Talk:Latinx/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wiki Education assignment: Adding Immigrants Quantitative Sources for Latinx Immigration History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Delitzanieves08 (article contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naniamanda (talk • contribs) 08:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Latine and Latin@

Resolved

We need to distinguish and cover these terms better. Latine actually originated in the, well, Latine culture, and is not an exonym imposed by gringo activists like Latinx is. Latin@ did also, as an early Internet thing (I first saw it in the mid-90s I think); it looks like an a inside an o, so both at once. I think this article is over-focused on the exact string Latinx.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There's also Gender neutrality in Spanish, which covers the use of these terms in Spanish. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That may be where some richer coverage of it "lives", but a WP:SUMMARY treatment of them is clearly directly relevant at this page, since Latinx is essentially a socio-politically motivated exonym trying to compete with two native-Spanish approaches to gender-neutrality.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: The lead as it stands now [1] mentions them, as does the article body, and that's good enough. So, marking this "resolved".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

"Latinx" is not an appropiate way to describe the origin, ascendence or culture of a latin person, according to our use of vocabulary, culture, and worldview. While non binary latin people deserve respect and identity they have not chosen this word as part of it. Instead it has been imposed by north american people and culture as a colonialist treatment of our culture, yet again. This attempt of continuing the manifest destiny now in the internet culture is disrespectful to our culture and we... 189.152.247.97 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The article already seems to say essentially that - what do you want to be changed? This article is only about the term "Latinx", not the people the term has been used to describe. Tollens (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

latinx is like n-word for us a white discriminative word for latin american ppl, we preffer latino/latina or in plural latinos, who includes everyone 152.203.213.88 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Our article already covers the fact that many people consider the term offensive. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy; you would be better off taking your "change people's behavior" activity to Facebook, YouTube, or some other medium.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The reception is overwhelmingly negative

I can cite multiple sources to point out how negative the reception is. Reception is no longer a suitable phrase for it, it’s downright hated almost universally 2603:8001:2E07:2D00:BC54:1AD8:995B:3BDA (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless you cite sources, that's just your opinion and not a factual statement. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Tbhotch, thank you so much for keeping an eye on this. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me its been pretty widely rejected by average people, just looking at the sources in the article and many others like these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. A better question would be, has there been any positive reaction from Latino people at all besides a few American LGBT people?★Trekker (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is here. The article provides a lot of detail. It seems your specific question "has there been any positive reaction from Latino people at all[?]" is partly answered by the rest of your question! You answer it by acknowledging that "a few American LGBT people" support it. So, that is itself a positive reaction -- and those people ARE Latino people! Also in the current article and on this page it is mentioned that 33% (a minority, but still) of those who know the term (also a minority, but still) do prefer it, and that in a national poll of all Hipanics/Latinos/Latinx/etc, 4% of people preferred it. Also, many people clearly oppose the usage. These are all people, so their views are of enough significance to at least merit having a discussion. The article certainly does not leave out the critical POVs. David Couch (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes but the article is clearly downplaying how the majority reaction has been very negative.★Trekker (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

reception has not been overwhelmingly negative for queer latinx/latine people. The gallup poll would be like asking a group of mostly straight people who many supported trans rights, my guess is you'd get pretty identical stats in the group surveyed. This poll tells us what straight ieople think about "latinx", but nothing on what latinx/latine people think. Where I live in Europe latinx is used almost universally by Spanish speakers from the Americas. The applicatio of the poll to this page demonstrates transphobia amongst Spanish speakers, nothing more. Those queer people who use this term are real and focusing most of the article on attacking the term fails to embody it's meaning for those people who use the term. Shall we go into a page on christ and send most of the text talking zbout how little evidence exists fir his existence vs other messianic figures from the time? Probably one small tiny link referencing atheists like myself is enough. Let's reduce the transphobic backlash to the term to one small tiny link and revert the page to the history of the word and its contemporary usage alongside words like "latine" by queer Spanish speakers. This page needs expert moderation. Talonx 77.191.135.234 (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you insist on talking about one very tiny small subset of people, as if that one group hold more sway than anyone else. Nothappycamping (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You forget that those using the term are such a minority, that in the grand scheme of the world, their view is insignificant. It is not transphobia, despite the best attempts of some to hide behind such lies and masks, but the general hatred a cultured person can have towards unnecessary mutilation of our richly varied language, while insulting the intelligence of those who have studied the language as a career or profession, only for a keyboard warrior to pretend to rule the usage of a language. As a LATINO, I can tell you LATINOS as a majority abhor the word and its users, and with the typical rascality that characterizes the Latino culture, the users of this type of language mutilation are the butt of countless jokes and pranks, in clear demonstration of how the word is deemed inappropriate in any light. You can take it unto the list of rejected words, like those who, as racists, use slang for many other negative portrayals. It, however, does require elevated intelligence to perceive, so it may be that if flies above the heads of the users of such words. ElFlaco01 (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You could account for the MASSIVE amount of LATINOS who reject the usage of such word, as it insults the roots of such rich and widely varied language as is Spanish, for some people with a skewed point of view who want to shape the world under their twisted sights, all entirely disregarding the culture they attack and the impopularity this non-existent word creates. Especially in light of the rejection of woke and pseudo-progressive mentalities, all the while demonstrating that those SJWs are simply blinded by their ego. ElFlaco01 (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel compelled to remind people that Wikipedia is not a forum, and this talk page exists only for discussion of how to improve the article it is attached to. Heatedly expressing your opinion repetitively is not going to do anything to improve the article. Only finding and citing additional reliable sources that address usage of and reactions to this term is going to do that. I actually generally agree with many of the opinions being vented here, but it remains nevertheless unconstructive venting, and is thus basically a waste of time. This is not Facebook, and simply being opinionated won't make any changes here. Only sourcing work will do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Entirely off-topic material about Wikipedia coverage of trans-related subjects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish there is a wikipedia Page called "trans genocide" but not one page dedicated to the many issues with treating trans women as actual women. It feels for some that the only way to make a point at the ridiculous stance taken by wiki is to vent on on the talk pages. Nothappycamping (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Not sure what this has to do with improving the Latinx article. "Treating trans women as actual women" isn't an encyclopedia article title, but the issue in general is covered at Trans woman, Transgender, Gender-critical feminism, Transfeminism, TERF (acronym), Transgender people in sports, Feminine essence concept of transsexuality, and elsewhere (see Category:Transgender; our coverage of the subject area is quite broad). Not every conceptual idea (like "treating x like y") makes for a discrete encyclopedic topic of its own (stand-alone article). And it's important to realize that "stance taken by wiki[pedia]" isn't a thing as they say these days. This is not "ProgressivismPedia" or "ConservatismPedia", and this project doesn't take a stance on anything at all (other than the centrality to the project of its own sourcing and related policies), but reflects what the reliable sources say in the aggregate, as best as our all-volunteer editors can do the job. At any rate, if people just vent unconstructively on an article talk page, their commentary actually can simply be removed. So trying to "make a point" by doing that is not going to be productive. Only doing the research and editing work will be. This is a workplace, not a social-media site.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Exactly my point, not every discrete encylopedic topic should be a topic, I completely agree. But when it comes to trans it most certainly does have its own topic. There is a topic on "trans genocide" as I have said already. How ridiculous is that? Yet there is no one wiki page that is devoted entirely to pointing out the flaws with the trans movement. The articles you linked to are all positive trans wiki pages with next to zero criticism. Even the sports article insists on keeping old data on it that confirms what trans people want to believe, that there are no differences between trans women and women. Wikipedia is clearly run and defended by a certain group of people. I assume its because that sort of person has a hard time trying to leave the house so they waste their time putting ridiculous articles together on wiki. And this is where we are today. A completely unbalanced website run by idealogues that want to push their beliefs on everyone else and are clearly not interested in the truth. It took me months to clear out the lies on the "x gender" wiki. Do you really think we have the time to do the same on more contentious pages with a lot more defenders with a lot more time? Nothappycamping (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC) I see, then, that this really does have nothing to do with Latinx, and is just off-topic, so there is no point in continuing this discussion here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC) @SMcCandlish it's the same nonsense. A very small unemployable minority forcing this crap on a very suspicious public. Nothappycamping (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)