# Talk:Young Lords

Hello! Just a heads up that I am planning on overhauling and improving this article in preparation for a Good article nomination. My primary goals are to improve sourcing (particularly using monographs by Johanna Fernández and Darrel Wanzer-Serrano), expand the article, and restructure it, since it's currently a bit messy and all over the place. I will be working in my sandbox, so feel free to check my progress there and message me if you feel there are issues with the sandbox content or if you have ideas for sources. Because I am restructuring the article, there will probably be a very big edit in the upcoming weeks or months. If there are issues with that edit once it goes through, let me know and we can discuss it here. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit is complete. Just a heads up, copied text on this article was also written by me (see copy temp). Spookyaki (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Young Lords/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 18:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 12:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Image review

File:Young Lords logo.png: a source is missing at Commons; caption is needed in the article.
Added caption. Asking uploader about the source. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
@Spookyaki and Borsoka: This is the source for the logo. You can see the copyrighted status at the source as well. Yue🌙 17:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
File:Young Lords Party logo.jpg: I cannot reach the source link at Commons; what is the picture's PD status?
According to the Smithsonian website, under "restriction & rights", it is public domain. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I still cannot reach the source link, so I accept it AGF. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
File:Young Lords Party - Health, Food, Housing, Education.jpg: I cannot reach the source link at Commons; what is the picture's PD status?
Same as above. The YLP logo was extracted from the top right corner of the previous image. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I still cannot reach the source link, so I accept it AGF. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
File:Tricontinental bulletin 60 front cover.jpg: the source should be more specifically determined at Commons (author, publisher, year of publication, ISBN or something other identifier) Borsoka (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Added author, year, ISBN, and page number. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I do not see it. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Huh, thought I did. Maybe forgot the publish the changes. It should be done now. Spookyaki (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Source review

Agusto-DaFonsec, Henken (2008): ISBN is missing
Added. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Enck-Wanze (2010): ISBN is missing
Added. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Fernández (2018): ISBN is missing
Added. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Why are Flynn (1973), Jiménez (2012) and Wright (2017) to be regarded reliable sources?
In all three cases, these are the only sources that I could find that discuss these topics. Flynn (1973) and Jiménez (2012) are both well-cited and Jiménez (2012) was demonstrably written with the oversight of an academic and historian. Wright (2017) was presented at an academic art history conference. I would presume there is some sort of oversight into what can be presented at such conferences, but even if not, her view on the origins of the term "pork chop nationalism", which is only discussed in a footnote, is attributed to her and qualified. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Morris, Keller (2021): ISBN is missing
Added. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Rúa (2012): ISBN is missing Borsoka (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it is? It shows up for me at least. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, it was my fault. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
References 2, 3, 4, 7, 84, 140, 149 checked.
Comments

I have not read the lead yet, but I would shorten it below 400 words.
Removing last paragraph. Spookyaki (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
...treated as second-class citizens One or two examples?
Added sentence: They were required to sit in segregated sections on public transit and often stopped by state authorities, who mistook them for undocumented Mexican immigrants, for interrogation. Spookyaki (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Because of white gang activity ... with Black and Latino residents experiencing harassment in those areas The sentence implies only white people were gangsters, and white people were not harassed.
For precision and greater readability, changed to Some public spaces, such as beaches and parks, were de facto segregated because of white gang activity, with Black and Latino residents experiencing harassment in those areas. But I will say that it's correct (and almost a tautology) to say that in public spaces where de facto segregation was enforced by white gangs that Black and Latino residents experienced harassment. Here is the supporting passage: Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and black Americans in Chicago were not allowed in public spaces reserved for whites. As historian Arnold R. Hirsch explains about the postwar period, for whites "the issue was no longer racial homogeneity of a given area but rather the prerogatives of community control" over the city’s resources: its public spaces, parks, and beaches. The beach at the end of North Avenue in Lincoln Park was one such space. As Cha Cha explains: "We could not go to the beach. That’s for whites. That’s by Lakeshore Drive... The white gangs run that... Our parents can’t go there either. If you’re Latino... adult or child, you walk in there, they’re going to push you around. As little kids, we saw our [elders] being slapped around and kicked around." (Fernández 2020 p. 27) Spookyaki (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
However, due to the persistent violence inflicted on Puerto Ricans by local white gangs, the Young Lords quickly developed into a street gang. ... The gang, whose colors were purple and black, participated in a variety of criminal activities, including motor vehicle theft and street fighting. Jiménez, who became the gang's leader in the early 1960s, experienced a recurring pattern of incarceration stemming from multiple offenses during his teenage years, ranging from theft to assault. Could it be that young criminals formed a street gang exclusively in response to attacks by white people?
That's my understanding, yes: They responded to White gang violence by forming a Puerto Rican gang for protection. (Jeffries 2003, p. 299)
José “Cha Cha” Jiménez had been in the Young Lords gang since 1959, when it emerged in response to manifold forms of abuse Puerto Ricans faced from white neighborhood gangs. (Wanzer-Serrano 2015, p. 49)
Cha Cha Jiménez had been a Young Lord since the age of eleven. He was among a group of seven youths—six Puerto Ricans and one Mexican—who had organized the gang in 1959. The others included the group’s unofficial leader, Orlando Dávila, as well as Benny Perez, David Rivera, Fermín Perez, Joe Vincente, and the Mexican-descended Sal del Rivero. The group began as a "bunch of friends that got together to have fun, to have a good time, go to the beach, go to the park, and play ball." But this circle linked by friendship soon transformed into a street-fighting organization. The Young Lords helped young men like Cha Cha map out the boundaries of their neighborhood and taught them which streets couldn’t be crossed and which playgrounds and corners to avoid.The Chicago office of the Puerto Rican Migration Division may have contributed to the problem. Charged with facilitating the settlement of Puerto Ricans in the city, it had warned them against living in their own ethnic neighborhoods or with Mexicans and encouraged their dispersal across the city’s white neighborhoods. But as Puerto Rican enclaves grew on the fringes of these neighborhoods, many were greeted with hostility. In one example in 1954, Italians firebombed a Puerto Rican bar and apartment. The incident led to a week of violence that drew 2,000 people into street battles at its height. Spearheaded by white ethnic gangs, these scenes dramatized a long-standing ritual: the preservation of Chicago’s racially and ethnically exclusive neighborhoods through networks of white youth accustomed to deploying terror and brawn in the streets.In response to these conflicts, thousands of migrant Puerto Rican, Mexican,and black American youth formed their own gangs in self-defense. Membership helped many migrants' children navigate the rules of racial etiquette in a city that was reproducing old social and economic structures of racism and creating new ones. In postwar Chicago and other major northern cities, three developments exacerbated racial antagonism: migration, urban renewal, and the social and economic anxiety that home ownership and, later, deindustrialization produced among white workers. (Fernández 2020 pp. 14-15) Spookyaki (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
The group was led by Orlando Dávila, and founding members included Benny Perez, David Rivera, Fermin Perez, Joe Vincente, Sal del Rivero, and José "Cha Cha" Jiménez. A general reference to their ages? For some reasons, they were called "Young".
Aside from Cha Cha, don't know what their precise ages would have been, but expanded on an earlier sentence: The Young Lords were first established as an informal youth social group at Arnold Junior High School on the border of the Near North Side and Lincoln Park community areas of Chicago in 1959. Spookyaki (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Could you introduce with one or two words González and Burgos?
Went with ...police broke into the home of two Puerto Rican Chicago residents, Celestino A. González and Silvano Burgos,... Spookyaki (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
..., with undercover provocateurs installed by police attempting to provoke protesters into attacking the home of mayor Richard J. Daley Is this a fact or a scholarly assumption? One of the two cited sources does not mention it.
I don't see any reason to doubt it. Beliz is more synoptic about the protest, so it makes sense that she wouldn't mention it, but Fernández goes into more detail. She says, without qualification: Undercover police provocateurs attempted to lure protesters to attack Mayor Daley’s home, just blocks away, but the crowd ignored them and violence was averted. Spookyaki (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
...per the Young Lords... Could you rephrase it?
Went with ...the Young Lords stated...
Childhood lead poisoning was also common in many parts of New York City... Do we know why? Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Added sentence: One reason for this was the failure of city governments to enforce housing codes that restricted the use of lead-based paint on the walls of apartments. Spookyaki (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
...allegedly for stealing lumber... Why allegedly?
So this was a period where Jimenez (and others) were being targeted by Chicago's Red Squad for specious arrest (see Jeffries 2003, pp. 296-299, also Lopez 2003, pp. 24-26 for similar activities targeting another Latin American organization). Admittedly, none of the sources explicitly say that the lumber arrest was one of these specious arrests. I could add Jeffries as a source, which discusses the other arrests, or I could just remove "allegedy". Do you have a preference? Spookyaki (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
...Luciano was demoted from his position as chairman of the YLP... I do not find a previous reference to his chairmanship.
Added sentence: Luciano was the chairman of the new organization. Spookyaki (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Is there any reference to the Young Lords' connections with Cuban or Soviet agents?
I'm not aware of any such connections. Am I missing something? I believe the Young Lords were broadly supportive of the Cuban Revolution, and Iris Morales went there once, but I don't see anything about Cuban agents. As for the Soviets, I would guess that they were somewhat sympathetic toward them as fellow socialists, but I don't know of any specific connections. By the time they became the PRRWO, they were anti-revisionists (Stalinists), which would have made them anti-Soviet, actually (or at least, against the Soviet state post-Krushchev's takeover). But I don't think this position developed until either very late in the lifespan of the YLP or until they became the PRRWO. Spookyaki (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Historian Lilia Fernández claims... Johanna Fernández claims...Iris Morales, who claims...One source, Jeffries, claims...two sources, Wanzer-Serrano and Fernández, claim... Rephrase both sentences to be more neutral.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
...¡Palante Siempre Palante!... Translate it.
Sure, though I wonder if that's necessary. It's an English-language documentary with a Spanish title. In other words, it's known by its Spanish name in the anglosphere. Spookyaki (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Use the full name of PBS when it is mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
(Lead) I miss a reference to the timespan in the first sentence and also a reference to Puerto Ricans. Borsoka (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Are those things necessary? The timeline is somewhat complicated between the YLO and YLP and the Young Lords were not exclusively Puerto Rican. Spookyaki (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I miss at least one date in the first sentence. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Added founding date Spookyaki (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for this interesting and thoroughly researched GA. Borsoka (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)