Talk:Stereotypes of white Americans

America is once again the center of the world

I find it strange how this article only includes positive stereotype of white Americans and stereotype white Americans give to other ethic groups. Why are there no stereotypes of other countries and ethic groups? I also find the lack of negative stereotypes towards Americans quite disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.189.226.20 (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is extremely US biased. Almost all of the sources are on the USA and from American authors and there is no coverage on different parts of the world. Maybe it is common practice in the USA to categorize people according to socially constructed American terminology of race, and write racist statements in the article against one of these groups, but it is considered offensive and disgusting in other parts of the world. FonsScientiae (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, please do not create a new discussion at the top of the discussion page. It is not proper and it directs away from other topics.

Second, this is an Article about Stereotypes of White Americans in the United States. If you are wishing for variety of Stereotypes of 'White' in other countries, you may have to create the article yourself.

Third, negative stereotypes toward Americans can be found at Stereotypes of Americans. This article is specific towards "White Americans" and does not focus on a world view. 199.254.212.44 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfair

Why does the black stereotype article actually list stereotypes and this one does not. It mentions that in a survey people chose white faces and in the black stereotype article is states that only 24% of America's poverty is black but why does this article not mention that blacks stereotype whites as rich and having been born rich? Or that blacks assume all whites live behind gates communities and that blacks use the word "uppidy" to refer to white people. White people are called the man all the time on BET and in popular readings in the black community. Can we list some actual stereotypes that are held against white people as is done in the other articles or are we just going to gloss over like some kool-aide drinker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.16.10 (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to see the world as if whiteness were normal, and being another race is a condition that gives you various characteristics. In other words, white is "blank" and average in all ways, and the idea of whites possessing characteristics that could form the basis of stereotypes is as inconceivable as asking how a splotch of white paint looks on a canvas, or asking people what their stereotypes of Earthlings are. In fact, people even talk about "people of color" as if they all share the same characteristics even grouped together. This situation is of course is largely due to the fact that most industrial nations have large white majorities, and this situation is even more pronounced when you look at the sort of academic institutions that Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. Thus there aren't really any research papers written on public stereotypes of whites and much of the content we have in the article now is from "oh, by the way" conclusions drawn from other studies; for example the famous Implicit Association Test developed around ten years ago to show that whites and blacks have negative stereotypes of blacks is being used here to show that both whites and blacks have positive stereotypes of whites.

The article used to be bigger, however. Compare some older versions: Aug 27 or May 7. That was what the article looked like before various editors started calling for its deletion. The article survived deletion, but only on the condition that all the contentious content had to be excluded. Thus we are left with a skeleton article. I think everyone wants it to grow, but the problem is that there are not really many academic studies on the subject of stereotypes of whites because academic institutions are only interested in stereotypes of minorities, and anything less than an academic study is going to draw protests from the same people who protested it last year.

The older versions of this article are more complete than the current article and the material is fairly well sourced. How is this "contentious?" This doesn't seem right to me.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, think that the blog Stuff White People Like is a great leap forward towards the idea of viewing whites as a cohesive group rather than just the background that "people of color" contrast with, and probably will always do a better job than Wikipedia towards that end. However even SWPL is to some extent a list of stereotypes that white people have about themselves and may not describe how other nations and minorities within our own nations see us. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

He is definitely right this is so unfair. Whites are normally stereotyped as nerdy, racist, cant dance, smart. Ever here the weird al parody "white and nerdy?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.246.97 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then Why?

Then why have I first hand experienced the stereotypes that blacks have against whites. It is stupid to say that to be white is to be blank. Again, blacks use the word "uppidy" I have heard and seen that. Some white stereotypes that we could list,and that do not involve black-white relations are that all people stereotype rednecks as white but that is not true so it is a stereotype. Blacks also assume that whites are all racist and that is not true with the 2008 election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.16.10 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC) It is racist to assume that everyone of some race are racist, so perhaps blacks are just assuming whites are as racist as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.45.120.114 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Also

Also, Wiki allows the use of books to be cited. It is wrong to say that no one has written on the subject of discrimination against whites. Jim Goad "The Redneck Manifesto" is a bit harsh but it does document discrimination against whites even though no one thinks it happens. I live in San Francisco and there are stereotypes that Latinos, Asians, and Blacks have of white people. Rev. Wright's "rish white people" comment is common among blacks as is Obama's comment clinging to guns and religion. Yes, it was targeted to one of those sub-white groups you speak of but it is still a stereotype of whites. Just because whites are not cohesive does not mean there are no stereotypes and just because one Wiki thinks that minorities want to be whites (referring to your comment on white being blank and your comment assuming white people are only bound by their non-blackness or color). In fact in your reply you stereotyped whites saying that whites are only bound by not being colored. That sounds like a stereotype because I think white people are also bound by safe neighborhoods, respect for law and a disdain for this sort of black-on-black crime where the majority of murders of blacks are by blacks and do not wish to see that carried to "white world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.16.10 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Then go ahead and list them. What exactly is stopping you from listing stereotypes about white people in the article on white stereotypes? 137.229.171.197 (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Racism against white people

Very disappointed with this repeated removal of fact, racism against whites in newly developed cities is EXTREMELY prevalent. However, if, due to the 'white' majority using the internet, freedom of speech and even verified fact is denied - nothing can be done.

Disputed contribution WITH references

Not limited to, but including Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai. In these cities contemporary 'whites' (ie Europeans, White South Africans, and White Australasians) are portrayed as complacent, looking to 'milk' the systems and wealth available. [14] Some sources have gone as far as saying that the aforementioned people will take measures so as not to allow these cities to develop to a standard of their home when they are in high level positions. Oddly, North Americans are not generally portrayed with the same negative stereotypes in these places. To a lesser extent this phenomena is also occurring in Mumbai, New Delhi, Bahrain, Maccau, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, and many other rapidly developing cities without majority white populations. There is also criticism that in some of the less ethically diverse 'world cities' white people show a lack of respect for the traditional culture, with specific reference to Hong Kong.[15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.46.177 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Badly Written

This article is not only dubious, because stereotyping is a lot more prevalent than the article mentions, this is also badly written. But these lines especially get me:

Different groups hold positive stereotypes of white people.

This is the introductory sentence. Not only reads like a 5th grade essay thesis, it's inherently non-neutral, implying all stereotypes of whites are positive.

The stereotypes of white people do not serve as a base for contemporary institutional discrimination; nor do they get expressed routinely in mass media, because they are the ideas of minority groups without power.

This sentence basically implies that if you argue there is discrimination towards white you are wrong. Because all those other ethnic groups are poor and downtrodden. Very badly non-neutral

I came to this article expecting to see a joke about mayonnaise on white bread, but it's just a sad little thing. I doubt anything will change, but someone took the time to reference this to books. Which, conveniently, can't be accessed easily by a random wiki fact checker. I'm not implying they are all fabricated, but the first sentence I quoted is too general to even need a reference and the second is so strongly biased, and the book it's quoted from is titled as ostensibly being about linguistics related to gender. I myself hesitate to change it because of the reference, but if someone is seriously looking to fix this please consider my comment. Garnet avi (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The article used to be bigger Compare some older versions: Aug 27 or May 7. There is useful information in there, but no way to reliably source it so that it could survive calls for deletion (and this article very nearly was deleted in January for just that reason; the compromise solution was to reduce it to a skeleton). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

75.80.161.245 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I agree that this article is brutally biased and shows a very poor grasp of language. This paragraph under "Political Stereotypes" is especially bad:

"In the United States, White people are often stereotyped as conservative Republicans,[12] voting in favor of White privilege, and labeling anything that opposes it as “politically correct,”."

First, the conservative Republican thing is fine and that is certainly a stereotype, but the remaining clauses are awful. Where are the citations for these claims on voting habits or labeling? The statement implies that Republicans are by definition in favor of white privledge -- as if supporting white privledge is an intrinsic part of being a Republican. Even if you agree with that -- which it seems the author must -- or if you think that is a relevant stereotype, that is still a biased opinion which needs to be backed up by fact. Further, white privledge is not a settled part of society, but is a controversial sociological theory that whites control society regardless of legal equality.

"Whites are also portrayed as greedy, materialistic, and are hardcore capitalism supporters.[citation needed]"

Where are they portrayed this way and by whom? Firstly, "hardcore" is a matter of degree which is irrelevant to the general claim. But the bias of the author really comes through in the final clause: it should not be, "are hardcore capitalism supporters", which is a statement of fact, but, "as capitalism supporters" because you are referring to how they are portrayed, (and again, the where is needed), rather than asserting how whites in fact are.

"As a result, Whites are stereotyped to abhor taxes, and loathes any form of welfare or governmental assistance, often dismissing the potential aids as “socialist.”[citation needed]"

The "As a result" clause only follows from the assertion that whites "are" anything taken from the previous sentence, which -- as I've noted -- is the improper way to state the claim. As it is, you are saying that, "as a result of the way whites are, they are portrayed in XYZ ways". What you pretend to be saying is, "as a result of stereotypes ABC, whites are portrayed as stereotypes XYZ" which although somewhat more appealing in tone is nevertheless incoherent: uncited stereotypes beget uncited stereotypes? To who, you? There is no causal mechanism here which requires the "as a result" clause. I am not going to address the improper pluralization of the word "loathe" further than highlighting it here because whoever wrote it should be embarrassed enough already. The final clause is, again, brutally biased, following from assertions of fact with no citation. It hinges on the claim that welfare is an aid, which is a political statement which is not a settled fact -- even if you support welfare you have to recognize that the extent to which it benefits those who receive it is an open question and the source of scholarly debate -- and on the claim that calling something "socialist" is a pejorative. Although it may be, to you in your country, socialism is a legitimate political ideology and the term does not work in this context. Finally, "often" needs a when and where. To you, in your life, is not unbiased no matter how badly you want it to be.

This article reads like it was written by a committee of preschoolers through a series of tubes. I feel that in its current form the article should be completely rewritten or deleted. The tone of an encyclopedia should be neutral. This article is both blatantly biased and unsourced, and it makes me question whether this topic -- and all racial stereotypes in general -- can be considered without appeals to personal sentiment, and whether they are fit for Wikipedia. If it were backed up with sociological data it might have a chance at legitimacy, but in its current form it is worthless as anything other than a statement of opinion and better suited for a blog.

Original research?

This edit added a great deal of material to the article, and most of it isn't attributed to verifiable reliable sources. Consequently, much of it seems like original research.

I also wonder whether the article is beginning to confuse its subject, stereotypical ways in which white people are portrayed, with stereotypical views held by white people. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The stereotypes listed in the Black stereotype page are listed, but many go unsourced. Apparently, as it appears in the article, sources are not required to implicate Blacks are often portrayed as “athletic,” “unintelligent,” “very religious,” “poor,” “musically talented,” or “criminals,” but to say Whites are racist, conservative, capitalist, in favor of White privilege, and consider their race “the normal race” somehow requires sources, or is considered "original research." Stereotypes are born based on people making generalizations about a social group concluded from inferences, often formed from a significant amount of observations involving the senses. People then use those generalizations to “define” the subjected social group, which becomes the stereotypes per se. Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is stereotypes are only true to the people that fit the stereotypes, which is never the entire group. If the entire group shared the stereotype, apparently, they would not be called stereotypes, but rather facts or the truth. Thus, obviously, because people generalized Blacks as athletic, unintelligent, religious, poor, etc. from their personal experiences, those observations became stereotypes. In other words, a source isn’t required to implicate something born as a result of personal experience, since stereotypes are not factual nonetheless, and naturally, we know those stereotypes do exist for Blacks.

A stereotype is based on the significant number of people that “defines” a group with a characteristic based on empirical generalizations. Knowing that, I’m Black, and many other non-Whites, even many Whites, can agree these stereotypes in the article are appropriate stereotypes attributed to Whites. For example, the criminal stereotype regarding Blacks only applies to the Black people that are actually criminals. In this case, the only Whites that vote in favor of White privilege are the ones that do so. The only Whites that are racist and support White power, nationalism, and/or supremacy are the ones that do so. Knowing that, note this; people, mainly non-Whites, do attempt to define Whites as “racist” in all those instances, as White privilege supporters, and etc., which makes them appropriate stereotypes. Many of those racists do complain about social hazards committed by Blacks, but mostly, just ridicule it, see it as a problem, or discuss it on discussion boards and such, yet, do nothing to help solve the problem. The stereotypes about non-Whites are based upon what Whites think and generalize about them. Well, in the case of White stereotypes, it’s mainly viewed as what non-Whites think of or generalize about Whites.

Merely because it’s not from a White perspective doesn’t mean it isn’t valid or shouldn’t be considered. Thus, why does this article speculate “original research” when many people can agree these stereotypes are attributed to Whites? If you want citations to “prove” these are actually considered stereotypes, any hopes of locating them are slim, for minorities are oftentimes stereotyped negatively compared to Whites because Whites are mainly doing the stereotyping, as they see themselves as the normal race, and minorities as "other." In other words, as they're "normal," they sit back and watch the "others" "misbehave." Because each race is different and have various characteristics that are nearly "exclusive" to them, the generalizations about them based on how they "misbehave" become stereotypes that are nearly "exclusive" to the subjected racial group.

Therefore, minorities are oftentimes stereotyped negatively. The positive stereotypes for White people are generally based on comparisons Whites use when negatively stereotyping minorities. However, when a non-White (or sometimes even a White person) stereotypes White people in a negative way, because the majority of internet users and Wikipedians are White Americans, stereotypes aimed at Whites (that can be considered offensive) often get deleted, since we can agree that people, no matter their race, do not want to be stereotyped in a negative fashion. Check out the earlier versions of this article to see. Trivial stereotypes such as, for example, “White people can’t dance,” was (I think) first addressed by Eddie Murphy, a Black person. Ever since, the stereotype became widespread and accepted in White and Black comedy. Possibly offensive ones however, such as racism, gets taken off, and oftentimes dismissed as "discrimination against Whites." Whether or not people do not want to be stereotyped, or if it's considered "original research" based on findings that probably don't exist and never will, non-Whites still have their generalizations and stereotypes about White people, so they should remain in this article and be considered. Ms. Black Gold (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do average, normal black people really speak in terms of "White privilege", "White fear" (that's new, I thought it was just 'fear') and all the rest of the academic critical race theory and whiteness studies abstract theory you just wrote? I don't think so. These are not "stereotypes". Some stuff is, but the rest is just theory that belongs on the respective theory pages.

Real stereotypes do not pop up out of academic theory. Academia cannot create, nor destroy a stereotype. Stereotypes arise out of real-world, physical observables. Eg "(some) White people like hiking". "(Many) White people like to have dogs and cats as house pets". That sort of thing. What you wrote is just a racially based variant of what you'd find in any feminist rant at "male privilege". 15Xin (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Whites, Asians, or space aliens don't 'hold blacks back', as is part of outrageous "White privilege" theories. Just as individuals are different, so are genders, and so are wider groups of people. They have differing interests, and abilities. People are morally equal. However, to say everyone is equal in every single way is a dishonest (& dangerous) fantasy.

Eg, where are the whites and asians in the 100 meter sprint finals? Must be "racism" by the IOC, right? Many Japanese runners beat Usain Bolt in the time-trials, but racist officials always block their progress. Well, no, and it's like that for many things. Please see: Human genetic variation, Race and genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15Xin (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Responding to the first (rhetorical) question, it depends on what you mean by “normal” and “average.” I live in a Black, middle-class neighborhood where Black people support Black issues on average, and thus, many do use the phrases “White privilege” when referring to Whites that politically lean in “White” favor, as opposed to “minority” favor. Even Blacks that are lower than middle-class, or poor can at least point out Whites are more in favor of politically leaning to the “White side” if you will, thus not using the phrase “White privilege,” but still mean it nonetheless. All Whites don’t exactly lean to White privilege, as it’s only a stereotype. Again, if stereotypes applied to the entire group, they would be facts. As for the term White fear, I gathered it from a significant number of White supremacist websites, hence the quotation marks in the article. Although not sure if it’s universal or very common for a (racist) White person to use the term “White fear” to refer to fear of the “destruction” of the White race or interracial mixing, “White fear” is nonetheless used. An example can be found here.

To get an understanding of my point and creation/improvement of this article, please consider the meaning of stereotypes and how, for example, Black stereotypes came into existence. A reliable definition of “stereotype” is “A generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group.” That definition is very similar to mine I used earlier. Knowing the definition, note in the Black stereotypes article, it states, “The early blackface minstrel shows of the 19th century portrayed blacks as joyous, naive, superstitious, and ignorant, characteristics related to the way slaveholders in earlier years believed them to be.” In that case, the portrayal of Blacks in minstrel shows were based on belief. Also note those stereotypes had a major influence on contemporary Black stereotypes. Thus, stereotypes are not always strictly limited to physical observations, although, physical or some sort of use of the senses, do serve as a base for the belief. Therefore, the stereotype many minorities, especially Blacks, hold about Whites is that many are racist based on history, images of the KKK and lynchings, the actual racist words of racists, and the racism Whites share and hold on the internet. In some form, they are using their senses to gather this information. As a result, some people, no matter their race, can maturate believing “White people are racist.”

According the definition of stereotype, the statement “White people are racists” is exaggerated and oversimplified because the person that stated it has no real proof and is talking from her own personal experience, and it's used to describe the group, Whites, as racist. The statement can also be considered offensive because many Whites challenge the assertion. That possibly explains why so many entries in this article were deleted as the months passed. A synonym of “theory” is “possibility,” and “possibilities” can be stereotypes. For instance, there is a “possibility” Blacks can be unintelligent, and there’s a possibility Whites can be racists. That means, theories can develop from stereotypes. Yet, it seems as though in your case, it’s different; if White people hold an exaggerated, oversimplified and offensive belief about a minority, it’s called a stereotype, but if it’s vice-versa, it’s a “theory,” assuming to you, “theory” has a completely different meaning. Why so? Does the meaning of “stereotype” now mean “A generalization that White people hold about minorities, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group,” as opposed to the original meaning? Let me know if it’s true, for I can definitely put it in the article. Please provide a response and give your thoughts.

True, stereotypes cannot just be spawned randomly by anyone, let alone “academia.” However, it’s possible “academia” (which consists of individuals) can observe a group and develop a stereotype about it. As you said, stereotypes are born as a result of “real-world, physical observables.” Thus, if people can actually observe these aspects and whole beliefs about Whites, they become stereotypes. Also remember stereotypes are not facts and can’t be “proven” nonetheless, they’re only beliefs and opinions. By the way, I don’t know too much about the feminist arguments (yet,) but what constitutes as a “rant,” and can “rants” not hold any truth? If something is considered "just a rant,” is it automatically dismissed as non-valid, or is it more opinionated than anything? Ms. Black Gold (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, my written work in this article never stated “Whites, Asians, (or space aliens) hold Blacks back.” Whether a White person does hold a Black person back has nothing to do with this article. Personally, I don’t believe everyone is equal in every way, for we have obvious differences. As for equality, I do believe we’re equal as human beings, and that technically, we’re equal because we have unique personalities, interests, and beliefs. Sure enough, people may look different on the outside and have different cultures that differentiate themselves from others, but remember this; they are all still human and that makes us equal. Yet, in the case of White privilege, many people can you that a White person would politically lean in favor of White aspects before they would support Black ones, because a significant amount of Blacks that hold this stereotype against Whites do believe Whites hold them back, and thus, it becomes a stereotype directed against White people. Therefore, knowing that, people of all types, including non-Whites, have different beliefs about White people, and they should be considered. By the way, it seems (note, I used the word “seems”) as if you’re accusing me labeling things as “racist.” Though, off-topic, it's not racist. Racism is when one believes people are inferior and/or superior to others due to their race, in which the characteristics that determine it are created via genetics. That has nothing to do with sports. Any other definition of "racism" is an imminent, opinionated meaning based on what people feel is racist. Ms. Black Gold (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so make that clear by sharpening up your writing on the page. Just write better, make your meaning clearer. Add qualifers, eg: "Some white people" etc. Put in who (a group, or just say 'some') is making a particular judgement, stating a belief, etc. If it makes sense to everyone, and then seems fair, it has a greater chance of staying up there. 15Xin (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit discussion

This is a section created to discuss edits that involve removing information. Debating before making such a huge decision is better, for it can ensure that others agree with the potential change in the article. Thus, my first debate is directed at the editor that replaced my information in the "Racist Stereotypes" section, 75.149.158.205. Firstly, consider this example; when people stereotype Blacks as, say, “unintelligent,” they don’t say, “A commonly encountered stereotype is the portrayal of unintelligence as a uniquely Black trait.” Instead, they say “Black people are stupid,” for stereotypes are often attributed as a generalization derived from personal experience, usually in the form of a direct insult. Stereotypes are not attributed to “debunk” the negative characteristics being applied. Also, according to your additional words added to the article, you appeared to “debunk” the stereotypes against Whites for being labelled as racist by using the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. Even while using the case as an "efficient" example, it doesn’t change the opinion many people have on Whites about being racist. For instance, many Whites believe Blacks are unintelligent, which of course, creates the "dumb Blacks" stereotype. Yet, if someone said, “Though Blacks are stereotyped to be unintelligent, many intelligent Black people exist,” that still doesn’t change the fact that Blacks are stereotyped as unintelligent, does it? Therefore, the article must be spoken in the way people stereotype them, not how the stereotypes are “untrue.” Thus, unless you add more valuable information to the article that isn't based solely on your point of view, leave the article alone.--Ms. Black Gold (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Horribly written

I'm sorry to say this, but this article is the worst I've seen on Wikipedia.

Firstly, it's meandering, there are no paragraphs at all, and you can't tell what it's talking about.

Second, the article is so clearly biased against whites as to be shamelessly bigoted. RACIST. Completely. Seriously, look at the first sentence, which all but says "There's negative stuff, but we're gonna talk about positive stuff instead, so as to not offend the minorities."

Thirdly, it reads like a bad essay, not an encyclopedia article.

I suggest that all content be scrapped and this article be started anew. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.159.106 (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I wrote most of the material found in this article, and I believe it’s written just fine. Your opinion how the article is “written” definitely doesn’t determine if the entire article should be deleted, nor does it even matter. Secondly, the article is paragraphed very well. The words in the article are divided into separate sections, such as “racist,” “social,” etc. However, if you’re referring to lack of paragraphs in a certain section, such as the largest one, the “racist stereotypes” section, if you’d like, simply add paragraphs to “improve” the article to your wishes. Thirdly, the article talks about what it says in the title, “stereotypes about White people.” If the article gets deleted, we must agree that White people do not have stereotypes, or we must consider the actual meaning of “stereotypes” and come to an agreeable conclusion.

As I said before, a racial stereotype is a generalization that attempts to define or describe a racial group, often in a negative fashion. Knowing that, note this; people stereotype Blacks with many characteristics, such as possessing little intelligence, prone to crime, overly religious, being impoverished, “ghetto,” unpleasantly odoriferous, athletic, musical, and the list goes on-and-on. I’m sorry to say this, but Whites are primarily the ones applying the stereotypes in these instances. These stereotypes are born after people make observations regarding a significant amount of Blacks with the subjected characteristics. The characteristics, which are technically “generalizations,” become stereotypes when applied to all or most Black individuals, or to Black people as a group. Despite the fact they are only stereotypes, they are only viewed as offensive when the stereotypes are used to describe (a) Black individual(s) in a factual manner. Jewish people are oftentimes depicted as thieves as well. Yet, the only stereotypes that seem to remain in this article without controversy is that Whites are “athletically inferior” to Blacks, lack efficient leaping ability, (White man can’t jump) lack impressive dancing ability, etc.

However, characteristics that regard Whites as, say, “racists,” are quickly removed. For proof, check the history of the article long before I added more material. In other words, it seems potentially offensive stereotypes are removed, and what’s kept are in favour of what’s accepted, which are the stereotypes I listed earlier. Also, if you look at the article history in a much further scale, you’d note that nearly all the stereotypes were removed. Now, concerning the meaning of stereotypes as I mentioned earlier, Whites have a lot more stereotypes than just a lack of leaping or dancing ability. Regarding the definition, Whites ARE stereotyped as racists in addition to everything I listed in the article. Just as many Whites believe Blacks are everything they’re stereotyped, (don’t deny that, it’s shown on nearly every website) many non-Whites believe Whites are stereotyped as everything I listed in this article. This article is not meant to describe White people factually, but rather how some people generalize them. The concern is, despite the material listing actual stereotypes, they often get removed, questioned, or seen as “bias.” Why? My point is, albeit the Blacks are stereotyped with rather offensive characteristics, because Whites have characteristics that are rather offensive doesn't mean they aren't stereotypes, or shouldn't be considered.

As for the request of article deletion, well, consider this; I spent a lot of work on this article, so I wish for it to remain. However, if it does get deleted, we must agree Whites “have no stereotypes,” which, albeit the agreement will make offended Whites happy, the agreement is not true. If it gets re-written, to appeal to everyone, it should probably state, “though Whites have stereotypes, many Whites do not consider White stereotypes directed against them as stereotypes, but rather personal attacks.” Then, in that case, we can say, for example, “though Whites are often believed to be racist, many take it as a personal attack rather than an stereotype." Here is an example of what the new article may look like. "A 2009 study showed only 5% of the White population are racist, leaving 95% non-racist. Thus, a majority of Whites do not hold racist, bigoted beliefs, debunking the stereotypes."[1][2][3][4] In that case, the title should be “Debunking stereotypes of White people,” as opposed to one that lists the stereotypes.

Sorry, but I disagree with that. By the way, my article is not "bigoted." Look up the definition of bigoted to see for yourself. My article isn't racist either. Racism refers to the belief that race is the determinant of human traits that renders one race as inferior to another. In contrast, my article only states the stereotypes that people hold about Whites without any traces of racial superiority. Racism can also refer to a strong dislike of another race, usually influenced by racial stereotypes. I may be Black, but that doesn't mean I hold racist stereotypes against Whites. If anything, I don't consider stereotypes in people as a group, I judge by individual character. Yet, this article only listed the stereotypes other people hold for Whites, and I typed them a non-racist fashion. This article wasn't used to attack Whites, but rather to merely report stereotypes.--Ms. Black Gold (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not the writing but the focus of this article which is very wrong. Except the anti-Black article, the other articles in this series are called "x-phobia" or "anti -x" sentiment". While IMO it is true to say that white people suffer less discrimination than blacks, the article currently does a very poor job of demonstrating the extent and nature of this discrimination, unlike the "Ster. against black people" article.

I see nothing here about the hostility meted out to white people for supposedly being complicit in immoral actions of the "war on terror". I see nothing about discrimination in hiring (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30346519/). You may believe that these things are trivial when compared to the woes of black people in these areas, but they are no less galling for the individuals concerned; nor does their merciful rarity mean that they are not notable.

I would say that a black man who is beaten up for walking into the wrong town is the victim of much more than a "stereotype". I would say the same about a white person (Reginald Oliver Denny).

Secondly, much of the article seems not to be concerned with stereotypes of white people, let alone discrimination or prejudice against white people. For example,

"A stereotype associated with White Americans is many share racist beliefs for ethnic minorities, and not themselves, and are heavy supporters and defenders of White privilege, despite the fact White Americans make up the nation’s elites,[7][8][9] as opposed to many minority groups that economically pale in comparison. This train of thought often leads to political ideals such as White power and White nationalism,[10][11] the desire to form an all-White state, or even White supremacy, the belief members of the White race are superior to members of other races."

Sorry, what? A stereotype is, by definition, unfair. The contention here is that other races wrongly ascribe white supremacist views to the majority of white people. But then we go on to talk about the racism of white people, not against them. In fact, much of the article is about stereotypes not against whites, but by them.

You have added many things with no citation, and some are wrongly cited. When I have time I will remove all of the uncited material. BillMasen (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done this now. If you want to put these things back into the article, I suggest you find WP:RS to back them up. BillMasen (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: we're required to cite sources when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. In other words, if you take exception to uncited material in the anti-black article, you have every right to remove it. However, the fact that the anti-black article has unsourced material which you object to is not a reason to add unsourced and contentious material to the anti-white article. Since you raised the subject of the anti-Black article, I may have a look at it myself. BillMasen (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The stereotypes of Blacks article states how Blacks "are often portrayed as poor, dumb, jobless, lazy, dirty, criminals, and violent" without any sources. Nonetheless, the material in the Black stereotypes article doesn't undergo constant deletion. My explanation is perhaps many Blacks do not care about the article, or they're aware the article teaches stereotypes regarding Blacks in a non-attacking manner. I also believe people, no matter their race, are aware those stereotypes apply to Blacks without the use of sources. Race baiting (another article that needs to be checked out) and racial harassment about supposed unintelligence, impoverishment, unemployment and welfare cheating, laziness, and criminal behaviour happen on various websites not limited to White power websites such as Stormfront.

Yet, I personally don't think the material on the Black stereotype article should be deleted. If anything, the article doesn't explain enough in my opinion. I'm just making a point; the stereotypes in the introduction can be offensive to many, yet, they're unsourced and remain. I'm quite sure the average person can agree Blacks are stereotyped as the following listed above without the requirement of sources. If you want a true source, merely listen to what people say about Blacks. The source may be based on anecdotal evidence, but remember stereotypes are born from observations, and are oftentimes "passed down" as anecdotes. In that case, one doesn't require a factual source because stereotypes are non-factual. However, when Whites get stereotyped as racist, it seems like a whole nother issue. Why? Why is a source required when people readily stereotype the Whites as racists?

Like it isn't uncommon for a Black man to be featured on the news and/or the television show "Cops" as a criminal, it's not uncommon for a White person, whether male or female, to believe (s)he is a "victim in America" namely of "reverse discrimination," racism, or political power, despite Whites are the nation's elites. Like it isn't uncommon to see a poor Black person, it's not uncommon to find neo-Nazis online that talk about how "superior" the White race is. Like it isn't uncommon to notice violence among Blacks, it isn't uncommon to notice race baiting among Whites online and in political aspects. In that case, usually non-White people will stereotype all or most Whites as the following. If one desires true sources, (s)he should merely listen to what people say about Whites. I already had sources that showed people holding their beliefs about Whites.

As for reverse discrimination or bias, I disagree with that entire notion. People can only make assumptions about one’s hiring processes until the individual in charge admits to racial bias. Thus, because the entire concept of “reverse discrimination” is non-factual assumptions and questioning, I prefer to leave that subject alone. Until one apparently notes that (s)he isn’t fond of individuals of a certain race to do the job, I’d have true evidence of this phenomenon called “reverse discrimination.” Also, this “reverse discrimination” assertion has nothing to do with the topic, for it doesn’t concern stereotypes people hold about White people, nor is it even possible. Also, this assertion is not a contest on "who has it harder." Simply put, it's about how people generalize Whites.

In response to the Reginald Oliver Denny comment, I don’t understand what you’re asserting. Is that a direct response to my comment that stated racist behaviour is influenced by stereotypes? If so, note this; I never said racist behaviours were exclusively influenced by racial stereotypes, though, stereotypes are oftentimes the catalyst for hate crimes. For example, if a White man believes Blacks are the “scum of the Earth,” which is a Black stereotype, he may target them with violence to “clean the scum.” In the process, he may target a random, innocent Black person out of failed logic. In that case of Denny, a bunch of gang members illogically assaulted an innocent White man to get a false sense of “revenge” due to the Rodney King case. In that facet, the motive isn’t based upon stereotype, but rather from a legal case. Either way, it doesn't concern how Whites are stereotyped.

By the way, if you truly wish to delete everything I said without sources, then why stop there? Technically, you have a over a million words to delete in various other articles scattered throughout Wikipedia. In fact, you even have dozens of articles alone to delete due to lack of citations. "Stereotypes of White people" will always remain a skeleton article because almost everything added, even valid stereotypes such as lack of dancing and athletic ability, was deleted, and because stereotypes are oftentimes attributed to other individuals in a White perspective, no stereotypes (the average White person can agree upon without a significant amount of Whites getting offended) exist that are readily available. Thus, I believe stereotypes mostly apply to people that are not White, and if they do get applied to Whites, many White individuals must agree if it's non-offensive first, then "decide" if they're appropriate. Note this; albeit no, or better yet, not many sources exist that can "prove" Whites are negatively stereotyped in the fashions I added in this article, White people still have stereotypes by definition of the word "stereotype." That's why the sources I put showed people and/or articles that held the stereotype rather than ones that "proved the stereotype exists." Nonetheless, if you wish to delete all my information, we must agree (or put in the article) that Whites "have no stereotypes," (which is not true,) and just delete the entire article altogether. It's a shame how stereotypes are only seen from a White perspective, yet, if, say, Blacks held a generalization about Whites, it not a stereotype, but perhaps "wrong info." --Ms. Black Gold (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you will not help anything if you personalise this. This is not the first article from which I have removed uncited information.

Why did I mention Denny? Simply because he demonstrates that "stereotype" does not begin to cover what is suffered by some people, including a relatively small number of white people. As for "reverse discrimination" (your coining, not mine), if it is admitted someone deserves a job on merit and is then denied it on the basis of race, that is discrimination, regardless of whether that denial emanates from a particular policy or an employer's prejudices. You may believe that this never happens. I'm sure you could find a WP:RS to agree with you, and I'm sure you could find one that would disagree with you.

I find it astonishing you think we must prove racist intent before we can prove racial bias in employment. African-Americans are constantly assaulted by obstacles which may have no racial intent, but do result in racial bias.

You are not correct that stereotypes don't require attribution. Even untrue stereotypes should be cited to someone who expresses them, or who reports their expression from other quarters. It should not be a problem to find a book which lists stereotypes of black or white people (books.google.com).

I deleted several passages which were not sourced to RS. The passage about white privelege was particularly badly written.

"A stereotype associated with White Americans is many share racist beliefs for ethnic minorities, and not themselves, and are heavy supporters and defenders of White privilege, despite the fact White Americans make up the nation’s elites,[7][8][9] as opposed to many minority groups that economically pale in comparison. This train of thought often leads to political ideals such as White power and White nationalism,[10][11] the desire to form an all-White state, or even White supremacy, the belief members of the White race are superior to members of other races. Whites are also stereotyped to be overly patriotic of their race."

So you are attempting to attribute the stereotype that white people are all racists. And you do this by linking to a white nationalist websites. Is this meant to demonstrate that some non=white people hold the stereotype that all whites are racists? If so, it doesn't make sense. Obviously, stormfront is not a good source for prejudices that may be held by non-white people. It doesn't even meet WP:RS on any other criteria.

Or is linking to White nationalism meant to substantiate your statement (not found anywhere else, to my knowledge) that white people are all racists? Until you find a reliable source which reports this prejudice, this is your statement and no-one else's. I am removing the content until you can find sources.

or example, if a White man believes Blacks are the “scum of the Earth,” which is a Black stereotype, he may target them with violence to “clean the scum.” In the process, he may target a random, innocent Black person out of failed logic. In that case of Denny, a bunch of gang members illogically assaulted an innocent White man to get a false sense of “revenge” due to the Rodney King case. In that facet, the motive isn’t based upon stereotype, but rather from a legal case. Either way, it doesn't concern how Whites are stereotyped.

If a white man has a daughter who is raped by a black man, and then he goes on an "illogal assault", indiscriminately killing black men, is that man not a racist?

This page shouldn't even be about stereotypes. It should be about what the others are about: racism. BillMasen (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not attempting to “personalise” anything; I only wonder why you’re focusing so much on this article when various others are often biased and unsourced. Thus, I surmise (just a surmise) the content in the article is rather offensive, or no? As for Denny, I am aware that racial assaults (if that’s what you’re referring to) are not always based on stereotypes, which is what I mentioned before typing this response. Nonetheless, you must agree the assault on Denny was illogical. As for reverse discrimination, (another article that needs to be checked out) actually, that’s not “my coining” either; I gathered the term from the article you posted regarding “discrimination in hiring” as you quoted above. I used the phrase “reverse discrimination” (RD) because “reverse bias” is within the article title, which is synonymous with RD.

The article reported how some White firefighters didn’t get their promotions because the tests (they passed) was discarded because minorities, mostly Blacks, did not pass the test. In other words, it seems they felt “if minorities don’t pass, this is irrelevant.” Technically, that’s not a form of reverse bias or discrimination because the policies or people in charge did not bar Whites from getting their promotions for being White. Instead, they happened to discard the test because it “didn’t do well for the minorities.” In other words, the policies do not say, “You’re not getting the promotion because you’re White and we prefer minorities over Whites,” (in which the discrimination is easily proved in that instance) no, instead, they discarded the entire test, which is, on the Whites’ part, not a racial issue. I agree, it’s completely unfair, but it’s not “reverse discrimination.” That’s all I’m asserting. All that’s required is to promote the Whites that deserved their promotions and leave the issue alone. That’s not “hiring discrimination,” but rather an illogical decision that can easy be solved. Nonetheless, the article does not explain White stereotypes.

On the contrary, I never said one must “prove racist intent before one can prove racial bias.” Instead, I said for one to decide if an issue is “reverse discrimination” (on basis of race,) one must prove the policy or person in charge had a true intent of excluding the majority race on a racial basis, which is, in this case, Whites. For example, if the policy said “no Whites, but Blacks are welcome,” that’s discrimination on basis of race. However, if the company, say, wanted to include more Blacks for positive, political reasons while not actually excluding Whites, but rather put less primary focus on them, it’s not “reverse discrimination.” As for the White privilege passage, yes, I attributed that people do stereotype Whites as racists. However, the sources linking to Stormfront were used to explain that White privilege sometimes leads to White power movements, not that Whites are racists, thus “substantiating” nothing.

Stormfront, considering it’s a White nationalist website, is a perfect source for explaining White power and White nationalism. Nonetheless, I will do as you say. I’ll leave the article alone until I find new sources, and when I do so, I’ll write new information that corresponds exactly to the sources. Also, if I can’t find anything on what I previously wrote, I’ll conduct my own reliable study, which is not against the rules. As for the last bit, if a White man has a daughter "who is raped by a Black man, and then he goes on an 'illogical assault,' indiscriminately killing black men," yes, the White man could be racist. Perhaps you can agree the White man killed all Blacks because he stereotyped them all as rapists. Attributing such a negative characteristic to people without proof is completely racist and illogical, and killing them for it is equally as such. Nevertheless, I'll be back to this article with more information soon.--Ms. Black Gold (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked me why I had picked up on your unsourced contributions and not others. Surely it's obvious that I can't eliminate badly sourced material from wikipedia on my own. That does not mean I shouldn't improve what I can.

WP policy says that anything which is contentious must be sourced. When I first came across this article, I had reservations about what you'd written, but I did nothing. It was only when I saw that 2 other people (one IP, 1 person on your talk page) objected to the article's content that I did anything.

So, why did I find the article to be deficient? One reason, which is not necessarily your fault, is that it only concerns stereotypes. While deeply blameworthy, stereotypes are among the more trivial manifestations of racism, and racism is what this series of articles is supposed to be about. We could say that the book Uncle Tom's cabin repeated the most wicked stereotypes about black people. And yet the book was partly responsible for turning public opinion against black slavery, a far more important and shameful manifestation of racism than the calumny that black people are dirty or lazy. That stereotype may have been an important reason why slavery persisted, but it is not the only reason. A more important reason is that the southern farmers liked having a source of free labour, and were going to hold on to it. Stereotypes are not always responsible for the worst of racism; nor are they guaranteed to lead a person to act in a racist way (although of course they make it more likely).

A racial stereotype is an intellectualised set of prejudices against a particular ethnic group. However, it is only one cause of racist policy or behaviour. I would say that when a gang beat up the white man Denny, it was not because they consulted their white stereotype, and therefore believed him to be pleasure-seeking, materialistic, wealthy, culturally ignorant, etc. I think it was because, in their rage, they racistly held white people to be collectively responsible for the hardships that they suffered, even though Denny was obviously not personally responsible for anything.

I don't agree with you about reverse discrimination. One cannot "positively" prefer one race without damaging all of the others. However, I'm sure we can both find sources to go in the article expressing both opinions.

As for "offence", only one of the passages came close to offending me, and that wasn't the primary reason why I removed it. The implication, whether you intended it or not, was that Stormfront is a good source for the majority of white public opinion and that most people believe in white privelege. You may not perceive that implication, but I did, and therefore others could. That implication was not just "offensive", but it was also untrue, which is much more important, both outside and inside Wikipedia. Even disregarding Stormfront's insane and wrongful programme, a non-WP:RS website is not an acceptable source for anything except the authors' views, which are unlikely to be sufficiently WP:notable for inclusion anyway. BillMasen (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to explain why everything I removed was wrong, again, I'm quite willing to do so. However, you could just review the explanation which I gave you last time, and find proper sources, like you said you would. BillMasen (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

While the article may appear controversial at best, I honestly fail to see why you deleted a majority of my information. Also, in response to what you said on the “history” page when you deleted my info for, perhaps, the fourth time total, for the last time, I did not use Stormfront as a means to describe “the opinions of White people in general.” Again, I used Stormfront as a means to allow readers to read more information about White nationalism and supremacy, while also to explain that radical White leaning can lead to such ideologies. In that sense, do not delete a majority of my material based on your own false assumptions.

In response to your dialog, "So, why did I find the article to be deficient? One reason, which is not necessarily your fault, is that it only concerns stereotypes." The article “Stereotypes of White people,” as the title says, apparently concerns, well, stereotypes of White people. In that case, you're implying the article is deficient because it focuses on its goal, to explain the stereotypes. That's not a valid reason to delete my material. As I have explained before, stereotypes are formed when people collect a large sample of anecdotes based on over-generalisations and look for patterns on how they define the subjected group. While stereotypes are oftentimes a major catalyst for popular racism, note this article does not concern racism in general. Also significant, long as people differentiate themselves and impose some sense of "superiority" on others, be it on racial facets, then racial conflict or racism in general will ensue after the "superior" guy comes in contact upon those with perceived "inferior" traits, or vice-versa. “Superiority” can be born from many things, but I believe you overlook that stereotypes, (mostly negative generalisations that attempt to define a racial group,) are mostly what people base superiority on in the first place. If they never generalised the race with a characteristic to begin with, no reason to feel superior to the race would exist.

If not for stereotypes, a few examples such as physical features and racist biological studies that denote differences in individuals of a certain race can also be used as the determinant of perceived “superiority.” For example, if a racist labels Black people as “inferior” for their countries lacking a decent economy when compared to those of European countries, the racist would firstly stereotype the Blacks as “stupid” for “lacking the ability” to enhance their economy, in which unintelligence is a common stereotype for Black people. Secondly, the stereotype oftentimes leads to questions asked based upon it, such as, for example, “why are Blacks least intelligent than Europeans?” To answer such a question, racist scientists can conduct experiments on people a part of different races and compare the difference. When the results show, other racists can use the “evidence” to determine racial superiority or inferiority, for they are *based* on racial differences. It's what the real definition of racism is all about, and click here to learn more about racism.

In that aspect, stereotypes can also be applied to Whites as well. During the last three months we had this discussion, I found no stereotypes regarding White people in general, however, stereotypes regarding Whites of various ethnicities, such as, for example, “Italian,” “Irish,” etc. existed. I cannot add the stereotypes to this article because they’re already written in their own respective articles. Therefore, I decided to add my own material back to this article based on the following premises. As I argued before, the material within the Black stereotypes article can be regarded as valid stereotypes, such as laziness, criminality, etc., yet, they remain unsourced. The same even applies for all the other articles. Most of the material added within this article can also be considered valid, as many people, including Whites, can agree White people are stereotyped as racist, greedy, culturally oblivious, etc.

However, you appear to be the only user to delete a majority of my writing because of, as you claim, “poorly-cited” claims. What determines if the source is valid or not when dealing with non-factual generalisations such as stereotypes? I honestly don’t believe the material in my article is still worth deleting nonetheless. Maybe a few things can be reworded, for I only wrote a single copy, but my argument lies here. Each time the material in my article gets deleted, I’ve noticed something; you delete my entire “racist stereotypes” section. Do you believe people don’t stereotype White people as racist? If you don’t mind me asking, what are your views on how non-ethnicity based Whites are stereotyped in general? Please answer this question, stay on-topic without talking about racism and/or reverse discrimination, and provide honest answers so we can come to an agreement, for I’m fed up with using the same argument over-and-over again. --Ms. Black Gold (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

[reply moved to bottom section, didn't want to duplicate it as the talk page is already very long]

Additions to the article, article focus, request for comment

I would like to receive outside input on the content of this article.

Firstly, I removed [additions] because I do not believe they are reliably sourced, and because they mostly deal with stereotypes held by white people, not stereotypes against white people, which is the topic of this article. I would like to know if other editors, who have not said anything up to now, agree or disagree with the removal of this material.

Secondly, I would like input on the move request which I've made on this page. BillMasen (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is rather unfair to say that "Stereotypes of white people" actually means "Stereotypes against white people", which is what was suggested on the RFC page. When you say things like that you are telling lies. It's not fair either to claim that all white people are descended of Europeans. Oriental, Mid-Asian, Mid-East, Native American... they all have white people of their own direct race and half of Europe toward the mediteranean are dark as any Indian or Arab. Move it to or create an article for "Negative racial stereotyping of white Europeans" if that is all that the topic should cover. I would challenge you, if you have worked hard on the article, and someone must have looking at all the sources, to produce the positive stereotypes in equal numbers to the negative. If you don't know any, you are probably not contributing very well?

"Literature in the field of clinical psychology has said that this type of Eurocentric favoritism ...", what sort of Eurocentric favouratism? Do we read your mind? Are we all thinking the same thing here?

"As the social definition of "White people" has changed over the years", oh really? That's a very big word in such a short paragraph. Changed from what into what for example?

"White Americans make up the majority of the nation’s politicians and corporate executives", It is A) focused on the US in a section not designated for the US and B) it is ignorant of the fact that it is "The Amercas" rather than "America". That's common enough but wouldn't hurt to fix it a bit.

"Though ethnic groups are attributed with a variety of negative stereotypes, different groups hold positive stereotypes of White people" - it's difficult. Not very clear at all. I could put all that in a shorter sentence, "There are positive and negative stereotypes," not very revealing.

In general, there doesn't seem to be a positive approach to the article, or something. Where is the term sourced from, for example? It doesn't say. ~ R.T.G 21:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is rather unfair to say that "Stereotypes of white people" actually means "Stereotypes against white people", which is what was suggested on the RFC page. When you say things like that you are telling lies.". Umm, what am I supposed to have lied about?

This article is part of a series about discrimination against particular ethnic groups. Stereotypes of black people is about stereotypes against black people, not stereotypes held by black people. The same goes for the articles in the series about chinese people, gypsies, Jews, et cetera.

I suppose your comment is, yet again, a lesson for me to state the moronically obvious at every step of the way, and not to leave anything unsaid. If we want an article which is about how racist white people are, it should not be part of this series. Otherwise, every other article has to be about how racist chinese, roma, black or jewish people are.

I did not in fact add any of the material in the "positive stereotypes" section. I just didn't delete it because it, along with other sections, is actually referenced to reliable sources. BillMasen (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• [Remove unsourced content] There are many portions which should be removed if no sourcing can be found. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 10:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples:

"In a study on mutual and self-perceptions of White-Americans, African-Americans, and Japanese-Americans, White-Americans were stereotyped as materialistic and pleasure-loving."

"Whites are also portrayed as greedy, materialistic, and are hardcore capitalism supporters."

• Delete entire series of stereotypes articles - I think ALL the "Stereotypes" articles should be deleted. Why preserve and disseminate ignorance? You can explain racism without engaging in it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Opposed, Page not moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Stereotypes of white people → Anti-white racism — I suggest that the article be renamed Prejudice/Discrimination against white people, or Anti-white sentiment/racism, along the lines of several other articles in the series. This article is part of the racism series, and is the only article that deals with racism against white people as a subject. An article which is solely about anti-white stereotypes is therefore inadequate. The article should also cover reverse discrimination, and racially-motivated crimes against white people, and all major themes and events which are or are alleged to relate to anti-white racism. (I'm aware that some of the other articles in the series also deal exclusively with 'stereotypes'; I would also support an equivalent page-move for those articles. I am aware this would be a seperate issue, but I thought I would point it out in case anyone brought up the precedent of co-articles about stereotypes.) BillMasen (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose If you want to build a broader "anti-white racism" article, go ahead, this article seems to be focused on stereotypes. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, but the article is contained in the "racism" series. The point is whether it should concern more if it is part of that series. Why can't the page bee moved and then expanded later? BillMasen (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a particular reason why an article in a series of articles about racism requires a title that contain the word "racism", in fact, that seems like a particularly bad idea, since every article would then be very generalized. I also don't see why a second article couldn't just be created. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support if the page is an the racism series well then... I would prefer however Racism against white people as a title. Outback the koala (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The article appears to be written entirely with stereotypes in mind (a la linking to Stuff White People Like, Acting white, etc). The article appears to be centre on ethnic stereotypes rather than racism against white people, so the current title seems most appropriate. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think anti-white racism is not the same as what this article is about. I think a move to change the title of this article would be subjective at best and more likely POV. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Racism has a specific meaning. Having stereotypes about a group of people does not necessary imply prejudice against that group. Besides, only a small portion of the article is about negative stereotypes. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments: BillMasen (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A number of people have commented that the article at present is only about stereotypes, and this is true. My contention is that, being part of a series on discrimination, it should be about more than that.

My concern is that if I expand the article before renaming it, people will delete material that doesn't relate directly to stereotypes. Apparently I can't move it first either.

If I expand the article and then move it, would there be any objections? BillMasen (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Name Change

• [Change] The name is racist the way it is now. The black stereotypes page is "Stereotypes of African Americans" so its unfair that this page is named "Stereotypes of White People". Change it to European Americans or Caucasians. --98.112.229.36 (talk) Chris R.
  • You failed to mention many other pages also exist with similar titles, such as White male, White people, White Americans, White privilege, Black people, and, within the stereotypes article, the Black stereotype section is titled 'Black stereotypes.' Apparently, these titles do not denote racism. In fact, racial labels such as "White people," "Black people," etc. are not racist by definition.
  • Taken from the Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition and the Wikipedia article about racism, racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Or, on the opposite side, racism can be described as the belief that a certain race or races portray undesirable characteristics. Such labels do not assert any form superiority or inferiority, nor do they act as characteristics that describe races in a negative aspect. Therefore, by definition, the title cannot be racist. Nonetheless, regardless of the technicalities, the name can still be changed for whatever reasons; I'm just explaining the name is not racist.--Ms. Black Gold (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• [No Objection, Merge into Stereotypes] I don't believe there are any issues with the current name. I do believe that it should be moved into stereotypes. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 10:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"White people hate black people " in quotes by Olivia Rodrigo

White people appears both with and without quotes (i.e. "White people" and White people) in some portions of the article. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 00:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_white_people&action=historysubmit&diff=365560546&oldid=365555768

neutrality

Here are my objections to the article. ___________________ I wrote the following in the last round of reversions. Article quotes are in italic:

A stereotype associated with White Americans is many share racist beliefs for ethnic minorities, and not themselves, and are heavy supporters and defenders of White privilege despite the fact White Americans make up the nation’s elites.

This is misleading, and intentionally or otherwise expresses one of the stereotypes you have attributed [Note: the stereotype that white people are all rich]. Although they are richer on average, white people are not necessarily more powerful or influential than non-whites of the same income. Elites may be mostly white, but whites are not mostly elite.

The article does note several stereotypes of minorities, but why does that merit inclusion in this article, which is about stereotypes of white people? Are you trying to say that white businessmen are wrongly accused of (i.e. stereotyped as) being mostly racists? Or that they really are mostly racists? This goes to the heart of the problem with your contributions to this article: it reads like a list of how racist and venal white people are, regardless of what your intention is.

In literary or typical writing facets, Whites are stereotyped to maintain correct grammar in their written work along with East Asians. Financially, Whites are portrayed as affluent. Whites are said to be very likely to graduate from high school, earn a degree in college, and get a well-paying future occupation, thus possessing a great chance to “succeed” in life as result of valuing education. In popular culture, White people are typically portrayed as upper middle-class and/or business owners, or on a lesser scale, middle-class. Socially, Whites are pigeonholed as morally sound, in which they are, for example, less likely to practice unprotected sex or have births out of wedlock.

None of this is cited at all. Therefore, it goes unless you can find sources. Do you think I could go to the antisemitism article and write 'jews are stereotyped as evil money-grubbers who want to control the world' without citing some idiot who thought so? No, I couldn't, and neither can you.

This train of thought often leads to political ideals such as White power and White nationalism, the desire to form an all-White state, or even White supremacy, the belief members of the White race are superior to members of other races. Because White racists hold racist beliefs against individuals of other races, a significant amount of Whites feel that, for example, Black Americans should be returned to Africa, or any ethnic minority should be returned to their home country. As a result, White people are believed to be racially intolerant of individuals belonging to other races, especially that of Black Americans and Jews.

"this train of thought often leads to"? You have slipped from attributing the accusation of "white fear" into making that accusation yourself. I don't care how you spin it, stormfront is not WP:RS for anything, and your use of it here is original research. Yet again, an article supposed to be about racism towards whites becomes a complaint about racism by them; and I am not happy about having stormfront as my representative.

One common stereotype, relayed in comparison to a typical Black stereotype, is that White people lack a sense of rhythm and cannot dance. This stereotype has become so accepted that both White and Black comedians lampoon the dancing ability of White people.

YouTube is just not a reliable source. If it is really important to you to attribute the opinion that whites can't dance, find a source.

A stereotype for a member of the White race is the belief (s)he is superior to individuals of other ethnic groups, in terms of genetic and social aspects, stemmed from White supremacy. Such stereotypes are born when individuals generalise the behaviour and actions of Whites that hold racist views, and lump them into a category that generalises all or most Whites as racists based on the subjected generalisations. White people are generalised to experience “White fear,” the fear that Whites will eventually become a minority, or fear that members of the White race would lose their “racial purity,” often resulting in White power movements. Thus, some members of the White race are perceived by others to abhor anything that can potentially damage racial purity, which includes interracial dating, usually leading to sexual intercourse and possible interracial births. This is concurrent with the trend to label anyone of mixed ancestry as the race of the "other," regardless of the fact that their European ethnic background may actually be the largest percentage of their heritage. Whites are also commonly reported hold racist beliefs online, as seen on various websites such as YouTube, despite that YouTube's Community Guidelines disallow hate speech that attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, and hate sites such as Stormfront. Many websites contain various types of racist material, ranging from racial and/or cultural insensitivity, to neo-Nazim and social Darwinism. On such sites, people, namely American minorities, oftentimes identify White individuals as racist internet trolls or cyberbullies, intent on posting racist material on various websites to offend or force an emotional response out of ethnic minorities. This behaviour is then utilised as data collected by minorities that is attributed to all, or at least most White individuals, creating the stereotypes that label Whites as online racists and race baiters.

Again, are we talking about racism towards whites or white racism? 'A stereotype for a member of the White race is the belief (s)he is superior to individuals of other ethnic groups, in terms of genetic and social aspects, stemmed from White supremacy' is an example of appalling written English, which enables this confusion (between anti- and pro-white racism) to persist.

n the United States, White people are often stereotyped as conservative Republicans,. Whites are also portrayed as greedy, materialistic, and are hardcore capitalism supporters. As a result, Whites are stereotyped to abhor taxes, and loathes any form of welfare or governmental assistance, often dismissing the potential aids as “socialist.” Stereotypically, Whites oftentimes label Blacks as criminals, and consider their behaviour as a major issue of concern, in favour of the White race and the fate of America, which sometimes leads to exaggerated statistics portraying Whites as the victims of crime committed by Black individuals. Despite this, many Whites express complaint and ridicule of the issues, though do nothing to help the issues per se. Also, Whites believe the numbers of minorities will increase in due time, resulting in Whites becoming the minority, potentially decreasing their political power.

The one reliable source cited here (TIME) does not support the contention that white people are "afraid" of diminishing political power. The rest is more non-RS websites, and more accusations against white people or examples of racist morons who happen to be white. [Note: the Gallup poll only establishes that the republican party is white, not that whites are republicans.]

In the United States, Whites are also stereotyped as being oblivious to sub-culture and political, social, and economic issues primarily associated with members of other ethnic groups. For example, many Whites believe other, usually young, White individuals that partake in Hip-Hop culture are “acting Black” and are “posing” rather than considering their possibility of legitimately growing up and adapting to Hip-Hop, which leads to Whites labelling them as “wiggers,” a generally pejorative term and another White stereotype. In a political instance, Whites are stereotyped to ignore or smokescreen the obvious disadvantages attributed to minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics. They are stereotyped to view any practices that help the disadvantaged as “reverse discrimination,” solely derived on the belief the practices exclude White people.

No citations at all. As long as there are no or inadequate citations, you are only expressing your own opinions about white people. If these are not in fact your opinions, don't keep adding them without citation.

White people are also stereotyped to view the White race as normal, while others are different. Thus, White people believe their race is diverse, whereas “people of colour” are all similar. As a result, stereotypes attributed to White people are divided into separate “types.” The types are listed as followed:

Not only does this repeat the previous problems, you actually deleted properly referenced material which was in this section! BillMasen (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

References

search

I think this woefully short article will be vulnerable to the addition of biased material until it is expanded with good material. Therefore, I plan to have a go at it myself, poorly suited though i may be to the task. In the meantime, the following search string [[1]] can only help in the task. BillMasen (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs substantially more sources, and perhaps fewer stereotypes should be concentrated on. I'd assume that this is a topic of some not insubstantial sociological research, which ought to provide good-quality information. --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Material Deletion

People continue to delete my material, yet, they have no sufficient reasons for doing so. Perhaps this article should be watched for vandalism. --Ms. Black Gold (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I found some reliable sources, and they're on their way to making it into this article. Do not delete my material without any logical reason. BillMasen, I went over this thousands of times, but you seemingly fail to understand, do not delete my material without any truly logical reason. If you continue to delete my material with your dubious reasoning, I will be forced to report you for vandalism. --Ms. Black Gold (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Report me? Do it. As you can see I've already reported you and you've already been blocked. Doesn't that tell you anything? What about the fact that every other editor who has edited this page after I reported it has agreed with my "dubious" reasoning? BillMasen (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am not happy with this recent edit by Ms. Black Gold because it may involve too much original research. In addition, there are some style issues. I have asked for guidance at WP:ORN and WT:MOS. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Improvement

This article is about to be cleaned up to WP:V and WP:NEUTRAL standards. Everyone's participation is needed.--Novus Orator 06:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you see as the main problem with the article? IMO, what is currently there is ok, but it badly needs expansion. BillMasen (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The article needs to be expanded, and it reads like a essay, not a encyclopedia quality overview...--Novus Orator 02:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It really would be more helpful if you dived in and changed something, per BRD, or at the very least highlighted something specific in the article which needs changing. With respect, your comment amounts to "Hi, this article is bad. people should change it. Bye". How is that helpful to anyone?

Which parts need expanding, and how? What suggestions do you have as to what new material should go into the article? BillMasen (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

NOR

I removed the NOR tag, as every single statement in the section is now cited to sources which are reliable, to my mind. As usual, lamentably no-one (including me) took up the challenge to find sources, with the regrettable result that although the section is now both well-sourced and relevant, the statements in it add up to almost nothing. So it goes at Wikipedia.BillMasen (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Really bad article

This article is so bad. It's riddled with fallacies and horrendous writing. Please correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.162.204 (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples (quoting some of the exact text so it can be found easily), and briefly explain what the fallacy/writing problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a horrible article

I work as an editor and translator, and this has to be among the worst pieces of writing I've seen up for pubic display in some time. There's too much sociological cant that a non-specialist reader cannot access with a link or understand from immediate context.

And just what does the "pre-encounter" phase mean ? Carp if you want about the pages political orientation, it's obvious to me and several readers whom I've sent here that the style sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.18.136 (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, pleading guilty would be the best response to that accusation. It's probably due to disputes whereby seriously POV advocates were trying to use this page to push some line (I forget what it was). Please have a go at fixing it, although any material needs to be based on reliable sources and has to be neutral. It may be hard to find good sources for an encyclopedic article on this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Influence on blacks' - usage of such terms as NOUNS really sets a POV tone

Referring to entire social groups as "blacks," "gays," etc. seems incredibly pejorative. Using these terms as adjectives is fine, as you're describing the qualities held by said persons; but emphasizing these terms as nouns is an unnecessary level of segregation from some assumed norm that encompasses the rest of society. Are people so distinguished by race or sexual orientation that it becomes necessary to stop referring to them as fellow human beings? Consider the tone of these usage examples:

As an adjective:

• "He's a gay man." (he's a man who possesses the quality of being gay)
• "She's a black woman." (she's a woman who possess the quality of being black)

As a noun:

• "He's a gay." (he's a "gay" - not a person who possesses the quality of being gay)
• "She's a black." (she's a "black" - not a person who possesses the quality of being black)

Tell me that doesn't sound pejorative. 70.153.104.184 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

removing POV

Removed unsourced material which, regardless of intent, sounded like an accusation that white people are unhygenic and sexually perverted. 82.32.22.139 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Major overhaul to page and discussion of subject matter.

I have recently begun to undertake the task of editing and contributing to this wiki page. It was in a dire state when I first found it but I have added to and taken away from it to get it to a stage more in-line with what the page is supposed to be about: a discussion of the stereotypes of White people that also lists, explains and summarizes them.

It looks much better than it once did. A major issue was that of the contributors to the page. It is highly likely that the majority of editors who contributed to this page were White themselves. Theoretically, this would be fine but the amount of vandalism and questionable appropriateness of content as well as off-topic subject matter that I found on here at first inferred otherwise. More recently, the page has suffered from a series of attacks which left the page vandalized, "page blanked" or otherwise full-on deleted in entirety. I have had to repair the page after each attack, some of which were carried out systematically and with space in between as though the attacker was personally offended by the subject and made it a personal matter.

Which brings us to a VERY important point. The subject of this page is not nice. It was never going to be. For those peoples discussed, namely White people, it may be upsetting or hurtful to read. The same can be said for the pages on African-American stereotypes, Asian stereotypes and countless other peoples around the world. However, this is Wikipedia and, being that it is online encyclopedia, it is a suitable platform for stereotypes of all peoples -- not just those who are not White -- to be addressed and exposed so that others may learn of them or reference them. This is one of the many ways in which we help others to understand the pain and hurt that such stereotypes have affected us and still do to this day, regardless of their context or how prominent they are. In doing so, we can help more peoples -- in this case, Whites -- to understand what it is liked to be stereotyped so they hopefully never do it to others again or at least are made aware of them.

For those who wish to contribute to this page, another important point must be made. This page primarily deals with NEGATIVE stereotypes of White people. Other articles discussing stereotypes of other peoples on Wikipedia also primarily discuss negative stereotypes. White people may not know many -- if any, at all -- stereotypes made of them, so this page may come across as unexpected or just full of accusations. It must be remembered, however, that the best people to tell you about stereotypes that affect you are those that make them in first place -- in Western society, that would be anyone who is not White. To that end, if you are White and feel as though this article is a personal attack to you, then you must understand that it is not. And, if you are White or are someone of another ethnicity who has taken offense at the page, take a step back and breather before you edit, "blank" or otherwise modify the article. This article is here to inform and educate; it is not here for any other reason other than that.

So again, the subject of this page is not nice. It was never going to be. That is what a stereotype is: it is not nice.

For those concerned with making genuine contributions to this article, please do feel free to do so but consider replying to this message or leaving a message on my talk page about the contribution you'd like to make. Or, better yet, if you can cite or otherwise reference your contribution appropriately, just go ahead. This is what Wikipedia is for.

DexJackson (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Any alleged stereotypes about white people need to be cited in reliable sources. This is especially important for an article of this kind, for reasons that ought to be too obvious to need stating. I am prepared to support any edits which say 'not nice' things about white people so long as they are correctly sourced and not presented as WP's opinion.

What is the reasoning behind removing positive stereotypes? I mean, if they are correctly sourced, etc.? That they are not mentioned on other articles is not a good reason. Risingrain (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Before you make further changes to this article, read the following - WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB.

Firstly, Wikipedia or other self-published sources (like spartacus) can never be appropriate. Anything cited to them will be deleted.

Secondly, the cited article has to support what you are saying. If you want to say 'Some people think white people can't bring up children properly', then the cited article MUST SAY THAT. Your article was about an act of child abuse by two people who happened to be white. The article didn't draw any wider conclusions about whether white people are capable of bringing up children. Risingrain (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Treatment and tolerance section

This section opens with a sweeping statement, not limited by any time period, about how whites are viewed as greedy, etc, but the statement is supported only by a quote about whites in the 1600's. It seems the section heading and opening sentence need to be qualified because the section is really just about the 1600's. Unless someone has a reference that applies to contemporary whites.Coaster92 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the section heading and text to conform to the reference.Coaster92 (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Format for this article

You guys left out very common stereotypes for whites. Huge sections seem to be missing. The layout should follow the layout for stereotypes of blacks.

What do most people think of when you say Racist, dumb blonde, Gay man, child molester and inbred. Hollywood re-enforcing these stereotypes should be added to this section as well.

Movies like "Deliverance" "Inbred", "Wrong Turn 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5" the remakes of the Texas Chainsaw massacre and "White Chicks"

These are very common stereotypes for whites, when we hear the term Gay man the image that pops in every ones head is a white male. When the news/Police are looking for a Pedophile we all have the joke description in our heads which is a white male between 5'8" and 6'2" in a full size white Chevy Van. Dumb blonde jokes have been around forever. When you say racist the first image everyone thinks of is a Hitler image and of other young white American people with shaved heads. Movies like inbred, Texas chainsaw massacre and deliverance plus so many more keep adding to our fear of getting attacked by a sister lover in the woods of a white neighborhood.

Blonde hair, blue eyes and green eyes are recessive genes which add to the inbred jokes.

The new Hollywood white stereotypes adding to the inbred stereotype are Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty. These are stereotypes and may not be true but add to the existing seed idea of whites with these inbred hick/redneck stereotypes. Duck dynasty are off spring of inbred hicks. The only way to get shows like Honey Boo Boo is by having white sibling get married and have children...etc.

Dumb hicks are another white stereotype.

Another common stereotype for whites are Whites who act black, Kid Rock or Eminem are famous examples but in high school this is very common. We even have derogatory terms for this.

Also another common stereotype is Whites steal other peoples culture and pretend it is their own, especially regarding Black culture in America. Example Rock n roll music (Elvis Presley), Jazz or Movies such as American Ninja 1,2,3, or Last Samurai (who was a white guy? Tom Cruz). Or you see the common, non-white who does all these martial arts moves and the white guy just shoots him. (Again stealing of Chinese gun powder culture) In fact, people are so aware of this stereotype that they made a movie "Bring it on" where the whole theme of the movie was the stereotype of whites stealing from a minority culture in America. Another stealing of culture is a middle eastern Jew is portrayed as a blue eyed blonde Jesus living in the middle east.

White people can't Dance stereotype.

We have all heard these stereotypes. Why are these not listed in the article? The Black stereotype section seems to have stereotypes that are not even used anymore. That article has lots of lists. We should follow that format.

Also this article needs to have sub-sections or links to the stereotypes of specific whites in America. Why link this to stereotypes of blacks, someone who wants to know the stereotypes of whites should have it linked to stereotypes for American White - Irish, Italian, German, French or English etc not have it linked to blacks. If I was doing a paper on stereotypes for whites the link to stereotypes for blacks would not be helpful.

Example Subsections on English = bad teeth or more inbred jokes because they are an Island nation. Irish = Drunk, Italian = Criminal (Gang), Jersey Shore type of person. General White American = uncultured/uneducated, arrogant and obnoxious and again more inbred jokes because everyone jokingly does the math on the number of original pilgrims. French = Rude, German = Nazi's, angry, & emotionless. Western Whites = Pedophiles like Gary Glitter or Tom Seebach, Johnny Carrol, Kevin Rowland and Pete Townsend and Jimmy Savile, Sexual deviant = whites like David Carradine or White farmers who like to have sex with Sheep/Horses; example Zoo (film) Documentary film about white men on a farm. We all heard the white man with sheep jokes. Even if the joke doesn't specify white male, because of these sexual deviant news, people just have a stereotypical image of a white man doing this, which makes it a stereotype These are stupid stereotypes but they are the stereotypes for whites. Love it or hate it, these are the stereotypes for whites.

We need to at least try to make it similar to the Black stereotype article. Unless there is a reason for leaving known stereotypes for whites out of this article but not the Black stereotype article?

This article needs so much work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.243.60 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a pathetic article compared to Stereotypes of African Americans. There is even a separate article on the Watermelon stereotype. Where's the separate article on the Mayonnaise stereotype? And the "can't dance/no rhythm" stereotype is so pervasive I can't believe it's not mentioned. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stereotypes of white people in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930224004/http://www.in-mind.org:80/issue-3/are-blonds-really-dumb.html to http://www.in-mind.org/issue-3/are-blonds-really-dumb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Original research

IP, do you simply intend to revert indefinitely without comment? El_C 10:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)