous sources mentioning the white savior in the film; see a list here: Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 2#Additional sources. However, the film's article itself could discuss the white savior element as part of an analysis of the characters, linking to the article in prose instead of the "See also" section. It would require some devoted writing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC) (I've added the sources and the relevant quotes below to show that it is definitely tangentially related at the very least)[reply]
Sources mentioning "white savior" in 12 Years a Slave
  • Houston, Shannon M. (March 4, 2014). "12 Years a Slave Versus Lee Daniels' The Butler: What the Academy Still Needs to Get Right About Black Narratives in Film". Paste. But we watch 12 Years knowing that Solomon's only way home is to gain the ear of a good-hearted white man. This is absolutely not a critique of the narrative, which is, for one, based on Northup's own memoirs. And as our own critic Annlee Ellingson notes, there really was no other way: 'As nuanced as Cumberbatch and Fassbender are in their performances, though, their respective archetypes as kindly and cruel are clear-cut, and when producer Brad Pitt shows up on the scene as a Canadian abolitionist, he's positively angelic, a downright savior—and white. (But then what other honest outcome could there be? This isn't a Quentin Tarantino revenge fantasy, after all.)'
  • Joseph, Peniel E. (January 15, 2015). "If You Think Selma's Snubbing Is a Fluke, Think Again. The Oscars Have Stiffed Lots of Black Films". The Root. For the kind of white protagonist (read: hero) that enables white voters to identify with films presenting black subject matter. Even 12 Years a Slave provided white characters that allowed contemporary mainstream audiences to relate, even if simply through an act of personal revulsion that allowed 21st-century liberals a measure of moral superiority.
  • Johnson, Gregory (January 17, 2014). "Opinion: On '12 Years A Slave', 'The Butler' And Hollywood's 'White Savior' Obsession". Vibe. Hollywood has become obsessed with revenge tales of bondage and servitude like 12 Years a Slave and The Butler. But why aren't depictions of blacks removing their own chains getting the big-screen treatment? ... Well, no knock on Quentin Tarantino, Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz and the like for directing or portraying decent, redeemable white characters. But those films still require a sympathetic Caucasian hero to justify their existence.
  • Seewood, Andrew. "Black Film Theory: Fighting the Illusions of White Supremacy in Cinematic Narration - Part Two". Shadow and Act. Indiewire. ...Solomon is liberated from slavery through the benevolence of a White carpenter named, Samuel Bass (Brad Pitt); a White savior.
  • Hobson, Janell (October 24, 2013). "Healing from Historic Trauma: '12 Years a Slave'". Ms. We are fortunate to have McQueen's honest eye and take-no-prisoners approach to filmmaking on this subject, not to mention the willingness of Brad Pitt, doubling as 'white savior' in both his minimal role in the film and his role as a film producer, to finance it.
  • Moore, A. (September 7, 2014). "8 Memorable Films About Slavery: What They Got Right and What They Got Wrong". Atlanta Black Star. The film's use of actor Brad Pitt to satisfy Hollywood's desire for a 'white savior,' came off as self-serving. 'It's all so credibly enacted that once Brad Pitt (whose Plan B productions produced the film) arrives in a bit part as a kind-hearted Canadian who visits the plantation and speaks out against slavery, the character's messianic qualities seem like a bit much,' wrote Indiewire film critic Eric Kohn.
  • Anthony, Iva (February 5, 2014). "Classic White Savior Movies: 12 Years a Slave". Madame Noire. In 1841, New York-born freeman Solomon Northup was kidnapped and enslaved for 12 years before finally earning his freedom. His memoir was turned into Steve McQueen's biopic 12 Years A Slave. Northup tried over and over to prove who he really was but it fell on deaf ears until a Canadian carpenter risked his life to help him out.
  • Gittell, Noah (December 24, 2014). "'Selma' and Saviors". Los Angeles Review of Books. Too many of these films continue to rely on a regressive archetype known as the 'white savior,' a character who uses his or her elevated position of power to help blacks escape from poverty, servitude, or outright slavery. It's Emma Stone in The Help, Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, or Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey in 42. Even a film as progressive as 12 Years a Slave cannot escape the trope. In the end, Solomon Northup becomes free due to the actions of a white contractor who visits his plantation and takes up his case.
  • Couch, Aaron; Washington, Arlene (February 22, 2014). "NAACP Image Awards: The Winners". The Hollywood Reporter. David Oyelowo, who won a supporting actor award for The Butler, said this year's field of African-American centered films was incredibly strong. 'To have films like The Butler, 12 Years a Slave, Fruitvale Station and Mandela -- all that have black protagonists with no white savior character holding their hand through the movie is a huge stride forward,' he told THR. (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)
  • Mozaffar, Omer M. (August 13, 2014). "History of Film: 'Lawrence of Arabia'". Movie Mezzanine. Speaking of the White Saviors of Hollywood cinema, many will recognize its obvious influences on such films as Avatar and Dances with Wolves. To be fair, as frequently as the film praises his endeavors leading the Arabs, it also critiques it, commenting that a British foreigner came in and created a mess of the Arabs. But, that recurring thread of the Caucasian elite helping the vulnerable persons of color streams through such modern films as Elysium, The Blind Side, and Django Unchained. Even 12 Years a Slave finds its White Savior in Brad Pitt. But even then, these were all, to varying degrees, emotionally successful films.
  • Holman, Curt (December 25, 2014). "A confident historical drama, 'Selma' doesn't waste a second". Creative Loafing. On the other hand, the out-of-nowhere celebrity appearances, like Cuba Gooding Jr. and Martin Sheen as a lawyer and a judge, respectively, feel kitschy and distracting, if not as obtrusive as Brad Pitt's white-savior turn at the end of 12 Years a Slave.
Sneed, Timothy. "A Year After Trayvon Martin, Who Is Leading the Race Conversation?". U.S. News & World Report. '12 Years a Slave' won the Academy Award for best picture. However, doubts still lingered about its ability to truly bring about a newfound racial consciousness among a national, mainstream audience... The film also was a period piece that featured a happy ending ushered in by a 'white savior' in the form of Brad Pitt's character.
I would like to point out that Erik is the same editor who was responsible for adding the link in the first place, and is also the main author of the white savior narrative in film article. By the way, Erik, way to reveal yourself that you're too lazy to even add your "findings" to the main article. All it would take is one paragraph! 2600:8800:5100:38E:35B0:664A:1171:4151 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "lazy" because the right inclusion of prose about the white savior trope involving assessing all the critical commentary about this film. This article does not include sources like this or this, and I would not want to shoehorn in prose just about the white savior element. Per WP:SEEALSO, the section can have links to tangentially related topics until the article is improved to Featured Article status, at which point it is likely that the white savior element is discussed as part of the whole picture and no longer needs placement in the "See also" section at the end. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, for the last time, not everyone thinks that your article relates to this film. And if you want to keep harping on those same sources, ADD THEM TO THIS ARTICLE. The fact that this link is the only thing that talks about this trope suggests that no, you're just lazy. You're lucky that 12 Years a Slave doesn't have a massive fandom like The Matrix and Stargate, meaning that I'm the only person who is actively trying to remove this link. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained why I do not want to shoehorn in prose only related to the white savior trope. The "See also" section is the permissible manner in which to make the connection (because there is indeed a tangential relationship). For example, this article has no section devoted to the portrayal of race, in which the trope could be discussed. I do not find the sources' content to be a counterpoint to the excellent reviews that the film got (since it is more a social commentary matter), so I do not think there is a place in the article to discuss the trope. Excuse me for not wanting to devote time and research on all social commentary pertaining to this film to write that up and to write up about the trope as well, because that is what it takes. The very nature of a "See also" section is to list links that would be out of place in an underdeveloped article. In a developed article, the link would already be included in the article body and not be part of the "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only you thinks there is a tangential relationship between your article and this movie (and I think that this is really important to point out that the "white savior narrative in film" article is de facto your work). Erik, there is a sentence in the reception section that is about some Black guy being tried of having these black struggle films; I DON'T THINK IT'S HARD TO HAVE ONE SENTENCE ABOUT SOME GUY WHO THINKS THIS IS A WHITE SAVIOR FILM. You know what I think Erik? I think that you don't want to deal with having people disagree with your analysis, so you're content with just slapping a link to your article in the see also and getting really mad whenever someone tries to remove it. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see the big list of sources above that mention the white savior trope in this film? If it was one or two sources, that would be too minimal. But there are over a dozen sources identifying the trope. Stop obfuscating the discussion in making it about me. I've added a sentence at the end of the "Critical response" section even though I find it very much out of place. Feel free to move that sentence to a more appropriate spot. If others are okay with it, then we can take the link, now redundant, out of the "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since Erik's article is now linked in the text, it should be removed from the "see also" links. You can't have it both ways. I'd do it myself if I thought it would stand for more than 10 seconds. 202.81.248.232 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the RfC is still ongoing, I've reverted myself. We can link to the diff to show how the link could be incorporated into the article body. Editors here can view the diff here (at the end of the "Critical response" section). Pinging editors here who have weighed in: MarnetteD, Softlavender, Fru1tbat, Dhtwiki. Would this insertion be more acceptable than either having a link in the "See also" section or having no link anywhere? (As I've stated above, I'm wary of shoehorning in the link.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not comfortable with a bare see also link, and while accompanying it with some explanatory text (as you suggested above) is a bit better, I think your edit here is the best solution. The wording could be changed, or it could be moved, but even left alone I think I prefer it to the alternatives. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also agreeable to handling it this way, and the wording, the context, seems fine to me. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I agree with Softlavender, if the sourcing is strong enough, this link belongs in 'criticism', in the voice of the reviewer. See also's are meant to be closely related subjects not 'pointy' comments on the film 'piggy-backing' their way into the article and definitely not both in the criticism and 'see also'. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since editors appear to be agreed above there are enough RS criticisms to include a para of text in 'criticism/reaction', which would include the link, why is a 'see also' preferred? Sorry but this is borderline wasting RfC-ers time which could be spent framing apt text. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, it is not that the "See also" section is preferred. It was what was in existence before, and an editor wanted to exclude the link entirely. Apparently now they are okay with it being in the article body. As I stated above, I find the write-up a bit shoehorned in and hope that it will not be "contentious" down the road. If that becomes the case, the link will have to go back to the "See also" section unless the article can be written further to comment more about the portrayal of race and to include the trope as part of that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is strong-ish, why not simply add a sentence to the criticism, there the criticism has context and is not dissimilar to other criticisms of the film. 'See also' doesn't seem the way forward, it isn't a related subject, it a clear (minority perhaps but valid), opinion about this particular film. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had added a sentence briefly as seen here. Do you find that sufficient? (I reverted myself while the RfC is still pending.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from "See also", but keep in article: I think that the topic should be brought up within the article, as has been already stated. Perhaps, rather being featured prominently in "See also", it could be placed in a "Themes" section. –Matthew - (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep According to the relevant guidelines, "whether a link belongs in the See also section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Moreover, "the See also section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Which means that the lack of related citations in the article's text about the "white savior" narrative is NOT an obstacle, and we should not feel "uncomfortable" about such lack. There is every reason to include this wikilink in the See also section; the extensive list provided above by Erik is quite conclusive. The list, and other related info, also provide material that could and should be added to the article, without this affecting the See also items. -The Gnome (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:12_Years_a_Slave_(film)&oldid=1265037265"