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. — Spintendo^Talk 11:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Spintendo: I wholeheartedly agree. In fact the whole section should be removed on the grounds of WP:NOTESSAY or something. — 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 text as it now reads in the Wikipedia article	The text as it's written in the Source material	Status
"He is anxious when monitoring the activity of the rescue party, in contrast to his lack of apparent emotion at other times, and violates protocol in order to ensure that Kane, with the alien inside him, is brought aboard the Nostromo."	"His anxiety while monitoring the activities of the rescue team seems symptomatic of genuine concern; he takes a chance, makes the seemingly human, spontaneous gesture in opening the air-lock hatch."	Removal suggested
"Thompson observes that in hindsight it is clear that Ash is in fact beginning a scientific analysis of the alien, for the Corporation, in these scenes to which Kane's welfare is largely irrelevant."	"In retrospect we can realize that in this examination scene Ash is beginning his investigation, on behalf of the Company, into the nature of the creature."	Removal suggested
"Indeed, in a direct echo of Body Snatchers, when Ash is first hit by the canister, causing him to go berserk, he emits a high-pitched squealing noise, just as do the aliens in Body Snatchers."	"Ash goes berserk, thrashing around the room, spewing a whitish liquid and emitting a high pitched squealing sound, proclaiming his alienness, as do the extraterrestrials in Invasion of the Body Snatchers."	Removal suggested
"It is Ash who points out, at the start of the film, that their contracts with the Corporation require, under penalty of total forfeiture of shares, the crew to investigate any signs of intelligent life."	"Ash explains that they are contractually obligated to investigate any signs of intelligent life on penalty of total forfeiture of shares."	Removal suggested
"Like the alien organism itself, Ash (and indeed the sentient ship's computer, named Mother) is presented as, in the words of M. Keith Booker, a 'distinctive mode of intelligent existence that seems alien to our own', and is in fact (if one counts the dead pilot of the crashed spaceship) one of a number of sentient non-humans that humanity encounters in the film."	"This alien life form is not the only sentient 'Other' to which humanity is contrasted in the film, Mother and Ash providing still another image of a distinctive mode of intelligent existence that seems alien to our own."	Debatable
"Ash's unmasking shows him to be a traitor, who has been working in the Company's interests all along, because he has been programmed to do so. Worse still, the theretofore benevolent Corporation, that supposedly mandates its crews to rescue spaceships broadcasting distress signals, is revealed as a profiteering entity that cares not at all for human lives."	"Ash is a traitor: all along, he has been working against his crewmates. Even worse, the seemingly benevolent Company that ordered Mother to investigate a possible SOS signal, giving the impression that it prioritizes the rescue of lives over its commercial goals, is a ruthless profiteering corporation that does not care about human lives."	Removal suggested
"Thompson argues that Ash is here simply emulating the creature that he so admires. Ash's instructions from the Corporation, Thompson argues, did not explicitly state that he kill any member of the crew, and it is possible that Ash acquired his notions of the proper way to kill a human being from observing the alien. Thompson qualifies this interpretation by noting that it is not one that is likely to occur upon a first viewing of the film."	"Thus Ash's assault on Ripley with the magazine appears to imitate the behavior of the alien, which he admires and seeks to protect. We learn little about what sorts of instructions Ash has received from the Company; possibly they never intended that he kill any of the other crew members. Certainly the face-hugger's penetration of Kane's throat had ended in Kane's death, and perhaps this has become Ash's notion of how to kill a human being. I should add, however, that this interpretation is certainly not likely to occur to any spectator upon first seeing the film."	Removal suggested
"It comes as a shock to the characters in the film, however."	"They are shocked to learn that Ash is not who they thought he was."	Removal suggested
"...a sexual symbol of phallic penetration and rape..."	"Moreover, the monster itself is strikingly phallic, with its awesome tail, its long, tubular head, and its inner set of teeth, which extend and destructively penetrate its victims."	Debatable

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. —Spintendo^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 Spintendo'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, "Priority One. All other priorities rescinded." — fortunavelut luna 12:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Notes

References

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)