Talk:Charlie Chan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, which aims to cover topics on Wikipedia related to media franchises. If you would like to join, you can edit the article attached to this talk page, visit our project page, or leave feedback. |    |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here. | ||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
Contents |
[edit] Disambiguation needed?
...from Charles Chan (father of Jackie Chan, non-fictitious).
- But who the hell knows who Charles Chan is? And, even supposing they knew who he was, why would they look for him under the diminutive Charlie?
- Nuttyskin 01:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] commentary
The evaluative commentary in this article is particularly bad, and could use a rewrite. Kellen T 12:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Not disagreeing, but could you be more specific? Tahrlis 16:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's no sources other than a relatively POV piece (if something is said to be "too politically correct" then it's pretty POV), it needs more sources. --ColourBurst 18:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Heavy POV
The most recent edits seems to be nothing but a heavy injection of a POV, and in my opinion, do not contribute to the Charlie Chan article in any particular way. Inserting the word "racist" in every other sentence is hardly a contribution. Perhaps a seperate section detailing the history of the controversy would be appropriate. Twalls 23:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is also POV on the other side. I deleted comments that Charlie Chan shined like a "beacon" and was not negative for Asian Americans. I also deleted the "fact" (no citation) that the DVDs received a good response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.240.239 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RESPONSE
Can I get a ruling on how the concept of "racist" should be applied for future use?
Further, if such "commentary" is considered too POV, there are at least a few lines in the current version that should also be subject to the same review:
"Whether the Chan films of the 1930s and '40s are racially offensive is a matter of personal judgment. But their treatment of Chan was undoubtedly less negative than Hollywood portrayals of other ethnic minorities at the time. Chan, though quaint in his speech and manner, was both the moral and intellectual equal, if not superior, of white characters in the film."
FIRST:
"Whether the Chan films of the 1930s and '40s are racially offensive is a matter of personal judgment."
So is racism altogether a matter of personal judgment only?
IF so, fine.
BUT, the current text goes on to offer a POV: "But their treatment of Chan was undoubtedly less negative than Hollywood portrayals of other ethnic minorities at the time."
Says who? Who's making this judgment? Sounds like a POV, and should be deleted from the entry.
SECOND, the current version also has the line: "Chan, though quaint in his speech and manner, was both the moral and intellectual equal, if not superior, of white characters in the film."
This also sounds like a judgment and a POV. I actually think this sentence is fine, but if it's allowed, there should be another sentence offering a contrary POV, which is to say that while Chan is portrayed with high intelligence and morality, he is also portrayed in caricature, and it is these caricatures that has at least as much of an affect on the audience as his intelligence and morality.
My point is if you allow one POV, you have to allow another.
FINALLY,
There ought to be a larger subsection on the controversial aspect of Charlie Chan. As an Asian American, I can tell you that MOST Asian Americans find Charlie Chan offensive. It isn't simply a matter of POV or of a fringe advocacy group that is making such a claim.
Also, my paragraph on Jessica Hagedorn's book, "Charlie Chan is Dead" ought to be included. It's a fact and a reference, and not a point of view. Edmundlee 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- On other pages where there is some disagreement over racism and sexism, editors have agreed to have attributions used. An example would be, "Edmundlee, a Wikipedia editor charged that the Charlie Chan stories were racist.<ref>[Citation]</ref>" (where Edmundlee is replaced with somebody more notable than you or I). There is a long discussion of this on Talk:Ann Coulter. Rkevins82 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that there are some other POVs in the existing article which could be taken out. You point out some very good examples as well as good material for the controversy section, including the Hagedorn book. The issue I had was with such bold statements early on like - "his portrayal is, in fact, racist." It certainly could be pointed out that many people view the character's portrayal in similar terms, but I think it would fit better in the controversy section. Cheers, Twalls 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
To add on to that - I agree that most Asian Americans find Charlie Chan offensive. I was always under the assumption he was a very controversial character. Should this not be included in the introduction to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.240.239 (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What about the Reservoir Dogs reference?
Harvey Keitel, who plays Mr. White in the movie, mentions Charlie Chan in the movie. Michael Madsen 20:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.165.152 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Lucy Liu playing Charlie Chan
... is the most offensive content in this article.
Aside from continuing the Hollywood practice of pretending that Asian males don't exist -- except as caricatures and gangsters -- they are asking, of all people, the most whitewashed Chinese actor to ever appear on the big screen to play a character that is already perceived as playing into white perceptions of Chinese. Go away Lucy Liu, we don't need any more orange chicken.
- The extent of that content is the announcement of a planned role. What's so offensive about that? And what makes you think she should "go away"? She's a popular actress; you might as well tell moviegoers to stop liking her. Twalls 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Added novel titles
I've added the names of the six novels (it seemed to me as though the original novels were buried under the information about the films, which seemed a little disrespectful to the character's creator). I know there's at least one more that was written under license by Dennis Lynds, and there may be others. Accounting4Taste 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
