This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:  • Color-blind casting Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:Color-blind casting

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No consensus, 29 November 2022, see discussion. redirect, 26 April 2017, see discussion.

why whitewashing in film page is allowed while blackwashing in film is not? this is racism man!

WP:FALSEBALANCE EvergreenFir (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is racism,it is not a minority point of view,blackwashing if film is a fact,not an opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon barbera (talk • contribs) 19:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then present some reliable sources for it. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive by comment is there any reason this hasn't been at AfD yet? It's mostly unsourced, makes some strong claims which should have equally robust sourcing, and if that was removed, would what's left be worth keeping? I removed some WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS about black women not being English, but I think the whole premise of the article needs reevaluating. What do you think, Drmies? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were more bollocks and I castrated them out. Here is where Simon barbera inserts the old myth of the white Middle Ages (which should be an article!). Send it to AfD: the sourcing is terrible. That Arizona thing is a campus newspaper, and an opinion piece to boot. The Atlanta Black Star is fine but opinionated, and this particular piece is short, very tongue-in-cheek, and not well-written or developed. And EvergreenFir's note on "false balance" is highly valid. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Nevermind. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has already started a discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackwashing in film

• Sorry, ChiveFungi! -but I do support that suggestion, as a compromise, although the sourcing will have to be boned up of course. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]