Jump to content

Talk:Cesar Chavez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.49.148.83 (talk) at 20:30, 2 April 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

reverse chronology

I think the timeline section lists things in reverse chronological order and is a violation of:

. I think that if this code: 

DateFormat = yyyy
Period = from:1927 till:1996
TimeAxis = orientation:vertical

is instead changed to read: 

DateFormat = yyyy
Period = from:1927 till:1996
TimeAxis = orientation:vertical order:reverse

then the list of works MOS violation could be fixed. 12.208.10.7 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion - done. -- Scray (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 31 March 2013

There's a "citation needed" on information relating UFW membership falling in the 1970's. It may be more relevant to chage that sentence to say that membership had declined to below 6000 by 2012 and cite the following source http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/june-22-2012/united-farm-workers-50th-anniversary/11407/

Jtgelt (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more notable that membership supposedly went from 50k to 15k in a decade...the 6k stat is over a much longer period, so doesn't capture that apparent steep initial dropoff. Of course, we still need a proper reference for the 15k claim. The ref you gave also says 80k in the 1970s rather than 50k, but that may still be valid since the 50k in the article just says CA/FL. (Plus, the PBS ref is an interview, and not a great source given the format...it's unclear if the reporter is repeating the interviewee, or citing her book...which would probably be a good source itself.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Doodle and Controversy

Should mention be included on this biography of Google recognizing Mr. Chavez's birthday on Easter Sunday with a "doodle" and the resulting controversy? Or perhaps the controversy would be more relevant to a specific article(s) pertaining to Google Doodles (or "par for the course" whenever there are conflicting dates commemorated by Google changing their logo)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.80.184 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC) | Oh, good, autosign took care of it, I'd realized and went back to "sign" post and then received edit conflict. :-D 98.70.80.184 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that doesn't belong on this page at all, as it's severe WP:RECENTISM and not really notable here. But it definitely belongs in List of Google Doodles in 2013; it's already there, but needs some editing. The mention that Cesar Chavez != Hugo Chávez also isn't needed, which was added and removed a couple times, since the only "confusion" is that Michelle Malkin and her followers can't tell distinct names apart: [1]. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable viewpoint on including the controversy surrounding Google Doodle commemorating the birthday of Mr. Chavez as (potentially) being a case of WP:RECENTISM. However, insofar as merely mentioning the Google Doodle in this article about Mr. Chavez, on the List of Google Doodles in 2013 a quick glance of individuals similarly "honored" by the gesture by Google indicates six of eight biographies include mention of the Google Doodle in various ways. Thus far in 2013, these include: Frank Zamboni, Mary Leakey, Jagit Singh, George Washington Gale Ferris, Jr., Miriam Makeba, Douglas Adams. The biographical articles for Nicolaus Copernicus and Edward Gorey (both also receiving a Google Doodle commemoration in 2013) do not seem to mention the "award" presently (or yet?). 98.70.80.184 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, and there's some stuff in the "Legacy" section that doesn't seem any more notable than a Google Doodle is. I added it in, without mentioning the controversy but wikilinking to the appropriate Google Doodle page, which does mention the controversy. Pretty much all the refs I easily found do mention the controversy (though I'm guessing we could find a tech magazine-type ref that doesn't), but that part still doesn't seem notable for inclusion on the Cesar Chavez article itself. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :-) We must've been editing at the same time, as I received another "conflict" notice and will include what else I'd wanted to add after this post. 98.70.80.184 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To wit: As for making no mention of Cesar Chavez not being Hugo Chávez (nor Julio César Chávez! :-P), agreed, nor had I suggested or asked such a thing. And, what the reasonable post asking if mention of a Google Doodle should or could be included has to do with Michelle Malkin and/or possibly taking a jibe at her "followers" on this talk page would best be addressed by whomever made the edits as to whether or not Ms. Malkin had anything to do with their decisions to make such a distinction between the two notable individuals with same last name (albeit and of course not the same person nor related even) -- or, perhaps by 2001:db8::, as the edit summaries may not have stated a thing about Ms. Malkin whereas the talk page most certainly does. 98.70.80.184 (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't suggesting you had, I was just too lazy to edit the talk page just for that. :) To clarify, I was referring to her Twitter followers (per the Buzzfeed link above) and not to anyone here, just to note the "common misconception" that was referred to in the edit history had most notably been by Malkin. (I did find some other mentions of confused tweets when Obama designated a Chavez site as a monument: [2], but a few people failing at Twitter does not seem notable enough...) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, didn't think the talk about Michelle Malkin necessarily pertained to my query, and somewhat curious myself as to what explanations exist for the "confusion"... I'd glanced at the link you posted (to Buzzfeed) with her tweet to article on "Twitchy", seeing how the original headline apparently had erroneously stated "Hugo" rather than "Cesar"... although her tweet was made several hours after Twitchy headline was updated (per correction on Buzzfeed article, well as noted on the article and page title/headline on Twitchy), so perhaps nothing to do with her making the error, could've been a "staffer" and she corrected them, or the erroneous original Buzzfeed article (since corrected)... who knows... obviously some of her followers or others viewing original, incorrect, Twitchy headline or erroneous Buzzfeed article may have not seen the corrections prior to those being made, nor noticed "correction" posted later. The "controversy" may be or seems to be primarily Twitter related, although at least one article mentioned a possible reason for Google choosing (their perogative) to commemorate Mr. Chavez on Easter Sunday as it was afterall also "Cesar Chavez Day" -- "last year President Obama did happen to decree that March 31 would be known as Cesar Chavez Day. He asked all of America's citizens to 'observe this day with appropriate service, community and education programs.'"[3] -- and Google typically does not "celebrate" an event or holiday yearly with the "Doodles" preferring to "...feature an historical event or influential figure that we haven't in the past."[4][5] and Google did commemorate Easter back in 2000. My thoughts are this will be short-lived ("recentism"), at least until next "controversy" stirred by instantaneous tweets (of "rants") circling the globe. Thankfully, I'm too lazy to keep up with such things. :-P Hopefully you had a Happy Easter and/or Cesar Chavez Day... Cheers! 98.70.80.184 (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a google-doodle has no place in wikipedia. It's simple trivia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And who will handle editing ALL the articles which mention Google Doodle commemorations to remove the verbiage (as was recently done on the Cesar Chavez article)? Based on the number of articles including this information, seems as if there are numerous editors in agreement as to whether the "simple trivia" belongs in Wikipedia, or is significant enough to warrant inclusion as has been done repeatedly. 98.70.80.184 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, maybe you're correct that most of wikipedia wants that info included in every article. Lets get some other editors to chime in on its validity as an encyclopedic entry. I'll post to the bio project to see what they think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-note- I added this discussion to Project Biography talk to see what some others may think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding discussion to see what others think about this subject! A few thoughts crossing my mind follow... Depending on perspective, could much of the content in encyclopedic articles not be described as "trivia"? Is the information non-factual concerning the Doodle commemorating Mr. Chavez by Google? Does the commemoration by Google not qualify as being notable (does everyone and everything get their own Google Doodle)? Would disallowing inclusion of the commemoration of Mr. Chavez' birthday and/or "Cesar Chavez Day" while numerous biographies have such information included (6 of 8 for individuals similarly having their own "Google Doodle" thus far for only the year 2013, i.e. meaning all I had briefly reviewed for this year alone) be a disservice to his legacy? Is not the term "trivia" related to "popular culture" and is this very project, i.e. Wikipedia, not also part of popular culture? What should next be excluded from Wikipedia articles as being "simple trivia" and how long before such articles become barren of information or are far less comprehensive due to disallowing inclusion of notable events or details? Due to the Google Doodle how many people possibly visited the Cesar Chavez article on Wikipedia? (at least one person did) And, would this not be notable enough for inclusion in the article or instead be deemed irrelevant? Would a building at a university named after Mr. Chavez and this possibly unknown to the vast majority of inhabitants of the world be more notable than a Doodle potentially viewed by tens of millions of people, or which is more "trivial" exactly? 98.70.80.184 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google doodle itself says "Doodles are the fun, surprising, and sometimes spontaneous changes that are made to the Google logo to celebrate holidays, anniversaries and the lives of famous artists, pioneers and scientists." It's been changed a bunch over the years. And just because it can be sourced doesn't make it wiki-worthy. You can google Serena Willams shoe size and get thousands upon thousands of hits... that doesn't mean we include it in her biography. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, based on numerous articles mentioning a Google Doodle to "celebrate" the particular subject matter, it seems to me many editors in the Wikipedia community agree on the "notability" else would not have included reference of having been so honored. After this post, I will likely bow out and let the regular editors hash it out, since far as I'm concerned such "red tape" may tend to somewhat defeat the purpose and spirit of Wikipedia. Due to the number of biographies, six of which are listed with links referenced in a prior post on this very talk page (and there are likely many more), including mention of a Google Doodle, this could be seen as prima facie to not disallow inclusion in biographical articles of having been commemorated by Google Doodle and not yet mentioned in the pertinent biography on Wikipedia. In fact, my opinion is the burden of proof should be on why such an event (Google Doodle) should not be included in an article, or be systematically removed from an article when someone has made a good faith edit after discussion and request was made to include mention of the event (which itself was why >I< and likely others sought out the Wikipedia article on Mr. Chavez). res ipsa loquitur... 98.70.80.117 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning "googling" Serena Williams shoe size (or whatever else) -- preferably within quotation marks else results would likely be rather broad (e.g. perhaps ~86K[6] or higher[7] rather than ~12K[8]... :-P) and getting "thousands upon thousands of hits" -- I agree such a thing probably should not be included in her biography. Yet, nor is the analogy germane to whether mention of a Google Doodle should be included in an article, as the two are entirely different matters -- a person performing a Google search is not the same as Google choosing to make a Doodle on the Google home page to commemorate a particular subject. Decide as you wish, farewell... 98.70.80.117 (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 2 April 2013

The Cesar Chavez page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Chavez#Early_life) says this:

Chavez had hoped that he would learn skills in the Navy that would help him later when he returned to civilian life, however he soon discovered that at the time Mexican-Americans in the Navy could only work as deckhands or painters.

This is not true. Maybe he believed it, but that doesn't make it true. The first entry on the below link lists a mexican american who was not a deckhand or painter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_Americans_in_World_War_II#Aviators

129.7.16.113 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 2 April 2013

The section on his early life has an ambiguous/inaccurate phrasing. It says:

In 1942, Chavez quit school in the seventh grade. [...] When Chavez returned home from his service in the military, he married his high school sweetheart, Helen Fabela.

If he quit school in seventh grade, how could he have a high school sweetheart?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cesar_Chavez&oldid=548377422"