Talk:Mexica Movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Politically incorrect now to call a spade a spade?

Why is it unimportant that this is a racist group? Has Political Correctness gotten that bad? It's not POV to state the obvious. It's perfectly NPOV to state that KKK is a racist organization, just as it is perfectly NPOV to state that the Mexica Movement is a racist organization. PERIOD. Ericster08 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cite something like the Anti-defamation League (the mexica movement appears nowhere on their site); which acknowledges that the Mexica Movement is a racist organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexihcatlacatl (talk • contribs) 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a very recently developed group. So the fact that it doesn't appear on the Anti-Defamation League's list yet doesn't make it a non-racist group. I've visited the Mexica Movement Web site, and it is about as toxically racist and vile as you can make a site. So if you want, I'll cite their own language as proof.

And another thing: PLEASE STOP DELETING MY EDITS. Anyone who was born on this continent is indigenous, so that includes all American Indians, Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Asians and Arabs who were born in America. The fact that the Mexica Movement doesn't understand this truth is a key note to include in the article. Ericster08 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright do that but also add a dictionary defintion of racism.--Mexihcatlacatl (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot put your own original research or argument in the articles.

Check this out: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research." Original Research --Mexihcatlacatl (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What original research? The word indigenous is defined and used in several different ways, and clearly Anglos and Hispanics are indigenous to the American continents, just as Turks are now indigenous to Turkey, though the Greeks would probably disagree. Where one is born they are native, period, as defined in any dictionary. The idea that one does not belong somewhere because their ancestors were not born there is a new and racist notion. People move around all the time, and always will move around. Colonies will always come and go. The word you are probably looking for is aboriginal, not native or indigenous, which more specifically means the first KNOWN people of a place. Well, if that was of importance, than the Irish should be given back all of Britain and Western Europe as the purist ancestors of the Celts, and Turkey given back to the Greeks, and Iran given back to the Germans (who invaded Europe and took it from the Celts) and etc etc. So, what original research??? Jcchat66 (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.--Mexihcatlacatl (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this in regards to? Show an example of this being done with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcchat66 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If its not on ADL's site it is surely on another similar site such as the SLPC' site if it is a racist organization. Its not a "recently developed group" they have been around for years.--Mexihcatlacatl (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Done and done, Mexihcatlacatl. You should have nothing to complain about now. Ericster08 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is This Real?

Someone like an administrator or something should check to see if this stuff actually exists. Its probably an elaborate hoax pulled off by some college kids with way too much free time. The only way this organization can really exist is if there are a lot of brainwashed or insane people around, and I highly doubt that. 75.2.216.70 (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ericster08: Since when is this Anti-Defamation League an authority on the subject of racism? It's just a Jewish organization and therefore anything but neutral. They already class any criticism towards Israel as anti-semitism, which a very petty point of view. They think Voz the Aztlan is anti-semetic, but I couldn't find anything at all there that underlines that idea. And besides, there are more forms of racism than just antisemitism. Like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians isn't racism! Promised Land, Chosen People... all fascist bigotry propaganda. The argument that anyone born in America is indigenous is completely ridiculous. There are INDIGENOUS people on the one hand and INVADERS, decending from illegally squatting and immigrating European anchorbabies on the other. That should be obvious. If you do not think that your ancestors were not invaders, then you shouldn't have any problem with Mexicans crossing the American border. Then the land is just for everyone. Just be the next Indian and see the land being taken from you by uninvited foreigners. Why the fuzz?

Lefty European —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lefty European: Did you even read what I had written? The fact that the Anti-Defamation League is NOT an authority on racism is precisely my point.

As for North America, look: every ethnic group ever to live in North America CAME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. The Americans, the Mexicans, the Aztecs, the Indigenous Peoples - they all came from either South America, Mongolia or Europe. So really, no one is indigenous to this continent. It just so happens that those of us who were born here (Arabs, Asians, Blacks, Latinos, Whites), didn't really have a choice about it did we? I don't care who you are or where you live - everyone has a unique bond to the place where they were born and where they grew up. Ericster08 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice insane rant, but it doesn't really answer my question. Or make much coherent sense. I highly doubt that this "movement" is real, and this article should be investigated by an administrator. 75.2.223.83 (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Real or not, the mentality exists, and hatred is brewing. The Jews did not think the Nazis could be serious either, in the beginning. The above comment from Lefty European is proof enough that hatred is growing stronger. Blaming the offspring of ancestors for past crimes is the first step to justifying countless evils against a race or culture, blatantly ignoring that neither the offenders nor the victims are alive any more. So, real or not, every effort should be made to prevent the empowerment of those that harbor such hatreds. Jcchat66 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thats nice, but it doesn't answer my question. Does anyone know an administrator so we can check if this stuff actually exists? 75.1.249.233 (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mexica

Alright, here's some genetic research from Mexico, if anyone's interested [1](it would also seem, that Mexica is denying Mexico's black heritage), thank you. Iamanadam (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

criticism

is there any criticism available from the Hispanic community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.11.43 (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. Like most people in the Americas, Hispanics are neither Indian nor European, and are offended by anyone that would deny the heritage from both cultures. Furthermore, Hispanics do not generally associate themselves with the Mexican culture, for we are from many nations in the Americas, all of which have developed their own unique identities, just like the Anglo states have their own unique cultures, in addition to being a part of a whole. There is no going back to Europe, and no one in the Americas has much in common any more with Europeans. We, Hispanic and Anglo alike, are here to stay, and the Indians have no choice but to share if they want peace. We all have cultures to preserve together. Jcchat66 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you are saying (but not all Hispanics are European and Indian, what about Spaniards?), I guess I should have phraised it a a different way, I mean, is there any criticism from prominet Hispanics? (sorry for the spelling) Iamanadam (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the criticism section should include criticism from the Hispanic/Latino Community in the U.S. as well as criticism from within Latin America (if this last part is at all possible). I also think that some leftist-liberal criticism would be an excellent addition, especially to show that it is not merely American conservatives who disagree with the Mexica Movement.69.235.132.123 (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)James Lopez

Objection to deletion of article (Mexica Movement response)

The following is proof that the request for deletion of this article is invalid and groundless (most likely an act of vandalism). The Mexica Movement (whether one agrees with us or not) has been spotlighted several times in the national/international media. The baseless charge that Mexica Movement is "non-notable" and that "nobody seems to take them seriously but a few hate groups on the opposite side" can be disproven rather easily with the following list of media segments that focus on Mexica Movement:

Associated Press http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/09/07/anti_immigration_forces_warn_of_plot/

Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-schoolme26mar26,1,7581577.column

Chicago Tribune http://www.mexica-movement.org/timexihcah/newspaperszapataagainstdisney.htm

CNN: Lou Dobbs Tonight http://www.mexica-movement.org/video/mexica_movement_riverside_summit_2006.wmv

CNN: Glen Beck Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rBiJJzwVT8

ABC7 Los Angeles http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6116551

NBC7 San Diego http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-OV43iAqUg

Fox News Live http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0Ta5jAbsB0

Fox News: Hannity and Colmes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9qff-6Rxy0

LA Weekly http://www.laweekly.com/columns/a-considerable-town/protest-rat-trap/10635/

OC Weekly http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/vendido-zapata/22778/

La Opinion http://www.mexica-movement.org/timexihcah/newspaperszapataagainstdisney.htm

LA Daily News http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:oh1zu1mM1PYJ:www.dailynews.com/baseballcolumn/ci_6115657+%22mexica+movement%22+daily+news&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Oakland Tribune http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070908/ai_n19517332

Annenberg Radio http://annenbergradio.org/pdfs/Mexica.pdf

Silicon Valley Metroactive http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/06.29.05/immigration-0526.html

Mexica Movement has also been interviewed by:
NPR
KPFK Los Angeles
KABC radio
Univision (see YouTube)
Telemundo
KTTV
TV Novelas

We fully expect that the "deletion of article" request will be removed, now that it has been proven to be invalid (unless one considers CNN, FOX, Associated Press, et al. to be "nobodies"). Mexica Movement speaks for itself, and no authority to officially speak on our behalf is ever granted to individuals on WikiPedia, aside from this username. TheMexicaMovement (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn you were not suppose to use account names that are the same as actual groups or celeberties. I guess Wikipedia doesn't enforce it's own policy. Iamanadam (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That account's been blocked for just that reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

just north america

is it not the mexica movement agenda to get rid of all white people from the american continent not just the white ones from north america what about all the white latin american whites they can stay --Wikiscribe (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it is. The group is very anti-Latino. Like the KKK, British National Party and the Neonazi Party in Germany, this group is a racial segregationist group. There's no learning curve with these morons. Ericster08 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah i know but the article at first glance just states they want all white people out of north america and back to europe but i dont think they want the white latin americans to stay either and want to send them back to europe as well and the article just states white north americans--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, white North Americans would include the whites in Mexico and Central America because both of those places are in North America. Also, I really don't see why you are filled with so much hate for this group of individuals. All they are doing is educating their people who are ignorant to their own history. Is it not okay for someone to know about 4,300 years of civilized history of their people?24.126.115.119 (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's ok for them to know that history - don't be ridiculous. What is not okay is for them to accuse all white people LIVING TODAY (latino or non-latino) who ARE NATIVE to this continent of being "continent stealers". It doesn't matter what color you are - ANYONE who is born here has a right to be here, and that's the bottom line. Ericster08 (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Supremacy

I have included a link to a website that lists the Mexica Movement as a supremacist organization:

http://www.studygroup-bd.org/supremacism.html

I'm not sure if this will aid in listing them as such on wikipedia, but it certainly could help.69.235.132.123 (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)James Lopez

studygroup-bd.org is a private website run by a guy who admits he has no particular credentials in history. I fear it does not qualify as a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. Gotcha. But I'll still be on the lookout.69.235.132.123 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)James Lopez

Mission Impossible

Last time I checked, the majority of Mexicans, Hondurans, Salvadoreans, Nicaraguans, and Panamanians are mestizos. The largest ethnic group in Belize are mestizos, while Natives only make up between 11-14% of the Belizean populace. While Mexico has a large white minority (and so do the other Central American countries, except Costa Rica), Natives make up a small percentage of each country (in some cases very small). Guatemala is the only majority Native American country in North America. Furthermore, Costa Rica is majority white. Also, I don't understand why this so called Mexica movement doesn't include South Americans Amerindians, because in Peru they make up the alrgest ethnic group and almost half of population, while Bolivia is majority Amerindian, and Ecuador is 39% Amerindian, while the rest of South America has small Amerindian minorities. What I find funny is that the Mexica Movement thinks that by learning a Native language, their goal of a Native North America will be somehow achieved.

Note: the preceding paragraph was written by 76.83.13.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) but could not be saved due to an edit filter bug, which has now been fixed. —Soap— 00:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about what Mexica Movement thinks about those labels, not about what you personally believe. If the group rejects the label of "mestizo", then that is a fact about the group and can be verified on their web site. --Dropmeoff (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Borders

The article states that the group believes natives should have the freedom to move anywhere throughout the Americas and that European borders are invalid. However, there is no mention that Native Americans were never a single nation, warred with each other, and had their own borders which they were not free to cross. That the group's beliefs appear at odds with common knowledge seems to me relevant in understand just what the group believes; for example, a discussion of creationism should reference widely held beliefs about the big bang and evolution, or an article on Pat's King of Steaks is incomplete without referencing Geno's Steaks.Nycbl1y (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. The article is about what Mexica Movement advocates, not about what you believe. --Dropmeoff (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mexica Movement own continents Immigration Watchdog.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mexica Movement own continents Immigration Watchdog.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability

This article is a bunch of made up crap without any scholarly proof. This organization is a hate group and deserves to be called out for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:C04A:3072:9186:3410 (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. The Mexica Movement tag was removed from the Illegal immigration in the United States article on the grounds that the addition of the tag promoted a fringe group. But the movement has it's own article which many editors have worked on. Can somebody explain how fringe this group is and Wikipedia's policy on discussing fringe groups? -65.189.247.6 (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

References

I noticed a number of references using the url to a Google Book link. I though editors might be interested in a tool which takes a link as input and creates a (usually) properly formatted ref.

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

I used it to improve two such references.

It really helps creates a much cleaner list of references. I hope you will try it. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"Mexican"

It is not true that the Mexica Movement rejects the label "Mexican." In fact, their site has several articles in which they use the term, and often bemoan the fact that Mexicans aren't selected to play Mexican characters (for example, in movies such as Selena and Frida) - they don't bemoan that indigenous peoples aren't selected to plays Mexicans, but specifically that Mexicans aren't selected to play Mexicans. Also, they have an article on Frida Kahlo in which Frida (fictionally) screams, "I was and am a proud Mexican!" and further in the article state "Mexicans, this is our land!" and even have Frida (fictionally) yelling, "Que viva Mexico! ... Que viva la vida! La vida Mexicana. The Mexican pride." Please remove that inaccuracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.112.91 (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2016

"Mexican" It is not true that the Mexica Movement rejects the label "Mexican." In fact their site has several articles in which they use the term, and often bemoan the fact that Mexicans aren't selected to play Mexican characters (for example, in movies such as Selena and Frida) - they don't bemoan that indigenous peoples aren't selected to plays Mexicans, but specifically that Mexicans aren't selected to play Mexicans. Also, they have an article on Frida Kahlo in which Frida (fictionally) screams, "I was and am a proud Mexican!" and further in the article state "Mexicans, this is our land!" and even have Frida (fictionally) yelling, "Que viva Mexico! ... Que viva la vida! La vida Mexicana. The Mexican pride." Please remove this inaccuracy!

184.101.112.91 (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: Here are two articles in which they use the term Mexican: http://www.mexica-movement.org/timexihcah/fridabook2.htm http://www.mexica-movement.org/timexihcah/salmatext.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.251.110 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: to clarify, please read the appropriate section at the Wikipedia:Primary sources policy page, and so it is repeated: please provide reliable (secondary) sources that support the change you want to be made.  Paine  ^u/c 04:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

May I ask, what is the source for the claim that the Mexica Movement objects to the term 'Mexican'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.220.161 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The first place that comes to mind is the front page of their website: "We reject" (not object to) "all European divisions of our continent. We reject the artificial border divisions of our people." The term "Mexican" is among the divisions that are rejected by the movement. Obviously "rejection" does not mean that the terms are objected to when they provide useful clarification.  Paine  ^u/c 09:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the divisions they are specifically referring to at the top of their homepage are the physical borders of the modern nation-states comprising the Americas (now that's a term they reject; they call the entire continent Cemanahuac). It doesn't follow from this that they reject the label Mexican. Also, on the front page they have a partial list of the terms they reject for being "Euro-Centric," and Mexican isn't one of them. Indeed, right below their picture of Mexican revolutionary Zapata, they have a comparison of Maya and Navajo, and MEXICAN and Kwakuiti. None of this lends support to the claim that they reject the label Mexican. Also, it would be quite odd to reject a label but not object to using it with strains of pride, and fictionally write about their heroes (e.g. Frida Kahlo) screaming "I WAS AND AM A PROUD MEXICAN!" and "Diego and I understood that we were MEXICAN." and "The MEXICAN pride!" They reject the label "American Indian" and "Native American", and ALSO object to their use, and they certainly wouldn't be writing articles about, for example, Chief Joseph screaming, "I WAS AND AM A PROUD AMERICAN INDIAN (OR NATIVE AMERICAN)!" I repeat: it would be odd indeed for them to reject a label yet not only not object to using it, but use it with pride and ascribe it with pride to their heroes.

And, as I'm sure you know, "Mexican" is just English for the Nahuatl "mexihcatl."

Okay, I went back into the page history, and after some digging I found this edit, which shows that the text in parentheses, "(a term the Mexica Movement rejects)", originally followed the term "Latin Americans". At some point in the last five years, someone changed that to "Mexicans" and did not remove the text in parentheses. So I'm beginning to agree with you that the Mexica movement's rejection of the term "Mexican" is non-existent. In light of this, your edit request will be...

 Done, and thank you for your persistence!  Paine  ^u/c 04:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The Mexica Movement does not want to repatriate Whites

The Mexica Movement is using facetious hyperbole to make political and moral points when they call Whites illegals who need to be deported to Europe. The point is to bring awareness to the historical injustice of calling Mexicans with indigenous ancestry illegal and and calling for their deportation when they have 10,000 years of ancestry on the American continent. If you want to mention MM's call for the deportation of Whites then reference your source and include the name of the author you are referencing. Do not write in Wiki voice or use weasel words. This article needs to be completely rewritten. 96.59.38.174 (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is actually perfect because it basically highlights the illogical arguments being subscribed to by the "Mexica movement". It's actually good to just let them say what they have to say and in doing so they reveal their racist ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:AD45:3955:9B88:6717 (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2018

From the ignorantly-named "Controversy" section: "Nican Tlaca is grammatically incorrect."

The reference cited literally says the opposite, and (editor whose identity I don't care to look up via the edit history) didn't bother to elaborate on points made therein. Please fix this nonsense, and perhaps change the section name to something more appropriate and less derisive (e.g. simply "Nican Tlaca"). Frankly, I agree with the other editor who suggested this article needs a complete rewrite. It's very trashy and dismissive. 70.29.99.106 (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Come to think of it, are blog posts even acceptable as standalone sources? I don't think they are. Maybe you could just delete it. 70.29.99.106 (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Taken the blog stuff out, and moved the other sentence elsewhere. Fish+Karate 09:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)