Talk:Stereotypes of Americans

Supernatural section

One citation saying that a third of Americans believe in this does not mean that there exists a stereotype that Americans believe in these things. Request to remove. 69.198.206.106 (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, removed that section. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

White and American not the same thing

I don't think this page should redirect to Stereotypes of white people, as I think "white people" and "American people" are separate concepts. I think this is just an article that hasn't been started yet. For the moment I've changed the page to redirect to Anti-Americanism, which I think is a more closely related topic, but feel free to cchange this if you think I'm wrong - I may be!!

Thanks very much, Drum guy (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

American stereotypes are often associated and related to America's political, systemic and educational structures. These affect all Americans and it's therefore appropriate to label these as American stereotypes. Hugo Rydman (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Original Research and Unreliable Sources

Your sterotypes article is Original Research and contains almost no reliable sources, You should remove them all before someone else does. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I improved most of the sources, so now it contains a substantial amount of reliable sources. I keep working on that. If you can you are welcomed to help with sources. Exactly which parts do you think need sources? FonsScientiae (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You are using YouTube, Talk Page Forums, About.com, Yahoo.com Questions, Other talk page forums. I simply went down the list of sources and found almost no reliable sources after examining the first 20 or so. None of that is reliable sourcing for the article. Arzel (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

About the first 10 sources are from pages which you mentioned, those were the first sources I added. If you read on you can see that since then I updated mostly reliable sources from health care sites, CNN, United Nations, Harvard University, American Anthropological Association, Gallup Polls, etc.
Otherwise, I don't see a problem with the sites you mentioned as stereotypes are public opinion and false beliefs of a group and these sites give a good sampling on these opinions. A cultural stereotypes page is not a scientific subject so it does not need mostly academics sources. FonsScientiae (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is currently full of unreliable sources and original research. They will all be removed shortly along with the corresponding text. If anyone feels strongly about any of it I suggest they find some reliable sources to back up statements. FYI, Personal Blogs, Talk Page Forums and YouTube are not reliable sources. Arzel (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed most of the sources which you considered unreliable. As for the few which are still there, I would like to call your attention to the fact that the mere existence and multitude of those sources proves that the particular stereotypes about these people, which the sources are about, exist. In that case, the article is not based on what the sources claim, but on the existence of those sources. You cannot claim that the sources are unreliable, as the existence of something cannot be 'unreliable'.
Please do not remove any of the sources till there are more editors here and we can reach a clear consensus. FonsScientiae (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What you are describing is original research. You are finding information which back up your hypothesis being presented. Arzel (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Arzel, I happen to think mexicans are the worst drivers on earth, however my personal opinion doesn't make it a commonly held stereotype; you can find one website with one person's opinion saying anything. 69.198.206.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I just went through and removed a whole crap-load of non-RS's Arzel (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience"

I've cleaned up this article's grammar and writing style and removed quotations regarding scientific controversy from section "Uneducatedness, ignorance and gullibility" as I find them to be of little relevance to to the article's subject matter. He who Geezes (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't travel much ?

You could add to this, the stereotypical notion that, compared to the citizens to other affluent countries, a large proportion of Americans don't have a passport and have never been outside their own country.Eregli bob (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

america shares a border with two countries and if i'm not mistaken until recently a passport was not required to travel to either. maybe you should look at the size of the United States and consider that international travel might not be as simple as in other parts of the world. --Troyeseffigy (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Until recently a passport was not needed to travel to Canada or Mexico. People in the US travel from state to state as those in smaller European countries travel from country to country. Arzel (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The two replies above aren't really the point, whatever the excuse for Americans not leaving their own country, it's certainly an often-said stereotype about them - 'most Americans don't have passports'. American contributors here probably aren't the best people to judge this (but being American I'm sure they won't let that stop them...)151.224.102.18 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And the above reply shows that you really aren't interested in having a constructive discussion but instead just try to insult other users. - SantiLak (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the condescending tone in user 151.224.102.18's reply perfectly encapsulates both the ridiculous reason this article even exists and the reason why this article shouldn't exist. It (the article) is nothing but a dressed up pig. It's a swipe at Americans, masquerading as something more. Jersey John (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread is over four years old. There is nothing to be gained by trying to re-open a long dead conversation. Pick a newer thread that seems appropriate or start an entirely new thread. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Uneducatedness?

That's not even a real word. Unless it's suppose to be ironic? Is there not a better choice of wording than "uneducatedness" that we can use? --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I got a good laugh out of this, Jasca Ducato. You're absolutely right, and Wikipedia is no place for irony. I'm going to go ahead and be bold and change it to "lack of education." --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

American gender stereotypes

Copied from my talkpage. Response below.

That reeks of censorship, sir or madam. When you say 'talk page' do you mean your own personal talk page? Because as far as I can figure out, the only way I can talk is by performing edits. Which doesn't mean that I'm trying to be a jerk, but rather that wikipedia is not extremely user-friendly, nor intuitive.

Incidentally, calling all American women materialistic sluts is something akin to calling all African-Americans lazy, stupid apes. They are both extremely insulting. It's one thing to profer opinions, but another to be sexist, chauvenist, and hateful.

Perhaps you will think I am over-reacting. But, I read a statistic somewhere which said that 80% of wikipedia editors were men. I strongly suspect that the person who wrote that portion of the article was a man. I also strongly suspect that you are a man. Not that there's anything wrong with being a man, as you can't really help it, but it does pose a problem in that you are unaware of the female perspective. You may be unaware of other perspectives as well, but you are definitely unaware of the female perspective.

But to the offending article itself: it profers an opinion which not only is deeply critical of an entire gender, is poorly cited. Some comedian somewhere called American women sluts. That is not evidence. A study would be evidence. Even a paper, with proper arguments and such, would be evidence. But so far, you do not have evidence, and this is because I'm pretty sure that you are blatantly wrong. And this is what bothers me the most: that you are wrong, and that you are influencing other people to view American women as money-hungry whores, and you really should know better.

Thank you. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's how talking works around here, you edit the talk page. And I meant the article's talk page. Sorry I was unclear. I will respond in full there later today. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 11:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I issued you the warning for edit warring because you kept removing the same content over and over without discussing it on this page. That's not personal, or gender based, that's policy.

I think you may misunderstand the purpose of this article. The article is about stereotypes that may be held or believed by other people around the world about Americans. These are not a collection of opinions or beliefs held by the writers of the article. No one is saying that any of these things are true, just that they are believed by some. And the references support that some people hold those beliefs.

I've moved the material you object to into a new section. Please feel free to find well referenced stereotypical beliefs about American men and add them to the article. No one will object to that.

Next, about the personal attacks you wrote. I will not respond to them. You should be aware that making personal attacks against another editor is another behavior which could get an editor blocked or banned. Please keep the discussion civil and focused on the topic of the disagreement in editing, and not personal.

Finally, about the article itself. I think it's a stupid article. But it exists. You are welcome to propose deletion of the article. The policy through which you can do this is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 13:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC) I think that this article is important because Americans always talk about skin color stereotypes and not enough about stereotypes about nationality.

Bill,

I don't find your un-edits a gender-based attack. I am largely concerned with the content of the article itself, but I wonder why you put up so much opposition to my very small edit. Surely it can't mean that much to you.

I don't want to make derogatory comments about men. I have nothing against men, and I don't enjoy tearing people down. You mention the term "well-referenced". I prefer for statements to be well-referenced too. I don't think that this particular statment is well-referenced, and furthermore, I don't think that it can be well-referenced, because I don't think that it is true. And so I wonder about the author's neutrality. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be both neutral and well-referenced, and that statement is neither.

I don't want the article to be deleted either. I think that it serves a useful purpose, and I enjoyed reading it. I just want to do away with that particular sentence.

Of course, if you can find evidence that American women are materialistic sluts, then we have no problem at all. But I'm pretty sure that whoever wrote that was confusing personal experience for universal truth.

Cheers, Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement is referenced. All editors fight removal of referenced material because it detracts from the encyclopedia as a whole. I honestly don't give a crap about this article, or that one small part. It's entirely the principle that we do not delete referenced material from the encyclopedia. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 11:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bill, just because some comedian called American women sluts once doesn't mean that his opinion has a place in an encyclopedaic article. All it proves is that someone said something. Dailyshampoo48

American Stereotypes Of Others

This article does not mention anything about the stereotypes often exhibited in American media towards other countries.

Examples:

English people: Bad Teeth ( Orange County Choppers - visit to the UK remark made by Paul Teutul on camera, increasingly dental standard mean the hollywood perfect tooth look is available to all but stereotypes based on a historic imagery ( medieval peasants ) persist. The country of knights and cockney accents ( Phineas and Ferb ) "everything here is so small and wet" - references to weather stereotypes and the size of the country.

French + Canadian people: Madagascar 3 General stereotypes of Europes and insults to Canadians see link http://www.tribute.ca/reviews/madagascar-3-europes-most-wanted/29946/8/

It may be argued that this belongs in a different article but I would argue that one of the major stereotypes of Americans is actually that they are stereotypical of others in their views of others particularly Europeans. Crass accents are used to indicate non-Americans ( cockney accent for all British people ). A lot of this stereotyping occurs in films aided at children which is a concern.

I feel this article is in general badly written and in places it reads more like propaganda and personal opinion and I am surprised it has been tolerated by wiki staff. It reads as if it was written by someone who is irritated by negative American stereotypes and a lot of it is personal opinion.

Personally I would suggest that this article is taken down until the author is persuaded to write in an neutral tone rather than a defensive one.

I would also like to see the article properly balanced by a section on how Americans are seen as originators of stereotypes as they are as victims of it, in particular mention should be made of the rude stereotypes employed by Hollywood particularly in comedy and child orientated content. American stereotypes always seem more personal and more explicitly promoted than others. Stereotypes of majority groups may be less harmful than stereotypes of minorities, but research has shown that stereotypes of the majority can also be harmful. Besides, one country's minority is another country's majority. Many comedy shows make fun of Americans the most, not just immigrants. Americans admire groups such as Europeans and Canadians. There's worse things to be called than being ugly or having bad teeth.

I am not convinced that articles on stereotyping can be written in a politically neutral tone, this article has very little to commend it and only invites argument and counter argument. Just like a discussion on left vs right politics there will never be resolution, the job of wiki is simply to accurately describe both points of view ideally in the same document or with cross references. Such a tangle of inter-related articles relating how Americans stereotype the English and then how the English stereotype the Americans can only lead to arguments, claim and counter claim with very little academic value whatsoever - this is not the place for this discussion and I suggest that the article is taken down and not replaced. In the meantime I have added a section on Americans as originators of stereotype in the interest of balance, to illustrate how this article can quickly degenerate into a tit for tat argument and why ultimately I think it is best removed. If it is not removed then I would request my section remain in the interests of balance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.107.37.125 (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wording

"This stereotype shows them as lacking intellectual curiosity" I'm not sure this is the best way to state that, intellectual curiosity implies that Americans are stupid, and that is patently false, the majority of them are educated and the culture strongly pushes education, I feel that a better way to state this would be to say that Americans tend to not care about other cultures, although I'm not sure how exactly to word it. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Obesity and Creationism

Two missing Stereotypes are Obesity and Creationism :

• Obesity : USA is the state with the highest obesity rates in the world, so a Stereotype, is that all americans are obese. While this Stereotype is rarely seen in works made from the USA, it is a very common in works about the USA (typically the "darker" works).
• Creationism : If an extraverted educated adult male claims there is no evolution, this is outright offensive to everybody in the developed world. While this phenomen is found in some portion of all protestants, the USA is the only State with a protestant mayority (other "christian" states are catholic or secular) and creationism is mostly asscociated with the USA. This Stereotype is probably the most problematic, because it makes people outright hate and fear the USA, while other stereotypes make you just pity them. This Stereotype has also the potential to offend liberal humanists, who are otherwise a pro-american faction, leaving america without any supporters (Socialists and Nationalists hate the USA anyway, and Christians hate the USA for capitalism and racism).

For a good outside view look at http://www.stupidedia.org/stupi/USA from german the satire wiki stupidedia. (If you don't speak german, the carricatures are funny too (like the blood sprangeld banner or the fat guy with guns)) Stereotypes are :

• Religion: Christian Fundamentalists
• National Holiday : 9/11
• Using weird units like mile or foot
• President : some puppet of the fast-food and firearms industrie
• Geography : poluted landscape
• Buildings : Whimpy wooden houses
• Population : White middleclass (obese,mentally degenerated,wealthy,consumerist); Rednecks (inbred,hick,racist,vigilante,banjo) ; Ethnic Minorties (slaves,no human rights,do actual work,are good at sports);
• Patriotism : All americans carry small flags. Their reason for the patriotism is "Ähmm ... Freedom ... and the like, hail america, USA!,USA!".
• Religion : One the one hand, you can get banned from school for saying religions idioms like "Thank god", one the other hand, americans are even more religious than the taliban or Al-Quaida. Abortion is bad, but shooting "infidels" is good. If you are a foreigner, non-white, homosexual, atheist, disbled, have red are, albino, abortion supporter, or have sex bevore marriage, the Ku Klux Klan - the largest and most active political organisation - will lynch you. Minorities can only survive in Ghettos, elsewere they get stoned, crucified or burned on the stake.
• History : The wiki recoments to read the main article about american history : WAR
• Culture : What is the difference between the USA and Yoghurt ? The Yoghurt has culture.
• Politics : The USA attacks all countries with oil, and every politican takes bribes.
• Justice : Shooting blacks is legal, and you get a life sentence for touching a woman's but, but get only ten years for shooting a family. (If you are black you get a life sentence for shoplifting.) A Picture of Abu Ghoreib illustrates american justice.
• Civil Rights : Everybody has a gun. Saying "sex" on TV is cencored, but holocaust denial is legal.
• Infrastructure : The USA has no infrastructure.
• Education : If you don't die in a school shooting, you are bullied until you are a psychic wreckage, unless you play baseball or american fottball.
• Science (=Religion) : Americans are inept to breed own scientist, so everything intelectual in america is done by germans, captured after the second world war. Everyone else is a creationist.
• Sport : Degenreated Sports like Basketball or Baseball, as well as smoking or hunting with an AK-47 while riding a Segway.
• Economy : The Dept is growing exponetially and will cause the apocalypse.
• Inventions : Fast Food and chemical weapons in Iraq.
• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.106.169 (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick to offend and criticize others, strongly offended by incoming criticism

• Witness the public interference with the status quo in the Ukraine with a "fuck the EU" and anyone else attitude, and the anguish over the last weeks that the Russians may have interfered in the US Presidential election.
• How reflexive stereotypes that "all British have bad teeth" and "all French stink" are put in media with the expectation that the audience will share the stereotype (has been socially unacceptable to utter black stereotypes this publicly though). Versus the great umbrage taken when Obama said many Americans were "clinging to guns and religion".

- signed by an anon IP

A contradictory stereotype: Americans believe in free speech and expression the most than any other country, but compared from other first world countries, it is consider impolite to discuss politics (a two-party system is highly polarizing) and religion there (we have lots of multifaith diversity from a tradition of no state religion or church). 2603:8001:2601:F351:78E1:5540:73C7:D1C9 (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

New York City/Los Angeles/Chicago are very dangerous

This is a pretty weak section. The "once upon a time" language is a bit informal. Worse, more work needs to be done to combat this stereotype convincingly. The mention of East St. Louis in comparison is particularly egregious. East St. Louis is a tiny suburb (at only 14.37 sq mi) of another city (St. Louis) that itself makes up a very small percentage (at only 66+ sq mi) of its MSA. Chicago, New York, and L.A., on the other hand, are sprawling metropolises that cover very large portions of their MSAs (hundreds of square miles, each). The section today gives no indication that the original author is aware of any of the salient issues that guide how crime stats are reported and used in regional comparisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionidium (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Homelessness

How come homelessness isn’t added to this page? There are many Americans that are homeless.(2605:E000:24C8:8300:B493:9B6F:584A:3A3D (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC))

Incarceration

How come Incarceration isn’t added to this page? There are tons of Americans that went to prison.(107.77.229.17 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC))

Generosity

There is nothing here that suggests "generosity" is a stereotype. The links are to evidence they are generous (relatively) or one American's claim to be generous. But that doesn't mean it is a stereotype. Should this be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.88.111 (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No response, so would anyone object to me deleting "generosity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.236.220 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The entire article neeeds to be deleted. Jersey John (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with what the anonymous editor was saying two years ago. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Americans and the US Are Not That Important

People have such a strange obsession with Americans in specific and the US in general, and it's baffling.

Unless an article like this exists for every single national identity on Earth (and I am quite sure that is not the case), there is absolutely no reason this article should exist. Even articles about computer games are at least about a product or service. This is about one country and one national identity as if they are somehow peculiar, unique or otherwise special out of an entire global community.

I question the motivations of those who keep an article like this alive. Despite all their matter-of-fact arguments in defense of the existence of something so arbitrary, I firmly believe articles like this are kept on the en.wiki because some people enjoy having their cake (getting in their digs, which should not be acceptable) and eating it to (justifying it with wiki guidelines, which was not the point of guidelines).

So you either admit that Americans and the United States are particularly fascinating in comparison to the rest of this entire world, or you admit that you find Americans and the United States so uniquely bizarre and comical in comparison to the rest of the entire world. Because in the absence of "Stereotypes of [Nationality]" being an obligatory article for every single [Nationality] on Earth, what other conclusions are people meant to draw by the existence of this topic? The only other possible reason is that there is a global community that the US and Americans are, for whatever reason, not a part of? So writing about it is no different than an article about the Moon?

This is nothing but another example of the derision and condescending approach the en.wiki community takes towards anything American or relating to Americans as a people. This has long plagued the en.wiki (ironic considering more Americans speak English natively than the progenitors of the language...), but every time someone dares mention it they are shouted down. I will speak plainly; UK contributors think the en.wiki is their personal domain. They have from the start, and they keep a solid lock on the direction and tone of the en.wiki. The existence of such an asinine page as this one is just another symptom. Jersey John (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Yankophile listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yankophile. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Should stereotypes regarding incest within the USA be put on this page?

I know I don't have much in regards to concrete evidence but I noticed, and internalized heavens forbid, memes capitalizing off of a stereotype that certain states within the US have high rates of incest, one infamous example being the "Alabama family tree", wherein that "tree" is merely a helix.

I don't know, would it be a useful contribution to this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorruptSnowflake (talk • contribs) 04:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This topic and "useful" do not belong in the same sentence. This "topic" is a joke. It shouldn't exist. Jersey John (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This Article Needs To Go

For all the thin justifications for the existence of this article, it is clearly nothing but a compendium of Greatest Hits for people who need to get their laughs in. Again, either a standard article type should exist for Stereotypes of ALL communities on this globe, or none should. How is the USA unique? You know it is not unique. So why does such a page exist? You know why it exists. A section of "positive" stereotypes is not fooling anyone. That's just ridiculous. You think slapping "positive" stereotypes in to the article fools anyone? This article exists for the same reason that there is a concerted and obsessed effort on the American Revolutionary War page to add more weight to Britain's many global affairs coinciding in time than the actual American Revolution. How long must the en.wiki be a hotbed of sanctioned and encouraged anti-Americanism? Where are the articles on the stereotypes of, in no particular order:

Namibians

Estonians

Kyrgs

Chinese

Aleutian Natives

Choctaw

Mexicans

Angolans

Nederlanders

Frisians

Chileans

Latvians

Salvadorans

Sicilians

Ryukyu Natives

Andorrans

Iranians

Germans

Welsh

Manx

Tuscans

Lesothans

Moroccans

Cubans

Quebecois

Creole

Arcadians

Cajuns

Colombians

Bolivians

Nepalese

Indians

Liechtensteinians

Danes

Eskimoes

Faeroese

Ainu

Madagascarians

Sardinians

Catalans

Castilians

Basque

Bermudans

Jordanians

Israelis

Turks

Poles

Pakistanis

Canadians

Mongolians

Czechs

Slovaks

Slovenians

Montenegrans

Macedonians

Albanians

Greeks

Austrians

Hungarians

Milanese

Piedmontese

Bavarians

Swedes

Finns

Swede-Finns

Laplanders

Sami

Venezuelans

Ukrainians

French

Samoans

Thai

Taiwanese

Hmong

Vietnamese

Bangladeshi

Burmese

Jamaicans

Spanish

Italians

Bosnians

Bosniaks

Serbs

Kurds

Iraqis

Syrians

Armenians

Egyptians

Ethiopians

Saudi Arabians

Yemenese

Scots

Irish

Scots-Irish

Cornish

Japanese

etc...

etc..

etc.

Will you say to me they do not warrant articles concerning their stereotypes? Or that they "do not matter?" I'd love to see someone say THAT. Or will we cut the bull and acknowledge this page only exists for derisive entertainment, and continues to coast by existing year after year because the Powers That Be have a vested interest in it?

Jersey John (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying this is not a notable topic or are you saying there is nothing salvageable in the current article and we should start over? That you do not like the topic is irrelevant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your user history and what one can surmise from looking at your talk page leads me to believe you are completely bias and not worth discussing this further with you. This is an un-encyclopedic article; by definition alleged stereotypes are not meaningfully quantifiable and are not academic. This would apply to any article created about alleged stereotypes of a national identity. But how convenient, the only one is one about Americans. I am not interested in what you have to say further. I have seen where and how you get involved around here. Your bias and your agenda is clear. Jersey John (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have problems with me or my editing, feel free to use any of the options outlined at WP:DR, or take it directly to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (Before doing so, I'd suggest clarifying in your own mind whether you are concerned that I am inherently biased, I am trying to add bias to the encyclopedia or, perhaps, that a subject you are unhappy with is the subject of substantial discussion in independent reliable sources.

In any case, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not your complaints about me or Wikipedia's notability criteria. Whether or not it is "meaningfully quantifiable" or "academic" is immaterial.

If you feel the subject is not notable, feel free to take it to Articles for deletion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How naive do you think I am? I have been around the en.wiki in one way or another since 2006. There is ZERO point in taking someone like you seriously and ZERO point in taking any of this to an admin or a structured AFD. And we BOTH know why. Your alleged PhD does not impress me (and please, don't claim you're not trying to impress anyone when you insist upon displaying it). A PhD simply means you completed the necessary coursework and field work to attain it. It does not void you of agenda or bias. It simply gives you a false security blanket to hide it behind. This article is asinine, it wouldn't be allowed for other national identities, and furthermore you and those like you have a vested interest in making sure it stays. We are not all fools. We were not all born yesterday. And your PhD means nothing. Jersey John (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That was productive. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You are very free to create stereotypes for all of those groups of people. Just because something is made before something else doesn't mean it's more important. There is a lack main-stream stereotypes shared internationally within some of the groups mentioned, which might be why they haven't been added yet. Hugo Rydman (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this article as currently written is dreadful. It is full of unsourced opinion and original research. Where are the secondary sources establishing that these are exaggerated stereotypes held by other nationalities about Americans? There are large bodies of sociological and public opinion scholarship examining how nationalities view each other, yet none of that is cited here. It makes the entire article feel like spam. A fine article could be written about well-sourced, established stereotypes about Americans, but this is not that article. I think this article needs a top to bottom rewrite or else I will nominate it for deletion. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Almost all sources are 404 links or redirect to advertisement spam websites

Majority of the sources in the negative stereotypes section are in desperate need of updating/cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.195.226 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a decent argument against trashing this pointless article. Never should have existed in the first place. Jersey John (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Many sources are broken, redirect to spam websites, and many "stereotypes" do not even include supporting evidence

Majority of the sources in the negative stereotypes need to be cleaned up. The same source has been used for multiple stereotypes, and some themes listed as stereotypes do not have supporting evidence. By example, "American people in general may be portrayed as racist or racialist, often discriminating against their minorities" does not include a source for this statement and the only citation is about a statement Albert Einstein made. The same can be said for "Americans may be seen as reckless and imprudent people regarding the preservation of the environment." These statements should have sources that they are commonly held stereotypes. The insufficiently cited sections should either be fixed or removed. Sideriver84 (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The only way this absurd article gets "cleaned up" is by tossing it in the trash. The fact that so many references are broken isn't surprising. Stereotypes are transitory by nature, and the US is not a special place in specific.Jersey John (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Hot dogs and hamburgers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hot dogs and hamburgers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 27#Hot dogs and hamburgers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)