Talk:Chicana feminism

message: Does Chicana feminism seek to help Mexican-American women gain more social power in the United States, or does it seek to help Mexican American women in the United States gain more social power? The former would imply that it helps Mexican American women find their way to the United States. 
Does it only involve Mexican-Americans, or does it also involve Mexicans temporarily residing in the United States? Does it exclude Spanish-American women whose history in the United States precedes Mexican independence? Xientist 00:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: who is involved in Chicana feminism

message: This is a term coined by Ana Castillo, and from what I know about it, it is more complex than its equation with "Chicana feminism" can do justice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.18.25 (talk • contribs) 
:Ten years on, this term has been picked up and is more widespread than before, but IP is basically right.  Whether it still qualifies as a neologism is for the community to decide, but I agree with IP that simply equating it to "Chicana feminism" is an oversimplification.  More importantly, declaring it so in Wikipedia's voice is an overreach, and is also prohibitied as WP:SYNTH.  On top of that, having it in the lead sentence compounds the error and gives it undue weight.  And in any case, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article, and since Xicanisma does not appear in the body of the article, it cannot appear in the lead, let alone in the definition of "Chicana feminism".  At least one source specifically calls out that according to Castillo, it does not mean "Chicana feminism".
:The solution here, imho, is to remove the term from the lead for now, add a brief discussion of the term Xicanisma somewhere in the body of the article, possibly in a section called #Terminology (which could also discuss Latinx and other formulations, as appropriate) or possibly in the existing section #Chicana literature where Castillo is already mentioned.  Once that is done, there should be a community decision about whether Xicanisma belongs in the lead at all (or is that giving undue weight to Castillo, just because she coined a word, at the expense of other Chicana authors whose work or coinages are not mentioned in the lead?), and if so, whether it belongs in the lead sentence as part of the definition.
:I'll move it down to the body somewhere for now, but this may need further discussion to find the right disposition in the article for this term.  Please do not restore it to the lead for now for the reasons given above (primarily WP:SNYTH and WP:UNDUE) without a clear consensus for such a move. Mathglot (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is an important piece of Chicana Feminism as it is does add a better understanding of the Chicana identity. Terminology sounds like a good place to put it, as mentioned terms like Latinx can be added to that too. Another place that it may fit in is under Neplanta Feminism maybe, considering both of these terms have a lot to do with embracing and claiming Indigenous roots. I also had a hard time figuring out where Xicanisma could fit in, but it looks like we agree that it could have it's own section added in or even be placed somewhere else.Lungthief (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Xicanisma

message: I had to add  here because there are zero references.  The overview section is probably original research rather than verifiable text from published sources.  This should be easily sourced if Chicana feminism is notable enough for its won article--Cailil  talk 10:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|unsourced}} 

message: "One of the main movements in Chicana feminism is La Malinche, "La Malinche has generated in critical circles by addressing the state direction of Malinche scholarship".
I was able to source the quote (and fix a bunch of typos), but I don't see the relevance of the sentence fragment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC).
:YEah this is best removed for the moment. The subject seems to be a Chicana feminist interrogation of the Madonna/Whore dichotomy - I'll see if I can dig something up on this but it'll take me a few weeks. If anyone can beat me to the punch go ahead--Cailil  talk 12:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: La Malinche

message: –The structure of the article seems to be well formed and flow nicely making it easily to follow and understand where the author is heading. The author has a nice lead up to the main point with background information relevant to the Chicana feminist movement.
–Most facts are supported with a source and reliable reference but there are a few things that seem to go unreferenced.
–All information seems to be very relevant to the topic and it seems to represent all the view points. 
–There are a few large quotes that could probably be paraphrased instead of directly quoted by the paragraphs. Though these quotes may be from reliable sources it is not necessary to have such a long quote. The links work for the citation and the information is very up to date. 
–There are more than the few Chicana feminists on the list that could be added onto the list of Chicana Feminists. 
 
2601:248:202:D040:6007:B80A:4AC4:185F (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluating Article and Sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chicana feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914081139/http://chicana-swicki.eurekster.com:80/ to http://chicana-swicki.eurekster.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor added the following to the Feminist movement article, in the History section:
The article by Elizabeth Martinez called LA CHICANA focuses more on how powerful women that are uneducated and how they can take control even when the man chooses to leave. The Chicana women would have a secondary education sometimes if that, but if they got it they were extremely lucky. The Chicana women must go to work in the fields at an early age, along with other members of their family, move with them around the country as they search for work. Chicana women will marry and get pregnant or simply become pregnant without being married first. Now if there was more than one or two kids in the family the father was more likely to leave the household. The fathers would feel financial pressure of not being able to support their families, but the women could. The fathers would feel that they weren't needed in the household. LA CHICANA women are able to find work like domestic service and garment industry for uneducated women when the man cannot. It's a lot of pressure between the man and the women.
I edited it to the following, but without having the source handy:
Chicanas may have secondary education and may have to go to work in farm fields at early ages, possibly moving with their families around the country as they search for work. They may marry; with or without marriage, they may get pregnant. Often, the women could get work in domestic service and the garment industry when the men could not. When the number of children is above two, fathers more often leave the households, due to financial pressures on the fathers who believed the women could support the children, so the fathers felt unneeded, leading to tension between the men and the women.Martinez, Elizabeth, La Chicana.
(See the latest diff for both.)
It's a statement of present-time fact, not history, and too narrow for the entire feminist movement article, but conceptually good for this article, from which, after editing, perhaps something should be added to the feminist movement article. My edits were cautious, and probably too cautious. This article, at a glance, seems well-edited, and I don't feel qualified to try to integrate this passage, if it contributes anything new, such as a source. So I've moved it to this talk page and will leave the next steps, if any, to any who are interested, including the original editor.
Nick Levinson (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  contribution and La Chicana 

message: Hello. I am interested in improving the section "Queer Interventions." I can't verify that Carla Trujillo's 1991 anthology, Chicana Lesbians The Girls Our Mothers Warned Us About, was banned due to its cover art. Does anyone know of a source for this? Furthermore, who banned it? In terms of a citation for what the anthology contains, I suggest citing the anthology itself --Dr. Biro Walters (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to the art AFAICT. https://www.terraamericanart.org/learning/art-study-the-offeringla-ofrenda/ All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queer Interventions Citation Needed 

message: There is a possible copyright violation in the Overview section which has been tagged as having been  from a copyrighted webpage, and listed at WP:CP. The copied material was within double-quotes and properly referenced to the web source, but it was extensive, as it copied nearly all the text on the source page, which is probably more than "fair use", although I'm no expert.  
For now, I've removed the copied material, and restored the material that used to be there prior to the copy. Content added to that section subsequent to the copy has not been removed or modified.
Following procedures at WP:CV101 and WP:COPYVIO, I've added a  template to the affected section, which places the great, big, blue-and-white box that you see there, and also hides the offending text from view, although it's still there in the wikitext.  In that edit, I also added back the text from that section from the latest previous edit by another user that was not affected by the copy-paste.
At this point, my understanding is that you're free to edit that section, but it's probably best to wait until the Copyright gnomes have a look and do their thing, because depending on what they decide to do, your edits might get undone.  My belief is that any edit outside of the introductory portion of the #Overview section should be fine, unless there are other copyvio problems still lurking and not yet identified. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible COPYVIO 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chicana feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151209125702/http://molaa.org/About-MOLAA/hours-and-directions.aspx to http://molaa.org/About-MOLAA/hours-and-directions.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070708053325/http://www.floricantopress.com/BetweenBo.htm to http://www.floricantopress.com/BetweenBo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: There appears to be considerable original research in the article. One example, is the assertion in the Overview section that said, "Many men did not consider women to be capable of working outside the home, which is part of the reason why the term 'weaker sex' was coined."  This is pure fantasy, as the term goes back to Ancient Greece, and maybe further.  This sentence was marked  since 2014. I've removed this statement, but to me, it sounds like at least one editor is editing based purely on their own suppositions, rather than on what reliable sources say.  So this could be the tip of an unreliable-content iceberg.
This article should be examined for original research. Per verifiability policy, anything not sourced may be challenged, or removed. Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: This article has over 70 references from reliable sources; the tag is not really needed at this point. Individual sections or particular claims can be marked  for improvement in other ways. PMCH2 (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed more references needed tag 

message: Reading over the article, I had a few questions that were not directly addressed by the information included. Does Chicano feminist literature/activism/art represent transgender women or non-binary individuals within the movement? Does it also seek to explore how the intersections of these identities can clash with the patriarchal system prevalent in Latin America? I do see there is the inclusion of the term "Chicanx" in the article, but was wondering if the role of gender was defined past this binary. I think there could serve to be more mention of socioeconomic class within the movement and the effects that discrimination have on the Latinx community in the United States in general.Melired (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about Intersectionality within the Chicana feminism movement  

message: This new section titled Mental Health and PTSD is important to have on this article since it is a large issue in Chicana feminism. If there seems to be a broader title that would encompass more issues; the title is not set in stone. 
There may be a better way to arrange the titles of the sections in this article. It could help improve the way readers view the information. 
Demilaw (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section and Possible changes 

message: The article heavily centers the work of white/mestiza Chicanas like Anzaldúa and Moraga. I feel like the article could benefit from adding more about Afro-Chicana and Indigenous feminists. Chicanas of color are underrepresented here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Too white

message: — Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

message: — Assignment last updated by DrHeller (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: WGS 300w Feminist Theories

message: Hello, I've chosen this page to focus on for an assignment. Intending to keep much of the original information intact, I propose the following edits:
Overview 
# The first two paragraphs of the Overview section gloss over the true historical context of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, arguing that its signing resulted in an increase of “Hispanic immigration” to the United States. Scholars such as Ernesto Mireles in Insurgent Aztlán: The Liberating Power of Cultural Resistance, argue that this is false as the population of people being referenced are not “Hispanic” or coming from Spain, but instead are former Mexican citizens who have always lived on those lands (hence they did not immigrate) and were stripped of their nationality, now being told that they are living in a different country. 
# The latter part of these two paragraphs discusses Latin American women and Latin American cities which should be removed as it is not relevant to the topic of Chicana feminism, as Chicana women by definition are not Latin American. This has already been mentioned in the talk by @Xientist.
# The inclusion of wave theory is irrelevant and confusing in this section. The way it is currently phrased implies that White women created waves of feminism to combat the fact that they rarely had to deal with racism. To avoid generalizations and confusion, these two sentences should be removed.
Origin
# The current Origin section does not provide the true origin of the emergence of Chicana feminism. As it remains currently, the Origin section speaks more to Chicana feminist ideology/thought that emerged as a result of the political organizing and community building that defined the formation of Chicana feminism. To fix this, I propose moving content currently in the Origin section to a later subcategory and moving the Political Organization (1960s-1970s) content up. The content in the 1960s-1970s section should be rearranged chronologically.
Political Organization (1960s-1970s)
# Change the name of this to “Emerging Chicana Feminist Thought”
# Move original “Origin” content here
Chicana Feminist Organizations 
# Using content already written, I propose combining all of the sporadic paragraphs regarding different organizations under one heading for clarity and accessibility purposes. This would include
## CFMN
## Hijas de Cuauhtémoc (it does not belong under the art collective section as it was much more than a rap group)
## Brown Berets
Feedback or clarification on these proposed suggestions are welcomed! Mayasteinberg (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: these all sound great Im really in support of these changes DrHeller (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of this article