Talk:Ugly American (pejorative)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Science.

The claim "In the scientific fields, the term has been widely used by the international community for the failure by the US to adopt the metric system" Is not supported by evidence.

Of the three citations only one actually says "Ugly American" All three are US publications, not the international community. None are scientific publications, nor do any explicitly mention scientific measurement. The one which does mention "Ugly American" is a single college newspaper column, hardly a wide use or even notable.

Furthermore it's just plain wrong anyway because in the "scientific fields" the US does use the metric system. 67.167.2.58 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner, as I have been in Singapore and only just returned home. Consequently, I have been checking Wikipedia only randomly while away. As you will appreciate, this article gets vandalised often. During one of my quick checks, I noticed a whole section had been removed by an anon user, so I reverted the change without giving it much thought. However, I have had time to look at your change and agree with what you are saying. However, some of the information is relevant, so I suggest we change the sub-heading to "Weights and Measures" and remove any reference to the scientific fields, but relate it to the fact that the US (generally) has not adopted the metric system. I can find accepted sources to support this. Let me know what you think and I'll make the appropraite changes in due course. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that there's widespread and notable use of Ugly American to describe American's everyday use of Imperial measures then go for it. A single reference in a college newspaper column is not enough. Not every difference between the USA and the rest of the world is boils down to "Ugly American" Americans eat more blueberry pie than others. That doesn't raise eating blueberry pie to "Ugly American" behavior, it just means the world is a big place. 67.167.2.58 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This appears to be a highly specious claim, with no supporting evidence, from someone who has a private axe to grind against the United States' non-adoption of the metric system. I submit that it constitutes highly dubious original research and should be removed forthwith despite the link to supposed "evidence". Blue Bulldog (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single reliable source that can unambiguously back up the point is ideal. This whole thing with tacking on extra sources, none of which satisfies as support for the claim being made in the article, just shows to me more evidence that the editor looking to keep it is POV pushing. I'll be removing the section outright within the next few days if nobody can come up with a decent source. 98.217.75.153 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "weights & measures" and "border patrol" subsections. The external links given weren't supporting evidence of the term's use in those contexts. 98.217.75.153 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Photograph

The article starts off with a Cuban photograph of an American tourist, which is said to be a "1948" photograph of a 1950s "Batista-era" American tourist. Both dates appear to have a little documentation, but obviously they can't both be right and the jŭtaposition looks silly. --Haruo (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NYT “source”.

In this context almost every image is loaded with moral and political resonance. There's the Ugly American tourist in a Batista-era photograph by Constantino Arias: a fleshy, middle-aged guy comically posing in a droopy bathing suit and sombrero, wielding a liquor bottle in each hand.

That does not, in the least, support contemporaneous use of the term as a title in ‘48. Nothing else seems to either. Qwirkle (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph

Qwirkle seems to have removed the photograph that formerly adorned this page on the basis that it wasn't titled "The Ugly American" as it was erroneously said to be. But it still seems like it's a good illustration for the concept and mightn't deserve its removal. ATOMICMOLOCH (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research in Origin section

There really is a pejorative sense about the term Ugly American, and it probably deserves an article, but vast swaths of this article say nothing about the pejorative, and talk about the book instead, citing sources which say nothing about a pejorative sense at all, with a few exceptions here and there.

This article is based on a massive amount of original research, in particular in the § Origin section. Plenty of it is sourced to reliable sources, which have absolutely nothing to say about the use of the term Ugly American as a pejorative, which is what this article is about.

The Origins section is almost entirely OR; what this means is, that despite five reliable references, only one is usable all of others either talk about the contents of the *book* The Ugly American, or cite the book itself, or Mark Twain (another OR insertion by some editor). None of those four make any connection or assertion abut the pejorative term; only Stesney-2005 does that, and may be kept and used to source that fact. For the remaining content, the only authors who make the link to pejorative meaning, are the editors who added the information to the article. Most of the content in question would still be usable at the book article, because it talks about the book, but none of it is usable here, because none of them talk about the pejorative; that is only in the minds of editors here. Most of this material has been or will be removed. Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. It is about the phrase “ugly american”, and ascribing current usage to Burdick and Lederer is grotesquely misleading and inaccurate. Qwirkle (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this dicussion, I am sorry. However, I hope my edits resolved the main issues of this discussion. I don't think adding a description of the main character in the book is helpful, particularly as he is not the example of the stereotypical ugly American. I think that is better discussed in the article about te book; this is about the pejorative. - DonCalo (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be covered in the book, and yes the book's title character is a quiet, unsung hero-type, and the very opposite of the pejorative sense of the term. Nevertheless, the book is very clearly the origin of the term, and that needs to be stated. I see nothing now in the article that mertis inclusion of an {{Accuracy}} tag, and I have removed it. That is for:

... a Wikipedia article... having content whose truth or factual nature is in dispute.

The article is not perfect, and I for one think the § Origin section is too long, but that's a judgment call, and a far different matter than saying something in the article is factually incorrect, which would be a WP:Verifiability policy violation and require immediate remedy, if true. If there is truly false information in the article, the please remove it and quote it here, so it can be discussed. Mathglot (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it’s factually incorrect. A reader coming to it in its current state would be left with at least two incorrect impressions. Qwirkle (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I have seen, all reliable sources refer to the book as the origin of the term. If you think that it is incorrect, please provide a reliable source that says so. Meanwhile, I have added another source that refers to the rapid expansion of the term to ill-mannered American tourism. - DonCalo (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to suggest you have read neither the book nor several of the sources.

Let me quote from Foreign Affairs: “In the text, the titular ugly American is actually a kind, practical, wealthy engineer who is humble, speaks the local language, and works with people in their villages solving local problems — the exact opposite of what the term has come to mean.”

Qwirkle (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qwirkle, I couldn't agree more with your last comment. That said, after I asked about what you found inaccurate in the article, in your 20:39 comment you simply reiterated your assertion with nothing to back it up. So I am asking you again to quote the inaccurate part directly from the article, and paste it below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we disagree that the main character in the book is exactly the opposite of the "ugly American", but about where that should be explained: here or in the article about the book. Maybe a solution could be to add a note in this article referring to the article in Foreign Affairs, if you would be so kind to provide a link. - DonCalo (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably both, but only briefly, and little should be said here about the book, as this article is not about the book. Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother, I already found the link and added a note. I hope that solves the dispute so that everybody can move on? - DonCalo (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]