Jump to content

Talk:United Farm Workers

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adr2018. Peer reviewers: HandsomeSquidward311, RandomSTAY, Saguaro123, OutskirtAZ.

Any plans on updating the "recent developments" to include the campaign to pass AB2183?

[edit]

Recently the UFW marched across California and held a vigil in Sacramento for 30 days to advocate for the signing of a pro-farm labor bill AB2183, leading to CA governor Gavin Newsom signing the bill. https://www.kcra.com/article/newsom-signs-california-ab-2183-farmworkers-union-rights/41433217 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.183.46 (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Role

[edit]

This entire section needs rewritten. It's a bizzare mishmash of random, contextless sentences, interspersed with timeline. Worst of all, at no point does the section give the reader a sense of how the UFW has effected labor relations in the United States.

I think the thing I hate the most about this section is the fact that it starts with "the union then." What? There can't be a "then" without something coming first. Quality Grade B? Not a chance. Try D.14:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur. This section is out of order and gramatically incorrect. It also does not follow WP:MOS in the sense that the title of the article should appear as the first words in first paragraph of the main body. It should be either merged into another appropiate section where its dates will coincide or should be eliminated. --Morenooso (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur too. I made some corrections (fixed the grammar) but most of the content should be integrated into the prior part of the article.--FeralOink (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

This article is incredibly historically accurate and detailed. My compliments to the chef.

I have two questions and the answers may help me form an opinion about this extraordinary immigration of Mexican Nationals. Has the abundance of cheap immigrant labor hurt the accomplishments and further progress of the United Farmworkers Union. Has the UFW lost members?

Sources for this article

[edit]
These online sites will be used to reference article. Morenooso 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms?

[edit]

Didn't there used to be a section about the various criticisms of the UFW? The Los Angeles Times, for one, has been highly critical of the union. See, e.g., http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ufw8jan08,0,6153581,print.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.233.82 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

misleading membership count

[edit]

in the chart at United_Farm_Workers#1970s, the figure is at 27,000 in 2000, but plummets to around 5000 for the next 10 years. This is obviously inconsistent. This 2002 LA Times article says:

From 1995 to 1999, the UFW claimed membership of 26,000 on reports filed annually with the U.S. Department of Labor. The union upped that figure to 27,000 in 2000. But last month, in response to an inquiry by the Labor Department, the union revised its membership to 5,945, according to the amended report.

... union officials say the lower number represents only those laborers working under UFW contract at the end of the year, and not the total number of members who work under contract on a seasonal basis at least one day during the year.

Therefore, I think the first figure should be removed as it is counted with a different method than the rest and is misleading without further explanation. --Kovl (talk) (Please ping me when replying) 07:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this! I've been adding these graphs to all the unions I can (when I have time to) based off of raw OLMS data. It's a shame they don't just revise their old data when they already know it to be inconsistent. I notice similar strange and sudden shifts in many unions' numbers, often around 2005/2006 when reporting requirements changed, the same year membership classifications start appearing on most OLMS reports. Sometimes the discrepancy becomes obvious when you graph out all of these classifications and notice that one or two of them carry on the trend from before the reporting change.

But anyway, I would prefer not simply removing a year from the graph, and either explaining it somehow, or finding better data for that year. But if that seems unlikely to get anywhere, I'd be happy to comment out that year from the membership graph (keeping it aligned with the finances one below it for comparison). Should be an easy change, and the raw data would still be there, just hidden, with an explanation to editors but not readers. djr13 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kovl: (oops forgot to ping) djr13 (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting it out would probably be easier for readers like me who just want glance over the graph and have a general idea of what happened. （I looked into that only because the membership count is inconsistent in several pages, namely César Chávez and Delano grape strike.) Showing the 27,000 somewhat defies the purpose of the graph of providing a simple overview of the trend as it suggests a significant drop if the reader did not bother reading the explanation. I also don't think there is any consistent data for that year. I would suggest commenting it out and maybe add a short explanation in the <ref> for further research. I'm not sure how to keep it aligned so I'll leave this thing to you. Thanks. --Kovl (talk) (Please ping me when replying) 06:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kovl: Done, though you should consider still adding some of that information to the article, if you have a chance. First, because it may be considered a notable incident worth mentioning (your call). Second, and more critically, it would add context for the current membership number listed in the infobox, as well as the political/economic issue of seasonal work as it affects union memberships. djr13 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a nice addition to the article, but I am afraid I cannot handle such in-depth topic with my inadequate high-school-level writing skill, moreover I don't have enough of time as the midterm is fast approaching. Thanks again for your help though. --Kovl (talk) (Please ping me when replying) 09:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UFW Flag vs Norteños Flag

[edit]

The "UFW Flag" linked is not the historical UFW flag, it's a Norteños-affiliated variant. Historically, the UFW huelga bird has 10 feathers, but the Norteños gang uses a modified huelga bird with 14 feathers, since they are affiliated with the number 14. The flag in this article has 14 feathers, and the filename for the the image is even "Nortenos.jpg", (strangely enough, it's not linked in the Norteños article). It's a huge oversight to represent a gang flag as the actual UFW flag. There are better flags floating around, particularly this flag, but I don't know enough about wikipedia to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.208.87 (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:United Farm Workers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There's no way this article is a grade B. There are no inline citations, the "Role" section is completely meaningless and poorly written. There's a mishmash of timeline and prose. This is a D, if for no other reason that it's too big to be a stub. 67.169.145.35 (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Farm Workers. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Membership chart

[edit]

The current graph showing the union's membership is quite poor, as it includes only the years of the 21sts century, when UFW membership has ranged from 5000 to 10,000. But fifty years ago, its membership was in the neighborhood of 80,000 members. Better graph needed; this is almost deceptive. Unschool 22:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huge copyright violation section at beginning of article

[edit]

The first four paragraphs of the body of the article are copied directly from the source cited, at this link Dolores Huerta Biography which states:

© 2011 A&E Television Networks. All rights reserved.

I am removing this right now and replacing with a brief original summary. The copyrighted content was added to the article in 2014, see this edit-- FeralOink (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UFW victories??

[edit]

This article on UFW would benefit greatly from some summary of the UFW's victories of the early 1970s, signing first labor contracts in farm worker history in California. I don't have the expertise on that, I'm afraid. RlwoodIACS (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Farm_Workers&oldid=1229065117"