Talk:Afro–Latin Americans

Proposed merge with Afro-Latinx
"Afro-Latin American" is also a gender-neutral term. There's no reason stated in the article that this is different enough to warrant a separate article. ... disco spinster   talk  20:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply. Respectfully disagree, yes, it is a gender neutral term yet to is the article for the term Latinx and that has a full article devoted to it as well. I'm the creator of this article and feel both gender neutral terms are deserving of their own articles, Wikipedia is in need of more diversity and more diverse topics such as this. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The references given in the article don't distinguish between Afro-Latinx and Afro-Latin American (or Afro-Latino, Afro-Latina, Afro-Latin@). There needs to be sources that acknowledge the difference between the two terms, otherwise they just seem like synonyms. Some of the articles even use Afro-Latinx and Afro-Latina/o interchangeably. ... disco spinster   talk  03:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I found a few academic encyclopedias that discuss Afro–Latin Americans, but without much reference to other terminology. A couple of sources I found seem to treat Afro–Latin Americans and Afro-Latinos as distinct groups corresponding to Latin Americans and Latinos, respectively: • "African Americans, Blacks, Afro-Latinas/os, Afro–Latin Americans, dark-skinned mestizos, and people of Asian descent are discriminated against ... Afro–Latin Americans interact with U.S.-born Latinas/os and Afro-Latinas/os"

• "These scholars argued that, despite their relatively small numbers, Afro-Latinos were distinct among Latinos ... the African diaspora empirically is, and therefore theoretically should be, inclusive of Afro-Latinos and Afro-Latin Americans" Since Latinx is a gender-neutral version of the US-centric Latino, Afro-Latinx would logically refer to people born and/or raised in the US, as opposed to the rest of the Americas. If this article is to be about Latin Americans of African ancestry, then I think Afro-Latino, Afro-Latinos, and Afro-Latinx should redirect to Hispanic and Latino Americans, maybe with a disambiguation link to Latinx. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Turns out there's a separate article at Black Hispanic and Latino Americans. I've re-targeted the above redirects there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Afro-Latinx"
I am not aware of the term "Afro-Latinx" being considered offensive to Latin people - if there is an indication of this then it could be removed or accompanied by a note. In fact, I see the term and "Latinx" being used freely by Latin studies scholars.


 * So you're Afro-Latinx. Now what?
 * "Latinx studies" @ Google Scholar
 * "Afro-Latinx" @ Google Scholar

... disco spinster   talk  18:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It is very offensive to us native Spanish-speaking Latin Americans and should not be used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the entire world not just for the US.
 * Some sources below:
 * A 2016 HuffPost article stated, "Many opponents of the term have suggested that using an un-gendered noun like Latinx is disrespectful to the Spanish language and some have even called the term 'a blatant form of linguistic imperialism, which is "unpronounceable in Spanish".
 * Hector Luis Alamo described the term as a "bulldozing of Spanish". In a 2015 article for Latino Rebels, Alamo wrote: "If we dump Latino for Latinx because it offends some people, then we should go on dumping words forever since there will always be some people who find some words offensive.
 * Php2000 (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Wikipedia is not censored. The word is in fact used in academia, so that should be noted. ... disco spinster   talk  14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty poor response. "Wikipedia is not censored" but we don't write "Americans also known as Gringos" as the opening line to the article about American people, just because we typically refer to them as Gringos in Mexico. Its systemic anglocentric bias, I suggest you read the relevant WP policies. Php2000 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if Mexican academics of American/white descent referred to Americans as "Gringos" on a regular basis in their articles then yes, it would be in the opening line. ... disco spinster   talk  16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Php2000 (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Wikipedia is not censored. The word is in fact used in academia, so that should be noted. ... disco spinster   talk  14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty poor response. "Wikipedia is not censored" but we don't write "Americans also known as Gringos" as the opening line to the article about American people, just because we typically refer to them as Gringos in Mexico. Its systemic anglocentric bias, I suggest you read the relevant WP policies. Php2000 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if Mexican academics of American/white descent referred to Americans as "Gringos" on a regular basis in their articles then yes, it would be in the opening line. ... disco spinster   talk  16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if Mexican academics of American/white descent referred to Americans as "Gringos" on a regular basis in their articles then yes, it would be in the opening line. ... disco spinster   talk  16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * IMO Latinx is a very clear example of anglo chauvinism. Latin people don't use the term by a large margin, with only 2% identifying with it. Heck 2 out of 3 oppose it. YES it is an offensive term used only by a select few in american college circles. Belevalo (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether you think it's chauvinistic or not, the reality is that people (including Latino/a writers) do use it and clearly don't find it offensive. (And before you bring up the N-word as a comparison, please don't.) ... disco spinster   talk  19:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 65% of latin people who are aware of it oppose it. only 2% support it. Conclusion: it's offensive. and so far, you're the only one defending it in this talk as well. Belevalo (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop removing it. ... disco spinster   talk  16:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether anyone considers the term "offensive" or not is not a valid reason to censor it; otherwise we'd have to delete the entire Latinx article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether anyone considers the term "offensive" or not is not a valid reason to censor it; otherwise we'd have to delete the entire Latinx article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Afro-Latinx" in lead
The term may indeed be noteworthy, but Medium is a poor source, since it's self-published. The Google Scholar results above are essentially primary sources for the usage as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it shows that the word is commonly used. The article is not about whether Afro-Latinx is noteworthy or notable, the word is included because it is a term that is used in many places, whether it's preferred or not. ... disco spinster   talk  18:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By "noteworthy", I just mean worthy of inclusion within the article, not "notable" in the WP-jargon sense. Regardless, we still need a reliable, independent source commenting directly on the usage to satisfy due weight requirements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Does that also apply to "Black Latin American" and "Afro Latino"? ... disco spinster   talk  19:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ideally, yes. See my comment under above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the NYU source is a two-hour video of a virtual symposium; if anything, it's a primary source for any statements made in it. Where does the video say anything about the meaning of Afro-Latinx, let alone that Afro-Latinx is synonymous with Afro–Latin American? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The paper by Vidal-Ortiz & Martínez (2018) is a secondary source for Latinx, but not Afro-Latinx. The latter term appears only in a brief mention at the end, as the authors say, "to further incite the conversation on the possibilities and challenges of Latinx", where they pose the question whether Afro-Latinx conflicts with the goal of inclusivity in using Latinx. There's no evaluation or analysis, just a question. We don't know from this source how prevalent use of Afro-Latinx is or even its precise meaning. However, given that the authors specifically make a distinction between "Latina/o/x" and "Latin American", we can safely assume they mean "Afro-Latinx" to denote Black Hispanic and Latino Americans rather than Afro–Latin Americans. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is not about the meaning of Afro-Latinx. The term is in fact used as a synonym of Afro-Latin American and I have supplied many sources to show that. You continue to be unsatisfied with the nature of these sources and changing what you consider to be sufficient. I'm not sure what your end game is here. ... disco spinster   talk  15:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I just explained that the Vidal-Ortiz source does not show that the terms are synonymous. I asked where the NYU symposium video supports that claim, but didn't receive an answer. I'm not sure how reliable Oprah Magazine is considered to be for sociological topics, but I suspect it's on the same level as most mass-market women's magazines, which is to say, not very. At any rate, the source you added seems to conflate Latin Americans with Latinos, defining "Afro-Latinx" people as "descendants of Latin America with African roots", "Latin American[s] of African descent", and "Black Latinos" interchangeably. We already have an article on Black Latinos at Black Hispanic and Latino Americans. Given the sources we have, listing Afro-Latinx as a synonym of Afro–Latin American seems unduly weighted at best, and at worst simply incorrect. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely correct and just as relevant as the inclusion of "Afro-Latino", of which it is a synonym, as shown in the sources. ... disco spinster   talk  15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where in the sources? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse but I will repeat, "Afro-Latinx" is absolutely correct and relevant to the article, whether or not it is acceptable to you. ... disco spinster   talk  15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you or I think is correct. I'll ask once again, where do the sources say this? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm done trying to justify this to you. I have provided multiple sources which all seem to have a fatal flaw according to you. If you have a problem with the inclusion of Afro-Latinx as a synonym, I suggest you take it up in dispute resolution. ... disco spinster   talk  16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Would you agree to a third opinion request? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. ... disco spinster   talk  16:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's my proposed request for listing at WP:30: Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. ... disco spinster   talk  14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Third opinion In some ways, I think this might be the wrong page to be having this discussion on. I note that Latino (demonym) doesn't even mention Latinx in the lead (though it does briefly in the body). The main article for Black Hispanic and Latino Americans doesn't have it either. I think it should probably be discussed in the context of those broader articles before it is in a country specific article like this one. I don't think there is going to be a lot of literature for Afro-Latinx, but there seems to be no shortage discussing just Latinx. I don't think its a leap to take the primary sources we have for Afro-Latinx and combine them with the already broad literature on Latinx to justify inclusion.  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * just to clarify, do you mean inclusion on the other pages you mention, not on this one? What about on Latinx? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I mean inclusion on this page. Although now that you mention it, I could also see "Afro-Latinx" being discussed on the Latinx page itself. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, but I'm still not convinced that most of these sources are using "Afro-Latinx" to mean Afro–Latin Americans. The essays on The Root (contrasting "Afro-Latinx" with "African American") and Medium are about Afro-Latinos in the US. Vidal-Ortiz & Martínez (2018) are careful to distinguish "Latina/o/x" from "Latin American". Oprah Magazine seems to conflate Latin Americans with Latinos. All the sources are written for a primarily Anglo–North American audience. While there's some genuine overlap, the sources seem to focus mainly on Black Hispanic and Latino Americans when discussing Afro-Latinx identity. Therefore I still think listing the term in the lead would be a form of undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Both "Afro-Latines" and "Afro-Latinx" are neologisms and don't belong in the lead.★Trekker (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Andrews, 2004


This book is free to read at Open Library. Could be useful for building the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

 * The article has several issues including: 1)- failed verification (December 2010), 2)- unsourced statements (June 2011, October 2015, December 2015, February 2016, January 2021, 3)- needing page number citations (October 2015), and 4)- needing additional references (February 2023)
 * The criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4, The article is reasonably well-written.
 * Reassess article to C-class.