Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National stereotypes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

National stereotypes
This article seems to be very biased, totally uncited and rather offensive to a lot of people. Tawker 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - junk -- Tawker 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/Stubify/Rebuild As it stands, this is an outrageously bad article, with little concern for verification beyond the few fig-leaf book references and obscure web links (only related to a few items on the list) at the bottom. There is even less concern for context or sensitive treatment of a controversial subject.There are some descriptions which are just outright offensive and idiotic - the idea that "Most Africans have AIDS and will kill anyone for food" is not a stereotype in general circulation, but it seems, a vile expression of some random editor's own twistedness. It appears that the article creators/editors just find it amusing to list as many stereotypes as possible. This article as it stands is a threat to Wikipedia's reputation. The article could be rewritten encyclopedically, but more than a cleanup is required. I recommend deletion of this article and leaving it as an open stub for rebuilding - with community monitoring by responsible editors Bwithh 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree, this is very informative to what general perceptions are on various groups of people. Anyone can edit it from all around the world so it reflects various viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not an open internet forum for the ignorant-minded people from around the world. Bwithh 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A large group of people hold these opinions, is that not a fact? And this is not much different then Criticism pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs)
 * * As I understand you, you're seriously suggesting that the article should stay as it is. As it is, the article dramatically fails WP:OR and WP:V, and only gives lip service to WP:NPOV ("racism is bad, but now we're going to go through a long detailed list of offensive stereotypes just so everyone knows what they are, but we're going to barely give any context or serious commentary at all.").   Bwithh 21:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I was about to AfD this myself when I saw it appear in recent changes. The nom sums it up nicely. While being offensive isn't a valid criterion to delete, it is impossible to cite that any of these are widely held views or stereotypes. &mdash;WAvegetarian&bull;(talk) 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just plain ridiculous. As far as the actual policy, it violates WP:OR. GassyGuy 21:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in spite of anony. Danny Lilithborne 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not so naive to believe that some people hold these views; I've seen some of them expressed; we've all seen some of the expressed. An article that is well documented about what % of XXX thinks of YYY might be useful; this isn't.  Carlossuarez46 22:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Highly uninformative.  --Cassavau 23:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Original research, POV, unencyclopedic, and painfully ignorant. Written entirely from the perspective of a rather un-worldly American: observe how all Africans are lumped into a monolithic ilk of grotesque savages, yet the USA is diligently divided into eight subsections. This article's creator obviously spent some time working on it. I hope he didn't seriously think it would be found acceptable. If it weren't so disturbingly earnest and prosaic, it might be a candidate for BJAODN. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep But revise extensively. An article on stereotypes and racial and national prejudice is quite appropriate. Since any such statement of a stereotype will offend someone, detailed citation would be required, rather than a list of 5 books and articles at the bottom of the page. Show how it is Prof so and so's research, then it isn't OR, is it? Cite those books, by page number, with footnotes, or deleted the stated stereotype.Edison 05:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that my original opinion was Delete, Stubify and Rebuild. I'm not saying that the article subject is not worthy of an article. I'm saying that the current content is irretrievably appalling and a threat to Wikipedia's reputation. It would be easier and more effective and safer to simply blast the whole thing down and start again Bwithh 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Edison. As a defeatist cheese eating monkey, I find this article quite interesting and well researched.Hektor 07:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Surrender-monkey, surely? ;-)  Tonywalton  | Talk 12:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep with revisions, per Edison. Tonywalton | Talk 12:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pages like this, which presume to catalogue opinions and subjective impressions, are impossible not only in practice but in principle. Unlike facts, stereotypes are completely unverifiable, inherently subjective, and may differ dramatically from one person and one locality to another. Who is to decide whether a given stereotype is common, or merely a peculiarity of an individual? Certainly not the person presenting the opinion. We lack the ability to conduct scientific surveys and interviews, which would be original research anyway. Since we admit that most of the opinions currently listed on the page are unfalsifiable and unverifiable, we would be forced to accept any offered opinion, however factually groundless or bizarre. "Jews are made of chocolate? Hey, it may not be true, but if someone believes it..." Vandalism would be indistinguishable from earnest contribution. Bigotry is boundless: can you imagine how large this page would become? Moreover, even if it can somehow be reliably determined that a particular group of people has an established stereotype of another group of people, our policy of countering systemic bias will require that we also mention how other groups of people view the latter group, how the latter group views the former, etc. Accordingly, articles like this will never be anything more than a storehouse of often conflicting personal biases. This is true whether they reflect the view of one person or a thousand persons from all over the world. Because personal impressions don't reflect facts, they can never be formed into any kind of coherent article, especially if they are presented anonymously and out of the context in which they were acquired. A fact may be objectively reported, but an opinion cannot be regarded without a full knowledge of who holds it. Obviously, this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Bhumiya (said/done) 15:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless every stereotype has a reference. "Canadians are dependent on the government. They are fond of beer, love hockey, and hate Americans. They end almost evey sentence with the question, "Eh?". They are also know for eating their famous 'Kraft Dinner' and saying 'aboot' instead of 'about.'" True, but WP:OR. -Royalguard11Talk 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OR only if the article writer says "People from country x have typical trait so and so" But if the article says "In a scientific Harris Poll July 15, 2006, 90% of US residents expressed strong agreeement that People from country x have typical trait so and so," then it is a verifiable source AS TO THE BELIEF, not its truth. Do you see the difference?Edison 21:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How aboot (
 * Allen, Harold B. 1989. Canadian Raising in the Upper Midwest. American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 64.1: 74-75.
 * Chambers, J. K. 1973. Canadian Raising. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 18: 113-135.
 * Chambers, J. K. 1989. Canadian Raising: Blocking, Fronting, Etc. American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 64.1: 75-88.
 * Dailey-O'Cain, Jennifer. 1997. Canadian Raising in a Midwestern U.S. City. Language Variation and Change 9.1: 107-120
 * Thomas, Erik R. 1991. The Origin of Canadian Raising in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 36.2: 147-170.
 * Vance, Timothy J. 1987. 'Canadian Raising' in Some Dialects of the Northern United States. American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 62.3: 195-210.)

eh? (
 * Avis, Walter S. 1972. So eh? Is Canadian, eh? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17: 89-104.
 * Gibson, Deborah. 1977. Eight Types of 'eh'. Sociolinguistics Newsletter 8.1: 30-31.). Per http://www.yorku.ca/twainweb/troberts/raising.html

Tonywalton | Talk 11:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So we'll only need about eleven million citations. Where do we find the citation about Africans wearing loincloths and killing people for food? Bhumiya (said/done) 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * National geographic?

--Planetary 08:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete offensive and inviting to vandals. TehKewl1 06:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edison This can be improved. Add references. If vandals come in, revert. That's how Wikipedia works.
 * Delete as unverifiable original 'research'. Strongly agree with many of the reasons to delete above. The stereotypes here are a random selection with a US bias and no serious commentary. It seems impossible that this list could ever develop into a well-sourced article with an international perspective (NPOV), but if someone does write one, the page could be re-created.--HJMG 11:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep-heavy editing Tawker's orginal complaint that this article is biased, ... and rather offensive smacks heavily of censorship and conflicting bias. However this article does need some heavy editing, specifically regarding the previous comments that stereotypes are normally held by one group of people about another group of people. Therefore it must be stated, and cited, which people hold these opinions. In my not so humble opinion the content of this article has a much bigger impact on humanity that the vast majority of other wikipedia articles.--Ben 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/stubify unless heavily referenced. [ælfəks] 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Patently offensive and unverifiable. Unencyclopedic by default.  And VERY offensive besides. --Mithunc 00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.