Talk:César Chávez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archive

  • Place the archive here ...

[edit] When was he born, really?

Top of the page says March 31, and later it says March 30...

Chavez was born on March 31. His holiday can float because his birthday falls on a Saturday this year. That reference has been removed to preclude edit conflicts. Morenooso 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

kkdjfkdjf

[edit] Robert Kennedy

When I saw a PBS documentary about Chavez, there was a whole section about Kennedy and Chavez. I don't remember the details well enough to write about it here, but it might be good if someone fleshed out the Chavez/Kennedy connection (which is currently only a clause in a sentence). Aroundthewayboy 19:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified Claim? re: Chavez collaborating w/the INS

"Chavez and the UFW would often report suspected illegals who served as strikebreakers or who refused to unionize to the INS."

Can anyone verify this? It runs contrary to what I've read about Chavez, but I've never read a specific refutation of it. If no one can verify this in a week, I'm deleting it from the page. Danspalding 08:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • You can get some verification from the 2/27/06 issue of "The American Conservative," and of his anti-illegal immigration stance as late as 1979 (congressional testimony. The article also refers to a march to the border led by Chavez in 1969, protesting illegal immigration, and states that:
[The UFW picketed INS offices to demand closure of the border. Chavez also finked on illegal alien scabs to la migra. Columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. reported in the Arizona Republic, “Cesar Chavez, a labor leader intent on protecting union membership, was as effective a surrogate for the INS as ever existed. Indeed, Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union he headed routinely reported, to the INS, for deportation, suspected illegal immigrants who served as strikebreakers or refused to unionize.”] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.222.25 (talk • contribs)

At the moment, the article reports that a citation is needed. If this Navarette column is authentic, cite it. If not, delete the sentence. It's a serious allegation, and leaving it there with "need citation" looks like it was added by someone with an ideological axe to grind but no historical backup.

First of all Ruben "Never right" is a sell out who is no better than a Mexican working as a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. Cesar Chavez never personally called INS on undocumented workers but I'm sure he was ok with ANY SCAB being sent away. If you are or were a SCAB you are worthless and deserve to live in a Third World Country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.21.51 (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see section 8 below where the issue of the UFW and Chavez' position on Immigration is more fully discussed. The article has a number of legitimate citations regarding this issue. The UFW's (during Chavez's tenure) had a very convoluted position on illegal immigration due mainly to the tension between those who felt more strongly about farm workers' rights and those who cared more strongly about undocumented migrant workers' rights. [See for example "Strawberry Fields: Politics, Class, and Work in California Agriculture" at p 89-90 By Miriam J. Wells] This tension is very well documented, as are reports of the UFW taking active efforts at times to restrict the employment of undocumented workers as well as their entry in to the US. --Ian Struan 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's it?

Cesar Chavez is the most important Latino leader in the United States history. He was raised on many farms due to the change in harvests. He learned to become a civil rights activist from his mother and father. His mother taught him to start caring for other people. His father taught him the value of hard work. Later he started the United Farm Workers and he gave ways for farm workers to get a raise and earn minimum wage. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.99.18 (talk • contribs) -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.196.22 (talk • contribs)

Non-violent 66.109.99.18 22:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! How many of these people who praise Cesar really knew him. I was also a farm laborer, in some of the areas that Cesar controlled. It's been a long time, and I'm pretty old now, but I remember Cesar! Tell me, what does the phrase, "non-violent" mean? Praise Cesar? Me? Never! C'mon, this guy is way more important than this. He deserves this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.79.252 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Ambiguous sentence

I think the sentence below is strangely written, and the result is confusion for the reader. Denver is the capital of Colorado -- why include a city in a list of states? Why not remove the phrase "as does Denver"?

Article excerpt:
Texas also recognizes the day, as does Denver, and in Arizona and Colorado it is an optional holiday. The holiday is the first in the history of the United States for a Mexican American and a labor leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbeauz (talk • contribs)
  • He left school in the eighteenth grade?! WTF?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.152.218.157 (talk • contribs)
    • it was 8th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.137.171 (talk • contribs)
  • I believe the city of Denver is specifically mentioned because Denver made Cesar Chavez a full holiday - city services are closed, etc. See [1]. On the other hand, the state of Colorado made Cesar Chavez day an optional holiday; state employees may exchange that day for another holiday vacation day. http://www.hrs.colostate.edu/benefits/news-chavez.html Danspalding 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] death?

How did he die? Kingturtle 16:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC) How did Cesar Chavez die and of what cause? Template:Uunsigned

Lots of discussion about this. Died from natural causes, but many other possibilites including malnutrition or poison are discussed. Jjinfoothills 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chavez as immigration reformer

Chavez fought nobly for many years against illegal immigration. I'm working on an addition reflecting his service in this area. 68.173.214.197 03:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Please give us references to support this claim. Danspalding 08:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Chavez fought constantly against undocumented immigrants. He frequently complained that the Immigration & Naturalization Service wasn't tough enough. When Chavez would lead a strike, the grower would send trucks across the Mexican border, load them up with scabs, and race back to the Central Valley in the dead of night. Chavez even offered his UFW staffers to the INS to serve as volunteer border guards to keep Mexicans from sneaking into California. As Ruben Navarrette Jr. reported in the Arizona Republic: (8/31/97)
"Cesar Chavez, a labor leader intent on protecting union membership, was as effective a surrogate for the INS as ever existed. Indeed, Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union he headed routinely reported, to the INS, for deportation, suspected illegal immigrants who served as strikebreakers or refused to unionize."
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/la_causa_or_la_raza.htm
Wheatabix 13:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would really like to see this updated to reflect his views on immigration, as he is being improperly co-opted for things he was against. Especially with the current cimate on immigration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aft lizard01 (talk • contribs)

I added a section on this issue and made a number of citations from across the political spectrum. This is of course a very touchy issue for many today, as it was then. In the 70's, during Chavez' tenure, there was significant disagreement within the UFW as to how to deal with undocumented workers. Some in the Chicano movement wanted to stand in solidarity with the predominately Latin American undocumented workers. Labor activists believed that an increasing influx of unskilled labor would dampen the labor market. It is undoubtedly important that considering the near hailiographic protrayal of Cesar Chavez by so many who support the rights of undocumented workers that his actions and the actions of the UFW on this issue be highlighted. --Ian Struan 09:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully to user MichaelBrock, A closer look at the sources (Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants and the Politics of Ethnicity By David Gregory Gutiérrez at p 187)will show that Mr. Chavez did indeed oppose the use of undocumented workers as strikebreakers and that the UFW (under the leadership of Mr. Chavez) went so far as to report undocumented workers to the INS to prevent their use by farmers as scabs. I'll am looking for additional documentation from scholarly sources. I will post that as it becomes available. --Ian Struan 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see anything in those sources saying specifically that Chavez reported anyone to the INS. All they say is that Chavez opposed illegal immigration generally due to the depressing effect on wages and union organizing, later fine tuning that position to say that he only opposed use of undocumented workers as strikebreakers. Is there a specific quote you can point to that says that?MichaelBrock 02:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, the book by David Gregory Gutiérrez only mentions Chavez turning a blind eye to the use of physical violence against undocumented workers not about him reporting them to the INS. If you look at the article by Ruben Navarrette Jr. he does mention that the UFW under Chavez did on occasion report the presence of undocumented workers to the INS. I am looking for a better source on this, I will post in soon. --Ian Struan 12:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I added a few more sources that show that the UFW reported undocumented workers to the INS during the 1979 strikes in the Salinas valley. The UFW was under the leadership of Chavez at the time, and this was a major campaign of the UFW, so it is doubtful that Mr. Chavez did not know about it. However, I will continue to search for more documentation. --Ian Struan 12:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I returned the section about Mr. Chavez and Illegal Immigration. It was removed without explanation on April 23rd. I know that this is a controversial subject, however, it is important that this issue be mentioned in any encyclopedic article about Mr. Chavez because it sheds light upon his dedication to the issue trade unionism. Certainly the main reason that Mr. Chavez and the UFW in its early years would want to limit the supply of undocumented and unorganized workers in order to prevent their use as strike breakers and thus to raise wages. This issue certainly then, as it does now, cause some division in the progressive social justice movement between immigrant rights advocates and trade unionists. To try to white wash history in an attempt to forget about the whole thing does a disservice to those who would try to learn history lessons. --Ian Struan 12:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This section is seriously biased. One thing is to oppose strikebreakers and another that he was against illegal immigrants, which is the desired spin. It should be seriously reworded to get rid of the bias. --Hugo Estrada 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a few changes to this section after consulting the UFW site, http://www.ufw.org/_page.php?menu=creating&inc=legislation/agjobs/debunk.htm

One cannot claim that Chavez was a anti-immigration activist. During his tenure as president of the UFW, he opposed laws that would punish employers if they hired illegal aliens, and Dolores Huerta lobbied Congress to get the amnesty provisions in the 1986 immigration bill.

These actions do not qualify as anti-immigrant. In fact, most anti-immigration activists would decry both positions.

The actions that the anti-immigration activists attempt to use to justify their claim that Chavez was one of them are all linked to preventing strikes from being broken. The UFW states that many on the picket lines demanding strikebreakers removed were themselves illegal immigrants. --Hugo Estrada 18:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Estrada, I agree with you that calling Mr. Chavez an "anti-immigration" activist is going a bit far considering the current political climate. Mr. Chavez was a labor activist who was concerned about the wages of his union workers being depressed because of undocumented migrant workers entering the workforce and raising the supply of labor. That said, I believe you go a bit far in editing the article to include a sentence that essentially declares a well documented section of the article to be biased. The facts are that Mr. Chavez did engage in this activity, let us not engage in whitewashing history so that certain people can have a flawless hero. Lastly, I removed the actions of the UFW under Huerta and the 1986 reform because it appears to me to be immaterial to an article about Chavez, not the UFW. Although, on second thought, its addition may be important to give the reader perspective. I will return it in good faith. --Ian Struan 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ian,

I will included the role of Dolores Huerta because it happened under Chavez's tenure as president of the UFW and one of the examples used as evidence of anti-immigration activism had an incident where Chavez was not present, but was included because it happened under his tenure. You you exercised good judgment by including it again.

I agree that we shouldn't whitewash history; that is why I didn't erase those paragraphs.

At the same time, we shouldn't distort history by failing to give the proper context. The fact is that these border protests were mainly anti-strikebreaking events, not anti-illegal immigrant ones.

I am sure that you will agree that providing the proper context to the events is needed to have a fair view of the event. So I am including a small paragraph which will give the reader the proper context of the events.

If you find my inclusion of the proper context too biased, I encourage you to edit it so that it will be more balanced, but you must agree that the context must be provided, don't you?

--Hugo Estrada 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: change title of this section from "Chavez as immigration reformer" to "Controversy: Chavez and Undocumented Workers"

I know think that this section, Chavez as immigration reformer, should be placed under a 'Controversies' section. The reasons for this is that the issue is controversial, and the only way of portraying these events without biased is by openly acknowledging the controversy and fairly presenting each side.

Second, immigration reform, although important, is not one of the main themes of Chavez's work. His main work was as a union organizer and civil rights leader. His stand on immigration has gotten attention lately because of the current political climate in the U.S.

Finally, the readers should be clearly told that a section is controversial so that they can pay more attention when reading the section. Then they can properly prepare their mind to read the section more carefully, and it may encourage people to follow the sources. --Hugo Estrada 20:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is good that we are working through this. First, the following "They opposed the program because of how it weaken American farm workers and how it exploited the temporary workers." is clearly POV. That wording may be the UFW position but that does not make it true. Hence I have removed it.
Second, I am not sure that changing the title of this section to make it a Controversy is quite proper. There is no dispute that these events took place, rather the meaning of these events are at issue.
Third, editors have to be very careful about putting in language that attempts to place context yet also interjects their own POV. I also have my own POV but strive to remove this POV by adding fully sourced facts and leave the context to a minimum. That way people can make up their own minds about these issues. To that end I have made some edits to your context yet tried to keep the meaning intact.
Finally, Mr. Chavez' stance on immigration is very important from the standpoint that Chavez is a symbol for many in the Mexican-American community who have been mislead to believe that Mr. Chavez was a supporter of illegal immigration. Ask any person on the street about Chavez and he will likely think of him in the same mold as Martin Luther King. Chavez was fighting primarily for farm labor's rights not Mexican-American civil rights. --Ian Struan 06:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made the changes to the section of the article. I have tried to keep the section small and as free of POV as possible. Just the facts and let the reader decide. Incidentally all of the parts about concerns and debate within the UFW about undocumented migrant labor in the 60's and 70's are contained within sourced listed in the section. --Ian Struan 07:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that we are almost there. :) I included back the reasons why UFW was against the bracero program because their reasons for opposing or supporting the program are historical facts. And the reasons why they oppossed the program is especially needed in the article under the current political climate in the U.S., since a similar program is being proposed in the U.S. Congress right now. I believe that the information found within the article can help the reader see if their reasons for working against the bracero program are valid or not.
I reworked the sentence introducing the border events so that it reflex the reasons behind them. After reading them over, I decided to include a line saying how the event can be seen as anti-undocumented worker, so I included that. Hopefully this shows both perspectives fairly. :)

--Hugo Estrada 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, i made a slight edit to the language of the sentence regarding their beliefs about the bracero program to reflect that the undermining of american workers and exploitation of migrant labor was their belief. It was not necessarily the truth of the matter. Next, i think that its important that we stick to the language of "undermining attempts at organization" and not "strike breaking" since the influx of undocumented migrant labor did not just make striking difficult but also undermined the whole process of unionization of farm labor. --Ian Struan 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Ian, I can live with the first change about the bracero program. I believe that we should take the official reasons of organizations for doing things as facts unless there is enough evidence to make us doubt them. But the way that you wrote it seems pretty fair, so I will not change anything.

As for the second point, I must strongly disagree about it. Both cases, according to the sources cited, were anti-strikebreaking events. It was a picket line on the border. They were conducting a strike at the time, and their events there were meant to keep potential strikebreakers out of the workplace.

"Strikebreaking" must describe the events. Your wording is a subtle POV which may be true, but which doesn't reflect the motivation of the UFW or that are supported by the sources cited. If I remember correctly, the better sources make it clear that they were on the border to prevent strikebreakers to enter the country.

The UFW didn't have a problem organizing undocumented workers otherwise. In fact, many of their members were undocumented, which explains why they opposed sanctions against employees and backed amnesty in the past and today.

I will give you some time to respond before I edit the page. If I don't hear from you, I will go ahead and edit it. :) --66.173.142.227 03:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC) The post above was me. I forgot to log in :)--Hugo Estrada 17:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)--Hugo Estrada 17:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hugo, Good on the first point. As to the second point, maybe we can come to some sort of agreement. Lets walk though facts: Chavez was trying to organize farm laborers to raise wages and improve working conditions, the farmers objected to this organization because it would raise costs (and they tend to be a libertarian lot) and they work to oppose efforts at organization, Chavez decided to call a strike to cut off farmers supply to labor, farmers then look to the new migrant immigrant labor to replace striking laborers and thus break the strike, Chavez recognizes that migrant labor is both unorganized (by labor) and willing to work for lower wages and thus sees the these new immigrants as an undermining force that threaten his plan to force through organization of farm labor (non-withstanding the political problem that both the farm labor that he is trying to organize and the new migrants are Hispanic/Latino. The result are the events that happen in the Imperial and Central valleys as well as other areas.
So these undocumented migrant laborers are strike breakers in the sense that they are undermining Chavez' attempts at organizing farm labor (since why else strike than to organize and obtain better wages/conditions). While I agree with you that the UFW and Chavez may have perceived these undocumented migrant laborers as "scabs" or "strikebreakers" who were "Strike Breaking" this is considered by many to be an derogatory term (See the wikipedia article on Strike Action under the subheading scabs). I am not sure how to make the description that i wrote any less POV than it already is. Yes the UFW was committing these actions in an attempt to prevent the entry of people who they considered to be scabs, or at least prevent them from strike breaking. But these undocumented laborers were not trying to enter the country to strike break, even if their entry eventually led them to look for and fill jobs that were not being filled due to strike action. The way i wrote the lead in "concerns that undocumented migrant labor would undermine the UFW's attempts to organize farm workers lead" accurately describes what happened...the UFW conducted strikes to help their organizing efforts (since implicit in organizing is not only signing people up but then getting them to strike for better conditions/wages), the undocumented migrant labor represented a threat to these actions, hence the "concern" by Chavez and others. Note that "concern" is a pretty good non-pov politic term to convey the feeling on this issue.
Please let me know what you think, I think that we are getting there on this issue. --Ian Struan 20:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Ian, your analysis has some good points and some that we can further argue about, but ultimately I think that you will agree that it conveying what you think Chavez and the UFW thought rather than what they documented as their reasons for these actions. I guess is a situation that historians often find themselves in: on the one hand, historical figures give an explanation for their actions, yet historians can see other reasons for why the behaved that way.
I am about to make some subtle points, so please read the following section carefully, since I am talking about some subtle points that you made in the last response. :) Chavez and the UFW were not against undocumented workers and the proof of this is that they were representing many undocumented workers at the time and to the present day. From the evidence that we have, it seems that they were quite happy to organize undocumented workers as long as they work together with the union. And many undocumented workers organized under their leadership. So even if undocumented workers are as a whole unorganized labor, many were organizable. Also, if you are willing to take into account the intentions of the undocumented workers crossing the border during these events, which were not to break a strike, it is only fair to accept the intentions of Chavez and the UFW stated intention that these were anti-strikebreaking events. Finally, if Chavez and the UFW really felt that undocumented workers undermined their efforts, they would have adopted an anti-undocumented worker policy and kept the quoted events as long-term strategies. They didn't.
It seems that Chavez and the UFW felt that undocumented workers were organizable given that they had them among their members. So maybe, and this is speculation, they felt that during a strike they couldn't organize new arrivals, so your analysis of the situation kicks in, and they mount the border events. Yet, and I believe you will agree with this, the border events are still a anti-strikebreaking event within a strike campaign strategy.
I think that we are pretty close, so let me suggest a solution here, and I will hold back from posting it until I hear back from you.
"In a few occasions, concerns that undocumented migrant labor would undermine UFW strike campaigns lead to a number of controversial events which the UFW describes as anti-strikebreaking events, but which some interpret as being anti-illegal immigration."
I think that this wording reflects the context correctly, which is that the events happened during strikes, reflects a very plausible concern of Chavez and the UFW about undocumented workers during their strike campaign--if they were not concerned, why stage them?--and it gives the two conflicting descriptions of the events. After that, descriptions of the events are available to let the reader make up their mind.

So, we can go ahead and use the above version of the sentence to introduce the border events, right? :) --Hugo Estrada 05:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hugo, I respectfully do not agree with your contention that I am committing that classic historian mistake of conveying what I think Chavez's reasons rather than what their recorded reasons were. I invite you to look at p 197 in Gutiérrez "Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants, and the Politics of Ethnicity" (Which you can find at link 3 in the article). There you will see what the UFW border position was in the sixties as well as why. Also you will see the reason why this policy was controversial even in the sixties and seventies, namely the very real split within the activists who were more concerned about labor rights and those who cared more for ethnicity/migrant rights. And finally why this policy was not a viable long term solution, namely that the migrant's rights groups had won this PR battle by the late seventies.
I also invite you to look at p 105-07 "Unguarded Gates: A History of America's Immigration Crisis By Otis L. Graham" which notes that Chavez and the UFW agreed that a "porous border and floods of immigrants from Mexico undercut the social and economic gains of Americans of Hispanic descent and that in the words of Chavez' biographer Chavez "tried in vain to stem the tide of illegal immigration". These are just two available online. There are many other books and articles that clearly note this division within the UFW in the 60's and 70's about how to deal with the tension between labor unionism, illegal immigration and the ethnic ties between the two. Basically this division was fueled by those who were more concerned about identity as Latinos and those who where more concerned about labor rights. As I am sure that you are aware, then as now, there are Native born Americans who are also Latinos, who see undocumented laborers less as people with whom they share a common ethnicity and more as competition for labor who undermine their own social status (be it for wages, jobs, etc). If you look at the sources you will find that there were people in the 60's and 70's both in the UFW and on the left who were worried not about Chicano/Latino/Mexican rights but about labor rights. As for Mr. Chavez, it is hard to pin down what he really believed when this was going on, there are good quotes from back then that could show that he supported both sides. He probably did since as with most controversial things, there are good arguments on both sides. But by the 80's that fight was over and this type of behavior was over.
That said, I agree with you with some minor language edits how does this sound... "In a few occasions, concerns that undocumented migrant labor would undermine UFW strike campaigns lead to a number of controversial events which the UFW describes as anti-strikebreaking events, but which has also been interpreted as anti-illegal immigration."
I await your response in the fervent hope that we have come to a fair, just and final conclusion on this issue. --Ian Struan 05:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
We are there with the wording. I went ahead and posted your version. I only made two minor changes, but the meaning is the same.
Thanks for correcting me on my judgment of your prior post here. Although Gutierrez makes it sound as if Chavez and the UFW had a clear policy, other sources and their actions contradict this. "Strawberry Fields" presents a complex description on their position on undocumented workers. The evidence of Chavez's and the UFW's statements and behavior seems so inconsistent that working through this may be worth of a master's thesis; or maybe two :) We as readers of history like clear stands; but sometimes historical figures have a way of injecting real life inconsistent views and actions back into our pristine narratives. In the case of Chavez, he was a union and civil rights leader. I don't know if he intended it that way, but the circumstances of the time thrusted this dual role on him. Yet Chavez's work is mainly that of a union organizer. Maybe this is at the root of his ambivalent behavior on undocumented workers.

--Hugo Estrada 15:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hagiography

This article is absurdly hagiographic. "He learned about justice or rather injustice early in his life." Aww. "In 1944 he joined the Navy at the age of seventeen. He served two years and in addition to discrimination, he experienced strict regimentation." Everyone who joins the Navy at any age experiences strict regimentation. I suggest that this paean of praise be edited down to an encyclopedia article. ➥the Epopt 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"To criticize is to volunteer." Nevertheless, the entire first section of this article is lifted, verbatim, from ... well, it's hard to say who was first, since there are so many copies of it on the net. I guess we can "blame" www.ufw.org -- it has one. But go to www.google.com and enter (with quotes) "He learned about justice or rather injustice early in his life."; someone has to hold a copyright to that text, and it's probably not wikipedia... mdf 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chavez article

The article must be cleaned up. In particular the sentence structure and word choice need to be improved because, as it is right now, it has as much flow as a river of molasses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.202.68.44 (talk • contribs)

I started off but man it's tedious. It's like editing a 4th grader's essay. I'd continue if I were more motivated. Someone else should do it. Sirkeg 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All accents need to be placed in César Chávez (é, á) and it needs to be consistent throughout the article!

[edit] Wikification

Regarding Wikification: there is no need to wikify every word on a page, such as articles ("a", "the"). Please see the Manual of Style for further assistance. Isopropyl 06:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many remarks that say that Cesar Chavez isn't "white", while he clearly is so. He certainly isn't black, nor yellow(asian) or even red(native american). The only suitable race for him to be sorted in is being white. On that same subject, the prejudice against him isn't of racial origin, but rather of cultural or national origin. --Andrelvis 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to brown? My understanding is that his background is latin american indian and probably some spanish. Jjinfoothills 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have read that he did identify greatly with his indigeous heritage though he probably would have considered himself "mestizo". I have no clue as to whether "mestizo" is equivalent to "white", though personally I would say no.--Jbluex 06:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

He looks pretty Native American to me. Are there really no sources on his ancestry? Perhaps Yaqui? "Mestizo," "brown," and other related terms are too general or have seen limited use. It's probably best to have statements on his race left out altogether.

[edit] Proper tone and references

There is a section of the article that uses sentences beginning with "He remembers ... He also remembers ..." These need to be reworded. The present tense "remembers" does not seem appropriate for someone who is dead. I will try to work on this and other problems in the article, but it is made more difficult by the fact that there are no in-line references used, and the fact that I don't have the primary references in my possession. If someone has the original references, please put them inline to the article so that we can see what reference supports what fact. Johntex\talk 16:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation as to What César Chávez Would Think of the 2006 Protests

"In 2006, as César Chávez Day approaches, some Southern California schools are experiencing truancy problems due to students leaving class to protest pending legislation in the United States Congress that seeks to reduce illegal immigration. Protests are expected to continue during César Chávez Day celebrations." - Perhaps move it to something like an illegal immigaration in the US article. 168.166.196.40 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. In addition to being completely speculative as to what the subject would have thought of these rallies 13 years after his death, the characterizations of students demonstrating as a "truancy problem" for the schools and of the pending House bill are POV. I've deleted it. 67.175.162.238 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source material?

It looks like one of the original sources of information in this article is given by the opening sentence of the article (which I have since deleted) read "According to the United Farmworkers web site, from which this information is mostly plagiarized, Cesar Estrada Chavez, named for his grandfather..." This probably explains the incorrect tenses and other problems, since the website bio probably wasn't encyclopedic. Vter4life 22:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US citizen?

Did he ever become a LEGAL US Citizen?

any souces on this? Template:Uunsigned 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • If he was born in Yuma, he was a citizen by birth according to US law.--Rockero 21:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] timeline

I apologize for leaving it unfinished and messy. Will resume work soon. Anyone who understands Easytimeline code better than I is welcome to fix it. --Allen Riddell 15:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cesar Chavez category

I think that Cesar Chavez is a notable enough person to warrant a category of his own. I suggest starting Category:Cesar Chavez. -- Andrew Parodi 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A person should only get a category if there are enough articles to populate it, not if they themselves are notable. I see you already made the cat, but beware that it might get deleted.--Rockero 21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed Legacy of Cesar Chavez

While there is little doubt in my mind that Cesar Chavez was a brilliant labor leader, whose signal achievement of building the UFW should be both celebrated and studied -- he deserves a holiday -- such recognition should not blind us to a person's failings, and I do not refer here to petty personal sins. I refer to the fact that Cesar Chavez, after inspiring and organizing the UFW to become a powerful union, proceded to wreck that once powerful organization. In 1978, Cesar Chavez introduced the "Synanon Game" into the internal deliberations of his union. The S.G. was essentially a mind game that involved people mercilessly attacking non-conforming members of a group. It was invented by Charles Dederich, the founder of the drug rehab cult, Synanon. Long-time organizers were forced out, and the business of building and strengthening the union was neglected. Today, the UFW is a shadow of it's former self, with about 4000 members. For a more detailed discussion of the negative side of Chavez's legacy, I refer you to the Los Angeles Times, January 8 through 11, 2006. These articles don't make it clear why Chavez did this. I know most people would rather just remember him as a labor saint, but we do no one any favors by whitewashing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.211.243 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Images

--evrik 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican-American

I couldn't help but notice an edit war caused by stating CHavez is a Mexican-American. What is the issue? It is not POV, it is fact. Even the library of congress refers to him as such: http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa/chavez

Is this really that big of an issue? I know wikipedia allows the inclusion fo anything relevant to a person. It seems unquestionable that Chavez's mexican heritage is relevant to his accomplishments. It seems as if one poster wants to assume bad faith, without explainingn himself. So please explain yourself. Why is this issue so important that you committed an edit war, and violated 3RR? 152.163.101.7 16:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Mexican-American seems an appropriate heritage to assign to him.
Please would those who disagree please speak up so that we can get your side of the argument?
LittleOldMe 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

I have joined this discussion as a third party in an attempt to resolve a dispute.

The dispute is over whether an edit by a known vandal should be allowed to stand. The edit was to assign a hereditary label of Mexican American to César Chávez.

LittleOldMe 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

  • Against - Because the IP is used by a known vandal the edit must be reverted.
  • For - Despite the vandalism from the IP, the edit was good and should be allowed to stand.

Comment

  • RFC Response: IP addresses may be used by different users than they formerly were, or a vandal could reform. That isn't a real issue in my eyes. A real problem is that the article now reads (in the "Early Life" section) "According to the United Farm Workers web site, as a young Mexican American growing up in Arizona,", and cites the UFW page on him. But the UFW page does not use the word "Mexican" anywhere. Accordingly, the label of Mexican American is falsely attributed in its current incarnation, so needs to be changed. The label is used on the Library of Congress page, which is a reliable source. So the label can be in the article, but it can't be in a sentence that begins "According to the United Farm Workers web site,". The use in the introduction is non-problematic, and can be sourced to a reliable source if anyone wants to go to the effort. GRBerry 21:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There have been repeated attempts by (apparently) various users to revise the wiki policy manual (always in the same poorly-written phraseology) to "allow" race and sexual orientation to be cited in the opening paragraph. That's what this is about. Wahkeenah 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats great. So what does that have to do with this edit, or your need to start an edit war? Is mexican-american a term for sexual orientation, or race? As far as I understand it, the term "mexican american" is an ethnonym for people with strong ties to both the United States of America and Mexico. It is commonly used to describe Chavez, and is a far more accurate descriptor for his national origin, based at least partially on his dual citizenship. Valid sources have been given that use the term.
Your best response has been that it was done by a vandal, or someone that made edits to policy that you disagree with. However, that has little, if anything, to do with this edit. A viable non-POV source has been cited. You have given no real rational for the substitution--see above posters comments. 67.162.212.254 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
At the admin's advice, I am going to let the admin handle you instead of Dcflyer and I trying to do it on our own. Wahkeenah 00:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As Wahkeenah stated, an editor had previously made repeated changes to the guidelines under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) without talk page discussion or consensus. The edits all focused on sexual orientation and race/ethnicity. The editor then used these edits to back up his/her changes to Lance Bass, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, César Chávez, and a few others. This is described here. The edits were made in apparent coordination by Cliesthenes and numerous associated anon IPs, e.g., 67.162.212.254, see here. The changes to the articles mentioned were to include sexual orientation, race, or ethnicity in the opening sentences of the biographies. Was this an attempt to define the person by his/her sexual orientation, race, or ethnicity? Some consensus was reached on the Lance Bass page that this was the case. See here and here. The United Farm Workers of America website simply states that "César grew up in Arizona...," so this article is incorrect as far as the statement "[a]ccording to the United Farm Workers web site, as a young Mexican American growing up in Arizona..." I will remove this incorrect sentence. I will have no problem if consensus determines that the description "Mexican-American" should be added to this article and if so, in what manner. The edit histories have left a long trail indicating non-consensus changes and POV pushing by an "editor" and his/her sockpuppets.-- Dcflyer 05:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the UFW comment; if the UFW didn't say that, then that attribution to the UFW should be removed. My own impression as an outsider coming here from the RFC is that "Mexican-American" is as relevant to "César Chávez" as "African American" is to "Martin Luther King, Jr.": Chávez' life work was dedicated to improving conditions for Mexican-American farm workers. For this reason, maybe there should be some mention of this in the article's opening (however I note that MLK's race is not mentioned in the opening of his article). By contrast, I would not say the same about some of the entertainers just cited above by Dcflyer; their sexuality may be one aspect of their public lives, but it's not the primary reason they have Wikipedia articles. We may flinch using an edit by someone we often see POV-pushing and abusing Wiki-community norms, but if once in a while they leave behind something useful, let's keep it. --A. B. 12:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Cliesthenes and its sockpuppets had also tried pushing for including MLK's race in the opening paragraph. This debate has been going on for awhile. It's related to some users trying to push that some well-known person was Catholic, Jewish, or whatever, in the opening paragraph, which adds up to "labeling" them. In the case of MLK and Chavez, or anyone who belongs to a specific religion, is it really true that they were "known" for being members of some ethnic group or religion? Yes, it is... to racists. Wahkeenah 12:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Cliesthenes appears to be connected to confirmed and banned sockpuppet HollyWolly; see this edit, as well as [2]. Seperately, see these edits: [3][4](Anne Heche and Malcom X) -- Dcflyer 12:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is concern as to the labels that are ascribed to individuals, perhaps articles should not mention the nationality at all. As an outsider in every sense, (being a South African living in Ireland who has not been involved in the preceding debates) I am not privy to the subtleties of nationality debates in the US, however, I have seen first hand how relationships can be damaged when one side is allowed to claim an outstanding individual as their own. Surely as Americans claiming to inhabit "the land of the free and the home of the brave" you should be able to display the courage to share your heroes. LittleOldMe 13:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • To a significant number of people in America (specifically, white supremacists and people who hate labor unions), both Cesar Chavez and MLK are "villains", not "heroes", and emphasizing their ethnic group in the header reinforces that viewpoint. Wahkeenah 14:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • My reading of the situation, based on the edit trends for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), is that the editor was attempting to justify his/her labeling of "homosexual" or "lesbian" to several individuals by pointing out that individuals of various ethnicities were "already" labeled in a similar manner. And echoing what Wahkeenah said, the editor got the side benefit of calling these people "out" as well, in the figurative sense. Also, in the U.S., bigots have always loved to point out "black" or "Mexican" as a way of saying that the person is not a "true" or "real" American. -- Dcflyer 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Therein lies the trouble. Cliesthenes and its sockpuppets were pushing for this supposedly on innocent grounds. But such labeling could be for "bigotry" purposes, or it could be the opposite, for "proudly" labeling, for "inclusion" or whatever you want to call it. Either way, it's labeling, hence it's POV-pushing, and that was my argument from the get-go. Wahkeenah 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I feel another "soap box" moment looming, so here goes! We all wear labels whether we like it or not. Personally I think that both César Chávez and Martin Luther King would have been proud to wear their ethnic labels. Also, I do not understand how someone's ethnicity is a "point of view". Either he has African or Mexican roots or not. If you say he appears to be of Mexican origin, that is POV; stating that he is Mexican American is stating a fact (that can be attributed to a reliable source). Wikipedia often states facts that people do not like or are uncomfortable with. Many would want censoring, and edit out swearing or explicit descriptions accordingly. We Wikipedians restore the deleted text, despite their discomfort. In the same way we should be able to state someone's ethnicity clearly without fear of individuals being offended. I do not believe that Wikipedia should pander to bigots, zealots, racists or any other type of 'ist. LittleOldMe 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The problem is that this approach singles out certain individuals. If you stated everyone's ethnicity in the opening paragraph, that would be another thing: "George W. Bush is a white male American". No. It's POV-pushing to single out individuals ethnicity in the opening paragraph, no matter what the reason is. The details of the biography explain all that, so there is no censorship. Wahkeenah 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with that approach, except that Chávez is being labelled in the opening paragraph, as an "American". This, by your own definition, is POV-pushing. I agree, remove nationality/ethnicity from the opening paragraph. Rather mention his place of birth in the opening paragraph and discuss heredity and nationality in subsequent paragraphs. Some (imperfect) examples of this approach are:
  1. Zola Budd - her switch to British citizenship caused huge controversy and was very contentious.
  2. Ian Brady - the statement "notorious Scottish serial killer" seems designed to play upon the English/Scottish rift.
  3. Peter Hain - is far more famous for his contributions to the Northern Ireland peace process than for any anti-apartheid activism.
The more biographies I review the more I tend to agree with Wahkeenah and Dcflyer that nationality and ethnicity can be used in the opening paragraph to set the tone for the entire article. First impressions really do count! LittleOldMe 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Except we are saying ethnicity should NOT be used there, so I'm not sure what you're saying. I gather that nationality is acceptable, but I think that's more neutral, like "John Wayne was an American actor". If there is a consistent approach, it would be OK. As it is, ethnicity is not consistent, and thus ends up being "singled out". It might be POV-pushing to say John Wayne is "American", because some people hate America, but it might also be POV-pushing to say he's an actor, because some people hate actors! I'm not sure why qualifying "actor" with "American" is necessary, but it seems to be considered acceptable. Emphasizing race and sexual orientation, though, are blatant labeling. Wahkeenah 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • LittleOldMe, I agree with you on this issue. It is not POV to say Chavez is a Mexican-American. It also doesn't single him out. The primary argument against the edit seems to be that his mexican heritage somehow detracts from him. This does not seem to be a viable argument. First, you assume there is a negative connotation to being from a mexican heritage. To assume some people might view this in a negative light ignores the reality that any statement on a page can be looked at in a negative light by a person. The fact you list Chavez as an American will cause some people to look at him in a negative light. The same issue occurs with him being a union leader (people are against the union). Second, you ignore the fact far more reliable sources, dealing with far greater issues of a need for nuetrality have "labeled" him as a Mexican American. If the library of Congress can refer to him as a mexican american, why not wikipedia? The library of Congress is a reliable source, and not POV. It seems to me that the exclusion seems to be POV, in that it is pushing an unkown agenda. I don't know what the agenda is. Third, didn't Cesar Chavez in "Cesar Chavez: Autobiography of La Causa" describe himself as a "mexican american working to help other mexican americans." He had duel citizenship (both USA and Mexico). Doesn't any of this matter? These are facts, not POV.
        • The above unsigned IP address user is on the same subnet that has been identified as one of Cliesthenes' sockpuppets, and is written in a similar style to that of Cliesthenes. Wahkeenah 23:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Wahkeenah, I do not think that this should be an issue, Cliesthenes' opinion should carry as much weight as anyone else's. It would only be sock puppetry if Cliesthenes offered opinions both under the user name and anonymously, or from multiple IP addresses, in order to add weight to their side of the argument. LittleOldMe 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Technically, Cliesthenes' anonymous connections and fake users are "meatpuppets", trying to change the wiki guidelines to support stuff it wants to do... such as the POV-pushing described earlier. Wahkeenah 14:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though the edit may have been made by a user with a questionable track record, I see nothing inaccurate or biased about describing Chávez as Mexican-American. In addition to other good reasons stated above (dual citizenship, autobiographical self-description) where I live in California it's fairly common to see streets named after him in Mexican-American neighborhoods. This particular edit appears uncontroversial. Durova 03:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not that it's factually inaccurate, it's that it's purposeful labeling in the opening paragraph for the goal of pushing a point of view, which is why the biography manual of style opposes it, and which that one user was altering expressly for the purpose of pushing that point of view. Wahkeenah 03:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Then move it lower in the article. I see nothing inappropriate about stating this fact somewhere and within the context of the history of California agriculture the page would probably be incomplete without this information. Durova 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That would put it in the context of explaining his background and interest in the Mexican laborer, as opposed to merely labeling him; so, as I understand it, would be appropriate in that circumstance. Wahkeenah 02:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like Chávez is an exception to the issue raised. Since it was stated above that Chávez had dual Mexican and U.S. citizenship, it would be appropriate for him to be referred to as Mexican-American, in the lead sentence. This is in line with the guideline of using nationality in the opening sentence, and is applied uniformly. The real issue is if ethnicity, race, religion, and/or sexual orientation should be included in the lead sentence or paragraph, as well. There is no "censorship" because the ethnicity, race, religion, and/or sexual orientation are [and should be] stated or discussed in the biographies in question. The problem is that they are stated in the lead only for members of "minority" groups. George W. Bush is described as an American, not a white/Caucasian/Anglo/British American. Is it not labeling or POV that certain individuals are described in the lead as Italian-American, gay American, African-Canadian, or Asian-British, while others are simply described as American, Canadian, or British? Maybe this discussion should be continued or moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Further_discussion_about_ethnicity.2C_race.2C_religion.2C_and.2For_sexual_orientation_being_included_in_the_lead_sentence. -- Dcflyer 04:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
A totally random example is the article on David Reimer. He is categorized with Category:German Canadians. However, the lead sentence describes him as [only] a Canadian man. -- Dcflyer 09:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November 2006 Request for Comment

The above RfC didn't settle the article. So someone raised another. This section is for responses to the November RfC. I added the break because I thought it would be helpful. GRBerry 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that the erroneous inclusion (because it was not in the then specified source) that I objected to previously is gone. Thanks to whomever did that.

I think most people know that he was Mexican American, and the fact certainly could be reliably sourced. I believe that he is better known as union organizer/leader than an ethnic rights leader. So the union role should definitely predominate in the article. This may well mean that the ethnicity does not belong in the lead. (This point differs from what I said last time.) However, it might be appropriate to add a short paragraph about his influence upon Latinos to the Legacy section, in which it would be natural to mention his ethnicity. This paragraph, would, of course, need to meet the usual standards for sourcing. GRBerry 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Putting race or sexual orientation in the opening paragraph is against policy. It's labeling. It promotes bigotry. Would you start George Bush's bio with "G.W. is a white guy"? No, I didn't think so. Wahkeenah 00:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you serious? This is the type of rational that makes me not want to use wikipedia. The article uses the term mexican merican to describe Chavez numerous times. Yet you seem to think it is racist to use it in the opening? You can't have the cake and eat it too. He is either one or the other. You seem to have no probelm with the rest of the article.
    • Furthermore, you claim that there is a mexican race? The correct term to describe the "mexican race" is chicano, or latino. The phrase mexican-american is not a racial categorization. It does not describe sexual orientation. It describes people with strong ties to both the United States of America and Mexico. A racial qualifier is not the basis (unless you are a racist). I assume you are not a racist. The fact is the article deserves some mention of Chavez's mexican heritage at the start of the article. As it reads now, he is littlemore than a union leader. Yet he is looked at as much more than that today. He is currently viewed as one fo the greatest civil rights leaders for mexican americans in history. Yet, you seem unwilling to acknowledge due to the guise of avoiding racism.
    • Instead you use the disingenuous comparison between George Bush and Cesar Chavez by stating Bush's article does not contain the phrase "white." As stated previously, mexican american is not a racial descriptor. A white, black, etc. can be a mexican american just as easily as any chicano. Would you rather stereotype? This is what you seem to be doing.
    • I want to make some mention of his aid to mexican americans in the beginning of the article. Since you seem to veto any idea on this thread that you disagree with, what would--YOU PERSONALLY--find acceptable? (It is a sad day when wikipedia has devolved to having to ask this question).
    • Secondly, what is the problem with me editing the grammatical errors in the article? Is adding a period and making some formating standard also considered racist by yourself? CraigMonroe 13:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You need to study some of the recent debates about this, and maybe you'll understand the issue. Ethnic labeling of any kind in the opening paragraph is against wiki policy because it is not done uniformly, only arbitrarily, thus it is a combination of POV-pushing and inviting bigotry. Saying someone is known for their race or ethnic group or sexual orientation is patently offensive. Would you say "MLK was known for being black?" Well, the people who called him "Martin Lucifer King" certainly would say so. And those who hate GWB would agree that it's just find to say "Bush is a white male". Do you see what I'm getting at? Meanwhile, I reverted again, because you took away the USA on American, which caused it to go to a disambiguation page, and you also posted spelling and capitalization errors and took away the metric units. Try again. You're getting closer to acceptability. Wahkeenah 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • How about this. I'll revert. You fix the errors. Isn't that how it works? A editor makes an edit. Another editor improves it. Its not like there is much work. Also, the metric unit is not used uniformly. In one spot it is used, and in the next sentence it is not. I say get rid of it, or add it to each figure. However, I don't care to add it to each figure (too much time).CraigMonroe 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I think it's looking pretty good now. Wahkeenah 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit of César Chávez

Today's copyedit of César Chávez was a big one and major IMHO. Any comments? Ronbo76 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit war to this article has begun. I would like to see a neutral edit but one that encompasses facts supported by citations that provide a neutral POV. Ronbo76 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you don't have edit-warring here, but vandalism. As an unconcerned party, I'll refer this to WP:RFPP. MSJapan 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of it was vandalism, but the first anon IP after my comment here attempted to restore the article almost fully. It appears that IP dropped off for some unknown reason. The edits after that were mostly vandal attacks. Because of all the conflicting edits, I reverted the article back to your copyedit. I have this question into two other Wiki projects who should be monitoring this page. Ronbo76 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Ronbo76

There are still several problems with the article: He should be referred to by his surname consistently. That "he remembers" text was a modification of something lifted from the UFW site that never got quite smoothed out. The intro mentions nothing about why he was such an important figure for the Chicano Movement--that is, the larger-than-life status he gained in the eyes of many Mexican-Americans. I always prefer to recount a biography chronologically--it just seems to flow better that way. Cesar's article could definitely use some chronologizing. The CSO should remain a redlink--and the article should be written before the article gets nominated for GA status again. Their archives are at CSUN. The article doesn't mention any of his personality traits-- a tendency toward mysticism, or his vegetarianism, for two examples. Or his faults-- nepotism in the hierarchy of the UFW. In fact, the references section doesn't look like they were used as references for the article at all, but were rather tacked on as a makeshift "Further reading" section. Finally, for GA/FA status, all citations should be in-line. This article needs a serious rewrite. A simple copyedit is not going to cut it. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but if you really want to do it good, read the books listed at the bottom, especially the Ross text, and start from scratch.--Rockero 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I just might do that, but not for a while yet. MSJapan 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] was or wasn't he married

Many of the students in europe wonder.....................they wonder if Cesar was ever married and if he was who was he married to and when he married. why isn't our question being anwsered. So let the truth be revealed and e-mail me at Andr188@doddse.net and tell me what u know —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.218.240.39 (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm usually not rude, but your question isn't being answered because you

are clearly illiterate. The article clearly states: "In 1948 Chavez married Helen Fabela." MSJapan 22:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

What is the preferred pronunciation? chä'vĕz' or shä'vĕz'? Is it common to hear both? 71.202.62.11 06:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The sound "sh" does not exist in typical or ideal spoken Spanish. There are dialects that feature the sound "sh" but these are special cases. In fact, the typical Spanish native-speaker pronunciation of the name of the Latin pop singer "Shakira" would sound more like "chakira." "Ch" is most proper in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.163.186 (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Cesar Chavez Day

  • 207.216.9.33 02:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual editing

Did anyone notice the editing done today? (April 20th) I saw the entire page blanked and simply reverted it to the last edit with the article because I'm assuming people want to actually read about the man.--Kolrobie 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, César is a popular target for some creative editing. I see your edit fixed the problem 4 minutes after it was blanked. Good work. --Bookandcoffee 20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it because on my talk page I got the vandalism tag without a signature, turns out to be the guy who blanked the page in the first place, I guess he has something against Chavez. --Kolrobie 20:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not change my edit.

I've just deleted Spanish (Language) and changed it to Castlian. I feel Castilian is a much better word for the Spanish Language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.13.159 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 May 2007

The issue of "Spanish vs. Castilian" is based on the conflict of different regional and dialectal meanings for either term. In my opinion, regional practices of the community Chavez represents as a Spanish speaker take precedence over statements on what's best for representation of the Spanish language in general. Here in California, I've never heard the term "castellano" used save for naming the assumed proper dialect used in Spain. I would assume the same for Spanish in Arizona but a confirmation would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.163.186 (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Cesar Chavez was mentioned in The Simpsons TV show Hungry Hungry Homer Episode Number: 263, Season Num: 12, First Aired: Sunday March 4, 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amieew (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 May 2007

[edit] Article name

Sometime ago, the name of this article was changed. I don't remember there being any discussion. As he was born in the U.S., he probably never used accents in his name. Thoughts? --evrik (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The theory that Chavez didn't use accent marks has some merit to it. My mother was born in the U.S., learned Spanish first, but still doesn't know much in terms of accent marks. However, I was searching the internet for a possible written signature and found this PDF which states that Cesar's name was actually Cesario. http://www.gingerwadsworth.com/New%20Web%20Files/Tips%20&%20Guides/ChavezTeachingGuide.pdf

[edit] 1927-1945

Did he lie about his age to get in to the military. He turned 18 the year the war ended. What's up with that ? . I will research this if I have . The military section seems very iffy. Moses Weintraub 11:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


the "delano grape strike in" link needs to be changed to "delano grape strike", but i cant change cuz its protected and im not a member, oh, and the "National Farm Workers Association" link dosnt go to anything relevant... 158.165.40.139 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing image

Why was this image removed? There was no "warning" as needed per WP:IFD, though WP:IFD was cited as the reason for removal. code:

[Image:Cesar-chavez-USPS.jpg|thumb|right|200px|2003 USPS stamps featuring Chávez and the fields of the laborers who were so important to him.]]

--AlanH (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another quote attributed to chavez

"To make a great dream come true, the first requirement is a great capacity to dream; the second is persistence - a faith in the dream."

71.234.109.192 (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)