Talk:Reno Wilson

The fact that Reno Wilson made all of Frenzy's dialog without being filtered or anything, (besides the Oh shi-)...Reno's page or Frenzy's? --Terrocon Blot 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I say both. --Andrusi 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-Offense?

There's a note that "Apparently, as Mudflap, he was horrendously offensive to himself. That surprised him." However, all of his quotes in the cited article make it sound like he wasn't offended at all and didn't see Mudflap's portrayal as being worth the fuss. I think there's an incongruity here. - Caswin 21:19, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

The point is that people claimed his portrayal was offensive to black people, which surprised him. And since he himself is black, he was apparently offensive to himself. -- Dark T Zeratul 21:48, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

If it's supposed to be a joke, it doesn't read like one. I've never heard anyone, including the article, try to say that all black people were offended by his character... or is it a joke? I'm still not sure that I follow. - Caswin 22:52, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

One of the widespread reactions to ROTF was that people thought Skids and Mudflap were racist caricatures of black people. Did you read the article linked to in the citation? It explains the note. --abates 23:14, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

I did, and I know that many people (enough to merit writing an article on the subject on the widespread reaction) were offended by their appearance. However, the note simply says, "as Mudflap, he was horrendously offensive to himself. That surprised him." If I'm reading Dark T Zeratul correctly, it sounds like it's supposed to make fun of the controversy, but even then, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. - Caswin 23:24, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

People thought Mudflap was offensive to black people, by which logic Reno Wilson should have been offended by his own character. He was surprised by this as he didn't regard Mudflap as a black stereotype. The note is employing sarcasm as a means of pointing this out. --abates 23:35, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

The problem is that I keep hearing that "people thought Mudflap was offensive to black people," and that the joke is that that must mean (if all black people are offended by Mudflap) that Wilson himself is offended by Mudflap. However, the article never says that. It says that many viewers were offended, which they were. (I would guess that that goes for many races, black or white, but I can't back that up.) It barely mentions race at all, least of all as an absolute, until it mentions the perceived stereotypes or the fact that Wilson himself is black. Even with that explanation -- which, again, isn't reflected in the article in the first place -- now it just sounds to me like it's trying to be sarcastic about a strawman. - Caswin 23:48, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

We could link to some other articles with people calling them racist stereotypes? --abates 00:41, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

I don't see why you would. The note is based on the idea that "apparently", all black people are ("horrendously") offended by Mudflap, which I've never heard anywhere, including the article. Other articles with people calling him a racist stereotype wouldn't do anything to substantiate that, and without that premise, it doesn't work at all. Besides that, it isn't very clear or intuitive. I think that it would be better just to delete it. - Caswin 00:55, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

I'm not sure why one person's anecdotal evidence is trumping everyone else's. --ItsWalky 21:33, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

I'm not sure I follow you. Who's using anecdotal evidence? (It isn't me, is it? The short version is, the note is inaccurate, even as a joke, and the linked article doesn't actually back it up.) - Caswin 21:41, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

...so, if there aren't any objections, can we take it out? Or am I missing something? - Caswin 21:49, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

In full awareness that I've already been warned for over-tweaking my earlier comments -- this wasn't my first time; I'll do better in the future -- I'm afraid of being instantly reverted again. Unless I've missed something important, the note in question is factually wrong, difficult to read, based on a faulty premise, and (with apologies to the original editor) not very funny. Can I safely delete it? - Caswin 22:32, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

I'd say everyone else disagrees, so you're outvoted. --ItsWalky 00:07, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

But... nobody has disagreed. I was confused at first, asked for an explanation, and it came out that the note is altogether wrong. After that, when I suggested deleting it, nobody objected. I've edited it to actually describe what happened and it was reverted again. What's the problem? - Caswin 16:17, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

I disagree. There. --Detour 17:15, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

The note was there for nearly 3 years, with several prominent editors seeing fit to leave it as they made other changes. - Cattleprod 17:36, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

That as may be, I've explained what's wrong with it, and established that (among other things) it's misleading, which wiki policy specifically says should go. This can't be the first long-standing piece of an article that's been edited much later. - Caswin 17:39, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

The note makes sense to EVERYONE WHO'S EVER READ IT EXCEPT YOU. It was explained to you by abates, an explanation that you did not seem to understand and your response to said explanation MADE NO SENSE TO ANYONE OTHER THAN YOU. --Khajidha 17:46, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

I understood abates' explanation. If you didn't understand my response, then I apologize. Put more briefly, it's based on a premise that the article doesn't actually back up. Even if it's comprehensible, it's incorrect. - Caswin 17:52, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Are you Reno Wilson's agent or something? You're inordinately interested in getting this one thing changed.--Carrion 18:32, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

No, but the thought had crossed my mind. I know what it usually means when one person is at odds with three or four others. I'm surprised it got this far to begin with. It's an edit to a point of interest, and to my knowledge, I wasn't breaking any rules or being disruptive, so while I got the "joke" just fine, I was still puzzled about why my edits were reverted without any explanation. Is there an unwritten "If it's not broke, don't fix it" rule? (Of course, my argument is that it is broke, and editing it would be an improvement.) - Caswin 18:55, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

1) There have been several claims that Mudflap is an offensive caricature of black people; i.e., Mudflap's portrayal is offensive to black people (while members of other groups may feel empathetic disgust, you can't really be offended by something that isn't aimed at you)

2) Reno Wilson is black.

3) If the claims in (1) are true, then Reno Wilson must be offended by Mudflap.

4) He isn't (and he was the one putting forth the portrayal, so that (1) would imply he was being racist against himself)

5) ????

6) Humor

You seem to be saying that "X is meant to be an offensive, racist stereotype of group Y" does not necessarily mean "X is meant to offend all members of group Y", which is...extremely pedantic, if not outright false. That there are members of Y who don't get worked up by X does not mean X wasn't meant to target them as members of group Y. Even if this is technically true, not all humor is pointing out amusing incongruities; a good portion of it is exagerrating a detail to the point of hyperbole, then pointing out the incongruity you just created.

You're not breaking an explicit rule that I know of, but you are breaking the unwritten rule of "don't waste everyone's time with trivial nitpicks, go do something productive instead".192.249.47.177 17:11, 25 May 2012 (EDT)