Cyborgs
I don't think including individuals with cybernetics that effectively compensate for a physical handicap is the right move here. This category has a significant real-life basis, when the majority of individuals in Star Wars who have cybernetics to fix a physical handicap are effectively cured of said handicap by their cybernetics, something that is not as yet possible in real life. Exceptions (such as Skelly) are rare. SilverSunbird (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- To add to my first argument, I believe this category should be restricted as follows:
- To people who have a physical handicap, such as blindness or lost limbs, but who have not received cybernetics to compensate.
- To cyborgs whose cybernetics have restrictions that have been explicitly stated to handicap them, such as Darth Vader or the aforementioned Skelly.
- To individuals who did get cybernetics which effectively cured their physical handicap, but only after spending a significant in-universe period of time without them, such as Wolf Sazen.
- I think these restrictions will help improve this category. SilverSunbird (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I realize my proposal does not address the brain injuries referenced on the main category page, but that is a different issue, as I am focussed on the physically handicapped at this time. SilverSunbird (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't believe it should be restricted based on using or not using assistive devices, or the level of assistance those devices provide. The purpose is to help people see characters in Star Wars who have disabilities. To avoid overpopulation, I was thinking more about breaking down by type. Evaluating whether or not a character's disability is "cured" is something that I think brings in some potentially problematic stuff. I also want to avoid the outdated terminology "handicap[ped]" which is non-preferred language in American English; I don't know if that's different in Australia/Canada/UK. The category was inspired by someone raising the topic of diversity in Star Wars. Immi Thrax
(talk) 00:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's not an outdated term in Canada; we don't use "disability" altogether that much. I am obviously not saying that that kind of thing can be cured in real life, but this is not real life, and many kinds of science fiction have featured ways to eliminate physical handicaps/disabilities. The thing is that these characters don't really come off as being physically disabled at any point because they just got a cybernetic straight off, unlike real life experiences. It might be more useful to fit characters like Luke, Grievous, or Wolffe into a special sub-category of cyborgs instead of this one. SilverSunbird (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Silver here. People like Luke who do not suffer any kind of disability because of cybernetics should not be described as disabled. The OED defines disabled as "Rendered incapable of action or use" or "having a physical or mental condition which limits activity, movement, sensation, etc.," neither of which applies to people with advanced cybernetics. VergenceScatter (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Replying to both SilverSunbird and VergenceScatter: In America, that terminology is generally regarded as offensive by many people with disabilities. Although some people aren't fond of the word disability/disabled either, it's usually regarded as neutral (unlike the condescending term "differently abled"). Luke, in particular, has been very meaningful to people with limb loss and limb differences as someone heroic and not treated as weakened by losing his hand. I don't like the idea of separating categories out in that way and regarding disabilities in terms of suffering or compensation, as different people make different decisions. For instance, Tenel Ka Djo elected not to get a prosthetic arm, but that doesn't mean she is weakened or suffering by it. Characters with cybernetics would still not have that body part or sense if they didn't use those devices. Immi Thrax (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- First, I disagree with the statement that a disability doesn't result in any kind of problems for a person, or a weakening of one's ability. That's what a disability is. I do see your point about Luke being meaningful to disabled people—that's something that I hadn't though about, but I still think that he can't qualify as disabled if he doesn't meet the definition of the word, regardless of how he's viewed. VergenceScatter (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's perfectly possible to be badass with only one hand, as the character you mentioned, Tenel Ka, proves, and as have others. But it is not the same as having two functional hands, meaning it is a physical limitation regardless of how little the character may think of it. Advanced cybernetics change the equation. It's awesome that Luke et al. are seen as positive representation for amputees. But that does not mean that Luke et al. are actually, categorically disabled within the context of the Star Wars universe, especially when they got their cybernetics quite quickly. SilverSunbird (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Vergence, no intention to suggest that a disability has no impact, just trying to be clear that the impact isn't always regarded as a negative one and can be considered just a difference. As with categories like Category:Unidentified individuals, there's an out-of-universe element to the categorizing; those individuals have names in-universe, but we're categorizing them in part from an OOU perspective. Luke's prosthetic hand compensates for the loss of it when that prosthetic is attached and functional. Real people and characters both have different experiences and relationships to their disabilities, like Tenel Ka's settling on "so what?", Luke preferring a prosthetic, and Legends Vader having painfully bad prosthetics, but all having lost one or more limbs. Perhaps a child category not by level of compensation, but something like Individuals with disabilities > Individuals with lost limbs > Individuals with prosthetics for lost limbs? The last could also be a subcategory under Cyborgs?Immi Thrax
(talk) 00:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that whether or not the impact is negative has no real bearing on the topic at hand, but regardless Luke's prosthetics mean that there isn't any impact as a result of losing his hand. Because of the compensation that his prosthetics provide, he isn't being limited in any way, nor is he incapable of using his hand. Therefore, he doesn't not fit the definition of disabled. I'm fine with a category for individuals with lost limbs, though I don't think that it should be considered a subcategory of this one since not everyone who loses a limb in Star Wars is actually disabled. VergenceScatter (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at it again, I think what you suggested is actually a good compromise, so I would be fine with doing that. VergenceScatter (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Let's make it Category:Cyborgs with prosthetics (including cybernetic eyes), and exclude Grievous from this category, and I'm good with that. SilverSunbird (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like canon may be severely inconsistent on whether Grievous was injured like Legends or one day went "it would be SO COOL to be a cyborg!", or maybe that's just a problem with the article's organization. (Argh, consistency!)) I'm checking with our resident Grievous Expert for this thoughts. This is the sort of thing I'm now thinking, are we three on the same page?: Immi Thrax (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Individuals with disabilities > Individuals with lost limbs > Tenel Ka Djo, Luke Skywalker...
- Individuals with disabilities > Blind individuals > Kanan Jarrus, Gadon Thek...
- Cyborgs > Cyborgs with prosthetics > Luke Skywalker, Gadon Thek...
- That could work... but, just to add something I thought of now, we should NOT put people who intentionally replaced their own body parts with prosthetics in this category or any subcategories. That's not being maimed, that's intentional body modification. SilverSunbird (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I definitely wasn't thinking of intentional "this would be SWEET" body mods, either! Does it work to clarify that in the description, or would a different term better convey that in the name? Prosthetics is supposed to mean a replacement due to lost from disease/trauma/congenital conditions, not "I want to see ultraviolet" "I want a blaster arm" and other Star Wars reasons. Immi Thrax (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think just keeping them in the base "Cyborgs" category would work. Honestly, "Cyborgs with prosthetics" could work as a subcategory of this one IMO. SilverSunbird (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I also think it might be for the best to only put people in the "prosthetics" category where we know for sure the loss of the original body part was not deliberate on their part. And it might be good for the same to apply to this category, given the extreme body modification we were just talking about. SilverSunbird (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's my intention with it, explicitly knowing the cause rather than speculating. As with a lot of things, not every editor will get the memo, but we can try to make that clear in the description. I'm gonna make a new heading level for reworking descriptions since this is getting squishy. (ETA: Now that I look closer, the cyborgs category is pretty overpopulated itself and could do with subcategories.) Immi Thrax (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's my intention with it, explicitly knowing the cause rather than speculating. As with a lot of things, not every editor will get the memo, but we can try to make that clear in the description. I'm gonna make a new heading level for reworking descriptions since this is getting squishy. (ETA: Now that I look closer, the cyborgs category is pretty overpopulated itself and could do with subcategories.) Immi Thrax
- I definitely wasn't thinking of intentional "this would be SWEET" body mods, either! Does it work to clarify that in the description, or would a different term better convey that in the name? Prosthetics is supposed to mean a replacement due to lost from disease/trauma/congenital conditions, not "I want to see ultraviolet" "I want a blaster arm" and other Star Wars reasons. Immi Thrax
- Looks like canon may be severely inconsistent on whether Grievous was injured like Legends or one day went "it would be SO COOL to be a cyborg!", or maybe that's just a problem with the article's organization. (Argh, consistency!)) I'm checking with our resident Grievous Expert for this thoughts. This is the sort of thing I'm now thinking, are we three on the same page?: Immi Thrax
- Let's make it Category:Cyborgs with prosthetics (including cybernetic eyes), and exclude Grievous from this category, and I'm good with that. SilverSunbird (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Vergence, no intention to suggest that a disability has no impact, just trying to be clear that the impact isn't always regarded as a negative one and can be considered just a difference. As with categories like Category:Unidentified individuals, there's an out-of-universe element to the categorizing; those individuals have names in-universe, but we're categorizing them in part from an OOU perspective. Luke's prosthetic hand compensates for the loss of it when that prosthetic is attached and functional. Real people and characters both have different experiences and relationships to their disabilities, like Tenel Ka's settling on "so what?", Luke preferring a prosthetic, and Legends Vader having painfully bad prosthetics, but all having lost one or more limbs. Perhaps a child category not by level of compensation, but something like Individuals with disabilities > Individuals with lost limbs > Individuals with prosthetics for lost limbs? The last could also be a subcategory under Cyborgs?Immi Thrax
- Replying to both SilverSunbird and VergenceScatter: In America, that terminology is generally regarded as offensive by many people with disabilities. Although some people aren't fond of the word disability/disabled either, it's usually regarded as neutral (unlike the condescending term "differently abled"). Luke, in particular, has been very meaningful to people with limb loss and limb differences as someone heroic and not treated as weakened by losing his hand. I don't like the idea of separating categories out in that way and regarding disabilities in terms of suffering or compensation, as different people make different decisions. For instance, Tenel Ka Djo elected not to get a prosthetic arm, but that doesn't mean she is weakened or suffering by it. Characters with cybernetics would still not have that body part or sense if they didn't use those devices. Immi Thrax
Description revisions
- So, for clarity of description in this parent category and any subcategories, any suggested rewordings? Immi Thrax (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)