 | United States: Hispanic and Latino / Mexican-Americans Template‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | This template is a project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos. It is linked to many articles. Please do not edit it without dicussing your edits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos |
Chicanos are not representative of Mexican-Americans. I separated the Mexican-American and Chicano templates. Use Template:Chicano for Chicano-related topics.
The word Chicano 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.
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").
Mexican-Americans are not Chicanos. I feel you are doing a disservice to everyone by attaching the wrong meaning to already somewhat misunderstood terms.
See Chicano discussion page. -- Deepstratagem 09:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please talk with us before you do this again. This template is linked to a lot of Chicano/Mexican American articles. I reverted it back. If it is to change, we need to change the links on all those articles. But I think it is fine as it is. I don't know what you mean by Chicanos not being representative of Mexican Americans.
Joaquin Murietta 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- In the future I'll refrain from making major changes without consulting you and other wikipedians. What I mean is Chicanos are not the only Mexican-Americans. While I think the template is fine *if* it is used exclusively in the Chicano, MEChA, Chicanismo, etc..., I would argue that it doesn't belong in the Mexican American page, because the topics reflected in the template are specific to Chicano culture and Chicano politics. I would say a great portion of Mexican-Americans retain traditional Mexican culture and vary in political ideology to a much greater extent than Chicanos.
- Please talk with us before you do this again. This template is linked to a lot of Chicano/Mexican American articles. I reverted it back. If it is to change, we need to change the links on all those articles. But I think it is fine as it is. I don't know what you mean by Chicanos not being representative of Mexican Americans.
Joaquin Murietta 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is a very common discussion in my university's community, as some identify with the Chicano movement and some don't. I agree that Chicano and Mexican-American are two different terms and forms of identity, which is why I use both terms in the Template and give links to both terms. I believe that seperating the two into different templates only serves to foster ideas that the Chicano movement was somehow not linked to the history of Mexicans in this country, which is not true. This view seems to be pushed by those who do not want to be attached to the more radical aspects of El Movimiento because of their current political views. Bottom line is that the movement was not just for Chicanos who followed Corky Gonzales or César Chávez, it was for all Mexican-origin/heritage persons in the United States. I feel you are doing a disservice to those who do not understand the complex history of those of Mexican origin or heritage in this country by creating a Mexican-American identity fully independant from the hardships, struggles, and victories of the Chicano movement. --
Bfraga 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please see my response to Joaquín Murrieta. The great thing about these discussion pages is that you learn other's point of view. Fortunately (for me, I think,) I understand that the movement was not just for Chicanos... but the cultural identity has shifted into one with a distaste for Mexicans and for Anglo-Americans to the extent that Spanish is no longer spoken. The culture surrounds itself in selected legends overlooking most of Mexican history and in fact gives a distorted view of what Mexicans and their culture are really like. Many celebrate Cinco de Mayo thinking it is the Mexican independence day, not knowing what or where Puebla is. A Chicano might see a Mexican in the U.S. and think him his oppresor because having never been to Mexico he/she failed to realize that people of African, Asian or English or Spanish descent can also be Mexicans. This is why I draw a distinction. -- Deepstratagem 18:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with what
Bfraga said. Under your analogy,
Deepstratagem, the "African-American" template shguld be split into "African-American", "Black" and "Negro". The names used by people to describe themselves can be referenced, but the "Mexican-American/Chicano" template should stay as it was. When I created the template, I meant it to apply to Mexican-American/Chicano topics.
Joaquin Murietta 19:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't make an analogy. Even if I had, your comments about splitting African-American into "African-American", "Black", and "Negro" are not fair; I wouldn't categorize people by race nor use redundant or offensive terms. When I say Mexican I am speaking of the Mexican Nationality or descendants thereof. I am not talking about race nor am I interested in perpetuating stereotypes. Saying Chicanos are Mexican-Americans is not the same as saying Mexican-Americans are Chicanos and the latter statement perpetuates stereotypes and ignorance. --
Deepstratagem 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think you missed his point completely. "Black" and "African-American" carry different connotations for different people (ex: Talk to a First-Generation African immigrant to the United States vs. a descendant of slaves in the U.S.). The terms are not redundant or offensive. Negro has offensive connotations for some people...if it was offensive like the N-word, they would change the name of the NAACP. The term has historical significance for those who call themselves Black or African-American, even if they no longer use that term. Can you imagine attempting to study the history of African-Americans without using the term Black or Negro? The only difference between that stituation and this one is that there is a more well-known group of Mexican-Americans that doesn't identify with Chicano, versus a smaller group that doesn't identify with "Black". -- Bfraga 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't make an analogy. Even if I had, your comments about splitting African-American into "African-American", "Black", and "Negro" are not fair; I wouldn't categorize people by race nor use redundant or offensive terms. When I say Mexican I am speaking of the Mexican Nationality or descendants thereof. I am not talking about race nor am I interested in perpetuating stereotypes. Saying Chicanos are Mexican-Americans is not the same as saying Mexican-Americans are Chicanos and the latter statement perpetuates stereotypes and ignorance. --
Deepstratagem 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Although I would not say that there is a one to one relationship between Mexican-American and Chicano, I would say that they are two very close points on the same continuum. Close enough, in fact to warrant having the same template. Remember, these distinctions are too fine for the vast majority of the wikipedians to make. I think a template with some type of explanation as to the lack of consensus of the various terms should suffice.--
Pozole 04:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps the reason I disagree is because I don't believe most Mexican-Americans would consider themselves Chicanos. I suppose if there is a consensus in Wikipedia that the two should be tightly intertwined as a result of legal history in the U.S., then the merge is somewhat justified. However, the template seems like MEChista propaganda/activism to me, and I think it really obscures what more traditional Mexicans living in the U.S. are really like. --
Deepstratagem 06:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm having difficulty understanding your arguments for this. You can't possibly be saying that Chicano is MEChA "propaganda/activism", or that you can generalize the experience of Mexicans living in the United States, can you? Also, a mexican person living in the U.S. is not necessarily a Mexican-American, to the government at least. --
Bfraga 08:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly... I'm against the generalization. Aren't you generalizing the experience of Mexicans living in the U.S. to be one of sense of pride for the Chicano movement? I am not denying the experience of Chicanos or generalizing it. I am saying "Chicano" is too specific a term to apply to all Mexican Americans. But then I also have problems with the term Mexican-American. See
Use of the word American. --
Deepstratagem 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. If you were to do a study of the history of African-Americans, and include information about Malcom X, you aren't saying that all African-Americans are muslims, or that have a sense of pride for what Malcom X stood for. For the last time, we are not saying that Chicano=Mexican-American. Honestly, the best way to do that would be to make a template that only has Chicano on it, that contains a lot of information relevant to Mexican-Americans (which is, ironically, what you achieved by seperating the templates). By including both terms, and explaining the fact that Chicano does not equal Mexican-American, we can leave it open to people's own sense of identity. Not all Chicanos identify with Aztlán and some Mexican-Americans identify with Tijerina's land grant struggle and the Raza Unida Party. Separation of these concepts on a historical, linguistic, legal, and cultural level is practically impossible. --
Bfraga 19:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't just separate the templates, I unlinked the Mexican American page from the template, and thought it might be courteous to leave some sort of a template, but honestly, if the articles are well written as I believe the Chicano/Mexican-American project intended then I see no problem with retaining your template across all relevant pages. Regarding Malcom X, the controversies surrounding nomeclature of African American related topics are better understood. Therefore most people won't take Malcom X to be representative of all African-Americans; but Mexican American/Chicano are less well understood terms and people are more sensitive to what they read. My actions were characteristic of a menso, and again I apologize. Since my point appears to be validated and I've come to understand that you value your identity as much as I do, there is no use in fighting over the template, but rather making sure we clear misinformation in the actual pages so that any ambiguity does not perpetuate stereotypes (in either direction). Mexican-Americans are obviously intertwined with the Chicano movement, and I simply have not been affected by to a great extent for various reasons, giving me an "different" point of view on what Mexican-American means. I'll be glad to help out with the project when time permits. A good friend (who incidentally doesn't consider himself Chicano) often likes to remind his friends and I that, "Hablando se entiende la gente." -- Deepstratagem 08:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. If you were to do a study of the history of African-Americans, and include information about Malcom X, you aren't saying that all African-Americans are muslims, or that have a sense of pride for what Malcom X stood for. For the last time, we are not saying that Chicano=Mexican-American. Honestly, the best way to do that would be to make a template that only has Chicano on it, that contains a lot of information relevant to Mexican-Americans (which is, ironically, what you achieved by seperating the templates). By including both terms, and explaining the fact that Chicano does not equal Mexican-American, we can leave it open to people's own sense of identity. Not all Chicanos identify with Aztlán and some Mexican-Americans identify with Tijerina's land grant struggle and the Raza Unida Party. Separation of these concepts on a historical, linguistic, legal, and cultural level is practically impossible. --
Bfraga 19:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly... I'm against the generalization. Aren't you generalizing the experience of Mexicans living in the U.S. to be one of sense of pride for the Chicano movement? I am not denying the experience of Chicanos or generalizing it. I am saying "Chicano" is too specific a term to apply to all Mexican Americans. But then I also have problems with the term Mexican-American. See
Use of the word American. --
Deepstratagem 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm having difficulty understanding your arguments for this. You can't possibly be saying that Chicano is MEChA "propaganda/activism", or that you can generalize the experience of Mexicans living in the United States, can you? Also, a mexican person living in the U.S. is not necessarily a Mexican-American, to the government at least. --
Bfraga 08:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- IMO there is no reason to have two templates. Let's just take some type of vote on it an move on. FWIW, I am of the opinion that one template with an explanation of how there's soem controversy regarding the names should suffice.--
68.190.213.41 04:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, those weren't my true intentions in the first place, as mentioned above. -- Deepstratagem 08:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps the reason I disagree is because I don't believe most Mexican-Americans would consider themselves Chicanos. I suppose if there is a consensus in Wikipedia that the two should be tightly intertwined as a result of legal history in the U.S., then the merge is somewhat justified. However, the template seems like MEChista propaganda/activism to me, and I think it really obscures what more traditional Mexicans living in the U.S. are really like. --
Deepstratagem 06:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The Template and the WikiProject are designed to be inclusive of ALL topics pertaining to both Chicanos and Mexican Americans. Another project goal is the clarification and standardization of terminology. So while Deepstrategem's point that not all Mexican Americans identify themselves as "Chicano" is well-taken, the politics, terminology, and history of the Chicano Movement continue to have lasting effects on American society, especially as it regards Mexican Americans. As for the fear that we are presenting some sort of propaganda, we are adhering to Wikipedia's NPOV standard and readily accept the criticisms of readers and editors. That's why I invited Deep to join the project, because I think criticism will be helpful in producing good, NPOV articles. Especially if he/she is an expert. We include right-wing Mexican Americans and try to cover every aspect, not just the political. At any rate, it's already been changed, so the point is moot.-- Rockero420 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider myself right-wing at all, but my viewpoint may differ due to other factors. Otherwise, I think we've established that splitting the template was a terrible idea (and wasn't my true objective anyway). Please don't take my argument about propaganda as an accusation. I now understand you value your identity as much as I do mine, and that is why you were so proud to start such a project. Thank you for extending the invitation; since these are obviously topics that interest me, I'll be happy to collaborate. --
Deepstratagem 08:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I am very happy to read your words. And I apologise if I over reacted in the beginning. And, welcome!!!
Joaquin Murietta 14:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I too overreacted when I saw someone's dictionary definition of Chicano. -- Deepstratagem 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Me too!-- Rockero420 17:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I am very happy to read your words. And I apologise if I over reacted in the beginning. And, welcome!!!
Joaquin Murietta 14:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider myself right-wing at all, but my viewpoint may differ due to other factors. Otherwise, I think we've established that splitting the template was a terrible idea (and wasn't my true objective anyway). Please don't take my argument about propaganda as an accusation. I now understand you value your identity as much as I do mine, and that is why you were so proud to start such a project. Thank you for extending the invitation; since these are obviously topics that interest me, I'll be happy to collaborate. --
Deepstratagem 08:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't you think? At least that's true on Win/Firefox. Thought I'd consult without just changing...
-
Fcendejas 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I have recommended increasing the text size also...--
Rockero420 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- The text looks great on Safari, but too small on Firefox. Maybe you could mess with the font some and try and find something that looks good on both, yet is as small as possible. --
Bfraga 19:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm... little problem, as I only have a PC. Sounds like a job for someone with access to both Safari & Firefox, eh Fraga? -- Fcendejas 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- The text looks great on Safari, but too small on Firefox. Maybe you could mess with the font some and try and find something that looks good on both, yet is as small as possible. --
Bfraga 19:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I have recommended increasing the text size also...--
Rockero420 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to fix the text size problem by a) setting the inherited font (defined in the infobox's attributes) to a fixed pixel size; b) setting a pc-friendly general backup font, since "lucida grande" is mac-only. I haven't checked Safari, but with a cell-padding change, it now looks identical in PC/IE & PC/Firefox, except for the fact that wikilinks seem to always show up underlined in Firefox, and never in IE. Maybe the parent font should be moved to something more universal instead of Lucida Grande?
Fcendejas 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good on Safari to me -- Bfraga 23:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask why the template was changed back to the form it had before? -- Bfraga 04:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should've asked for more input first. This is copied from Joaquín's talkpage:
- I have been thinking about the template for our Chicano articles, and as I see it, it suffers from two problems:
- It competes for space on the right hand side of the article with images, and
- It often causes an article's page to be far longer than is necessary, creating a lot of blank space
- These problems are just aesthetic, but they affect the quality of the articles composing the project.
- My proposed solution is a footer to go at the end of each article. I copied {{USHistoryFooter}} and adapted it, but since I'm still a novice with these tables, etc., there is plenty of room for improvement.
- Would you take a look at it and tell me what you think? It's at User:Rockero/Mex-Am-Chicano-Template.
- And his response from the sandbox talkpage:
- "I think we need a long horizontal one. Like the current template, but sideways so it spreads across the bottom of the article. No? Joaquin Murietta 04:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)"
- What do you think Bfraga?--
Rockero 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I based the one we were using off of the Template for African-American Topics, just because it looked cleaner than the one we had before. I'm not against changing it to a horizontal one, as I agree with the reasoning (takes up room on the right side, etc), but I also don't have much experience with templates. If we can get it to look good, I think changing it would be great. -- Bfraga 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
FYI, we have two choices now. This one is the horizonatal one. See: {{ Chicano/Mexican-American}} vertical infobox and{{ Chicano2}} horizontal infobox . Joaquin Murietta 02:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's the reverse: Chicano/Mexican-American is the horizontal one and Chicano2 is the vertical one. But everything else the bandit says is true!-- Rockero 16:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
since this template is being used (rightly or wrongly) for people articles, it was resulting in the Category:Chicano being wrongly added to people articles (see the purpose of the Chicano category. Accordingly, I deleted this category from this template. Thanks. Hmains 02:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
CHECK OUT HTTP://BROWNBERETS.BLOGSPOT.COM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.255.53 ( talk) 20:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Categories:
- Template-Class United States articles
- NA-importance United States articles
- Template-Class United States articles of NA-importance
- Template-Class Hispanic and Latino American articles
- NA-importance Hispanic and Latino American articles
- WikiProject Hispanic and Latino Americans articles
- Template-Class Mexican-American articles
- NA-importance Mexican-American articles
- WikiProject Mexican-Americans articles
- WikiProject United States articles