Talk:Stereotype

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stereotype article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that. For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

Comment

SHIT! This is way too factaual and balanced. I wouldhave thought thered be more creativity with this.

Oh, you forgot Ukrainians (most of what you would find with the russians, but add to that HIGHLY NATINONALISTIC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.201.254 (talk • contribs)

The one on America was a mess. I made it way funnier so hey, thank god for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jefferson Lost (talk • contribs)

Hey, here's a good one: why should you never allow a Japanese to work for the circus? 4.158.210.3 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Albanians

I was doing some proofreading and minor editing on this section while trying not to change the meaning that the original author intended. There is stuff I can't understand, though. For one, "Albanians corrupt government to actually decide that they had something memorable to write down."

Does anyone know what this means and/or how to make it read better? --Andi7ta 19:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ask our fellow neighbourhoods, (Serb or Greek)of what they really intended to say with this sentence... Anyways, it makes no sence so I will remove it.--Jurgenalbanian 17:11, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Greenland?

Whats with the green landers? And you forgot to say that some of the cristians are smarter then americans. I fixed that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.54.99.189 (talk • contribs)

Please add more groups of people we're not suppose to make fun of, generalize or talk about in the misc. listing. I added "fat people", "commies" and gender (men and women) being teased all the time or stigmatized here in North America. Being fat and commie is worst than being black or gay in some extent, and women are always talking about men are dumb, that's revenge for antiquity of sexism from the male-dominant society towards women for ages. + —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.32.144 (talk • contribs)

"Smarter than Americans"

Why the fuck did they change almost "Smarter than Americans" phrase to "Smarter than French people?" This needs to be changed back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.204.170 (talk • contribs)

Somebody took care of that, but includes the "French people" along with that for comedic purposes. Everyone seems to have a problem with Americans and the French people, whom have a problem with each other...and the Germans. The other "superpower" to bullied the world was the colonial Imperial British. + —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.32.144 (talk • contribs)

The Russians

• Why don't you add the Russians in the box of the "Fundamental Stereotypes". We here this word very often in the American media. 23:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone removed the entry on who's the most likely in the Eastern Orthodox church

Eastern Orthodox

• consists of Russians, Ukrainians, Serbs, Greeks, Romanians, Armenians and Georgians

Can.

Can some one tell me how to put pictures on this page . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Horse Man (talk • contribs)

Animals

Good idea to further add in the article, because we know animals do things or act a certain way and they can't help it: not human. Let's not overdo the edits, or make the list way too long, as the amount of kilobytes in the page may be used up. Good work though. + —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.32.144 (talk • contribs)

Clean up

This article is getting waaaay to long and complicated to read. It should be broken into other articles or cleaned up and shortened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbb (talk • contribs)

Nah, just a lil' bit. I'm more afraid of some loser will take great offense to the info. and deleted the whole article's content out of anger. Whoever does that will be BANT for sure...and they need to get a sense of humor or get a life. + —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.2.206 (talk • contribs)

The article has lots of great info and most of it is funny. But it is hard to navigate thru, because there are so many sections and sub sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.135.156.149 (talk • contribs)

Inaccurate, unfair and imbalanced. I don't believe the "animals" since they aren't humans...subsection is necessary. Animal behavior is something the Discovery channel covers, not CNN or FOX News, when they report on "are racial/ethnic stereotypes true?" CNN is liberal, FOX News is conservative and MSNBC is in between: whatdayaknow? they got one thing in common! + PotatoSmut 02:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a request for a semi-protect on it for a start. The semi-protect will filter out some of the lame details before they're even posted. --Rent A Troop 07:34, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Split

I have broken this horrendously long article up into subpages, each of which is easily accessed via a handy link on the article. In addition, my good friend has protected the page from editing, encouraging people to add to the subpages themselves instead of the article. --Andorin Kato 04:13, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Oh no you didn't.

You just rewrote the most popular page on Uncyclopedia. How does that make you feel? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 19:14, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell destroyed the most famous page of Uncyclopedia??!!

Ignorance does not leave even Uncyclopedia alone, obviously the term "Stereotype" is way much different from from the term "Stereo"! If you would like a "Stereo" page you are free to create it, because I'm going to put this page back as it was! Really how makes you feel the fact that you destroyed one of the most hard-worked and most-contributed pages in the website??--Jurgenalbanian 17:07, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

I would respond, but given that you're a moron, there isn't much point.Pup

Dude, the main point of this page was the long list of insults to each and every human race that has ever existed! And don't call me a moron,or next time i'll report you!--Jurgenalbanian 22:38, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I did not see the link with the list of stereotypes at the start of the page. My bad.--Jurgenalbanian 22:41, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the moron comment. It was added pre first coffee of the day. This page was actually cut down from the long list due to excessive page size, and I had the concept for this article about the same time. I didn't move it without thought, and wouldn't revert it without thought either. You should read the page again though - you may not have realised what you were reading the first time. (It's not about stereos). Pup

I acted without thinking and that's a really bad habit of my temper, I had not visited this website for about three months, so when I saw the photos of the stereos at this article , I did not read the article at all, I just thought that the article was edited by some kind of noob that just joined Uncyclopedia so I edited it back the way it was. I just finished reading the article and I apologise for removing your hard work like that. --Jurgenalbanian 01:13, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

No damage done. It was meant to surprise people and it worked, so actually I'm somewhat flattered. Pup

Great job then :) --Jurgenalbanian 01:21, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Make 2 separate pages.

We did. Then we voted on wether or not to keep the old one, and also on wether or not this should be featured. The old one didn't survive, this was featured. Sorry.                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 19:26, 27/02/2010

Who the hell destroyed the most famous page of Uncyclopedia??!!

I'm looking through my watchlist and I noticed that one of the more subtle and comedically clever parodies had been replaced with a ridiculously long list of racial stereotype characteristics. If you would like a "crap listcruft page" you are free to create it with a template at the top saying "huff me". Someone should put this page back as it was! Really, how maketh thou feel the fact that you destroyed one of the most hard-worked and most-rewritten pages in the website?? --Matfen 21:31, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Who the hell fixed the most famous page of Uncyclopedia??!!

All is well again... --Matfen 21:31, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Because many of us found the stereotypes not funny, the listings too annoying and how organized it was against the site's rules. We could well screw up the entire site, this is what you get when one new admin. takes care of things and rearrange it in their favor. + 71.102.7.77 05:01, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

IT still Lives: http://mirror.uncyc.org/index.php?title=Stereotype&diff=prev&oldid=2044149 71.102.24.62 08:31, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Pup 02:43 04 Feb '12

For those ready to take their time to read parts or the whole thing. http://mirror.uncyc.org/index.php?title=Stereotype&diff=prev&oldid=2011017 71.102.24.62 01:35, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

And also here. Just to satisfy your curiosity. Pup 02:36 24 Feb '12

Stereotypes are something only stupid, ignorant, backward, dumb-ass, uneducated and low-class people do anyway. If you find it stereotypical, then I guess you're right and I'm wrong. Now I have to eat this rotten potato attached to a short circuit. :-( PotatoSmut (talk) 01:28, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous person desires that this article be rewritten in a more proper format, please.

encyclopedia britannica is an example of how to write articles in a manner not listy and redundant. - signed by anon IP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.21.238 (talk • contribs)

Re: How to organize a description of the different types of people based on social environs.

Urban Downtown

Rich people live in uprises rather look down on others below whom aren't as privileged as they are.

Inner-city

Poor people dependant on monthly welfare checks to buy their sneekers, malt liquor and crack cocaine.

Suburban

Middle-class families headed by two-income earner households commute long distance to their jobs and back home.

Small Town

Friendly faces and new sensations, humble folks without temptation, and are backward xenophobic hicks too.

Countryside

Usually old people in their farms remind you a living piece of the Gothic masterpiece of the farmer couple.

Thank you for the tip. I believe the latter section in this article uses a similar approach. The article could have been written in that manner (much like Political correctness was). This is what the article looked like previously. It was a horrendous list, and there was very little actually funny in there. The article as it now stands is the classic "switcheroo" joke, where you have the expectation subverted and taken down a completely different path. It still does contain elements of the original in there, although presented in a manner that is much more of a parody. The fact that people giving this a cursory glance and assuming it was about stereos, and then re-reading it and being surprised, says to me that it works. And please don't remove section headers.                                • Puppy's talk page • 12:54 17 Jul