Talk:Chicano

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mexico Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Mexican-Americans Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Mexican-American task force (assessed as Top-importance). Art+Feminism This article was created or improved at an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon in 2018.Art+FeminismWikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminismTemplate:ArtAndFeminism articleArt+Feminism articles

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mashy.c1600.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is a part in this article in which you have wrote "NorteAmericano". This is terribly wrong since according to Spanish grammar it is impossible to have a capital letter in the middle of a word (even if it is a compound word). Besides demonyms are not capitalized in Spanish. I think you should correct that. Rockero, you should not call issues within a language 'deficiencies'. No offense, but, though you are right in some sort of way, I wouldn't really consider it appropriate to say that, specially comming from an English speaker, if that is what you are. It is true that, if the objective of a language were to be precise, there should be third way to refer to things in Spanish, a neutral way (like in German, in contrast to English where every noun is neutral), but the masculine form of words is also taken as the neutral way of refering to things.

I removed this sentence for bad grammar, lack of clarity, and absence of a reference: "Another theory is it came into use by American Mexicans that where a product of rioting and the raping of Mexican women in California by Anglo sailors from the navy and army in the 1960's riots and return to give the new born (American Mexican's) Identity they called them self's "chicano/chicana"." Tom Parks (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

---

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 "Chichuaeños", 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)[reply]

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

A big reply. Refering to Bletch's comment: Actually this (yes, I am refering to both this and the article itself) is all full of misinformation. To begin with, any attempt to call the Aztec Empire, 'empire' is wrong, the form of government does not coincide with that of an empire, so this word would not describe it accurately. Neither would 'city-state' describe the 'altepetl' of the Aztecs - though it is not as far from the actual thing as the denomination 'empire' is from expressing what that pseudo-theocratical 'union' really was. Also, this article should mention that the word 'chicano' is a sometimes despective synonym of 'Mexican-American lower class person' or 'Mexican illegal immigrant' used by Mexican people. Refering to 207.200.116.201's comment: What do you mean by 'university level Spanish'? Letter 'Ch' in Spanish is a 'digraph' and is contemplated in the complete standard Spanish alphabet since 1803 - you don't have to go the university to know that. Anyway, it is important to mention that it is an optional letter, and that it doesn't appear in some alphabets. Also, it is not used while organizing alphabetically since 1996. I also would like to tell you that, according to the rules of the Nahuatl language, letter X sounds similar to the 'sh' in English, as so does sometimes in Portuguese (the confusion and variation of the way the word 'Mexico' sounds in between Mexican languages could relate to the fact that some of the European conquerors where Portuguese) and that is why the explanation of the 'meshicano' origin of the word 'Chicano' is most broadly accepted. So it is incorrect to state that the sound of the word 'Mexico' varies within Mexican Spanish speakers, because it is only pronounced that way when refering to the country in some indigenous language. The vast majority of Mexicans pronounce it "ME-HEE-COH", as if it were read by an ancient Spanish person, since letter X formerly sounded like letter H in English and German. Also, refering to Slightyslak's comment: You are one the kind of ignorant aryan mo%$&$#@kers that drive me mad the most. How dare you call Aztecs 'bloodthirsty assholes'?! Human sacrifice was a very respected practice in ancient Mesoamerica it was honorable to die in that way, people did not fear death it was part of their culture (it is) and their religion. But, of course, you don't understand. You cannot judge it by your easily-impressionable, prejudging mind. Besides, according to the latest research it was extremely rare and was only used during very hard times. Such image of ancient Mesoamericans sacrificing people is nothing but a dumb, panic-feed exageration made by the Spanish because during the war of Conquest the Aztec warriors took prisioners from the conquering troops and killed them to try to scare the Spanish away. I think you should know that if you have an account and everything here. I can't imagine how can the English version of Wikipedia call itself a trustworthy source if they allow people like you to edit their articles! Europeans have shown to be way more bloodthirsty; remember the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust and the way the British tryed to exterminate the indigenous tribes when they first went to North America. One more thing, there is no such thing as a Mexican obsession with Aztecs, most of the population is of indigenous descent. A ratherly big portion of the language with which people express themselves in a daily basis uses words in 'nahuatl' (the lenguage of the Aztecs). They (We) are the real inheriters - if not the closest thing to it - of that and other cultures that inhabited Mexico before the Spanish conquered it. It is not an obsession, its research on their (our) past.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • "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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]

• I further refined the definition of Chicano to make it more specific.70.111.30.235 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) I added it back into the introduction. Should stay for now. --Wesborden (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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 warriors. To suggest "brown pride" has more to do with the skin color, history and racial origins 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. Has the Chicano/La Raza activists rejected anything pertaining to Spanish/Latin American culture? I've seen some Mexican teens wear those shirts to advertise racial pride as Aztec/Native American, but this is half of what made the Mexican people. --Mike D 26 06:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A long time ago we had an image ...

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

Folks, I would like to offer this image as a potential replacement for the current photo of QuetzalCoatlicue dancers: File:Hiawatha openining023a.JPG. 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)[reply]

What does the following sentence have to do with the etymology? "Popular Chicano-themed literature include "Always Running" by Luis J. Rodriguez and "Forever My Lady" by Jeff Rivera." Should it be moved to another section?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristophanes68 (talk • contribs)

See discussion at Talk:List of notable Chicanos. Pairadox 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed in Wikipedia's Chicano page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicano where "External links" are listed is a website "Network Aztlan." Network Aztlan's mission is to sell artwork. ChicanoForums.com doesn't sell anything.

Network Aztlan is listed twice.

I truly believe Chicano Forums has a right to be listed there as well. We, Chicanoforums.com, are the main Chicano activist website on the internet. We also have a Essay Contest for high school and college students and we do not require citizenship to win the $150.00 prize. We have TWO winners for a total of $300.00. Please view: Essay Contest This money comes from members' donations and mostly from my own contributions.

Our subscriber list trumps Network Aztlan by at least twice as many subscribers, possibly three times as many. I know this because I was a member of their group for a very short period of time.

ChicanoForums.com works very closely with ANSWERLA, LA.Indymedia and the National Alliance for Human Rights. No other Chicano website on the internet compares to our activism.

Chicanoforums.com is much more than just discussion forums. We are a activist community.

As a result, I believe ChicanoForums.com should be listed as an External link in Wikipedia's Chicano page.

Kind Regards,

Daniel Maldonado Webmaster ChicanoForums.com

Virtualchicano (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:BOLD. Voyager640 (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way that the language of the article can clarify that we're not talking about Mexicans who immigrate to America, but about Americans born of Mexican ancestry? I've read the disagreements above about the difference between Chicano and Mexican American, and I agree that they aren't the same, but reading the article, I still feel that it implies that any Mexican in America is Chicano, when it should be stressing that Chicanos are U.S. natives? (Or am I mistaken about this?) Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read and saw the following phrase -- should it be given more prominence in the opening paragraph? "The terms Chicano and Chicana are used specifically by and regarding Americans of Mexican descent." Or maybe put "Americans of Mexican descent" in bold letters? Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, we're Americans of American descent. We're natives who got assimilated into Spanish colonialism before the Mexican-American war. If immigrants want to call themselves Chicano I'm not going to say they can't, but politically we have challenges far more similar to Native Americans than Mexican-immigrants.64.81.164.165 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the Civil Rights portion of this page leaves much to be desired in the realm of specifically identifying major organizations and movements that sprouted during the late 60's early 70's such as the Brown Berets, the Chicano Air Force, and other relevant Brown Pride movements; many of which still exist in some form or another. I also noted that the literary portion of the text limits itself to only a few writers, in fact Chicano is a widely used term amongst many writers both past and present. What about Ricardo Sanchez and his famed pinta poems 'Canto de mi liberacion?' For instance Rudolfo Anaya is a great writer from Santa Rosa, New Mexico in fact his novel, 'Bless Me Ultima,' takes place in that landscape; however the true dean of Chicano poetry would be Sabine Ulibarri, now deceased his textual works in poetic prose fashion led to a milleau of current chicano writers, in fact more importantly Mr. Ulibarri wrote from a rural chicano perspective rather than an urban one. There is also the famed poet from the south valley of Albuquerque, Jimmy Santiago Baca whose epic work 'Martin and Meditations on the South Valley' won critical acclaim, however he is most notable as the screenwriter and one of the actors in the Chicano based film, 'Bound by Honor: Blood In/Blood Out.' I have added a section titled Alternative Stories, as a chicano born and raised with that identity it was amazing to read this article which for me fell short. Also I am distressed at all this posturing in attempts to accurately define Chicano, the debate of whether its an insult or identity is ridiculous, I have never heard of such thing, even in consulting with all the elders I know, they have known chicano as a term to have been used and passed down since the early 1800's in southern Colorado and New Mexico. Of course most of these families never kept 'archives' or attempted to preserve documents that would definitively mark when the term was coined per se; however these many and variable Chicano families and communities have a rich cultural, social and vibrant oral history that is passed down, though they may not quantified by any relevant, codified fact, they however are real to the Chicanos that hold those histories dear, even if they are inaccurate, for that is the essence of Chicano----in fact this should not be on Wikipedia, we are not artifacts to deconstruct, analyze and then put back together, we are real peoples, with a real history, a real culture, something deeper than any academic could explain unless they themselves were Chicano. So if you wish to delete my anecdotes then by all means, but if you delete our oral history, then whats next on the chopping block? If you will not tell our stories, then who will? What will be left? I see continuously that its rare for people to use the term Chicano; what emperical data have you collected with direct investigative techniques to come up with such quasi-facts? What distinct modern census has been performed that would enable anyone to state with certainty that Chicano is a rare and often misused term? Those are words from people that never really understood Chicano. This article needs to be factual and verifiable, however when dealing with Chicano there needs to be some caveat for our creative expressions, our rich and varied historical-oral mapping, our landscapes, our unique chicano faith and superstitions. Thank you for your time---jd (sanmino001@yahoo.com) 06102008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.243.2 (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? Need a source for this. It's not like the term "wetback" (for immigrants) or worse names. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as much, but Chicano is a controversial if not archaic, not deragatory term for Mexican people to hold hostile political feelings about the USA, and white Anglos now don't normally use the term in order not to be racially insensitive to Hispanics/Latinos whom not completely identify themselves "Chicano". The term Chicano was also thought to came from Chichen Itza, the Mayan pyramid site in the Yucatan Peninsula and the Maya are another MesoAmerican civilization associated with Mexico, indigenous Mexicans alike Nahuatl or Aztecan speaking peoples had been in crosscultural contact with the Mayan peoples for thousands of years in the southern Mexican states. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a hispanic who hasn't fully assimilated into American society and culture? Can you be chicano and speak perfect english with perfect accent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 11:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicanos are a byproduct of the "New Left" associated with the 1960s, the cold war era's message, the civil rights era to end discrimination and segregation of minorities, the struggle to end white/European colonialism and for ethnic groups in the USA to find cultural history among themselves. It isn't solely about being "Mexican/Latino/Hispanic" and there are other Latino ethnonational groups such as Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans, Salvadorans, etc. who never really shared the same monolithic cultural outlook with Mexicans nor the Mexican-American experience living in the Western USA, esp. from south Texas to California, and southern Arizona to the Colorado Springs/Denver area in the early 20th century. The former Mexican territory annexed by the USA after the Mexican-American war has produced a social situation not unique in the world, but the only national conflict between two countries in the Western Hemisphere, but the situation has mixed with the everpresent American "white" vs. "non white" racial differentation. This is what developed the Chicano movement and ethnic consciousness of Mexican-Americans throughout the Southwest US being the "other" from the Anglo-American settlement to followed in the first 100-some out of 160 years (from 1848 to the 1950s). + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speak English with a perfect accent and speak Spanish in a mangled way. I am Chicana. Completely. I am a descendant of an indigenous Spanish-speaking family. At this point in history, most of us are English as first-language speakers. Chicanos are the ones who get to claim that we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us. I have never met an immigrant, a Puerto Rican, or a Cuban call themselves Chicano or include themselves in the movement. 64.81.164.165 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I must correct myself: I knew some illegal immigrants who identified with the UFW Movement. 64.81.164.165 (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate etymology that predates Raso holds that the conversion of the pronunciation of the "x" in Mexicano was converted to /ʃ/ or /tʃ/ as a term of endearment

Kind of a stupid comment. In Old Spanish, orthographic <x> was pronounced [ʃ], the way it is in many other Iberian languages today. This presumably includes the <x> in México. At some point, a pronunciation change occurred in Castillian that changed [ʃ] to [x]. At that point the spelling was changed to <j>. This pronunciation change was also brought to the new world, except that many Mexican words retained <x>. This all appears to be lost on whoever wrote this. 97.113.31.253 (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who submitted 1974 West Los Angeles photo of Chicano youths. That photo is from 1974 Venice high school yearbook 1950's dress-up day with 2 caucasions and 1 "Chicano" I was there That day in 1974. A more true representation of that time period should be submitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronniem1957 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted the photo. That day in question was called Nostalgia Day, and I too was there. I was a 10th-grade student of Venice at the time and own the 1974 Gondoliers yearbook. Those guys in the photo are all Chicanos.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Hiawatha openining039a.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction section has a segment on the end that states "Another theory is it came into use by American Mexicans that where a product of rioting and the raping of Mexican women in California by Anglo sailors from the navy and army in the 1960's riots and return to give the new born (American Mexican's) Identity they called them self's "chicano/chicana".". I've looked, and there's no other mention of this theory anywhere. Suggested that someone either delete this or find supporting evidence and correct the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.4.190 (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chicano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131203105243/http://www.nacionalistas.org/2012/02/cinco-de-mayo-open-challenge-to-chicano.html to http://www.nacionalistas.org/2012/02/cinco-de-mayo-open-challenge-to-chicano.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022034412/http://aache.org:80/news0999.htm to http://www.aache.org/news0999.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chicano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031143759/http://www.speakingofstories.org/Author%20Bios/anna_castillo.htm to http://www.speakingofstories.org/Author%20Bios/anna_castillo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516000827/http://www.umich.edu/~ac213/student_projects/ca/background.htm to http://www.umich.edu/~ac213/student_projects/ca/background.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n25_v49/ai_20208927/pg_4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010105105/http://www.aztlan.net/allure.htm to http://www.aztlan.net/allure.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chicano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721213311/http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/collections/cema/listguides.html to http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/collections/cema/listguides.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422084217/http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/collections/cema/digitalChicanoArt.html to http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/collections/cema/digitalChicanoArt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these recent unsourced edits to the lead, @Paradiseisalibrary: I've left a message on your user talk page about this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mexicanx. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ChicanoArtCalendar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• OurLadyAlmaLopez.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The intro reads that: "Mexican American identity emerged to encourage assimilation into white American society and separate the community from African American political struggle."

This is highly dubious, and at best a very ideologically driven interpretation!

The truth is that all sorts of communities of immigrants and their descendants use such terms: "Japanese-Americans," "Italian-Americans," "Cuban-Americans," "Irish-Americans," "Chinese-Americans," etc., etc. Were these labels all created with the intention of separating from African American struggles???....I mean sure, some essay in a cultural studies journal might claim that, but again this is very dubious and ideologically driven.

A more neutral way to describe things is that ethnic communities adopt such labels as a way to strike a balance - between being Americans, and part of the larger American society, on the one hand, and maintaining pride in their cultural identity and heritage, on the other. (in most cases with little thought (one way or the other) about African-Americans) -2003:CA:871E:367B:C9B6:52CB:66D8:FAB8 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with the IP. The present wording is beyond dubious—it reads as an ideologically motivated attempt to rob Mexican Americans of agency to define themselves. Carlstak (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the WP:BOLD decision of using solely Chicano. Although I myself am not within this group, I am Latino (Brazilian) and am a native speaker of Portuguese. I know how these languages work and the "masculine" is also used in the neuter case. According to a poll from NALEO, very few people in the United States of Latin American descent use the "x neuter". (This has happened before.) (In regard to the wordy phrase, while the terms Hispanic and Latino have major overlap, it is not 100%. For example, I, as a Brazilian, am Latino but not Hispanic. Yay for semantics!)

Also, inconsistensies! Sometimes it's Chicana/o, sometimes o/a. For plural, there's Chicano/as, a/os, os/as, and as/os. I tried to be consistent and thorough, so if I missed any tell me. Wilh3lm^Talk 18:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gillind (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Abenaowusua3 (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• A 1972 portrait of boys in LA's Pico-Aliso housing project.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• A 1972 portrait of boys in LA's Pico-Aliso housing project.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabrooh (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gabrooh (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]