Jump to content

Talk:Gringo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RFC: "Gringo" as a slur

[edit]

How should the lead be written? (extending (CC) Tbhotch™ 06:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)) (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problems have continued since that date and no discussions about the changes have occurred. There were discussions above about whether the word is offensive or not at #Apologetics. It is offensive in English for English speakers;[1] it is not offensive in Spanish for Spanish speakers. Solved.

The problem is still the long-term edit wars that end up with the page extended-protected every time. In my view, the original lead was, well, simple and neutral. The following sentence developed on this: "It especially refers to people from the United States and other English-speaking countries. It is sometimes used pejoratively by Spanish speakers and in English it can carry negative connotations" rather than the current version that is incorrect: "In Latin America, it is generally used to refer to non-Latin Americans"; this is a generalization that is incorrect. Gringo in Uruguay means "Russian" or "English"; in Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru it means "caucasian", and in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Perú, Uruguay and Venezuela it means "American (i.e., from the US)". Non-Latin American people like those from Africa and Asia are not referred to as "Gringos". Because of these phrases, there should be some sort of consensus to rewrite the lead to a neutral one without giving undue weight to either position. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Usually offensive (Summoned by bot) I have two, superficially contradictory reactions to this RfC. Firstly sources seem clear that in English usage, (and this is English WP), the term is at least 'distancing' and "usually offensive" (as indeed, to a greater or lesser degree, are most colloquial 'racial' terms in modern English, from the fairly innocuous Yank, Kraut or Brit via Paddy, Taffy, Jock through to to the more offensive Paki, Chink, Yid and the grand-daddy of ethnic slurs, the 'N'word). But, "This word is usually considered offensive." - according to Cambridge or "often disparaging" according to M-Webster is not quite the same as being 'a slur', a term whose whole purpose is to be derogatory. Nor is the word SO offensive that this needs to be put in 'pole position', its offensiveness can wait till after defining meaning and usage, as is done by Cambridge. Therefore my reaction is somewhere between the two positions outlined here. The pre-existing text seems to be 'bending over backwards' to record that usage can be innocent, and that those taking offence might be misunderstanding usage, whereas recent change feels a bit like a hammer being used to crack a nut. The term is used informally by Hispanics to denote various degrees of 'otherness' and that is "usually offensive" to those thus described. Nobody likes to be "othered". Pincrete (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, this is English Language Wiki, and the English dictionaries describe it as derogatory and usually offensive, that is cut and dry. Even Spanish language ones note this. I think the real issue here is the insistence of users from Brasil who don't agree with the use of the word slur and have repeatedly vandalised the page by removing cited information, sometimes with offensive language, albeit in Portugese. I suspect the word slur may seem like some massive cultural taboo, which it is at times, but the word has a range of meaning and is the correct one to describe Gringo. Even if a word is often used simply used as a diminutive and occasionally in an offensive way, it is still a slur. If there is a great variety in regional usage then I suggest adding cited material to the article for its improvement. I have written above abut the word's normalisation, consistent treatment (similar terms like Gweilo from Asian are labelled slurs with no fuss), and the best way to determine offensiveness... all relevant to this ongoing (since at east 2011 from the looks of it) conversation. On a separate topic, for user user:Tbhotch to suggest I'm 'warring with Latin America' is an off topic NPA attempt to discredit me via belittling Quixotic absurdity. This avoids the persistent vandalism of this page and the need to slow it down. Additionally, Tbhotch this is looking like WP:HOUND as this is not the first time you've followed my edits is it? This is because of the edits I made to 'your' Women_Who_Fight_Roundabout page and that I felt it should be merged? I think, dust yourself off and accept the fact that editors will make suggestions, corrections and improvements to pages you've created without it being a personal grudge match. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to what's really relevant here is that you even admit the term is "usually offensive" not totally offensive. Wikipedia doesn't engage in disputes, Wikipedia describes them. If multiple English sources call the term "usually offensive" then the introduction has to reflect it as such. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, I believe some anonymous people (who mainly are from Brasilian IP addresses) editing this page take great umbrage at the use of a term (slur) that they do not fully understand, and are forcing their personal understanding WP:OR onto this page. All definitions in English note a level of disparagement, thus my edit that you highlighted and my defense of this word's cited meaning on English Wikipedia. Again, cut and dry. I would recommend having a look at the Pejorative page which slur redirects too, or the dictionary definition: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo. More simply put: a slur is a put down to a range of degrees of offensiveness. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got invited to weigh in, so here goes:
Cite authoritative sources: Why not duke this out academically by citing authoritative sources? - Aboudaqn (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually inoffensive is my vote meantime and answering within my own limited personal experience, citing the source as my Spanish-descended, Spanish-speaking, American grandfather in California, who enjoyed saying "gringo" with light irony, since he was as proud of his Spanish heritage as other lines of descent - Aboudaqn (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on sources now attached to the article, the lead should call the word "often disparaging". My second choice is "usually offensive". "Slur" and "pejorative", especially if universal, should not be used in the lead. Some indication of the offensiveness belongs in the lead sentence -- it's a big part of what the word is. It should also say it is colloquial (which it is, regardless of whether it's pejorative). The lead sentence should also say it's used in English as well as Spanish and Portuguese. The fact that there is dispute over whether it is offensive at all should be mentioned further down the lead.
I couldn't really tell if there is a difference in offensiveness when the word is used in Spanish, Portuguese, and English; if there is, then I think the lead sentence should cover only the English usage and another sentence should indicate it's also used in Spanish and Portuguese and how its offensiveness differs in those languages. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aboudaqn: 'Usually inoffensive' isn't supported by the sources; dictionary definitions, and arriving at that conclusion because of a familial experience is anecdotal, not encyclopedic. If we go there... my experience with the word in Mexico is that it describes exclusively White ignorant US born people, almost always tourists. I've heard it shouted at my partner by a vendor who started following us. I see Mexicans hold their tongue when using it if a White person enters the room. And I hear it also as an equivalent to the UK/Irish 'Yank' regarding say government policies. However, that's only Mexico, in Spanish speaking contexts, and me. I don't think there has been a real study of the word in the the English language, but it ain't a compliment. Agree however we need to only "Cite authoritative sources". Moving on... I think User:Giraffedata makes some good suggestions. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Derogatory and usually offensive are accurate and should be included; same goes for slur. This wording is well-cited, and it's not up to us to make up an alternate definition based on anecdotes and personal experience, Aboudaqn and Tbhotch. The whole argument written by the filer here needs a half dozen or more {{Citation needed}} flags. I also disagree with the characterization of Hesperian Nguyen as a lone editor edit-warring with, pretty much, Latin America. I also reverted the non-neutral and WP:FRINGE wording that is being disruptively added by IPs and SPAs before this RfC was even filed, because it is unsubstantiated removal of well-sourced material. AlexEng(TALK) 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:AlexEng: To clarify: Are you saying the lead should include all three of the terms, "derogatory", "usually offensive", and "slur"? If not, you should say which you prefer. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), thanks for requesting clarification. I have no particular preference among these choices, as I consider them functionally synonymous in this context. From my past experience participating in RfCs, the closer usually arrives at a summation of consensus based partly on the number of people agreeing with a particular wording. My intention here is to express support for each of these three in equal measure so that that view is taken into account by the closer. Choosing one could be misinterpreted as rejection of the others, and that is not what I intended. Thanks again for allowing me to explain my view. AlexEng(TALK) 20:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to see us stop discussing editor behavior here. It's not the topic of this RfC, and the goal here is not for someone to win a fight, but to find a consensus among the Wikipedia community for the wording of this lead. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with AlexEng in that the basic definition in the lead should be a summary of what notable English language sources (mainstream dictionaries) define it as. Have just reverted an edit to the lead as we are in the midst of finding consensus. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing several examples of other similar ethnic slang/slur words, I found these examples:
  • The term Yankee and its contracted form Yank have several interrelated meanings, all referring to people from the United States. Its various senses depend on the context, and may refer to New Englanders, residents of the Northern United States, or Americans in general.
  • Guido is a North American ethnic slur or slang term, often derogatory, for a working-class urban Italian-American.
  • Paki is a term typically directed towards people of Pakistani descent mainly in British slang.
Using them as an example, and considering that practically everyone here has agreed with the "usually offensive" phrase, a proposal for the first paragraph could be:
  • Gringo (/ˈɡrɪŋɡoʊ/, Spanish: [ˈɡɾiŋɡo], Portuguese: [ˈɡɾĩɡu]) (masculine), or gringa (feminine), is an ethnic slur in Spanish and Portuguese with multiple meanings depending on region and country. The term is typically directed to foreigners, especially from the United States, and the term is described by academics as usually offensive.
Of course, this is just a draft and the priority of the elements can be developed.
The current second paragraph looks OK. The third paragraph could develop on the usages in Spanish Latin America. The phrase "However, in the United States, its usage and offensiveness [is → are] disputed" can be moved here because the article has a subsection for it and should be explained with what's already present ("In the United States, gringo is often used by Latino Americans to refer to white Americans. It is considered to be a racial slur targeted towards white people but it may also refer to any person that is not Latino"). And the fourth paragraph can be about the Brazilian context. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a slur in English? If we are to describe it that way we need sources saying so, and I haven't seen any. The citation to the Merriam-Webster definition of "slur" looks like a clear case of WP:SYNTH. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does a word have to be used at 100% offensiveness at all times to be a pejorative/slur (using these interchangeably as per their Wikipedia page)? Can a word be sometimes or most of the time a pejorative? The BBC link above clearly acknowledges it is pejorative in Spanish, but not 100% of the time. The other Televisa piece doesn't look great, and is not much more than a compilation of other popular sources, but does include a reputable Spanish dictionary (probably the best for improving 'other uses' sections of the article). This Spanish dictionary site notes Gringo's offensiveness. This article is about Gringo being removed from a show because it may be offensive or pejorative. But, again, this is an English language Wikipedia, so it should reflect the meaning of the word in English primarily. It's not surprising that the area of contact between English and Spanish speakers and likely where the word is heard and used by English speakers is near the US/Mexican border. Sticking to English sources, the word slur is specifically used in this source already mentioned in the article. Pejorative crops up more in searches and is noted in Collins dictionary in that the roots of the word are pejorative. Of course all English dictionaries note its usual offensiveness. I had included the definition of slur because it was my opinion at the time the definition of slur was being unconsciously contested, e.g. Anonymous Brasilian vandalism to the page took offense to this particular word due to its connotation and not its denotation. So I think there are 3 things underlying slur: 1) the meaning of slur, 2) if a word can be a slur some of the time, and 3) if slur (or pejorative?) should be used at all. Clearly, gringo needs to be defined as used in English primarily, and then the 'other uses'. Derogatory and usually offensive are widely supported by strong sources, so there's no issue there. And last, I think the 'other uses' (Brasil, Costa Rica, Argentina, Spain, etc.) really need better sources (maybe RAE one mentioned above) from those countries and some more clarity. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A slur. I am a Slav living in Brazil and have seen the word used both in derogatory and non-derogatory sense. In my opinion it should be accepted as generally being a slur. In my experience, the use in a non-derogatory way only happens in special circumstances: Somebody who is already your friend may say about you: "He is a gringo but he's been living here for years." In my understanding that is like saying "He is one of 'those people' except he became part of the community so we don't want to call him that word anymore." <-- A slur in the general sense. (i) Another reason for the word "gringo" to be considered a slur is I think because of the implicit assumptions that make integration harder. The assumption (in Brazil) seems to be that a gringo is essentially a middle class German or someone with a comparable standard of living, habits, assumptions etc. while many immigrants come from countries that are poor or low-wage, or corrupt, or on the brink of war etc, and then those who don't often have personal non-systemic reason to leave their countries, but to get integrated one needs to get through this extra wall of assumptions imposed on them for looking foreign. (ii) A personal reason for me to dislike the term is the bundling of all foreign people together - in my case, I am assumed to come from one of the nations that in fact subjugated or occupied my actual nation, just because I look foreign, which is somewhat painful. Gargoyle88 (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a slur. "Slur", "pejorative", "derogatory", are all examples of loaded, biased language and of a misguided perspective. The term gringo can simply just mean a foreigner or a non-Latin American. It's a non-offensive colloquialism most of the time. In this sense, it can be compared with Hebrew/Yiddish "goy" (plural "goyim" or "goys") which simply means "non-Jew." The wiki article for Goy goes as follows:

In modern Hebrew and Yiddish goy (/ɡɔɪ/, Hebrew: גוי, regular plural goyim /ˈɡɔɪ.ɪm/, גוים‎ or גויים‎) is a term for a gentile, a non-Jew.[2] Through Yiddish,[3] the word has been adopted into English (often pluralised as goys) also to mean gentile, sometimes with a pejorative sense.[4][5][6]

I think this is the best approach as it combines both views and senses. The lead plainly says it's a term in the general sense (without the "pejorative" or "derogatory" descriptor which taints and demonizes the very use of term, even in an innocent context) but later it also mentions it can sometimes be used in a pejorative sense (which would depend on tone and context). The wiki article for "gringo" should make use of this same approach. Describe it neutrally from the beginning and later also mention that it can be pejorative in some sense, tone, or context but that it isn't inherently derogatory or pejorative as colloquialisms are not necessarily slurs. DemianStratford (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience "gringo" can be rather compared to the Czech word "rakosnik". In its original meaning it is a fairy-tale character with high-pitched voice and straight hair. It began to be used as a nickname for Vietnamese immigrants, generally endearingly (as in, "We love the Vietnamese, it's just that they are so funny when they speak."). I don't think this can be called "biased" nor "misguided perspective", but the Vietnamese feel offended by it which makes sense because it excludes them. In line with that, Wiki Dictionary (rightly, IMO) calls it an "ethnic slur". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rákosn%C3%ADk Gargoyle88 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll toss in my two cents: I don't think the article would be especially harmed by either leaving or removing the "or slur" from the lead. I would, however, remove the "However," clause from the final sentence in the first paragraph as it is unnecessary. CAVincent (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two more cents: thinking more, I'd have the word "pejorative" in the first sentence. "Slur" seems overly inflammatory. I wouldn't mind using "often derogatory" instead of "pejorative". Also, for what it's worth, I found "edit-warring with, pretty much, Latin America" to be pretty funny as a bit of hyperbole. (I'm sympathetic to the position of that "registered user", though starting an RfC was maybe a better approach to the situation.) CAVincent (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first line, as it is written now, it seems that it states that in Spanish and Portuguese it is offensive, but that is not entirely true. In Spanish and Portuguese it is not necessarily offensive, it depends on the context. As noted above, it is usually offensive in English, especially in the United States. Should say something like: “Gringo […] is a term in Spanish and Portuguese for a foreigner, especially from the United States. There are differences in meaning depending on region and country. In Latin America, it is generally used to refer to non-Latin Americans. In the United States, is usually considered derogatory or a slur, but its usage and offensiveness is disputed.” --Gusama Romero </talk> 08:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this RfC is now largely inactive, and the disruption has started again, I took a shot at synthesizing results. I'm not insisting that my edit is best, so if someone can improve it, please do. However, two thoughts: 1) the lede does need to include that the word is generally taken as offensive in English. 2) The specific word choice of "slur" seems to be prompting most of the disruption, and I don't think that word is needed to make the point about offensiveness, so I strongly suggest leaving it out. CAVincent (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]

@CAVincent, how does it not clarify? Of course it does. This term is NOT used to refer specifically to English speaking people in Portuguese. The intro's wording is ambiguous/incorrect, as it implies so, contradicting with the article's body. Torimem (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Torimem. Firstly, as currently written the first sentence is arguably ambiguous but it is not incorrect. As there are more Spanish-speaking people than Portuguese-speaking people, Spanish usage can be "usually" true when treating these two groups of people as a single group, even if rarely true among Portuguese speakers. Secondly, I found the way you re-wrote the sentence, tacking on a clause at the end, difficult to understand. It took me a few minutes of trying to understand the meaning of your edit to realize that you were trying to distinguish Spanish usage from Portuguese usage. There is also the problem that, while the United States might not be considered a "Spanish-speaking country", we have a pretty large Spanish-speaking population that does use the term this way.
I was trying to come up with a clearer alternative that draws the distinction you are trying to make. Would it work to break up the first sentence into two sentences, as something like: "Gringo ... (masculine) or gringa (feminine) is a term in Spanish and Portuguese for a foreigner. In Spanish, the term usually refers to English-speaking Anglo-Americans."? I think this would work, or we could continue to be a bit vague/ambiguous in the intro and more specific in the article main body. CAVincent (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CAVincent, I like your solution. Torimem (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gringo&oldid=1224280656"