Talk:Gringo/Archive 2021

Apologetics

I've noticed that this article contains a fair amount of apologetics. While I certainly understand why such material is in here, as it should be as a sort of disclaimer, I find it way over the top. Sourced and academic yes, but I can actually find about 40 times the sources to prove otherwise, especially if the criterion where how it is "used" rather than how it "originated" or is used in countries where it is rarely said. In Mexico (and by extension, and even more so, the immigrant community in the States, at the very least) it is indeed considered a racial slur and it's a rare day when it isn't used in some critical context. While this applies to, like I said, the United States more so than Mexico, it is the reality, and should be reflected as such. A person reading this article would assume that the usage demonstrated in this article is accurate, and it's some sort of "cultural misunderstanding" that it's used to refer to people pejoratively rather than how than how it "should" be used. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.204.248 (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have "40 times the sources to prove otherwise," then do it. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pejorative in a "silly American tourist" sense. Its use mostly stems from the fact that the official word to call someone from the United States in Spanish is "estadounidense", which is a pretty long word. Languages tend to evolve to use shorter words for common words, and the USA being the most notable neighbor to Mexico (and one of the most important countries in the world), means people talk a lot about it. It is highly discouraged to use the word "Americano" for people born in the USA, due to its lack of precision: in Latin America, the concept of America has remained its original meaning, and there's only one American continent, comprised of North America and South America. It's been discussed elsewhere, but calling the USA "America" is offensive to a lot of people in Latin America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.9 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The word itself is not pejorative. The term Gringo is applied to any non-native Spanish speaker, regardless of their nationality. The term is also used to refer to someone depending on their looks (generally if they are white-skinned and with blond hair); it's not unusual for an Ibero-American to be called a "gringo" even if that person speaks fluent Spanish with no foreign accent.

In any case, the misconception that Americans have about the word "gringo" is probably notable enough for this to be pointed out in the article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The word IS a pejorative. It's used in a derisive manner, it is NOT a term of respect by any means and those who use it know it. You can cite until you're blue in the face about it's historical context etc. But anyone who's been called this word knows that the user means it as a slander as a put-down and as a term of complete disrespect. An article like this just bolsters its legitimacy in the eyes of the people who use the word. In addition the word has evolved from its original origins in meaning and IS primarily used against whites by Latin-Americans and so carries heavy racial overtones. Go ahead, deny it. But anyone who is a "gringo" knows otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As a Mexican that has worked in isolated areas, I have to disagree heavily with it being considered a derogatory term. It is how most mexicans will prefer to refer to an american citizen and the name itself isn't meant as a means of putting them down, rather that it's heavily ingrained in our culture to have names for everything. Racism from someone has less to do with names and more with their attitudes and general decency as a person. It's heavily ingrained in our culture to have names for everything, nicknames if you like. We'd sometimes call someone negro because he has a darker skin tone and that'd shock the brains out of you but in truth that'd just be a nickname and everyone would call that person negro out of affection, all the time, without any ill intent. I think an understanding of latin american culture is necessary before being so sure that gringo is an intentionally derogatory term. I know a doctor from Minnesota who lives in Chiapas in a small town and everyone respects him, and yet, everyone calls him "El Gringo".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.104.129 2:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I grew up in Las Cruces, NM. I only ever heard the word grino used as a term of disrespect. None of my latio friends ever used that word for someone they liked. That said, I do believe there's some disconnect between people in its usage. My father-in-law, who learned Spanish as a second language, believed it to be neutral and used it frequently to refer to me while we were on a trip in Chile, until a shocked waiter (who was Chilean) stopped him and told him that the word is in many places used as a term of disrespect. These are just anecdotes, but they match up with what many dictionary sites say - the word is often used in a disparaging manner. Patorjk (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, it's actually very ignorant to think that "Latin Americans" use the term "gringo" to insult people from the United States because "they are white". Plenty of Latin Americans are also white, and "gringo" is also applied to non-white foreigners. As our Mexican contributor indicates above, it can also be a term of endearment. It all primarily depends on context.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 12:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Marshal: Gee thanks for your enlightening response. Nice that you call someone "ignorant" who tells you how THEY FEEL AND HOW OTHERS FEEL about being called "gringo". You ever ask someone who's white whether they live in the U.S. or in Latin America if they LIKE being called gringo? I think you haven't. That'd be too courteous and courageous. Two things you lack. And "negro" in Spanish means "black one" or "black" depending on the context and no, I would not be at all surprised that Latinos regularly call blacks that. Latin Americans have NEVER had to address their own racial bias towards other people who ARE NOT HISPANIC (or "Latino" as they preferred to be called now). We see it time and again in the U.S. and Hispanics are oblivious to it. OMG don't let a Latino man/woman bring home a white woman/man to meet the family! After they leave then listen to the remarks and slurs fly. Sorry to tell you how it is but "gringo" IS a racially loaded word and it does not matter if a whole town uses it to describe a doctor who was there to help them. In fact, it says a lot about them that they could not call him "doctor". Not hard since it's the same word in Spanish and English. If the guy was lame, would they have called him, "The Cripple?" Probably. People are insensitive the world over and it's not just whites who are guilty of this. Like I said, Latinos(which kills me because this new word was implemented by the Latin-American community as part of the whole "respect our culture" package) have NEVER had to confront their own racism. About time they did. This article just proves it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.90.39 (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Your statement simply reinforces your lack of understanding about Latin American and Latino culture. If you hear people using the word "gringo" and immediately think that they are insulting you, then clearly the problem is with you and not with them. You cannot assume "gringo" is an ethnic slur simply because that is how you feel. Try to understand others before judging them.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 03:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Just find a source saying that gringo is an offensive word in such and such community and cite that in the article. The word is not offensive in most contexts, but who can say it is never offensive over all of Latin America? If someone has done research and found a village, group of people or community that use it in this way, then that is relevant information - it does not, however, change the implication that the vast and widest majority of people who use the word gringo do not and have never used it derogarotily. 2804:14D:5C70:970E:682D:A35C:75C6:5F98 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As a long time resident of Mexico and a Spanish speaker, I think the above conversation reflects the normalisation of the word Gringo, which is not the same as saying it is unoffensive. It has always beens used as a put down since the Spanish used it xenophobic-ly. Yes, sometimes it is used a bit nicer than others. No, I do not think it is a 'racist' slur, but it is never used respectfully. That is in Mexico. Even though I don't agree completely, I would urge everyone here to use caution in writing off the concerns of those who feel it is unacceptable. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, we need to stick to the same standard for offensiveness for everyone and in every case. That would be the scientific way. Offensiveness of a slur cannot be judged by the person using the word, it must be judged by those hearing or receiving it. Can you imagine trying to negate the offensiveness of a slur based on who uses it? That's wildly inappropriate. Further, the definition of a pejorative word here on wikipedia (slur redirects there) notes that it depends on a lot of circumstances, like place and context, to understand how offensive it is. I have made a number of adjustments, especially to the lead, to reflect these concerns, and to reflect the cited information present. There is no need to cancel someone else's feelings and thoughts on the matter because you hold opposing ones, this is an encyclopedia... Find a legitimate source and back it up. Leave other well source information. Together they form a more complete picture. Thank you Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Just throwing my two cents here: Used with the right intent and in a specific context, Gringo can be a slur but, by definition, it can't be a racial one because Gringo (i.e. someone from the United States or an English speaking country) is not a race. Kun48 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Slur or Not?

The text says that the word "gringo" is a slur but actually it's not, it's just a term to refer to foreigners in Latin America, but thanks to that some Americans started spreading lies about the term and trying to teach Latinos about your own language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.71.105.124 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I need to repeat what I wrote above. 1) Offensiveness of a word is never gauged by the user, but rather by those who receive the term. This is the standard way to determine something. Imagine when Mexican immigrants to the US or Mexican-Americans hear 'Beaner', if they were told to relax, it's not that bad, it's not a slur by some White Texan cowboy? It's pretty easy to say in these cases the person's opinion saying it are fairly irrelevant. Latinos or any other ethnic are not exempt from being xenophobic or even racist. 2) Just because the word is commonly used does not mean it is ok. The N word in the United States was once used in regions daily, i.e. totally normalised, but that does not make the word any less offensive. Or look at the UK today, the word 'Paki' is an offensive slur to the Indian and Pakistani communities, yet it is used frequently even to simply describe who owns a shop. Again, despite the frequency and normalisation, it remains deeply offensive to many on the receiving end. 3) This is an English language encyclopedia page. The word had entered into English a century or more ago. So, the discussion here is not about misunderstanding a foreign term, it is about understanding its use in English and to an English language audience. 4)The article notes the various degrees to which the term is used in different countries. 5) Slur does not mean something unutterable. It is not an uncrossable line. Merrion Webster defines it as: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo. And in verb form: to cast aspersions on. 6) This is Wikipedia, every new bit of information needs citations and existing cited text cannot be removed just because you don't like it.

Having lived in Mexico for many years I have only heard the word disparagingly and it only applies to US White people. It usually means someone who is culturally and linguistically ignorant of Mexico. It is used as a sweeping generalisation that includes the acts of the State to just being naive. It is used diminutively at best and offensively at worst. It is about nationality, race, and is xenophobic. This all of course depends on context, which words its used in conjunction with, and the volume in which it is said. I never hear the word directed at Black people from the US, nor Asians. I never hear the word said with ease, and never amongst Mexican friends to White friends, only to describe someone else's bad behaviour. There is no doubt in my mind it is a racial slur at this point (although I did not originally think so), especially based on editing this page, reading the sources, and the aggressive vandalism it is receiving. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Update, I just went through the citations and dictionary meanings. All English dictionaries list the word as Derogatory, Usually offensive, Pejorative. Some Spanish dictionaries as well. There is no doubt the word is used as a slur. Also we need to remember what exactly slur means. It might not be the end of the world, but it's not "usually" nice. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

what you say is completely false. English Dictionary interpretation a Spanish language word. no reason. you are simply saying that it means a word you don't know because you don't speak Spanish and you are only interpreting it as you understand it. and this is reflected in the article. everything is very poorly explainedNaviNews (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

We need those supposed spanish dictionaries rhat state that gringo is a derogatory term Wikipexi2552 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

The first paragraph states that "gringo" is a disparaging slur. This is false. In most of Latin America, this term refers to Americans of any race, including second-generation Hispanics. In other Spanish-speaking regions, it's used to describe a "foreigner". It can be used in a derogatory manner but the term itself does not carry negative connotations. 24.254.68.127 (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

How can we give data about something that is cultural? I'm Hispanic and he is absolutely right. NaviNews (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Refer to WP:TRUTH. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

it is not possible to verify or credit something that is obvious in a native language.NaviNews (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC: "Gringo" as a slur

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

During the last months, a registered user has been edit-warring with, pretty much, Latin America. Everything started with this edit. Before it was done, the first phrase was simple and neutral: "A gringo (/ˈɡrɪŋɡoʊ/, Spanish: [ˈɡɾiŋɡo], Portuguese: [ˈɡɾĩɡu]) (male) or gringa (female) is someone considered a foreigner from the perspective of Iberoamericans." The word is not offensive in Spanish (the Spanish language Academy describes it as colloquial and not as pejorative; although like every word, it can be used offensively under certain contexts).

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)

* 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)

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)

• Starting with the last part I'm watching this page since January 2021. Yes, I have a public watchlist; its main purpose was to help me avoid leaving pages unwatched by mistake, but it seems it can also demonstrate that your comment is written with unjustified bad faith. It's quite ironic you start saying I should dust myself off when the only person that can't get it over is you. And I don't see how saying you are edit warring is a personal attack—especially when I never named you. Anyone can click this and see it for themselves, even now. Despite this RFC being open and the lead is finally discussed, you continue restoring your preferred version. Now can you see why I decided to open this RFC? It's impossible to have a natural discussion with you.

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)

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.

It is a fact that you did single me out and attempted to caricature my edits. It is a fact you have been quarrelsome with me in the recent past. And the reality is this exact discussion has been going on for 10 years (as evidenced by this Talk page) and yes, I am being stubborn about the persistent vandalism and unhelpful, mainly anonymous, unsupported edits... because after all I am trying to improve the article in an unbiased, yet knowledgeable way. And finally, it is also a fact that I am flagging your 'unsportsmanly conduct' and maintain that you should be aware of and curtail this if it is in fact not intentional. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

So, opening an RFC to solve a long-term dispute, in which you are involved, is an 'unsportsmanly conduct' of mine? I'm not caricaturing you, I merely point out, using your own words, the absurdity of the sentences. If you are prone to start disputes then maybe you should learn to end them. and requesting "Indefinite extended confirmed protection", when it is not justified, is not one way. Seeing this page over and over again in my watchlist for the same reasons becomes monotone and at the very least I'm the first one to do something to stop it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think what I'm writing is difficult to understand user:Tbhotch, but I'll repeat it again to be sure: you're 'unsportsmanly conduct' is singling me out, belittling me, stalking and policing my edits, and generally over-personalizing my edits, concerns, and corrections. Claro? And tbh I do not care if you find protection requests annoying, this is not about you. What I do care about is a persistent vandalism campaign to remove cited content from this encyclopedia. I'm asking you again to WP:DROPTHESTICK and avoid harassment. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

That's what I say, but people can't move on. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you just respond to a request to stop discussing editor behavior by further discussing editor behavior? This is not the way to end it. Facepalm Please bear that in mind before any potential tu quoque. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Ironic. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Not a slur. For information about Spanish usage, note these sources which say it is not always offensive/pejorative – Televisa: gringo puede usarse para referirse de manera amplia e inofensiva a un grupo de ciudadanos de Estados Unidos, BBC: muchas veces, pero no siempre, se usa de manera peyorativa.

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

Change "is a sometimes derogatory term or slur in Spanish and Portuguese for a foreigner, especially from the United States" to "It is a term used regionally in some countries in the Americas to refer to those foreigners who speak languages considered unintelligible to Spanish speakers, mainly English speakers (https://dle.rae.es/gringo?m=form). In its first mentions of the word, the DRAE (Diccionario de la Real Academia Española) defined gringo as a term derived from Greek, derogatory in nature and applied especially to English-speaking foreigners. In the most recent definitions (since 1992), the "derogatory" mark was eliminated, replacing it with colloquial, but it maintained that it applied mainly to English speakers. In addition, the etymology from Greek was dropped and replaced by "disputed". (Diccionario de la lengua Española. Real Academia Española 1992, XX ed. Madrid, página1059)"

Gringo is not a slur. Gby0901 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the english dictionaries agree that is a slur, and the origin from the word "griego" it's based on the fact that there are known usages of the word from before 1800 Wikipexi2552 (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

Bold text

190.57.43.239 (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Gringo (/ˈɡrɪŋɡoʊ/, Spanish: [ˈɡɾiŋɡo], Portuguese: [ˈɡɾĩɡu]) (masculine) (or gringa (feminine)).

There are differences in meaning depending on region and country. In Latin America, it is generally used to refer to non-Latin Americans. The word derives from the term used by the Spanish for a Greek person: griego.[4][5] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use in English comes from John Woodhouse Audubon's Western Journal of 1849–1850,[6][7] in which Audubon reports that his party was hooted and shouted at and called "Gringoes" while passing through the town of Cerro Gordo, Veracruz.[8]

 Not done for now: Not exactly clear what you are requesting be changed. From the way you've mostly copy/pasted the lede, it looks like you want this "is a sometimes derogatory term or slur[under discussion as of December 2021] in Spanish and Portuguese for a foreigner, especially from the United States." removed. If so, no, it is currently under discussion as you should be able to see on this talk page and therefore out of the scope of a edit request. If not, feel free to reopen the request with your specific changes spelled out Cannolis (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Gringo by itself isn't a slur

At least in Mexico, we use names that might sound offensive when translated to English as terms of endearment (e.g. gordo, flaco, chaparro). That's just how Mexican Spanish works.

It depends heavily on the context and only when the word is accompanied by an actual offensive term that it might becomes a real slur.

Remember that different languages don't work the exact same as English does, and the meaning and usage of their words are not subjected to whatever interpretation English speakers give to them. Kun48 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Gringo is akin to illegal immigrant

The terms aren't in itself racist nor racially charged but can under the right conditions be used in a racist way.

ei,
The senator passed a bill to protect illegal immigrants from false accusations. "These illegals need to learn that this is Merikuh and we only speak English here!" 

The gringa was studying Spanish. "These gringos need to learn that we don't want them in our country!" 2600:8807:C091:E300:91B8:6FAF:CBEB:FFEC (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Archiving mess

Would appreciate any help in merging the 3 archives of this page and archiving (or deleting?) the current vandalism disaster on here. e.g. "Gringo hijueputa cállate ya sapo mama verga" = "Gringo son of a bitch shut up toad mama dick". Why is this still here? There has been a barrage of unsupported opinions by users whose sole qualification is "I'm Latino I know". If this isn't proof of fragility and the normalisation of a pejorative I don't know what is. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Anyone can remove content that violates the purpose of talkpages. A bot will archive these threads eventually. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Still there is an archive box in the upper right that doesn't correspond with the horizontal archive list at the top. Not sure how to fix that. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC) 02:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)