Jump to content

Talk:Magical Negro/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Gloria Dump in "Because of Winn Dixie" does not fit the description.

Gloria Dump in "Because of Winn Dixie" has no special powers, and is simply one of many of the outcasts befriended by Opal in the film. Like each of the main characters, she has had a difficult past, is socially isolated from the rest of the town, and is seen by others as a frightening misfit. Like the other characters, she gives Opal advice based on her experiences, but there is nothing special or vaguely magical about her advice, and each of the other characters gives Opal advice, too. In the end, rather than Gloria saving Opal or anyone else, Opal saves Gloria and the rest of the town, bringing Gloria and the rest of her new friends together, so that each of them is not alone anymore. The magical presence in the story is the dog, Winn Dixie, (and the candy, which was given her by Miss Franny). Gloria Dump is just another of the characters helped by Opal and Winn Dixie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.112.129 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama section

Do we really need an entire section on Obama, this seems a little bit of undue weight. Also, Obama has no real relevance to this idea other than being used this way in some op-ed? Will this section be relevant in 10 years? Thoughts? - cohesion 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it has undue length due to the (jaw-droppingly) stunning and explicit use of the term in modern discourse (if one may imbue that column with such a description). It really ought to be at most a paragraph under examples, and isn't purely because it is about Obama. (dramahh after all...) Shenme (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Its probably not good practice to use current political figures as examples, lest we start to drift away from neutrality. Obama should be mentioned next to the fact that there is already a wiki page dedicated solely to him (Barack the Magic Negro) so its not like were are blazing the trail. I think it was also puzzling that the concept of whites choosing a black superior in any case was not mentioned as a interpretation of the magical negro. They use this action to relieve the guilt and memory of slavery and later oppression, and thus eliminating any perceived racial discrimination (I suppose this can be a genuine or not). LarsendeSLO (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be highly notable, and fascinating, if a commentator (spike lee? bill moyers? the ghost of joseph campbell or carl jung or mark twain?) on psychology wrote about the idea that barack obama represented this archetype. of course, he isnt ACTUALLY this archetype, no real person is ever fully an archetype, just like no fictional character is definable in one way (as they are made up, and even when the author says "he aint that" according to postmodern textual analysis the readers interpretation becomes part of the meaning of the text, regardless of authorial intent). but, no, we cant mention him here unless others comment on the potential connection.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
well duh, weve already linked to someone doing this. my mistake, didnt read before writing here. love the feedback loop created by the latimes reference...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


What is the point of this article? If anything this is the prime reason people are starting to lose faith with wiki no matter how many sources there are. -To lazy to log in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.93.145 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Field of Dreams

I hate to start yet another dispute over the examples, but I really think James Earl Jones' character in Field of Dreams doesn't fit the definition. He has a well-defined past, and does not simply appear; Costner's character deliberately seeks him out. When he first appears he is actually very cynical and irritable. Nor is he magical in himself; he is simply caught up in the magical events affecting all the characters. Unless somebody objects, I will delete this example in a week or so.

A. Parrot (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lothar from Mandrake

How about Lothar from Mandrake the Magician? -- 212.213.204.99 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfairly Marginalize?

I am pretty sure that "unfairly marginalize" (what the heck does that mean anyway?) is not a valid reason to remove material that otherwise complies with WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and is presented in WP:NPOV manner. I have returned it.Trout Ice Cream (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Including the character of Bagger Vance

It shows ignorance on the part of the writer, first off the story of Bagger Vance is a retelling of the Bhagavad Gita, in which Krishna, an avatar of Vishnu, and considered to be God by many Hindus, imparts knowledge about the soul and existence to his follower Arjuna. The reason for using a black man is because Krsna literally means black or dark in sanskrit. The reason for being the caddie to R Junah, is because in the Gita Krishna offered his services to Arjuna as his charioteer while his army served the opposing force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.53.86 (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dobby from Harry Potter??!

I've removed Dobby from Harry Potter from the list of "magical negroes". The character was a computer animated elf, not a black human, and the only reference for this claim was a message board post written in French. You might as well call Jar-Jar Binks a magical negro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.46.143 (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Jar Jar Binks is the PERFECT example. Since he (and Dobby, for that matter,) embody the archtype in manner that supports the negative connotations associated with the term. Examples like Morpheus and God are really just magical characters who happen to be both black and not the subject of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.36.252 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Just what part of No original research do you not understand? — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, a lot of those examples do seem to just be supporting characters that HAPPEN to be black. There is a clear difference between the character role and type of John Coffee (spelling?) from the Green Mile and Morpheus from The Matrix. That seems to be just common sense. Some one should REALLY think about using common sense to decide which one of those is really a "magical negro" character.71.182.38.154 (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese example

Someone has challenged the section on Magical Negro in Chinese literature as sourced by Snow as "not being what the article is about". Please more fully disuss your reasoning here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"The magical negro (sometimes called the mystical negro or magic negro) is a term generally used to describe a supporting, often mystical stock character in fiction who, by use of special insight or powers, helps the white protagonist get out of trouble." Do you think this describes "Kun lun" characters in Chinese literature from the Tang dynasty? If the author of this book actually refers to these characters as "magical negros" then its justifiable, but otherwise it's just original research, lumping together two archetypes that are seperated by very different contexts and 1000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.240.91 (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The material asserted that, these African slaves were portrayed as having supernatural strength and the power to invade people's dreams to reveal great knowledge. That certainly seems to cover the fact that the people concerned were "negroes" and that there were seen as having magical powers. The material goes on to describe the two uses of these black people with magical powers in Chinese literature. While they are helping Chinese people instead of Caucasions, the rest of it seems consistent with the modern definition of "magic negro". I'm going to restore the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I certainly hopes it remains in the article, and will be saving the present version in case it doesn't. In fact, I like to see the article expanded far beyond its present constraint to a parochial American view with a sop to Chinese African slaves to a worldview of magical black men who fit the same general criteria. Thailand's magical black man is really golden, but when he assumes his black guise, he perforce takes on the stereotypical behaviors of indigenous Negritos [not Africans], gets the girl rather than loses her, and saves fair-skinned though not truly white-racy people; but otherwise fits the role of the magical negro. If only the African-American parochial bias can be toned down a bit, magical black men from all not-inherently-black cultures may be admitted. And maybe contrasted with magical fair-skinned people in dark-skinned cultures (Thailand has those, too.) Pawyilee (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Seabiscuit

Hi. In the film Seabiscuit there is a character that is by Red Pollard when he is about to recover together with the horse. I wonder if he would qualify as a Magical Negro character. If so, shouldn't we include him? Thanks. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As is stated very clearly in No more examples, please, you need to find a WP:RS reference to cite in order to include an example, otherwise your contributiopn violates No original research ... Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Too Much Focus On Magic

The "magic negro" isn't necesarily magical... Maybe 'mystical'... The archetype that best shows the concept is the wise old janitor that Mr. T spoofs in 'Not Another Teen Movie'. It's not that he has an actual magic power, but that he's a wise old sage of a character who pops up and gives a piece of advice or insight that 'magically' helps the protagonist. 67.103.26.174 (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Magic Johnson

An editor(s) has been removing Magic Johnson because our source " does not include him on the list, in fact he specifically says "And that's not to mention..." anyone who has the name Magic" and "A bad joke? Just because his name is "Magic" doesn't mean he deserves mention here" and "Not really the genesis of the "Magic" in "Magic Johnson". Especially since the nickname predates any use of the phrase "magic negro") "

However, this is what our source says: "As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic — embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is "Magic."(emph added).

I believe that our source is indeed identifying Magic Johnson as a Magical Negro. It makes no difference whether or not "Magic" got his nickname before or after the Spike Lee "popularized" the term - our source is making the connection post-Spike Lee. WP:V. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe we're having this discussion, but it's pretty clear by the context that he is saying that he is "not" mentioning Johnson who, coincidentally, has the nickname "Magic." I'm really not sure what the fight is over here, or why you're pushing so hard to add Johnson's name, but you don't seem to be trying to add Scatman Crothers Don Cheadle or Michael Clark Duncan to the list. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not adding the other names because the source has identified them in the context of "chiefly cinematic — embodied by such noted performers" i.e. the source is not identifying the actual human being as a magical negro but the characters they have played in fictional "cinematic performances".
The phrase "not to mention" is not used literally in American English, in this context the author is identifying Magic Johnson as different than cinematic names he has just mentioned. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

African guy in Heroes?

Should he get his own mention? (JoeLoeb (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

No, see No more examples, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.115.120 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism/Literary Community's Response?

Does anyone know what actual scholars think about this concept? I ask this for several reasons:

1. Spike Lee and some newspaper columnists represent pop culture and current fads rather than rigorous academic study. I am not saying what they say doesn't matter, because it definitely has a place in wikipedia. Instead I am stating that maybe this idea should be put into better context. I do not see any peer-reviewed journals on our list of references. What does the literary community think of this idea? The introduction to this article suggests that the 'magical negro' is a well-known term and device...yet I had to come here to learn about it, having never heard of it in film, English, or history class!

2. The examples list (I see others have noticed this) is really long and very vague. It seems like a laundry list of helpful black characters rather than any sort of stereotype. Many of the characters here *are* quite shallow, but not all. More importantly, there are significant differences in their 'powers,' their role in the story, and their personalities. What I am getting at here is this: Does the long list represent this concept's overuse by the media or by Wikipedians or both? Is there any criticism of its overuse?

Just some thoughts by a reader.

Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.72.39 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I read this article, but have not researched Spike Lee's list. I think the reason people are finding it difficult to pin down is because Spike got it wrong. It's a classic dramaturgical element which if I were a scholar I could give you the name of. Classical forms of storytelling (especially Tragedy and Comedy but also consider the Bible) include characters who predict the future--think of "the witches" in Shakespeare's Macbeth--the reason being, you can't have Fate without prediction. These characters are generally shown as mysterious and "different" in some way, so gypsies, vagabonds, hobos etc. Today, Hollywood frequently finds it convenient to use black characters, probably for a number of reasons, e.g. to create a minority role, but also the cultural backdrop of African religions like voodoo and witchdoctors, the associations with black/night/black magic, sexuality etc. Without the "magic negro" archetype, that character would still be in the story anyhow, it would just not be a black character. But it's not simply a white Western bias, there is plenty of third world fascination with blind soothsayers, etc. Witch doctors and "medicine men" wear bones and whatnot, so you can see it more reflects stereotypes rather than creates them, but yes it can be seen to keep them alive as well. But it is ignorant to think it's "a black thing" and ignore all the times when that character is not black, one example,Fisher King, but also frequently an old white bag lady, jewish pawn shop owner, or arab merchant in a bazaar, or chinese tchotchke dealer; it's not going to be Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas, or Paul Newman, but it's not going to be Denzel Washington either. 96.224.41.174 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
my contribution to this discussion was in answer to a direct question, and it was completely on topic and it does improve the chances for this article to get better, yet it was deleted? And this note was posted to me "as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Magical negro are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)" Sorry Summer... or Spike? Spike, is that you? Did I hit a raw nerve or something? This talk page is filled with pretty shaky contributions. You should respond to what I wrote substantively on the topic rather than censoring and being destructive. 96.224.41.174 (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
So in conclusion if you haven't followed, my suggestion for improving the article for the above reason that the concept is broken, is to keep the article strictly to what Spike Lee said, and to not try to make the case for the term by citing other examples. For instance, in the article at present you see Morgan Freeman cited as playing God which seems to fit the archetype, but when you consider that George Burns also played God, the idea devolves into the racist concept that black actors cannot be cast as God lest they be considered to be Magical Negroes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.41.174 (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The "direct question" was on topic: "Does anyone know what actual scholars think about this concept?" Your off-topic answer was to give your thoughts on the subject. For example, the article cites 3 reliable sources for the idea that Freeman's God fits the "magical negro" trope. Your opinion that it is a "racist concept" is uncited. Your opinion does not factor into the article, what reliable sources say is what matters. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WOO HOO, MORE EXAMPLES!!

Samuel L. Jackson from Die Hard!! First guy I thought of. And in 1408 too I guess...wait...I don't remember if he was African in the book. I don't think he dies though. S'all I got. Real life examples could be Paul Rusesabagina...You know...The guy in the movie Hotel Rwanda. (12:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Can I request Morgan Freeman's 'Seven' entry be removed?

Just because David Ehrenstein reckons he's an example of the Magical Negro (in an article that references the page in the first place) doesn't mean he's right. Freeman is the MAIN character of Seven. In fact the film could be likened more to a classic old experienced cop and young hot-headed sidekick doomed to get killed. Just because Morgan Freeman is black doesn't change that fact that Pitt's is a tragic secondary character to Freeman's and it's clearly Freeman's character's film. At the end he fails to help out the white character. It's a different spin on things.TheoGB (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a basis that the Ehrenstein piece is not reliable? Or someone else contradicting his analysis? Wikipedia is in the position of creating articles based on what is published, not what is true. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
But let's examine the article, which would seem to be our only reason for including it. The third paragraph is actually direct quote from THIS wikipedia page, meaning we are providing a circular reference point that surely can't be relied upon. The rest of this dicussion page is filled with the question of whether or not certain types listed as 'Magic Negros'. The problem is that Freeman is associated with such roles but we should surely consider whether some comparisons by people are lazy. I can google Morgan Freeman, Magic Negro and Seven and what I get are tonnes of references to that article, which is clearly an opinion piece of Ehrenstein rather than of the LA Times. Moreover it's a sideways remark in a piece that is about Obama NOT Morgan Freeman nor specifically him in that role. For those reasons I would say it is unreliable to use it as a basis for putting that character in, and I'd say it belittles the clever nature of the film in the first place.TheoGB (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If its the article I'm thinking of, he only uses this wiki article to define the term and not to use it as self reference. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

TVTropes revert discussion

Fellow editors … I agree with Shreevatsa (talk · contribs) that TV Tropes is a reliable source, primarily because it has a Wikipedia article … if it were an NN website, I would not support it … or is it being suggested that http://tvtropes.org/ be added to a list of forbidden URLs, which can be enforced by a bot? (Because that sounds like censorship to me. :-) Happy Editing! — 138.88.93.15 (talk · contribs) 00:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Weekly World News and The National Enquirer have wikipedia articles too and they are not ever going to be considered reliable sources. Reliable sources are dependant on having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and so if you have some type of evidence for that, I am willing to be convinced that it can be used as a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles about Star Wars characters have an external link to "Wookieepedia, the Star wars encyclopedia", the de facto canonical wiki on the subject. Articles about Star Trek or Harry Potter characters have an external link to "Memory Alpha (a Star Trek wiki)" or "Harry Potter Wiki, an external wiki". Mathematical articles have links to PlanetMath. Articles about musicians often have an external link to MySpace! Several articles about Emacs topics have an external link to the Emacs wiki. And so on and on and on. While these wikis and other "user-generated" websites might not meet the standards for WP:RS — they may not be reliably used as citations for statements within the article — I see no reason why an article about a trope should not have an external link to the canonical tropes wiki. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur … TV Tropes may be used in an External link section, but not as a <ref></ref> … in other words, I regret my inappropriate use of WP:RS when what I really meant was that it was OK to reference because of its implicit notability (by having an article), in spite of having a slightly lower level of verifyability (implicit in any wiki) … their use should be taken with a grain of salt, but they should not be forbidden as if they were WP:SPAM or YouTube "interviews" (rich media). — 138.88.93.15 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have placed a question regarding community consensus for this at [1]. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That's good, thank you. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

TVtropes is not a valid EL. It does not contain encyclopedic information. It's not stable. And what on earth does someone even mean by "canonical tropes wiki"? What canon do you think you are talking about here? It's just some site, not anything official. DreamGuy (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, and do not concur … TV Tropes may not be used in an External link section. — 138.88.93.15 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking of any canon at all. Let's keep the discussion on the other page to avoid confusion, please. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Huck Finn

wasn't there some kinda magic fortune teller dude in one of the Huck Finn books by Mark Twain?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.148 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Jim himself had the ability to tell fortunes. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove the entire 'Examples' section

It's causing a lot more harm than good, it seems. I came into the discussion page to complain about how ridiculously wrong some of the examples are and found even more ridiculous nonsense in here. The archetype is very clearly explained in the first part of the article and I think putting a little more emphasis on 'see: Noble Savage' would help out. The kind of people who can't figure it out from that aren't going to recognize the truly fitting archetypal examples and are just going to try to keep adding every black actor they can think of.

Thus I propose that we vote to remove the examples section entirely (with apologies to those who posted decent examples).

Let's go to 10 votes, shall we? Please vote below:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.253.141 (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. There are far more than ten people who work on this page. Even if you got ten votes of delete, it is not representative of the actual number of people who have contributed to the article. I would rather there be a cap put on the examples, meaning no more examples be added. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ghostexorcist ... if people would only read the caveat before making WP:OR entries without any WP:RS citations, then we wouldn't have to keep reverting them, but whatever we do, some newbie is going to try to add "That guy from that movie" that they think matches the archetype. <Sigh!> Unfortunately, putting a "cap" on examples runs afoul of the next WP:RS critic who cites a film as an example. Happy Editing! — 71.166.132.232 (talk · contribs) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama

One third of the article is dedicated to Obama. I suggest you find more examples because this is suspiciously Conservapedia-like.--94.65.73.111 (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposing a merger

Following the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magical negro archetypes in fiction, and per my !vote there, I propose to merge back and refine the list of examples. This was my comment at the AFD, I would be grateful for your thoughts, I obviously seek a consensus on this merge:

  • Merge - per User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. This article perfectly mirrors the timeline there: between being split out of the main article and the nomination it barely changed. Doing all the work that RAN seems to have done by tagging each bullet point with a source in order to keep the article misses the point: encyclopedic coverage of the magical negro concept would actually be enhanced by merging the important examples, shedding the chaff (Gabriel (Delroy Lindo) in The Simpsons episode "Brawl in the Family" (2002), sourced to tvtropes?) and using the discussion in the proper sources to flesh out the meaning and relevance of this stereotype, its appearances in fiction, and its impact. The merge would result in better encyclopedic coverage – that's why we're here, right? I've looked into the history of Magical negro, and in 1000 edits and over 2.5 years, 20 March 2007 to 26 October 2010 (diff) the article didn't really change: I assume there's a lot of vandalism in there, but that's still a waste of time and effort that I'd like to see rectified. Therefore I would happily help out Herostratus with the merge. There, we're teetering on the edge of diving in, give us a push! Bigger digger (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I intend to notify all the participants of the AfD and the last 10 editors of both Magical negro and List of magical negro archetypes in fiction. Bigger digger (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Think I got to about 10 editors of each, I ignored IP editors who had their edits reverted. Accuse me of canvassing if you wish! Bigger digger (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep separate but interrelated. For most major literary archetypes, a list article is plausible, but if merged will dominate the target article as UNDUE, or must then be cut down to avoid such an outcome. If a merger is endorsed, I'd encourage the list of characters was replaced by a category. However, to people who don't understand the literature, a "magical negro" category might well be incomprehensible and possibly offensive, so that's another good reason to stick with a separate list article vs. a category. Jclemens (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep separate, its too big for such a small article, and it was spun off last time article was up for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge separate We do not have a rule for this, but it would seems to be that a explicit merge decision at AfD takes precedence over this, as being the more visible. However, the closing decision there was to delegate the merge decision here. Normally, I do not favor merging popular culture articles into main articles. In this particular case it makes, sense, because the concepts are almost identical. However, all the content in both is I think appropriate, and I think not the sort of miscellany that uncle G had in mind in tht essay. I may be wrong there, and perhaps it is not a good idea to cite someones name in one of these debates unless the personal himself explicitly thinks it applies to the case itnvolved. . DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep separate - I think merging the list with the article would be distracting. I think it's best to have a link from the main article to the list page, which is a rather common practice. As for the list article itself, I'd highly suggest reorganizing the structure, but that can be discussed further in that article's talk page. --NINTENDUDE64 20:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep separate - Obviously if it was together, someone would then come along and "trim" the fictional list. Having all the fictional items in a separate list as they are now, works well. Dream Focus 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge. The sourced items from that list will fit handily here. The rest is just List of characters judged by Wikipedia editors to be Magical Negroes, which borders on an attack page (as mentioned in the recent AfD), and can be deleted or redirected here. I suspect however that certain fiction-oriented editors will never allow it. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge - this article is short enough that it could easily accomodate the list of examples, but I'm not sure such a comprehensive list is really necessary in any case; we should have some examples to illustrate the concept, but we don't need to list every single one. We're not TVTropes. Moreover, I feel the list has POV issues as a standalone article, since it's titled 'list of magical negro archetypes' rather than 'list of characters that have been described as magical negroes' (or something similar). Robofish (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment an editor has just added Chewbacca to the List, with the summary add Chewbacca, a sci-fi version of blackface make-up and a near-perfect example of the magical negro concept. A proper version of this article would tie-in cited examples of the magical negro and avoid the list creep. This article continues to follow Uncle G's timeline and it makes me sad I can't do anything to improve it at the moment. Bigger digger (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed Chewbacca (no special insights or anything), but added Mace Windu. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have no opinion re the proposed merge. I have, however, recently cleaned out the list of examples that did not cite a source. Next, I'm going to take a look at the sources that are cited, to see if the sources in question are reasonably reliable and actually use the term "magical negro". - SummerPhD (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of "negro"

Please discuss this topic at Talk:List_of_magical_negro_archetypes_in_fiction#Capitalization_of_.22negro.22. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magical_Negro/Archive_5&oldid=1142769163"