Talk:Felipe Luciano

Young Lords
description of the Young Lords as a "gang" represents a biased opinion. They may have functioned as a gang at one time, but became a political movement. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.153.156 (talk • contribs) There is only one founder of the Young Lords as a movement which spread from Chicago nationwide and began on September 23, 1968. The New York City chapter was composed of several branches that were authorized by national headquarters in Chicago to become the New York Chapter. They had six co-founders. There is a play entitled Party People currently performing at the Public Theater in NYC which researched this "Founder" issue very well and they make it clear in the play that the founder of the Young Lords is Jose (Cha-Cha)Jimenez. Please also see the Grand Valley State University special collections archive at www.gvsu.edu/younglords   and the De Paul University special collections archives which is also linked to that same formal university web page at the Grand Valley Stae University archives. There are numerous books, videos and documentaries that also show Jose (Cha-Cha) Jimenez as the founder of this 48 year old movement and this out. How can you allow an individual to discredit a Latino movemnt or someone who wants to manipulate a non for profit for their personal profit. Mr. Luciano not only was purged from the group but works for the city of Newark as their Communications head and is currently going around the country doing speaking events while the original Young Lords who have Christian Pastors martyred and leading members jailed are scraping pennies to try to survive and tell their story. Please make the appropriate corrections. Thank you.

Blanking of link
Why was a misconfigured link blanked rather than substituting the correct link? It took about 15 seconds to find the updated link via a Google search. Please try to do this in the future rather than simply removing links from articles, thank you. Badagnani (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove assessment from the project templates, its not easy keeping these backlog-free. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  01:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Black" and "African-American"
I don't want to get into a huge debate about this, Badagnani, but you are being so hyper-technical that you are missing the point. A "Black" person born in the United States is, by definition, an "African-American". Claiming that the source must actually use the word "African-American" for it to be used in the article is silly. Imagine if the source called Luciano an attorney. Would you reject the word "lawyer"? Or if it called him an ex-convict, would you reject the term "one-time felon"?

There is nothing wrong with using that Village Voice article to describe Luciano as African-American. Please stop reverting. ABCxyz (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The source states that he is a Black Puerto Rican (Afro-Puerto Rican), not African American. They are different ethnicities. Badagnani (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not revert the article again, because I believe that it is still fundamentally correct. But what is in error is your notion that someone cannot be a Black Puerto Rican and an African-American at the same time.  Frankly, it is silly.  Could you imagine Barack Obama, who is Irish on his mother's side, saying that he is a Black Irish, not African-American?


 * Having actually heard Felipe Luciano speak in person during a lecture series when I was in college, I am confident that he would be the first person to tell you exactly how wrong you are. Your almost robotic response that "the source states that he is a Black Puerto Rican (Afro-Puerto Rican), not African American" is precisely the type of viewpoint that perpetuates the misperceptions about Blacks and Latinos who self-identify with both groups. ABCxyz (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If he did indeed self-identify as an African American and that were sourced, we could add that to the article. Badagnani (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)