Talk:List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction

Red in Shawshank Redemption

Really... Donkey in shrek? God in bruce almighty??

Agreed; this list should be limited to human characters only. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think this list belongs on Wikipedia at all. I've nominated it for deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion idea. This page is just another way to call all black actors Uncle Toms. Are there any major black characters in cinema that are not on this list? If there are, then there needs to be a page, or at least a section, listing them. At the very least, each entry should be required to explain in detail why it belongs here. Kire1975 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not about the actors. If anything, it speaks to film writers and Hollywood creating black characters who are little more than noble savage props in support of white protagonists. Similarly one dimensional, subservient female pseudo-characters show up as the manic pixie dream girl. (I'm not aware of a name for the gay friend who helps the straight person hook up with the person of their dreams.) The characters are, IMO, highly offensive. The person being served is invariably a straight, white, European and male. The servant is typically all of those things except one (no black MPDGs, no female magical negros, etc.). Basically, the concepts all stink of lazy tokenism ("Look how diverse we are! In addition to several white guys in leading roles we have a one dimensional black guy in a minor role!") That said, it is clearly a notable concept. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree in principle, though I still think the article would be improved if more than one reliable source was required for each entry. One source labeling a character a magical negro is, IMO, a potentially minority opinion. Two or more sources doing it is, I believe, a far better threshold. But I'm aware there's no consensus for this currently. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Morgan Freeman as God in Bruce Almighty is pushing it. He was playing the role of God and you don't get any higher than that. Also, I disagree that Morpheus (The Matrix) is a magical negro. He was a leader and a warrior in his own right and a mentor to Neo. He was akin to Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars or Gandalf (Lord of the Rings). These are all wise mentor characters who have kicked butt and clearly still can. They are also influential characters that move in many circles. However, it's their job to teach the young upcoming hero all they know so that there is a "story to tell". Epic stories are always more effective with a main character that goes through the process of learning, discovery and developing into what these guys already are. Good thing no one put Mace Windu on this list or I'd really be mad!18:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. ATOZ (talk • contribs)

Agreed on Morpheus - Morpheus is a mentor figure who happens to be played by a black actor. His being black is never brought up nor is his insight suggested to be the result either of supernatural forces or 'folksy wisdom'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.220.27 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Came here to agree on Morpheus as well. IMHO, he should be deleted from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.161.70 (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You're off course here. You and other editors may or may not think a particular character fits the topic. That's not how Wikipedia works. We want verifiable information, not original research. At present, Morpheus has a cite. To say the character doesn't belong here, you need to show/argue that either the source does not say that Morpheus is a "magical negro" or show/argue that the source is not a reliable source as we define it. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point, SummerPhD. I have similar objections as those above, but you're entirely correct that the point of wikipedia is using clear and appropriate sources, not arguing from principle. As such, I've tried to do that. Firstly, the second source listed doesn't appear to have a freely accessible copy. (The PDF linked gives a 404 error, and the DOI hits a paywall.) As such, I can't view the original source's argument there. However, for the first, it acknowledges that the character Morpheus doesn't perfectly fit the "Magical Negro" role; "Morpheus in The Matrix may stray slightly from this last element", and directly following it is a faulty assumption: "but his small “community” ends up dead along with him except for the White woman, who joins the triumphant White man, Neo, “The One.” (Morpheus may have barely escaped—only the sequel will tell.)" is demonstrably untrue, as Morpheus does in fact survive.

There are other examples of moderately misinformed assertions in that article. For instance, "He remains “invisible” in the text; the Black figure exists outside of any community of his own and is not recognized in any significant way by the White community that the main character belongs to." is likewise viewing from a narrow scope; subsequent films show him as a prominent figure in the human community, and that status is referenced multiple times even in the original Matrix film.

In short, it is my belief that the age of the article (more than a decade old at the time of this posting) means it lacks significant context which had subsequently been brought to light. Furthermore, the source itself also contains and acknowledges inconsistencies which were glossed over or omitted in the original citation and makes this claim at best shaky. As such, I believe there is a reasonable argument for removing Morpheus from the list. Brcruchairman (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here on a few points.

You say the "second source" has a dead PDF and a DOI paywall. This seems to be the case for the first Morpheus source listed, "Cinethetic Racism: White Redemption and Black Stereotypes in 'Magical Negro' Films". While a non-free or difficult to access source can be a bit of a pain, it does not mean the source is not reliable or cannot be used. In any case, I think this link is free. (I have various forms of access on my laptop through my work, so this might be paywalled as well, but it seems to be free...)

The rest of your comment seems to be saying the source is wrong for various reasons. This brings us back to the verifiable info from a reliable source versus WP:OR. The sources here seem to be reliable (Social Problems is a peer-reviewed journal published by Oxford. Jump Cut isn't quite on the same level, but seems to be sufficient for the claim here.). If the sources are reliable for the information presented, the material is verifiable.

Arguing that a source is wrong is original research. If independent reliable sources make statements that directly contradict other reliable sources, be generally present both claims. If sources that are not reliable (in this case, that would be you) contradict reliable sources, we present what the reliable sources say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, an excellent point regarding arguing that the source is wrong, as well as my source mix-up; thanks for pointing that out! Regarding the sources, you're correct both in that the first source (footnote 13 at the time of this posting) was the one which didn't immediately link to an accessible pdf. The link you provided, however, did. I'll note as well, though, that a scan of that document doesn't mention the character Morpheus at all; it's a very good source for the inclusion of the Oracle, but not so much for Morpheus who is not even mentioned.

As for the second source, my argument is less "they're wrong" and more "their information is dated." Since article age is taken into consideration by Wikipedia (Under the subheading "Age matters" from the "Identifying Reliable Sources" page) and I can't find a timestamp on the Jump Cut article. However, as it references an uncertain sequel, we can surmise that it was written and posted before 2003. That makes it thirteen years out of date, so my argument is more that, due to age, the article is not a reliable source in this context. To me, it would be akin to using a source about the whole of a book series that only looks at one of the books; it's just not the right source for the job.

However, my argument of "Age Matters" also means that a source which includes all three movies would necessarily be valid. I did a quick search and found that there are, indeed, reputable sources which directly posit Morpheus as a Magical Negro. I would submit that, regardless of whether or not the previous source be dropped, this one be added: http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/c_glenn_power_2009.pdf I still believe that the Jump Cut article isn't reliable in this context, but my original point of removing the character Morpheus from the list is moot, as there are multiple, more recent sources which are verifiable, such as the one presented above.

In any case, though, the points I'd made are moot; aside from the replacement of the Jump Cut source with the more modern one above, your arguments are quite solid regarding verifiability over truth; Wikipedia is not the place to logic and debate through things to find an answer, it's a collection of other answers where people can check the sources and reach their own conclusions. Thanks for the speedy and thorough response! Brcruchairman (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Elijah in Unbreakable?

I have to really disagree with putting Samuel L. Jackson's character (Elijah from UNBREAKABLE) in with examples of the "magical negro" category. Really the race of this particular character did not matter at all. The fact that he is a black man did not come into the description, action or relationship to the plot of this story. I think the only thing that would have not worked would have been a woman in that role, as little boys are, historically, a lot more into comic books and graphic novels than little girls. And that may change someday as more females seem to be reading or watching comics, sci fi and fantasy fiction in print and other media. Also, at no point in the movie did Jackson use any type of stereotypical "black" trait in this character. Look at the character that Jackson played in "Jackie Brown." That is a much more "black" or urban character than Elijah was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.81.59 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're off course here. You and other editors may or may not think a particular character fits the topic. That's not how Wikipedia works. We want verifiable information, not original research. At present, Elijah has a cite. To say the character doesn't belong here, you need to show/argue that either the source does not say that Elijah is a "magical negro" or show/argue that the source is not a reliable source as we define it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Enh. It's a reasonably reliable source, I suppose - it's sort of an online zine that appears to be an amateur effort rather than a proper scholarly journal. They do have editorial review but it appears to be mostly copyediting - they point out (regarding editing of submissions) "Most of our comments will be along the lines of clarity and readability", so there's apparently not any fact-checking let alone peer review going on her. On the other hand, Colombe is a proper professor with a Ph. D. and all that, and you have to give some weight to that. I think that she's making quite a stretch in some cases, but SummerPhD is correct - reliable source is reliable source. As to content, Colombe does say "the exception here is Elijah Price" at one point, but at other points she seems to put him in the category, so there you have it. I agree with 206.53.81.59 that Elijah Price doesn't belong in the mix - they could have used John Malkovich or whomever with absolutely no change in the story or any underlying subtext, and (unlike, say, The Green Mile) they probably considered various white actors and ended up with Jackson because he was available or whatever. But Columbe is the professor and I'm not, so you really have go with her. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a long shot, but if someone finds a reliable source challenging the claim that the character fits the "magical negro" idea, that could be a credible basis for the arguing the item should be removed. Another possibility is a source that the writer or people who cast the film made a statement that a non-black actor was first choice for the role, or that the race of the character doesn't matter. Like I said ... it's a long shot. Cresix (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the case for labelling Elijah a magic negro but it makes me uncomfortable. Part of the problem with this list is that it runs the risk of becoming so inclusive as to be pointless and to sweep up any black character who ever helps a white character, which I think it risks doing with Mr Glass in Unbreakable. The OP makes a good point that it's unclear whether race played any role in the conception of the character or the casting of Samuel L Jackson. In particular, there's a problem, IMO, with the magic negro label as applied here because Elijah is the villain of the piece. He differs quite substantially from, say, John Coffey or Mother Abigail, both in that it's unclear that Elijah was conceived of as black prior to the casting of Jackson, and because Elijah's interest in Bruce Willis' character is portrayed as very dangerous and predatory and not the sort of nurturing and well meaning quality that I think is vital to the magic negro archetype. WRT the first reply that someone somewhere has named him a magic negro I think that's a problematic standard. There's references for LOTS of specious things out there and an encyclopedia editor needs to exercise judgment on what to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.26.101 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"someone somewhere has named him a magic negro I think that's a problematic standard": No, Wikipedia has very good guidelines about what is considered a reliable source. A character cannot be added simply because "someone somewhere has named him a magic negro".

"Part of the problem with this list is that it runs the risk of becoming so inclusive as to be pointless and to sweep up any black character who ever helps a white character": Once again, no, reliable sourcing is a check against such massive and indiscrimant additions to the article. It is because of that standard that the article hasn't already "becoming so inclusive as to be pointless". You might want to read the policies at WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. These are cornerstones of Wikipedia, and they have helped prevent the very problems that you suggest. Cresix (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just "somebody somewhere". It's Dr. Colombe, who has a Ph. D, writes in this field, and is a bona-fide academic. I do think that in the case of Elijah she's dead wrong, but Wikipedia articles are not about what I think. Herostratus (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Another example

Chubs in Happy Gilmore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.148.103 (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source calling Chubs a "magical negro". - SummerPhD (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What about Morgan Freeman as Sergeant Major John Rawlins in "Glory" 1989? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.91.162 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source calling Rawlins a "magical negro". - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Harry Mitchell in "The Adjustment Bureau"

OK, this is not a good inclusion. Let's not go overboard here. If this article was titled "List of African-American charters in film" that'd be one thing. But it is supposed to be a list of "magical negroes", whatever that is. In my opinion the article shouldn't even exist, but since it does exist, we want to be very careful to avoid being racist and insulting.

Calling someone a "negro" is pretty insulting. Obviously in the 1960s and earlier it was not insulting and was in fact a step up, endorsed by many black leaders, from "colored person" or "nigger" or whatever (although it's supposed to be capitalized when used this way). But that was fifty years ago, and you just try going into a bar downtown and calling an African-American a "negro" nowadays.

So we want to use very good sources here. In the case of Elijah from "Unbreakable", we have a reasonably good source in that the person is a recognized academic. It's still arguable in my opinion, but a reasonably good source.

But the source for Harry Mitchell in "The Adjustment Bureau"? It is something called "io9.com". Now, I can't get this page to display in my (standard) browser even if I enable scripts, so something is wrong with this site, so in that sense its not a good source. But even if I could get the page to display, who is io9.com? Are they a peer-reviewed scholarly journal? Doesn't seem to be. Are the highly respected journalist entity like the NY Times or the LA Times or whatever? Doesn't seem to be. They do have a Wikipedia article, io9, which opens "Io9 is a blog launched in 2008 by Gawker Media." So it's a blog. From Gawker, which is not a highly respected source. So this is not a good source, hence I removed the material. Herostratus (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that you've given some details, I agree. BTW, use of the word "negro" here is a vehicle to indicate how unrealistic this stock character is. The term "Magical negro" was popularized by Spike Lee, an African-American film director. It's use here is altogether different than the common usage of the word "Negro" decades ago. Cresix (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I added Mitchell yesterday without reading the discussion page first. I agree with Cresix, that the word "negro" is being used differently here. Beyond these issues of race, though, which Herostratus does not seem to grasp (i.e. 'magical negro' is a term for internal criticism within black culture), this post offers an interesting test case for what counts as authority within wikipedia. I am an academic. I happen to study race in the Atlantic world in the 20th century. Although I have published much about other subjects, I have never published anything about the magical negro. I saw the movie, and I recognized the stereotype right away: black man with magical powers sacrifices himself for no other reason than his good heart to further the goals of the white protagonist, and he does so by using said magical powers. That is standard magical negro, if there is such a thing. As another academic friend said to me re:this conversation, "Isn't one of those things that 'you know it when you see it'"? And it is. So the ultimate question is, what is the value of a reputable source here? Who is reputable? Am I reputable? (I am). Who else? Another PhD? Sure, but publishing an analysis of the archetype on the Internet is no different than having that discussion right here. And I think my degrees shouldn't matter either, I think the best arguments should win. Now, of course, Wikipedia hasn't yet figured out how to gauge rationality, and still depends on that link elsewhere (as if...). Let's take articles like this one, fuzzy/memetic, and use them as labs for developing an ethos, if not a system, where rational argument (the use of reason and evidence) can be the authority we're looking for. --elotroalex 20:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, elotroalex, but regardless of the "value of a reputable source", the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth. That is a core principle of Wikipedia, so I'm afraid neither this nor any other article will ever be a "lab for developing an ethos, if not a system, where rational argument (the use of reason and evidence) can be the authority we're looking for" in situations like this. Wikipedia simply cannot use one editor's opinion about what should be included and what should not; someone will almost inevitably disagree. No editor has any more authority in this type of thing than any other editor, regardless of credentials in the world outside Wikipedia, so this disagreement is handled through very carefully crafted policies. There is a process -- consensus -- that sometimes allows for including unsourced material, but such a consensus must be solid in the absence of a reliable source. Unlike many other encyclopedias that have a few editors who have editorial control, Wikipedia must rely on this type check and balance to ensure that articles don't include everyone's personal opinion about what should be included. If it didn't, Wikipedia would end up as a huge mess and no more valuable than a conglomeration of personal blogs. Cresix (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, I see you trying to defend the principle of verifiability here above all else, and I respect that. In this article's edit log, I see repeated cases where you've reverted changes for being unsourced. On a nearly-finished article, that would make more sense to me. However, this article is marked as one that needs expansion, and I'm concerned that your well-intentioned edit policing is actively discouraging people from contributing to the list. Perhaps this article's editors could adopt a policy of putting thinly-sourced items in a separate section or requiring that they be marked with {{Citation needed}}? That'll keep editorial momentum going without making this article look like it's more verifiable than it is, and it'll provide a way that editors can begin to establish consensus in the absence of external verifiability. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 20:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Shane Landrum, but I have one very major correction to your comments. It's not my policy. It is Wikipedia's policy. And it is one of the very cornerstone's of Wikipedia. I have no apologies for abiding by (and reverting violations when necessary) that policy. That being said, I see no problem with "citation needed" tags for a brief period. I'll start doing it that way for most cases. Unlike the case on many articles, however, I don't intend to let the tags linger for months (in some case, years). That's how article's are made worse by good intentions. Cresix (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

another possible example

The Hayes character, specifically his relationship with Jimmy, in the 2005 version of King Kong. While his role is more of an authority, paternalistic figure rather than subservient he sacrifices his life to save the all-white crew, specifically Jimmy. This fits the 'noble savage' concept, and also allows for liking the individual without having to like or acknowledge the culture.

There also seems to be an intentional twist to the relationship by making Jimmy a former wild child who found a civilized life through the help of Hayes. The obviousness of the twist only reinforces the stereotype that it was once African-Americans who were in need of being civilized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlsez (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis, but we need a reliable source saying the character fits the archetype. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Noel Wood

I removed a couple of cites that devolve to a "Noel Wood" and the material that was verified by those cites.

Who is Noel Wood? Beats me. There is a Noel Wood (artist) but he died in 2001 and I don't think it's him. There is a Noel Wood who is an actor listed on imdb. He had named role in 2001. It might be him. There's some other Noel Woods listed on Facebook, on a real estate company site, and like that. No Noel Woods who are academics or media critics or anything like that.

OK, so who is his publisher? It is a website named "For The Retarded". OK, not the New York Times. What is For The Retarded? Well, let's see. It was founded by four distinguished professors at Columbia University... no, wait. It was founded by "Four friends doing time in a mom-and-pop video store in suburban Atlanta". Oh, OK, not Columbia.

It's some guy's blog. The author of the piece cited is given as "GNOLL", I guess that is "Noel Wood" although how that was deduced I don't know - the internal author link at the site doesn't give that information.

It may be that it's not some guy's blog. There may be two or three random slackers involved in the site. It publishes sporadically - started in 1998, "stagnated and was nearly forgotten" then relaunched in 2002 until "real life began overwhelming the site’s creator and it began to lay dormant again", relaunched in 2009, but the last article is from December 2010. Doesn't sound like much more than one guy.

If "GNOLL" even is "Noel Wood", is Noel Wood an academic, a professor of media or culture at an established university? I don't see any evidence of that. Is Noel Wood a respected critic, a film reviewer or culture pundit for a respected newspaper or magazine? I don't see any evidence of that. Is he a random guy writing on his blog? Looks like it.

So what do we care what he thinks? This ref is about one step above citing WP:GUYINBAR (if that) and please don't use refs like this any more for serious material, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Some blogger who works in a video store is clearly below some random guy in a bar. (I re-added Azeem, who seems to have been thrown out with the bath water on that one.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, if it was I who deleted that it was an error. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You caught that we were citing some dude who works/worked in a video store. I'll cut you some slack. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fortune in Rudy (1993)

The source refers to the character as an "All Knowing Black Guy". Is this a "magical negro"?

Magical negro:

• by use of special insight or powers,
• helps the white protagonist
• get out of trouble

All Knowing Black Guy:

• "the font of wisdom"
• "typically a subordinate"
• "able to see what the protagonist cannot"
• "He may be a drifter, or destitute, or disabled, usually residing on society's margins"
• "He has his limitation (and thus knows his place?)"
• "our hero desperately needs his help."

In particular, "It's Fortune the stadium janitor (Charles S. Dutton) telling Rudy to stop with the self-pity about failing to make the Notre Dame football team and instead recognize how lucky he is simply to be getting a college education."

A black guy "helps the white protagonist" is kinda-sorta close to "our hero desperately needs his help". The rest, IMO, is a stretch. Does this help the protagonist "get out of trouble" via "special insight or powers"? To "recognize how lucky he is (to get) a college education" doesn't sound like escaping much trouble, it's fairly straightforward advice. Is this basic wisdom "special insight"? Opinions? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As a default decision-making criterion, we need a specific identification of the character as "magical negro" by the source. Otherwise it is the editor's interpretation of the character description as fitting the "magical negro" characteristics, and that is not allowed per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Otherwise this list could be added to endlessly, and we will have endless debates about which characters belong and which do not. We are already seeing that in this very instance. If a character is not specifically identified as "magical negro", it needs consensus here before adding it to the article, not after. If there are others in the article not identified as "magical negro", by all means anyone should feel free to remove them unless it is decided here otherwise. BTW, I agree with SummerPhD that Fortune does not fit the "magical negro" stereotype. Cresix (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that if the source doesn't use the term "magical negro" or a very similar term we should not include it here. No rule is absolute but I'd need a lot of convincing to include someone in the category "magical negro" if the source didn't. Herostratus (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although personally I don't feel significant difference between the description of the AKBG in the source and the characteristics of the magical negro stated here, nor do I see Fortune any worse from "special insight or powers" or "helps the protagonist out of trouble" point of view than other movie characters qualified as MNs here, like e.g. Bubba Blue, but as a default decision-making criterion, we need a specific identification of the character as "magical negro" by the source is a clear an acceptable principle, so we can stick to it. Thanks for the in-depth analysis to all. Gruen (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Elijah in Unbreakable should be here, Big Jim Slade should not

I think that Mr. Glass should absolutely be included here, as the film deliberately invokes and then subverts the archetype of the magical negro. When he first appears, Mr. Glass fulfills the role of the magical negro by being a more brilliant, cultured, and knowledgeable character who uses his wits and insight to aid Bruce Willis' character in becoming something more than he was, selflessly making him a better man, husband, and father, and ultimately superhero. Glass is disenfranchised by physical disability, race, and genius. He then turns that role on its head by revealing that he has his own motives, thus contrasting the two archetypes available to disenfranchised black men in white male-centric storylines: supporting character or villain. Glass is a complex man with his own ends, whom both the Willis character and the audience readily accept as a Magical Negro who would gladly aid the strong white man with no ulterior motive or goal as if that is his entire reason for being. The character also touches on important themes of comic books from the era that Glass is interested in, when the medium was dominated by Jewish men writing about protagonists struggling with issues of assimilation and defiance, as well as physical strength and directness being lauded while physical weakness and nuance are shamed. Glass' quest to find his "place" in the modern mythology he vaunts is very telling, and the fact that he occupies both roles is part of the point of the story.

Big Jim Slade from the Kentucky Fried Movie, however, is not a magical negro in any sense of the word. His two scenes in the film consist of 1) sexually pleasuring a black woman when her black partner is unable to perform, and 2) rescuing several Asian men who are being held hostage. Both scenes are completely devoid of racial subtext, and at no point does he even appear alongside a white man, let alone serve one through wisdom or earthiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.169.143 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are fine for general discussion, but the article needs reliable sources, not just editors' opinions. BTW, Elijah was previously discussed above, and BTW, new sections go at the bottom of the talk page. Cresix (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of "negro"

I didn't notice that I was reverting 2 edits which included a move to the capitalized version. Then I noticed the odd capitalization and moved the article, unknowingly undoing a recent move. In any case, the capitalization reads as odd to most English speakers. Without some kind of explanation/discussion here, someone is going to move it back to the uncapitalized version sooner or later. So, let's go: Should "negro" be capitalized or not?

The basic argument presented is that, when the term was in common use, it was "always" capitalized and the lower case was mistaken for the Spanish word "negro" ("black"). I cannot vouch for the truth of either claim, but they seem to rely on an old convention. None of the sources I have seen use the capitalized form for "magical negro". The common term, then, would seem to be "magical negro", not "magical Negro". Other opinions? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do alittle basic research to confirm the claim. "Negro" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

My "basic research" was all of the sources in both articles. They use either "magical negro" or "Magical Negro". I find none using "magical Negro" or "Negro". Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is little in the language for which "XYZ is correct" may be definitely stated if the usage varies. We are descriptive not prescriptive here. I have no idea what the percentages are for capitalized vs. uncapitalized in modern usage. You see both. I think that "Negro" used to be prescribed but this has faded away and now "negro" is used in most cases. But I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The term as used here is a deliberate back-reference to the state of matters when "Negro" was the acceptable usage, hence the usage of the time is proper here.

• “Forty-plus years ago, when I started at Morehouse, I thought of myself as a Negro,” said Michael L. Lomax, U.N.C.F.’s president and chief executive, referring to the historically black college. “By the time I graduated in 1968, I was black. And then in the last 15 to 20 years I’ve become an African-American.” [1]

As for contemporary usage, the capitalization is still standard, as it is a proper noun:

• Online Etymological Dictionary
• Merriam-Webster
• Dictionary.com
• Free Dictionary
• Oxford Dictionaries

See also our article Negro. I'm not pushing any agenda here, but the clear purpose of the phrase, with its use of an outdated racial term, is to refer back to "Negro", and therefore the cap should be used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ethymological Dictionary, Merriam-WebsterConsider, Dictionary.com and Oxford do not have entries for "(M)agic(al) (N)egro. Free Dictionary, however, uses "magical negro". - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be pedantic, I never said they did. They all have entries which show that "Negro" is a proper noun and is capitalized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I'm not suggesting you did. I'm merely pointing out that one of the has an entry, under "magical negro" and the others have nothing comparable. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Consider also the caps use in "magical Negro" in this article in the NY Times, or in "Magic Negro" in this one. Or, look at this LA Times article about the concept. All use capital N. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well OK, those are good points. I personally don't feel strongly either way and am OK with capitalization. The article title should match, thougn, I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The article title is at cap "N". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, all of the cited sources that specifically say "(M)agic/(M)agical (N)egro" use both caps "Magical Negros". Looking at reliable sources, I find the following:

• "Magical Negro"

The Atlantic*

Rush Limbaugh*

politico.com*

Los Angeles Time*

Broward-Palm Beach New Times**

New German Critique***

Crisis, Politics and Critical Sociology***

Contemporary patterns of politics, praxis, and culture***

The Future of Public Administration Around the World***

Between Colorblind and Colorconscious: Shifting Racial Images in Contemporary Hollywood Films***

Journal of African American Studies***

The Oxford Handbook of Children's Literature***

Theory & Event***

Sociology Compass***

The Films of Stephen King***

• "Magical negro"

none

• "magical Negro"

Entertainment Weekly*

New York Observer**

Media Matters for America**

International Journal of Communication***

Research in Phenomenology***

Journal of International Relations and Development***

African Americans and Popular Culture***

Economic and Political Weekly***

Sartre Studies International***

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education***

The Journal of American Culture***

Small Axe***

Decolonizing the Academy***

College English***

Memory Studies***

White negritude***

• "magical negro"

Social Problems*

huffingtonpost*

Psychology Today*

Washington Monthly*

NewsBusters**

New Republic**

Journal of Black Studies***

Journal of Visual Culture

Film International***

Journal of Pragmatics***

Transatlantic***

The Velvet Light Trap***

*First 10 pages Google "magical negro" **Google news "magical negro" (one page of results) ***Google scholar "magical negro" (eight pages of results)

I don't see an immediate landslide here. Popular sources seem to slant toward using "Magical Negro" or "magical negro". Otherwise, it seems to be a toss-up, IMO. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Madam Zeroni (Eartha Kitt) in Holes

I am having trouble finding a source that actually labels the character of Madam Zeroni (Eartha Kitt) in Holes, as a 'magical negro'. Isn't that what her character was (a magically powerful African gypsy, whom aides the Caucasian lead). -96.228.127.207 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I didn't see the movie. But my opinion doesn't matter. Only the published opinion of a reasonably notable and reliable person does. We need to have such a person say "Madam Zeroni is an example of the 'magical Negro' archetype..." or something very similar, to include Zeroni here. Herostratus (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If the source doesn't use the term "magical Negro" it's very iffy, but arguably includable if the source says something like "Madam Zeroni is an example of the archetype of yadda yadda yadda..." if yadda yadda yadda covers most of the things that describe a magical Negro, per that article. Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A few questionable choices

There are a number of entries on this list that don't seem appropriate.

-Hitch: First of he's the protagonist, which really is sufficient to remove him. But beyond that the white guy he helps is appreciated as an inferior in all aspects throughout the entirety of the story.

-Lamont (American History X): I can see why this is on here, but he shouldn't be. First off Lamont HAS to be a black character due to the plot, and it is exactly his blackness that is how he can help the protagonist. This differs from the Magical Negro concept because that character is black to reinforce their ability as a mysterious helper. In this plot there is no other realistic way to push the protagonist through his transformation from racism than to have a black character help him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.240 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

While I think I understand your concerns, we (the editors) don't decide who is or is not a "Magical Negro". We follow what the reliable sources have to say. Both are supported by reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Alex "Hitch" Hitchens (Will Smith) in Hitch (2004)

Adding onto the previous post, I don't agree at all that Hitch should be included in this list. There was nothing there about race. This was a man who was geeky and heartbroken in his youth and decided to create chances for other men in similar situations for the women they loved to see how great they were. He could have been black or white or blue or pink, it would not have affected anything in the story. It could have even been a different actor to portray Hitch. I think this should be removed, but since I'm not the one that put it there in the first place, I didn't remove it myself. I'm hoping there can be some agreement though.

• The piece of the article that is cited for this inclusion of Hitch says the following:
  • The blockbuster romantic comedy Hitch takes the archetype to new levels by focusing on a character who's essentially a professional magical black man. Will Smith's improbably tolerant, charming "Date Doctor" makes his living by teaching uptight, fatally unfunky white folks to loosen up, get jiggy with it, and sweet-talk the ladies. In Hitch's most famous scene, Smith even indulges in the quintessential magical black man move by teaching rhythmless Cracker-American Kevin James how to dance. Progressive!

I think that is utterly ridiculous. One of the "unfunky" people was Asian if I remember correctly. And teaching someone how to dance is something that is cool, not about being black! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenGoose100 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 May 2012‎

We don't get to decide who is and who is not a "Magical Negro". We simply report who reliable sources say are Magical Negros. If it is a reliable source and says he is a Magical Negro, we include him here. If you disagree with a reliable source's conclusion, well, um, you are entitled to your opinion but that's pretty much the end of it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "Hitch" should be removed; as others have pointed out, Will Smith's character in this film just does not match the definition of "Magical Negro" given in the Wikipedia article. He has some of the characteristics: he's black, has nearly-magical powers, helps a white character, has a "broken" past. But the crucial issue is that Kevin James's character, Albert, is NOT the film's protagonist. Hitch himself is the protagonist. In this story, in fact, Albert is the "Magical Honkey," whose honesty and strength of character enable Hitch to find his own courage and win the woman he loves. With all respect to SummerPhD, I think he misstates the role of reliable sources. A reliable source is a necessary condition for making an assertion in an article, but it's not a sufficient condition. Reliable sources say all kinds of things. But Wikipedia authors and editors are not simply robotic copy writers. It's the job of the community to select content that's appropriate for each article. The shoe is on the other foot: In this case, the "reliable source" expressed an opinion. They may have had a good reason for doing so, but the rest of us needn't be bound by it when it clearly does not fit the specified criteria. The fairest solution would be to mention "Hitch" in a footnote, with an explanation of why that character doesn't fully match the definition of the term. Apruzan (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No, we cannot include "an explanation of why that character doesn't fully match the definition of the term" as we do not have a source for that. That would be WP:OR.

The current inclusion criteria here call for an independent reliable source that directly states the character is a MN. Your suggestion here seems to be that criteria should include that the character must be agreed upon by editors. I don't see how we can possibly use OR as part of the inclusion criteria and still claim the article itself is not OR. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Another example

Ron Glass as Shepherd Derrial Book in the 2005 film Serenity: A shepherd, or preacher, with a mysterious past, Book was once a passenger on Serenity, but now resides on the planet Haven. He gives advice and cryptic stuff about belief but doesn't do anything on his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.89.153 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis, but we need a reliable source saying the character fits the archetype. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oracle in The Matrix

"The Magical Negro is a somewhat mystical supporting stock character in fiction who, by use of special insight or powers, helps the white protagonist get out of trouble."

The Oracle is definitely a mystical character with special insight (and Neo is of course white) that is "directed toward helping and enlightening a white male character" (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-107894285/hoodoo-economics-white-men.html). Does that qualify her for this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Wang (talk • contribs) 08:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, a reliable source directly calling her a "magical negro" does. Please see WP:SYN. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate list?

This seems to me a ridiculous page, mostly just a list of movies where a black guy and a white guy are friends. I totally agree that the "magical negro" stereotype exists in film and that the concept itself should have an article, but this list is both pointless and inaccurate. Bubba from Forrest Gump? He is not magical and does not fit the stereotype in any way as far as I can tell. Same goes for many of these. I say away with the whole page, are we really going to have lists for every single type of stereotype character ever conceived? Waste of resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.71.23 (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion previously. The result was keep. If you believe the consensus would be different this time or that there were missed arguments previously, feel free to nominate the article again. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bubba?

I'm curious why people seem to think Bubba from Forrest Gump fits this stereotype. He has his own back story, his own ambitions, his own reason for living. He does not sacrafice himself to save Forrest, or anyone else. He does die, but not in a way that seems to fit this stereotype. He is certainly not magical, and has no special wisdom (no more so than Forrest, at least). He's very much like Forrest, and simply unlucky in that he does not survive Vietnam. He does give Forrest the idea to go into the shimping business, but I don't see why that matters. He does not exist simply as a development device for the white character, at least no more so than anyone else in the movie. Maybe I'm missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.71.23 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What anyone here thinks about whether or not Bubba fits is a moot point. We do not discuss whether or not anyone "fits". If reliable sources say the character is a "Magical Negro" then -- so far as this article is concerned -- the character is a Magical Negro.

Reliable sources, cited in the article, state that Bubba is a Magical Negro. Therefore, we list him. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A supplement to the Onion and a Hollywood gossip publication don't count as reliable sources. The fact is that Bubba is misattributed as a Magical Negro. The A.V. Club's basis for calling him a Magical Negro is that Forrest steals the idea of going into the shrimping business from Bubba, when in fact they had just made an agreement that they'd go into shrimping together after their service. The Entertainment Weekly citation makes no specific reference about Bubba. This sort of sloppy "research" is why Wikipedia remains a joke academically. If anyone on a joke publication can give a supported or unsupported opinion on something and be considered reliable then you're all Magical Negroes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:4101:97B5:5D6F:88A8:5640:B902 (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The trainer in Rocky?

He helps out a white protagonist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.167.71 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Is this is suggestion for the article, or just a comment about the character???; 2) Simply "helping out" a white protagonist is not sufficient for the characterization of "magical Negro"; 3) Even if there was a possibility that this could be considered a "magical Negro", Wikipedia doesn't add information just because of a random opinion. You need to provide a reliable source that specifically identifies the character as an example of "magical Negro". Cresix (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(You may find it difficult to find that source since Burgess Meredith is white) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:4101:97B5:5D6F:88A8:5640:B902 (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, they probably were referring to Duke, who helps Apollo train Rocky after Mickey dies, and takes over as Rocky's trainer after Apollo dies.

One source is sufficient?

It seems dubious to me that we're allowing characters to be added to this list based on only one source defining them as a magical negro...this easily allows for situations where the source may be reliable, but may also hold a minority viewpoint. I recommend that as a list selection criterion we require that any characters added to this list be characterized as a magical negro by a minimum of two reliable sources. Doniago (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, does anyone have any thoughts on this? DonIago (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it should depend on the source. If the source is very authoritative, like The New York Times, we can use one. If it is something like a local newspaper, then I think we'd want a second one. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Erik. I'm not averse to going with that, though I would be concerned that we'll end up with arguments over what constitutes a "very authoritative" source. I'd prefer a more concrete threshold. DonIago (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as there are no identified sources saying "X isn't a 'magical negro'" then WP:DUE is met. Requiring multiple RS'es for a single list entry is excessive in the absence of specific debate over that particular list element. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm admittedly having trouble imagining a scenario where there'd be a source that would make such an assertion. DonIago (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I highly doubt you'll find many sources on this that argue a negative. Per the topic I'd say that the two-source minimum is a good idea, not least because it's an extra factor in hopefully excluding barely mentionable occurrences and keeping the focus on more important ones. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

So, as a straw poll, do editors think we should:

1. Require one reliable source.
2. Require one very authoritative reliable source or two less authoritative reliable sources.
3. Require two reliable sources.
4. List your idea here.

• I'm still inclined towards option 3 myself. DonIago (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - At the moment, we have all of four entries with more than one source. With options 2 and 3, we do not currently have a viable article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a problem that couldn't be solved. DonIago (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Object to poll: We can't reasonably have a poll on whether WP:V somehow doesn't apply to this particular article. Sourcing is sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that the poll is over a year old and wasn't even heavily participated in at the time, I think it's safe to consider it defunct unless you were planning to resurrect it. DonIago (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, how about Frozone from the Incredibles?

Frozone from the Incredibles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.244.41 (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't get to decide who is and who is not a "Magical Negro". We simply report who reliable sources say are Magical Negros. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Besides the white characters also have "magical" super powers. Borock (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't get to decide who is and who is not a "Magical Negro". We simply report who reliable sources say are Magical Negros. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Guinan - Star Trek TNG (1987)

I added her to the list, but it was undone because I didn't provide sources. I'm not sure which sources are okay, etc., and where to find them (though there is plenty of Internet discussion about Guinan as magical Negro, as can be found in Google); so I'm listing her here on the talk page in case anyone else cares to find the sources. 86.164.246.89 (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has you covered. DonIago (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In Bulworth?

It's been a long time since I saw it, but perhaps "Rastaman" in Bulworth, played by Amiri Baraka, would be another example? He didn't do much, but played a sort of oracular role, as I recall. Tualha (Talk) 11:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You would need to provide a reliable source that specifically identifies the character as an example of a "magical Negro". - SummerPhD (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Tualha (Talk) 21:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Off topic

off topic chat

Other factors? I 100% agree that the stereotype exists. However maybe part of it is the desire to include more African American actors in movies. Since in most American movies the main 2 or 3 characters (protagonist and love interest and antagonist) are white, that leaves the less important parts (including helpers, advisors, etc.) open to black actors. Borock (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources.

I think one comment from a noteworthy source is enough to put a movie on the list, if it's made clear that the list is people's opinions. No amount of sources would prove that the producer or screenwriter intended to promote the stereotype, unless they said so themselves -- which is the case in a couple of the examples.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Given how the list lead currently reads I'm inclined to agree, though it might be worth considering whether the list should focus on intentional cases versus potentially inadvertent ones. DonIago (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The prose in this article is pretty sparse. There are at least a couple of scholarly articles about this topic that could be referenced to better define this trope. I doubt that most instances are intentional in their use, it is more about the use of the trope without realizing its racial implications. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing intent as vital. Yes, if the writer intended to follow the trope, that's worth mentioning. However, I can easily see various tropes spilling from scripts without intent. How easy is it to pound out a cheap knights and dragon script and wind up with a hackneyed damsel in distress? I don't see a meaningful difference here. "Gee, I've written a monocultural script and need to patch up a plot flaw -- I'll throw in a black guy who helps the protagonist with his voodoo." - SummerPhD (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It was just a thought. :) DonIago (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Mama Odie

I won't have my scholar access until my return to town in late January. In the meantime, can anyone find a reliable source for the race reversal of this trope in the recent Disney flick, The Princess and the Frog? From watching it with my niece, I seem to recall the titular black princess' friend being a white girl who otherwise fits the trope quite nicely. Google searches are turning up a number of people agreeing with my call, but I haven't found anything I'd call a usable source/ - SummerPhD (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Blind seer in O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

I added this obvious example to the list: The blind seer (Lee Weaver) in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" (2000) but without a reference, so it was reverted by Doniago. A quick google produced other mentions but probably no references meeting this article's stringent reliability standards. I'll leave it for others to research. If you haven't seen the movie, it's brilliant. Simplulo (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This article's "reliability standards" are no more stringent than other Wikipedia articles. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR apply to all Wikiedia articles. Sundayclose (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require inline citations "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if vigilant editors challenge anything without a citation. Plenty of lists contain no citations at all and remain useful and unmolested. In any event, your attention suggests that your ultimate goal is to maximize the quality of this article, if at the cost of time and efficiency, so eventually a reference will be found and this example will be included. Simplulo (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we could quickly and efficiently write thousands of very low quality articles. That, however, is not the goal of Wikipedia. Without requiring reliable sources, list could easily be several times its current size, with plenty of additions that, while probably well-intended are not meaningfully accurate (not to mention additions that are outright vandalism). Then, we could bring those additions here, one by one, to discuss them, trying to see if the random selection of people editing the article can agree who is and who is not a "Magical Negro". Eventually, we would have a list that reflects the opinions of a self-selected group of writers.

Instead, Wikipedia looks to report what reliable sources say and cite those sources so that readers can evaluate the sources.

Maybe you will find reliable sources for your addition and it will find a place in the article. Great. Maybe you won't find reliable sources. Maybe your understanding of the topic is somehow off the established definition. Maybe your example sorta-kinda fits, but not really. Maybe your example just hasn't been noticed by any reliable sources. Whatever the case, life goes on. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

As for the comment "Plenty of lists contain no citations at all and remain useful and unmolested", Wikipedia is always a work in progress and will contain unsourced and unchallenged material. Simplulo, it seems that your standard is "If junk exists anywhere, I can add junk anywhere else". If all of us had that approach to verifiability and reliable sourcing, Wikipedia would be a huge chaos of unsubstantiated opinions. I can't fix the problems on all 5,071,367 Wikipedia articles, but that doesn't mean I should or will do nothing. With little effort and within a matter of minutes, I could add about 50 unsourced items to this article. But I try to respect a fundamental requirement of Wikipedia: verifiability with reliable sources that applies to all articles, and I know that without those sources many people would disagree with my personal opinions. Simplulo, instead of following the route of other complainers who don't get to add whatever they want to an article, you could actually look around for a reliable source. Or is that just too much of a burden? You do have one other option available to everyone: get consensus to add an item without a source. Maybe you should try that if you think it's easier. Sundayclose (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ruby Rhod in The Fifth Element

I believe Ruby Rhod should be removed from the list; the only source given merely makes a comparison between Rhod and the Magical Negro, but makes no assertion that Rhod qualifies as one. (The only occurrence of the phrase "Like the standard Magical Negro, he is functional in service of the film’s white heroes but has little to no story of his own.") As the only source makes only a comparison with one aspect of the trope, and the trope includes several traits not asserted in the source article, I believe there is a good reason to remove Rhod from the list. Brcruchairman (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree: The linked article suggests he is 'like' the Magical negro in having no independent character, but that's more like a Bechdel test failure than an actual diagnosis. Ruby Rhod has none of the actual qualities; he doesn't save the heroes, give them wisdom, or really advance their story in any way. He doesn't have the deus ex machina quality that really defines the term. 108.46.113.197 (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced examples

This list is rife withThis list is rife with examples that are nowhere near what the category is about. Simply having a black man in a role that may/may not have some supernatural/fantasy powers, does not make it an example of “magic negro”. The term was used for those characters who were out of the ordinary for an African-American, mainly in a way assuaged white guilt – the connotation is a negative one, to point out that the movie had reasons other than simply filling a role with a black actor.

The black janitor “sage” in a 1940’s all-white university, tutoring a troubled white student on his way to manhood (no magic involved, and a perfect example of the meaning of the term).

But then you do have those, like “The Green Mile” where it was some magical power.

But Chris Rock in “Dogma”? Whoopie Goldberg in “Ghost”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.115.10 (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion criterion at work here is that independent reliable sources must directly call the character a "Magical Negro". Whether or not we agree falls under WP:NOR and is therefore immaterial.

(Side note: Magical powers are not necessarily part of the "Magical Negro". As the article puts it, "...by use of special insight or powers often of a supernatural or quasi-mystical nature..." As I read it, "special" is not necessarily magical, though they "often" are. I must be misreading you about Rock and Goldberg's characters: One is a prophet who travels between Heaven and Earth, the other talks with dead people. Both of those would seem to be magical/supernatural to me.)

In any case, if you feel a source is not reliable or does not directly call the character a "Magical Negro", please discuss them here. If you feel we should be using some other criterion for inclusion, please discuss that here as well. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114013842/http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20041025/kinga.shtml to http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20041025/kinga.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121190429/http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v29.n21/story3.html to http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v29.n21/story3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Maz Kanata in The Force Awakens (Star Wars)

What about the arguably black character stereotype that is magical in Star Wars the Force Awakens? Her name is Maz Kanata. Interpreted by black actor with stereotypical African American gestures. The character is a former smuggler and pirate. DTMGO (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)DTMGO

You would need to provide a reliable source that specifically identifies the character as an example of a "magical Negro". - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130129190209/http://article.nationalreview.com/313481/the-numinous-negro/flashback to http://article.nationalreview.com/313481/the-numinous-negro/flashback
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205090344/http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/09/14/magical_negro_trope to http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/09/14/magical_negro_trope
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106070835/http://people.virginia.edu/~mwh5h/MN.pdf to http://people.virginia.edu/~mwh5h/MN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091201033512/http://laist.com/2007/01/24/what_if_dakota_fanning_got_raped_and_nobody_cared.php to http://laist.com/2007/01/24/what_if_dakota_fanning_got_raped_and_nobody_cared.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103085339/http://www.theroot.com/views/magical-negro-chief to http://www.theroot.com/views/magical-negro-chief

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150612154841/http://www.viralglobalnews.com/entertainment/scariest-thing-about-annabelle-is-the-subtle-racism-it-delivers/19325/ to http://www.viralglobalnews.com/entertainment/scariest-thing-about-annabelle-is-the-subtle-racism-it-delivers/19325/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Holy Wayne - The Leftovers

The Men Are the Worst. The Worst, Jerry!|author=Bunch, Sonny|website=freebeacon.com|accessdate=2 June 2019}}</ref> source for this entry does not say the character is a "Magical Negro". It actually argues that another author is wrong to say the character is a MN. In theory, the underlying review would be a reliable source (it's a review in AV Club, but it doesn't quite say the character is a MN, rather he "has Magical Negro written all over him". It seems to be saying the author thinks the character will turn out to be a MN.[2] - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor has restored the material again. I am warning them, per WP:3RR, as this is their 5th addition of the material (4th restoration against two editors).

Their latest restoration states, "Undid revision; reference is appropriate based upon the other references in this sections; if someone doesn't feel that the reference suffices, then they should request a third party to arbitrate rather than just unilaterally enforcing their *opinion*, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia". This is mistaken. The status quo did not include the material. Per WP:BRD &ct., the status quo remains in place while the disputed change is discussed. While the IP did try to discuss the issue on my talk page, I had already brought the issue here as another editor (Nikkimaria) had been involved. As I am at 3RR myself, I will wait until later today to revert if it is still in place.- SummerPhD^v2.0 14:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an interview with the executive producer of The Leftovers addressing the commentary that the show used characters like Wayne as a “magical black man” trope: https://screencrush.com/the-leftovers-season-2-finale-tom-perrotta/. Here is a recap of season 1 where they specifically indicate that Wayne has become a "Magical Negro" by the end of the season: https://www.tvbuzer.com/news/the-leftovers-season-1-finale-recap-the-guilty-remnant-s-memorial-day-plot-has-devastating-consequences-50379. This is an academic text that discusses Holy Wayne in Chapter 2 (https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Politics-Colorblind-Routledge-Transformations-ebook/dp/B00YY64066): "Holy Wayne oft-disrobed, muscular, dark body takes the pain...of his predominately white, male clientele. The visual imagery is iconic and hearkens back to past representations of Black men acting as magical negros largely in service of white men." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.96.37 (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Can an editor explain why these references (listed in my last post) are also inappropriate for justifying the inclusion of Holy Wayne on this wikipedia page? Since there are 3 references, I'd like to re-updated the wiki page to include this character.

@SummerPhDv2.0: Your thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not about how many sources you list. I can give you dozens of sources saying the queen of England is an alien/human hybrid. (I'm quite certain the claim is nonsense.)

The screencrush source has viewers commenting on the trope, but not in reference to a particular character. Perrotta agrees that Virgil "was moving very close to that stereotype"/"does maybe follow that stereotype a little bit" and says John Murphy is "ultra-rationalist". Kinda wishy-washy "very close to", for Virgil; no support for John Murphy or Holy Wayne.

The tvbuzer (sic) source says, directly, that Holy Wayne "really did end up being just a magical negro character". Unless I'm missing something, though, it sure looks like user-created content. Am I missing something?

"Cultural Politics..." is published by Routledge. Unless anyone else has specific objections, for a claim like this it's solid without further explanation (that the fact we'd cite it for is relevant to the book makes it ever moreso). I'd use it for some kind of mushy wording that the character "hearkens back to" MNs, rather than is a MN. Except for the apparent SPS, everyone seems to be stopping short of saying anyone is a MN. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The first statement of the reply was needlessly condescending. Nevertheless, I'd just like for a third party to weigh in. @Nikkimaria: Would you be able to evaluate the 2nd and 3rd references? The 2nd is aggregated onto tvbuzer.com from BuddyTV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuddyTV) -- an entertainment website whose archive is only available through aggregation at this point. The third is a book discussing blindcasting and Holy Wayne is used as the initial example from chapter 2 of the text. If a third party says that neither of these sources are acceptable, then I will let it go. Thanks for your help.

Heimdall (Idris Elba) in "Thor" and related films?

I'm not knowledgable about the Marvel Universe, but it looks like the character of Heimdall in the original comics was drawn with Norse coloring and features, like most of the gods of Asgard. So perhaps changing him to black in the films (very well played by Idris Elba, by the way) qualifies the character as a Magical Negro. Certainly in the film "Thor" itself, he is the only (significant) black character, and his only function seems to be to help the white protagonist. I couldn't immediately find a published source making that point, but imagine one is out there. Worth looking if others think the addition makes sense. What do y'all think? Apruzan (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Tvtropes.com

Would tvtopes.com be considered a reliable source for this article? It's used to source Bludworth in Final Destination. The website appears to allow anyone to edit. Pinging regulars SummerPhDv2.0 and Doniago Sundayclose (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No. WP:SPS. I'd recommend checking WP:RSN as well, but that's my instinct. DonIago (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This entire page belongs to TV Tropes, not Wikipedia. It doesn't fit Wikipedia's model at all. It's an attempt to collect single subject film criticism into a comprehensive list. Wiki going to do this for every other common film critique? Or every common critique forevery genre of art?

Maybe Wikipedia should just incorporate all pages by TV Tropes, Film Tropes, etc. Make 100,000 new articles just detailing movie mistakes, easter eggs, etc.

The original page makes sense. It lists examples. The point of Wikipedia is not to be all things to everyone. It's supposed to present and explain ideas, not exhaustively list examples. The pedantry! You know not what pages may come!J1DW (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. "Magical Negro" is one of many stock characters that has been widely discussed among film critics. Read Magical Negro. This list is just an extension of that article. As for "exhaustively list examples", that's not really an issue because the number of examples is quite limited, about 60 or so among many thousands of films. This list is quite reasonable in length. There is no danger that this list will become bloated because the entries in the list are reliably sourced, and some editors have monitored the list to ensure that unsourced opinions are not added. Sundayclose (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I will say if there was concern that this list was becoming indiscriminate then I'd support requiring two sources before listing an instance, but I believe I brought that up previously and it was rejected. I don't currently have a strong feeling about it one way or another. DonIago (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The Blue Fairy in Pinocchio (2022)?

She's a literal magic Black character whose purpose is to help out the white protagonist. Pretty textbook magical negro. Somarain (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Should be easy enough to find a source that's connected those dots then. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Source for "Hitch"

Regarding the discussion below about removing Hitch from this list, I believe the source for this to be unreliable, within the same source references are made to The Green Mile film regarding that film's "magical negro" curing Tom Hanks' character's impotence (incorrect it's a UTI) and his wife's cancer (incorrect it's the prison warden's wife who has cancer). Given how prominent both of these things are, I'm not convinced the person writing that source has actually watched the films described, and therefore doubt its reliability. 2A02:C7E:3502:9D00:7807:3AF9:91D3:F17C (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

“ The Magical Negro is a supporting stock character in fiction who, by means of special insight or powers often of a supernatural or quasi-mystical nature, helps the white protagonist get out of trouble”

In a couple of instances mentioned this seems to be the protagonist, even the title character. Drsruli (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the definition may need to be refined, that those examples maybe don't belong in the article, or both? You didn't provide examples to be reviewed or clearly indicate what your desired outcome or concern is. Thank you for clarifying! DonIago (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The definition appears to exclude protagonist or main characters. Therefore these examples should be reconsidered (or else the definition should be). Drsruli (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Which examples? DonIago (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What would be examples of black characters who have superhuman abilities, but do not belong to the this category of a "magic negro" ?

the listed entries are so broad and include examples of characters who have the exact same set of abilities as the protagonist and/or other characters in the story, like Morpheus in Matrix. 2A02:3100:91AD:9600:54C9:14A3:978A:3D34 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We go by whether reliable sources have described the character as a "magical Negro", so I don't really understand the question. Simply having superhuman abilities doesn't make a Black character a "magical Negro" though, as discussed in the lead. DonIago (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)