Talk:Ash (Alien)

Penis/Phallus
an act which is both an echo of the way that the alien "facehugger" infests its victims, and a sexual symbol of phallic penetration and rape[  by an android that, even if he did have a phallus (which is not specified in the film) would probably have been sexually non-functional.

it seems that phallus is a symbolic image of an erect penis, maybe it should be rephrased to "if he did have a penis" then?

Proposal to remove information wherein the sourced citation does not provide a clear page number
Much of the material represented as "Interpretation of the Ash character" uses source material which does not delineate page numbers sufficiently. This makes verification challenging. As this material makes up >51% of the article's content, I believe the inclusion of page numbers is essential towards maintaining page veracity. Without these important qualifiers attached to their cited source, material ought to be challenged and removed. In this instance, the source title and author is not enough — page numbers must also be provided.

In light of this, I propose that material which is not provided with page numbers be removed from the article, and I seek consensus to do so here within the next fourteen (14) days. If there are no dissenting opinions offered within that time, it is my intent to remove the information. I am collecting the cited sources as of now and intend to verify all of them myself in the near future (if the editor who wrote it does not) and will return to this page any and all verified information along with the associated page numbers. — Spin tendo Talk 11:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. In fact the whole section should be removed on the grounds of WP:NOTESSAY or something. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  12:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Continuing the above discussion/proposal (August 22, 2017)
Im going to document everything I've learned about the information in question (which took longer than 14 days). If there is any question as to why it was removed, editors may come here for the reasons. The information I'm referring to is what appears to be a paper written at some time by someone that was meant for another venue besides Wikipedia (i.e., a class on film history, etc.) Looking at the article as a whole, the material I'm talking about stands out very clearly. This material may be interesting, but in the end I believe it should be removed, as it suffers from three distinct problems: one dealing with length; the other two dealing with attribution and failure to rephrase sufficiently (plagiarism). The three reasons in order are:
 * 1) The information is too broad for this article. Covering many aspects of the Ash character, this "essay" does not narrow or even attempt to simplify what its thesis is saying.
 * 2) The person who added it failed to use page numbers correctly. This delayed my attempt at verifying what was written. And while I was able to get the page numbers eventually, the reason why it is being removed is not explicitly because of the page number issue. I mention it here only as a symptom of the larger problem I found.
 * 3) Much of the material was plagiarized from the source. There was only a slight attempt at paraphrasing what was taken. I offer examples below.

Examples
The 4th problem with the material are the parts which aren't sourced at all. From what you can see with the above examples, this places that material in doubt. My suggestions for part of the material is above. Most of this content would have to be converted to full quotations in order to keep it, but then the Ash article would become just an article of quotations, and not content. At the very least, the reference entries for these materials ought to be kept under a "Further reading" or "See also" subheading, if only because they are of such superb quality (indeed, my summer vacation was made more enjoyable reading them). Deleting everything else will, unfortunately, shrink the article to a large degree — but I think that keeping the material would violate copyrights.

Because it's such a large amount of material to remove, I'll await further input and/or action from other interested editors before proceeding myself. — Spin tendo Talk 05:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of this removal per my coment of 26 June, which only copperfastened by 's thorough and thoughly keen analysis of the source material and how it is presented. What was smacking of OR and ESSAY is now suggestive of CLOSEPARA at the least with the alternative being QUOTEFARM. Which is undesirable. This is, as the fella might say, "." &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  12:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thompson attribution
Article repeatedly references a "Thompson" as a source for Sexual Metaphors, but Kristin Thompson: Storytelling in the New Hollywood (1999) isn't actually mentioned until the references. Suggest adding a mention of the source in the text? 2601:602:C583:25F0:6EF1:3CC:1470:D88D (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)