Talk:Chicano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chicano falls under the scope of WikiProject Mexican-Americans, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexican-Americans on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Mexican-Americans as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Mexican-Americans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Redirects 2 Chicamo 3 Grammar 3.1 Chicano/as 4 Edits 5 Vatos and lowriders 6 Notable Chicanos 7 Sources 8 Date 9 Not Synonymous: Mexican-American and Chicano. 10 Chicano/a or Chican@ 11 Chicano is not a term for the Dictionary 12 Not Hyphenated 13 What is this? 14 Latino template 15 Chican@ and Chicano/a 16 Chicamo 17 Brown Pride 18 Image 19 Help 20 use of non-specific quantifiers/identifiers: "some," "many," "others," etc. 21 Demographics 22 Feedback Requested: Photo replacement

[edit] Redirects

I don't think the Mexican-American page should redirect automatically to the Chicano page - the two terms are not entirely synonymous. Perhaps a separate page should be made for Mexican-American, as in the case of Hispanic American and Latino. Just my two cents.

- AvestanHamster 23:02, 6 September 2004

Two pages dedicated to the same subject isn't an error, but what made Mexican-Americans more recognized is the self-title "Chicano" in full swing during the civil rights era. The current massive wave of Mexican immigrants and other Latin Americans into the U.S. can change not just Anglo culture, but introduce newer elements to a culture evolved abit separately in the last 50,100 or 150 years as "Mexican American". The ability for an ethnic group whose origins is across a line, fence or border across the desert, has been an oddity in the international study of racial and ethnic groups, a people remain as Mexican they could while they became American. --Mike D 26 09:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicamo

ChicanoJ keeps adding in Chicamo. I looked at this source, which has the term "sic" next to chicamo. To me this says nthat it is a misspelling quoted in context. I don't think we should keep it in the article. --evrik 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify that the only reason i changed it back was because i asked another member about it and they told me it's with an 'm'....ChicanoJ 23:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the Gamio text. On page 129, in a discussion of the attitudes of American citizens of Mexican descent toward recent immigrants, he states, "They call these recent immigrants cholos or chicamos". Later in the same volume (page 233), in an appendix concerning linguistics, he states that the word "chicamos" is "probably derived from "mexicanos". Professor Cuellar's use of "(sic)" is more likely to be an indication that he is not misquoting Gamio in "misspelling" "chicamo" than an indication that he is acknowledging an error in Gamio's work. Gamio is pretty clear that it is "chicamo" with an "m". Since his 1927 study is the first documentation of the term, we should include his discussion of the term as he documented it. Later changes to the term can be discussed subsequently.--Rockero 21:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

[edit] Chicano/as

I got this note:

I noticed that you changed "Chicano/as" in the same article to simply "Chicano". The "slash-as" was intentional. It indicates that the term refers to both males and females. It wouldn't be necessary in English, since our nouns do not indicate gender, but in Spanish, the suffix "-o" denotes a masculine. So in order that readers, especially those conversant in Spanish, will know that the discussion of both genders, the suffix "-as" was also included. I agree that the grammar and wording was a bit sloppy, so I'll try to clean it up, but I'm going to add the suffix back in. The article needs some major work anyways, so if you'd like to collaborate, I'd be glad to work with you. Please feel free to make your thoughts about changes to the article known on the article's talk page.--Rockero 23:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been contributing to this page for a while now. I just wanted to state that I don't like the term chicano/a, chicano/a, chican@, or any of the other variations. I have been editing them out of the page for several months now. Does anyone have a serious problem with that? evrik 19:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we are just trying to make up for deficiencies in the Spanish language, which uses the masculine gender as a sort of "default", while a big part of being a Chicano or Chicana is awareness and consciousness about these issues. It is pretty much convention in Chicano studies departments in universities. Indeed, some even consider Chicana studies a separate discipline. I don't think the usage is particularly grammatical, so I'd be willing to compromise on the issue, as long as our sisters are included.--Rockero 01:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

User 68.127.82.160 added a large paragraph at the end of the article, which I've cut because it appears to be lifted from some MEChA literature as seen on these websites: [1], [2], etc. ←Hob 04:02, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

Seems fair for the deletion. I was the one who added the parenthetical sentence about how "mexica/mechica" means "barbarians." I've always considered the Mexican obsession with the Aztecs to be somewhat curious, considering what bloodthirsty assholes the Aztecs themselves were; the Spanish conquest was facilitated in large part by resentment against the folks in Tenochtitlan.--Slightlyslack 03:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I've changed the statement 'Aztlan was the dominant nation' to 'the Aztec empire was the dominant nation'. Calling that empire 'Aztlan' is somewhat like calling Greece 'Mount Olympus' or 'Atlantis'. If anything, the appropriate name would be 'Tenochca empire' or something like that. --Bletch 04:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- Your analogy is correct. The "Aztec Empire" was, at various times centered around the city-state Mexihco-Tenochtitlan and at other times, included the other city-states in the triple alliance. I have heard mesoamerican historians refer to it genereically as the "Mexi(h)ca Empire". --Pozole 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

---

---

When I was a child, someone told me (I'm thinking my mother) that Chicano came from the Apache. He couldn't say Mejicano(Mexicano). It came out Mechicano. Then it was just shorten to chicano. Since there was no love lost between the two; chicano was used to refer to a *&^%$dirty low life. --Cypriano 19:58, 25 February 2005

Chicano is somewhere between an accepted word "black Irish" and a racially offensive one like the "N word" when used disparagingly. The affiliation of "Chicano" as poor urban brown people is what many felt is misused to insult an entire race. Then when the term used like "I'm proud to be Chicano" indicates a self-knowledge of his family or people's history. Theories arise on the origins of the term, some say from an immigrant from Chihuahua known as a "Chichuaenos", others pinpoint to a source of other Latin Americans came to Cal. during the gold rush (like Chile or Chilecainos), and the term may derive from Chican/ Chichen, the ancient Maya temple-city in the Yucatan peninsula. To prounounce Mexican in local Spanish dialects would sound like 'Me-She-ko' or 'Mek-he-ko', since university level Spanish the extra letter "Ch" sounds like the english "J" or "sh". The Mexican Indian version sounds like "Che" and "Hee/Xee" and this varies across the country. + 207.200.116.201 05:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying Chicano is a race. Deepstratagem 03:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vatos and lowriders

I have deleted

But unfortunately chicanos are classified and stereotype as "gangsters" and the style differs from the average "Mexican" from Mexico. The mexicans from Mexico are normally categorized as "Border brothers" with their cowboyish dress attire and unique style of music where as the chicano dress attire and style are "Lowriders" and gang affliation vato locos form the surenos or nortenos.

This is, in a word, tontería. Yes, there's a kernel of an idea here, as well as some accurate observations, but in its present form it says nothing — certainly nothing I would want to build an article on. The article as a whole needs to be cleaned up to meet wiki standards. -24.126.41.116 19:58, 4 March 2005

"'Border brothers'" with their cowboyish dress attire'? Yes, in the north of Mexico, some people dress in cowboyish attire... But that's only in a handful of states. I agree with the above comment, and will delete the reverted "vandalism", too. --Deepstratagem 06:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You did the right thing to rewrite your comment, in order to avoid generating stereotypes associated with Mexicans and Latinos. "Zoot suiter" is another from the style of dress popularized in the 1940s by Mexican Americans living in Los Angeles at the time. There was a 1970s play turned to a movie "Zoot suit riot" starring actors of Chicano descent like Edward James Olmos. And during that time, movies like "Cheech and chong" and TV shows like "Chico and the Man" was held as mixed representation of Mexican Americans. The actors are mainly Chicano/Latino comedians Cheech Marin and Freddy Prinze that had friendly and positive characters, but the use of references to crime, drugs, gangs, low rider cars, immigrants, spanglish words and tacos may upset some activists. But this is an actual yet satirical display of the Chicano/Latino community, esp. when there was little number of Latino actors at the time.+ 207.200.116.201 05:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Chicanos

I am adding Sandra Cisneros to the list of notable Chicanas. -Drogue 00:59, 10 August 2005

What about zach de la rocha (formaly from rage against the machine)

Would anyone mind horribly if I moved the "Notable Chicanos" section to the List of notable Chicanos, leaving just a link in the "See also"? This has been bothering me for a while....--Rockero 08:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Rockero 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed to confirm Paula Abdul was of Mexican American descent, but never called herself "chicano/a". If not, this shall be removed. I'm not sure how many famous Mexican Americans are out there, Chicano/Latino or otherwise simply as American. The media mistakenly lumped Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans as one singular ethnicity or said who's a "Puerto Rican" is actually Colombian, while a "Mexican" is instead a Cuban American. Whoever thought Paula Abdul was "Mexican" is a mistake or an error, not to stereotype her in anyway. Some people think Gloria Estefan was Puerto Rican or Christina Aguilera was Dominician, but any fan with a knowledge of their lives knows better: Estefan is Cuban, Aguilera's father is from Ecuador. It's a problem of identity within what's called the Latino population, but to be Hispanic, Chicano or Latino does not inscribe to one single people or culture, there's a variety of them and let's not assume he/she is Mexican, Chicano, etc. without any reliable research. --Mike D 26 09:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I believe we should look into other sources available in the Wikipedia realm but also Primary sources that can be found within textbooks of archeology, history, and the sort. I also believe we must constantly be citing those sources on each of the entries, not only because Wikipedia asks for it but because its essential for the development of the knowledge base that can be derived from each of various entries found throughout the Wikipedia realm.

A good example is the following wiki page for Aztecs. Check out their Discussion board. Very detail and precise.

thanks and keep on editing, Marcelino 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date

The article says the name dates from the early 19th century. This seems improbable to me. Does anyone have documentation of this? It probably was from the early 20th century, i.e. the early 1900's. --Lavintzin 03:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right. After the treaties of Guadlupe Hidalgo in 1848 there were about 75,000 mexicans left in the territory but they were not refered as chicanos. The oldest reference to the word, that i have find comes from 1920 acording to a study by Tino Villanueva. (Tino Villanueva, Chicanos (selección), Lecturas Mexicanas, número 889, FCE/SEP, México, 1985, p. 7.) . The problem is that the word has now a full ideologic load that bring a lot of new meaning to the word. Nanahuatzin 06:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree. I think the date was incorrectly stated and was really intended to be early 1900s or 20th century. I think the writer confused the proper usage of time. Marcelino 17:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not Synonymous: Mexican-American and Chicano.

The word Chicano may have been by used by Anglo-Americans to describe poor farm-workers who crossed the Southern U.S. border in look for work, but that doesn't mean that all Mexican Americans fit that description. Additionally, the word is used almost exclusively by Chicanos as an expression of identity. It separates them from Anglo-Americans and it separates them from traditional Mexican nationals. It has been said that Chicanos exist in the space occupied by the hyphen in Mexican-American.

Additionally, the term Mexican-American is redundant, as most people from the Americas consider themselves geographically American (of the American continent; see Use_of_the_word_American). So there's already a problem with that term.

Finally, Chicanos are either political activists (rights for Mexican-American farm workers, illegal immigrants) or they simply do not identify with Mexicans, Mexican-Americans or even Americans (except in the geographical sense of "the Americas").

Therefore, Chicanos != Mexican-Americans. This is why I reverted J. R. Hercules' edits. If you can point out something I missed, I'll be glad to concede appropriate changes, otherwise, I feel you are doing a disservice to everyone by attaching the wrong meaning to already somewhat misunderstood terms. --Deepstratagem 08:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that there are problems with the article. One of the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos is to clean up Mexican-American/Chicano-related articles, and this one is on the block for a major rewrite. Some of your specific contentions are valid and some are not. So please don't be surprised or offended if your edits are changed when the rewrite occurs. We will try to take everyone's concerns into account.--Rockero 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC).
  • I didn't know there was a project overseeing these topics, and I'll be glad to make changes in a more agreeable and constructive way, now that I know others are working on it. --Deepstratagem 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I reverted the edit back to the traditional, commonly-understood definition of Chicano, and added a reference to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary online. Basically, the definition Deepstratagem tried to pass off would garner horselaughs from just any college professor of ethnic studies. If he wants to elaborate on the various obscure controversies surrounding the word Chicano, that's fine. But any encyclopedia worth its salt has to first be grounded in the commonly-understood meaning of terms and events.J.R. Hercules 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to revert your edit, but please understand that saying a Mexican-American is a Chicano is like saying an American is a Southerner. I also cited my source - the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Have you considered Merriam-Webster online may be inaccurate or outdated? --Deepstratagem 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • "saying a Mexican-American is a Chicano" is like saying an "American is a Southerner." That's the wrong analogy. It should be "saying a Mexican-American is a Chicano is like saying an "Southerner is a American." Chicanos are Mexican-American.evrik 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I invite you draw a diagram. Use Logic. Yes, Chicanos are Mexican-American, but that doesn't mean Mexican-Americans are Chicanos. You are arguing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. The original analogy is correct. Think about it. Think. --Deepstratagem 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I further refined the definition of Chicano to make it more specific.70.111.30.235 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed your edits as they were based on generalizations too broad to be of use in this instance. --Bfraga 08:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no idea what you're talking about, because the edit actually made the definition of "Chicano" more specific and less general. But whatever.J.R. Hercules 00:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Only a small percentage of Mexican Americans: more than two generations, living in the Southwest, and in urban areas are more likely to call themselves "Chicano". In the 1960's, congressman Henry Gonzalez of Texas personally rejected the word. In a 1969 address he quoted "as it happens my parents were born in Mexico, came to this country seeking safety. it follows as I and many other residents of my part of Texas and the southwest states happen to be what's commonly called Mexican American." Others like him said only low-class persons of Hispanic descent, not most ranch owners of Northern California and New Mexico north of Santa Fe, went for the "Chicano" labels. It's been said the Mexican community in Texas is more homogenous or older, than California with more urban and racial diverse influences, while Arizona is more culturally Indian and New Mexico is preferably "Spanish". Very little settlement of pre-1850 Hispanics and first wave of Mexican immigrants of 1850-1910 settled north of Denver, Sacramento and Dallas, as the majority settled within 100 miles of the Mexican border (Tucson and El Paso areas, Southern Cal. and South Texas). The multi-generational barrios of San Antonio don't seem "Chicano" enough, but East Los Angeles is considered "Chicano". The upper middle class suburbs of Phoenix is less "Chicano" than urban districts of Denver where "Chicano" remains in use. It depends on how one is raised and his/her environs to make them culturally conscious enough, other than close contacts with the homeland and how much exposed to ethnic militancy.+ 207.200.116.201 04:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicano/a or Chican@

Some stripped that out of the page. I think it should stay, though not be used too much.evrik 15:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicano is not a term for the Dictionary

Please do not use dictionaries or other sources such as these to define Chicano. Unfortunately, the Chicano identity is rather fluid, and any generalizations only serve to misguide users of Wikipedia. --Bfraga 08:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not Hyphenated

From my understanding, it is an insult to the Chicano community to use the term Mexican-American, with a hyphen.

This is my understand of why it is insulting: Native American is used to describe the Native peoples living in the US pre-colonialization. Euro-Americans, during WWII (?), were seen as not liking Hyphenated Americans such as Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, ect. A Chicana/o is more closely linked to the Native American than to the Euro-American because of the conquest that occured in the late 1800's.

I have changed the terms accordingly.

Sgarza 17:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Other Mexican-Americans discorn the term "Chicano" as a low-class and insult term meant to divide people apart. Hyphenation is somewhat popular and more "P.C." to indicate one is an American in meaning. You can try in reversing the hyphen into American Mexican if you want, but there's no real emotional damage to call someone when appropriate a hyphenated-American nickname. African-American has been popularized, so has Japanese-American, German-American, Polish-American and Arab-American for the media and political activists avoid the words "Black", "Pole", "Japanese" or "Arab". It's important to indicate they are Americans, either by birth or choice, and not get carried away in the hyphenation. Why not go back to a time when ethnic, racial and national groups are called epithets, slurs or names? Never...but to say "Spanish" and "Mexican" seems archaic or condescending to some people, while "Hispanic" lost acceptance to some who preferably are "Latino". As long the hyphenated terms or the popular terms lose any acceptance or held as offensive, it will be hard to say only "American" when we're talking about ... Mexicans, Latinos or Hispanics, right now. --Mike D 26 09:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

Unfortunately many Chicanos are classified and stereotyped as "troublemakers" and their style differs from the average "Mexicano". The Mexicans from Mexico are normally categorized as "Border brothers" with their cowboyish dress attire and unique style of music where as the Chicano dress attire and style are "Lowriders" and gang affiliation vatos locos from the Sureños or Norteños. Chicanos are also often known to feud with the "Border brothers", especially those who boast their nationality. They may also refer to themselves as Americanos to identify with their country of origin and to differentiate from Mexicans.

A variation of this has been cleaned up or removed twice. It is very badly written, and Americano refers to Mexicans as well as anyone else in the continent. The whole concept of "style" as written here makes no sense and the whole thing is ambiguous. What is a Sureño and what is a Norteño? Is this localized to California or in reference to the U.S. or is it plain slang. If it is slang, can someone at least clarify? And who is doing the categorizing? U.S. Citizens? Mexican Citizens? sub-cultural divisions of Chicanos?

If this can be clarified then the section can be rewritten to express those cultural views, but otherwise maybe it should be removed. Deepstratagem 04:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

To some Mexican Americans and anyone into the Political correct movement, Chicano is a bad word and it's politically charged. In the late 1960's and 1970's, the word derived from "fool" and "loser" in Northern Mexican dialect of Spanish, it was adapted as an ethnic self-title by some Mexican Americans. But since the 1980's and through the 1990's, that term was avoided and viewed as a negative anti-American thing. Many non-Hispanics avoid any use of the term as an ethnic slur, while some Mexican immigrants think the term is overly unnecessary. Questionable like other ethnic American terms "Scotch Irish", "Sicilian", "Nisei", "Quebecois" and "Hayeian" (Armenian), there was no way the debate can remain settled on "Chicano". Only in recent years (2000s) has the term "Chicano" was restored to distinguish an American of Mexican descent from one recently arrived from Mexico or central America. There's a variance of the Mexican American identity not just "Chicano", but the other terms like "Hispano", "tejano", "Isleno" and "Californio" are often regional. Cubans and Puerto Ricans have their own special terms as well like "exilo" and "Boricuen", thus the idea of a "Latino/Hispanic/Spanish" American group is what's in the name or how one ethnically identifies his/herself. + 207.200.116.201 04:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latino template

Please help with the Latino template. --JuanMuslim ^1m 18:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chican@ and Chicano/a

There has been some back-and-forth on the phrasing of the sentence about the "@" and "o/a" spellings: The two main versions read,

• "Due to the gendered nature of Spanish language, some activists who do not find the masculine term Chicano acceptable to use as a plural, use the terms 'Chicano/a' or 'Chican@'," and
• "Some writers, particularly Chicana feminists, attempt to counteract the gendered nature of Spanish language by using the terms 'Chicano/a' and/or 'Chican@'."

In the first version, we lose the link the Chicana feminism, which, while it may not be the best-researched or -written article, is pertinent to the article and the point the sentence is making. The second problem with the first version is that it is not exactly accurate. It is not just pluralization that masculinizes the word "Chicano", it is the entire "gendered nature of the Spanish language", which, in using masculine versions of words as a general term, is phallo-normative.--Rockero 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Phallo-normative? Oh pulleeze. The first version is better. The second version limits the impact of the statement. I have seen too many MeChistas running around using 'Chicano/a' or 'Chican@' to want to limit it to writers, or feminists. The first one is accurate - the pluralization that masculinizes the word "Chicano" is because of the "gendered nature of the Spanish language", which uses masculine versions of words as a general term. Write a better version of that sentence and I’ll agree to stop editing that sentence as well. --evrik 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Just because we can't use neologisms in articles, doesn't mean we can't use them on talkpages! Lol. Maybe I should have used a different word. (BTW, I got two Google hits without the hyphen [3]. For a comparable concept, see heteronormativity)

I don't know how else you can use "Chicano/a" and "Chican@" except in writing, as the words are not particularly pronunciation-friendly. Feminists pioneered the critique, and others have adopted it. How is mentioning the link to feminism a limitation? By contrast, saying that "Chicanos" in the plural is the only form some writers find "unacceptable" is a limitation.

Here's my proposal that (I hope) addresses all of our concerns:

Criticism of the use of the terms "Chicano" and "Chicanos" to refer to people of both sexes arose from a feminist critique of the Spanish language, which tends to use the masculine form of a noun as the general term. [And then maybe something like "Such use does not acknowledge the feminine component of the Chicano community."] They pioneered the use of "Chicano/a" and "Chican@" (in which the "@" is simultaneously an "a" and an "o") to acknowledge the Chicana. Since then, its use has spread beyond feminist circles.

In a book I just picked up the other day, the author describes her use of "Chicano" in reference to males, "Chicana" in reference to females, and "Chicano/a" to refer to the community as a whole. Maybe a quote from the text can help illustrate this phenomenon?--Rockero 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicamo

Under Etymology is it supposed to be chicano and not chicamo?--ChicanoJ 12:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Gamio says it is "chicamo", with an "m".--Rockero 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown Pride

A design clothing brand brown pride comes in T-shirts, jeans, caps and jackets are popular with "Chicanos" and young Mexican Americans. They carry artistic images of Aztec temples, Aztec calendars and aztec indian warriors. To suggest "brown pride" has more to do with the skin color, racial origins and ancestry of the majority of Mexicans, despite the Wikipedia article said Mexican Americans call themselves "white". Not according to what the clothing designers felt on their ethnic group are descendants of the Aztecs, while the symbolic presence of Spanish heritage was omitted. Are the Chicano/La Raza activists rejected anything pertains to Spanish/Latin American culture? I've seen some Mexican teens wear those shirts to advertise racial pride as Aztec or Native Americans, but this is half of what made the Mexican people. --Mike D 26 06:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Mexican Americans call themselves white" bit is a recent addition to the Mexican American article that I haven't yet had time to correct, and is (or should be) a reference to the early civil rights struggles against segregation. It should not be taken as gospel truth.--Rockero 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

A long time ago we had an image ...

We need more images on this article. --evrik 14:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

who the f chose that image and what does it have to do with chicano. i thought chicano was a cultural identity was political connotations, that guy is just bumming it and he looks stoned or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danedouard00 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC).danedouard00 08:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Please help with the page on Illegal Immigration in the United States. Gracias. Morlesg 09:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• what's going on? --evrik 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] use of non-specific quantifiers/identifiers: "some," "many," "others," etc.

This article is barely a B in my opinion. if people want to upgrade it to an A they need to get rid of all these statements that are somewhat/very unspecific. if someone is pointing to a source that has those kinds of statements then it is not a very good source...

For example: "Many Chicanos interchangeably use the term la raza (literally, the race) to define themselves". does many equal more than 51%? Who the heck quantified that? The only person I heard say that was the wrestler Eddie Guerrero and I don't know that he considered himself a Chicano and guess what, he's dead. I would seriously have to look hard to find someone living who uses that phrase. I'm sure editor's grandmother and neighbor use that but that shouldn't be the basis for adding this statement to this artile.

Another example: "Due to the gendered nature of Spanish language, some activists and writers who do not find the masculine term Chicano acceptable to use".

Did Harris Interactive do a poll on this and did someone forget to copy the percentage? or did some editor personally does not find the masculine term acceptable and add a statement to the article to reflect that?

Huh?: "Many individuals of Mexican descent view the use of the words Chicano or Chicana as reclamation and regeneration of an indigenous culture destroyed through colonialism, although these are only opinions and may not reflect the view of all Chicanos"

On this one I'm not sure why "although... Chicanos" is there. Also was there a poll and was there a double digit percentage of responders that felt chicano was a "reclamation and regeneration of indigenous culture"?? probably not... if one author said this then replace "many individuals of mexican descent" with "author x".

Here's one that I had to re-write because of bad grammer... I supsect this was the claim: "Some music historians argue that Chicanos of Los Angeles in the late 1970's might have independently co-founded punk rock along with the already-acknowledged founders from British-European.[citation needed]"

Probably hearsay.

I suspect that a lot of these statements are a form hearsay or editors original thoughts and those shouldn't be going into this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danedouard00 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Demographics

i moved the "demographics of the united states" table to the bottom but i'm not sure it belongs in this article because chicano is not universally accepted as a race or ethnicity. i'm gonna get rid of it unless someone has a good reason to keep it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danedouard00 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Feedback Requested: Photo replacement

Folks, I would like to offer this image as a potential replacement for the current photo of QuetzalCoatlicue dancers: . However, I would appreciate feedback. The suggested replacement of a single dancer strikes me as a more powerful image than the current group of dancers, albeit perhaps less encyclopedic in terms of broad coverage of the subject. Fishdecoy 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)