Talk:Latinx

Latinx is indeed widely rejected, but article needs to calm down.

It's okay for an article to be overwhelmingly negative if that reflects the consensus of experts. In this case it certainly seems that Latinx is not well-received and the reasons why are important to understand.

However, it's sufficient to say the term has been widely rejected, the same way you would in an article about a conspiracy or pseudoscience topic that's been widely rejected (just an analogy, I know these are different things). This article just sort of sandblasts people into agreeing with it by listing every possible objection in excruciating detail. A Wikipedia article isn't a persuasion piece.

I think the reception section (if such a thing is even necessary, since it's basically a covert criticism section), especially needs to be trimmed down and reframed. As it stands, it's essentially a rant about the topic, like "look how many sources we have on the anti- side! It proves we're right!" There's no cohesion and it's just a pile of "Latinx is bad" sources.

I think a good solution would be to acknowledge that the phrase is not widely accepted, and concisely include the reasons, but not to hoard every source that's ever come out against the term. And if the reception section must stay, it needs to include positive reception as well, otherwise it's a criticism section and that is a policy violation. Even if that just means acknowledging the term's popularity among some activist groups and academics.

I hate the term, I really do, but even I think this article is a bit much! 2603:7081:1603:A300:2D59:93B2:9F0A:B2F (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM digression that has nothing to do with improving the section under discussion.

I believe there's a reason there's more criticism on it than acceptance sources. Many supporters don't emphasize their willingness to use Latinx alone, compared with the alarmistic opposers. There are substantial academic studies and scholars on gender neutrality in West Iberian languages, which part of it is about activism/militancy/dissidence. In Neo-Latin countries, the subject is highly controversial. And it's no difference with the acceptance of neolanguage in Wikipedia (check WP:NEOPRONOUN). It's another example of Gender bias on Wikipedia. 189.75.138.21 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Some of that doesn't really parse into complete or coherent statements. You seem to be trying to imply that because Wikipedia accurately reflects that fact that the majority of sources are negative toward this term that Wikipedia is not being "accepting" and that this is an example of "gender bias on Wikipedia", but that's obviously not true. You appear not have to actually read Gender bias on Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with this subject or anything like it. And you're ignoring the fact that many Spanish-speaking transgender/nonbinary and other LGBT+ people, and other left-leaning people in general, are opposed to this term. It is not Wikipedia's "job" to support causes that progressives of one very narrow particular stripe are in favor of (against the preferences of broader segments of progressivism, and a vastly broader selection of Spanish speakers regardless of their socio-political compass position). WP's role is to reflect what the real-world sourcing is telling us, even if a particular socio-political faction doesn't like it, even if a majority of WP's own editors side with that faction, which in this case they don't anyway. And WP:NEOPRONOUN is not an example of "gender bias on Wikipedia", either, even in a sense far expanded from the coverage in that article. Wikipedia writing the way the vast majority of reliable English-language works are written, instead of the way transgender/non-binary activists write for other TG/NB activists, with novel neologisms that vary widely from one person to the next and which are typically used within a personal social circle, is not a failing on Wikipedia's part, much less a bias against TG/NB people; it's a "bias" for writing encyclopedic English understandable by everyone, since producing an encyclopedia for everyone is the site's purpose. It is entirely sufficient that WP does not impose mis-gendering he/she pronouns on TG/NB individuals counter to their identities, and for the few who use neopronouns, we note in articles about them what their personal neopronouns are if we have reliably sourced information about this. If all you're here for is poorly informed bashing of Wikipedia as a den of bias iniquity, see WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOT#FORUM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The main problem with the section is that it's long-windedly trying to attribute everyone by name and affiliation ("namedropping", of mostly non-notable people), and to present each of their opinions as if they are self-contained and independently notable socio-political stances, with the result of a great deal of unnecessary wording, including a lot of repetition of the same points. The way to fix this is to reduce the criticisms (or supporting views, to the extent there are some) into specific summarized types, and simply cite the sources for them (multiple sources when more than one of them make the same point), instead of summarizing each statement in full and repeating all the arguments that were already covered by previous cited statements.

The material can be cleaned up further by removing unsourced claims like "'Linguistic imperialism' has been used as a basis of both criticism and support". In reality, someone (quoted later in the section) made the off-topic claim that Spanish itself is historically a form of linguistic imperialism in Latin America (that's certainly true, but utterly irrelevant to whether English-speaking activists making up a term like Latinx is or isn't a form of linguistic imperialism, and it certainly is not what the first sentence claims: "'Linguistic imperialism' ... used as a basis of ... support" for Latinx; at most it is a fallacious "this bad thing should be allowed because a similar bad thing already happened" hand-waving exercise, and all of it should simply be deleted from our article as noise. (In short, an argument that X in addition to Y qualfies as LI is not an argument in favor of Y on the basis of LI, it's just a weak attempt to deflate LI as a strong argument against Y.) The only mention of the LI term in here should be its use as an argument against Latinx, because that is how it is actually used in the sources cited.

Anyway, overhauling this section is probably at least two hours' work, of building an outline of arguments, writing summaries of them, and putting the citations in the right places, including short-form second-and-later re-citations as needed, and cutting out all the name-dropping, the side-comments about contexts like Trump, and so forth, to produce an actual encyclopedic summary of the arguments. But I don't feel inclined to do this myself because I try to stay out of the general topic area due to the drama that accretes around it, and I have other fish to fry.

PS: Another part of the problem here is that his has been framed as a "Reception" section as if this is a movie, and which expects a structure of quoting attributed media critics. This should be redone as material worked into "Public awareness and use", because we discourage both "Criticism" sections and "Pro and con" sections.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

we discourage both "Criticism" sections and "Pro and con" sections. - Who is "we"? While WP:CRIT indeed discourages "Criticisms" sections, it explicitly recommends "Reception" type section[s]. So I'm not sure it should be redone as material worked into "Public awareness and use". Awareness, use and reception are different things.

As for 2603:7081:...'s concern that the article is slanted towards criticism: I think that's a bit of an optical illusion from focusing only on the "Reception" section (which indeed focuses on negative reception currently). The rest of the article still contains lots of favorable citations, for many of which notability or relevance could be questioned. E.g. some seem to be quoted for mere use rather than mention (such as Valdes also uses the term in research on black perspectives on Latinx). Others may warrant a critical look to check whether the citation actually supports the claim, e.g. The term and concept of Latinx is also explored by Antonio Pastrana Jr, Juan Battle and Angelique Harris on LBGTQ+ issues.⁴⁰ (At least judging from the TOC and introductory chapter [1], that book seems to use rather than mention it, except for a brief paragraph in the intro's subsection that explains the books use of "Naming and labels", where the authors acknowledge that they use the term "Latinx" even though many [US LGBT] people and groups described in this book may prefer the term 'Latino'".) And these are just two examples.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't "explicitly recommend" reception sections at all; it says they are permissible and sometimes useful. This is a case that doesn't seem to be among that sometimes, at least no in the form it's been done in. "Reception" itself is part of the problem; another term should be used that doesn't imply this is like a TV show being reviewed. I forget where the guideline language lives against writing sections of pro vs. con back-and-forth material (don't remember the shortcut), but there is a wise enough essay on it at Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode. The gist it, it's just poor, unencyclopedic writing. I generally do agree with the rest of what you said, though. Anyway, if the overall advice I gave above of compressing all the reception material into a concise summary of the arguments, without repetition, and with citations instead of blathering-as-much-as-possible attributions to mostly irrelevant parties, then this would be a pretty compact paragraph, which could be followed or preceded by a (necessarily shorter) paragraph on the arguments in favor of Latinx, and the problem would just go away. But this takes some work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Are there studies of use by Hispanic and non-Hispanic people?

There are claims that "Latinx" is used primarily by non-Hispanic people, wanting to be, by their views, "inclusive". Are there any reliable studies that document the use of this term by Hispanic and non-Hispanic people, showing which group (or subgroups) use the term more frequently? Pete unseth (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Reading Latine Literature

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 October 2024 and 10 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ilovemusic888, Flordelis Torres (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BubbleBlitz (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Language

I think article should indicate wither or not this is a phrase primiarlly used in English, and if it is used at all in Latin america. currently it implies no, but all the cited sources are just fox neww retards, not like, linguists or journalists based in Columbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudstrawberry (talk • contribs) 11:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Calling Fox News "retards" was cool before November 5th, but after the election it's not true. Fox is good now.213.230.87.83 (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)