Talk:National character studies

Neutrality

The approach is regarded as "flawed" and "defunct", which show a negative bias given the lack of sources. (Regarded as flawed and defunct by whom? At what point did it start being regarded as defunct?) Asserts that the conclusion of a book is a logical fallacy without supporting sources while considering it an obvious observation. Saligron 12:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit this within the next two days. It was regarded as flawed by her colleagues in Anthropology, and is now considered in the Anth world to be an example of some of the "flawed" or "defunct" reasoning for anthropology study around the time that field research became more and more scientific. Thanks for the critique Aubin 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite this

This article is unencyclopedic, non-neutral, and not all that well written to boot. There are basic Wikipedia formatting conventions that one can glean simply from reading a couple Wikipedia articles. Do so. 70.185.171.184 20:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is quite a lot of new national character studies books, and it is viewed as an adequate method in many foreign universities. --Humanophage (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lacks historical context

The notion of "national characters" wasn't invented "after 1945", as the article suggests. Ethnic stereotypes go back to early history, even if the concept of a "nation" is more recent. There are articles about "national character" studies in a number of other languages, e.g. de:Nationalcharakter names sources from the 17th century. A prominent 18c example of a scholarly proponent of "national character" is Herder, it was one of his favorite concepts.--2.204.227.50 (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]