Talk:Wetback (slur)

message: The article says that the term originated when illegal immigrants got wet swimming across the Rio Grande, and it doesn't give a cite for that.
I've always been under the impression that the term was due to most Mexican illegal immigrants being manual laborers, and therefore having sweaty backs. I don't have a cite for that either, though.
So what's true?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.64.32 (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I heard back in the 1950s, living in San Diego county and seeing illegals walking down my street, was the swimming thing and even more specifically, that they would swim across on their back while holding their possessions in their stomach to keep them dry. BTW! This would have been in the early 1950s and I'd bet that that 1954 date refers to the first appearance in print and that its use goes back further. But then I have no references for either of my statements here. Wschart (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the Term 

message: Why am I not shocked that this article fails to note that there's a Spanish language counterpart to wetback: "mojado", and that may be where wetback came from and it may also be used in a derogatory fashion? Let me suggest revising this article to maintain Wikipedia's peerless accuracy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.32.250 (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A not-so-shocking omission 

message: I removed the term because "border bandit" refers to another phenomenon. Maybe I'll write an article on it if I get a chance...--Rockero 22:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Border Bandit

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 08:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-10 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: How about some references for statements like "Florida is loaded with Canadians who are wet in the States" ?
:I have added some  tags to the information in the second paragraph, which also strikes me as suspect. If citations from reliable sources for this information is not presented within a week, I intend to delete the entire paragraph, or whatever portions remain unreferenced by reliable sources. --Ramsey2006 03:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference? 

message: i have just edited the picture displayed from "Wetbacks playing demon music to summon their infernal taco bearing rat-dogs from hell" to mariachi.  This is ridiculous racism that has no place in wikipedia.  Furthermore i would like to question why a picture of mariachi has any bearing or relevance to this page.  It adds nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaun3001 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture? 

message: Just a heads up for anybody interested in commenting. (The nominator also suggest deleting/merging this article.)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor baby.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for [[Anchor baby]] article 

message: There's no such thing as "Mexican descent"; nationality cannot be hereditarily transmitted. As I've seen it applied, the term "wetback" refers to illegal immigrants from countries south of the U.S. border, particularly Hispanic ones, regardless of nationality. Cochise the Restorer (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "nationality cannot be hereditarily transmitted". There are a great number of people who would very much object to this claim, partly because it forgets the concept of ethnicity. For example, see Chicano. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican Descent? 

message: 71.182.157.17 (talk) has asked that the following link be added to the article: 
Don King "wetback" speech - http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82638010/
Also added the comment directly to the article: Please put it in here somewhere. I can't do it myself. Thanks
--Auric (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  request 

message: Someone changed from "the term was originally coined and applied only to Mexicans who entered Texas by crossing the Rio Grande ..." to "the term was originally coined and applied only to Mexicans who sweat while working in the farm fields". The changed version had no citation. There are two good-looking citations in the article's reference section which support the original version: the Merriam-Webster definition and the New York Times article from 1920. More re New York Times article: After describing Mexican immigrants arriving in the United States by ferry across the Rio Grande skipping the official entry points, the article says: 'In the Laredo district alone, a speaker at a business men's dinner recently estimated that between 10,000 and 15,000 of these "wetbacks", as they are called because of their method of entry, had crossed into Texas at that time.' Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undoing anonymous October 5 2012 change 

message: Please do not delete the Don Young section as currently written without discussing on Talk.  It is well-sourced and discusses the word's usage and public reaction in the media, and is thus relevant to this page. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UNDUE. WP:BLP. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the links. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seb is correct; your edits gave massively excessive coverage to a single use of this term. The incident in question may merit a mention in Young's biography, but it's clearly out of place in this article. MastCell Talk 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I was about to do it myself, but you beat me to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for actually taking the time to explain.  That's actually helpful and appropriate.Shelbystripes (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean you are going to stop reverting now? You've already violated WP:3RR, despite being warned. I don't want to block you if you're going to behave, but I suggest you leave the article alone completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have stopped editing the page, and I acknowledged the reasons for reverting my edits. I got wound up, admittedly, and I know I should not have violated WP:3RR.  However, as a relatively new user, it is incredibly frustrating when another user harasses you by sending you warnings saying "please consider using the article's talk page" when they're the one not talking on the Talk page.  All it took was two sentences' worth of discussion to resolve. I'm not trying to justify violating anything, but I am saying it's easy to get worked up when someone keeps deleting your hard work while ignoring the first step in dispute resolution. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you were the first editor to add the material to the article. Generally, when someone reverts an addition, the "burden" is on you to start a topic on the talk page and discuss it. That would be the "first step". See WP:BRD.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really true.  There was an existing stub on this material, which was deleted by a new user with no prior edits, no user page, and no Talk history.  I was in the process of expanding the stub already, so I reverted and added my updates with one post, and posted a Talk page asking people to discuss before deleting.  At that point he deleted again, without explanation or saying anything on Talk.  I then reverted his deletion, with an edit summary saying that I was assuming he was vandalizing, since he was repeatedly reverting changes without discussion or explanation, and that there was a Talk page open.  The section on Young was already there before I showed up, and the above poster was just another person who showed up to delete it without comment.  Shelbystripes (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Given that this is primarily an American slur, and given the high profile of the person who said it, I think it is worth noting in this article. However we should include that he didn't know what the word meant (I assume there is a source for this; no one in the modern US congress who knows this word is politically stupid enough to use it). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In Young's apology (or apologies), he indicated that he was aware the term is derogatory, but that it was employed much more freely in the past. That's not quite the same as saying that he had no idea what it meant. MastCell Talk 23:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter how we phrase it, support it, or how much material we include about it, we still have the same problem that it would be the only cited use of the term by a person. It'll stick out like a sore thumb.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I know what specifically is objectionable here, I think I can write something that addresses the problem.  I can write something that focuses not specifically on Young or the incident itself, but that draws from the discussion of the word that followed in order to discuss its current status and the effects of using it today.  It wouldn't even have to mention Young by name on the page.  (I'll write something up, but post it here on Talk for review before making any actual edits.) Shelbystripes (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

text: The first sentence cites a blog posting by Raul A. Reyes (who might not be notable) criticizing a blog posting by Jay Nordlinger (who might have been merely paraphrasing when he wrote "wetback"). I do not believe this adds anything useful in the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My primary problem with this article, in general, is that it does very little to highlight the fact that the term is now regarded as currently offensive hate speech, and far less socially acceptable than it used to be.  What I mean is, it cites to the New York Times and the US government using it.  Without including anything indicating that its use has become far more controversial since then, this article in my opinion creates a false impression that reputable institutions consider the word usable to describe Latinos today.  This is why I added the Don Young information in the first place; I would be very happy to see an addition that doesn't mention the Don Young incident at all, as long as it provides what recent discussion of the term has made clear about its current meaning to Latinos.  I would appreciate feedback and help, from anyone here, on how to do this in a way that's acceptable to all the people currently objecting. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Don Young

message: "It was originally used as a verb in 1978" section should be removed or rephrased, since the original use had to be the first use (or at leas the first recorded use in print) however there are multiple mentions of usage earlier than that  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.128.19 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there's nothing wrong with what's said there in the article, but the first use as a noun goes back slightly further than the date of the New York Times article. Barry Popik says there were mentions of "wetback" by Mexicans, and in Texas newspapers in early 1920. One of them is referring to a committee meeting, possibly this one on January 26 1920. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  dispute of original usage 

message: It's nitpicking and plain wrong to say that the term "wetback" is not used as a xenophobic or racist term. The term may have it's origins specifically referring to undocumented immigrants from South of the border (mostly Mexico), but it is used very often by racists to describe *any* person of Mexican descent living in the USA. I have personally witnessed Mexican-Americans being called "wetbacks" just for being of Mexican descent. "Wetback" is used to slur people of Mexican or other Latin American descent living in the USA. The term doesn't describe Canadian illegal immigrants, does it? The categories are relevant. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Effectively you reverted this edit by User:Bbb23, in order to re-insert categories "Anti-Mexican Sentiment", "Xenophobia", "Hispanophia". Could you please give reliable sources proving that this term is used for Mexicans in Mexico, and is used by xenophobes, and applies to Spaniards too? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will locate sources on "wetback" being a racial slur. I don't think that "Anti-Mexican sentiment" is limited to "Mexicans in Mexico". Anti-Mexican sentiment can also include bigotry against Mexican nationals living abroad or people of Mexican descent. And I would say that "Hispanophobia" is not identical to "Anti-Spanish sentiment", as someone can be prejudiced against Hispanics from Latin America without being prejudiced against Spaniards from Europe. If someone calls someone a "spic" for being Hispanic, that would be Hispanophobia, regardless of whether the person using the slur does or does not like Spanish people from Spain. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Bohemian Baltimore, some procedural comments about your edit-warring. You added these categories first. The addition has been challenged by two editors. Per WP:BRD, it is your burden not only to justify your additions but also to obtain a consensus for them. Until and if you do, you should allow the article to remain the way it was. The only reason I haven't reverted you is short of an obvious policy violation I don't engage in edit wars. From looking at your history, you have a strong focus on adding these kinds of categories to articles. Perhaps you should step away from probably believing you are an expert and therefore must always be right. Finally, to add to what Peter said, cats should be supported/sourced in the body of the article, not outside of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will step away from adding or removing these categories from this article for the time being. I will also try to locate sources for "wetback" being a racial slur. Thanks for your input. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Mexican and Xenophobia categories

message: User:Peter_Gulutzan I added information about the derivative expression 'Mojado' which is used in Mexican and Central American Spanish. This word is the shortened version of 'Espalda Mojado' and the equivalent of 'Wetback' when used in context, i.e. a person is a Mojado if they entered the US illegally. I did not simply add information about the Spanish word for 'wet'. That would be pretty irrelevant. I'm sorry if this was lost in my addition. The significance is that it is used 'south of the border' as well as by Latinos and not used derisively, as evidenced in the song example I used. This adds understanding to how language, especially loaded political language and slurs, varies in context and when used by different peoples. Believe my addition can be improved, but should be re-included. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since your second version is an improvement, and since you insist by re-inserting, I am not going to favour reverting again unless others have objections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mojado