Talk:UnidosUS/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moved from article page

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

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

Locked?

Why the hell is this page locked up? I look into the history and all I see is some admin trying to POV the hell out of it and then locking it to their preferred version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.74 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• This article has been protected due to persistent vandalism and edit warring. See the protection policy. Camw (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I see an edit war. Which you are part of. I don't see "vandalism", the other side is supported by plenty of sources in the talk above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.74 (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I guess we (and those that entered the discussion on the administrators noticeboard) disagree then. Edits reverted had no reliable sources, had a source that lead to a blank page, removed references without explanation or discussion and linked to a press statement with no attempt to portray it in a neutral manner as well as trying to use it for a source for opinions that had nothing to do with the press release. That's all the explanation that is needed really. Camw (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Only one user - now-banned User:PorLaRazaNada - has argued that the racist content here was accurate or neutral. They used a bunch of IP addresses after the account was blocked.

Strangely enough - the IPs all came from various Houston netblocks used by Comcast.

And wouldn't you know it - the IP above is a University of Houston IP address - [1]

I am blocking that IP as well as another IP sockpuppet of banned PorLaRazaNada. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected

The semi-protection has now expired. Warning to the PorLaRazaNada editor - if you return to putting that content in the article your IP ranges will be blocked, again, and the article will be protected, again. Please find something else to vandalize. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New information is missing from this article

Politics aside, there seems to be information missing from this article that is 100% verified. According to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/sotomayor.white.house/index.html) Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been verified as a member of this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.130.228.84 (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

La Raza, Mexican Terrorist Organization?

Since there are over 100 websites claiming La Raza is a terrorist organization, something should be said to this effect.

For example: http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=12710&catid=10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsmith9999 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Minority" Racism

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

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

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

"Can you imagine Obama and McCain paying homage to a group of white people who called themselves [the Race]?" asks Michelle Malkin in For 'La Raza,' Trouble Begins With Its Name. According to her, the "unvarnished truth is that the group is a radical ethnic nationalist outfit that abuses your tax dollars and milks PC politics to undermine our sovereignty." Since this topic is in two subheads, I take la libertad of again pointing out that she goes on to detail 15 things you should know about "The Race." These are facts, as far as I can see, and at least part of her her arguments ought be added to the main article, but I don't know where… Asteriks (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• • That Malklin piece looks like a blog entry. Material like this is hardly "factual":
    • "The Race" has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal "mortgage counseling" grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.
  • So far as I'm aware the group denies that "la raza" translates to "the race". Has Malkin's piece been published anywhere? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For anyone to deny that "la raza" means anything other than "the race" is ubsurd. To do so, one must be purely dishonest or intellectually inferior. I am Mexican and speak fluent Spanish. The phrase is racist. The the NCLR doesn't even bother define the phrase or formally translate it on their website, likely because they would rather not go there. Just go to this Wiki article, la raza, to find an unbiased definition of the phrase. I will add some of this material to this article. Gaytan (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that the unbiased definition that you wrote a few minutes later? Please find some proper sources that discuss this, rather than giving your own opinion.   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. A literal translation would be best. I will get it from my Spanish-English dictionary (good reference) for you. Its funny that NCLR will not even attempt to define this. They know how politically dangerous that would be. They conveniently breeze over this subject while other attempt to define "raza" as "people". Anyone who speaks Spanish could tell you this is completely wrong.Gaytan (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not my point. I don't think that any translation is necessary. Words can have many meanings, even in a dictionary. Making up a translation from there would be "original research", which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If we want to include a discussion of various points of view about the subject's name then that should go later in the article, and should include balanced coverage of all significant points of view.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You clearly have a bias (POV) in favor of NCLR, or else a definition would not be such a big deal to you. I updated the definition in this article as found in a highly reputable source. I have not included any "original research" since it is simply a literal translation of words from Spanish to English. I am Mexican and I have a bias against NCLR. My edits to this article do not reveal this bias at all but I HAVE edited out some POV material I have found in this article by others. POV editing goes both ways. In this case, the article is currently leaning totally in support of NCLR. I intend to make the article more balanced. Besides, how can you state that you "don't think that any translation is necessary"? The article is written for an English-speaking audience, they deserve some kind of translation of "la raza". In many cultures around the world, it is disrespectful and even offensive and insulting to purposely speak in front of someone in a language they do not understand (especially true among Mexicans). Therefore, let us likewise not insult our English-speaking audience. Gaytan (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's original research. We can't go picking through dictionaries and making decisins on what we find. If you can find a reliable secondary sourec that discusses the meaning of the name of this group, then add it. See WP:PSTS for the definition of a "secondary source". And please don't attribute motives. See WP:AGF.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Status

I understand the inclination to leave a disputed status tag up until there is some consensus on the material presented. However, on this page, I see no discussion occurring for some time. I understand that many individuals want more material to be included about potential separatist/racist activities of the NCLR. But I do not see any credible sources mentioned, aside from those that allude to material already included under "Criticism". It might be reasonable to include a sourced sentence or two to the effect that the name has sparked controversy, but this alone does not permit the article to support a given interpretation of the name. The NAACP has a name that clearly invokes race (in a now somewhat politically incorrect way), but I find it ludicrous that NPOV would require suggesting that the NAACP is a racist organization on that basis alone. Sean Patrick Santos (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

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

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

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

The entire criticism section lacks evidence. It says that La Raza is accused of bad things, but provides no examples of those bad things. 68.165.77.136 (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixing broken links in references

I fixed a couple of broken links in references from the NCLR web site. The following material is copied from the talk page of an IP editor (98.195.149.177‎‎ (talk · contribs)) who had pointed out that these links were broken.

I will take another look at the edits I made earlier today. They appeared OK to me at the time, but perhaps I missed something. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked my edits and believe they are basically OK. My first edit replaced a page that (as the IP user correctly pointed out) no longer exists with a newer page that, as best I can tell, addresses the same points as are mentioned in the text of the article. Given the existence of this newer page, I can't see any support for the suggestion that NCLR had "retracted" the original press release. If someone can find a current source for this press release, by all means please feel free to include it. Even better for our purposes than a primary source from NCLR's web site would be some reliable secondary source (perhaps from a newspaper or news magazine) reporting that Rep. Norwood had made certain allegations and NCLR had denied them. If (as I doubt) NCLR has in fact retracted or disclaimed what they said in the press release, we should be able to find a source saying so (and should not engage in our own original research to surmise that they've changed their views just because a web page has disappeared).

My second edit changed the link to something that works fine for me. Before I fixed this link, it had a stray pipe symbol on the end (which caused the link to go to an error message). When I click on this link now, it gives me an "NCLR FAQs" page, the second item of which addresses the definition of "La Raza".

Material from Discover the Networks may be acceptable as a source of information, in conjunction with other sources providing a balanced presentation of all significant viewpoints in reliable sources (per WP:NPOV). I would definitely oppose citing discoverthenetworks.org as a single definitive source to "put the lie" to NCLR's own claims. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 23:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the above would be more useful to people in general if it were here, where it really belongs, on the article's talk page. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 14:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that making nearly half the article about charges and countercharges filed by political opponents and supporters of an organization is not really very useful since this is an article about the organization itself. A quick summary of the controversy with links to the documents charging and countercharging are all that's needed. rewinn (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversial: use of term "aztlan" and the racist slogan.

if you simply use the search function on their website, you will find various uses of the word aztlan in a non hypothetical manner.

http://lideres.nclr.org/content/groups/detail/2480/ for example.

this is in direct contradiction to information in the criticism section, which insists that nclr does not hold such opinions. and yet both that term, and the slogan are hosted on that page (the slogan is in the image) which is their OFFICIAL website. what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.20.140 (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your claiming is misleading. That link is not to a page representing NCLR's position, as a casual reading of the page makes clear. Instead, it is a page describing an entirely different group (...although to be fair, there may be some people who belong to both. Who knows?) NCLR's website links to and describes many groups, but does not necessarily endorse those groups. This is not unusual; after all, wikipedia itself links to the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster, but is not itself Pastafarian.rewinn (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section could use some beefing up

All we have is some people saying they favor one race exclusionarily and them responding that they apparently actually beleive in border security. J390 (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There doesn't seem to be all that much variety in the criticism, merely the same stuff repeated at differing levels of volume. It is good to briefly list criticisms and responses, but not helpful to become a forum for those criticisms and responses. Today an editor not-improperly deleted a comment about a critic's racist views and activities as not being relevant to the criticism, and I just deleted a critics extended quote making counterfactual assertions; both elements describe the character of the person making the criticism or are argumentative about the criticism, but don't describe the criticism themselves. Curious readers can find the critics' full views et cetera both at the citation links and at each critics' own wikipedia article, but this article is better focussed on things relevant to NCLR rather than being a debating forum. IMO. rewinn (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition of the word "la raza"

Why does the section which defines/explains the meaning of the term "la raza" nowhere state that "la raza" means "the race?" No matter where you stand on the bias issue, this is actually the meaning of the word and it should be stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.132.251 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wondering the same thing myself. I'll fix it. Lionelt (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To be used in this article, a definition should related to the NCLR, not just to what is found in a Spanish-English dictionary. The full definition of the term, as used in this context, is found at La Raza.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Lionelt (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So the plain meaning of the Spanish term for "the race" is not relevant? I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. The prevailing definition would seem to have particular significance in the context of a group that openly advocates for special treatment of a race/ethnicity. Taking your logic a little further, if the National Council of Los Albinos says that "albino" is Spanish for "strawberry cupcakes" and not persons with a skin pigmentation issue, mentioning the standard dictionary definition would not be permitted?

While I assume good faith, I struggle to see how this is a balanced and complete treatment of this sub-topic. I suspect this privilege of re-defining words which have a commonly-accepted meaning would not be extended to other racialist groups.HedgeFundBob (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you show an example of a comparable explanation in another article?   Will Beback  talk  12:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you give a cogent explanation of why a highly-controversial group is given a free pass on the plain meaning of its name? Your position so far is this: "To be used in this article, a definition should related to the NCLR, not just to what is found in a Spanish-English dictionary." Sorry, but that makes no sense. The definition is clearly related to NCLR and its mission to secure preferential treatment for Hispanics.HedgeFundBob (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Asked and answered, counselor. The word "clearly" does not make your argument any less a logical fallacy. Just as Shakespeare would be the ultimate authority on what he meant by "a rose would be a rose by any other name", so too the organization NCLR is the ultimate authority on what it means by its name. rewinn (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Some things are so dumb that only an intellectual could believe them. The term "La Raza" was not invented by this group, and they cannot define it any way they see fit after the fact with any degree of credibility. Words have meaning beyond a few phrases in a carefully chosen press release. The term "La Raza" has specific meaning in the latino culture and was purposefully chosen as the name of this group which is dedicated exclusively to advocating for Latinos.

To put forth an argument that the NCLR is not a race based organization is patently absurd, and only a ridiculous helping of rationlization could make it possible to think otherwise. A quick read through the articles on their own website will quickly cause one to understand that they are advocating for a very specific group, of which 99.999% of their membership is composed; the group is called LATNOS/HISPANICS, and if you don't believe that, just ask one.

Finally, go yourself to any large scale gathering of this group and take stock of the prevailing attitudes, sentiment and stated goals and beliefs of the attendees- not the fringe mind you, but the common understanding of what the group is about, and then please repost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.187.232 (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

P/S Please don't (re)introduce a bunch of pycho babble regarding race versus ethnicity. For the purposes of discussion regarding rights advocacy and self-segration they are synonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.187.232 (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your verbal abuse does not make your fallacious argument any stronger. No-one with an ordinary understanding of the English language can in good faith deny that "race" and "ethnicity" are two different words. The idea that an organization cannot define its own name is an interesting one, but wikipedia is not a forum for debating such concepts; the only evidence of the meaning of the name as in the current version of the article. rewinn (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, lol. In the same paragraph you drag the discussion down into semantics (again) by illustrating how words like "ethnicity" and "race" have clearly defined and rigid meanings that cannot be altered even for the sake of a single discussion, but then go on to say that an organization can redefine words at will. Priceless!

Google "La Raza" and you will see about 23 million hits, so it is absurd to state that "the only evidence of the meaning of the name as in the current version of the article".

Your logic is so flawed it doesn't even merit debate. To suggest that there is nothing disingenuous about "a group that calls itself "KKK-White power" but then claims it has nothing to do with white supremecy" is just flat out dumb, and only enormous ratioalization could convince a thinking person otherwise.

It also did not go unnoticed how you didn't refute any salient point other than to attempt to pick nits between "race " and "ethnicity" (which, again, is not germaine to this discussion). I think the word for your position is "untenable"; try looking that one up, or just redefine it if it bothers you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.187.232 (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Come up with something new, or move on. rewinn (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How NCLR Uses It

In the context that NCLR uses it, it means “the people,” or “the Hispanic people of the New World.” http://www.nclr.org/index.php/about_us/faqs/general_faqs_and_requested_resources/ Other uses of the word may be of interest, since there is a controversy about it, but to the extent that the issue is what NCLR means, NCLR is the only authoritative source. rewinn (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS, we should also try to find one or more secondary sources which report on NCLR's use of the term "La Raza". Note that I am not talking primarily about sources saying "NCLR says they mean this, but they really mean that" — though such sources might also be appropriate as part of an overall effort to report significant views in reliable sources in an unbiased fashion per WP:NPOV. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There is really no need to give any translation of "La Raza" at all; it's just the name of the organization. Rather than give it undue weight, I'd suggest deleting the entire paragraph. Unless, of course, some editor wants to go into the purported controversy about the name, in which case the material should go into the "controversy" section rewinn (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

NCLR more anti-white than pro-latino

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

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

"Only in America could critics of a group called 'The Race' be labeled racists" writes Michelle Malkin in For 'La Raza,' Trouble Begins With Its Name. "Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as 'hate.'" She goes on to detail 15 things you should know about "The Race." Asteriks (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree Asteriks. The National Council of "The Race" is completely racist. It is obvious in the name. Gaytan (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Rockero (I think it was) was right, it is not racist term at all, it is a name derived from the 1925 poem, La Raza Cósmica - the cosmic race in English from José Vasconcelos from Mexico, to express the idea of a mixed race people in the American Continent(s). Outside of Latinos in the US and perhaps some areas of Mexico, and by proxi some Central American countries, its actual meaning is pretty much lost in other LAC counties. Dantt777 (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

La Raza is equal to the KKK. The KKK spins their racism into not being racism but being pro-white just as La Raza does with being pro-latino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.97.202 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias

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

One wonders if the article on the Ku Klux Klan completely avoided mentioning racism at all, if users like Mosquito-001 would jump to the article's defense so quickly. 70.36.159.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Why not expand it and throw up some sources instead of your usual conjecture and race baiting, if you have a problem with the article? Mosquito-001 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Its name is source enough. An organization named "The National council of the White Race" would certainly induce no debate as to whether it was all boosterism or all hucksterism. In fact, even if it was exclusively dedicated to merely "improving opportunities" for white people, that would be enough to have every organization from the SPLC to the Ford Foundation move to destroy it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.160.231 (talk • contribs)

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

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

Mr. Rockero,

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

Perhaps you did not read the entire article (which is admittedly deficient), which goes on to state, "it is used to denote the mixture of those who are variously descended from the indigenous people of the Americas, the Spanish and other Europeans, Arabs, and Africans."

I must disagree with your assessment that "rights based on a racial qualification [...] is by definition exclusionary". Under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States guaranteed Mexico and the Mexican inhabitants of the Mexican Cession that they would enjoy the same rights as they did under Mexico, including the rights to speak Spanish, practice Catholicism, have their property rights protected, etc. These are the "Hispanic rights" that advocacy and civil rights groups were formed to protect and enhance, as the United States did not meet its obligation under the terms of the treaty. So in one sense, said rights are "special" within the context of the United States, but frankly, these rights are the same basic human rights declared by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Furthermore, the Latino population is composed of individuals of all races and mixtures of races, which means that the identification "La Raza" is not racial at all, but cultural (i.e. a common heritage rooted in Spanish colonization of the Americas). So there is no "racial qualification" whatsoever to be a part of the NCLR.

My "personal propensity" is not "to defend a position [I] agree with", (I presume you are referring to my statement that "the organization's name does not suffice to classify it as a 'racist organization'"), but for accuracy in Wikipedia articles. Show me an act of racism committed by the NCLR. Show me some proof that the organization practices bigotry or exclusion, and I will be glad to incorporate the information into the article. But I think we know what is really going on here. The NCLR, as a large national organization, has become the target of immigration reductionists, nationalists, and other groups and individuals in the current climate of anti-Mexican and anti-immigrant sentiment brought about by the heated United States immigration debate.--Rockero 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why "La Raza" is not formally defined or translated in this article. I am myself of Mexican heritage, speak Spanish fluently, and have family that lives all over Mexico of whom I visit and communicate with regularly. The phrase "la raza" is rarely used in Mexico but rather is most often used by Chicanos here in the U.S. When the term is used, it is always used to denote superiority of Mexican people and heritage and is also used to denote the mexican family, but never does it imply other races, ethnicities or nationalities. I and my family refuse to use the term because it is racist. I compeletely disagree with Rockero. Either way, the article should define this. I also ran a quick scan of the NCLR website and found that they do not define the phrase either. I wonder why... Gaytan (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

NCLR does define its name in significant detail: [2]. In fact, they've compiled a whole guide that answers critics' accusations about them: [3]. 68.165.77.136 (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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

So, if certain European ethnic identity groups whose mention is informally forbidden from the Internet by Godwin's Law rename themselves "das Volk," may we assume the same exclusion of a racist intention applies, or are we to be allowed to use common sense and recognize a clear intent to elevate one race to the exclusion of others? I'm sure David Duke can tap-dance just as adroitly as the National Council of La Raza does. loupgarous (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Council of La Raza. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v17/i07/07003401.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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 10:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

American Resistance or American Renaissance?

Under the section of criticism of La Raza, a reference to The American Resistance links to American Renaissance. I think the two organisations have been conflated in the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:545:4400:EDAD:60DE:BEB8:FD3E:517C (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits by a sockpuppet

Brazilians shouldn't be on here at all. We have our own language, and separate identity. If you include Brazilians in the box on the right, then you must also include Italians, and the french, and other romance speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.159.222 (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Brazilians should be included, as both Spain & Portugal were part of what was called Hispania by the Romans (the Iberic peninsula) US government is all over the place sometimes calling Brazilians Latinos and sometimes not. As somebody who has gone around LAC countries, Brazil is culturally and demographically very similar to Argentina and Uruguay in the South and Venezuela in the North, and the Amazon region between Brazil & Peru are very similar too. From religion to Sports, Brazilians are Latinos no matter is they spell Perez with a Z in Spanish and with and Peres in Portuguese. In addition some of the same migrant communities such as Spaniards and Italians went to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. As well as the Japanese that went to Brazil and Peru. Dantt777 (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

---

What I don't understand is why people don't understand that LATINO/HISPANIC IS NOT A RACE!!! It's an ethnicity of people of ALL RACES (Asian, White, Middle Eastern, Black, Mulato, Mestizo, Indian, etc.) SO HOW CAN IT BE A RACIST ORGANIZATION, LET ALONE A 'RACIALIST' ORGANIZATION?

I am removing the term racialist, and at the same time bashing Lou Dobb's hoard of racists trying to take down an organization that supports people of Hispanic descent (once again, all races) trying to advance in society and standard of living.

La Raza is a term for people of ALL RACES, because a Latino/Hispanic can be of ANY race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.83.178 (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

"Raza" is one of those words that has different meanings and should be taken in context. (English has many of these kinds of words.) In the case of "National Council of La Raza" and their motto, "la raza" should be take to mean "the people." Not "the race." This article needs to be reverted back to a previous edition or it needs a disputed tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.26.197 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

ALL meanings of "Raza" carry a bigoted "context" according to https://translate.google.com/#es/en/raza so please find a source that WP accepts which says that "raza" not only can have a non-bigoted context, but also that the specific context as used by NCLR is some other, non-bigoted context. Even Cesar Chavez agreed that NCLR is a bigoted group, FFS.

I think you'll have difficulty turning your WP:OR opinion, above, into a "contextualist" argument that fits WP guidelines.

97.98.86.66 (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of "La Raza" by César Chávez

It appears that at this moment one editor has a concern regarding César Chávez's criticism. I've opened this up so that the editor can express any concerns with the reliably sourced material. 64.53.252.50 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question has not responded, although the editor has been writing extensively elsewhere on the topic. I can only surmise that the editor is well aware and engaged on the subject but has chosen not to discuss his objections to the article on the talk page. I have added the César Chávez criticism to the article supported by references from sources that are without exception all reliable and consist of: The New Yorker, Harper, Farm Worker Movement(dot)org, University of California Press, Ilan Stavans, the University of California 50th-anniversary Farmworker Movement documentation project 1962-1993 and The New York Times. 64.53.252.50 (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"The editor in question" here

Chavez is not talking about this organization. If you want to include the Chavez material somewhere, it may be appropriate on the La Raza Wikipedia article. The reason we know Chavez's comments are not relevant to this article is that they come from a period of time before this organization used "La Raza" in it's name. Why don't you get that? It doesn't matter how much you cite anything if the actual content is not relevant. It's as if you kept on citing a source critical of the Apollo moon landing in an article about the god Apollo. It would be a similar kind of irrelevancy. Just because they sound alike does not make them the same thing. There is another article in which it would be relevant, La Raza. Go there if you think the content is important.

Finally, a personal note. This is the last time I am going to have anything to do with this article. I made a reasonable and well-intentioned effort to fix an error. I notice my repair was repeatedly undone. I don't edit Wikipedia that often, and apparently this waste of time is why.

Archivist1642 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)archivist1642

Chávez is talking specifically about this organisation - please note the reference to the La Raza donor Ford Foundation also found earlier in the article. You also claim that this criticism came, "from a period of time before this organization used "La Raza" in it's name." This is not true. The organization was, as the article itself correctly notes, created in 1968 as the Southwest Council of La Raza and only later tweaked its name to the National Council of La Raza. Chávez's criticism of the organization does not begin to be recorded until 1969 - and continues through to his autobiography.

Please reflect on these reliably sourced references that do identify this organization, are from the time - and are consistent with Chávez's lifetime position on the subject.64.53.252.50 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I changed the quote in the first paragraph from referring to "La Raza" to "la raza" because that's how it's written in the cited article and the article does not refer to either the Southwest Council of La Raza or the National Council of La Raza.ColombianHugLord (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Trying once again re: Chavez

The entire part of the "criticism" section that suggests Chavez was criticizing "The National Council of La Raza" is invalid despite the many attempts of another editor to support this with references. I have reviewed the full text in all the referred sources and it is clear in all of them that Chavez was criticizing use of the phrase "La Raza" by some National Farmworkers members. It doesn't matter how many citations you come up with in which Chavez criticizes La Raza, none of them are criticism of the National Council of La Raza, they are irrelevant to this article. I am removing them one more time. If anyone can find a quotation in which Cesar Chavez criticizes the National Council of La Raza rather than use of the phrase La Raza, please add the reference that would support these paragraphs. Archivist1642 14:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Archivist1642 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivist1642 (talk • contribs)

The criticism is specifically addressing the La Raza group that was funded by the Ford Foundation in 1968/89. This is that group, there is no other.64.53.252.50 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly: the "criticism" section of this article is for information about criticism of the NCLR; however, Cesar Chavez was not criticizing the NCLR. Chavez was criticizing members of his own union for using the phrase La Raza. Therefore, Chavez references in this article are irrelevant. If you wish to post criticism of the phrase La Raza there is a page where that would be relevant. See La Raza. Archivist1642 15:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)archivist1642 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivist1642 (talk • contribs)

No, he criticized the existence of the group and its position at that time. He criticized the groups community organizers on the ground that sought to enlist his union's members, and he warned his own members away from this group, its organizers and ideas. An NFW leader also criticized the hijacking of Chavez's "aura" by this group as a figurehead. Chavez even spoke directly to the Ford Foundation and lobbied against their support of the group. It is clear that it is this group that was criticized. 64.53.252.50 (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, then, anonymous user, find a citation that unequivically shows this, show the exact quotation where Chavez uses the name of the organization and singles it out for criticism. The existing citations do not support your interpretation. Quite frankly, you are downright wrong and in the realm of historical interpretation to jump to the conclusion from the provided quotations that Chavez is criticizing the NCLR. The most generous thing we can do is mark this as "disputable." I'm making this area disputed. And I will again ask for protection for this page. Yours in utter frustration Archivist1642 16:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Archivist1642

What is the RELEVANCE of whether Chavez was criticizing all who use the term "la raza" versus criticizing this particular group? If he was criticizing "all who use the term 'la raza'," then it means that Chavez was criticizing NCLR (as well as criticizing others). Therefore, you are relying on Fallacious Logic, Archivist.

No matter whether Chavez was criticizing NCLR specifically, or all groups who use the words "LR" (la raza) in "NCLR," both ways (no matter which position that you or I take), Chavez was in fact criticizing this group which indisputably does make use of the term "LR" (la raza). It is simple inductive vs. deductive logic (and as indisputable as all of the Exact Sciences such as mathematics): If Chavez was criticizing all groups who use the two words "LR," then he was therefore criticizing this group; it is non-sequitor (a FORMAL fallacy of logic: never even disputable, as informal fallacies often are) to claim otherwise. You are arguing a position as nonsensical & fallacious as arguing that 2+2=9. 97.98.86.66 (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You have just said yourself that Chavez is criticizing the phrase 'la raza.' La Raza has its own wikipedia article. That would be the correct article on which to place such criticism. Archivist1642 14:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Archivist1642

No, what I said is that Chavez criticizes all who use the term "la raza," and this group uses the term "la raza". Chavez is, therefore, criticizing this group for their usage of the term "la raza." This is, deductively (logically), true 100% of the time. (This group also even represents itself, in its title, using that "la raza" term.) Your attempt to twist what I said, by omitting half of my logical syllogism -- reliance on the strawman and half-truths Fallacies Of Logic -- to cover-up your initial (non-sequitor) Logical Fallacy, is indicative of your stubborn tunnel-vision on this issue; whether consciously or sub-consciously, you omitted the portion of my argument that was inconvenient to your POV. Chavez's commentary is relevant to both this article and the article La Raza. The latter article is a stub, terribly under-developed and lacking in citations (so La Raza is likely to get merged into other articles, anyway, unless people develop La Raza). 97.98.86.66 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This group is the only La Raza funded by the Ford Foundation. It is the group Chavez was criticizing because this organization's community organizers on the ground (there was no other La Raza there at that time) sought to enlist his union's members. It is clear that it is this La Raza that was criticized - requiring a formal denunciation that incorporates the group's non-profit tax id number and suite address is just over the top - that is not how people speak. There was no other La Raza funded by the Ford Foundation in 1969 operating in the southwest for anyone to confuse the clear direct language used by the people who wrote, spoke or quoted the criticism. Your new standard would have us exclude all of Ghandi's criticism of colonialists because he did not explicitly state the full formal name, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". 64.53.252.50 (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The quotation reads "A few months ago the Ford Foundation funded a la raza group and Cesar really told them off." There are several problems for using this to indicate Chavez was criticizing NCLR. Issue 1) The language of the quotation does not specify the group closely enough. The memoirist is making an assumption. There is no information about why Chavez is "telling them off" but the implication is because of use of the phrase. Thus he is criticizing the phrase, not the organization's activities. Issue 2) It can only be referencing the predecessor group of the NCLR, thus it is not being critical of the NCLR and does not belong in this article but on an article of its predecessor body. If there were an article on SWCLR, perhaps it would be relevant there, but issues 1 & 3 would still apply. Issue 3) This source is a reminiscence, which is a primary source. It is not a good source for a Wikipedia article. You are writing and interpreting primary sources here, not referencing secondary or tertiary sources.

In addition, there is ambiguity from other quotations. Because "La Raza" is not only the shortened form for a name of an organization, but is also a word used to refer to the Hispanic peoples of North America. It's a bit like saying every time I use the word 'democratic' I'm talking about the Democratic Party. If you read the sources, it is clear that the direct quotes are often relating to the use of this particular vocabulary, not to the name of an organization. Archivist1642 16:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Archivist1642

Chavez's criticism is outdated? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Feel free to expand the article to describe more fully the growth of the organization from its early more radical days in the cauldron of social change in the late 60's to its current position as a large, mature advocacy group - but deleting notable criticism from its earliest days by a relevant and significant competing organizer is a non-starter and not in keeping with the encyclopedia's objectives to neutrally inform.64.53.252.50 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to please edit inaccurate information

I am a paid employee of the Communications department at the National Council of La Raza. We’re respectfully editing certain information that is inaccurate on our Wikipedia page.

For this first edit, we are proposing to update the introduction section.

Thank you, NCLR Comms (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Current text:

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) (La Raza, or The Race[1]) is the USA's largest Latino advocacy organization. It is a far-left group that advocates in favor of progressive immigration reform policies, including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and reduced deportations.[2][3][4] Founded in 1968, NCLR is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has regional offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Phoenix, and San Antonio.[5] NCLR has historically received three-quarters of its funding from private sources, including individuals and corporations, and one-quarter of its funding from the federal government.[6] Janet Murguía serves as NCLR's president.[2]

New text

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is the largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. NCLR is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, and tax-exempt organization that works to build a stronger America by creating opportunities for Latinos. The organization serves all Hispanic subgroups in all regions of the country, and is headquartered in Washington, DC.

Founded in 1968, NCLR provides policy analysis and advocates on a variety of issues including housing, health, immigration, education, and tax reform. It has offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Phoenix, and San Antonio, and works with an Affiliate network of over 265 organizations across the country. These Affiliates provide services including job training, afterschool programs, and counseling on subjects like homeownership, immigrant integration, and affordable nutrition.

Janet Murguía serves as NCLR’s president and CEO. The Board of Directors is chaired by Renata Soto, co-founder and Executive Director of Conexión Américas, a Nashville-based nonprofit that was founded in 2002 to promote the social, economic, and civic integration of Latino immigrant families in the United States.

Request for editors to please give article another look

• As my [page] shows, I am a paid employee of the communications department at the National Council of La Raza. We are asking the community to please take a look at some of the statements in the current form of the article, as explained below.

Current text:

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) (La Raza, or The Race) is the USA's largest Latino advocacy organization. It advocates in favor of progressive immigration reform policies, including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and reduced deportations.

Reason:

Immigration is only one of the issues we work on. Also, we would suggest taking out the term “illegal immigrants” as it is controversial and in dispute, and no longer used by several major news organizations.

Source: Illegal immigration - https://en.wikipedia.org

We also question the translation of "La Raza" used there, as it is incorrect, as is explained later on in the article. Having the term in the first sentence gives the impression that it is the correct translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem1321 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Current text:

NCLR has historically received three-quarters of its funding from private sources, including individuals and corporations, and one-quarter of its funding from the federal government.

Reason:

This assertion is vague in time period (what is meant by “historically”?), uses a source from a 1992 publication, and is not accurate. Our 2015 Annual Report contains our most current financial statements.

Current text:

The Spanish word raza is often translated into English as race. The phrase La Raza has a particular history in the context of political activism in which NCLR uses it. NCLR uses “La Raza” to refer to “the people” or “the Hispanic people of the New World."[dead link]

Reason:

This dead link could be changed to: https://www.c-span.org/video/?323038-1/qa-janet-murguia

Thank you, Rem1321 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)