Talk:National Council of La Raza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Mexican-Americans National Council of La Raza 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Latinos, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Latinos and Hispanics on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to: arts, culture, sciences, politics or anything else related to Latinos. 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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Council of La Raza article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Moved from article page

"Critics of La Raza have expressed concerns that La Raza seeks to empower Hispanics to the detriment of non-Hispanic white Americans, African Americans, and other minorities. They also state that they receive millions of dollars in federal funds a year that are not accounted for."

Placed in the article by User:Jmar123. When asked for a source, he cited foxnews/oreilly. (See the discussion on his/her talkpage.) The participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos are currently working to expand and improve Mexican-American and Chicano-related articles, so we will find the source of the claim when we re-write the article (unless someone out there beats us to it).--Rockero 23:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Though only a stub, this article already manages to be NPOV. It is a matter of some debate whether La Raza ("The Race") seeks to "improve opportunities" or whether they are a bunch of crass racial hucksters pandering to illegal immigrants. Zuzim 17:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Why not expand it and throw up some sources instead of your usual conjecture and race baiting, if you have a problem with the article? Mosquito-001 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Its name is source enough. An organization named "The National council of the White Race" would certainly induce no debate as to whether it was all boosterism or all hucksterism. In fact, even if it was exclusively dedicated to merely "improving opportunities" for white people, that would be enough to have every organization from the SPLC to the Ford Foundation move to destroy it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.160.231 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the above statement about the name itself being enough to deem this organization racist. Also, doesn't any organization that seeks to empower one group based upon race make it by definition prejudice and bigoted. Not explicitly stating these things in the summary at the top makes this article not subscribe to a NPOV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.241.16.5 (talk • contribs)

The English translation of the phrase "La Raza" as "the race" doesn't do the complexity of the Spanish-language term justice. In Spanish, "Raza" is an inclusive term that incorporates people of every ethnicity. A better translation is "the People" or "humanity". So the organization's name does not suffice to classify it as a "racist organization". Groups can only be described as racist if they are exclusionist or discriminatory, which the NCLR is not.--Rockero 22:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Rockero,

It is very interesting that your own wikipedia link does not agree with your definition of la raza; "La Raza means literally in Spanish the race. Broadly it is used to denote the people of Mexico and other peoples of Latin America." So it appears what you say is to at least to some extent incorrect. Also from The NCLR's own website they describe themselves as: "the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States." They don't seem to use the term human rights either specifically denoting that they support Hispanic rights; as if Hispanic rights are different than the god given rights of all human beings. I would say that is a racist statement as it promotes rights based on a racial qualification which is by definition exclusionary. I understand your personal propensity to defend a position you agree with but allowing it to cloud the NPOV stance that wikipedia is supposed to support does a strong disservice to such a fine reference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.241.16.5 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you did not read the entire article (which is admittedly deficient), which goes on to state, "it is used to denote the mixture of those who are variously descended from the indigenous people of the Americas, the Spanish and other Europeans, Arabs, and Africans."
I must disagree with your assessment that "rights based on a racial qualification [...] is by definition exclusionary". Under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States guaranteed Mexico and the Mexican inhabitants of the Mexican Cession that they would enjoy the same rights as they did under Mexico, including the rights to speak Spanish, practice Catholicism, have their property rights protected, etc. These are the "Hispanic rights" that advocacy and civil rights groups were formed to protect and enhance, as the United States did not meet its obligation under the terms of the treaty. So in one sense, said rights are "special" within the context of the United States, but frankly, these rights are the same basic human rights declared by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Furthermore, the Latino population is composed of individuals of all races and mixtures of races, which means that the identification "La Raza" is not racial at all, but cultural (i.e. a common heritage rooted in Spanish colonization of the Americas). So there is no "racial qualification" whatsoever to be a part of the NCLR.
My "personal propensity" is not "to defend a position [I] agree with", (I presume you are referring to my statement that "the organization's name does not suffice to classify it as a 'racist organization'"), but for accuracy in Wikipedia articles. Show me an act of racism committed by the NCLR. Show me some proof that the organization practices bigotry or exclusion, and I will be glad to incorporate the information into the article. But I think we know what is really going on here. The NCLR, as a large national organization, has become the target of immigration reductionists, nationalists, and other groups and individuals in the current climate of anti-Mexican and anti-immigrant sentiment brought about by the heated United States immigration debate.--Rockero 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


NCLR advocates political action The article as now written neglects to mention the political action activities of NCLR. From their current website ("http://www.nclr.org/content/policy/detail/1058/"): "Action Center

Join our action network and make your voice be heard.

   * Legislative Action Center
   * Sign up for Action Alerts
   * Current Issues
   * Register to Vote"

Instead of the current "opportunities for Hispanics. According to" I suggest "opportunities for Hispanics. It promotes passage of laws related to immigration. According to" --Tomday 12:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCLR more anti-white than pro-latino

why is it perfectly within the boundaries of political correctness to be openly anti-white but all hell breaks loose when someone white occuses another group of racism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.138.8 (talk • contribs) 6 September 2006

Why is the NCLR anti-white? Can you name any specific activities along with a reliable source that would give you this belief? Maybe they can be included in the article.Mosquito-001 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Minority" Racism

I wonder what people would say if there was a WET (White Entertainment Television)? Or how about a "National Council of White People"? Or maybe a "Whites Unite"? Or maybe we could celebrate a "White History Month"? I can't imagine the protests, the riots, and outcries...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.6.202 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 September 2006

I blame Lou Dobbs for getting guys like the above to think NCLR is the root of all their problems in life. Regardless, this page is not for your daydreams and musings, it's to discuss the NCLR article and how to improve it. Mosquito-001 15:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, unidentifed user, that if there were a "National Council of White People" a "Whites Unite" or a "White History Month" it would include participation by Latinos/Hispanics/Chicanos/La Razans in its celebrations and events. Bet you didn't think of that? It looks like you're the one who engages in "minority" racism. But as Mosquito pointed out, this page is not for our daydreames and musings, it's to discuss the NCLR article. So perhaps we could move this discussion over to your page? You do have one, right? Chicaneo 20:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

This text has just been re-added to the "Criticism" section:

"In addition, "La Raza supports legislation such as the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which would roll back policies adopted after Sept. 11 designed to protect national security. It supports the "DREAM Act," which would mandate states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens – thus providing them with benefits not available to U.S. citizens from other states. The group opposes the "Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003" and the "Homeland Security Enhancement Act" would give state and local police officers the authority to enforce federal immigration laws." [1]"

I removed it because, while written in a critical tone, the addition does not detail any criticism. That is, notable criticisms by important figures or groups should by all means be included. But this addition simply states three positions currently held by the NCLR --which by the way should NOT be referred to simply as "La Raza"-- without stating who is criticizing the organization or why. If the person who added it on without filling in an edit summary would care to rephrase this in an encyclopedic tone and work it into a new "Positions" section, he or she would find no objections from my part. However, since the NCLR tends to take positions on legislation depending on whether it sees that legislation benefitting or harming Latinos, it should not be necessary to state their position on every bill that comes up, unless it is particularly notable. As the two paragraphs are currently I feel they should be removed.--Rockero 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by a sockpuppet

The following discussion is an archived debate.Please do not modify it.

Recently there appears to be an edit war, and user:evrik requested semiprotection, which I think is not a good way to go about a content dispute.

As a matter of course regarding what I see as improper behavior, I've reverted this. This is not to say that I have any opinion on which version is correct. Please bring your discussion here rather than continuing to cause problems by edit warring in the article space. One Elephant went out to play... 19:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Reverting the comments of an anonymous user placing POV items on a page is not an edit war. --evrik (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is only one IP that is vandalizing. It is not a content dispute, it is an anonymous user that keeps using this text

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is a racial supremacist group in the United States, similar to the Ku Klux Klan. Its focus is on Reconquista (Mexico) and Hispanic supremacy.

to replace this text

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is a non-profit, and non-partisan political advocacy group in the United States. Its focus is on reducing poverty and discrimination, and improving opportunities for Hispanics. According to the organization's website, it is "the largest constituency-based national Hispanic organization, serving all Hispanic nationality groups in all regions". To this end, the NCLR does research, disseminates information through reports, press releases, and its website, provides expert testimony, and lobbies for causes important to Hispanics. To fund programs, the NCLR partners with philanthropic organizations, such as the Ford Foundation, and corporations, such as Citigroup and Wal-Mart. The NCLR serves its constituency by means of affiliations with almost 300 community organizations. The NCLR is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and maintains eight regional offices. The current president is Janet Murguia.

This is clearly vandalism by an anon user. One Elephant went out to play... just left me a message more or less accusing me of edit warring. Excuse me, but asking for semi-protection is a way to make whoever is forcing these changes to register so it can be discussed. --evrik (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, La Raza is a racist group. That's not vandalism, La Raza is a racist group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.48.36 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 9 March 2007

And "forcing people to register" is fucking bullshit, unless you're just a registration nazi. Nothing requires anyone to register for there to be a discussion, registration nazi boy. That's not vandalism, La Raza is a racist group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.48.36 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 March 2007

Probably a good idea to support such allegations with external sources rather than just posting them willy-nilly on the page. Otherwise, they certainly cannot stay. Danny 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. 24.162.48.36,Please tone down your language Wikipedia is not a battle field so there is no reason to respond to other editors with such hostility. I've looked at the edits, I can see why someone would consider them to be vandalism. Can you provide any reputable sources to back up your claims? --Gmaxwell 22:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Temp protected for a cooldown period; nothing will explode if it is locked to edits while this is worked out on talk. (Note to admins: please undo before expiry if it's warranted, without bothering to ask me.) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC) oh yeah, and you "conveniently" changed it before you locked it down, right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.48.36 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 9 March 2007

La Raza is a racist org, it's the latino version of KKK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.48.36 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 March 2007

Human Events is hardly an objective source. La Raza's former president, Raul Yzaguirre, denounced aztlan.net's diatribes against the Jews, and disassociated itself from their comments (and they have NEVER had any affiliation whatsoever).

As to Mexican gangs, the NCLR has expressed concern over gang violence, and encourages all Latino youth to graduate high school and get a college education. It also encourages military service and views it as a patriotic act.

This is hardly "racist." Perhaps you may disagree with their politics, but differing opinions is hardly grounds to classify a group as "racist."

Someone put a fucking disputed tag on this already at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.48.36 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 9 March 2007

  • I think you are confusing La Raza and La Raza Cósmica with NCLR. Maybe I missed it, but of the four cites you gave, only Norwood mentioned NCLR ... the other three had to do with La Raza. --evrik (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comparing the two versions in "dispute", at least the "evrik" version seems verifiable, while 24.162.48.36 makes a conclusory unverifiable statement. For starters, "La Raza" is not an organization that I am aware of. This has been rehashed many times here, but NCLR and "la raza" as a concept are two different things. The statement that "La Raza is a racist org" is false on at least one level: la raza is not an "org". Murcielago 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with established guidelines. One of the guidelines is that all articles must contain information which can be verified from a reliable source. The introductory paragraph of this article is within compliance of policy. There maybe misconception of as to the application of the word "La Raza", however the article is about the NCLR. To change the articles introduction with the accusation that the NCLR is a racist organization maybe be considered as an act of vandalism and point of view unless the party making the change can provide the required sources which are reliable and which can be verified as required by policy. I suggest that the parties involved in this dispute refrain themselves from the use of profanity. The use of the word "fucking" from the anon is uncalled for. This is a forum which calls for civility. Tony the Marine 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And a US Congressman isn't a reliable source? Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.48.36 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 10 March 2007

  • That piece was an opinion piece. I could cite at least three members of congress with differing opinions. --evrik (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between "facts" and "opinion". Everybody is entittled to their opinions. When the President of the United States stated that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, he expressed an "opinion" which was not based on "facts". However, until those opinions can be proven as undeniable facts, they remain as point of view and therefore unaceptable under Wikipedias policy. However, you are entittled to state as a note that said person has made such a statement. Tony the Marine 18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned by what is going on here. I have been checking the sources offered by the anon, and it does seem to paint a pretty grim picture of what the NCLR actually is. Instead of honestly debating this, however, multiple administrators have both reverted and locked the page, user:Evrik stated that trying to get it locked was a "legitimate" method of trying to force someone to register (I was under the impression that registration on Wikipedia is not compulsory in any fashion), and the other side offers no citations of their own but attacks the messenger and sources without anything to back up their own attacks. This is not the way wikipedia is supposed to operate. I am going to paste this concern to WP:ANI in a moment. One Elephant went out to play... 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.