Talk:Stereotype/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

No CH sounds in Arabic?

WHAT?!? the Streotyped gibberish using CH sounds is using CH as in Loch or Chutzpa not Ch as in Chair this is the letter Chaa(khaa) in arabic and is a very common sound! somebody edit that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.193 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cliche vs. stereotype

The section confuses cliche and stereotype. Cliche is a kind of recurrence in art, while a stereotype is about a recurrence in reality. --Zslevi (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite their proximity in etymological roots, cliché and stereotype are not used synonymously in cultural spheres. For example a cliché is a high criticism in narratology where genre and categorization automatically associates a story within its recognizable group. Labeling a situation or character in a story as typical suggests it is fitting for its genre or category. Whereas declaring that a storyteller has relied on cliché is to pejoratively observe a simplicity and lack of originality in the tale. To criticize Ian Fleming for a stereotypically unlikely escape for James Bond would be understood by the reader or listener, but it would be more appropriately criticized as a cliché in that it is overused and reproduced. Narrative genre relies heavily on typical features to remain recognizable and generate meaning in the reader/viewer.

TO DO list to improve article

I strongly believe that instead of expanding the list of stereotypes, more worth would be to add a section on techniques on overcoming stereotypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is intended to be used for such normative tasks.--XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Improving THIS page

Anyone else agree that it's time to tidy up THIS page (i.e. this talk page, not the article itself). Not proposing removing anything much, just reorganising what's here so it's not such a mess. Rowmn (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

LIST OF STEREOTYPES

HELP PLEASE ADD TO LIST

What benefit would a list or sterotypes add to the article? 81.149.82.243 10:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What benefit is an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.36.233 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Head paragraph

Ste

too simple a reading

You might wish to, rather than provide a long list of archetypal stereotypes that now defines the word (for better or worse), expand on the issue a bit. Stereotyping is a sort of mechanism, almost sophisticated, and its significance is found not in the multitude of mundane stereotypes like "lazy mexican" and so forth, but in the way attributes roles to types of people, and for that matter the way it attributes types to people. I would take this upon myself, but alas I am too lazy, and Mexican for that matter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.66.174 (talk • contribs)

---

Way too many examples

I've removed a few examples from the list of stereotypes because they were pretty irrelevant to an examination of stereotypes, such as the tobacco-spitting baseball player. This list is starting to become too long, in my opinion, and I think we ought to pare it down to a list of ten to twenty important stereotypes. And considering the vast number of stereotypes there are in all of the world's English-speaking countries, there have got to be some kind of criteria which would weed out stereotypes such as "the over-delivering game show host." Superking 23:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not Stereotypes

Most of these don't really qualify as stereotypes, I think. "The brightly coloured cort jester?" If anything, that is a misconception. Most of these seem more along the lines of a cliché.

I was thinking the same thing. You don't hear conversations where people say, "Oh, you know court jesters. They're all alike. Their kind is very brightly colored." Superking 07:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah the court jester was way to stupid but somebody erased my nerdy kid in school!!!! i thought that was a good one :D Maberk

I just think the articlue ought to list important stereotypes, preferably with historical significance in English-speaking countries. I've been hesitant to remove SOME, as I don't know how widespread they are in, say, Great Britain or Australia. But the nerdy schoolkid one was a problem because that's a caricature, not a stereotype.

A good example is the one about black people being lazy. It's a blanket statement about an entire group of people, and it has no factual basis. But with the nerdy schoolkid, who is that a stereotype of? Nerds, or schoolchildren? Either way, aside from being pretty prominent in pop culture, I just don't think it's had any kind of historical impact. Superking 07:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stereotypes? Stereotypes? I gotta RCA and a BTK oh, wait the last one was a group I heard on the stereo. ooops! MY BAD!!!! Hey, do people really still think of others in this manner. Oh so 2 minutes ago and not too mention archaic. Let me do a Joan Rivers impersonation.. GAG ME!!! NO really is it true we still have stereotypes and by the way people do talk about how britely colored I am after all I am "THE COURT JESTER" Go courtjester Go courtjester!!

im curious. why bother merging them? they are separate and yet the same. why not just let them be separate and just list the links for those who want specified information/ meanings. i for one want them separate- i want the meaning to use in essays and stuff. keep it pure and simple and just leave them as they are.

I think that stereotyping is just stupid. I think you shouldn't care about thoses things....so what if their different! Dont stereotype until you look in the mirror

Rush Limbaugh Reference

I have a problem where the article references Rush Limbaugh, the link on the bottom doesn't lead to anything that limbaugh said, just a commentary on the situation. His actual words were

Limbaugh: "I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

I am very new to Wikipdia and don't want to change something that shouldn't be changed. What do you guys think was Limbaugh Stereotyping? Maybe at least have the link lead to somewhere that HAS his comments. http://www.adversity.net/special/rush_limbaugh.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codycos (talk • contribs) 05:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Codycos - I know nothing about Limbaugh and these specific comments, but I can't see that what one person believes (or doesn't believe) is the issue. One person having an opinion doesn't make that opinion a stereotype. I'm not arguing about whether there is an issue with stereotyping, ethnic origin, and intelligence - just that quoting one person's beliefs tells us nothing useful for this specific article. I vote for the sentence to be removed.

Rowmn (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Types of stereotyping

I've removed "immigration status" from the list, because I think it's too specific. If we include it then we might as well include hundreds of other types of stereotyping. Besides, I'm not sure there's a common stereotype linking, e.g., illegal Mexican immigrants and illegal Swedish immigrants. The "illegal immigrant" stereotype is really an example of national stereotyping, IMO.

Pervasively Problematic

This entry makes many undocumented and unsupported claims, and it fails to capture the broad diversity of views regarding what constitutes a stereotype, whether they are socially shared or individually unique, and whether stereotypes are generally accurate or inaccurate. It has references, but the refernces do not provide support for the specific claims or definitions.

One central problem is with all of the references. Notice that Steele, C. and his collaborators are the *only* researchers whose work is discussed. The references appear to be a promotion for the work of Claude Steele.

Claude Steele is best known for his work on "stereotype threat," which is, basically, the idea that when people worry about confirming a stereotype it actually causes them to confirm that stereotype. Please notice that the terms "threat" and "stereotype" appear in almost every one of the cited articles (one uses the term "vulnerability" instead).

This is good and important work on its merits. "Stereotype Threat" probably deserves a wikipedia entry of its own. But there is a problem:

Claude Steele has never conducted research assessing the accuracy of people's stereotypes. To do so requires: 1. Assessing people's beliefs about one or more groups 2. Assessing the characteristics of those groups (e.g., via Census data or other scientific methods) 3. Comparing beliefs to criteria.

I realize this is an absolute statement -- "Claude Steele has never conducted accuracy research" -- but it is absolutely true. If anyone can find a single exception to this, I will retract this claim. (Indeed, Steele's work can be read as explaining *why* some stereotypes *are* true).

Worse, numerous researches *have* studied the accuracy of stereotypes and none -- absolutely none -- of them are cited. This is a serious problem, which feeds back to the content of the article, because, if researchers who have studied stereotype accuracy and inaccuracy were cited, many of the claims in this article would not be supported.

I provide below a short and preliminary list of articles that have actually assessed either the accuracy of people's stereotypes or the extent to which people rely on their stereotypes when judging individuals (the idea that people routinely and powerfully assume individuals fit their stereotypes is a basis for claiming stereotypes are inaccurate, but it, too, has been largely disconfirmed by social scientific data).

Ashton, M. C., & Esses, V. M. (1999). Stereotype accuracy : Estimating the academic performance of ethnic groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 225-236.

Brodt, S. E., & Ross, L. D. (1998). The role of stereotyping in overconfident social prediction. Social Cognition, 16, 225 252

Goldman, W., & Lewis, P. (1977). Beautiful is good: Evidence that the physically attractive are more socially skillful. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 125 130.

Hall, J. A., & Carter, J. D. (1999). Gender-stereotype accuracy as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 350-359.

Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1993). Definition and assessment of accuracy in social stereotypes. Psychological Review, 100, 109-128.

Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. J. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 281-388.

Kunda, Z., Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103, 284-308.

Lee, Y. T., Jussim, L., & McCauley, C. R. (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 821-831.

Mackie, M. (1973). Arriving at "truth" by definition: The case of stereotype inaccuracy. Social Problems, 20, 431-447.

Madon, S. J., Jussim, L., Keiper, S., Eccles, J., Smith, A., & Palumbo, P. (1998). The accuracy and power of sex, social class and ethnic stereotypes: Naturalistic studies in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1304 1318.

McCauley, C., & Stitt, C. L. (1978). An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 929-940.

McCauley, C., Stitt, C. L., & Segal, M. (1980). Stereotyping: From prejudice to prediction. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 195-208.

Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2005). Rethinking the link between categorization and prejudice within the social cognition perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 108-130.

Ryan, C. (1996). Accuracy of Black and White college students’ in-group and out-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1114-1127.

Ryan, C. (1995). Motivations and the perceiver's group membership: Consequences for stereotype accuracy. In Y. T. Lee, L. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (eds.), (pp. 189-214) Stereotype accuracy. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Ryan, C. S., & Bogart, L. M. (2001). Longitudinal changes in the accuracy of new group members’ in-group and out-group stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 118-133.

Swim, J. K. (1994). Perceived versus meta-analytic effect sizes: An assessment of the accuracy of gender stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 21-36.

Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay vs. John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 409-429.

Some of these articles are fairly technical, but I think most people could get the gist of their main points without much hard scientific training. If possible, I therefore request that commentators on this article read at least one of the above articles (any one!) in order to understand why this wikipedia entry fails to represent the full range of social science thinking on these issues. If possible, also please read any one of the Steele articles -- the American Psychologist one makes for very good reading, it is an important topic, but you will see -- he assesses *effects* of stereotypes, not whether they are accurate, shared, unjustifiably applied to individuals, etc.

I hope I have made this entry in the appropriate "wikipedia" way. I have been using it for a while, but this is my first foray into editing entries.

LeeJ55 14:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestions! Wikipedia is volunteer-run, and it seems very likely that someone who knows more about this subject hasn't come along yet. I agree with your criticisms of the article, but I lack the expertise to attempt a fix - if you see something you think is particularly egregious, please change it, reference it, or delete it yourself. Be Bold!. Ziggurat 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I will unlink this article from Stereotype threat and make it point to Race and intelligence#Environmental explanations, which contains the background for this topic, and at least a sentence or two (with footnotes and references). It's not perfect, but at least serves as a better starting point than Stereotype, which has no information about the issue. (I will clean up the references of this article accordingly.) An alternative would be Intelligence testing, but there is nothing about Stereotype threat there either (though there maybe ought to.) Disagree? Revert me with all speed! Arbor 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge or with Ethnic Stereotype?

Another issue is that an Ethnic Stereotype must be a subset of the category "Stereotype." Therefore, although it is reasonable to discuss ethnic stereotypes, the entry probably should be merged here.

At minimum, the definition and discussion of terms should be consistent, if two separate entries are maintained.

(forgot to sign, LeeJ55)

Stereotypes aren't always ethic, and I would argue are rarely so. Ethnic Stereotypes are usually the most visible and offensive stereotypes, but we stereotype everyone we see the moment we see them. I don't support the merge. PDXblazers 02:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not that this should be merged into Ethnic Stereotype. Consistent with PDXblasers point, only *some* stereotypes are ethnic. However all ethnic stereotypes are ... stereotypes! On this basis, Ethnic Stereotype should be merged into Stereotype. Failure to do so risks having a fundamentally different definition, description, etc., for one construct (ethnic stereotype) that is a mere subset of another (stereotype). LeeJ55, 8/1/06.

The issue is that this article will only be really good if it recognises that stereotypes can be about many different groups (e.g. old people, blond women, computer scientists, US presidents, etc etc etc). We could continually extend this article (for instance there is currently a suggestion that a 'gender' section is needed - and I was about to add the beginnings of a 'disability' section when I realised that there was no natural end point). I think that the discussion of ethnic stereotypes belongs on the ethnic stereotype page, but that this important page should remain in place. Is there a graceful/approved way to do this? Or does someone just have to be bold and do it by copy/paste means? LeeJ55, you are right that there is a risk of having different definitions/descriptions, but I can't see an alternative. Hignopulp (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stereotyping etymology

I notice that Stereotyping is a term given for a type of print making for newspapers - a 'stereotype' is a metal printing plate. Generalising about a group is a bit like the printing process - mark something up once and then apply all over. Perhaps worth including this in the discussion?

^not me. Also, I was trying to find the etymology section that I was reading yesterday... Where did it go? E racer1999 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

They were removed by 72.155.165.208 on 22 April. It appears to have been vandalism. I've replaced the sections. Nkocharh 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed

==Other places==

Stereotyping is becoming a natural way for people to catagorize and organize ethinic groups, races, sex, social communities, etc. But it has been happening in areas such as online on things like xbox live especially on certain games for the xbox where stereotyping and racism go rampant. The latest i've seen was one british boy and one american boy stereotyping one another about which race is supereior and since neither of these boys will see each other they believe thatit is ok to be like that in a community where people just want to have fun so that kind of behavior is unacceptable even in those places.

The above was removed because it is anecdotal, not encyclopedic. I left it hear in case the author comes back and would like to rewrite/reference it. JamieJones ^talk 00:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd paragraph

This paragraph has problems:

Stereotypes were all formed from ones invalid opinion or a prior fact that was maliciously contourted into a hurtful statement. The later can be exemplified by the Jewish stereotype of greed. This was actually formed in the Middle Ages, where those of Christian descent were not allowed to be merchants or money lenders. As a result, the occupation was dominated by those of Jewish descent. The stereotype was then formed that Jewish people were greedy because they had jobs that had to do with money.

It has already been established in the article that not all stereotypes are hurtful or malicious. Also, not all stereotypes are contorted, but may simply be generalizations that are factual for a group as a whole, even if it is not factual for every member of that group. Lastly, while the stereotype of Jewish greed is a good example of a hurtful stereotype, it doesn't seem to fit with the beginning of the paragraph. Perhaps it belongs in a section of examples of stereotypes. --24.200.34.209 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are the examples?

I'd like to know what certain stereotypes are, thanks. Oh yeah and stereotypes exist for a reason because they're true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs)

First off, I do not agree with the second statement by the above poster; I am a jew, but I am not particularly stingy. However, I think a list of stereotypes could be useful. Perhaps on its own page. 81.107.155.142 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Although, I must admit I have a tendency to pick pennies up off the floor. And I am a bit neurotic... 81.107.155.142 19:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Arts of Nations

I deleted the Kahlil Gibran text, in which he associates various "arts" or attributes to nations, as being poetic and personal associations, rather than illuminating the article. RickDC 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm.... a bit unencyclopedic.

Now I don't have much experience with this sort of stuff. But it seems that sizeable parts of this article are a bit, damnit! how do i put this?........

They're just a bit preachy, bordering on speculation as well i should say. Some general well used reliable scientific quotations and/or descriptions might help this article out a little bit.

Just my two cents. Nateland 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic is an understatement. Not looking to fight here, but is it just me or is this article a bit on the "POV'd" side? 66.31.225.37 19:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the topic of this article is prone to being unencyclopedic by its very nature. That being said, does anyone else think that this passage is biased?:

“Although it is more likely to be the case of many Americans visting the UK and other European countries with a lack of political awareness of anything beyond their shores. It's also more likely due to the simpler television programmes with obvious plots and spoon fed story lines saturating British Television from America. Also see the American remakes of British comedy's such as The Office”-the second paragraph on American stereotypes.

True or not, I think it is clearly POV and I would be in favor of deleting it. It’s basically using someone’s opinion as a justification for the stereotypes, rather than examining the cause. It is akin to saying ‘Some Jews are greedy, which is probably where the stereotype came from,’ which, of course, is bull$hit.

I’m fine with the first paragraph, because it manages to avoid this type of thing. Also, I’m for deleting/replacing any other passages that are written in the same manner.

--Romulus (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

international stereotypes - request for help with dispute resolution

I am in dispute with another Wikipedian about the American stereotype of the typical European. Does anyone know of any sources of material about the stereotypes held by Americans about Europeans? Its a tall order I know. Does anyone now how high up the list would be attributes such as "effeminate", "dirty", "cowardly", "lazy" or "condescending towards other cultures" would be? They seem way off the mark to me, but I don't live in the US. I am sure readers of this post can quickly get the gist of the dispute by tracking my recent edits or visiting the talk page for Anti-Europeanism.--Tom 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue may hang on how pervasive a view or opinion is held in a population before it can be called a stereotype. If 30% of a given population carried common views about another population set, then I think few could argue that this would constitute a recognized stereotype providing that an equally or stronger opposite view was not held by the rest of the group. But what if the belief was held by, say, just 5% (and 95% therefore who did not believe that)? Would that still be considered a stereotype? Where does one draw the line? I'd still value some discussion about this from those with an interest in the issue of stereotyping. --Tom 10:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Beneficial stereotyping (removed)

I have removed and copied here the following section. Not only is it unreferenced and disputed, it appears to ignore the definition of the word stereotype. A stereotype is an oversimplification or an uncritical judgment. To assume that a person in uniform is capable of performing certain duties is not uncritical. Uniforms exist to simplify these assessments, not to oversimplify them. Likewise, children who fear strangers are not singling out a group -- "people you don't know" is too broad a category to call this treatment "stereotyping."Krychek 14:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

===Beneficial Stereotypes (Profiling)===

Stereotyping, while seen by many as negative and harmful, has a number of beneficial uses for societies. Uniforms encourage a healthy stereotype to facilitate public service (such as a fireman or police officer) or a business. In many cases, it is not practical to know an individual in order to quickly make an important assessment, hence the need for people to make judgments about an individual based solely upon membership in a group. For example, a person fleeing a fire will see someone wearing the uniform of a firefighter and immediately make special judgments about that individual's strength, knowledge of the situation, willingness to help, etc. These judgments were not made due to any individual knowledge about the person, but solely upon identification of group membership.

In regards to education, many consider it important to teach children to stereotype certain people such as police officers or school teachers. One critical stereotype that many encourage parents to teach children is of that of the sexual predator. Many children are taught to run from and report a person who offers something such as candy in exchange for stepping inside his car: from this instruction, many children learn to fear all strangers. This kind of stereotyping is a beneficial and healthy way in which people, business, and societies function. The question of whether or not a stereotype is healthy or unhealthy is determined by how it is used: stereotypes in and of themselves should not be considered universally harmful.

Finnish

Finnish Wikipedia says "Ruotsalaiset ovat homoja" which mean "all swedishes are gay".

Harm of Stereotypes

I came here looking for a description of the harm of stereotypes and couldn't find it, so I added a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.36.233 (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Harm? Well, stereotypes aren't always harmful. They are harmful usually if they have something to do with ethnics. However in advertising and marketing stereotypes are helpful tools for selling products to a particular group of people.213.240.234.212 (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Remove

Please remove the last link on "Bibliography". It is not appropriate.24.63.212.8 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)User: 24.218.139.157

I have a problem where the article references Rush Limbaugh, the link on the bottom doesn't lead to anything that limbaugh said, just a commentary on the situation. His actual words were

Limbaugh: "I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

I am very new to Wikipdia and don't want to change something that shouldn't be changed. What do you guys think was Limbaugh Stereotyping? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codycos (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I have just removed the word 'Rubbish' from the 'Stereotype production can be based on:' bullet-point list. It looked like vandalism to me.

194.74.156.162 (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

'studies have shown' in lead section

I think that what is currently the last sentence in the header section needs a citation. It says 'studies have shown' but I can't find any information about which ones say this. I didn't want to remove it because there might be interesting research out there (although I doubt they back up such a strong statement).Rowmn 23:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A minor additional problem - The top item in the references "A dedicated site for discussion on stereotypes" seems to have a dead link. Again, this sounds interesting and relevant so I haven't removed it (but will if I have time to check properly).

I came here originally to view a jewish stereotype and there wasn't much on it. Why does the asian stereotype seem intimidating? Asians aren't stereotypically seen as tall either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.45.67 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Levels of popularity

Low, middle and high social status

Popularity of an individual in a particular group of people: I've read a research that says that most people (95%) are of middle popularity, and the other 5% are: 2.5% of low popularity and 2.5% of high popularity. As I know from personal experience that is probably true in many cases and social situations. It is also true that one's popularity can change over the years and is not constant. For example, I was of middle popularity until 6th grade. In 7th grade I became a nerd, a person of low social status and popularity in the school. Now, in my first year in college I am near a return of my lost middle popularity. It should be also stated that middle popularity is the best, because if you are way too popular you have to cover some high demands from society, and if you are of low popularity you are under social pressure and disregarded. I know it from life. And that's why it should be stated that being of middle popularity is the optimal option. However, I want to ask for links on the topics. I couldn't find more info about percentages in Google. 194.141.3.200 (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stereotype vs stock character

I was thinking about a specific detail of this article the other day - and I would like to hear some opinions before I make an edit... Is a stock character the same thing as a stereotype? For instance, we could say that there exists, in the media, a stock character (I think that phrase is right) of the wise, gentle, but skilled in a battle, cowboy. That character appears over and over again, and is easily recognised, and easy shorthand (little character development needed). But, there is no suggestion that all cowboys are like that - indeed plenty of suggestion that cowboys come in all shapes and sizes. So is this stock character a stereotype? I'd probably talk about "the stereotypical wise, gentle, but skilled in a battle cowboy figure". Is that the right use of the word? Thanks for any opinions... Rowmn (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal?

Perhaps this page ought to be removed? It states rather offensive things about not one, but many cultures, and strongly implies racism and prejudice. Please consider this request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.97.186.130 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.58 (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, we have hundreds of pages that some people may consider offending. However, this page needs to be completely referenced, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cenarium (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that each sentence must have a reference, please discuss controversial changes here before editing, so that we can reach a consensus and avoid an edit war. Removal of material needs to be explained further. Cenarium (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For references on Toodle pip or old boy and other typical English expressions, see for example this news article: [1], the wiktionary definitions, Tally-ho... You may also use {{check}} if you think that a verification is needed for a specific assertion or example. Removal is a last resort, and used only when the whole section is unreferenced or references and citations are still missing after substantial research. Cenarium (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

just because wikipedia should be uncensored doesn't mean it should be offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.58 (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we should write in a non-offensive way, but we still have to give an information that in itself may be offensive. It's not always easy to find the good style of writing to minimize the offensiveness. Cenarium (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The american

why was this section removed? the american stereotype is a famous one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.58 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed because it was completely unreferenced (I suppose, or because of a conflict of interest ?). Actually, it's possible to restore both, are you all right with that ? The american stereotype needs to be referenced with reliable sources, if you can find such sources, then bring them. The english stereotype may need more references, but it's essentially examples. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a bit about Homer Simpson as an example of an American stereotype, that was deleted. Also the Homer Simpson page explains that he is a stereotype it says; "Homer embodies several American working class stereotypes: he is crude, overweight, incompetent, clumsy, thoughtless and a borderline alcoholic." And the entire simpson family is a good example, the featured page explains tht they are stereotypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.58 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I restored both paragraphs. I added refs for the White American section. Cenarium (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

why did u restore both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.206.10 (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Western Focus

This article focuses almost exclusively on the stereotypes that are prevalent in Western cultures. Sections need to be added for cross-cultural comparisons of stereotyping.

(Sidenote - I just removed several statements that were redundant with other sections of the article.) Seb144 (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

stereotypes are a part of life

honstly i don't know why we have them but we do and they are a part of life and i guess we just have to deal with them.they are here and that's that stop ignoring them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.55.53 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said they aren't a part of life, but thank you for your comment! =P Zanibas (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

lol @ the political correctness

most stereotypes are true, idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.205.46 (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussions are not a forum, but I must disagree with you. Many, if not most, sterotypes which are based upon the assumption that every member of a certain group are or act in a certain way, are false. Even if a stereotype proves right most of the time, it is important to not delude yourself into thinking it always proves right.

For example, if my personal stereotype that people who fail to use proper punctuation are imbeciles was true, then you would be a hypocrite for calling the writers of this article 'idiots'. But I know better, because you could have just been in a hurry, or that both the shift key and the caps lock key on your keyboard were broken. 71.194.224.134 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stereotypes are not based on the assumption that every member of a certain group acts a certain way, they are based on the observation that certain behaviors are more common in some groups than others.--XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

English stereotypes

The English people are stereotyped as inordinately proper, prudish, and stiff and as having bad teeth. However, these are typical American stereotypes as they are far from the truth. [13]

When I checked the citation on this piece, it lead me to the Guardian which asked for reader's opinion on a statement on how 'A staple of American humor about the UK is the population's bad teeth.' could be interpreted.

Unfortunately, as I read the rest of this article and see many lacking citations as well as improper ones, I'm beginning to believe that this important article is probably in need of a COMPLETE overhaul. Quite possibly we could concentrate more on the definition of stereotypes rather than actually listing ethnical specifics, as well as probably restoring NPOV to acceptable levels. However, I can see that with an article of this topic, it will be hard to do so. Zanibas (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing sections

As far as I can tell (& I admit to having drifted off now and then while reading it), this enormous article makes no mention at all of either political stereotyping (e.g. liberals are rich people who want to be loved by the people they shit on) or of the stereotypes of social class. Why? Vinny Burgoo (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Question to Americans

Hi, I'm from Europe (Belgium) and I was wondering why all the examples of international stereotypes on this page are immediately thought to be correct, while the "White American" section is the only one where references are needed? Is this because Americans aren't familiar with the way they're stereotyped throughout the world or is it because they just can't believe they're stereotyped as well? It just seems strange that the things associated with "the American" (and are all indeed typical stereotypical ideas Europeans and other countries have of Americans) are not taken for granted, while all the other stereotypes (Spanish people, German people, Arabic people,...) don't seem to need any references or explanations. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating to put references or explanations behind all these stereotypical images, because most of them are still in use in popular culture and well known for anyone who's ever watched a type of comedy in exotic settings. It just seems strange that only the White American section seems to need citations. Believe me, outside the US Americans are indeed often seen as obese, arrogant, patriotic, prudish, extremely religious, militaristic, gun toting cowboys with no respect for nature or authentic foreign cultures. And this stereotypical image has indeed been born during the anti-American sentiments in the Vietnam War era. 14:14, 5 August 2008

College / High School Stereotypes

Should we have a list of them? e.g. Jock, Prep, Emo, Bimbo 71.41.115.90 (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

What's with all the Simpsons Pictures?

202.8.230.198 (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

They were just added and I'm not sure I care for them either. One or two maybe, but a dozen? Unless I hear people speaking out, I'll remove them later today. justinfr (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've noticed the Simpsons pictures too. I think they're neat, but they are used without explanation who they are and are a bit dominant to the article. There are several other stereotypical characters from other tv series and films cited too and their pictures aren't put up. Also there's a mistake: Mr. Burns is not Jewish at all, yet he is very rich. It seems that the person who put his picture there is a either bit antisemitic or either someone who thinks this is a good place to make some jokes. Krusty is Jewish, but he's not treated in a stereotypical manner in "The Simpsons", nor is he mentioned in the article. User:Kjell Knudde 19:46, 26 August 2008

I'm going to remove them. justinfr (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Asian stereotype

There is an Asian stereotype here of them having small reproductive organs. Aren't stereotypes only things that are assumed or conceived, not things that are backed by factual data. It is a proven fact that Asians have smaller penises than other races, so would it count as a stereotype?

"Spanish" stereotype

The stereotypes here are mostly American stereotypes about Mexicans and South Americans, not about Spaniards. There are other stereotypes about Spaniards, specially in Europe. Either the entry should be subdivided or different sections be written, otherwise the title should be changed to just 'Latin American (or Latino) stereotypes'. The fact that many Americans think of Mexican and Spanish as the same thing doesn't justify the title of the section. --Purplefire (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)