Talk:Mulatto

Anglocentric bias

This article claims that the term is offensive, without clarifying any details. But in reality, in Spanish and Portuguese, as well as even in English if you're in a Spanish speaking country, this term has no negative connotation. Someone said to me that this shouldn't be added to this page because it's on English Wikipedia, but as per WP:Global , Wikipedia is an universal encyclopedia, not just an encyclopedia for countries with the English as its primary language. This is just the English version of Wikipedia, but read by people all around the world with English as a second language. Therefore, people should know that mixed people of European and African ancestry are called Mulattoes in countries like Brazil. This person them said that this article is just about the English term. But as far as I know, there's no articles about the word in other languages. So why isn't this article about this word in general? The page Negro clearly states that it depends on the language if it's offensive or not, and I think this page should too, especially since it already talks about its usage in Spanish speaking countries.

93.15.241.95 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This again? In English, it's outdated and offensive. In Spanish and Portuguese it may not be, but you'll need references to state that, since it's referenced as offensive in English. There are 49 Wikipedia articles in other languages concerning the term, mostly poorly referenced. They discuss the same etymology, which derives from comparisons between people and livestock in slaveholding places. In English, it is without question demeaning, and this is the English Wikipedia, so that will be the dominant tone, absent significant references otherwise. The Portuguese article, which is well referenced, notes that it has been described as a racist term by some scholars, and is not commonly used nowadays. I will look at adding those references once I've reviewed them in more detail Acroterion (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If the term is outdated and offensive, I think the article should not contain information about "mulattoes" living today. As a first step, I removed the info box, but there is more that should be deleted. Any thoughts ? Rsk6400 (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I've already shared those thoughts. If you are not Mulatto, you have no say no so, period, over a term that is ours, as you are unqualified, inexperienced, & uneducated to be telling me and the millions of people like me how we are to feel about a term that is OURS & that was designed for us. Humble yourselves & defer to us. Remove any negative connotation that your non-mixed, racist anti-mixed-race & anti-Mulatto editors have ascribed to our word. Melange6 (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Why not? How else would you refer to the Haitian mulatto elite? Or mulattos in Angola and Mozambique which were a privileged class during colonization? What about the term mulatto being deeply rooted in Brazilian culture, specially music like samba? Knoterification (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is controversial to say the least.2601:182:4381:E60:BD7A:135:CE5E:1C5B (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the word, visit my page, and defer to us on the subject as you do not have the lived experience of a Mulatto to be suggesting anything is controversial to us WITHOUT GIVING US A SEAT AT THE TABLE TO DISCUSS WHAT WE OWN, and that does not pertain to you: https://twitter.com/FTMPWorldwide/status/1537948648343908357/photo/1 Melange6 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

A given self-defined group does not have a veto over sourced content, nor may a particular editor credibly demand to be a self-appointed spokesman who dictates content. Acroterion (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)|

@Knoterification: Words have different meanings in different languages. I'm convinced that our readers know that. Everybody who has ever learned a second language knows that words sounding similar and having the same root can be very treacherous. So, we don't have to mention that the word "mulatto" is an English word or that it is outdated and offensive only in English. Also, adding a link to English language is certainly overlinking. Do modern historians really use the term "mulatto" when referring to Haitians or Angolans ? In that case, my Oxford dictionary would be wrong. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Than we should change the article, because it is clearly not about the use of term "Mulatto" in English, but in many languages. Just like the article for "Negro".

Modern historians do use the term. Yes your dictionary is incomplete.

Sons of White Fathers": Mulatto Vengeance and the Haitian Revolution in Victor Séjour's "The Mulatto"

Marlene L. Daut

Mulattos in Brazil and Angola: A Comparative Approach, from the Seventeenth to the Twenty-First Century

Luiz Felipe De Alencastro In Racism and Ethnic Relations in the Portuguese-Speaking WorldKnoterification (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Knoterification: I tried in vain to verify your claim about the books you mentions and also to look for "Mulatto" at jstor. But even if one or two historians should still use the word, the consent of all the dictionaries I consulted would absolutely trump those primary sources (see WP:PSTS). I don't know what this article is "clearly" about, since I got the impression that some editors who worked on it didn't know that either. We simply cannot use an offensive word in wikivoice. And there no way to define a group of human beings across different societies just by way of their degrees of European and African ancestries.

Also: Please respect WP rules on edit warring, on WP:BRD, on WP:ONUS, and on WP:NOCONSENSUS. To change the article, you need consensus here on the talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not that hard. Just search form them in google. You can find hunderds of others if you search for mulattos in Haiti, Brazil or Angola. Dictionaries are not infalible. Some people find the term black offensive, but it is used in a Wikipedia article, despite the fact that there is no way to define a group of human beings across different societies just by their skin colour. Knoterification (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vlaemink: Would you please respect WP:BRD and take part in the discussion before making changes that didn't achieve consensus in an ongoing discussion ? Rsk6400 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I've taken the liberty of overlooking some of your ( Rsk6400 ) recent edits and I'm sorry to say this, but your style of editing and communicating can come across as quite accusative and aggressive at times. I don't think it's particularly constructive to seemingly assume a racist-bias when people do not agree with you, nor do I think that constantly quoting Wikipedia guidelines or policies (sometimes not even supportive of your point/POV) is very helpful. The core tenet of Wikipedia is WP:SOURCE, yes, but WP:AGF comes next. I think you should read that one as well. For example, I was not aware of this particular discussion on this talk page (started in march, revived a few days ago), I'm convinced you (and others) will have a far better experience if you'd assume good faith in your interactions.

Having said that, my opinion of the matter at hand here is quite straightforward: the word mulatto is a word occurring in multiple languages, whose speakers might have different cultural attitudes towards this word, i.e. non-offensive, obsolete, descriptive, etc.. I do not contest the fact, that it is considered offensive in contemporary English; but as long as the only lexical sources are limited to English dictionaries; this claim cannot be extended to all other languages, whether explicitly or implicitly. Vlaemink (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the AGF problem: In this edit[1], only some hours before, you reverted me without taking part in the discussion, although the edit summary of the very edit you reverted contained the link to that discussion. So I assumed that this is the way you normally edit. Also on this page I left a link to this discussion in one recent edit summary (18.52, 29 Nov, before you reverted it was no. 5 from the top). Please note that I didn’t accuse you of bad faith, I just thought it necessary to remind you of the rule. Since you said it was a mistake, I retract it. For the rest of what you said, I’ll answer on your German user’s talk page.

Regarding the content problem: As I already said above, I’m convinced that our readers know that different words have different meanings in different languages. And this is the English WP, so we use English words. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If one already knows the subject, one generally doesn't need to look it up in an encyclopedia; so I would not make the assumption that the average reader is aware of not just an identical word, but an (at first glance) identical term having cross-linguistic nuances. Yes, this is the English-language Wikipedia; but it is also (by far) the most international Wikipedia and being able to communicate in another language and correctly interpreting it within its cultural subtext are two different things. Especially in cases like this particular article, where the word used is in fact a direct loanword. Vlaemink (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Well said. Mulatto is an archaic word in English. In Brazil, though some people have opposed its use in recent years, it is still deeply ingrained in popular culture, and used in academic settings to describe a social category that, unlike in the USA, was clearly distinct from "black". In Haiti it is used to refer to a small elite that until very recently held most power in the country. Knoterification (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please don't forget that people in Brazil don't speak English, so they use the Portuguese word "mulato", not the English word "mulatto". On the other hand, if you really think that dictionaries are no reliable sources on the use of the English word "mulatto", as you said above, it will be hard for us to reach a consensus. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It will be hard to reach a consensus when dictionary entries are taken as proper and all encompassing reference-material for an encyclopedic articles. Also, let's keep this discussion of a sufficient intellectual level; I'm quite sure Knoterification knows that Brazilians do not speak English negatively and I'm quite sure you (Rsk6400) are aware that even without an extra t, 'mulatto and mulato are the same word as well as basic concept. I ask you directly Rsk6400, what is your current position and argumentation so that others may respond to it? Vlaemink (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Vlaemink, please read my comment of 08:53, 28 November 2022. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

In that comment you talk about your personal belief that "our readers" know that "words have different meanings in different language". You claim that "everybody" supposedly knows that "words sounding similar and having the same root can be very treacherous" and that therefore we don't have to mention that the word "mulatto" is an English word or that it is outdated and offensive only in English. Apart from the logic of that statement not being particularly sound, this seems to be argumentum ad populum; and one rooted in your personal assumptions at that.

Therefore I'm sorry, but have to ask again: what is your current position and what evidence (i.e. reference material) do you have to back this position up? Vlaemink (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that I explained my position well enough. Feel free to seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As you were the one to raise this issue and given your last reply, I will assume that you will not seek to further contest Knoterifications edits concerning this particular issue in the future; thereby closing the matter. Vlaemink (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

After three discussions in two languages, I have given up all hope that you will ever understand me correctly. I already gave Knoterification two warnings on their talk page, but I still hope that it will not be necessary to take this to WP:ANI/3RR. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Either clarify your position or let the issue go. Melodramatic passive agressiveness like the comment above adds nothing. Vlaemink (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has got out of hand. @Acroterion:, before preceding to more formal steps, might I ask your opinion on whether the second sentence ("Its use is considered outdated and offensive in English.") should contain the words "in English" or not ? Thanks in advance, Rsk6400 (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting is this Dutch article]. The article, from 2008, states that the term is offensive but the offensiveness is derived from the American usage. To my opinion, the addition of "in English" is not correct. The Banner talk 19:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about the history of racial categories in Dutch culture, but I would not be surprised if it were similar to the Anglo-Saxon world. It is also common that due to cultural similarities and wide use of the English language, the Dutch are the first to adopt cultural tendencies from the Anglosphere. Knoterification (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, and administrators won't arbitrate content. I note that we've seen profoundly disruptive conduct from a now-blocked editor who asserted ownership over the term, and who asserted that there was nothing at all offensive and outdated about it, which does not agree with the use in English. This editor was a source of considerable exasperation for others, including myself, so I would appreciate it if we could avoid characterizing other editors' comments as "melodramatic." That's a personalized comment that is unhelpful. It appears that other languages are following the same trend as English, but more gradually. Whether ot not the inclusion of "in English" or its absence captures that accurately is the central issue. Acroterion (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

American hegemony, as an agent of cultural homogenization, in action. Inn Brazil for example, some adopt the American way, others reafirm mulatto as a specific Brazilian social identity, for example musician Caetano Veloso. https://www.uol.com.br/splash/noticias/2021/12/21/caetano-defende-uso-do-termo-mulato-nao-vejo-qual-o-problema.htm Knoterification (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The corresponding German word "Mulatte" is also marked as "discriminatory"[2] by Duden (called "the preeminent language resource of the Standard High German language" by its WP article). But I still hold that while words in different languages may be similar, they are never identical (except, perhaps, scientific terms like homo sapiens). So the Brazilians just don't use the English word mulatto, but the Portuguese word mulato.

May I suggest this solution: You add something based on reliable secondary sources to the section on Brazil. But please remember that an 80-year-old celebrity might not be the best source for the current use of the word, especially since he doesn't self-identify as "mulato" but says that his father was one. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Let's not muddle the waters here; as this whole issue is quite straightforward when it comes to WP:CITE: It is you who has pushed the claim, that mulatto/mulato is offensive across all languages, i.e. that it is a universally offensive term; if that is still your claim, then you should provide sources for that. If that is no longer your claim, you should clarify what is.

If it still is however and you cannot, or cannot do so convincingly (for example, because others bring forward source material that conflicts with this) provide these sources/references then you will have to accept some form of consensus or differentiation.

In the mean time, it is your claim (mulatto/mulato being offensive across all languages) that has no sources and hence should not be placed in the article while this discussion is still going on. Over the past few days, you, Rsk6400 have nevertheless reverted the article to contain your as of yet unsupported claim a total of six (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) times, while lecturing other participants on edit-warring and the 3RR. This is not constructive. Vlaemink (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

After a very quick google-search:

In English and among many African Americans, the term "mulatto" carries offensive connotations. In Spanish and Portuguese, however, and among U.S. Latinos/as and Latin Americans, the term mulato/a (so spelled) not only does not carry an offensive connotation but has in fact now become a sign of pride and identity. (in Grace and Humanness: Theological Reflections Because of Culture by Orlando O. Esp, Orbis Books, 2007)

Vlaemink (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that I never claimed that the term is offensive across all languages. Seems like Vlaemink is attacking a WP:STRAWMAN. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

By opposing (as you have done and stated numerous times) the addition of "in English" in "Its use is considered outdated and offensive in English" you are implying that the term is offensive in general and hence across languages. Vlaemink (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Yes he does. Mulato and pardo interchangeably.

2. If you knew even a little bit about Brazil, you would know Caetano Veloso has a deep influence in the country, not only as a singer, but also as a thinker and writer.

3. I don't know what is the relevance of his age. Like it or not he is still alive and is currently using the word. Knoterification (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I will also add that if the article was only about the term mulatto in Anglophone settings, than the categorization "offensive in English", would be redundant. But the article is clearly not only about the term mulatto in Anglophone settings. Knoterification (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

As I already said, I suggest you add something about Brazil, but please follow WP rules and also please try to avoid aggressive language. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the addition of "in English" to the lead section

Should the words "in English" be added to the second sentence of the lead section ? The resulting sentence would be "Its use is considered outdated and offensive in English." Rsk6400 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment This has been discussed extensively in the section above #Anglocentric_bias. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Since this article is part of the English Wikipedia, we don't have to clarify the language. Words, even if they sound similar and have the same root, are different in different languages. Of course we can add sections on the use of "mulato" in Brazil or "mulâtre" in francophone countries. According to MOS:LEAD (the lead should summarize the article), we should do that first before we change the lead. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support: Mulato/Mullato is a term used across multiple languages and cultures. It has already been shown, that in Spanish and Portuguese (where the term originated) the term does not carry the same offensive connotation as in English and has in some cases become a sign of pride and identity. This is the English-Wikipedia, yes, but English is a world language and should therefore represent a worldly view; as per WP:NPOV. In this case especially, the context of Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking cultures cannot be relegated to a secondary role, as it is within Brazil and the Spanish-speaking countries of South and North America that the term mulato was/is most used. The lead should not reflect merely one cultural sphere/ language, but make clear that the use and interpretation of this term varies both across time and cross-culturally. Vlaemink (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The term in offensive in more languages than just English. The Banner talk 12:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see though, why this wouldn't be accounted for when writing that its offensiveness instead "differs cross-culturally". Or why its current offensiveness in multiple languages, would make it offensive in general. Especially with Spanish (~550 million speakers) and Portuguese (~250 million speakers) involved. Vlaemink (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Than we should specify those languages (apparently Germanic languages). Currently despite the article claiming that, the sources only point to English. Knoterification (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I had recently added this link to the discussion (in Dutch). The Banner talk 20:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Intersting article. I don't speak Dutch, but it appears to defend its use in the language, right? Knoterification (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece which seems to come to the conclusion that in contempory Dutch (and I would support this from my personal experience) the use of word mulat has long since died out. The leading Dutch dictionary Van Dale doesn't note "mulat" as derogatory; stating simply that a "mulat" is a "descendant of a white and a black person" -- but I would ignore this and focus on the fact that is no longer a word used in contemporary Dutch; which I think the article kindly provided by TheBanner clearly shows. Vlaemink (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Do you know if mulatto was ever a social category in the Dutch speaking world? Or was there hypodescent like in the USA? Knoterification (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Summarize the reliable sources. The language this Wikipedia is in has nothing to do with how we treat a subject, and rejecting that idea is the main reason I'm bothering to leave this comment. The language of this project creates a systemic bias that we need to work to remedy as best we can, rather than reinforce. If the reliable sources say that it's offensive in English-speaking countries but not in Spanish-speaking countries, we should say that. If the reliable sources say it's offensive and Wikipedia editors say "but not everywhere", then leave it out because we only go by the sources we're summarizing. Based on the thread above, it seems likely that something like "Its use is considered outdated and offensive in many places, especially English-speaking countries" might be called for, but I don't see many sources linked there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I fully concur with this assessment. In requesting this RFC in this form, Rsk6400 has limited the number of possible solutions / grounds for consensus considerably. This RFC should not be about whether "in English" ought to be added to the second sentence of the lead section, but rather on how differing (sourced/properly referenced) cultural attitudes should/could be included. Vlaemink (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support: I agree 100% with Vlaemink, I don't see why one would oppose specifying that it is offensive and outdated in English, since that seems to be standard in Wikipedia (negro, orient, gringo). Knoterification (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Adding "in English" suggests the term is only offensive in English. Rather, I would suggest others find the languages where it is not considered offensive, provide reliable sources to back up that information, and propose a section about the difference of use in those languages. :— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  Following a neutral point of view, and avoiding anglocentric bias, one should not assume it is offensive in most languages because it is offensive in English. We should both state languages where it is offensive, and where it isn't. Currently all sources provided are exclusively about the English language. Knoterification (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  The onus is on you to provide that information, and evidence it is not offensive in other languages. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  1) That information has already been provided; see the above section; 2) The statement "it is considered offensive and obsolete" is different from "it is considered offensive and obsolete in English". The latter statement has been proven and isn't disputed by anyone here, but the former statement is as it implies cross-linguistic offensiveness and obsoletion. And for that claim, it is not Knoterification who needs to disprove that (though this has in effect already been done) but for supporters of that statement to provide evidence in support; which has not been the case so far. Vlaemink (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I would say it is a dated and potentially offensive in North America, since those are defining characteristics. It seems accepted use in many locations and is not a current and explicit pejorative even among North Americans, so whether one is offended or even recognizes the word seems more a personal variable. But it also seems not as accepted as Mestizo, Pardo, or Cafuzo. Colourism concerns make any racial term touchy and potentially offensive, but this one seems simply not a hot button. It seems more touchy to choose among more recent racial labellings e.g. 'black' vs 'negro' vs 'African-American' vs 'Mixed'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Since the article is about the people called Mulattoes in many different places this clarification is useful. I see that the lede has changed already, I think that the current version is also okay. Alaexis_¿question? 12:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support, in other languages it's not considered offensive. Even in English, I've seen cases and certain countries where it's not necessarily offensive. I'd even go as far as saying "Its use is sometimes considered outdated and offensive."--Ortizesp (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This page needs to go into more information about the ethnicity in different countries

There isn't enough information on this page. Say if someone were to really extensively look into the term and the people who are identified as mulatto, you would not be able to get much. Each country in Latin America, for example, should have their own section like the "mestizo" article. It would also be nice to bring the population table back, that was rediculous to delete that in the first place. The word may be offensive to English speakers, but censoring the article is not helpful for those who truly just want to use it for research purposes. Lifeinvegas (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)