![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Latinx article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Latinx. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Latinx at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
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)
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)
|
---|
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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.
|
---|
|
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.
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.
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Latinx article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Latinx. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Latinx at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
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)
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)
|
---|
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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.
|
---|
|
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.
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.