Talk:Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs

message: Hold on, now...we can't put captions in the infoboxes for films. I'm going to include more images, and perhaps we can move the caption and reword it. I know this is a very offensive film, but we have to remember our neutral point of view when covering it. 
The cartoon in and of itself doesn't define darky iconography; it was derived from or is based upon it (the only reason the characters appear as they do is becasue it was the standard in Hollywood cartoons at that time). I've reworded it to say "an example of", because the cartoon itself can't be a concept.
Also, the article on blackface covers darky iconography in great detail. What would be wrong with piping or redirecting the link?
--FuriousFreddy 23:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Untitled] 

message: Whether or not this cartoon is "Racist" is a matter of opinon, and should not be presented in this article as though it's a fact.
I do not, IMO, find this cartoon racist. It's stereotypical and satirical, like cartoons are supposed to be, but certainly not racist.
It's not putting down African Americans. It is, rather, celebrating their culture. The way they look is simply an artistic representation of how Bob Clampett himself thinks is most interesting and funny about the African American Culture and People of the time. 
Like Yosemite Sam is a satire of what's most amusing about the Texan stereotype (yes, stereotypes are what satire is built off of. it does not mean that they think all people are like that) "Prince Chawmin" is a satire of famous Black Jazz artists. the only reason this is coined as "racist" is that Clampett's interpretation of the African-American Stereotype slightly resembles those used in "Blackface" routines from only a short time earlier in history.
The difference being that Those "Blackface" routines were oppressive and derogatory, and this cartoon does the exact oppositte of put down Black Americans. (It was, apparently, loved by the black population when it came out)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.236.254 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Too Opinionated

message: Could someone explain the repeated removal of the two images from this article? I've just been replacing them, since the remover has not given any reason; but perhaps there is some subtlety I'm missing? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removal? 

message: Under the controversy section, there's a phrase that runs "in roles that actresses such as Dorothy Dandridge and Lena Horne were forced to play." 
I don't think that it's entirely appropriate to say that professional actresses are forced to play sexy roles.  It's sort of like saying that a chef is forced to cook dinner because that's where the most money is, instead of slinging hash on the breakfast shift at the diner.  As many pharmacists are discovering these days with the controversy around drug-induced abortions, nobody's forcing you to stay in a profession that you disapprove of either morally or politically.
I just haven't figured out a way to re-write the sentence.  I'd like it to communicate the idea that these roles were (unfortunately) what was offered to these women, but without implying that's the only type of role they played (which is inaccurate, and how all of my re-write attempts ended) and also without pretending that they had no choice in the matter (which is how the current version fails).  Other actresses turned down roles like these -- and still do, for that matter.  For example, not every actress does nude scenes, even in this modern era where it's not supposed to be a big deal.  
Anyone have any ideas? 66.124.70.108 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor, but what to say instead? 

message: The following is AWKWARD and should be revised:
Originally, Clampett wanted an all-black band to score the cartoon, the same way Max and Dave Fleischer had Cab Calloway and His Orchestra score the Betty Boop cartoons Minnie the Moocher, The Old Man of the Mountain, and their own version of Snow White. However, Schlesinger refused, and the black band Clampett had hired, Eddie Beals and His Orchestra, only recorded the music for the final kiss sequence. The rest of the film was scored, as was standard for Warner cartoons, by Carl W. Stalling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.136.209 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with it. Perhaps you should change it yourself, to show us what you mean. -- trlkly 08:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward Phrasing 

message: As I mentioned elsewhere the NAACP asked Jack Warner to remove this cartoon from circulation. Their comments need to be stressed and the letter should be quoted from and incorporated into this Wiki article. 
You obviously have some people who want to rationalize their racism by insisting this cartoon is not racist. And some who want to say that this cartoon was "loved by black americans when it was released". 
I love this cartoon. It is hilarious. But it is also racist. So White is dropped off by Murder INC.  They were supposed to bump her off. Instead it appears they are all in love with her. The sexual suggestions are obvious. But you get people in this discussion saying "NO! it was only kissing. That's all you see."  As though the animators could have explicitly shown sexual intercourse if they wanted to. 
Again, the link to the NAACP letter:
http://thadkomorowski.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/naacp-coal-black.pdf
You are compromising you competence and objectivity by not including this in your article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantedia (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO MENTION OF NAACP LETTER TO JACK WARNER 

message: So, in the introductory paragraphs we read that this is a shamelessly racist cartoon which peddles minstrel show stereotypes throughout its duration and consequently blacklisted in 1968. 
Next sentence....
"However, it is often named as one of the best cartoons ever made,[2] in part for its African-American-inspired jazz and swing music, and is considered one of Clampett's masterpieces."
You have got to be kidding me. I think anyone with a decent grasp of English would find the timbre of this entire article needs some serious work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.154.180 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:128.59.154.180 I have completely removed the claim Stephanie921 (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim was sourced to a book. There is no conflict in something being both racist and well-made. See The Birth of a Nation for an example. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What book? And I didn't say there was conflict - you misunderstood me. I agree with that idea (although not for The Birth Of A Nation personally) - a lot of Gone With The Wind is monumentally racist - but it's one of the most technically accomplished films I've ever seen. But that's not the claim being made. The claim was about the short as a whole being one of the greatest cartoons ever - not one of the best animated ones Stephanie921 (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Oh right yh the list came from a book. Sorry I misremembered it as being from an online list. Nevertheless, it's only one list. It does not back up the claim that it "has been included on lists of the greatest animated films ever made", which is about general reception. That idea is contradicted by the rest of the article, and the bootlegged bit is unsourced. Stephanie921 (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Book supported claim. Rated number 21 on list of 1000 is significant. I put article back to way it was before IP and socks started editing article. There was no consensus to do other than remove the socks edits in that last string of edits, one of the edits was by that IP adding an inappropriate genre to the article intro. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The book didn't support the claim. It's one list. The article for Citizen Kane has more sources than the Sight And Sound list. The sock edits were the ones that removed the racist description, everyone else was adding it back Stephanie921 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the IP revision that added the racist description: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1104171903 It was not one of the ones made by a sock. The sock edits begin afterwards, with socks trying to remove the racist description and everyone else adding it back Stephanie921 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone else was reverting the sock edits without examining what the sock did per our WP:BANREVERT policy - the sock is well-known and virulent - everything he does gets reverted no other reason needed. There was no indication of any other motivation than that by those editors, definitely not sufficient to support any other changes to the article caught in the process including removing the WP:NPOV addition. If you don't like the list source, tag it for better source required for the statement, or source doesn't support article. Otherwise don't remove sourced long existing material from the article without discussion and consensus to do so. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What did you mean by the bit "...or source doesn't support article" Stephanie921 (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  is the tag to use if you have looked at the source and didn't find support for the claim. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ty but did I add it in wrong Stephanie921 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Works just like the  tag. Goes after the reference used. Basically means some useful stuff is supported in reference but not everything. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

text: The issue is more  based on your concerns. Basically a generalized statement with only one cite hasn't strong enough support. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truly bizarre phrasing for a wikipedia article 

message: User:Yann has uploaded a review of the subject of this article and added it to the article. I question (1) whether Yann understands what they've uploaded (the video they've uploaded is not by Bob Clampett and was not created in 1943), (2) whether this upload complies with basic copyright law, and (3) assuming it does, whether it would belong in the article at all - we certainly wouldn't include images of newspaper reviews in an article about a cultural product, we would incorporate comment from them into the article (in accordance with whatever sourcing guidelines are relevant), I don't see why this video review would be different.  User:Schazjmd, I appreciate you at least making the caption not a lie. 68.237.27.46 (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree that the media is not a constructive inclusion. The source is listed as public domain on the media page, but this seems to be an error. It is also from an arbitrarily-selected minority source. Even if it was copyright compliant, the video is neither reliable nor notable. Ertal72 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that no one has offered any disagreement, I am going to remove it again. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly questionable video