Talk:Albinism in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or sections of it are currently being developed or reviewed.
Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable.

Please read talk page discussion here before making substantial changes.

To-do list:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

Requests: National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation (NOAH); this org. needs an article. Articles with multiple, independent, reliable sources on the "Famous people with albinism" list that are redlinks
Copyedit: #Symptoms and conditions associated with albinism; #Culture
Merge: Get structure/ideas/sections and translate content from theGerman, French, etc., articles to use for the main article here
Verify: #Symptoms and conditions associated with albinism; #Culture; #Famous people with albinism
Cleanup: #Symptoms and conditions associated with albinism; #Culture
Expand: #Culture
Other:
- Research: connection (if any) between albinism and: Waardenburg syndrome, piebaldism, vitiligo.
- Add: all the named disorders from Albinism (OCA1, HPS, etc.) to List of congenital disorders and List of diseases starting with A (etc.), and where apropriate (i.e. just for the rare types of albinism) to List of rare diseases starting with A, etc.
- Get re-rated: by WikiProject Medical Genetics and then Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team after article is fully sourced
- Nominate: as a Good Article (see also WikiProject Good articles), later as a Featured Article, and someday as a Featured Topic
- Sources: There are several medical papers here that will likely be of use in sourcing this article series better.

Note: To watch this to-do list, click on "watch" at top right of this table. Watching the Talk page won't watch the to-do list.

Priority 3

1 Culture
- 1.1 Albino bias???
2 Biased?
- 2.1 Albino bias is a descriptive article
3 Merge proposal
4 Original research
5 Suffer from?
6 "In popular culture" weaselwords
7 Inversion
8 "Societal prejudice and discrimination against people with albinism"
9 Too many heroes; miscategorization as heroes
10 Specific character entries in the lists
11 "The Simpsons"
12 Article rename
13 Irony
14 Suitability of references
15 Wikilinking of Satan
16 Order of entries in the sections

[edit] Culture

ResolvedAll points are moot or have been moved to other topics/articles.

[This topic was moved from Talk:Albinism after the "In popular culture" section merge from that article into Albino bias. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ]

I'm personally thinking that the section on albinism in culture is rather lacking, to say the least. There's plenty that could be written on the subject, fro mthe occoaisional heartless joke in The Simpsons to the way albinos are treated in different countries (revered in some, outcast in others). There's also the current Hollywood trend of making bad guys albino for shock value. There doesn't seem to be much by way of positive portrayal of albinos in popular culture but if any of you guys know of any then that would make a nice addition too. [--anon.]

I agree, the only not-entirely-negitive albino characters I can think of is the character UV from the movie Disturbing Behaviour, and Powder from the movie of the same name. And I am far from happy with Powder. There are also some characters from anime that may deserve a mention. I beleive that Rei from Neon Genesis Evangelion is supposed to be an albino. Also, the character Quatre from Gundam Wing is supposed to be of Arabian descent but is extremely pale. [--anonymous]

I agree as well, and there WAS a section about that, but someone has deleted it. This is the entry: 09:27, 28 December 2005 24.24.185.210 (→In the Media - Give me a break, Albino Bias?) I don't know exactly why it was deleted, and I'm not sure whether to put it up again, because this could go back and forth for a while. I'd rather know why it was deleted. Allyddin Sane 23:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Allyddin Sane

Section was restored, and then merged into Albino bias; this talk topic will be moved to Talk:Albino bias from Talk:Albinism, too.

Still out-standing: Need sourceable information on albino bias in The Simpsons (see HTML-commented section in article for incomplete info on it thus far), and on Quatre in Gundam Wing being albinistic (just "pale" doesn't really cut it, per WP:OR concerns that almost got this article deleted more than once. All other issues in this topic are resolved (incl. Rei - one fanwank source calls her an albino, but the story itself makes is very clear that her appearance is the result of nature as a human/alien genetically engineered hybrid), other than need for Albinism to have a better "culture" section, a concern that remains on Talk:Albinism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albino bias???

ResolvedMaterial has been restored, and merged into current article.

[This topic was moved from Talk:Albinism after the "In popular culture" section merge from that article into Albino bias. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ]

Why was the section about albino bias deleted? Is it NOT true that many movie villains have white or light blonde hair and pale skin? Some even are called "the albino" or "whitey"--is that NOT discrimination against people with albinism??? It wasn't my contribution initially, but I think it's existence was valid and important. Allyddin Sane 11:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Allyddin Sane

I agree. The bias section needs to come back, espicially because it discusses albinism in movies. The movie protrayls of albinism is almost universally negitive, from insults hurled at albino characters in Me, Myself and Irene and Wayne's World 2 to portraying them as murderous psychopaths in far too many movies to list. Most people only know of albinism through characters in movies and there is in fact tremendous anti-albinism bias.

Put it back, it's important, especially in the light of The da Vinci Code and Silas. Probably just a hit-and-run anti-"PC"-person. --Hugh7 04:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Also the fact that most albinism suffers have vision problems that preclude driving it can make it difficult for them to find a job. While this is not discrimination against albinism par se but rather discrimination against people with poor vision, it is nontheless an extremely frustrating experience to be repeatedly turned down for jobs you are qualified for on account of it. [-- anon.]

Someone with some time on their hands should go look at that old version and make sure that the restored list isn't missing anything that got deleted (other than negative portrayals, which are covered by their own article, linked to from this one.) And just generally keep an eye out for vandalism of that sort. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased?

ResolvedWP:NPOV problems fixed.

This article seems a little biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.148.248.75 (talk) 18:23, May 16, 2006 (UTC).

More than a little, it's absurd. I've added an NPOV tag. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it is absurd, all the facts are true, albinos are interpreted as evil freaks in movies, but I agree it should be revised a bit to sound a bit less biassed. Plus, it should probably be merged into the albinism page. We don't really need two --24.62.38.186 01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the absurdity was in reference to the BIAS, not the article TOPIC. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is definitely biased, the tag makes sense. WilyD 21:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge with Albinism. The Albino bias article isn't about albinism, per se, it's about social prejudice the target of which is only incidentally albinism-related. Support merge with Evil albino (the latter into the former; latter replaced with redirect to former after merge.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albino bias is a descriptive article

ResolvedThe phenomenon and the term are both adequately ref. cited now

Perhaps the readers who thought that the article was biased would care to point out what aspect of it they thought was biased? I disagree with the opinion that "albino bias" is a biased article. This dispute would be resolved by a descriptive scientific study that thoroughly searches the literature and popular media and compares the rates of positive and negative representations of albinos. In the absence of such a study, can we assume that "albino bias" is a real phenomenon? I believe that we can assume that, because it is very easy to come up with many examples of negative portrayals of albinos and very difficult to come up with more than two or three positive ones. This is the very definition of bias, and it is not a bias of recollection, it is a bias in the media. Another way to approach the question is, does albino bias need attention in an encyclopedia? Since people who are interested in albino bias use that term, and since that term has been adopted by organizations that deal with prejudice and albinism, therefore the term is a real term and deserves to be treated in the encyclopedia. Another objection could be that the article's claim that albino bias is unjustified is biased. However, in the absence of research to suggest that albinos are evil, murderous, or crazy, it would be difficult to argue that albino bias is somehow justified. In fact, there are several psychological studies that find albinos' average intelligence to be the same as that of everyone else, but, overall, the psychological research on the topic is poorly done, because of inadequate measurement and small sample sizes. Thus, we have no evidence to claim that albino bias is in any way justified. In summary, the article treats a real term that likely corresponds to a real phenomenon, and it rightly defines it as a kind of prejudice. It is difficult to find bias in this article (other than albino bias), and the people who claim they found such bias are invited to explain what they meant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.251.249 (talk) 14:56, June 7, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Merge proposal

ResolvedMerge completed.

Merge — I'm hereby proposing a merge with the evil albino article, as the lists and reasons for the lists are the same -- they list albinos depicted as "evil" in movies. Much of the contents seem to be similar as well. One interesting aspect of the two articles is however that this article consider it simply an unjustified generalization and leaves it at that, while the other as possibly founded in African albinism generalizations, but also mentions that asian albinism can be a sign of beauty, and goes along with listing several heroic albinos.
Since these two articles are very similar in subject, but has rather different views on the trait, I believe they should maybe be merged with an attempt at finding a good coverage of the two. -- Northgrove 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment — Unless someone's reverted the changes, the positive list ~~has been moved~~ to the Albinism article. Just FYI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment — Nevermind. Someone DID put the "hero albinos" list back on the Evil albino page, meaning we now have two virtually identical such lists in two different articles; proposed a sectional re-merge, on Talk:Evil albino. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose — I am against the merge. This article (albino bias) is more about a sociological/media phenomenon of prejudice. The "Evil albino" article is more about the stereotype, or "stock character", that can be found in fiction. They have differing focus.

I would agree, though, that if they have too much in common and contains redundant elements, they should require clean-up as to better separate the topics.

St Fan 12:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per St Fan. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Both articles are quite short, with much space taken up by lists. Even if they do have a somewhat differing foci, both can be dealt with in separate sections within the same article. Unlike dictionaries, encyclopedia entries are not distinguished primarily by the word structure of language but rather by underlying conceptual structure. The fact that "Albino bias" and "Evil albino" effectively communicate two slightly differing facets of the same phenonomenon is not a good argument for two separate articles. Nesbit 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ as per St Fan, but what's currently in the article needs to be merged with the "Evil albino" page. 66.229.160.94 01:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment — You appear to be contradicting yourself; the proposal as I read it is precisely to merge these two articles, as you suggest (and don't)... :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge both article into "Albino Bias", with "Evil Albino" as a section. There doesn't seem to be enough differing content to justify two articles, and the "Evil Albino" stereotype seems to be perfect for a section in the Albino bias article.Qball6 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge this article to Evil Albino. There's nothing but fiction content here, and if anything else comes up, it should go to Albinism as a section first before making it into a separate article. As for "media phenomenon/prejudice", such commentary may be added to either or both of those articles. Perhaps best would be to put such content into a section in Evil Albino as an interpretation (if it is indeed notable) of the "evil albino" character phenomenon and then refer to it in Albinism. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 18:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Evil albino into Albino bias. Oppose any merge of either into Albinism. Oppose merge of Albino bias into Evil albino (the latter is a subset of the former, logically.) Generally agree with everything Nesbit and Qball6 say here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Results: — I believe the results of this debate to be a general consensus to merge Evil albino into Albino bias. St Fan's Oppose comment notes that the articles have too much in common, and after nearly a month no one's controverted my suggestion that the former is simply a literary subset of the latter, which would resolve even St Fan's concerns and CheNuevara's duplicate issues. The only other Opposes were my own, to the idea of merging this stuff into the Albinism article but not to the merge contemplated here, and that of 66.229.160.94, which was self-contradictory and seemed to support the merge in the first place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: The "evil albino" article was pre-emptively deleted in an improper AfD immediately after I unprod'd albino bias and started doing the merge. I have moved for the article to be restored at least until the merge is completed. Please ~~see this undeletion request and add support for having it restored~~. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Evil albino article history restored, so the merge can now commence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE-merge proposal

ResolvedMerge completed.

[This topic has been merged in from Talk:Evil albino which is a dead article that merged into this one. The topic remains historically valid for the content here in Albino bias. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ]

Quite some time ago the "hero albino" list was merged into the Albinism article, since it actually directly contradicts the point of the present Evil albino article. But, it's back here for some reason. I propose re-merging the content of this section into the "Albinism" article so that the "Evil albino" article makes sense again and we get rid of the redundant list. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Evil albino

ResolvedMerge completed.

This topic was copied from Talk:Albinism since it is of equal relevance here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to propose a merge of one subsection of this article with another article that is more about the topic in question (though from a negative p.o.v.) I propose that the fictional characters list here be merged with the one at albino bias which is also being merged from evil albino; both of these articles have been the targets of deletion attempts, mainly because the lists in them overlap too much (including with the one here) and no one is "policing" them, e.g. to cite sources. I'll do what I can to merge and cite them into a defensible article. It may eventually fail AfD anyway, but if so, it will be good that this list is no longer in the main albinism article or it too will simply come under attack. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: The "evil albino" article was pre-emptively deleted in an either improper or amazingly coincidental AfD immediately after I unprod'd albino bias and started doing the merge. I have moved for the article to be restored at least until the merge is completed. Please ~~see this undeletion request and add support for having it temporarily restored.~~ — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Evil albino article history restored, so the merge can now commence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Albinism#In popular culture with Evil albino into Albino bias now complete. Talk topics that are now only relevant at Talk:Albino bias are being moved there from Talk:Albinism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

ResolvedProblem fixed.

If this page has been merged with "Evil Albino" shouldn't "Evil Albino" redirect here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.56.210.22 (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

See immediately above. Merge is in progress and temporarily stymied by deletion of one of the articles during the merge. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit history and talk page of evil albino have now been restored. ~ trialsanderrors 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect is now in place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

ResolvedWP:OR problems fixed.

I added an original research template for the same reasons as the ones I raised in the Evil albino article. 66.229.160.94 01:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this problem to be resolved now. If someone doesn't and can explain why, they should feel free to re-tag the article as WP:OR, of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suffer from?

ResolvedArticle text reworded to solve problem.

I just did an edit on the first paragraph, which started as a single phrase, then a sentence, then the whole paragraph...you know how wp is. Anyways, the catalyst was a phrase like "the evil albino villains don't actually suffer from albinism", used to say that the characters are not affected by the actual condition of albinism. After a little thinking and researching to double-check, I'd say that albinism isn't a condition to be 'suffered from'. There could be an argument in that it seems that somewhere between many and most affected persons have impaired vision, which you could then argue is something to suffer from...but it seems to take a couple leaps of logic to get there...and as far as being respectful to people who are different (as similar language precedents exist for referring to people with disabilities, etc), it really just seems like the wrong way to go. I know it was probably just dropped in while someone was putting things together, so it's just a heads up, especially if you see things like that in other articles. : ) --24.23.84.46 05:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, not; see Albinism. Anyway, the current intro text is stable, so this topic is moot regardless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone else brought up this terminology dispute at Talk:Albinism, too, so I defer. I don't profess to understand the objection, but acknowlege that it exists, and defer to it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "In popular culture" weaselwords

ResolvedArticle text reworded to solve WP:WEASEL problem.

[This topic was moved here from Talk:Albinism since after the merge it is no longer relevant there but is relevant here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ]

I'm adding a weasel words tag to that section. It seems that almost everything listed is accompanied by something talking about how "some consider it a positive portrayal because of so and so" followed by "Some consider it a negative portrayal because of so and so" without citing any sources. 199.126.137.209 02:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a misuse of the "weasel words" template. What you are concerned about is assertions of fact about what "some people" think and a lack of citations supporting those assertions, not abusively and sneakily non-neutral language, which is what the "weasel words" template is for. If you want to be lazy :-) the template you want is "fact", not "weasel words". Better yet, just re-word the passages to get rid of the "some people"-type of phrasing without losing the information, e.g. "The portrayal could be construed as negative because... yet as postitive in that..." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the {{weaselwords}} template here. The meaning of this template has changed significantly since I last looked at it a long time ago; it does cover "some people think..." language, so it was the appropriate template after all. My bad! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the section substantially to get rid of "some people think" language, yet still convey that opinions can be divided in some cases. I've consequently removed the {{weaselwords}} template, though of course someone else can re-add it if they don't feel that the edits resolved the issue sufficiently. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inversion

ResolvedTopic died out.

Could the evil albino stock character be seen as an inversion of the idea that white equals good and black/dark/nonwhite equals bad/evil/criminal?

Unlikely, IMO; it's more an outgrowth of general fear of difference, coupled with antipathy toward those with disabilities, combined with fear of those with a "deathly" pallor (i.e., superstious fear of "the undead"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Societal prejudice and discrimination against people with albinism"

ResolvedMoot - to the extent this aspect is addressed here, it is sourced; otherwise a topic for Albinism.

There is a lot of sourcing in the article about 'mass culture' prejudice but this key statement is so far unsourced and POV. Also, Research has established that people with albinism are not physically or mentally different from other people, apart from differences in pigmentation and vision. is undoubtedly true but we need sourcing on this research.

At the moment this article would be better entitled Albino bias in mass culture since it deals with that well but inadequately with the (alledged) sociteal bias.

TerriersFan 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I'd agree with every single word of that, but I do with most of it. Noted, and added to my cleanup to-do list; I'm still awaiting the restoration of Evil albino, so the merge/cleanup effort has been lagging a bit, but I'll try to work on it some tomorrow. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: More sourcing of the media bias is done; in ~~Jan.~~ Feb. or Mar. 2007, I expect to work on the broader aspect. The "Research has established..." statement now xrefs to the main Albinism article which is more than adequately sourced, so there's no need to repeat the sources here; that would just be redundant. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC), updated 14:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many heroes; miscategorization as heroes

ResolvedList is now more general, not just "evil albinos", so this topic is moot.

In the article there are too much heroes! There are nearly the same number of evil: this fact contraddict the meaning of the article. An albino who is not a villain isn't conseguently an hero! For example, "Casper" from Me, Myself and Irene is not an hero [--anon.]

Article now addresses these issues. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific character entries in the lists

[edit] Numerous questionable characters

ResolvedClear WP:OR entries removed.

This article seems like it needs some cleanup. Especially in the list of evil albinos section. The article says that the traits of an evil albino are "pale skin, platinum blonde hair, blue or red eyes." I think that the person in question needs to at least have pale skin to qualify for the list. When you think of "stereotypical traits of albinism", pale skin is the most prominent. I believe the following names could be cut:

Roy Batty - He doesn't have pale skin. Just because he has bleached hair does not mean he is immediately an evil albino.
Dracula - This one is hard to call. But I think it is clear that his pale skin is used not to distinguish the villain from the hero, but to establish that he is a vampire. The red eyes could also be interpreted this way. The white hair could just be an artistic choice; vampires usually have black hair, so giving him the opposite makes him seem more interesting.
Solomon Grundy - His hair and skin are white, but I think it is more likely that his creator was going for a zombie/vampire look, which makes sense if you look up the backstory for Solomon Grundy.
Kefka - I've never played any video games which include Kefka, but based on what little I know, it looks like he just wears face paint. If he is any stereotype, it is the "Evil Clown/Jester."
Ramirez - See #Sephiroth of Final Fantasy VII
Stamper - See Roy Batty
Dark Bakura - See Sephiroth

I think all of these could be deleted, unless someone has a good argument in favour of one of them.

Smooth Nick 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All removed, for the reasons cited, and because they can't be sourced. Unless/until there is reliable sourceable evidence any such character is albinistic, they do not belong in this article, which has been the target of deletion more than once because of WP:OR of this sort. Same goes for Kaoru - no sources, and as noted already anime/manga characters get unusual appearances for any number of reasons, like magic, alien hybridization, or simply artistic whim. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More misc. questionable characters

All of the following were once listed in the article, never sourced (making them probable original research, and have elicited no comment since they were labelled "iffy", so they've been moved here (especially since they seem to be encouraging the addition of more questionable entries, which AfD-endangers the entire article):

Various characters may or may not be intended to represent albinistic villains (not enough material has been published about the characters to be certain), especially in videogames and anime. A few examples include:

Agent 47 in Hitman: Blood Money
"The Sorrow" in Metal Gear Solid 3
Lord Mei-Oh in Tenchu
Lloyd in The Legend of Dragoon,
Ghaleon in Lunar Silver Star Story
Alexei Nachrade in Soldier of Fortune II
Sugin Tou in Rozen Maiden
Dr. Kirk Langstrom in The Batman
Hiead Gner in Pilot Candidate
Vergil in the Devil May Cry games (whose twin brother Dante is the player-controlled hero).
Quatre in Gundam Wing

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC) [updated 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Silas of The Da Vinci Code

ResolvedGeneral consensus was to file him under "Villains" despite "sympathetic" intent of the book author.

[This post has been merged in from Talk:Evil albino which is a dead article that merged into this one. The topic remains historically valid for the content here in Albino bias. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ]

Wasn't there some controversy about the da vinci code because it used this stereotype? I remember seeing this on the daily showBorisblue 00:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[Parts of this topic was moved from Talk:Albinism after the merge because it is no longer relevant there, but is relevant here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ]

even though Silas was a villen, the book really made you feel sorry for him. 24.63.167.114 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)p.h

Silas is a villain, and whether or not the reader will pity him does not change the fact that he remains a villain. ViceroyInterus 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Did not know where to mention this; please categorize appropriately.

The section "Albinos in Pop. Culture" points to positive or neutral references to albinism. Would not the character Silas of Dan Brown's novel be considered one of the primary villains in the plot, and should therefore be instead in the article entitled "Albino Bias"? 130.127.53.189 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Article now addresses this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, not having seen the movie myself I'm unable to add meaningful content but surely someone should include a mention of the albino in "The DaVinci Code", surely a far more famous example than the non-albino Twins in the Matrix? ::[--anon.]

As for Silas in "The DaVinci Code", he's covered well in the similar section at Albinism that is slated for merging into this article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Silas - OK, good. [--anon.]

Re: Silas - It is now done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Silas has been filed in the "Neutral" section for reasons that should be apparent from the commentary in his entry. If there's a consensus he should be moved to villain, that can be done of course, but please don't create duplicate entries for him there. Just makes the article messy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Given all the above and some edits and reverts regarding this character, it seems that the consensus is to file him under villains, despite his sympathetic fictive past. Done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grahame Coates of Anansi Boys

ResolvedNon-issue "albino" is sourced directly from the book.

I might be wrong but, I think Grahame Coates is not an albino, it's just a white man, probably with white hair. Almost all the other characters in the book are black or of mixed origins, unless not clearly stated. --129.132.143.8 16:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Needs further research. If there's not sourceable evidence of Coates's albinism, he should be removed from the list. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

After 1 month, leaving him in anyway, because the quoted text specifically references albinism. Marking topic "Resolved" pending any further dispute. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palpatine of Star Wars

ResolvedDeleted as blatant WP:OR.

Palpatine was not an albino, he was just deformed. 24.63.167.114 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)p.h

In the Prequel Trilogy, Palpatine is portrayed as having pale white skin, and at various times is shown to have red eyes. The DVD of Empire Strikes Back agrees with this portrayal. ViceroyInterus 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Palpatine's appearance is due to the "magic" of the Force, so he does not qualify. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Malfoys in Harry Potter

ResolvedDeleted as blatant WP:OR.

Before I delete them as countless others have before me, is there any evidence the Malfoys can even be remotely associated with albinism? In the films they are normal (in terms of appearance), and I don't recall the books mentioning pale skin. If no one responds to his by tomorrow, I'll remove their mention. ViceroyInterus 19:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Draco Malfoy's most prominent physical characteristics are his pointed nose, pale skin, and white-blond hair. There have been many mentions that he looks exactly like his dad. He also has "cold, grey eyes". In addition from the 6th book, he is described as "tall" and "thin". However, I don't believe that JKR was focusing so much on his supposed albinism as much as she was focusing on his resemblance to the Aryan race. JKR has compared the Malfoys to Nazis before. O well, do what you want. Dragix 01:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't count as albinism, and your point works in my favor. Gone they are, (again). ViceroyInterus 02:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it is stupid to say that any Malfoy is albino. Tonyjeff 13:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please watch your tone, per WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I do not think the Malfoys are albino at all. I think they're just supposed to have the stereotypical nordic look. Just because somebody has pale hair, skin, and eyes, does not automatically make them an albino. I say remove their mention, by all means. 20:11, 06 November 2006

What about Harry Potter? Although not specified to be albino, most members of the Malfoy family (such as Draco) are described to have pale white skin, pale blond hair, and blue or grey eyes. All of these characters are definitely cast in negative light. -- 67.42.218.202 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 March 2007

Unless/until there is reliable sourceable evidence these characters are albinistic, they do not belong in this article, which has been the target of deletion more than once because of WP:OR of this sort. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter

ResolvedDeleted as blatant WP:OR

Also, Lord Voldemort has deathly pale skin and red eyes. -- 67.42.218.202 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 March 2007 Again, unless someone can quote J.K. Rowling saying he's an albino, this is just wild supposition. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sephiroth of Final Fantasy VII

ResolvedDeleted as blatant WP:OR.

Couldn't Sephiroth be considered an albino? --Lionheart Omega 19:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he wouldn't be considered an albino. He has a typical skin tone and silver hair. In fact, a lot of these 'examples' I wouldn't even consider to be albino stereotypes. Take Rei Ayanami for instance. How is she albino? She has blue hair and a typical 'asian' skin tone. - Anonymous, 15:44, 3 July 2006

Sephiroth - He doesn't have pale skin. Just because he has silver/white hair and red eyes does not mean he is immediately an evil albino.

Smooth Nick 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless/until there is reliable sourceable evidence this character is albinistic, they do not belong in this article, which has been the target of deletion more than once because of WP:OR of this sort. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobim Mugatu of Zoolander

ResolvedDeleted as blatant WP:OR.

Would Mugatu counts as an albino? In the flashback of him, he doesn't have the white hair etc hence my confusion... --MelinaNoctua 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jacobim Mugatu - The only stereotypical albinism trait he has is his white hair. I can recall no mention in the movie of him having albinism. It is probably supposed to be implied that he dyed his hair that colour because he thinks it is fashionable.

Smooth Nick 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zatoichi

ResolvedDeleted as unsourced and probable WP:OR.

I have updated the film zatoichi in the hero albinos section. I write a poor english, please correct me if I have done some grammatic mistake.

Bobbore

Was removed at some point, presumably on unsourced original research grounds. Wasn't discussed in any detail here, so this could be reopened if a reliable source is found. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casper/Whitey in Me, Myself and Irene and U.V. in Disturbing Behavior

ResolvedNew sections added to article to account for ridicule/freak and neutral/ambiguous portrayals.

Some names presents in the albino heroes are wrong. In the films "me, myself and Irene", "distubing behaviour" and others, albinos are presented not as evil, but there are described as stupid, crazy and they are continuosly bullied by other characters. They aren't evil, but you can find in those films a lot of prejudices about albinos, so those films don't deserves a so positive citacions.

Bobbore

These issues have all been dealt with in the article text. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rei Ayanami of Evangelion

ResolvedDeleted as basically WP:OR; the one source is not reliable and contradicts the actual story.

[This topic was moved from Talk:Albinism after the "In popular culture" section merge from that article into Albino bias. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ]

About Rei Ayanami, I think that she can be considered an albino because she haven't only white hair and pale skin, but also red eyes, a tipical color of albino's eyes in movies.

Bobbore

Take Rei Ayanami for instance. How is she albino? She has blue hair and a typical 'asian' skin tone. - Anonymous, 15:44, 3 July 2006

Any mention of Rei - Although some artwork depicts her with paler skin, throughout the entire series she has normal skin tone. Her hair is blue. The only albino trait she has are her red eyes. I don't think this can be interpreted as a reference to albinism; in anime, the creators can make the hair/eye colour of a character whatever they feel like. Smooth Nick 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, last I checked anime characters could have weird hair/eye colors without being considered albino. Rei Ayanami of Evangelion is listed as being albinos in pop culture, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. [--anon.]

I agree. I've never heard anything about that. I'll remove them. --Gero 12:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. Quote from the Talk:Evil albino page: "About Rei Ayanami, I think that she can be considered an albino because she haven't only white hair and pale skin, but also red eyes, a tipical color of albino's eyes in movies." [sic] I'd keep Rei here, then; clearly intended to exaggeratedly represent someone with albinism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Did some digging; the story states clearly that Rei's appearance is due to her being a human-alien genetically engineered hybrid, ergo not an albino. Removed, and HTML comments warn against re-adding her. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaworu Nagisa of Evangelion

Uh, last I checked anime characters could have weird hair/eye colors without being considered albino. Kaworu Nagisa of Evangelion is listed as being albinos in pop culture, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. [--anon.]

I agree. I've never heard anything about that. I'll remove them. --Gero 12:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Kaoru wasn't added to the list, as he is paler than the other characters of the series, has red eyes, and has fairly light gray hair.

Smooth Nick 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No opinion on Kaworu. Sources, anyone? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keel Lorentz of Evangelion

ResolvedDeleted as blatant WP:OR.

Another thing that seems like it deserves cutting is the absurd example contained in the beginning of the article. Despite what the article says, the reason that Keel Lorenz is not considered an "evil albino" is because nothing about his character suggests that he is one. He is visually impaired because it is suggested that he is very old. He is white-haired for the same reason. So really the only thing that fits with the evil albino stereotype is his villainy. It definitely has nothing to do with the supposed albinism of Rei Ayanami or Kaworu Nagisa. Smooth Nick 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Keel Lorentz from evangelion isn't an albino, he's only an old man with white hairs and sunglasses. [--anon.]

The article text now resolves this issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lilith of Evangelion

Someone added this as a maybe, but I removed it as unsourced OR. Even other Evangelionistas never brought this one up before. Anyone know more about the character? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Witch of Chronicles of Narnia

ResolvedRejected as blatant WP:OR.

Would the white witch in the chronicals of narnia be considered an example of the 'evil albino' stereotype? [--anon.]

More likely Lewis poking fun at Tolkien's Galadriel. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pale guy in animated sequence in Kill Bill

ResolvedDeleted as blatant WP:OR.

I've removed reference in this article to "the unnamed killer of O-Ren's parents" in Kill Bill, because that character was, ahem, named "Bill" - this was made somewhat clear in the film.

I don't recall the "Bill" reference, and remember the character being portrayed as clearly Asian, but I haven't watched it in 2 years, so I'll take your word for it. That entry was already moved to the "questionable" paragraph anyway, so it's no real loss. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Bill" - that bit of the film is modern manga style animation - pretty much anyone looks Asian in that style. Also, Bill is played by David "Kwai Chang Caine" Carradine. He may not BE Asian, but he certainly looks Asian enough that he got the part in "Kung Fu" over Bruce Lee. I also seem to recall the character having some significant item of jewellery (a ring?) that identified him as Bill. To be honest, I haven't seen the movie in a while either, but I'm pretty sure that that guy is meant to be Bill. He certainly didn't strike me as being an albino. Cheers. [--anon.]

Re: Bill - Sounds fine to me. If it can't be sourced it would be WP:OR, so it is no longer in the article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zao from Die Another Day

ResolvedDeleted as blatant WP:OR.

Perhaps we should include Zao of the Bond movie "Die Another Day." While technically not an albino, one scene of the movie depicts Bond interrupting a medical procedure on Zao's face, which leaves him with albino characteristics. The article on Bond henchmen suggests this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_henchmen_in_Die_Another_Day#Zao -EarthRise33 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he's already been removed once, and the lists intro specifically rules out this kind of character. He's emphatically not an albino; he's an asian undergoing the same fictional gene therapy process that turned his boss from an Asian guy into a European guy. Addition of characters like this will just get this article AfD'd again on WP:OR grounds, because it is personal supposition that this or that character "should be" considered "albino" without sourceable evidence that this was the intent of the character's creators. Next! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. 'Preciate it. -EarthRise33 00:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yukishiro Enishi from Rurouni Kenshin

ResolvedDeleted as blatant WP:OR.

Removed this entry: "Yukishiro Enishi (雪代縁) is a character from the manga Rurouni Kenshin by Nobuhiro Watsuki. He is the major antagonist of final arc of the series, the Jinchū arc, and the younger brother of Yukishiro Tomoe ,his hair and skin turned white after Kenshin killed his sister Tomoe he also suffers from Insomnia". Rationale: Turning pale from grief is not Albinism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zylas from Barakhai series

Just deleted this entry:

Zylas, a man who can turn into a white rat is potrayed as one of the main heroes in Beast of Barakhai and its sequel Lost Dragons of Barakhai. He is described as an albino and wears special clothing to hide his skin when he is a man, although he is not described as having eye problems.

It is unsourced, and the vast majority of anime/manga additions turn out to be bogus. Anyone know anything further about this character? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Über-Morlock from The Time Machine

I dispute the Uber-Morlock from The Time Machine. His "albinism" seems more due to the fact that he comes from a race that has evolved underground. I think that's more akin to him being an alien than an albino. It's disputable if he should even be considered human. 68.166.69.245 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC

If it were unsourced, I would agree, but per the "except where the difference would be lost on the audience" clause, this particular case is in fact well-sourced (unlike all the deleted manga/anime WP:OR additions.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where sources come in. The audience sees him as an underground monster. It's like saying Freddy Kreuger is an example of burn-victim bias. 66.167.147.179 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Wikipedia is all about sources. See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:INDY, WP:N, WP:NFT, and WP:NOT, for starters. And WP:OR, which is what you are engaging in above: We have an apparently reliable and definitely independent, verifiable and notable source on this character either being actually albinistic by the medical definition or the difference being utterly irrelelvant to the audience in this particular instance (note the absence of the pale Galadriel or even Gollum, a villain, of The Lord of the Rings from that source's listings); meanwhile your proposition that he is perceived as just a subterranean critter has no sources of any kind other than your imagination/supposition, which makes it the forbidden "original reasearch" in Wikipedia terms. (What you say is doubtless true of the inhuman Morlock ape-things that Über-Morlock controls, but he himself is plainly a human (albeit a future-evolved one, with an oversized brain), and neither a "monster" as that term is usually used nor an "alien". Did you even watch the movie? He emphatically did not come from outer space (or another dimension, or magic, etc., etc.) Did you actually read the article and its sources? I don't mean to bite you here, but you don't seem to yet understand how Wikipedia works. Ouch! I see that you were blocked today for blatant article vandalism. Please do read the policies and guidelines linked to above; I think you will find them very helpful in getting up to speed on how to contribute to Wikipedia properly. PS: If you actually read the quoted sources, you will find that Freddie Kreuger is in fact considered an exemplar of a trend larger than albino bias, of reflexively equating skin disorders/problems in general with "badness" in the movies. If "burn-victim bias" in particular were an identifiable sub-trend in Hollywood, Freddie would actually be the "poster child". :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: See also the link that "Über-Morlock" goes to in the article. That other article supports his inclusion here. Marking this topic "Resolved". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about evil-albino's, but this Candy character is certainly an example of the stereotypical condescending asshole albino.

"These lists do not include fantastic characters whose appearances are similar to albinos, but for reasons other than actual albinism". If an underground dwelling, monkey-man from hundreds of thousands of years in the future isn't a "fantastic creature" I don't know what is. Further, albinism implies a freak/random condition that goes against the natural genetic order of a species; where as the fact that all Morlocks are white-skinned is proof-positive that this is not albinism. They are a race that has white skin due to dwelling and evolving underground. In this sense, I agree with the previous poster that compared him to an alien. Candy seems to think he actually called him an alien which is learly untrue.

66.167.146.239 01:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please maintain civility. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[outdent]
You maintain the illusion of civility, but you came off as a bit of a jerk. My bad. But Morlocks are mythical creatures. Plus there's no reason to believe they can't produce melanin. 66.167.146.239 23:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I do have short patience for people to remove sourced information from articles based on their personal opinions, especially when they've already been blocked lately for other disruptive antics.

Anyway, please stop quoting selectively. The part you left out is: 'Exceptions are characters who are broadly perceived as members of the "evil albino" category due to the distinction being lost on audiences, where this confusion can be reliably sourced,' and in this case it was reliably sourced. Because this example is borderline, I'm not reverting it, but leaving it up to wider discussion (for that matter, it might be worth discussing, in another topic, whether the "exceptions" clause just quoted should even be retained. I'm rather neutral on the matter.

On the other bits: It is my understanding that animals that have evolved to be pigmentless due to subterranean dwelling (e.g. the Texas blind salamander among many other such animals) are in fact albinistic. They certainly cannot spontaneously generate pigment if you take them out of their dark environment. Bears further research and an update to the Albinism article, so I guess I should thank you for inadvertently pointing out a way to improve that one. If I'm right, the fact that the subhuman Morlocks are all white just reinforces the point that Ueber-Morlock is an "evil albino", not an evil something-else-that-is-white-for-unknown-reasons.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article for albinism very specifically says that albinism is considered a genetic defect. I would not consider an entire species that lacks pigmentation to be merely a defect. --[sforse] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.138.31.101 (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Um, actually it says it is an inherited genetic trait (which would perfectly describe the character/race in question, by the way). The word "defect" only appears in that article once, in reference to leucism (and probably shouldn't there, either, since the trait could easily be a bonus in certain circumstances. I'm not sure why you said what you did about the Albinism article, but it is self-evidently incorrect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I equated "disorder" with "defect". Search/replace that one in my last comment. Though I still stand by the idea that prompted the comment. Steveforse 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I still don't get your point. Every evolutionary change is the result of a genetic mutation (a.k.a. "defect" a.k.a. "disorder"). Again, I don't think this is really worth arguing about and I left U.-M. out of the list, until it can be reliably sourced whether or not organisms lacking pigmentation from evolving in cave environments are albinsitic or are pale for some other reason (an important point for the Albinism article, and more to the point pending a consensus determination here whether to "would be lost of the audience" qualifier should be retained in the Albino bias article (if it does, which it may well be since it is sourceable, then U.-M. has to go back in, logically). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The first creatures who exhibit such features would be considered albinos, but if the characteristic became selective and, eventually, a defining characteristic of the species, then the lack of pigmentation is no longer a "disorder". According to Stedman's Medical Dictionary, "albino" is used to describe "a person or an animal lacking normal pigmentation." It would not be "normal" for a Morlock to have pigment. At least, based on the limited scientific observation I had of this imaginary sentient creature in a movie I saw once. Very scientific. (Sorry, sometimes making these kind of arguments reminds me of how disturbingly nerdy I can be). Interestingly, using that definition, the "Albino twins" are actually albinistic since all other personified programs in the Matrix have pigment. The film claimed that they were left over from an earlier version of the Matrix. If they'd ever shown other personified programs from that earlier Matrix and if those personified programs also lacked pigment, then I would argue that they were a whole different "species" of program and should not be considered albinistic. As odd as it may seem after reading that bit of thought experiment, it does relate to the question of "would be lost on the audience." When you rigidly define terms like "albino," it really does not directly matter whether the audience misinterprets it (and we've seen plenty of that with the faulty anime examples). Those misinterpretations may reflect poorly on albinistic people (and I think should merit discussion in the article), but a person is either albinistic or is not. There was bias in the portrayal or there was not (though I readily admit that there may be situations in which the bias was a bit unintentional). I dunno, I'm sort of new here. How was this handled in discussions like "racism." If you perceive it as a racism, does that make it so? Also, I'm going to go ahead suggest that what we are really seeing is not necessarily albino bias but a larger "lack of pigment" bias of which albinism is the largest targeted subgroup. Steveforse 09:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good food for thought, with the quibble that the "first creatures..." vs. Stedman's "lacking normal" (emphasis added) dichotomy is a false one, absent any evidence (not forthcoming, I'd wager my left arm) that Stedman meant "normative from the viewpoint of the species under discussion" rather than (overwhelmingly more likely) "normative from the viewpoint of biological science", which expects organisms to be pigmented unless subject to albinism, leucism or a related condition. All that said, I reiterate that this seems to be a "Wikipedia-moot" point until such time as either a) unpigmented cave-dwellers are reliably sourced as albinistic, not pallid for other reasons, or the "unless the difference would be lost on the audience" divergence is consensus-upheld. (I'm not even insisting on the latter - it was just inherited it from an older version of the article; but I lean toward supporting it very strongly, for reasons better brought up in a new topic about that issue if anyone else considers it worthy of discussion, an "if" I'm pretty skeptical about.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: The Texas blind salamander link in above text now works; the organism's article was misnamed, now fixed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geralt of Rivia from The Witcher

ResolvedDeleted as blatant WP:OR.

148.240.253.118, just adding refs. to the books he appears in doesn't do anything to source the assertion that he is really an albino rather than some magical pale guy who is pale for reasons other than albinism. Can you provide a quote? The fact that genetic experiments, magic and elves are mentioned at all makes this entry very suspect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing this entry; the article on that character/series indicates that he's a sterile mutant with cat-like eyes and apparently of elvish descent. Nothing to do with albinsim at all, ergo unsourced original research. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivy Valentine, of the Soul Calibur video game series

ResolvedWP:OR.

Nope. The very in-depth article on this character never mentions it, and the person who tried to add this to the article admit that the game certainly does not say it. Unsourced original research. Note that the character has blue eyes but violet hair and normal-range Anglo skin tone. This is just more anime/manga-game "funny hair color" stuff. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satan in The Passion of the Christ

ResolvedSourced.

Removed:

Satan (played by Rosalinda Celentano), in The Passion of the Christ (2004) is portrayed as an androgynous, albino-like figure.

This is not the List of androgynous albino-like figures in popular culture. The only questionable entries at all (e.g. the Matrix: Reloaded twins and the Taarna from Heavy Metal) are sourced with a WP-external theorist labelling them albino-like enough that the average viewer would not understand the difference; for a WP editor to assert this him/herself is original research. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Was restored with a source this time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Aenar on Star Trek: Enterprise

ResolvedIncorrect information.

Are the Aenar on Star Trek Enterprise noteworthy enough to be put here? As a race, they were positively portrayed, and their albinism is more notable a characteristic than the albino on DS9 216.86.101.28 04:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

They aren't albinistic; they're simply an ethnicity of the alien Andorian race, and like the rest of Andorians have light blue skin. Please read Albinism. Albinism does not cause blue skin. Note also that the list specifically says that it does not include fictional alien races just because they are pale. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Simpsons"

Someone alleged albino bias on a Simpsons episode, but this hasn't been sourced. Details? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two occasions I can remember off the top of my head. The episode where everyone gets snowed in at the school, Kent Brockman commented on the storm's consequences. "Albinos: almost invisible". Then there was one of the Halloween episodes, I can't remember the number, but the story was the French had nuked Springfield and transformed the citizens into mutants. One scene showed the Winters brothers packing musical gear into a truck. Homer mows them down with his car, screaming "Die, you chalk-faced goons!" 86.1.57.92

I think it must be the second one. The first one just seems to be silly (though admittedly "Black people: Almost invisible" wouldn't go over too well if he were commenting about nighttime with a new moon.) Anyway, the first person to try adding this stuff without sources did mention Treehouse of Terror (i.e., the annual Halloween episode). So I think we're on the right track. See if one of the Winter's articles mentions it, maybe? The Simpsons articles are well developed and sourced enough that this one should be easy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article rename

ResolvedRename done.

Much time has passed but the article still does not justify the statement "Albino bias refers to the societal prejudice and discrimination against people with albinism and, in particular, the negative depiction of people with albinism in movies and fiction.". There is no evidence of 'societal prejudice and discrimination against people with albinism' - everything refers to popular culture. Unless there is some direct sourcing produced very soon I intend to reword the lead sentence to "Albino bias refers to the negative depiction of people with albinism in movies and fiction". TerriersFan 17:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the rush? Go read the message board for a while over at NOAH if you doubt that the issue goes beyond fictional depictions. I'm sure it can be sourced well enough for anyone (i.e. not from an online forum, but more reliable sources) at some point, just no one's gotten to it yet. I think you also may be missing the point that this article is the product of a merge, and is still under development, including sourcing, and says so clearly. The "evil albino stereotype" material was much larger, and so it presently dominates the article, but eventually it would simply be a section among others. There is also material over at the Albinism article that needs to be merged in here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of a rush rather that the lead para seriously misrepresents the article. I am not sure that merging material from Albinism is the answer. I think that the question of societal prejudice is better dealt with in that article. This article deals with popular culture so why not keep it that way and retitle it Albinism in popular culture; a whole load more NPOV than the present title? It also becomes the main article from the In popular culture section. If you check above you will see I suggested something similar on 10 December so nearly 3 months is hardly rushing things. I think that we need comment from other editors since I am inclined to make the move unless there is a weight of editorial opinion against it. TerriersFan 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm shifting my position more toward neutral on this. I think that the more explicated ideas you've expressed have some merits, though I'm not entirely convinced. And of course, yes, it would certainly be good to have a wider range of opinion on the issue than just we two. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

ResolvedCompromise language arrived at, and installed in the article.

Sorry, I was unaware that the "irony" issue had been debated before. Basically, my issue is with the following lines:

Mr. Joshua (played by Gary Busey; see also next entry), in Lethal Weapon (1987) is a seemingly psychopathic hit man, conflictingly described as "legally blind" which could have been accurate, but shown to be an excellent marksman, which would not be. He was specifically referred to as "albino" in the film.
Joseph (ironically, played by Jake Busey; see previous entry), in Contact (1997) is a religious extremist turned suicide-bomber.

This is not an example of irony, cosmic or otherwise. Per dictionary.com, cosmic irony is the idea that fate, destiny, or a god controls and toys with human hopes and expectations; also, the belief that the universe is so large and man is so small that the universe is indifferent to the plight of man; also called irony of fate. Irony in general stems from a sharp contrast between what you or a character would expect and reality. Two related actors who each play albinos in different films is not ironic; it is simply a coincidence.

I acknowledge that I may simply be unable to see the irony in this situation, and I would ask that SMcCandlish please explain. However, if it's simply a matter of "they're father and son, and they both played albinos once, wow," it's not irony, and I'll be removing it. I see that the reasoning back in early February was that "the odds of that happening are low," which has nothing to do with irony. TomTheHand 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From Irony: "Cosmic irony is a sharp incongruity between our expectation of an outcome and what actually occurs." There's probably a more authoritative source than that article, but I thought it would do for now. Your dictionary may well be one, and I may have to revise my assessment of what kind of irony this is. Ironically (pun intended), the broader dicdef you give is pretty much precisely that which the WP article gives for the narrower term, so the point is probably moot for purposes of this discussion, since our article here doesn't specify what kind of irony it is.

The Buseys' case is irony (whether cosmic or otherwise) because our expectation of the outcome, namely what sorts of narrowly-defined roles two related actors, who are not albinistic (and don't even look vaguely albinistic the way some Nordic people do - the Buseys simply happen to blonde, which is a very common trait among Anglos) would be cast to play, is in sharp incongruity with what actually occurred (they were both cast as evil albinos, which even the stereotype's critics say has only been a role in a move 68 times in the last 40+ years, and psychotic evil albinos at that, compared with more broadly-defined roles like "sericomic action hero", "underdog" or "femme fatale"). It would be like casting Joanne Woodward as a woman from a former Mafia family who is accused of a murder she didn't commit (cf. Paul Newman and Absence of Malice if the references aren't clear).

Also, I'm not sure why you think it is a coincidence. For it to be a coincidence, it would have to a fact that the casting director(s) who cast Jake had never seen (or had totally forgotten) Gary's role, and/or that knowledge of it in no way affected their casting choice of Jake, both of which are highly unlikely given the high profile of both Lethal Weapon and Gary Busey. The fact that Gary Busey and Dar Williams were both cast as evil albinos yet neither are albinistic is coincidence, and not irony - there is no conceivable connection at all between the two events. So, I think it is simply the case that you are or have been unable to see the irony, not that there is no irony. :-) ~~PS: They are father (G.) and son (J.), not brothers.~~ I see you noticed that already (edit conflict).

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think a quick look at Irony#Usage controversy may be helpful here. It seems to me that you are using the classical sense of the word, which really only relates to fiction - situations with two "audiences" that have different understandings of a situation, such as the characters and the actual audience, or two characters with different levels of awareness. I'm not. I'm using it in one of the non-literary senses, such as that provided in these examples at Irony#Usage controversy:

Ironically, Sir Arthur Sullivan is remembered for the comic operas he found embarrassing, rather than the serious works he hoped would be his legacy.
Adolph Coors III was the former heir to the Coors beer empire. Ironically, Coors was allergic to beer.

The section goes on to say "The American Heritage Dictionary recognizes a secondary meaning for irony: 'incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.' This sense, however, is not synonymous with "incongruous" but merely a definition of dramatic or situational irony." This is basically what I'm getting at, and I believe it to be an extremely widespread and well-understood usage of the word "irony".

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PPS: The point of mentioning it at all in the article is that the stereotype is ingrained enough that familial typecasting appears to be happening. If there's some other way of getting this across... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you seem have come at this from two angles: that it's an incredibly unlikely thing, and that it's a fairly logical thing. I'll discuss them both separately.

First, you've said that it's incredibly unlikely that two related actors be cast in similar roles. That's not irony. Cosmic irony is not simply "The odds of this are low." It's "It's so unlikely that these things would happen, and yet so appropriate, that the gods must be playing with us."

Second, you've said that it's frankly logical that they be cast in similar roles: the casting director probably said "Gary Busey was such a good evil albino, I think I'll see if his son is interested in playing a similar part." A logical progression of events in a way you'd expect is, I think, the opposite of irony.

I'm not insisting on a classical literary "double audience" here. I'm just insisting that, beyond mere unlikelihood, there has to be an extra element of "that's so appropriate/inappropriate!" In the Coors example above, it's not just an unlikely coincidence that Adolph Coors III was allergic to beer, there's also a surprising incongruity there: you would expect the heir to a beer empire to drink beer. There is no such element to the Busey case.

In reference to familial typecasting, smells a little bit WP:ORy to me. TomTheHand 18:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Stating blatantly that familial typecasting is happening, without a source, would be WP:OR, but suggesting that it is a possibility because the possibility is plainly deducible from the facts with basic logic is not OR, and that's why the suggestion was implied rather than stated as a fact. There is no prohibition on using words like "maybe", "might", "could" or "possibly" in WP articles, after all (though their use is necessarily restricted in a lot of ways by WP:OR, various clauses in WP:NOT, etc.)

I have not posited that the casting choice was logical, only that it was not just some random coincidence, like it raining on Tue. both this week and next week (which would not be ironic). The fact that it makes sense in a (more emotional, not logical) way plays directly into your quasi-definition that it would be ironic if both a) the odds were low and yet b) it were strangely appropriate. I think the casting choice was in another sense (primarily a marketing one) not logical, in that it's a bit over-the-top and blatant. But it doesn't make it inappropriate on the ironic level. (Had I been the casting director, I would have thought, "Heh, that's a cute idea - it would be pretty ironic - but, um, no. Why don't we look for someone who's actually albinistic. Or at very least isn't related to another 'evil albino' actor, because there ain't no Oscar for 'Most Whimsical Casting' after all".) Lastly the "gods must be playing with us" aspect only applies to cosmic irony as defined in your dictionary, which I've already said wasn't the definition I was using; I'm instead using the broader definition of irony that you provided yourself, which did not include that element. I.e., the case seems to be precisely an instance of "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs", per the AHD.

Re: Edit conflict - It did, but I'll live. :-)

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect:

suggesting that it is a possibility because the possibility is plainly deducible from the facts with basic logic is not OR, and that's why the suggestion was implied rather than stated as a fact. There is no prohibition on using words like "maybe", "might", "could" or "possibly" in WP articles, after all (though their use is necessarily restricted in a lot of ways by WP:OR, various clauses in WP:NOT, etc.)

You absolutely, positively must have a source. You cannot make logical, qualified deductions and insert them into an article. That is the essence of what original research is.

The "gods must be playing with us" aspect does not only apply to cosmic irony as defined at dictionary.com. I phrased it in a very classical, literary way, but it's totally necessary. If you'd like to cite a different kind of irony, maybe we can discuss it, but "cosmic irony" means that weird unconnected occurences came together in an inexplicable way and the result was both unexpected and highly appropriate. That contradicts what you're arguing: that a casting director thought Jake might be as good as his father at the evil albino role.

Above and beyond any irony issue, if you're making edits based on the assumption that a casting director cast Jake because of Gary, you need to have a source, or it's original research. TomTheHand 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree on your interpretation of WP:OR (and/or my edits in relation to it) here. Perfectly logical deductions can be made without doing OR. For example, at the article on a pool player who won the WPA Men's World Nine-ball Championship it is a perfectly fine deduction to say in the article that so-and-so is a professional pool player, because the event is closed to amateurs. Secondly, there is no general prohibition on suggesting possibilities. Neither of these constitute "introduction of a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea" or putting forth an unreferenced argument or "analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments" (though asserting a typecasting trend would be, and asserting a theory that was why both Buseys landed such roles would be - please note that I do not assert any such theory in the article or here, only the logically deducible possibility, which is permitted under WP:OR, as explained below), nor is either example a neologism or novel definition. That's all WP:OR covers. Both the pro player case and suggesting a possibility in the Busey instance constitutes making "straightforward ... logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." In both cases the datapoints are sourced (player won, and the tournament is pros-only; Both Buseys were cast in these roles in these films, and the roles are as characterized here), no additional assumptions are required (a pro is a pro, and there's no evidence of WPA making exceptions, or the player falsifying credentials, etc.; the possibility, not assertion of fact, implied by the irony is self-evident), and the significance of the data are not reinterpreted (doesn't change anything about him winning or about the nature of the tournament; doesn't change anything about the fact that both Buseys were in such roles, or the nature of the films or the actors or the roles).

To be clear on the "gods" point, I am saying that I am not citing cosmic irony as defined by your source, but irony in general as defined by the AHD and by your own broader definition (which the WP article on irony also used as the defintion of "cosmic irony", possibly incorrectly.) I.e., I have already "cited a different kind of irony".

I'm not making edits based on any assumption about a casting director's reasoning; that was only mentioned in talk:space as a look at probabilities, to argue against your assumption that it was mere coincidence. You seem to be commingling our discussion with the text of the article.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're incorrect. They're not the same at all. Stating that a participant in a professionals-only event is a professional is logical and requires no assumptions. Stating that Jake was cast into a role because his father was in a similar role requires an assumption and is original research. I realize that you did not state this in the article, but you've said that it's ironic because of the above assumption, and so stating that it's ironic in the article is original research.

The casting of Jake and Gary is not out of place, inappropriate, or inconsistent, which is what "incongruous" means, so it's not ironic per AHD's defintion. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on this point; you're stretching the definition of "ironic" to the point where it's meaningless in order to force it onto the article. TomTheHand 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be commingling our discussion with the text of the article, which does not stating that Jake was cast into a role because his father was in a similar role. My rambling discussion with you on this talk page has suggested that possibility (even probability), nothing more. I haven't stated that the irony is because casting people chose Jake due to his father's similar role, only that it's ironic because they were cast in a similar role and are father and son. The fact suggests a purposeful "cute" casting choice, but the article doesn't say that, and it's not a particularly important point off-article anyway, was just a possibility/probability against your "coincidence" assertion. That is, the irony mentioned in the article doesn't depend on such cutesy casting decisions which are only a likelihood in the background that militates against the assumption of non-ironic blind coincidence. Also, you've misread the "incongruous" bit - the incongruity (as per the AHD definition) is that between the expectation and the reality, not between two aspects of the reality. And, the "no, you're incorrect" bit is a straw man, because I did not liken the pro pool player situation to the Buseys situation, I simply pointed out that neither of them are OR; i.e. they are two examples of two different things that are not OR. The sports example is akin to simply pointing out an irony, without commenting further on it. The suggesting a possibility example was simply an example, since the article isn't actually doing this in the first place, but could. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Rather than continue to debate this stuff at further length, I'll try a compromise edit, which will satisfy me that the irony will be apparent (most WP readers are pretty smart after all), without actually stating that it is an irony. I think this will satisfy both of us. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The compromise solution satisfies me completely. Whether or not I feel like it's ironic, it's definitely interesting and deserves mention. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to mischaracterize your arguments or build a straw man. I'll try to explain where I was coming from. I feel like if you want the article to mention the irony of the situation, you should explain why it's ironic with the facts available and no other assumptions or theories about what may or may not have happened behind the scenes. I feel like any explanation that relies on unsourced theories, however logical, can't be used to prove your point, and that's why I latched onto them so hard. TomTheHand 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess my counterpoint would be boiled down to "the irony wasn't explained in the article and didn't need to be, so what my personal theory is for why it's ironic isn't really of any consequence"; the reader was left to draw their own conclusions completely (and still are, just more so). But glad this is a moot issue and that the compromise is working for you too. Huzzah! Consensus is a good thing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suitability of references

I've just removed several sections that were improperly sourced... that is, the provided citations did not actually assert what they were purported to assert. Please double-check that when you are adding a citation to a statement, that the citation is actually relevant. I understand via the message at the top of the article that further sourcing is in progress (which is why I haven't removed anything that was UNsourced, but only things that were sourced incorrectly) so I trust that people will re-add any information that it is possible to PROPERLY source. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of doing violence to the article, please use {{failed verification}} or some related template. It is very probable that the problem is simply that in the course of massiving editing some cource citations have become mis-placed and just need to be moved, or that some are mis-pastes and a different source was required. I.e., try actually fixing things or asking questions instead of going on deletion sprees. Some of your deletion rationales appear to be your personal POV and need more talk page consensus. (Others do appear to be valid objective concerns; don't get me wrong.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to discuss any of my edits. Please re-add anything that you think was contentious and bring the issue to the talk page. I promise not to take offense! :) I don't believe that I'm editing from any particular "agenda-driven" POV, so anything that I did to make you think it probably bears explanation on my part. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. NB: I wasn't implying an agenda, just, I guess, what seems like deletionism over discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Understandable. I may have been overzealous in my edits, so I'm perfectly happy to discuss any of them. Are there any particular changes that I made that strike you as problematic enough that you think the material should be back the way it was? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But I have a big headache right now, over lots of tooth gnashing at WP:MOSNUM and WP:ATT, so I don't want to to get into it right this moment. I think I am in agreement with you that this stuff needs to be very well sourced or the entire article will be questionable and subject to AfD. I think that some of your source verification determinations are a bit too personal POV and are thus OR themselves, as novel interpretations of the source material, but those points might be debatable. I would rather see the lot restored and tagged with the appropriate inline templates, but well, article histories exist for a reason, so it's perhaps not a huge deal either way. Really, I'm more interetested in the larger question of whether the couple of cited websites - pretty much the only sources in the world on this topic - can be considered reliable enough sources for the purposes of WP. If not, this entire article has to be deleted. If they are reliable enough then we needn't nipick whether one particular entry is too POV or not, since it isn't WP making the assessment, we are simply quoting it from an external source. It would be really cool if some body of scientists had published a piece in Nature about albino bias, but it hasn't happened. Albinistic people are rare enough in the population that the issue doesn't attract enough critical mass to generate the press and studies we'd like, so we are left with sources that are necessarily biased. I think I for one have tried pretty hard to ensure that counter opininons (e.g. the movie studios saying that the Matrix twins were not intended to represent "evil albinos") get represented as well. I believe I'm doing a good job at this, but if I'm failing at that, let's discuss how to improve the wording. Like you, I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not put forth personal opinions. NB: I am tacitly arguing that the sites are reliable enough to be cited, though noting that they have an editorial slant, since both clearly pass WP:N - they've both been cited numerous times by major media sources, and at least Vail's has been relied upon heavily by NOAH, which is the largest organization of its kind, and well-established. To me it is a lot like citing Rush Limbaugh or Stephen Colbert. Doing so is permissible, but it isn't the same thing as citing Nature or the Princeton Law Review. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, there's no rush. I freely admit that I personally feel that Dr. Reese has an agenda and is clearly reaching with some of these "accusations". The fact that there's not really a lot of published counterpoint makes me uneasy because it's obvious (to me) that he's playing fast and loose with what's a reasonable deduction and what's a leap of faith. With "fringe science", for example, we can cite authority after authority who will gladly say "this guy is full of shit", but as you well note... with albinism it seems that there's a dearth of available material. The fact of the matter is, the article comes off rather one-sided and it makes me worried. The concern I have is that we're relying so heavily on ONE source of information and we are presenting it not just as the opinion of one man (which is, honestly, what it is... regardless of how many news organizations lend him credence via reference) but as rigorously researched "fact". I, like you, would like to see a balanced article, but I don't know that I agree quite so readily as you that Dr. Reese's theories should stand as unchallenged reliable sources. Regardless, it'll all come out in the wash, I suppose... I bet that we'll have a much better article by May or so. :) With respect to the edits that you say come from my personal POV, I'm guessing you're talking about my removal of the reference to Reese's contentions regarding the connection between albinism and other disease. I grant that the essay we're citing makes such an assertion, but really... it's so blatantly falsifiable that it's frankly laughable. I would be comfortable with including it if we used a format like "Dr. Reese asserts that this fits a pattern of showing albinos as diseased", but not if we state it as a fact, cite or no. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed with your deductive abilities. :-) I think I agree with everything you've just said, BTW. I do wish that Allyddin Sane and some other Albinism regulars would make an appearance here, though. More input would be a Good Thing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking of Satan

I understand your desire to avoid negative associations, but I think the link was appropriate. After all, we have Satan linked from the End of Days entry, why not from the Passion entry? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Because that makes it a redundant wikilink, on top of an unhelpful one. I didn't much care for the original link under EoD, but we certainly don't need two. Doesn't have anything to do with "negative associations", just usability. People are overwikilinking like gangbusters these days, but the MoS is pretty clear that if the link will not take a reader to something that significantly adds context it shouldn't be in there. Another "Satan" link doesn't help the reader in any way and will just lead them down a rathole, especially in this case, because there isn't anything in particular about that movie character at the Satan article. It's a lot like linking "United States" or "1989" at every occurrence. The MoS advises against this; context-free wikilinking just makes prose harder to read without serving the reader anything useful in exchange. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... given that, shouldn't the initial mention be linked then? I would argue either link the Satan from the Passion entry and de-link the one from End of Days or else put the Passion entry further down the list. I don't much care which. Come to think of it, whichever entry ends up wikilinked, what about linking to Satan in popular culture rather than Satan? That would strike me as more useful. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I'd prefer to link to the one in EoD because the context make is more clear that the link is going to an article about Satan per se rather than one about a particular movie character. Am in "violent agreement" about the in pop. cult. wikilink change. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the link and moved Passion beneath EoD. See the next talk section for my thoughts on a comprehensive change in ordering in the sublists. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of entries in the sections

They're sort of placed willy-nilly as it stands, with no real rhyme or reason (at least as far as I can tell) to the ordering. I would suggest that we choose a scheme and try to stick with it. I'm inclined to suggest time as a good metric by which to measure. Earlier portrayals should go higher on the list than more recent ones. I'll go ahead and attack it if I get someone to agree with me... (hint hint, SMc, I'm talking to you). ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that generally works for me; the list has been very willy-nilly. Please do note that there is (or was? the deletions arent' all firmly in my mind yet) a three-way tie-in when it comes to the Buseys, and to Lethal Weapon which is referenced in an entry just following Gary and Jake's lines. There's a fair amoun of "flow" there that I wouldn't want to see lost. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... well, as far as "flow" is concerned, I'm guessing that the best way to deal with that would be narrative (as opposed to list format) text in each section that deals with any potential tie-ins that arise. I did delete the Jake Busey entry because there wasn't any real evidence that the character was albino and there was also no reference that the public "at large" was confusing the character for an albino (which seems to be one of the criteria we have for inclusion on the list)... I'm certainly not opposed to mentioning in the narrative portion however, that Dr. Reese asserts that there's a "connection" of some sort between dad's role in Lethal Weapon and son's role in Contact... but based on current standards, I don't see that we can include Jake on the list. I'm perfectly willing to be swayed of course, and feel free to add him back in while we discuss it here. :) It's just that I did a bit of research before deleting Jake and the only references I can find are the Skinema article (which is unsupported assertion) and a couple of isolated references to the character as an albino... but isolated references do not "public perception" make. Also, there are a few hits that attempt to point out that blond hair doesn't make Busey an albino in Contact. On a totally separate note, I did find a link that may be of use to the article. At least, it gives us something to reference other than Reese's material. New York Magazine talking about albino villains in film. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If I didn't already I think I will restore the other Busey entry for now, as Reese's material constitutes a non-Wikipedia "synthesis" under WP:NOR\WP:ATT, and no one has shown that Reese is broadly an unreliable source. No issue with talking it over further, but I believe the sourcing requirements are (even if barely) satisfied for now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well... no objections so far. I'll give it 'til the end of the week and then start the re-ordering process. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean sorting by time, I think that works for me, other than the Busey/LW caveat. I guess I won't cry like a baby if we lose that, and it can be handled with more explicit inline cross-referencing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/b/Talk%7EAlbinism_in_popular_culture_2b3d.html"

Categories: To do | To do, priority 3

Talk:Albinism in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Culture

[edit] Albino bias???

[edit] Biased?

[edit] Albino bias is a descriptive article

[edit] Merge proposal

[edit] RE-merge proposal

[edit] Merge with Evil albino

[edit] Redirect

[edit] Original research

[edit] Suffer from?

[edit] "In popular culture" weaselwords

[edit] Inversion

[edit] "Societal prejudice and discrimination against people with albinism"

[edit] Too many heroes; miscategorization as heroes

[edit] Specific character entries in the lists

[edit] Numerous questionable characters

[edit] More misc. questionable characters

[edit] Silas of The Da Vinci Code

[edit] Grahame Coates of Anansi Boys

[edit] Palpatine of Star Wars

[edit] The Malfoys in Harry Potter

[edit] Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter

[edit] Sephiroth of Final Fantasy VII

[edit] Jacobim Mugatu of Zoolander

[edit] Zatoichi

[edit] Casper/Whitey in Me, Myself and Irene and U.V. in Disturbing Behavior

[edit] Rei Ayanami of Evangelion

[edit] Kaworu Nagisa of Evangelion

[edit] Keel Lorentz of Evangelion

[edit] Lilith of Evangelion

[edit] White Witch of Chronicles of Narnia

[edit] Pale guy in animated sequence in Kill Bill

[edit] Zao from Die Another Day

[edit] Yukishiro Enishi from Rurouni Kenshin

[edit] Zylas from Barakhai series

[edit] Über-Morlock from The Time Machine

[edit] Geralt of Rivia from The Witcher

[edit] Ivy Valentine, of the Soul Calibur video game series

[edit] Satan in The Passion of the Christ

[edit] The Aenar on Star Trek: Enterprise

[edit] "The Simpsons"

[edit] Article rename

[edit] Irony

[edit] Suitability of references

[edit] Wikilinking of Satan

[edit] Order of entries in the sections

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search