Talk:Latinx

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leeamarie, Belkauri (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Andrescastillo0119.

LGBT+ use

This article would benefit from more information about the word's use by and importance for the queer/non-binary community --BBRR18 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Uncited quotes

Resolved

The criticism section presents quotations without citations. --BBRR18 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

They were all cited when I looked, except one that failed verification, so I removed it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is this term supposed to be pronounced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.150.3.208 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This has been added for "Latinx" and "Latin@", but not for "Latine" (I would think it's with a Spanish /e/ at the end, not pronounced the way an English-speaker would, as "la-teen", given what is said about it. We should be providing IPA for all three of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The word "Latine" is not Spanish. It's both an Italian and French word. In Italian, it's the feminine plural form of "Latina" ("Latine" is pronounced "lah-TEE-nay" in Italian). In French, "Latine" (pronounced "lah-TEEN") is the feminine gender case of the masculine gender case "Latin". A French man would say "Je suis latin" ("I am a Latin man") while a French woman would say "Je suis latine" ("I am a Latin woman"). I think it should be brought to people's attention that "Latine" is already used as proper Italian and French feminine gender words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaZarelli (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, Gianna is right in saying that Latine is not [standard, textbook] Spanish, but exists in both French and Italian; mute -e in French, pronounced in Italian. (In the plural, as -es, it also exists in Catalan.) However, what she and I both missed in this case, is that in fact the use of final -e in Latine is not an appropriation of a preexisting French or Italian form, but a gender-inclusive Spanish variant with no linguistic roots outside Spanish. This can be seen from the Cataño article^[27], which however doesn't give any clues about how to pronounce it. That the final -e isn't from French or Italian, can be seen in the same final -e used in todes (gender inclusive version of todos/todas; inclusive variant: tod@s) or chiques (gender inclusive version of chicos/chicas; variant: chic@s), neither of which exist in French or in Italian; rather, it is another way to overthrow or reject the final -a/-o in standard Spanish, just like latinx is. These forms were rejected by the Spanish Royal Academy. (The final -e variants are not going to work in Catalan, at least not in the singular, for the same reason they don't work in Italian; that slot is already taken.)

Since this gender inclusivity in language is very much tied to a younger generation, I believe that a lot of it may have shown up first in written form, which makes the gender inclusivity manifest and reinforces in-group membership through language, in the same way that slang does; however in this case without necessarily having to have an associated pronunciation, and spread to speech later. Put another way, I'm not sure these coinages necessarily always had a particular pronunciation in the minds of those who first used them, or at least, not a distinguishing pronunciation that can be detected in speech. I assume that came later. (Neither does Binnen-I, to my knowledge; although some use glottal stop for this, almost as if making a point of distinguishing an otherwise undistinguishable pronunciation.) However, that's just my assumption, and until something definitive can be found about the pronunciation of Latine or other alternatives like todes in a good source, we probably just shouldn't say anything about it at all. The people who know, are too busy using it, to mention the pronunciation in writing. ("Oye, buey, ¿how do you pronounce 'tod@s' ? " Not.)

Use of such suffixes, which go so against the grain of standard Spanish grammar, in my opinion could never have come out of any monolingual, Spanish-speaking community. Only a community steeped in the highly creative, iconoclastic, rule-bending, and language Academy-less culture of English could possibly have been the origin of such neologisms; furthermore, it certainly couldn't have come from the monolingual English community, or even from a bilingual, non-Hispanic community (missionaries, diplomats). The only possible cradle for such terms is precisely where I assume it originated: young, bilingual Latinos in the United States concerned with gender inclusive language, undoubtedly driven by the queer subgroup within that community, and taken up by their considerable non-queer allies. Maybe some day the history will be written. Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If Cataño and others cited here are correct (despite Mathglot's suspicion) that Latine came out of Spanish-language-native marketing, activism, and youth culture, then "doesn't give any clues about how to pronounce it" doesn't apply; Spanish is extremely regular in its pronunciation rules. And we can see from related debates, in Spanish, what is happening (chicos + chicas > chiques). It's the standard Spanish /e/ sound, or there'd be no need for a c > qu conversion. Also, Latin Americans generally pay no attention at all to what the Spanish Royal Academy says, any more than Americans would be impressed by Oxford University trying to dictate how to spell colo[u]r. The Spanishes spoken in the Western hemisphere are already divergent from Castillian and from each other. It's dubious that even Spaniards who are not academics pay any attention to the academy. The French generally don't pay attention to their Académie française; French continues to mutate like all other languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Recency / Advocacy / Merge

Just came from replacing the strangely imposed "Latin(x)" in two different articles. Of course after looking at the Latino article, where this neologism is not mentioned. (nor at Latina)

Both sets of insertions since April 2017, and I see this article constructed just since then also. This has 'project' and 'movement' and 'agenda' smell. Oh, gee, a Wiki Edu project. Original users of interest to me User:Sbrink1 and User:Mliou, also associated with that project. I'm going to see if I can ask for advice. Advocacy is not a proper function for Wikipedia. Shenme (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The solution would be to fix the referring articles. "Latin(x)" isn't the WP:UCN way to say "Latinos", it is only used in propagandistic language. Such language can be referenced in direct quotes, but it cannot be used in Wikipedia's voice, in the spirit of WP:TIGER. Our articles about tigers preferably aren't written by tigers, our articles about communists preferably aren't written by communists, and our articles about X-advocacy preferabl aren't written by X-advocates. Such advocates need to recuse themselves under WP:COI and either try to "write for the enemy" or else choose another field of interest, and work on the Tiger page, or something. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I tried to fix it -- I usually try to stay away from this type of thing because of all the vitriol, but this was a particularly shameless violation of WP:NOTBLOG, WP:COI, WP:TIGERS and what have you. What little encyclopedicity there is should be distributed between Gender neutrality in Spanish and Portuguese, Hispanic and Latino American politics in the United States and (lexicon entry) wikt:Latinx. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It's also an example of how Wikipedia:Education program was a terrible idea. It's only terrible because it is being abused by culture warriors. It would be great if it was done by honest people: If you want to get students to write encyclopedia articles, let them research some technical, objective topic like Sedum dasyphyllum. Let them learn how to research properly and summarize their findings in terse, well-referenced format. But by no means should you treat your students as soldiers in the culture war and use them to spam random ideological drivel. You are damaging both Wikipedia and your students and generally just show everyone you are too ideologized to be useful to the project.

It is my firm belief that nobody who cannot be bothered to spend a few hours of honest work to improve the Sedum dasyphyllum page has no business to be anywhere near the edit button for controversial or political topics. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Something like this would make a good essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, despite it's PoV-pushing origin, it appears to be an encyclopedic topic, like Singular they, and is well-sourced enough that it'll survive AfD. It's our "job" to report on things we disagree with as well as agree with. The work is going to be in keeping this neutral and descriptive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Dbachmann, it seems like Shenme and/or you have taken care of the activism of WikiEd or other non-neutral advocates mentioned at the top, so thanks to both of you for that. (I also spend time watching over and adjusting student edits where and when I'm able, and for some of the same reasons.) However, non-neutral and pov-pushing edits in other articles doesn't equate to whether an article here about such a topic is valid, and I believe that this is a valid topic for a standalone article. If the following is tl;dr, then just see WP:SUBPOV.

As far as the concerns you mentioned: I think we can dispense with worries about recency: the word (and sources) have been around for fifteen years. As for Advocacy, the concept itself might be (and the links that were repaired certainly were), but the topic may also just be a normal development of language. But whatever it is, as editors here we don't get to make that call, of course, and as long as the article is written neutrally, it's okay. We merely check to see if it meets WP:GNG (by a mile) and report what's going on in reliable sources, as I'm sure you would agree.

As far as your suggestion to redistribute the content to Gender neutrality in Spanish or Hispanic and Latino American politics in the United States (or even Hispanic–Latino naming dispute) that's certainly a valid question to ask, per WP:OVERLAP and WP:PAGEDECIDE. But I believe the article easily meets those concerns as well. Among other things, the concept has an article devoted to it in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and I've just begun to expand the article here based on it. (I'll be away for a bit, but expect to expand the article considerably, based on the SEP article.) There are also numerous other reliable sources available covering the topic. Sufficiently so, that the article may double or triple in size with solid content, exclusive of any trivia. Given that that's the case, I believe it would be better for the topic to have its own article, as it would be unduly long to include it now (and especially, after expansion) at Latino or one of the other proposed merge targets.

Finally, if written properly, this article is not a WP:POVFORK, but rather an acceptable type of forking. Imho, it should be considered a child article as a valid spinoff of Latino in summary style. Or, if you prefer to view the topic itself as propagandistic SJW self-promotion or bombast as you seem to do, it still meets permitted forks per Articles whose subject is a POV. So given notability, numerous independent, high-quality sources and voluminous content available, and permitted forking, I think the article has every reason to stay as a standalone article. Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversy section

This article will need a section discussion the controversy surrounding the term, general consensus among detractors of Latino origin is that it's perceived as offensive or erasure of their cultures. The controversy is about as notable as the term itself. See "The case against 'Latinx'" by Daniel Harnandez, Los Angeles Times or "The X-ing of Language: The Case AGAINST ‘Latinx’" by Hector Luis Alamo for Latino Rebels . Rmkar9 (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Why is this marked as resolved (done) if there still isn't a section on controversy? It deserves one. 24.187.209.35 (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

IP editor 2a01:cb04:a87:6000:3194:538f:475a:f6d7, per this edit,[1], it is very hard to tell which user you are and keep track of the conversation if you randomly insert your comments throughout the page. Normally I would just revert additions like this, but I think your concerns are valid. However, there are good reasons for it being against Wikipedia policy to edit other users' talk page comments and insert your own amidst them. Even if you are one of those users logged out, it confuses other readers. I am asking you to self-revert and put your comments down here, as a new post, at the bottom of the page, so we can work on this constructively. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing the "resolved" flag because that tends to shut down ongoing discussion and collaboration, and it's clear some don't think this was resolved. There doesn't need to be a separate section named "criticism" or "controversy" for the critical views to be included. Looking over this, the criticisms are incorporated throughout, from the lede on in, which is actually preferred last I looked at the WP:MOS. "Reception" is also just an NPOV name for a criticism or controversy section. I think the controversy is adequately covered, but if folks want to add more sources and coverage about this, that's always on the table. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rmkar9, CorbieVreccan, Pawn0 o, and SMcCandlish:, I've done a major re-org and upgrade; Criticism is now a subsection of the #Reactions section. Please have another look, and let me know. Btw, Rmkar9, those were all good refs which were incorporated into the article, before I got here. Corbie, what's a "resolved" flag? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's this template: {{Resolved|Done}} , which I removed. Though, clearly, the main person wanting to further discuss it was the disruptive sock. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see the changes look great, Mathglot. Thanks for doing this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

July 2018

Latin Americans frown upon usage of latinx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawn0 o (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pawn0 o: These aren't mutually exclusive categories. Last I looked there are college/university students in Latin America – and the practice arose there. No doubt that there are native speakers of Spanish who strenuously object to the practice; we just need reliable sources about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have not seen a single reference to the term "Latinx" in a publication from a Spanish-speaking country on this wikipage !!! This whole discussion smacks of typical pc & SJW speech from hypersensitive US college kids whose fragile minds need to be protected from the sexist, patriarchal horrors of Spanish grammar (and that of Portuguese, French, Italian, Hebrew, Arabic etc. no doubt). Go figure!

Who came out or invented the term Latinx?! As I see it is from some one that discriminates against Latin people. The word Latino and Latina are Spanish words for male and female Latin in English. The term Latin is not only related to the Spanish speaking people, but also to those people whose main language derives from the romance language AlverichA (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I can help you out, AlverichA. First of all, the words "Latino" and "Latina" both originated in Italy. Latino people were a tribe of Italians who settled in Latium (modern-day Lazio, Rome, Italy) in 1200 BC. They called themselves "Latino" (masculine), "Latina" (feminine), "Latini" (masculine plural) and "Latine" (feminine plural). The Latino people were the most enterprising people in the area. They created the alfabeto latino (Latin Alphabet) and spoke their language Latino (Latin) a.k.a: la lingua Latina (the Latin language). The words "Latino", "Latina", "Latini" and 'Latine" are still used in modern-day Italy to refer to Italians and the people of other Latin European countries such as Spain, France, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Malta, Corsica, Monaco, etc. The languages of these people are all derived from Latino (Latin). They are known as the Italic languages, the Romance languages, and the Latin languages.

During the Roman Empire, la lingua Latina (the Latin language), and the alfabeto Latino, which is also known as the alfabeto Romano (the Roman Alphabet), swept through Europe. Thus, giving birth to most modern-day European languages. It is the alphabet now used worldwide. The language Latino (Latin) is used in courts of law (e.g.: In Italy, both Italiano (Italian) and Latino (Latin) are used, and in the United States both English and Latin (Latino) are used. When the Latins of Europe arrived in America 500 years ago, a mix of cultures of the Latins and Native Americans occurred. The term "latinoamerica" ("Latin America") was supported by Napoleon III in the late 19th century, in part, showing differentiation to the Anglo-Saxon colonists' term "Anglo-America".

     In the late 19th century, it was the French emperor Napoleon III who supported the idea of the term "latinoamerica" ("Latin America"), which would stress the historic, linguistic links  between France and Spanish-speaking America to justify the continued French presence in the Western hemisphere. Especially, since the US had just proclaimed the so-called 'Monroe doctrine' to keep European meddling out of the Americas.

In 1997, the United States adopted the term "Latino" as a shortened form of "latinoamericano" for its census. Hence, causing a lot of confusion in the United States because we people in Latin Europe and those who live in Latin America maintain the Italian meanings of the words "Latino" and "Latina". My goodness, 2,000 years ago the Jews brought Christ to Rome and demanded he be crucified on la croce Latina (the Latin Cross). It was rather rash (and quite comical) that the United States adopted Italian words soley for a Latin American emigré who lives in the United States.

Anyway, I don't know why the transgender people in the United States are using the terms "Latinx", "Latin@", and the Italian feminine plural and French feminine gender "Latine". It seems they don't know that in Latino (Latin) there are not only masculine and feminine genders ("Latino" and "Latina"), but also a neuter (genderless) noun "Latinum". While modern-day Romance language-speaking countries such as Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, etc do not use "Latinum" in their respective modern languages, I've heard that the transgender people in Latin Europe are using it as it's a very old and genderless Latino/Romano term. Hope this helps. GiannaZarelli (talk) 14:11, 5 May, 2019 (UTC)

Lede edits, August 2019

@GiannaZarelli:, please follow policy and seek discussion and consensus. We don't need all that extra wordiness. The concise version is fine. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

CorbieV, my edits were fine. I made it clear that the French word "Latine" ("Latin woman") is the feminine singular cognate of the masculine singular "Latin" ("Latin man"). The feminine plural in French is "Latines" ("Latin women") while the masculine plural is "Latins" ("Latin men"). The French do not use the word "Latina".

Italians do use the word "Latina". (Italians invented it!) In Italain, "Latina" ("Latin woman") is the feminine singular, "Latino" ("Latin man") is the masculine singular, "Latine" ("Latin women") is the feminine plural, and "Latini" ("Latin men") is the masculine plural.

The way you've garbled my edit makes it easy for Wikipedia users to misconstrue the usage of the Italian and French cognates. Your revision to my edit misleads Wikipedians into believing that the French use the word "Latina". They don't! I'm going to repair the damage done to my Wikipedia contribution as it's a corruption of the truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaZarelli (talk • contribs)

I've moved most of that content from the lede to the section that covers that topic. The lede should be a quick summary of the content found in the article, but that paragraph as it stood was a bit too detailed and even had novel content not found in the section. Feel free to look over my edits to make sure everything is clear and accurate. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The added information was inappropriate to the lead. Gianna, please see MOS:LEADNO about the level of detail appropriate to the lead, and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY about the sequence of editing which may lead to changes to the lead. Corbie's and Aeusoes1's changes look good to me, for the reasons stated in the edit summaries, and here on the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't at all inappropriate, Mathglot. Evidently, CorbieV and Aeusoes1 have obtained information from me that they were previously ignorant to, and have reused it in their own ways. Certain types are too fragile to admit when they're wrong and that they've learned something new from another Wikipedia editor. I know I always admit an error and thank other editors for teaching me something new. Not mentioning Wikipedia editor's names, but a certain three people come to mind who just don't follow this common courtesy. GiannaZarelli (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we are appreciative of the new information. It's important to work with other editors in a civil and constructive fashion so that new information is added in the best way. This includes edit summaries and civil talk page behavior. We are all here to work together. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to do the rewrite, Aeusoes1. Big improvement. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course! Always happy to help. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up the mess that some Wikipedia editor (whose Wikipedia user name will not be mentioned here) made of the article by erroneously entering "Latina" as a French word. (Even after I had taken the time to leave a message here, translating the Italian and French cognates into English.) Seemingly, many non-Latino people, who come across as possessive know-it-alls, just can't grasp genders, singulars and plurals in the Romance languages. I will say that you are one of the only nice and friendly natured Wikipedia editors I've met here. Buona sera, Aeusoes1 GiannaZarelli (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

That's kind of you to say. Hopefully you will find even more positive interactions at Wikipedia. I can see what you are talking about in regards to Corbie's version. It looks like it was an honest mistake. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Interest in the term spiked in 2018

I find this sentence in section History bizarre: "According to Google Trends, interest in the term spiked in 2018 and again in 2019." What is this sentence even trying to say? That searches went up in 2018, and up more in 2019? I'm not really sure. The word "spiked" is a strange and confusing choice, here. I can see global warming spiking in 2018, or sunspots, or something on a geologic time scale. Something like user searches on Google might spike on a particular day, or a particular hour, but not for a whole year.

Looking at the data supplied, I don't see an increase in 2018 and I'm just not sure what was meant here; I'm inclined to just remove the sentence and the references. User:Absternr, this was originally your wording from this edit on May 4, 2018. Do you recall what your intention was here? Your edit originally referred to 2016, and then an IP editor came along and changed the text, and the graphs, to 2018, possibly invalidating your original assertion and reference. (Turns out, he's an IP-hopping vandal and is permanently blocked; this was his last-ever edit on Wikipedia.) I'm inclined to just remove this now. Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've moved this here for now:

content from History section
According to Google Trends, interest in the term spiked in 2018 and again in 2019. References

Content from #History section moved here for discussion. Mathglot (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I changed the wording to "spiked" because "peaked" suggested a subsequent decline in usage/interest that was not necessarily reflective of reality. The spike in question was in 2016, specifically around June 12-18th in the wake of the Orlando Pulse shooting. Since I added that wording, there have been multiple additional spikes in the search data, so it's definitely become more confusing, and the information about the 2016 spike is included elsewhere in the history section anyway, so unless someone wants to investigate the cause of the later spikes and/or add specific dates I'm fine with deleting the sentence. Absternr (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Absternr: Thank you for your contributions, and for your explanation above as well.. 05:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

IPA

At the risk of making you run away screaming, Nardog, do you feel like looking at the pronunciation guide on this article? If you do, see section #Pronunciation above as well. By the way, “No” (or ignoring this) is a perfectly valid response. At least it’s something different. . Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Not sure what you wanted me to take a look at. Pretty much the only problem I found was the text–source integrity, which AFAIC any competent editor could spot. Is there any point of contention regarding the pronunciation? Nardog (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog:, there may not be any point of contention. It's just a pretty unusual case of a neologism with a pronunciation that runs counter to the phonological (and grammatical) norms of the language (one of them, anyway) which incubated it, and might have been created in written form without regard to any particular pronunciation (as I presumed); even comments by a respected lexicographic source (m-w) speculated about it. I thought you might be interested/intrigued/entertained by this example, as a bit of an outlier. Thanks for your tweaks to the lead sentence. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: What's unusual about it? As far as I can see there's nothing that runs counter to English phonology or grammar. Nardog (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving all the pronunciations out of the lead does look like a better solution. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Latines

The term latine has been added to the #Alternatives section in this edit by User:Marcos, with four sources, but of those four, only one is solidly reliable (Cabal), but it does not mention latine anywhere in it. The following are either not reliable, or they don't support the claims in the article:

• Revista Cabal (2018) – reliable source. This is fine for Todxs, tod@s and todes but it doesn't mention latine.
• Gutierrez – mentions latine 4 times; but this is a freshman op-ed in a student newspaper. Does not meet WP:RS, imho.
• Papadopoulos – is an undergrad student paper, where latine is mentioned once, citing Diz Pico (2017). However, that is an article from Medium, which is an WP:SPS and not reliable. And anyway, the word "Latine" is not in it anywhere.
• Araguaney (2019) – Latine mentioned once (plus a header use). (website MyKidIsGay.com) Website or blog run by an individual? Likely not a RS.

The content about latine needs to have citations to reliable sources which support it. Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've trimmed the self-published blogs from this section. The source by Papadopoulos (2019) seems adequate for non-controversial claims like this; there's no prohibition on using student-authored sources that I know of. I think the Diz Pico reference is for the pronoun elle, not the word Latine. I also think it's fine for Papadopoulos to cite a self-published source; it adds an additional layer of verification. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

MSNBC, in TV text

    That’s the network I noted. We still need an RS, and a broader survey, which I leave to more vigorous colleagues than I.
--JerzyA (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Alternatives" section

Having a section named "Alternatives" implies a need for an alternative. That's definitely POV. The first sentence in the section reads, "Similar gender-neutral forms have also arisen". If there are no other objections, I'll change the heading to Similar terms, a more logical and neutral alternative, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)  Done 23:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Mathglot: No one is disputing the meaning of the word "alternative". The issue is the context in which the word is used. The implication that a choice needs to be made between "alternatives" implies there's something faulty about the term Latinx. That's POV. The text describes "similar" terms, and the heading should reflect that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

See above: "No one is disputing the meaning of the word 'alternative'. The issue is the context in which the word is used." If no one is going to respond to the actual points I made, then I'll restore the more neutral heading "Similar terms". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, since none of the sources describe any of the terms as an alternative to any other, but several (e.g. María R. Scharrón-del Río & Aja, 2015 and Cashman, 2018) do frame them as similar. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Noting the existence of alternatives obviously does not imply the need for an alternative. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

An alternative in this sense implies a choice between mutually exclusive options, which likewise implies there's a reason for choosing one over the other. That's POV. What sources describe them as "alternatives"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it does in the sense you are using, but in my opinion that is a petitio principii if nothing in the article indicates so. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's begging the question; a choice between mutually exclusive options is part of the definition. Therefore someone must be engaged in making such a choice if the word has any meaning. Compare "There is no alternative" – Thatcher wasn't just neutrally commenting, "Oh, too bad there isn't another available option". No, she was making a claim that one option was superior to any other. Obviously we have to avoid any such connotation here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There again, if I understood correctly, you are petitioning the principle that "a choice between mutually exclusive options is part of the definition" of "alternative", when people use alternative terms simultaneously all the time. Thatcher was using the sense that you want to use, I know, but that is not necessary, as alternatives can be of equal value. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, "alternative" implies a choice, which means someone is doing the choosing. It would be presumptuous of us to imply there is any choice to be made. The sources describe "similar" terms, so we do too. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And there's an entire "Criticism" section full of reasons one might prefer one alternative over another, so clearly the article does imply it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Venezuelanx" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Venezuelanx. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User-generated sources

Mexicanspanish.com is a personal blog, and Stack Exchange is a web forum. Both are WP:USERGENERATED sources and not usable relating to any "controversy" over use of the term. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There are more legitimate sources which back up this usage of "es equis". For example: https://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/1686728.de-donde-viene-la-expresion-equis.html –Digbybare (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Digbybare: that source does not mention the term Latinx. Any connection to the topic is therefore WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. I'm just giving a source that supports what the two originally cited sources state. But I would agree that it's not sufficient to support the reverted edit. –Digbybare (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Reception in lead

I've restored the status quo ante lead section wording "Reactions to the term have been mixed", which seems a fair summary of the article as well as being directly supported by NBC News, which in the very first sentence says Latinx "has been both embraced and scorned by Latinos". The Pew Research source doesn't describe any opinions of the term as "negative", and in fact states that only 12% of responses to an open-ended question about the meaning of Latinx expressed "disagreement or dislike". The 2019 ThinkNow poll in which only 2% of respondents self-identified as Latinx didn't ask people to judge or evaluate the term itself. Any conclusions about respondents' views of the term need a reliable, independent source, which excludes press releases or blog posts by the pollster themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For WP:NPOV, it is in fact important to cover in the WP:LEAD what the people said to be described by the term think about it. That NBC News source is just one source of many, and its claim that the reception is "embraced and scorned" does not carry more weight than that of more detailed sources actually analyzing its acceptance. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

And regarding this? We are not going to present it from an angle of having such-and-such usage (and thus implying that maybe people just don't know about it yet) and cover up the fact that sources are clear that most of the people for whom it is for and know of it actively do not want it. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not what NPOV and WP:LEAD say at all. All that matters for NPOV is what reliable sources say, not what people said to be described by the term think. And I'm sorry, but you don't get to personally dictate how we present information.

"Reject" is a highly loaded term that is not used in the article text. The quote from the pollster Carrasco, "98% of Latinos prefer other terms to describe their ethnicity", is not synonymous with "the majority ... reject the term" and is actually more accurately summarized by my phrasing "Surveys ... have found that only 2 to 3 percent use the term to describe themselves". Where do either Fortune or Pew Research explicitly say the majority of Hispanic and Latino Americans reject or do not want the term? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC) (edited 21:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

Neither do you get to personally dictate anything. Yes, NPOV is based on what the sources say, and the sources are clear about how most Hispanic Americans feel about this term. Your version doesn't relay that most of those who know about it have chosen not to use (i.e. rejected) it. 98% of Latinos prefer other terms to describe their ethnicity. [2] A majority (61%) say they prefer Hispanic to describe the Hispanic or Latino population in the U.S., and 29% say they prefer Latino. Meanwhile, just 4% say they prefer Latinx to describe the Hispanic or Latino population. [3] Crossroads ^-talk- 20:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those is equivalent to "the majority reject the term", full stop. The first is only about self-identification, and the second source directly says that only 12% who were aware of Latinx expressed "disagreement or dislike" of the term. Most respondents in the Pew survey were not aware of Latinx. It's therefore highly misleading to say the majority of Latinos reject, refuse, renounce, eschew, decline, disapprove, spurn, repudiate, etc., since that implies familiarity with the term already, and most of those who know about it are not even the majority of Hispanic and Latino Americans. The usage itself is the most thoroughly sourced. The more detailed info about familiarity, dislike etc. would overbalance the lead section and is better handled in the body of the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

In any case, it now says Surveys of Hispanic and Latino Americans have found that most prefer other terms such as Hispanic and Latina/Latino to describe themselves, and that only 2 to 3 percent use Latinx, and I am fine with that as accurately expressing the matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the "prefer" aspect is due in the lead as each source emphasizes that aspect just as much or more than the exact number who do use it. Stating just how many use it omits that there is a preference against the term - we can't make it seem like everyone else may just be unaware of it or something like that, when the sources are very clear otherwise. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I do hope the latest changes to the body's "Reception" section will not be a prelude to arguing that it is unbalanced towards negative viewpoints. Of course those who are commenting on the use of the word without using it themselves will largely be negative towards it. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE is a matter of using the best sources, not whether the material is positive or negative. Not sure about the logic of your last statement, but that's not for us to determine anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It is true that the reaction has been mixed. This also appears accurate: "Surveys of Hispanic and Latino Americans have found that most prefer other terms such as Hispanic and Latina/Latino to describe themselves, and that only 2 to 3 percent use Latinx", without wading into any form of pro or con activism on our part. The article body itself can get into more exact breakdown, such as how many have heard of the term and how many of those in particular are supportive of it. What the reader cares about in the lead is whether this term is becoming the new normal and supplanting "Hispanic", which is it clearly is not (yet?). PS: There was also recently debate at this term at WT:MOS, involving at least one of the same parties. This talk page is not a forum, nor is it a venue for forum-shopping. It exists solely for editorial collaboration and consensus-building toward the improvement of this specific article. Let's be mindful of that, and not rehash philosophical debates or personal viewpoints about this term.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Weasel words

Per WP:WEASEL, "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source" may use expressions such as "some people say" and the like. None of these expressions in the article are attributed; there's no way for the reader to know whether it's the view of reliable sources or Wikipedia editors that "Supporters say X", for example. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, regarding this, we've been building towards a better version. Whatever technicality you think you have on me seems very dubious. Fixing issues or simply editing is not reverting. For example, what would you even want me to do with this edit? One of the things you tagged as a problem I removed (it failed verification), so that seems like a problem solved, and the other I added a source for. Self-reverting all that hardly makes sense.

And you are misunderstanding WP:WEASEL. It states, The examples above are not automatically weasel words....Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. The "Who?" template is not for putting up against every phrase that does not name individuals. If the source simply states "some", how are we supposed to fix that? Why would we list all the "supporters" of the term who say it helps with acceptance of non-binary people? Crossroads ^-talk- 03:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(Previous was written at the same time as the comment above and later combined under one heading.) So you'd rather add "According to the Huffington Post...", "According to Fuller and Leeman...", and so on? Your argument implies that any statement in WP:WIKIVOICE is improper, which goes beyond WP:WEASEL. We can make such statements in wikivoice as long as they match the sources, same as for many other statements. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the conditions for such expressions not "automatically" being weasel words is that they be "properly attributed". It's my understanding that "attributed" in this context refers to in-text attribution. How are any of these statements attributed?

There's no great mystery here; the way to fix weasel words is to (1) supply the attribution to the published source making the claim, or (2) specify exactly who is meant by "some people", etc. In your edit, you removed the tag without doing either of those things. The result is that there's no way for the reader to know how much weight the views of "supporters" actually have. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

When a source says "some say", or when that is a valid summarization of what the source says, then it is fine to say "some say". The concept of WP:WEASEL doesn't attach to *the word* some, it attaches to the intent of a user too lazy to figure out what the sources are really saying, so they lazily add "some" when they ought to specify individuals, or Majority/minority, or percentages, or whatever makes sense in the given situation. When sources say, or imply, "some", then so do we. When you want to make clear that this is *not* a weasel word, you can do something like this: "And since {{as written|some|reason='Some' is from the source.}} men are mortal...". Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The concept of WP:WEASEL doesn't attach to *the word* some – the subtitle of the page is Words to watch. Just saying. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If what we have is "some" from the source, then the solution is to attribute to that souce: "According to [publication name] in [year], some [whatever] [verb] [result]." We'll likely get more specific information over time, from more specific sources. While the source remain vague, we have little choice but to do so as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Gender inclusivity

@Mathglot: I'm a bit mystified by this edit. Per the OED, Latinx has been adopted "by Latin American people who do not identify themselves as either male or female".[4] Merriam-Webster says in the very first sentence, "Latinx was originally formed ... as a word for those of Latin American descent who do not identify as being of the male or female gender or who simply don't want to be identified by gender."[5] I tried to incorporate the meaning of both sources without simply plaigarizing them. How else should we explain the meaning of "gender inclusivity" for readers? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

All of your statements are correct statements (afaik) regarding Latinx; but not regarding gender inclusivity, which also includes, for example straight cis males, and lesbian cis females, as well as others. Mathglot (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Still confused. You seem to be working backwards from a generalized definition of "inclusivity" rather than from the sources themselves. Where do either of the sources define gender inclusivity this way or say anything about straight cis males etc.? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We're going to need more and better sources, and pay attention to when they were published. From what I can determine (digging through ADS-L, etc.), the word originated for TG/NB people, but has since broadened very widely in usage, filling the same kind of "he/she" role as "Latin@" and "Latino/a" before it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That seems to reflect Merriam-Webster saying Latinx has been "especially embraced by ... people of Latin descent possessing a gender identity outside the male/female binary ... those who identify as trans, queer, or nonbinary use it to express their identity ... it is gaining noticeable traction among the general public as a gender-inclusive term for Latin Americans of diverse identities".[6] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on the above, we could say something like "Latinx is used by and for Latinos who do not identify as either male or female, or more broadly as a gender-neutral term for anyone of Latin-American descent". If there are no objections, I'll add this to the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I think your formulation is pretty good, because the first half of it (up to the comma) is where it started out, and the second half ("more broadly..") is where it seems to be going, as anecdotally, I have the impresion that there's an "ally effect" that is broadening its applicability beyond nb Latinos. But that does feel anecdotal, at least where I sit, and I agree with SMcCandlish about needing more and better sources. But I think it's a good start; go for it, and keep your eyes open for more sources. Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Carrasco quote

The part of Carrasco's blog post that Fortune quoted says, "Only 2% of our respondents said the label accurately describes them, making it the least popular ethnic label among Latinos". The phrase "dead last" does not add any information to this statement, and the author McGirt does not explain it any further. Let's leave this loaded, POV wording out of the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yglesias – Vox

The term Latinx is only one of several topics analyzed in this source from Vox, and isn't mentioned until halfway through the article. Sources should generally focus on the topic at hand. This source is written as an opinion piece filled out with tweets and soundbites, such as from politicians like Ruben Gallego. This is not the same as careful scholarly analysis. Whether the commenters themselves are "Hispanic" is beside the point. Overall, the source epitomizes recent events that may be in the news yet disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Cherry-picking bits and pieces from a guideline to expunge whatever one personally doesn't like is not how NPOV is achieved. Including analysis in RS to show societal and political views is normal practice, as borne out by WP:BIASEDSOURCES, for example, and seen in numerous articles about social topics. HaeB was right to revert your removal; as they said, it is an "in-depth analysis in a RS with views by two notable hispanic commenters". Yes, it is quite ironic to see someone try to remove WP:Due Latino perspectives in an article about a term meant to describe Latinos. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:AGF. My point is that the material is not duly weighted, because it does not represent a "significant" viewpoint. A "significant" viewpoint would, in fact, be published in more than a single opinion piece. Yglesias is not a social theorist, political scientist, or linguist like, say, John McWhorter, and a few brief paragraphs plus a quote by a politician is not "in-depth analysis". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see you raising any complaints about "HuffPost states that it promotes greater acceptance of non-binary gender Latinos", even though the piece's authors are not even notable like Yglesias is, let alone "social theorist[s], political scientist[s], or linguist[s]". The Vox article is from a green source at WP:RSP and is clearly not what WP:RSCONTEXT calls a "passing mention", so it is plenty deep of an analysis. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning HuffPost. That is another weak source that should probably be removed. Matthew Yglesias is an editor at Vox, making this piece the equivalent of an editorial or opinion piece. It also deals with extrememly recent events; the US presidential election is breaking news, and commentators of all political persuasions will seek to put their own spin on it. But Wikipedia is not a news aggregator site. If more scholarly sources comment on the use of Latinx by Democratic-Party politicians, then I think it could be worth a mention. I don't see any reason to consider either Yglesias' or Gallego's opinions particularly noteworthy here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is a source listed green at RSP, being used in accord with WP:RSOPINION and WP:BIASEDSOURCES. WP:NOTNEWS: "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage". Just another instance of reading guidelines in a very peculiar way. Feel free to head over to Reactions to the George Floyd protests and apply your standards, and see how far you get. I see that Kingofthedead also agrees with me and HaeB that Gallego's advice to Democrats should be included, but they apparently didn't notice it was already included as part of a secondary source (Vox). Also, I don't intend to argue this in circles forever. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by a count of heads. You also left out the next sentence from WP:NOTNEWS: "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Peculiar indeed. WP:RSOPINION and WP:BIASEDSOURCES don't outweigh the need to avoid undue weight. The George Floyd article is beside the point; I have given several policy-based reasons why this material is unduly weighted. Here's another one: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for political hand-wringing over the Democrats' Latino oureach strategy. I don't intend to argue this in circles forever; the onus is on you to obtain consensus for inclusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is certainly not determined by Sangdeboeuf's assent. We've had this argument about the nature of consensus before, as you know. As then, here you trot out WP:NHC to say that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that you alone are correctly using the policies and guidelines. Other editors have likewise relied on policies and guidelines (especially WP:NPOV/WP:DUE), and their consensus is against you. That is how it works when one actually reads WP:NHC: If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. Really, it is quite obvious that you are grasping at straws to find any reason not to include this material that is negative about the term Latinx. That is WP:Tendentious and in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY, and itself a form of WP:RGW about the term. WP:Drop the stick. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 01:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, in the discussion below this one you are fighting to exclude a different source; yet the source being discussed here meets all three of the criticisms you levy there. This material is (1) by a notable author (Matthew Yglesias), (2) in a notable, nationwide source (Vox), and (3) has a good reputation for reliability (is green at WP:RSP). In other words, even when the source satisfies those complaints, you still contrive reasons not to include it. If @*Treker: wanted that material I am sure they would consider this material to be WP:Due. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself. Yglesias is notable as a journalist and editor, not as a linguist, social theorist, or political scientist. His opinion carries little weight compared to other sources cited in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:IDHT. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mail Tribune

I seriously doubt the Mail Tribune is "well known" beyond its city of publication. I live in Oregon and this is the first time I've ever heard of it. Beyond that, any source being well known is not itself a reason to include it; the Daily Mail is certainly well known, but we specifically avoid using it as a source. I don't see any sign that the author of this piece meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, so what makes their opinion noteworthy? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I happen to think Laz Ayala makes a persuasive case, and I agree with most of her points. In my opinion, use of the term Latinx is an example of cultural chauvinism. However, I agree that her essay in the Mail Tribune should not be in the body of this article. The "Further Reading" section is a suitable place for it. Carlstak (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Pew Research Center

Having followed the sourcing and conflicts on this article for months, I think a survey covering the reactions of the people the word is intended to describe belongs in the lede. This is a more solid source than any of the opinion pieces. However, the opinion pieces are also relevant in the body of the article as they document the reactions, debate and controversy around the neologism. The article body as a whole contains sufficient mention of the negative reactions of Latin Americans for this data to be in the lede, so I have reinstated it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment, and I agree. Pew Research findings are certainly more reliable and noteworthy than some writer's offhand comment for NBC News. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No such qualms about some writer's offhand comment for Vox, though? Once again, the Pew Research source does not say reactions among Latinos have been "mostly negative". The source states that only 12% of respondents who had heard of Latinx expressed "disagreement or dislike" of the term. We can't generalize a preference for other terms by 65% of one-quarter of US Latinos as a "negative" reaction or "outright opposition" by "those it is intended to describe". We've discussed this already under § Reception in lead above. The lead already makes clear that Surveys of Hispanic and Latino Americans have found that most prefer other terms such as Hispanic and Latina/Latino to describe themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Stop revert-warring. The text is practically a direct quote, which is why I included the quote in the citation. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Amen. And, Sangdeboeuf, I'm not the one acting like news media commentary is more lead-worthy than Pew Research results. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The NBC News piece is not "commentary"; it's a synthesis of a range of expert opinions, including Pew's Mark Hugo Lopez, from a reliable, secondary source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

So conveniently, the media is now a "reliable, secondary source", and you've dropped the requirement that the source be a "linguist, social theorist, or political scientist". [7] Crossroads ^-talk- 22:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said sources had to be linguists, social theorists, or political scientists, let alone in the link you provided. I said we shouldn't use opinions from media commentators who weren't linguists, social theorists, or political scientists, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RSEDITORIAL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Like when a media commentator says the reaction is "mixed"? [8] Crossroads ^-talk- 22:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the NBC News piece seems like an edge case. It is not labeled "commentary" or "opinion", as is usually the case with opinion pieces. It mostly reports the opinions of others, including notable experts. "Mixed" is a fair summary of those opinions. However, the author is described as "a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors", which is unusual for straight news. The author's MuckRack page describes him as "NBCNews.com Contributor, CNN Opinion columnist". Maybe NBC is starting to go the way of Vox and mixing news with opinion and analysis. This might be a good topic for WP:RS/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pew does not say anything about a "negative" reaction among most US Latinos; that's just your own interpretation. The phrase "outright oppose" is highly POV (what's "outright" about it?). The part of the source that reads When asked in an open-ended question what Latinx means in their own words, 42% of those who have heard the term describe it as a gender-neutral one ... 12% of respondents who had heard of Latinx express disagreement or dislike suggests the opposite. The data in the Pew survey is also irrelevant to any opinion pieces expressing a negative reaction to the term. Implying otherwise in the article would be WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Right here is where they found that 65% who know of the term say it should not be used: [9] Crossroads ^-talk- 21:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"Should not be used" is not equivalent to "negative reaction" or "outright opposition". We already state the former; the latter is POV, loaded language. Those "who know of the term" were a minority of survey respondents; they cannot represent those whom the term is "intended to describe". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC) ("Should not be used" in this case refers to describing the Hispanic or Latino population; see below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC))

See this diff. The "mostly negative" is a true summary, but I dropped it. It makes no sense to act like the people who have heard of the term are somehow not representative of what the rest would think, by the way; we'll hold to the source as always, but still. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to do that, because the alternative would be original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The wording added at 22:04, 26 November is a definite improvement, but the question remains whether a single survey is WP:UNDUE in the lead. As discussed under § Reception in lead above, these kinds of data are better covered in the body, with the lead section focusing on a more general summary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

A more general summary like "reactions have been mostly negative"? Or is this going to be another session of arguing endlessly whatever is convenient to keep out material based on POV? The reaction of the people whom the term is intended to describe is WP:DUE by any reasonable definition. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

A more general summary doesn't mean original research. 23% of US Latinos don't represent the people "whom the term is intended to describe". It's simple math. Pew Research is also not an independent source for the results of their own survey. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The comment at the start of this thread saying the opinion pieces are also relevant in the body of the article as they document the reactions, debate and controversy ... [the article] contains sufficient mention of the negative reactions of Latin Americans for this data to be in the lede is a clear indicator of WP:SYNTH. The data have nothing to do with any opinion pieces, positive or negative. On that basis, the Pew survey results should not have been added to the lead at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not SYNTH at all. It's in accord with how the WP:LEAD is to be a summary of its most important contents, and the Pew survey is important because most Latinos who know of the term don't like it (and it's silly to imagine that 23% who have heard of it are not representative of the rest if they heard of it). I'm done addressing these obviously contrived and tendentious arguments. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You're free to think WP:STICKTOSOURCE is "silly". I do not. Per the source, 12% of respondents who had heard of Latinx express disagreement or dislike of the term. Tendentious indeed. Per WP:LEAD, importance of contents is determined by their salience in published, reliable sources, not whether we personally think a fact is important or noteworthy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"Dislike" is different from "don't like". Crossroads ^-talk- 03:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Debatable. However, "don't like" is different from "should not be used to describe the Hispanic or Latino population". Respondents may "like" it just fine for other uses. We've essentially been over this under § Reception in lead, vis-a-vis the word "reject". And the source's own caption is phrased differently: One-third who have heard of the term Latinx say it should be used to describe the U.S. Hispanic or Latino population. By emphasizing the two-thirds who say it should not, we are arguably placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on that aspect. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no, inexplicably fixating on the minority view is UNDUE, pretty much by definition. And seizing on the "should" in isolation from the questions about preference in comparison to other terms would be confusing at best and a lie by omission at worst, as it implies a preference for the term that absolutely does not exist. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hardly inexplicable. The Pew Research source itself makes clear that some Hispanics say Latinx should be used – not once, but twice. The two-thirds who disagree aren't mentioned in the text at all. Perhaps we should let the authors know that their own source is wrong? As far as I'm aware, WP:DUE means proportionately representing the contents of sources that actually exist, not the ones we think should exist. When we summarize the results of opinion polls, we don't default to emphasizing the majority opinion; we simply summarize what the source itself says. The preference for other terms is already explained in the lead section, so we wouldn't be omitting anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

More contrived rules and hair-splitting made up to serve your POV. Source text and source graphic have equal standing, obviously. I am done wasting time arguing with you. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hardly contrived. Per WP:DUE, articles must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant". I agree that we should give text and graphics from the same source equal weight. If we add both together, the 23% of survey respondents who think Latinx should be used are mentioned three times (four times if we include the caption above the graph), while the two-thirds who disagree are only mentioned once. The source clearly places more weight on the former; so should we. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC) (edited 05:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC))

When it talks about "reliable sourceS", that obviously means across multiple sources, not "count up the phrasings in a single source and INSIST on using the one that appears more times regardless of any other consideration" or "read special meaning into which half of a survey question was used in the text regardless of context". And you are of course misusing the "general public" bit you are emphasizing; that obviously has nothing to do with sources where the whole point is what the general public says. But anyway, Belevalo, CorbieVreccan, and myself clearly prefer this version and for the sensible policy based reasons above. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is not decided by majority, and saying your reasons are "sensible" and "policy-based" does not mean policies actually support them. Obviously the contents of a single source are included in sources, plural. There isn't a separate NPOV policy for dealing with just a single source. The prominence of each viewpoint absolutely has to do with how many times something is mentioned. That's what "prominence" means. Of course we "read special meaning" into which views are emphasized in the text; that's the entire point of due weight. For a source "where the whole point is what the general public says", the authors are curiously silent about the 65% who don't favor Latinx. What "other consideration" or "context" am I missing? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What you're saying about NPOV completely sidesteps the point I made and misrepresents me. And again, you hold no monopoly on intepreting policy. The "other considerations" has already been explained in this section, and why consensus not being a headcount does not mean you can unilaterally disregard everyone else's views was addressed in the Yglesias section. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not disregarding anything; I am giving reasons why policy supports my position more than others. I certainly do not mean to misrepresent you. But the idea that we should ignore the relative prominence of viewpoints within a single source is not based on any interpretation of NPOV I've ever come across. It seems to be an absurdly literal reading of the text of that sentence while ignoring the spirit. If I have misunderstood, kindly elaborate. What do the "other considerations" already mentioned have to do with giving due weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the source? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)