Talk:Ethnic stereotypes in American media

Untitled

Do not panic.

I know a lot of you spent a lot of time on this. Nothing is "gone" completely. This goes for the article as well as the Talk page.

Move

• Old content perma link
• Cultural imperialism in America content has been relocated to article of that name. If this is a section you were working on, please move all bibliography entries related to that to that article. You may wish to add a See also and categorize, I have not yet done so.

If you are worried that content you worked hard on is lost, it is not. If you want it back, or for another purpose, and do not know how to retrieve it, I will help.

If you have questions, issues, complaints, start a new topic and let me know about it.

KillerChihuahua 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Major issues

• Page too long. It was 274 kb before I removed the Racism content, and moved the Cultural imperialism in America content. It is now 231 kb long. Recommended size is 32 kb. When in doubt, delete or find a better article for your content. If you can say the same thing in a sentence that is said in a paragraph, replace the paragraph with the sentence. Better yet, determine whether sentence is germane to the topic. Article is hugely bloated.
• Original research Please see WP:NOR and apply. No editorializing.
• WP:CITE is not being applied, yet this is combined with an enormous bibliography. Fair warning: start taking out every single item in the bibliography that is not needed as a source for an item in the article. Find another home for it if you want to, but non-germane lists will not survive.
• POV Please see WP:POV and apply.
• Syntax, style issues. Please see WP:Style and apply.
• Passive voice Do not use "It is said..." "Some claim..." If you cannot say, "the members of (group)'s official position is" and provide a footnote to where they said that, don't put it in.
• Editorial essay, a combination of POV and NOR violations, pervades the entire article.
• CopyVio Virtually the entire article will have to be re-written due to copyvio. Hopefully this can be done before an Admin decides to mass-delete the entire article due to violation of this. All sections which contain copied articles and content from websites need to have that content summarised, briefly to replace the large chunks of copyvio. Make your summary, then footnote. See example at Asian from the article history. The footnote in the example can be used for other sections also, as the source was not limited to Asian stereotyping.

KillerChihuahua 07:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Agreed. The page was too long. The major splits were obviously necessary. However, some things must remain. Read discussions below for details.

Ratherford Skills

---

"Must" is a rather strong word. You asked for more experienced help: the help is here. However, starting out by insisting on absolutes is not recommended. KillerChihuahua

---

Are you this sensitive? It's a word, nothing more. Get over it. Read my apologies below, if you haven't noticed.Ratherford Skills

Its not that I'm sensitive, its that you're being pushy and rude. "Get over it" is not very polite either. People here take Wikiquette seriously. KillerChihuahua 01:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

A sample list of identified racial cliches onscreen

If anyone thinks this is worth keeping, create a new article and move it there. KillerChihuahua 06:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favor of your idea on this one. Although racial cliches can be integrated into this article, it can stand as a separate article on its own. Then we can just proved its internal link via the "See also" section in this article. This was why I decided yesterday, to put a "See also" section within this article.

Ratherford Skills

sofixit.

KillerChihuahua 01:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I would still need your help though, since you are familiar with WP style. Ratherford Skills

Great, here's your first lesson: Stop with the horzontal rules. Remove them all on this talk page, and stop using them. The section headers add an hr, and it makes it easy to scan a page to the next section. Avoid if at all possible in articles, and don't use on talk pages. This is WP:Style.

KillerChihuahua 01:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Women catering to white men more than with non-white men onscreen

If anyone thinks this is worth keeping, create a new article and move it there, or find a home for it on another stubby article. KillerChihuahua 06:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC

This section is critical to ethnic stereotypes in American media, because it is a repetitive pattern within many Americanized films, commercials and fashion. Since it is a repetitive pattern, it becomes an ethnic stereotype for a specific group (White men). The only difference between this ethnic stereotype and the ethnic stereotypes that are associated with Non-White people, is that this one serves as a positive stereotype for White men, whereas Non-White people are stereotyped negatively.

Ratherford Skills

If it is a stereotype, please try to phrase it as one. This is an essay about the way women's subservience, confluent with caucasion dominence in our society, is portrayed. That's not a stereotype. "Oriental villian" is a stereotype. "Mammy" is a sterotype. I'm not saying its not worty content, I'm saying it doesn't belong in this article. KillerChihuahua 01:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The essay format can be fixed by experienced WP members. I think it is best for me to let you do your work, since I might get in the way. I'll trust your judgements on this one.

Ratherford Skills

That's not the point. The point is, it does not belong on this page. It is like having an article about women's dresses and having a whole section devoted to shoes, or men's hats. It is related, but not germane. KillerChihuahua 01:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point. Thanks for making that clear. Ratherford Skills

The social construction of whiteness and white privilege

If anyone thinks this part of the bibliography is worth keeping, find a new home for it. KillerChihuahua 07:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What you're failing to understand is that the social construction of whiteness is also an ethnic stereotype. People seem to think that White people do not belong to a specific ethnic group -- that white people are raceless and therefore the underlying standards and social norms for society (since the concept of race is associated with "Exoticness", and "Exoticness" is the opposite of normalcy). Unfortunately of course, whiteness continues to be covertly perceived as the social norm in this world, but it doesn't mean that Whiteness is exempt from being an ethnic group itself. If people can remove the racelessness associated with Whiteness, then they could understand that the repetitive presentations of White privilege in films is an ethnic stereotype that works to promote the White race and discredit all other races.

Ratherford Skills

Are you always this confrontational?

Please see WP:NOR. If you feel an ethnic stereotype is not represented, say which, and cite reputable sources. Don't start a debate on the talk page that is not germane to the article. Do that in a forum. In ordet to get this article to anything like manageable size, it must be limited. "Whiteness and white privilege" has nothing to do with ethnic stereotypes in the media. There are caucasion stereotypes, which we do not have on the list. Please move this to somewhere germane. And try very very hard, if you really want me to try to help you with this mess, not to tell me what I fail or do not fail to understand until you have posted, and I have answered, and then a more polite phrasing would not hurt your cause. KillerChihuahua 01:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this the discussion page for the article? I thought it was. Very well, if I seem confrontational to you, I apologize. Truth is, we need more experienced editors like you to help in such an important subject matter as this. Ratherford Skills

It is indeed. I am not sure what you mean? KillerChihuahua 01:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If I provide further edits, it might create more work and it might get in the way. I write in an essay like format. Obviously, it is not proper WP style. This is why, the best way I could help (because I want to), is to provide my opinions on this discussion page. Hopefully, you would consider some of them. Now this doesn't mean that I'm forcing you to abide. In fact, I want to let you know that your efforts are well respected by me. This is why I apologize for my appearing confrontational so to speak. It is not and never was my intention.

Ratherford Skills

This article is your baby. I said I'd help, I didn't say I'd do it for you. KillerChihuahua 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but I am literally worn out right now. I had spent a lot of time on the article and need rest. For the time being, I believe that If I interfere with experienced edits, I might create more work. It is best for me to read up on the WP guidelines first. When I'm ready and have gained enough rest, I'll be ready. Anyways, I really do appreciate your contributions. Ratherford Skills

New homes

The following are currently redirects to Media and ethnicity.

Content which needs a new home might be suited to one of these.

Some of these (Example, White lies) are inherently POV and inflammatory, and I do not recommend using them. WP is NOT a soapbox. If you do not know how to replace a redirect with a normal content page, post your questions here.

White Media

Media propaganda

Media racism

White hollywood

White normalcy

White society

White America

White world

White movies

White films

White lies

White agenda

Pop-cultural imperialism

White entertainment

Covert racism

Brainwashing through media

Media lies

Racist patterns

Media stereotypes

Media stereotyping

Mainstream deceptions

Mainstream lies

Mainstream stereotypes

Mainstream stereotyping

Cultural influence

White imperialism

Media tactics

Social impact

Cleanup: All pages which link to Media and ethnicity (not just these) need to be changed to point to Ethnic stereotypes in American media.

If you decide to fix some of these double redirects, think hard about what a user would most likely be looking for if they entered this text in the search box, and redirect there. Confirm the redirect points to an actual article first. Most of these should probably redirect to Racism, Ethnic slurs, or other topics.

Reminder to self - do not edit after 2 am, you'll confuse the newbies KillerChihuahua 13:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

To KillerChihuahua

Well done on the new major edits. As for formatting the entire article to encylopedia standards, perhaps if you have any friends who happen to be experienced members who are also familiar with Wikipedia formatting, let them know about this article so it can be formatted asap.

Ratherford Skills 09:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - and I plan to harass several people. There is plenty of work to go around on this article. KillerChihuahua 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove footnotes. This left an orphaned footnote in the article. Do not move them to links. KillerChihuahua 15:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. Ratherford Skills

Thanks.

Please see WP:Style and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. Use indentation, not hr's, for separation in a talk page. Avoid the use of hr's if at all possible on an article page. Thanks! KillerChihuahua 01:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have Ethnic stereotypes in American media and your talk page on my watchlist. That is common courtesy when leaving a message on someone's page. There is no need to put a message on my talk page to tell me to look here. KillerChihuahua 01:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I never knew that. Anyways, I deleted my message on your talk page as it is redundant. Ratherford Skills

Never, ever delete anything off someone else's talk page. That is completely against WP rules and will get people very very annoyed with you. You can wind up in an Rfc, banned, its not a good idea. Please do not do this again. And please stop adding horizontal rules everywhere. KillerChihuahua 01:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought by deleting it, that I was doing you a favor, since you thought the message was redundant. Well, now I know that it was a wrong thing to do, I won't do it again. Ratherford Skills

Outstanding! Please try to apply this same "I'm willing to learn something about how to do things on WP" attitude to other things I'm trying to teach you. KillerChihuahua 01:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible additional split

To Ethnic bias in American media. KillerChihuahua 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A split might best work if it moved the listed specifics to an Claimed ethnic stereotypes in United States media, or Alleged ethnic stereotypes in United States media. That would leave this article to an 'overview' role. -St|eve 20:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Steve, whatever you can do, have at. I don't have much time for this article, and the primary editor seems to have taken a powder. So do whatever, thanks and good luck! KillerChihuahua 21:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The split sounds good. It would minimize the size of this article. Go for it. As for Killerchihuahua saying that the original editor (me) has abandoned this article, well if I recall, I did tell her that I did not want to interfere with the current edits of this article UNTIL I was more skilled with Wikipedia style. Now why is that? Of course, with the current lack of familiarity that I have with Wikipedia style, that by interfering with proper edits, I might actually create more work and problems. I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia style yet. But anyways, what both of you have done here, is a good thing. Your contributions are highly respected by me, and I'm sure to others as well. I'm not forcing you to do this by the way, and I would not hold any animosity if any of you stopped helping here, as you have already shown the good intention to bring out such vital information in the best way possible.

Ratherford Skills

If anyone intends to undertake this project, they can find the last edit before I removed quotes which concern bias (but not stereotypes) here. TheMadBaron 18:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikification

Although it is probably more important to shorten/split the page, etc. it'd be nice if the page was wikified to add more wikilinks. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 02:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for that idea as well. Thoughts anyone?Ratherford Skills

The Daughter of Fu Manchu

"The movie "The Daughter of Fu Manchu" is considered just one of many movies that contain such a negative stereotype."

Fu Manchu's daughter certainly appears to be a good example of the "Dragon Lady" stereotype, but I've been unable to find this movie (there is a novel by that title) on Wikipedia or IMDB (Google turned up La Hija de Fu-Manchu, a 1990 Spanish production). Was Daughter of the Dragon intended, perhaps? TheMadBaron 11:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I believe I had made a mistake about saying that "The Daughter of Fu Manchu" was a film. What I meant to say was that the character who plays the daughter of Fu Manchu in the novels is a portrayal of the "Dragon Lady" stereotype. Anyways, I verified that the movie "Daughter of the Dragon" has several negative stereotypes of Asian women; one of which is known as the "Unmotivated white-Asian romance" (which promotes the idea that Asian women are excessively submissive to White men only). You can also read more information about the various negative stereotypes of Asians in the mainstream media here: http://www.manaa.org/articles/stereo.html. The "Dragon Lady" stereotype is evident in the movie "Terry and the Pirates" and in the Fu Manchu novels. Here's information about the Fu Manchu novels: http://www.hypnosisinmedia.com/Fiction/FuManchu/ -- Ratherford Skills

I figured that someone had made a mistake... I've just read more information about the various negative stereotypes of Asians in the mainstream media here - and much of it sounds very familiar.... TheMadBaron 20:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Major cuts

I've just cut several cumbersome and/or irrelevant sections - the behemoth of a bibliography, the enormous external links, "Women catering to white men more than with non-white men onscreen", "Lack of racial diversity in the highest media positions" and "Non-white population outnumbers whites in California". The last edit to feature all these sections is here. TheMadBaron 10:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, it's good that you posted that link which has all those sections. I believe it is important for viewers to easily access that type of information (even though it may not be necessary for this article). -- Ratherford Skills

Really long quotes

Is it necessary to copy the quotes so extensively? When they're seven plus paragraphs, it could very well be copyright infringement. ;-) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the info could probably be more concise. The extensive quoting detracts from NPOV a bit as well, I think. maxcap 03:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

At least some of the long quotes don't directly concern the subject of stereotypes. Entire sections need replacing altogether. TheMadBaron 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of removing or rewriting them long ago, but didn't have the time to do it. Anyways, it would greatly help if anyone here could deal with those quotes asap. Try keeping some of the statements that concern stereotypes (if there are any), and just rewrite them to a more neutral point of view. The rest can go. Regards.-- Ratherford Skills

Major trim

I edited the Latin and American Indian sections way down. Now they're short enough so that someone might actually read them. :-) These sections should still be totally rewritten, so that they conform to the format of the rest of the article and are something other than collections of (edited) quotes from other sources.

The section on black stereotypes OTOH, is too short. There's lots of room for expansion there.

KarlBunker 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work. I might actually read them now. TheMadBaron 16:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Great Work. I'll try to do more research so that I may ba able to expand on the Black stereotype section.Ratherford Skills

Brief Thought

If the purpose of this article is to bring awareness of racial frictions/stereotypes, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to change entries of "American Indians" to "Native Americans"? It seems rather double standard-ish if an article on racial stereotypes furthers the misconception that Natives of the Americas are Indians. Maybe mabe another section on Indian Indians?

macaddict06 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Sorry about that. I recently fixed all the remaining terms within that section to the more appropriate "Native American" term. Ratherford Skills

• Lethal Weapon 2

A black police officer (played by Danny Glover) and his white partner (played by Mel Gibson) together overcome the villain, a white South African Diplomat (played by Joss Ackland). In the final fight scene, the white officer is shot; the black officer ultimately kills the villain. And there are many more movies with good black guys and bad white guys.

French

It might be interesting to discuss the recent anti-french bias in american media (ex 2001's freedom fries) stereotypical portrayals of french etc.--Joyfulpotato 23:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely needs to mentioned in this article. If anyone can provide sources for this, please do so. Archival McTannith 02:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Germans

Germans should also be shown as frequent extremely bad guys. A German friend of mine doing a Masters (in Australia) and watching a lot of Hollywood movies for the first time NOT dubbed into German, said his friends had noticed, with soem humour: "bad guys in Hollywood films are often depicted with English accents, unless they're REALLY bad, then they're cast as Germans." Obviously stems partly from a tie-in in Anglo-American culture to WWII. --Sean01 17:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

copyvio + missing ethnic stereotypes

Couple of issues: 1. Looks like this may have been discussed before, but isn't this article guilty of numerous copyright violations? Lots of it is pulled directly from other Web sites. 2. No mention of the portrayals of white trash or Jews? --Lukobe 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Article in General

I don't mean to be a jerk but this whole article reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. For example: "Many depictions of African-American males portray them as weak, or a 'small dog with a loud bark'. This stereotype can be seen in Chris Tucker's character James Carter in the Rush Hour series of films." It may well be true that many African-Americans are portrayed in this way, but saying there are "many depictions" then giving one example from one film does not really prove your point. Even if it did, shouldn't an article in an encyclopedia be meant to present information, not persuade the readers (as this whole article seems to be designed to do). The sections that present reports and things of that nature seem more fitting of an encyclopedia entry, but there still seems to be a definite POV problem in the article as a whole. Another sample from the article:

"* Lethal Weapon 4

A black police officer (played by Danny Glover) and his white partner (played by Mel Gibson) together overcome the villain, an Asian martial arts expert (played by Jet Li). In the final fight scene, the black officer is knocked unconscious; the white officer ultimately kills the villain.

   * Lethal Weapon 2

A black police officer (played by Danny Glover) and his white partner (played by Mel Gibson) together overcome the villain, a white South African diplomat (played by Joss Ackland). In the final fight scene, the white officer is shot; the black officer ultimately kills the villain. There are many more movies with good black guys and bad white guys."

I don't quite see what this is even supposed to be showing. In Lethal Weapon 4, the black officer is knocked unconcious and the white officer must save the day; in Lethal Weapon 2 the white officer is incapacitated and the black officer must save it goes on to say that "there are many more movies with good black guys and bad white guys." I'm sure this is true, but earlier you argued that non-whites are often portrayed as inferior. Yet in Lethal Weapon 2, the black officer was ultimately the hero. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. And the examples of the movies seem rather biased. You have only picked to list movies that support the claims that you are trying to make, when there are certainly other movies that would refute these examples.

I don't mean to demean any of your hard work, and I respect your article and several of the points that it makes, but to me it feels far too much like it is making an argument rather than objectively presenting information. Also at many points you say things like "Most of the time...blah blah blah" and it's not very clear where you are getting this information. It seems to me that this whole article either needs to be removed, or reworked to focuse more on studies that have been done by researchers on racial portrayal in the media and less on individual movies and vague, generalized assertions. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

I'm sorry, but after re-reading this article, I really believe that it needs to be removed altogether. It is simply full of vague, unsubstantiated generalizations. Like the part about Americans thinking that Asian businessmen like very young girls and crying. No citation is given for this, and it is a ridiculous claim to say that this is a widely held belief. The entire article suffers from this sort of ridiculousness, and it really should be deleted entirely or at least completely reworked from the ground up. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This article definitely needs reworking. --Lukobe 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This article lends itself to bias. I suggest deletion. Why not all media, or furthermore why not just Ethnic Stereotypes? What's the point of referencing movies and TV shows? If we were clearer on what the stereotypes are, we wouldn't be arguing over which character in Star Wars was supposed to be the stereotypical Brit. Delete--User:ShadowyCaballero

I made the anonymous comments about the article up there. I would have to agree. I don't see a way in which this article could really be done without introducing bias, and I would second your suggestion of deletion. Could we get some more input on this issue?--Derco 20:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, although the article needs re-working, it should not be deleted. There are a lot of university sources that confirm the existance of these stereotypes. In fact, the article (during its original form -- started last year by me) was a lot bigger than it is now, and had much more links and sources (university sources). In fact, the old version with all those links is provided in this discussion page. I will in fact repost the original version (the one with all those university sources) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_stereotypes_in_American_media&oldid=28475873.

On another note, the fact that some of you even considered deleting this article because of your conjecture that this article is based on wild accusations and vague labels that aren't backed up by sources, shows your ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject matter. If you had done the research before making foolish comments, then maybe you would reconsider your remarks. This article is not based on bias, but is actually trying to expose the deceptive and usually negative biases which the U.S. mainstream media projects against a diverse range of ethnic groups. It is just a simple fact as well that the U.S. mainstream media for the most part, usually puts "White" people in a positive light more than any other ethnic group. This is not a vague accusation, but a real fact that you must not ignore. Of course by ignoring such obvious patterns in the media, would only make you appear either uneducated on the subject matter, or even worse, subconsciously defensive against the facts which this article clearly provides. Ratherford Skills

To be removed altogether? Are you mad? Do you have any idea of how much work people put into this article? This article holds a lot of important information that is irrefutable since such media bias has been observed by highly credible sources. Such sources include university archives, a vast array of historical books, news archives, etc. These media bias patterns are a well known fact and can easily be observed in television broadcasts, movies, and the general western entertainment industry. These patterns are consistently documented by a vast array of sources, of which not even this article can fully provide (hence the cutting down of the gigantic bibliography section in the article's original version). The information in this article is irrefutable, as we are talking about hundreds of sources which all consistently confirm the presence of such biases in the western mainstream media. This article provides statistical facts, not hypothetical arguements. Do not make ridiculous suggestions unless you have researched this article first (including the vast number of university sources in the original version). Archival McTannith 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the debate on this article was never about whether the information being provided is factual or not. That was never in question and should never be questioned anyways - mainly because the information has been confirmed over and over again. The sources are overwhelmingly credible. Therefore whoever decided to suggest that this article is based on vague accusations is basically making a ridiculous statement. This article is undergoing an ongoing process of technical improvement, nothing more.

Let me reiterate - the facts were never in question and should not be questioned at all, since these facts have been confirmed already. It's quite idiotic that some people would have the nerve to suggest a deletion, when they have never even contributed to the article at all nor have they even fully studied the information that has been provided via the large number of sources within the article and its older versions. Please do not make pathetic suggestions, as such would only prove your defensiveness on the matter.

This article covers a very sensitive social issue, thus it's important to understand the fact that the media plays a large role in fueling the covert double standards in western society, in which whiteness is consistently put on a top pedestal more often than any other racial group. To even ignore this or pretend that such a double standard does not exist will only prove how unaware you are about what's happening in today's social structure. This article is not a joke nor is it meant to demonize "white" people so to speak, but facts are facts, and getting defensive against these facts will only serve as another obstacle in exposing the mainstream deceptions that have conditioned society for so long. Justin Alvarez Jr. 01:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

An article exists called Ethnic stereotype, in this article several stereotypes could be listed. For instance, Asian Americans are nerdy and like to play with gadgets and remote control vehicles. That is a very real stereotype in the American consciousness. BUT is it neccessary to have an article about such a stereotype appearing in The Goonies or Mind of Mencia? The stereotypes exist, no one is refuting that. I propose deletion because it's unneccesary and redundant to point out that stereotypes appear in media. It goes without saying that life reflects art reflects life. This article may have plenty of legitamite references, but it is still out of control. Are British people REALLY stereotyped as baddies or is it just that all villians tend to have non-American accents? And what about the British action heroes? Are they stereotypes as well? This article will never be definitive enough for wikipedia. delete-User: ShadowyCaballero

There's little point in debating this here. If you think that this article should be deleted, please list it on AfD. With any luck, it will benefit from the additional attention, and get lifted out of the rut it seems to be stuck in. TheMadBaron 00:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned that there is an article already called Ethnic stereotype. However the article you provided only offers much less information, and is more designed to define the definition of a stereotype. On the other hand, this article Ethnic stereotypes in American media goes in depth on the specifics of ethnic stereotypes often found in the American Mainstream Media. With that being said about the differences in both articles, I don't see the relevance of deleting this one and trying to re-integrate the information here with the article you provided. In fact the arcticle you mentioned provides an inter-link to this one, because the editors of that article know that both articles are only related in a more general scope, but are to be kept as seperate. That is a general article on the definition of an ethnic stereotype, but this is an article about the specific ethnic stereotypes found in the U.S. media. Big difference. Archival McTannith 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended anyone with my earlier comments, but I still think this article needs to be deleted or completely reworked. Even if there are lots and lots of sources for this information, which there may be (but it is hard to tell when vague phrases like "often" such and such are used), it still has a point of view. It is not communicating fact; it is communicating the authors' opinions on a subject, making it seem much more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. And the information listed here is not fact. For example: "There is also a belief in the West that Asian men (mostly businessmen) have sex with very young girls and have a fetish for crying." Um...ok...I don't think this is true. And besides, a belief among whom? Who is even making this assertion? The article doesn't feel the need to clarify. This is why I call much of the article vague and baseless. And later, the description of movies is silly. For every movie that illustrates the stereotype you want to illustrate, another might refute it (which you just didn't happen to list). Individual movies make poor evidence. I could say that since Gigli is a horrible movie, all movies are horrible, but that would be a ridiculous claim. The end of the article seems to say that since this particular movie has a racial stereotype, they are widely spread in American media, which is not necessarily the case. And besides, the examples listed are silly. The examples of the two Lethal Weapon movies contradict each other, for example. Even the opening of the article is a ridiculous assertion: "As art is often a reflection of society, these stereotypes can be said to represent American society's dominant view of ethnic groups." This is a HUGE leap to make, and I see no source that confirms this. And even if there were one, it would be somebody's opinion, not FACT. And that is basically the problem with this article. It is simply somebody's opinion, not a reflection of any degree of fact. I have no doubt that your sources are reputable universities and such (although it is hard to tell when vague generalities like "often" are used), but their studies do not really prove anything to the level of being fact, and I do not see a way that this article could ever consist of purely fact. That is why I have said this article probably needs to be removed. And by the way, I do not appreciate the suggestion that I only have a problem with this article because of some deep-seeded fear that it is true. I have a problem with this article from a deep-seeded fear that it does not belong in an encyclopedia.--Derco 01:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for double posting (if you can call it that), but after reading some of the responses to my problems with the article, I decided to check some of the sources in the footnotes to see if the article indeed had a firm backing. The first reference takes you to http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/26/403d8ada33396, which, as far as I can figure (and correct me if I'm wrong, I only glanced over it), is simply somebody listing racial stereotypes they believe to be real with no actual data to support their feelings. Next, I read through the article some and came to a link to http://www.manaa.org/ under the heading of "Asian Sexuality." I browsed around for studies or something of that nature on the site, but all I found (again, in a quick read through) was a list of what they consider to be stereotypical portrayals with accompanying "Stereotype-Busters." As far as I could tell, there is no data on the site (as in some sort of study conducted by a University for example) to back up the alleged stereotypes. Neither of these sources seem very reliable; they seem to consist almost entirely of opinion. (These are the only two sources I have had the time to look into so far.) If there is actual data on these sites that I'm missing, could somebody point me in the right direction? Thanks.--Derco 04:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This article does way more harm than good. The only way it would make sense is if we listed broad generalizations about how a certain ethnicity is portrayed, and left out all the hundreds of exceptions to that rule. It's stupid. Every time I come back I read something absurd. For instance, I just deleted someone's contribution that "It should be noted that most Britons don't mind being stereotyped." Oh really? And Black stereotyping apparently runs the gamut from weak to hypermacho? No one has any idea what they are talking about. I suggest we delete and maybe after some deep thought work on the Ethnic stereotype page. - User:ShadowyCaballero

I sympathize with ShadowyCaballero's views and am in general agreemnt with his conclusions. I voiced similar concerns in a recent afd discussion. IMHO, this is a poor and badly thought out article (see the afd discussion (linked at top of this page) for my arguments Bwithh 03:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All supporters of this article are stereotypical liberals. They believe that what they are doing comes from the heart, but it's poorly thought out and ultimately illogical. - User:ShadowyCaballero

A comment like that does not exactly help to win people over to your cause... --- Hong Qi Gong 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Long Duk Dong. - User:ShadowyCaballero

Is that a personal attack? --- Hong Qi Gong 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Long Duk Dong

He's mentioned as a Chinese exchange student in this article, and as a Korean exchange student in the Sixteen Candles article. I suspect neither is true and his specific ethnicity wasn't actually mentioned. Does anyone have a source for his ethnicity? --ColourBurst 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been resolved ... the redirect for Long Duk Dong goes to Sixteen Candles, and now it says he's Asian. —72.75.93.205 (talk | contribs) 10:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Teal'c from black stereotypes

• The argument made for Teal'c's removal was that he was an alien and therefore not black. I agree and disagree. While he is an alien in the show, "black" is more of a social perception than an actual racial categorization - Tiger Woods is probably categorized as black to most people at first blush even though he is half-Asian and identifies as multiracial. Here's an analysis of Star Trek's racial/alien/etc categorizations, but it's strictly by the numbers and not much of an analysis of their stereotypical traits. Does it mean something for Klingons to be cast by blacks (biracial in the case of B'Elanna Torres)? --ColourBurst 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Would anyone be opposed if I created new articles called "Stereotypes of Asians", "Stereotypes of African Americans", "Stereotypes of Jews"(etc.) for each section in the current article and just transfer the content to each new page? I just think that it would be clearer than the current setup. Reasons why:

• Convenience. Separate articles would give easy access to all of an ethnic group's stereotypes without forcing the reader to slog through stereotypes of other ethnicities. This would make linking from other articles about specific ethnicities easier as well.
• More comprehensive. In a page like "Stereotypes of Latinos", you'd be able to discuss all the stereotypes of Latinos without being confined to just an American or media perspective. You'd still be able to use examples from media, American or not, to demonstrate the presence of stereotypes but wouldn't be constricted by it.
• Broadening perspective/eliminating redundency. A lot of the stereotypes mentioned in this current page are present in most of the Western world, not just America. I think it's sort of silly to have separate pages for American media, British media, or whatever else media perspective if they're all sort of similar anyway. If there really were major differences in stereotypes of a particular ethnic group from country to country, you could just mention that in the new article anyway.

What do you all think of splitting/reworking the article this way? Drenched 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That creates a separate POV problem. Japanese stereotype Chinese (and vice versa), but your categories would never be able to account for this difference. However, if you separated the two, it doesn't make sense from a western perspective as their stereotypes are conflated in western culture. I think it might be an incredible mess. --ColourBurst 03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm...I think those are valid points. However, I feel that it is sort of assumed that the stereotypes discussed in these articles are stereotypes from a generally Western POV (I guess because the article is in English) so I don't think that sort of confusion would be a major issue if we split the articles. This article doesn't deal with non-Western POV ethnic stereotyping anyway, and after a precursory search, I didn't find any other independent articles that deal with non-Western ethnic stereotyping either. Therefore, since non-Western POV stereotypes don't seem to be in the scope of Wikipedia articles at the moment (at least as independent articles), I don't think things will get too messy in that way. But even if people did want to write about non-Western POV ethnic stereotyping, I don't think it's anything a subheader and a few sentences explanation couldn't fix. Or, maybe we could just choose to exclude them and explicitly make the page about Western ethnic stereotyping. Feasible?

I just think its a good idea to make individual pages, because at the moment Wikipedia only has very general ethnic stereotyping pages such as: Ethnic stereotypes in American media, Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture, ethnic stereotypes in pornography; OR, very specific pages about the individual stereotypes such as Angry Asian Man or Jewish American Princess with nothing in between. The same ethnic stereotypes are present in each of the very general stereotyping articles which is sort of redundant yet not very focused. I think a medium-specific set of pages would be great for focus, and also so that people could find all the very specific stereotypes (and their links) for an ethnicity/race all in one place and in greater detail. Drenched 05:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully support the split, for the reasons you've given. --Lukobe 06:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I split the article into subarticles: Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites, Stereotypes of Asians, Stereotypes of Latinos, Stereotypes of Jews, Stereotypes of Native Americans, and Stereotypes of Near Easterners/Arabs. They were basically direct copy/pastes with no significant content changes, so they're pretty messy right now. I also wasn't sure if I split the article into appropriate sections (I consolidated British and Italian sections in with the European section) or if the titles I gave them were appropriate. Also, there is obviously an American slant to all of the subsections right now; I don't know if you all want to explicitly rename the articles to limit the content to American stereotypes, or if you wanted to add other stereotypes into the same articles. What do you all think? Sorry if I did a crappy job of splitting the articles; I'm not exactly a Wikipedia veteran...so lots of feedback would be appreciated! --Drenched 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Subjective

wikipedia defines stereotype as a group concept, held by one social group about another. They are often used in a negative or prejudicial sense and are frequently used to justify certain discriminatory behaviors. My question: Who is to say when a portrayal is negative or prejudicial? No one is an authority on that. It's all subjective. And enough with the minorities play the bad guys thing! It's not only untrue, it's positive. Antagonists are usually smart, adept, and powerful, possesing all the traits a sane minority would want to emulate. - User:ShadowyCaballero

That's why we give opposing points of views. Cite sources that say "such and such" is a stereotype, and then cite sources that disagree, if they can be found. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ ----Drenched 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OR

I think this page at least is in the following way original research: "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". What bothers me is the fact that there isn't some general overview, but only anecdotes (such as citing a few movies, while there are thousands of movies) and small research results which are synthezised to advance a position for every ethnic group. While these anecdotes and partial research results are possibly correct, I doubt that there isn't any academic research that contradicts/minimalizes/makes more nuances/... than the current version. I don't say that these research results are more correct, but it would possibly diminish the original research on this page. This page currently seems to advance the position that the American media often/mostly/only makes stereotypes. Sijo Ripa 00:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I agree about the problem with using movies as sources (if you look up on the page or on the AfD discussion I think you'll see I've brought this up several times). To me the article is more like a persuasive essay than an objective article.--Derco 03:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think this article does have some problems and also think an overview might be nice, but I disagree with most of the above points. First, I don't see any problem with using movies as sources since this page is *about* stereotypes in media. It's like saying that you can't cite movies in an article about cinema studies or a musical in an article about Broadway revivals...movies are an integral part of American media, and therefore it makes perfect sense to cite them in an article discussing a specific aspect of American media. I also disagree that all the content of this article is "original research." I can't vouch for every single assertion on the page because I am not familiar with them all, but I assure you that many of the stereotypes extrapolated from movies/plays/music etc. noted here have been published and are widely recognized in academic circles of scholars studying Latino/Africana/Asian studies. They aren't all just assertions synthesized and made up by random Wikipedians. I'm too lazy to dig up my Asian American studies course packets containing many such documents right now, but I assure you that there are many published works about racial stereotypes in American media. Drenched 03:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course movies are part of media. But the problem in using them as sources is that there are like 30 billion movies (<--actual number). If you pick one movie, let's say...I don't know, Birth of a Nation, and use that to talk about stereotypes about black people, then that's ridiculous. (Obviously the examples are not THAT bad.) Just because there is one movie that shows a stereotype doesn't mean that that stereotype is prevalent or even existent. In fact there may be eleventy billion movies that contradict that stereotype that you just chose not to talk about. (An example of this, oddly enough, is already in the article. One Lethal Weapon movie seems to contradict the stereotype supposedly advanced in the other Lethal Weapon movie.) For this reason, individual movies are anecdotal evidence and don't make good sources. And for another thing, unless you can find an outside source that analyzes the movie to contain a stereotype, I believe that asserting that such and such movie is stereotypical is original research.--Derco 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you have good academic sources, it would be nice if you could add them. Because I'm not terribly pleased with the sources currently in there. And if this article absolutely has to stay, it might as well be improved.--Derco 04:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I completely agree that it's inaccurate to choose one obscure unrepresentative movie containing a specific ethnic representation and assert that it's the majority trend of stereotypes of that ethnicity in American movies. However, I think its inevitable to cite movies as sources in an article such as this one, and I think it's okay as long as we use them responsibly as examples of significant actual established trends of stereotyping in movies. But I think we are in agreement that there needs to be better citing of better sources to make our article more reputable. Also, racial stereotypes aren't simple; there definitely are contradictions in the way that each race is represented or conceived in the American consciousness, and these conceptions have also changed and evolved throughout American history. So I think you bring up a good point, and agree that these complexities or contradictions need to be mentioned/addressed in this article as well.

I have sources of stereotyping of Asians in American society including but not limited to films. If you look a couple topics up on the discussion board, you'll see that I actually would prefer to make pages about stereotypes in general rather than just limited to "media" because the same stereotypes exist in literature, theater, current events, and every day life and it doesn't make sense to me to separate them all. But anyway, some of these include (yes, I got un-lazy and dug up my course packets just for you!): Sheridan Prasso, The Asian Mystique: Dragon Ladies, Geisha Girls & Our Fantasies of the Exotic Orient (2005); Kam Louie, Theorising Chinese Masculinity (2002); William F. Wu, "Fu Manchu and Charlie Chan," The Yellow Peril: Chinese Americans in American Fiction, (1850-1940) (1982); Gina Marchetti, Romance and the 'Yellow Peril': Race Sex and Discursive Strategies in Hollywood Fiction (1993); Shimakawa, Karen, National Abjection: the Asian American body onstage. Okay, I hope that helps. --Drenched 19:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Media is more than television!

This page is highly based on television stereotypes. The page name however is media, which include among others radio, newspapers, magazines, and internet (e.g. blogs). Especially in the pre-television era radio and newspapers had a major role (but today it still has though). Currently the role of internet is rapidly increasing. Sijo Ripa 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

This article was previously considered for deletion. Can it be re-considered for deletion? If so, how? -ShadowyCabal 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Taken from Wikipedia:Deletion policy:

Renominations and recurring candidates

Think carefully. Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination.

Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete.

If an article has been on AfD before but users want to start another iteration of a deletion debate, they should consider using this template, {{subst:afdx|2nd}}. This creates a link to a new debate page and prevents the old one from being overwritten or re-used.

A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted). The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion. Otherwise:

Repeated nomination for deletion

In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy and not opinion. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept.

Repeated recreation of deleted article

If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article. But recreation of articles which should clearly remain deleted may result in the page being protected to prevent its recreation.

Renomination of an article previously considered on AfD should include this template, {{subst:afdx|2nd}}, which will prevent overwriting of the previous discussion.

--Drenched 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I renominated it. For different reasons this time. ShadowyCabal 21:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is very informative and i don't think it should be deleted. I haven't heard one worthwile justification for it's deletion. - Majik43

Source your material!

Every one of these stereotypes should be referenced, and not by movies! For example: When we talk about the "china doll" stereotype, we need to say something like "Reputed author insertnamehere theorized a trend he reffered to as the asian china doll. In his paper, he referenced the following films..." Otherwise its original research and doesn't belong on wikipedia. The china doll stereotype is not a fact, its a media theory. Theories can only be discussed when talking about theorists. Someone back me up here. - ShadowyCabal 07:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I inserted a reference for "China Doll" from Sheridan Prasso's book which discusses this stereotype amongst other things. She does mention a number of films/performances etc. in relation to this and other stereotypes of Asian women but I don't have the book in front of me right now to expand or cite other things yet. I very much agree that a lot more referencing must be done in this article, and I do think it'd be good to name the central people who invented or coined the terms/theories mentioned in this article or are well known for their work in these areas. However, I don't think that the stereotypes present in the media are always in the context of a scholar inventing a theory exclusively attributed to him/her. In many cases stereotypes are popularized by newspaper articles, major events in American history, politicians, influential books/films etc. and then written about and analyzed by various scholars afterwards. In this particular example, Sheridan Prasso didn't invent the name "China Doll" nor is the term used exclusively by her; the phrase referring to the stereotype pops up in a number of works about the stereotype. However, she did write one of the published works discussing this stereotype which is why I referenced her; but I could have referenced a number of other authors too. --Drenched 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Just so long as there are some kind of references. The closer the references get to the chronological invention of the stereotype, the better. - ShadowyCabal 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shifting focus of the article

So what (granted that this article survives afd which it looks like it will) will we do with this article now that the bulk of its content is located in other articles? The redirect links are in place already. It seems logical to keep the intro, sections with no independent pages, and "Criticism" section more or less as it is for now. But should we delete the contents of the sections that have their own independent pages and just write a short summary of each in its place? What do you all think? --Drenched 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no responses. I'm going to start deleting sections and replacing them with short blurbs in a few days unless people object or suggest differently, okay? Because right now it's sort of silly...having to edit things twice, once here and once at the individual page. The later we consolidate the messier it will be, trying to combine changes made in one version of the article and not the other etc. --Drenched 04:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of its content is located on what other articles? - ShadowyCabal 12:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, Stereotypes of Latinos, Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites, Stereotypes of Asians, Stereotypes of American Indians, Stereotypes of Near Easterners/Arabs. --Drenched 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic stereotypes in American media is reserved for famous examples of allegedly stereotypical characters in media. The other articles you listed are for oversimplified ideas about different ethnic groups, those articles need not give examples from media. - ShadowyCabal 17:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A plague upon this F'd up page!

Wikipedia is a place for facts. Most of the information on these stereotype pages consists of well-sourced non-facts. No one can proove that Speedy Gonzales is a stereotype, so it is not a fact. I don't care if Chuck Jonze, Chich Marin, or the ACLU said it was a stereotype. It can't be proven. In order for wikipedia to give an example of a stereotype, there needs to be a direct link between the definition of stereotype and the example given. That is impossible because of the subjective nature of the word "oversimplified" in the definition below.

Stereotype: A widely held but fixed or oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

This article makes me furious!

"This article discusses ethnic stereotypes in American media. As art is often a reflection of any given society, these stereotypes can be said to represent some or much of the American society's dominant view of different ethnic groups."

That is the first sentence, it reads like a thesis. This whole article is so POV and people just don't get it. I tried to get it deleted twice. I think most of the contributions are from people who use the rationale "I was offended, so its a stereotype." Either that or its people who think theres a vast conspiracy against their race (there probably is) and ANY portrayal is a negative stereotype against them.

As soon as I figure out who the wikipedia authorities are, I'm gonna contact them and end this douchebaggery.

- ShadowyCabal 19:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I can't believe this article exists. This is disgusting and racist towards whites. It claims to discuss ethnic stereotypes, but really, this article is the one doing the stereotyping. 68.252.95.241 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. It's the old "it's racist to point out racism" argument. Gotta love it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

As I see it there are redundant pages.

Stereotype, Stereotypes of (insertethnicgrouphere), Ethnic stereotype, Ethnic stereotypes in American media, Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture

The Stereotype article is obviously important because its a real concept with a meaning that should be defined.

I think the Ethnic stereotype page is redundant because anyone who reads the stereotype page understands that stereotypes are about groups and ethnicities are obviously groups. Ethnic stereotypes are an important issue though, and should be discussed on the following:

Stereotypes of (insertethnicgrouphere)

Each of these pages should list oversimplified ideas about each ethnic group. It might also be neccesary to write which other group has these oversimplified ideas (in most cases, the other group will be White Americans). It is very important that these pages refrain from giving examples from media, because that is reserved for:

Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture

It might go without saying that its "popular" culture, because no one is really interested in ethnic stereotypes in esoteric culture. Anyway, this page will be reserved for famous examples of "alleged" stereotypes in media. Since there is no authority on what characters are truly stereotypes, the page will have to give examples of times when a scholar or journalist or newspaper or magazine or commitee has accused a character of being a stereotype. It will all be referenced.

Ethnic stereotypes in American media seems to be an arbitrary slimming of Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture, but I guess its the same issue I adressed above with White Americans. A stereotype can not exist without the perspective of a specific other group. So this page should look like the pop culture page, only slightly smaller with an emphasis on American media. It is my fear that both pages will still be infinitely long.

That's my plan, what do you think? - ShadowyCabal 01:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I deleted the brief section titled "Criticism". It was extremely POV. Furthermore, while it was an attempt to suggest that all existing stereotypes found in the mainstream media are non-existent (thus implying that the media is fair and balanced and that all observations made by the public are false fabrications), the section itself was not supported by actual sources and references.

Ratherford Skills (the progenitor of this article).

You are my arch-enemy. - ShadowyCabal 14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the media has never been fair and balanced. I'm just saying there is no objective way to determine which characters are stereotypes and which aren't. Do you disagree? - ShadowyCabal 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that even though the media has never been fair and balanced, determining every single stereotypical character from non-stereotypical characters can be a rather complicated affair and may often lead to misinterpretations and such. Now the reason I removed that section is because it didn't seem neutral in the way it was written. However, you may rewrite that section again and it would be helpful to cite sources and references that support it. If you can't cite sources, at least try to make that section as neutral as you can.

Another problem that you must keep in mind is that this entire article is an attempt to track down repetitive patterns that are found in the American media. Since these patterns are repetitive, the evidence becomes all the more undeniable. Of course, simply documenting these repetitious (and often covert racist) patterns is not easily converted to Wikipedia technical standards and policies. This is why this article is an ongoing process of edits because the subject matter it covers is too subtle to verify using Wikipedia style policies. Independent research is a more reliable and versatile form of verification for these types of subject matters.

Ratherford Skills (the progenitor of this article).

Italians & Italian Americans

Why do people keep moving the Italian & Italian Americans section from under the heading "Europeans/Whites" to their own section? Are Italians & Italian Americans not European/White? I think they are, seeing as Italy is part of Europe and Italians are generally considered Caucasian. It's inconsistent to leave "British" and "Jews" under "Europeans/Whites", and give "Italians & Italian Americans" their own section. It doesn't make any sense to me, and that's why I'm putting them back under the European/White heading. --Drenched 02:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that the title of the article is Ethnic stereotypes in American media ... contrary to "world view", Americans tend to lump white people (especially Europeans) into distinct stereotypical lumps ... since they can't tell a Korean from a Japanese from a Chinese, "Asian" is a sufficient single lump. OTOH, I moved "English" and "Italian" to sub-groups of "White (European)". --141.156.240.102 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You know there is nothing that doesn't make sense about it. The stereotypes of Italians & Italian Americans differ from that of other Europeans. And so why would you lump them and European/White together in the first place? First of all, when they can rap about guns and Europeans/Whites can't. Especially, the Gotti brothers because they got the family. What doesn't make sense to me is why Latins don't share the same stereotypes. Why doesn't anyone acknowledge the fact Spanish Americans, Luso Americans, and Italian Americans face the same stereotypes? If they did, I am sure we would have a Latins & Non-Latin American Latin Americans category. I also want to know why they don't speak the same language because if they did all Latin Music would be written and sung in Latin. --68.76.159.136 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't decide whether this page is a joke...

This page is, to put it bluntly; hilariously bad. It's as if The Onion decided to do a cliche-filled parody of what a fictional supervillain thrown out of the ACLU for being too liberal would write. Jesus, man. Someone made a good point earlier about how the opening reads like a college student's thesis. How the heck has this page been missed by admins? An article titled "Ethnic stereotypes in American media" is undoubtedly a worthy and potentially informative addition to Wikipedia, but this...well, there are not enough hyperboles in the language to describe it. Edders 20:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur, {{sofixit}}. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It will never be fixed, because of the bias of most wikipedians. Though they say they see objectively, they don't. They are liberal duechebags. - ShadowyCabal 23:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and avoid making personal attacks. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fag. - ShadowyCabal 04:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not feed the troll

I was going to say Do not feed the troll, but it's obviously too late ... they've read WP:CIVIL, but think it does not apply to them. (Anyone who can't spell douchebag correctly should just be ignored, anyway.) --138.88.84.36 07:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him on his Talk page[1]. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously attempting to defend this article? If you've found the guidelines on Trolls then perhaps you could search wikipedia guidelines for such useful subjects as 'Reliable Sources' and 'NPOV', since this article violates a variety of guidelines established in both cases. It also cites a single source for the whole mess (which incidently, only covers Asian Americans and comes from an obscure source). It wouldn't even take someone familiar with the rules to see how unencyclopedic the piece reads. Interestingly, it seems that one of the editors (unless I'm misunderstanding him/her) has specifically stated that he/she is purposefully violating wikipedia guidelines based on his/her own opinion on the subject:

"Of course, simply documenting these repetitious (and often covert racist) patterns is not easily converted to Wikipedia technical standards and policies. This is why this article is an ongoing process of edits because the subject matter it covers is too subtle to verify using Wikipedia style policies. Independent research is a more reliable and versatile form of verification for these types of subject matters".

Well, good for you. Unfortunately, you can't just ignore wiki guidelines when you feel like it. Edders 09:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where I've defended the article. I also think it needs a lot of work and clean-up. I only reminded User:ShadowyCaballero to remain civil and warned him when he did a personal attack. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack. I was talking about most wikipedians. That is not personal. - ShadowyCabal 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I failed to notice the totally inappropriate "fag" remark someone made and assumed you were making a personal attack. Edders

The research itself is not a joke. To deny the overwhelming research that was put into creating this article is to simply reinforce the covert racist patterns evident in the media. The article itself is not written in Wikipedian technical brilliance, and thus, I will admit those technical errors are worthy of criticism. HOWEVER, the research itself is irrefutable. Simply making pathetic sweeping generalizations such as "this page is a joke" DOES NOT REFUTE THE RESEARCH. Whoever makes these types of unsourced sweeping generalizations is in a state of denial.

Ratherford Skills — Preceding unsigned comment added by RatherfordSkills (talk • contribs) 08:43, 19 November 2006

Awww ... the original author comes back once every few months, and discovers that their precious essay has become a magnet for cruft to the point where the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. Well, if it's so important to you that The Truth Must Be Known, then pay closer attention to what the vandals, and the WikiGnomes trying to clean up after them, have been doing to it over the past six months!

(You've been contributing for over a year now, and you STILL don't know how to properly sign your posts?) —72.75.93.205 (talk | contribs) 10:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just naive ...

Maybe I'm just naive, but I rarely see a lot of the stereotypes on this page. I know that they existed at one time, but not all of them seem to be used as much anymore. If you're going to keep the article, perhaps you should mention which ones are falling out of practice. Also, a lot of steroetypes I do see aren't mentioned. If we can't find any up-to-date sources for the article, then maybe it should be deleted or something. I dunno. It just seems that it's not very accurate. TastyCookie 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you follow any of the Main article links? That's where all the examples are located. When I see a Main article tag, then there should not be more than two paragraphs of text following it. (And they should not be just a copy&paste of the first two paragraphs in the referenced article!) Yeah, it's a Pretty Bad article, but it ain't gonna die, so the best that we can do is focus attention elsewhere (like Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, Stereotypes of Asians, or Stereotypes of Latinos) and try to keep this article from becoming even worse. So if you don't see your favorite stereotype listed in the article, please do not add it here ... look for it in a Stereotypes of Ethnic(x) page, and add it there if it is missing. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 23:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Russians

I removed the following from the article:

Russians as well as Ukrainians or any other Eastern Europeans are usually portrayed as wearing heavy fur coats, with great beards. In popular culture, Russia and East European countries (even those with mild climate like Bulgaria) almost always appear as snowy regions where winter lasts for more than 6 months. Russians in American media are generally also depicted to be fond of vodka. They are usually portrayed as megalomaniac communists or Russian Mafia members. This may be a tribute to the Cold War times when Soviet characters often played the role of major villains.

As written, this violates WP:V. Per policy, reliable sources need to be cited stating that the media portrays these stereotypes. Taking examples and saying a stereotype has been portrayed also violates WP:OR (synthesis). -AED 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Porno

Pornography is American Media, is it not? The deletion of Black Dicks in White Chicks 8 (film) suggests a hollywood bias. Pornography is a mjor source of stereotyping. - ShadowyCabal 00:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Try using an example that isn't redlinked and maybe it won't keep being deleted ... the only bias is against it's lack of notability. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it -- since I don't have a lot of time to frequently edit this article on a daily basis -- that others would chip in, and mention the very obvious pattern that is evident in porno. That pattern has something to do with the term "interracial porn". That term seems to never apply to sex scenes involving a White Man.

Ratherford Skills — Preceding unsigned comment added by RatherfordSkills (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 November 2006

{{Solookitup}}. And learn how to use ~~~~~ to time/date stamp your signatures! —72.75.93.205 (talk | contribs) 09:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiracial, biracial, mixed people

The following paragraph appears in the article:

Though mostly found in older pulp novels and B-movies (such as I Passed for White), the identity angst can be taken a step further when the multiracial person appears to be, for example, predominantly white despite actually being mostly African-American (a stereotype known as the tragic mulatto). The person finds that assuming a white identity among white society is beneficial, but must keep their blackness a secret, often causing tension and feelings of betrayal among other African-Americans and angst/guilt within the mixed individual concerning the denial of their true heritage.

As written, this violates WP:V. Per policy, reliable sources need to be cited stating that the media portrays these stereotypes. Taking examples and saying a stereotype has been portrayed also violates WP:OR (synthesis). Does anyone have any reliable sources for the above comments? -AED 00:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This section may have been part of the original "well researched" article by User:RatherfordSkills, or it could have been added later, but the point is that it has no citations and smells of original research. If someone disagrees, then they can restore it with a verified reference. —72.75.93.205 (talk | contribs) 10:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

References?

I just went over the requested citations for the article and managed to find some (including one about alleged English bad teeth, much to my surprise), but finding references is difficult for some. If there is no verifiable reference to a certain stereotype, should we keep it or delete it? Breed Zona 03:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If people cannot come up with a source for a stereotype then the claim should be deleted. Seeing as the very nature of a stereotype should lead to dozens of examples for said claim, otherwise it's not a stereotype. All should bear in mind that this is the in the media article. tactik 12:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Page is Radical to the point of Deletion

This article needs major cleanup. It is hard to read, and hard to understand. It is not neutral at all. We need cleanup. :) Fortyniners9999 06:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't find it hard to read or to understand, and English isn't my mother tongue. The neutrality is in order seems alright with me. --Soetermans 09:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

See the previous AfD discussions linked at the top of this talk page. --72.75.104.44 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Few more things about African Americans

A few more things about African Americans the article does not mention:

One stereotype:

Talkative, bablling funnymen (Rush Hour, Lethal Weapon 4, National Security etc...)

Also overrepresentation of blacks among people in high places such as judges, scientists, geeks, doctors etc. Particularly in recent years, probably due to fear of being accused of racism. (examples: doctor in the "The Simpsons", computer guru in "Mission Impossible", mathematician in "Sphere" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Common (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

See, this is what I'm talking about... Now we have to list POSITIVE portrayals as well? This article is becoming an ever increasing list of ALL ethnic characters in American Media. A list like that is not only arbitrary, but misses the general thrust of distinguishing a stereotype from a portrayal. - ShadowyCabal 02:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed copyedit tag.

There is no use copyediting stuff that is going to be deleted. Utill the other issues are resolved copyediting is pointless. I would reccomend submitting it to the cleanup taskforce if you need help in that area. Puddytang 05:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you proove its a Stereotype?

The claims in this article can't be proven or disproven. For instance, the opening line:

Early media portrayals of Africans, Asians, Native Americans, the Irish, and Italians were often "racist," in the modern sense of the word.

Though I do appreciate the quotation marks, NO ONE is an authority as to whether an artistic portrayal is racist. By the same logic, NO ONE is an authority as to whether a character is a stereotype. Agreed? -ShadowyCabal 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree... it doesn't take an "authority" to see that Stepin Fetchit and Amos 'n' Andy were racist portrayals of stereotypes from the first half of the 20th century that are no longer tolerated. —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So... What about the hundreds of other examples listed? Should we rely on common sense to determine if they are actually stereotypes? I don't think so. Some people say that if you reference the examples, that makes them valid, but that doesn't work either. Just because some scholar said it was a stereotype, doesn't make it a common sense stereotype. So how can we proove our examples are appropriate? -ShadowyCabal 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems the only appropriate way to handle it would be to go by the prevailing attitude of todays culture. While this will get a little fuzzy on the more grey-area (no pun intended) issues, it seems to be the solution that will cause the least amount of problems. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia that are about unproven theories or just current social norms in different cultures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.174.221.168 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Regarding the "prevailing attitude of today's culture." The "prevailing attitude" of today's culture is racist and uninformed. The "prevailing attitude" of today's Politically Correct culture is that everything in media is an offensive stereotype. The latter category dominates wikipedia. Philanthropic bias! Good spirited, yes, but objective? I think not. - ShadowyCabal 03:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

African-American too America-centric

Many of the sterotypes here apply to other countries as well, and not just American people of African descent. It should probably be changed to something a little more broad. Of course the term "black" is considered offensive by some, the term "ebonic" is generally an acceptable, if not well known, term for people of that race. "Africans" isn't really acceptable either as Africans north of the Sahara tend to be Arab.

Rename the article

Please rename it. I mean this ethnic stereotyping is not limited to the USA, I mean this stuff you can see on European, Canadian, and Australian media. Best yet you can rename "Ethnic stereotyping in Western media"? That would be best thanks.

This ought to be deleted. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a sophomoric essay.

Background

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 9 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture for background on this page. lifebaka++ 15:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)