Talk:MEChA

Criticisms

A lot of the criticisms seems like second hand information, without citation, and possibly biased. Possibly overly Anglo American? Either way, it's not NPOV. Sgarza 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This page, as it has evolved, has done a good job balancing all sides. It's an undeniable fact that there are many critics of MEChA. We would be remiss in not mentioning that. And because there are so many critics, it would be superfluous to cite examples of such criticisms. They're everywhere. Now as to the substance of those criticisms, I am fully in agreement with you that they are generally without merit, hopelessly deriviative, and woefully off-base. But that's just my opinion, it's not encyclopedic. To some extent some falsehoods can be provably refuted, but there's so much crap that MEChA critics can pull completely out of their asses which CAN'T be objectively refuted, because of the lack of objective data or sources supporting or refuting their big claims. Regardless, critics often hold these viewpoints, and as such they are notable and need to be at least mentioned. Such is life.

This article walks the fine line between not mentioning MEChA critics at all and giving them no credibility, and mentioning them too much and giving them total credibility. But I think we've done a good job. I chuckle when I see the "npov" tag go on because this article is one that the neutrality is ALWAYS disputed, no matter how much we try, we can't please every reader. And for this reason, I will take off the tag in the next few days unless there is more to be discussed about the current neutrality of the article. Cashton 09:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Watcher's Comments

To explain some of my edits:

MEChA is widely criticized for being a racist and separatist organization,

True, and NPOV.

whose openly stated goals constitute treason to the United States.

The accusation of "treason", is a subset of those who see MEChA as racist/seperatist, it is not a "wide criticism". After all, "treason" is a specific crime that requires more than just words to commit.

Some of the more overtly objectionable, and often deemed treasonous, goals and ideas expressed in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán include:

To NPOV this, I chose to quote the actual text of El Plan, and to explain the interpretations of MEChA and its critics.

All of these are generally seen as calls to negate and subvert American national unity, equality before the law for all American citizens, and territorial integrity of the nation.

"Generally seen" is misleading. This would imply that this is a widely accepted viewpoint, which is false. Is the existence of native american nations within the US "subversive" of national unity?

There is no doubt that if similar goals were openly published by a political organization of a different ethnicity, such as the Caucasian Americans, such an organization would be immediately, and rightly, recognized as fascist and suppressed.

This is an argument of moral equivalence between, say, the KKK and MEChA. It overlooks the counterargument that the KKK and MEChA are fundamentally different in that one is a majority group of already-privileged members that uses widespread violence to achieve its means, whereas MEChA born during the civil rights era, a minority and underprivileged group (objectively), and HASN'T used violence and in fact eschews it.

Rubbish. MEChA HAVE used violence -- objectively -- and your blather about justifying this hate group's activities because of its being "minority" blah blah blah "underprivileged" is the worst kind of far-left apologia. Please do not edit articles since you are so obviously biased.

Anyways, the use of the terms of "There is no doubt ..." and "immediately and rightly recognized as fascist" is very much non-NPOV, so I am cutting it.

Many mechistas, perhaps including the leadership, may claim that they do not actually espouse such radical notions, especially when they are questioned by conservative media. However, it is notable that MEChA has never officially repudiated any of these declarations. This creates an impression that the organization serves as an umbrella for a wide variety of organization and activists, some of them benign social service or political action groups, and others subversive radical ones.

"perhaps"? "may"? Is wikipedia a dumping ground of rampant speculation now? If the leadership claims that they do not espouse such radical notions, doesn't that contradict the following statement that MEChA hasn't officially repudiated any of these declarations? I'm cutting this until "perhaps" and "may" can be confirmed, and also this discreprancy can be resolved.

People, I have just created articles on Plan Espiritual de Aztlan and Plan de Santa Barbara. I feel that we need to try to distribute the material properly between these, when there is free time at least :). I feel that the tone of the article right now, which by the way was partially inflicted by myself, is probably not-neutral because of a focus on Plan of Aztlan. That being said, I believe that we really should emphasize the separatist nature of the movement, as reflected in the mechista Plan de Santa Barbara and their founding constitution, which also actually deserves its own article. Watcher 02:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Extreme, blatent Bias.

It is interesting that an openly-racist, separatist, hate group like MEChA comes off sounding like a Boy Scout troop for Mexicans. "MEChA is in many ways the modern day Ku Klux Klan of Chicanos...(and) a racist organization that advocates revolution and segregation" http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXI/Issue_2/Editorial/editorial1.shtml

Not a mention here on Wikipedia of the group's OTHER slogan, which is "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” [For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing.]

Not a mention here on Wikipedia of the numerous violent, racist acts of thuggery the group (aka "The Tan Klan") has engaged in, including a 1996 attack on black and white americans protesting illegal immigration and 1993 protests for a "Chicano Studies" department at UCLA that caused $500,000 in damage as radicals occupied buildings. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95871,00.html

From vDare.com [1]

"In 1995, A Latino INS officer was killed in California. The University of California-San Diego chapter of Mecha published an editorial in its newspaper, Voz Fronteriza, called "Death of a Migra Pig."

Sample:

'We're glad this pig died, he deserved to die . . . All the Migra pigs should be killed, every single one...the only good one is a dead one...The time to fight back is now. It is time to organize an anti-Migra patrol...It is to [sic] bad that more Migra pigs didn't die with him.'"

See also http://www.americanpatrol.com/MECHA/MigraPigPaper-950500.html

The group's literature is peppered with hate speech.

I don't think this article could be more POV if it tried. I literally do not recognize MEChA as it is depicted here. There is no question that it is a separatist group; it is avowedly so.

Yes, it is a particularly shameful whitewash. Why don't you work to fix it, with sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The only bias I read in these comments is the anti-Chicano bias in the comments. Vdare and American Patrol are considered nationalist hate groups.

Not a Hate Group

I think the above commentator has made the mistake of taking the actions of a few MEChistas as indicative of the group as a whole. MEChA is a fairly diverse group, and it would be suprising if there weren't a few extremists among them. You can always cherry pick examples, especially if your sources are sites like VDARE and American Patrol, which the ADL and SPLC have both identified as a hate groups. You don't recognize MEChA as it's depicted here? I doubt you'd recognize MEChA if you went and sat in on their meetings. Have you ever met a MEChista? I don't claim to have known many, but the ones I have dealt with were not radical in the slightest.

If a fraternity member casts racial epithets and sparks a riot, it doesn't follow that everyone in that fraternity shares his views. If Martin Luther writes a treatise entitiled On the Jews and their Lies, it doesn't mean all Lutherans are anti-semites. If a pro-life activist bombs an abortion clinic, it does not mean that all pro-lifers condone such activity. And if one webmaster in one chapter of MEChA makes a single link to Voz de Aztlan, it does not mean that Voz de Aztlan is official spokespiece for all MEChA.

MEChA-related acts of violence, while not to be condoned or to be brushed aside lightly, are few and far between; the comparison to the KKK is disingenuous. The Standford Review article you quoted admits as much: "We are in no way suggesting that MEChA is an organization that lynches and terrorizes other races in the manner the KKK has in the past, nor has MEChA been the cause of intimidation, pain, and anguish as has the KKK". For the overwhelming majority of MEChistas, MEChA is the cultural and educational organization for Latinos, and nothing more. Indeed, MEChA has last a great deal of its radical edge over the past decades, and you can clearly see that reflected in more modern documents like Philosophy of MEChA, which emphsize education as MEChA's first and foremost goal.

Por la raza, todo, fuera de la raza, nada is not a slogan of MEChA, let alone the "other" slogan. It's a quote lifted from El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán (and is discussed there). "For those outside the race, nothing" is a misleading translation; the word "those" (aquellos, or la gente, or any synonym) doesn't exist in the Spanish original. The translation of por as "for" is also a bit sketchy (although por can mean "for", it usually means "by").

The damage done in the 1993 UCLA disturbance has been inflated by an order of magnitude of more: the real value was $35,000 to $50,000, not half a million dollars as you'll find in most reports. Again, not to condone or to dismiss lightly, but this is an example of the distortions you find on the internet by sources that have an axe to grind.

-- Cashton 6/1/2005

Just my two cents, I was a mechista in the mid 1990s. The leadership in my local MEChAs varied from radical to social and almost apolitical. The rank and file also ranged from radicals, to college students looking for a good time, to people with political aspirations. Much of the conservative commentary characterizing MEChA as a hate group stems from Southern California -based VDARE and the fodder provided to them by "La Voz de Aztlan", which IIRC had ties to RCP and other crackpot organizations during my time. La Voz de Aztlan is so over the top and antisemitic, it makes one wonder if it is not the product of some COINTELPRO type operatives. I don't remember any people from La Voz de Aztlan ever being known MEChistAs, yet somehow all the information about MEChA run by the right is gleaned from them and "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan", which AFAIK was regarded as a piece of poetry by Alurista, not some kind of manifesto.

Pozole 21:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

POV.

This article is ridiculous. Hideously POV and should be deleted.

MECHA are avowedly a racist and separatist organization.

"Chicana/Chicano students of California must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community; as well as politicize our Raza (Race) and continue the struggle for self-determination of the Chicana/Chicano people and the liberation of Aztlan"

http://www.umich.edu/~mechaum/Natconst.html

Zuzim 19:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there something specific about the the article that you suggest we change? The group is too notable for us to simply delete the article. -Willmcw 20:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. "Racism" is defined as "the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" (M-W). This quote does not demonstrate either of these beliefs. Nor does it demonstrate a clear separatist sentiment: "liberation of Aztlan" is not synonymous with reconquista (do you think "women's liberation" means that women want to start their own country?). In order to claim that MEChA is a separatist group, you should provide evidence of MEChA asserting its own soverignty, whether by legislative, judicial, or violent means -- moreso as a national organization, rather than at a chapter level. As discussed in the article and on this page, MEChA chapters are generally loosely affiliated and evidence a wide range of social / political beliefs.

Please keep in mind that an article is not NPOV simply because it doesn't present enough of your own personal POV. If you think this article truly is NPOV, then you should work to improve the quality of the article. -- Cashton.

Absurd. Presumably "women's liberation" advocates were not calling for the "liberation" of the American Southwest -- and by "liberation" Mecha have clearly stated their intent that it be "returned" to Mexico. Mecha's "own soverignty" is completely irrelevant. They seek the reconquest of their mythical "Atzlan" -- a racial homeland where only "La Raza" ("The Race") are welcome.

Their many acts of thuggery are on a par with the KKK, and they did sneak around as they committed hate crimes such as their assault on Berkeley buildings and their attacks on non-hispanic Americans. This hate group would not get the liberal group hug if they were a White-rights group. They have openly called for the deaths of "migra pigs," and agitate for special rights for illegals. Zuzim 06:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

Personally I never liked the views of some individuals of MEChA I personally dealt with. Some were closed minded and bordered on racist, but there was always a balance between the militant thinker and the social advocate for equality. In any group you will find a mix of personalities and POV.

It is easy to condemn a group of people when your mind is already made up. The KKK is not MEChA, MEChA doesn't hide behind hoods and lurk in the night to scare people into submission. The goal is outright action to obtain support for the cause of equality and fairness. The term "Tan Klan" is cheap shot attempt to equate this group to an organized hate group.

Whether MEChA is a band of loosely affiliated student groups or an organized union of young americans, the goal they strive for is noble. Simply to be allowed a fair shot to succeed in this world. You can't judge all for the acts of a few, otherwise we would scrap all police departments for the brutal actions of a few. Our military abroad has been implicated in torture and maltreatment of prisoners, so all americans are viewed in the poorest light now.

MEChA is not a terrorist cell ready to strike but a beacon that attracts the marginalized, forgotten and unrepresented youth that feel they have no future and provides avenues for hope, pride and self discovery. If you have never viewed the world from your knees, you will never understand why these modes of thinking were born and are still necessary. The Civil Rights Movement paved the way but we are far from reaching the end.

Give me a break. Their goal is the questionable one of special rights for "La Raza" and the Reconquest of the Southwest. About as noble as Idi Amin.

This is the very definition of bias.

"MEChA is sometimes characterized as a racist and separatist organization, with a primary goal of returning the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas back to Mexico. These criticisms are based largely on the somewhat controversial language in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán. However, the current goals of the group cannot be seen as favoring the creation of a new nation, or the reconquest of the southwestern states. MEChA leaders also counter that these statements from El Plan are not part of the MEChA constitution, and have been pulled out of context and misinterpreted. Leaders affirm that MEChA is opposed to oppression in all forms, including racism."

"These criticisms are based largely on the somewhat controversial language in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán."

No. These criticisms are based mostly on the explicit words and actions of MEchistas, the racist/separtist "Plan" is secondary.

"However, the current goals of the group cannot be seen as favoring the creation of a new nation, or the reconquest of the southwestern states."

Yes, they bloody well can. "[A]s Mechistas, we vow to work for the liberation of Aztlan." The Constitution of this hate group reads:

"General membership shall consist of any student who accepts, believes and works for the goals and objectives of MEChA, including the liberation of AZTLAN, meaning self-determination of our people in this occupied state and the physical liberation of our land."

"MEChA leaders also counter that these statements from El Plan are not part of the MEChA constitution, and have been pulled out of context and misinterpreted."

Their current Constitution is virtually as nasty as the hate-filled "Plan."

Bias proved. Zuzim 07:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

We're not here to establish the bias of any group - we're here to summarize verifiable information in an NPOV manner. If we can find notable critics saying the MECha is biased, then the article should reflect that. If there are noteworthy folks who say that it is the best thing since sliced bread, then that too should be reflected. However we should not sit around and decide on our own whether those things are true. Let's avoid wikipedia:original research and just summarize what the sources say. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is biased. It's obvious, if irrelevant, that MEChA is biased.

A primary piece of "original research" is the author's claim that MEChA can't be seen as separatist. As I have demonstrated using their own Constitution, that is precisely what they are (or it is AT LEAST as valid a conclusion as the one drawn in this article). The overall take on MEChA is NOT NPOV, it is leading to the hippyhappy conclusion that the group are really just a bunch of swell guys and gals who are NOT racist or separtist. This is not supported by the facts: it is supported only by the author's bias. Zuzim 00:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

11/28 deletions by Cashton

"Aztlán" refers to the Southwestern U.S. states: This is a crude simplification of a subject that is already well discussed in its own linked article.

A slogan of the group is "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada". "Slogan of the group" implies that the phrase is quoted often by Mechistas, which is not true at all. Try finding an exemplar on their own sites. The source you quoted is a newspaper editorial with a clear bias, and it is not a primary source. How does the author know that it is a "slogan" of the group? He doesn't say, and we don't know what his source is.

(by the way, "por la raza" etc. is a quotation from El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán -- the document is generally held in high esteem by MEChA chapters, but that's not to say that mechistas consider it biblically infallible either. Also, the proper English translation is in dispute. See the article on El Plan for details).

Additionally, advocates of this viewpoint can point to the separatist rhetoric of MEChA leaders, such as Miguel Perez. The source is clearly a partisan website, not a primary source. See Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I looked but could not find an original source quotation. The source does not identify Perez as a MEChA leader or spokesperson. He could be some random mechista with radical personal views that dont reflect the beliefs of most mechistas. In which case, why do we care what he says? Wikipedia's Wikipedia:verifiability policy disallows guilt by association.

However, the MEChA constitution has called for the "physical liberation" of the mythical Aztlan.: Since you used scare quotes around "physical liberation", I assume this is a quote from the MEChA constitution -- but I can't find the word "physical" anywhere in it (or a reasonable synonym).

So we're back to an absurdly biased article that takes the ludicrous stance that the Klu Klux Tan's reputation as a hate group rests solely on the "Plan," and not on its longstanding pattern of racist rhetoric and violence. The "Plan" is only the founding document the group is, not really very important in understanding this separatist organization at all.

In any event, the slogan "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" appears on numerous MEChA websites. The rest of the Plan is in English, with only this vile expression of bigotry in Spanish. It is a "favorite slogan" of the group from any perspective. There is no controversy over the proper interpretation of it from any reasonable quarter. Zuzim 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes no claims what establishes a so-called "pattern of violence": at most we only itemize the incidents of MEChA-related violence and let the reader determine if that makes a pattern. But just between you and me -- over the past 15 years, 400 MEChA chapters, 10-20 members each chapter, I can find exactly two incidents of violence (one in 93, one in 96) that can be verified to Wikipedia's standards of fact-checking. This does not seem to me significantly higher than what you what expect of an equivalent population of random college students. But don't take my word for it. If MEChA really is anywhere comparable to the KKK, you should be able to find at least 10 more verifiable incidents of actual violence. I challenge you to do so.

Wikipedia also cannot take a stand on whether MEChA's reputation is deserved or not, without introducing significant NPOV. But let me ask you this -- where did you get your strong opinions about MEChA from? Do you actually know any Mechistas? Do you know about their alleged racism from personal experience? Or did you learn about MEChA second-hand via websites, editorials, and talk radio which have a clear anti-MEChA agenda? Have you made any attempt to get an independent view of what Mechistas actually believe and what they do in their meetings from primary source accounts? Cuando dijo que no hay controversia sobre el traduccion del dicho "por la raza todo" etc, lo dice por su propia entendimiento de las reglas de gramatica espanola? You see, we can't talk about MEChA's reputation if what we're only talking about a collection of distortions and untruths that circulate in the echo chamber of the conservative media.

As for alleged "slogan", I challenge you to find one verifiable reference -- one -- where a MEChA member has quoted this "favorite phrase", outside of El Plan. At a protest, a rally, a conference proceeding ... anywhere. Should be easy, since it's such a popular slogan. Cashton 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Por La Raza, Todo...

I notice that this is a favorite line that people cite of the Plan Espiritual de Aztlan. Has anyone mentioned that in translating it from Spanish to english, it either can mean "For the race, everything, for those outside of the race, nothing." OR "Through the [effort of the]people, everything [can be acheived], without the [effort of the] people, nothing [can be acheived]. I always thought the latter was meant, at any rate, the Plan Spiritual de Atlan was always in my mind a silly and bombastic poem. Are there any native or semi-native speakers of Mexican Spanish that can corroborate this?

In common Mexican Spanish, "raza" simply means "people" (see a similar usage in dineh) it can refer to race, although it is more common to denote nationalities.

Examples "Hay mucha raza por acá." means "There are lots of people here." or "La raza Colombiana me cae bien." means "I like Colombians." --68.190.213.41 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question but that "La Raza" means "The Race," and your contorted "through the effort" is possibly the most absurd purposeful mistranslation I've clapped eyes on. The virulently hateful tone of the "plan," with its references to "brutal" "gringos" etc. leaves little doubt in any reasonable mind.

It is certain that "La Raza" can only be interpreted to mean "We Mexicans," particularly given the racist slurs which are hurled throughout the document. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.53.218 (talk • contribs) .

--Excuse me, there is quite some question about that. I speak Mexican Spanish and in common speech, "raza" is usually an equivalent of "gente". Do you speak spanish natively? If so, are you denying this? --Pozole 01:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than just arguing about this can we find some references that would support the various interpretations? -Willmcw 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"La Raza" is code word for Latinos. When mexicans talk of "La Raza", they very definetely are not talking about anglos. now, in regards to "por la raza", "por" is an ambiguous term that can mean for as in "por la patria" (for my country), or on as in "por la calle" (on or down the street). But make no mistake: "por La Raza todo, fuera de la raza nada" means "for latinos, everything, for non-latinos, nothing". Anyone denying this, is a Mecha apologist, or has an agenda. -- Dullfig 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi movements and concepts

Can anyone explain why this article is being added to category: Neo-Nazi movements and concepts. It seems inappropriate. -Willmcw 00:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking malicious users. I notice that this has been going on at a lot of wiki pages that deal with civil rights organizations. Mosquito-001 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, no. This is a "Mexiklan" hate group. Adding it back to "neo-nazi" groups and "racism," where this fascist hate group belongs. Zuzim 09:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'll believe that when you become president of your very own Mecha chapter. Mosquito-001 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Encyclopedic Style

I have done major re-edits and have removed the POV tag. We need an article that defines the organization, which was actually pretty tame in the 1970's. The article mentions some controversies, let's put the controversies there. I am not sure the polical campaigns are relevant here. Am about to strike them as well. Joaquin Murietta 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Por la raza...

I think this famous phrase associated with Mecha deserves a place in this article but it deserves clarification, which you won't find on anything associated with vdare. See the hate group wiki if you need an explanation why vdare isn't a very credible source when it comes to these things. In the mean time, I've put in the explantion found on El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán. It seems to be pretty non biased. Mosquito-001 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Mosquito, but the Cruz Bustamante mention seems to have disappeared. Cruz Bustamante was the whole point of that bullet item. --hitssquad 02:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It seemed that a huge part of the Cruz Bustamante story was cut off. I looked on the Bustamante wiki and couldn't find the rest of the story either(thus my edit mentioning that you look at the bustamante wiki). Was it meant to be expanded it on? Then why not mention it when you have the whole story? When I edited it, all it said was that Bustamante was criticized for being in Mecha in the 70's but that's not really a controversy. He's famous I guess, but if you want to put that in the Mecha wiki, you should probably start a new entry titled "famous members of Mecha." Mosquito-001 14:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wheatabix's totallydisputed tag placement

Wheatabix, post your reason for your tag placement or the tag will be removed. --hitssquad 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Critics say..."

Just mentioning critics and then following up with an unverifiable controversial statement doesn't really bring much to the article. I also deleted a mention of the "MeCHA constitution." I don't doubt that a MeChA constitution somewhere on one of the hundreds of campuses that MeCHA is active has said what someone claims but which one? I've already found a few MeCHA constitutions on various websites and they all seem to differ greatly. Holding one up as the official not to be argued with constitution just because it might support your views of the organization doesn't seem very fair. Mosquito-001 22:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Edits

Mentioning that MeCHA's critics "include many white nationalist groups" and other "extreme" elements is fairly obviously a POV statement. I've removed it.

Not stating which critics these are, especially when they make controversial statements, is also blatantly POV. The views expressed by these anonmymous critics, almost word for word, can also be found on many hate group webpages. I've refrained from outright naming these groups in the hope that the people who put up these statements would come up with a verifiable source. In a few days though, I will either remove these anonymous critical statements or put up their sources. This page shouldn't be about anonymous potshots at a group. Mosquito-001 01:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Silly and POV qualifiers such as "which also include hate groups" or "which include some extreme elements" don't belong in this or in any article. Absolutely no one is disputing the factual accuracy of the statements. I do not doubt nor do I dispute that white supremacist groups and the like criticize MEChA. However, such statements are irrelevant. The logic is as follows: Consider President Bush. He is criticized by an incredible variety of people. These people include everyone from John McCain to Howard Dean to the leadership of the Workers World Party to Zacarias Moussaoui. It is factually indusputible that some critics of President Bush are communists and that some are Islamic extremists. However, it would be ridiculous to say on the Bush page, "Critics of President Bush, which include communists, say that..." or to say, "Critics of the President, including Islamic extremists, claim that...". It's safe to say that every notable person and every notable organization has been criticized by hate groups. Hate groups even criticize each other. However, that is not notable. Here are links to articles by well-respected members of the American political right published in similarly well-respected publications. Both make the claim that MEChA is a racial separatist organization and/or hate group, along with associated claims. National Review (down at bottom of article) and Michelle Malkin Other examples are readily availible. TheKaplan 05:46, 15 April 2006

(UTC)

Isn't it also kind of silly to mask your sources in order to give creedence to controversial statements that wouldn't be taken seriously otherwise? I included the phrase "which also include white nationalist groups" because it's true. The claims made by the anonymous critics in the article can almost word for word be found in numerous hate sites like American Patrol. BTW Michelle Malkin is dangerously close to the extreme right, if not over the line altogether. I see you deleted that statement though without putting in Michelle Malkin as a source. I'm going to assume good faith here so I won't assume what you did as trying to put across a POV even though the result ended up that way. So if none of these statements are notable, why include the critics statements at all?Mosquito-001 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may chime in here, according to WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". Mosquito, it seems that you are the one who wants to include the information about nationalist and extremist (a highly objective term, btw) groups being the critics of MEChA. If this is the case, then you must provide the source. Perhaps a statement by MEChA itself, another Raza organization, the ACLU, or the ADL? That's where I would look first...

As regards the critics of MEChA, many people seem to feel that it is very important that this aspect is included. TheKaplan, if you are willing to go and look up the quotes and articles by mainstream figures, why not add their names and the sites you found them onto the main article space?

There is no reason to dispute here. We all want this to be a better article. The best thing we can do, in the spirit of cooperation, is to make this into a group project, each person contributing a little, and helping each other out on the way? I have been avoiding this article, but I just recently expanded it a bit so I thought I'd offer to lend a hand if you are both willing....

What do you say?--Rockero 23:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed that Malkin and AmPat are mentioned as critics. Just wanted to acknowledge that.--Rockero 23:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no masking of any sources going on here. If you'd like I will be happy to link to respectable sources which make the claim that MEChA is a racist/hate group and etc. in the actual article, as I have on the talk page, although such details might more appropriately belong in the more in-depth discussion in the article body, as opposed to the introduction. Just say the word. Alternately, you could do so yourself with the sources I provided. A simple google search such as "mecha article" or "mecha blog" will also turn up many more.

-As to including the information because it is true, I believe I adequately explained with the George Bush example that just because something is factually correct does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article, and in fact can be quite misleading.

-In regards to "give credence to controversial statements that would not be taken seriously otherwise," I will avoid the word silly (it was a mistake for me to use it in the first place), but I will say that it is also highly objectionable to attempt to discredit statements by highlighting that they come from extremists and/or racists, since they do not only come from such and as I pointed out, extremists criticize everyone. Remember that it is not wikipedia's job to judge the worth of the criticism.

-As to the place of Michelle Malkin on the political spectrum, she is not mainstream by any means in regards to the entirety of the electorate, but within the political right she is well-respected and not considered fringe. However, that is entirely irrelevant. Take Malkin out of the picture. The same criticism appears in National Review, the most mainstream-right publication in America.

-As to "So if none of these statements are notable, why include the critics statements at all?" The statements are notable, but the fact that they come from extremists as well as respectable publications is not, as per the above reasoning.

-Rockero: Thanks for some helpful suggestions. I hope you stay involved as we figure this one out. TheKaplan 09:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just thinking, as an alternate idea, it might be useful to remove the whole criticism thing from the intro (or at least dramatically reduce it), and move the criticism down to the body. This organization, especially in light of the publicity it recieved during the California recall election, and because of the present centrality of immigration policy in the nation's consciousness, might well warrant a full "criticism" section in the article itself. TheKaplan 09:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I just have to clear something up here. The critics statement is not mine. The burden is not on me to prove/disprove such statements. I just felt that wikipedia is not a place to take anonymous potshots at an organization/people. Using Kaplan's George Bush example: I could say "Critics say that Bush is an alien from a planet who's people use cocaine for food and is in cohoots with Big Foot to take over our country." Great statement, huh? Not let me just run out the backdoor and leave someone else to prove it with a source. No organization is above criticism but at least try to put up a source. Notice I didn't even ask for a reputable one. Michelle Malkin and American Patrol will do just fine. So a google search might be "easy" but if it's so easy why not do it yourself?Mosquito-001 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the George Bush/Big Foot Conspiracy example is somewhat lacking in relevance, but once again, it does not even matter. I did say that if you wanted me to put the citations in the article you had but to say the word. I now consider the word quite unambiguously said. I actually think that this article needs more of an overhaul than just a minor adding of sources. I'm going to try to do just that now. Such an overhaul will naturally include fully sourced material. TheKaplan 22:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

I'm going to try to clean this article up, and hopefully solve the sources problem at the same time. I could especially use help from someone who is particularly familiar with the early history/formation of the organization, as that section in particular could use some work to bring it up to encyclopedic standards, and I am not at this time very familiar with MEChA's prehistory. TheKaplan 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about my recent additions?--Rockero 22:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the information is neccesary and valuable but could be organized better--perhaps in a less narrative form. I guess you might just be the "someone who is particularly familiar with the early history/formation of the organization" that I was talking about. For now I'm not touching that section myself but rather focusing on the criticism aspect and on sourcing material in that and related sections. TheKaplan 23:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now I've moved onto the formation part of the article. I tried to edit it for style without touching the content. I didn't change much, I guess what I really meant is that the opening "Throughout the 1960s, students organized to promote their own rights and the rights of Mexican Americans," and then the subsequent mentioning of all the groups without talking about MEChA untill much farther down, left the reader kind of wondering how it all relates back to MEChA, so I put that information right up front. TheKaplan 02:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I realize I wasn't explicit about the how MEChA was the result of this coalescence of students groups. I think that is clearer now.--Rockero 02:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Logo Removal

MEChA has no "standardized" logo. Most chapters do not use the "Hasta La Victoria, Siempre" slogan as their official motto, or use the Red Star. Therefore, I have removed the logo, as it is a misrepresentation of the organizations in question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfraga (talk • contribs)

I agree with Bfraga. There are common elements to many MEChA symbols, but the graphic we had wasn't the best representation of "your average MEChA graphic", for the reasons he mentions.--Rockero 06:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The latest logo (Image:MEChALogo-291x257.gif) was better because it was more inline with logos I have commonly seen. Not sure about licensing issues, however, and the source isn't the best, either.--Rockero 00:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a logo which does not contain a slogan or star for illustration purposes only. Perhaps someone would like to write a short description of the symbolism within the logo? --Bfraga 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity of the article

Honestly I think this article is very biased, Mecha is known to be an extremist and racist organization, not a human right or whatever you wrote organization. Their main objective is the "reconquista" of the south western states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, and south Oklahoma) that are, according to them, stolen territories that belong to mexicans. I am not going to edit the article, i just, would like to remind you that here, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia and therefore the article are supposed to be objective. best wishes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent shooter (talk • contribs)

External link

Lukobe removed an external link[2] with the edit summary "remove non-notable critic". I agree that the critic is non-notable. Furthermore, links to normally avoid include "website[s] that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." (The creator of the website added the link).

Also, the site contains "unverified original research", another qualification for LTNA.

Furthermore, the site uses the term "Nican tlaca" to refer to "indigenous people", a term not used by MEChA whatsoever, but rather by the unaffiliated Mexica Movement. The use of this term further's MM's agenda by adopting their nomenclature, as one of their goals is the promotion of their terminology. It unnecessarily blurs the distinction between these distinct groups, a frequent phenomenon amongst anti-illegal-immigration, anti-immigration, anti-Mexican, and other racist websites.--Rockero 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The website No MEChA No Racism does not have unverified research.

The same website uses the term Nican Tlaca not because it desires to blur the distinctions between the Mexica Movement and MEChA's "indigenous" terms, but because they are equivalent. Even though the MEChA documents claim that Chicano applies to all politically active people, the president of the organization made it clear that Asian Americans cannot be Chicanos. The president further asserted that he was a Chicano by birthright i.e. Mexican was equivalent to Chicano. The MEChA documents, in addition to mentioning the Chicano identity, mention that they are "Indigenous from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego". This is the same thing as saying they are the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Nican Tlaca means the same thing as Indigneous peoples of the Americas, but it is far shorter. Although the replacement of Indigenous peoples of the Americas with Nican Tlaca might be unnecessary, it is dramatically less wordy. Although it might be a frequent tactic of the SOS to confuse the Mexica Movement with MEChA like User:Rockero claims, the confusion is usually over MEChA's Atzlan and the Mexica Movement's both continents. These are not synonyms, but Nican Tlaca and indigenous are synonyms.--Dark Tichondrias 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's unverifiable because we have nothing other than the author's word that the events described transpired as he describes them. See WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The intention may be utterly benign. The effect, however, is a blurring of the distinction I mention earlier.

"Nican tlaca" is NOT the equivalent of "Indigenous peoples of the Americas". It is a term from Classical Nahuatl, which, in the context in which it was originally used, referred to Aztec people. The fact that the term was resurrected by MM to mean "Indigenous people of North America" makes it a neologism. Again, the result is a blurring of the distinction between these two groups. Such an oversimplification is not only unneccesary, but does a disservice in that it is tantamount to misinformation.--Rockero 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo

I think this article would definitely benefit from having the organization's logo pictured at the top. I tried to add such a picture a while back but it was removed because it was, apparently, not representative of the average MEChA logo (apparently they vary slightly from chapter to chapter). Lacking the requisite knowledge as to what constitutes the "average" MEChA logo, I invite those with that knowledge to add one. I could just try to find another one and keep trying untill i get one that's acceptable, but that seems a little ineficient. TheKaplan 02:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have a logo which displays the one common feature of nearly all MEChA chapters, namely the Eagle holding a stick of dynamite and a maquahuitl. I will upload it and place it in the article. --Bfraga 05:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Logo added. --Bfraga 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and Political Correctness

It is my understanding that in both English and Spanish grammar, "Chicano and Chicana" is unneccesarily repetitive, as both are already covered under "Chicano." And Mosquito, there really is no call for such presumptuous rudeness in your edit summaries. TheKaplan 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has any objections to my bringing this page back in line with English and Spanish grammar, here is where you voice them. Once again, in English, and to my understaning in Spanish as well (or rather, especially in Spanish), a group of mixed or unkown genders is reffered to in the masculine. TheKaplan 09:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Chicano and Chicana", "Chicana/o", "Chicano/a", and "Chican@", as well as their variants replacing "Ch" with "X", are all commonly used interchangably in literature from the discipline of Chicano studies, which, as a living discipline and one that is focussed on social change, attempts to incorporate criticisms and proposed solutions to problems. In this case, the "redundancy" is in fact a response to Chicana feminists who criticize the phallonormative use of the masculine gender in the Spanish language. There is some discussion of this on Talk:Chicano. In light of the critique, which I believe holds some merit, it is probably useful to make mention of this phenomenon on the Chicano page, but it is not necessary to incorporate the critique throughout Chicano-related Wikipedia articles.--Rockero 06:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm personally biased to include both. I don't see how it really hurts, and it won't put-off certain people who consider political correctness to be important (ie, me in some instances). Of course, I'm pushing a bias to influence the page, but I don't really see what's so bad about respecting others, especially when it doesn't really cause much of a problem. The Ungovernable Force 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rockero: I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. When you refer to "the critique" are you refering to the feminist critique of the standard language, or the critique of the feminist revisions? I guess what I'm trying to figure out is whether or not you support removing the "and Chicana" and "Chicana/o" redundancies in this particular article.

Ungovernable: It is my opinion that wikipedia should, when in doubt, default to correct grammar. Political correctness hurts only those who think that the English (and in this case Spanish) languages should not be sanitized out of useful existence. I love language, and I hate to see it butchered and cut off from its etymological roots for the sake of sensitivity. TheKaplan 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I have been pretty inactive in Wikipedia lately. Yes, the critique I'm referring to is the feminist critique of the use of "Chicano" as an umbrella term for all genders. I am not opposed to using "Chicana and Chicano", but I feel that, in the interest of conciseness, it should be used sparingly, and a full discussion of the terminology ought to be included on the Chicano page, and not on every Chicano-related page.--Rockero 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

MinutemanSmaher's Comments

This attempt by all you white racists is not giving a clear picture of MEChA other than the white supremacists/ movement conservative propaganda.

Leave and go write about how much you love the stars and bars or something. We know you hate for people of color to write thier own history, and to define themselves in a non-white image.. but you won't win here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.249.20 (talk • contribs)

Please watch your wording. Attacks are never welcome here. While your opinion may be shared, kindly tone down your comments. ~~ Meeples 05:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, unsigned, do you realize how racist you are? Do you think it is OK to be a racist when you are not white? Dullfig 20:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling out the racism that you conservative movement bulldogs are doing here is not racists. You missinterpret my point. You are the racists. Calling you all what you are, does not make me a racist. I don't understand why you all run away from a word that aptly describes your actions, thoughts, and the bedrock of the political strategy that you all employ in the US--- The "Southern Strategy as Nixon called it, or the "Culture Wars" as the media calls. This attack here on MEChA is part of it. Atleast when you all admit that your white supremacists, we can work from there. When you hide cowardley behind the language of the civil rights movement...we aren't going anywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.143.170 (talk • contribs)

Dullfig and anonymous, please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Discuss content, not the character of the editors. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, see, this is how it works: you do not know me, you don't know my positions, oppinions, life experiences, circumstances, etc, etc, and yet, because I am not brown (which you have assumed, since nothing I said gave away my race), you already decided you know everything there is to know about me. That is the classic definition of racism. Think about it.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. -- Dr. Martin Luther King

Dullfig 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry, Ungovernable, had to get it off my chest:-)

Who was that directed towards? Hopefully not me. Either way, all I am saying is it is not appropriate to throw around terms like "racist" towards people, especially when you mean it in a pejorative sense (which you both obviously do). Even if it's true, comment on content, not on the character (or supposed character) of other editors. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, Force, it wasn't directed against you. It's just that I felt I had to say something, because this is a typical tactic on the left: attack and label someone, so you don't have to argue the subject on its merits. Instead of arguing if Mecha has good or bad points, these guys just come out swinging, calling us racists and white supremacists, and that is it, no need to argue any further. It is intelectually dishonest (and I don't mean you :-). Dullfig 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This thread started with accusations of racism and ended with partisan political hackery. Yeah I must be on wikipediaMosquito-001 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Por La Raza

In the criticism section of the article it makes mention of the phrase's roots, claim it originated during the Cuban Revolution, but I think it's roots may go back further than that. I noticed that the phrase bears a striking similarity to a quote of a fascist motto listed in the fascist mottos and quotes section of the wiki article on Italian Fascism. The quote roughly goes, "Everything inside the State, Nothing outside the State." Even in the "Por La Raza..." translations that translate "por" as "by" or "of," it does not reflect positively on Mecha. I'd provide a link to the article but I don't know how.

                       -Mike

C'mon, I've been involved with several Mechistas and none of them were fascist or even slightly bordering on fascism. Anyway's that's original research. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

All the MeCHA meetings I've been to never even mentioned WW2 or the state of politics then. There were passing references to the 60's and reagan era latin american policy but that was it when it came to history. Of course if someone were to connect Mecha with Nazism it would go over very well with the Rush Limbaughs of wikipedia.Mosquito-001 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What? since when do you have to mention WWII to be a fascist? Mecha has several key caracteristics of fascism: socialist ideas, racism, nacionalism, etc. Fascism is an ideology, and it didn't die with WWII. Dullfig 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article on fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism, MECHA doesn't seem to be a fascist organization. Mecha is a liberal organization and believes strongly in fighting sexism within its ranks. It even went so far as to require female/chicana representation at its national conventions. The national conventions are also open to ideas from any Mecha chapter no matter the size. It is not an authoritarian organization since its leadership is not really centralist in any form. Every Mecha chapter is free to adapt itself to best serve the needs of the local community. Fascism, as a philosophy, opposes socialism along with capitalist economics. I don't know how to address this point of your's because it wasn't clearly stated. Did you mean that mecha is anti-capitalist when you said socialist? Racism is not a fascist idea. Racism is a practice unto itself. Mecha's meetings are open to those of any race and their leadership is the same way. Nationalist? Mecha's philosophy differs greatly from chapter to chapter but I've never seen a chapter wrap itself in patriotic imagery in order to fuel a political agenda but anything is possible. I look forward to your counterpoint but I also recommend you read the wiki article on fascismMosquito-001 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I accept your point. So what would be a good description for a sesecionist, racist, anti-capitalist and anti-american organization? It's a good thing they are not sexist on top of that :) Dullfig 23:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just surprised you haven't linked it to al queda yet... :) Mosquito-001 01:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)