Talk:Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)

Discography clean-up

If these "red-linked" groups are notable and someone writes an article about them they can be re-added:

• The Cyrus Clarke Band on California Stories
• Kerry Candaele on Gas Money
• Sabotabby on Celtibilly

Also, please try to include year of the recordings release and order the list by the artist's first year of recording the song. -MrFizyx 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems Weddings Parties Anything was listed as a Paul Kelly album but is actually a group, does anyone have the details of their recording? I'd also like to know then the song was included on the Billy Bragg single "Greetings To The New Brunette". Once dates and details are found for these, we can add them back into the list. -MrFizyx 17:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed entries for Joe Jencks & Blues Orphans since at this time there is no article about them. I'd be happy to see them added if someone writes the articles, I think they are notable enough (see WP:MUSIC) -MrFizyx (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass grave?

Can anyone verify the section on the "mass grave"? It was first added with a citation to the Fresno Bee by an I.P. editor (68.96.89.225). I have removed the portion that read, "The mass grave for the Deportees in Holy Cross Cemetery in Fresno California has been forgotten by the Mexican government and in 2003 a phone call to the cemetery provide little information." as this statement obviously does not meet the policy, WP:V. -MrFizyx 18:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BalladRiderCover.jpg

Image:BalladRiderCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Three women?

The "Check Six" reference gives the names of the deceased Mexican immigrants; among them are two Guadalupes and one Maria. Songflower (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

• Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos) → Plane Wreck at Los Gatos
• Deportee → Deportee (disambiguation)

– Primary topic. Use Deportee as a redirect to Plane Wreck at Los Gatos, which is the actual name of the song. Parentheses are used for disambiguation, not for titles. Apteva (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Sources suggest that the actual title of the work is Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos). Is there a reason we don't just stay with that? As for the primary topic claim, bollocks! Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  Not the case. The actual name of the song is "Plane Wreck at Los Gatos". It is also known as "Deportee".[1] Apteva (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (weakly) Regardless of its official title, the song seems to be very commonly known as "Deportee". Plugging in the title "Plane Wreck at Los Gatos" (e.g. [2]) rarely yields up that title by itself, but almost always conjoined to "Deportee". Thus, I think "Deportee" should be in the title as per WP:COMMONNAME, although I am not necessarily opposed to reversing the order "Plane Wreck at Los Gatos (Deportee)", if you are so inclined. Walrasiad (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose a "deportee" is someone deported. "deportee" should either redirect to Deportation, or stay a disambiguation page. It should not redirect to this song. -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I note that deporting, deported, deport, all redirect to deportation -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As others have pointed out (and backed with sources), the song is commonly known as "Deportee", and thus more likely to be searched for under that that term. Let's leave well enough alone.--JayJasper (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Separate article will be created on 1948 Los Gatos plan crash Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos) → 1948 Los Gatos plane crash – This article is an example of "the tail wagging the dog." It is about a notable plane crash in 1948 that claimed 32 people, including 28 Mexican farm workers. The bulk of the article is a description of the crash. The infobox is an aircraft accident infobox. Yet the title and lead focus not on the underlying tragedy but on a song that was written about it by Woodie Guthrie. I'm a big fan of Woodie Guthrie, but with all due respect I feel that this is daft, and that if Guthrie were alive he would agree with me. By all means there can and probably should be a separate article on the song, and certainly a reference to the song in the article on the crash. But the two should not be combined into one article focusing on the song as the primary topic. That's like making the main RMS Titanic article about DiCaprio movie, not the disaster. This is the kind of thing that leads people to believe that Wikipedia gives short shrift to minority groups, their lives and tragedies. If this article is retitled it will require only minor editing to make it consistent with the title. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment There was a previous discussion on moving to "Plane wreck at Los Gatos," but that concerned the name of the song, not the thrust of the article and its focus on the song and not the incident. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is about the song, not the plane wreck. The information about the wreck is included merely as background material. It is not the topic of the article. There might be grounds to create a new article about the accident itself, to avoid including it the song article in aviation templates. Walrasiad (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Walrasiad. Favor creating a separate article about the crash. Some of the content from this article could be moved to the new article, including the infobox (which should be about the song on this page).--JayJasper (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Your argument seems based on several flawed or inaccurate assumptions. Firstly, the song is much more notable than the plane crash itself...and by that I mean that more people in the English speaking world will be familiar with the song than the minutiae of the crash. Secondly, you say "the bulk of the article is a description of the crash" but this is untrue. The majority of the article is in fact about Guthrie's writing of the song, an analysis of the lyrics, Guthrie's possible misunderstanding of the Bracero program and a list of cover versions. Only two paragraphs in the "History" section deal with the details of the crash itself (which is important in understanding the context of the song).

"Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)" is a notable enough song under the criteria detailed at Notability (music) for a Wikipedia article and as such, this article should remain where it is in my view. By all means, create a new article at 1948 Los Gatos plane crash detailing the flight and crash, if this accident truly does meet the notability criteria required for an aircraft accident article…and move the aircraft accident infobox there. In my view, this article should essentially remain as it is (with a music infobox added). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In light of the comments above, I have no objection to simply creating an article about the crash, if that's the consensus. It's fine with me, and not a bad way of resolving the subject. I had previously assumed that if I "forked" the crash out of this article there would be objections, but apparently I was mistaken. So 'll just ask that this be closed out (or do it myself if that's OK) and create the separate article. Coretheapple (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"3 Rocks Research"

There is a paragraph which was inserted by user Kohoutek, and has been struck several times by multiple users, myself most recently because it is entirely speculative.

1. The page linked has barely any information. There are 4 paragraphs of text, 2 explanatory regarding the history of the crash, and two which are entirely unmotivated speculation that Guthrie "misunderstood" the nature of the flight. Specifically, they call out that the workers would not have lost their work visa status, which is entirely beside the point this citation is being used to advance - That Guthrie lacked sufficient understanding/context when writing the song. It has nothing to do with bureaucratic status of visas post deportation, assuming the crash of the plane didn't kill all of them.

2. 3 Rocks Research provides no citations for their own speculation. They reference no statements of Guthrie or his contemporaries to indicate their assumption of what he thought the nature of the labor agreement was is the one he did hold.

3."3 Rocks Research" is not, as is claimed by Kohoutek "a reliable source". As far as I can tell it is a local enthusiasts - possibly a single person's - webblog. It's devoted to the local area - and plumbing adverts. Edit, read through the site a bit more - The address listed on their website is a single family home in a residential section of Fresno California. This is (or was) one guy in his house with a computer making up whatever he wanted and putting it online - or, if he had any sources, he wasn't sharing them.

4. The paragraph is poorly written. "It has been suggested by". What has been suggested about things by any random user of the internet does not rise to the level of notability, even if those suggestions were backed up by any sources, or even a chain of deductive reasoning or intuition. In the interest of 'balance' there are also later sentences that simply state what other people may have thought.

5. Kohoutek says in their most recent restoration of their 3-rocks edit that this provides 'neutrality'. There is no need for neutrality. This is an explicitly political song written by an explicitly political actor. To on-the-one-hand/on-the-other is to deliberately misunderstand the nature of the man and his art. To describe the reactions of the public and the media is within bounds, to describe and discuss the effects the song has had on popular culture, consciousness or political movements is within bounds, as is a neutral view about whether this was a good thing or not. To simply state that it is important that we also hear the opinion that Guthrie didn't know what he was talking about, and that his opinion is invalid, based on a single unsourced source, which is a random blog, and to constantly resist any edits is quite simply, biased and motivated.

If Guthrie was too stupid to know what he was talking about in a protest song about our policy of excluding non-whites after expropriating their labor, which in that instance led to many avoidable deaths, you will need to prove this with a lot more sourcing than a short unsourced entry on a single blog that does not actually even address the point it is trying to make with its sole argument.

Unless anyone other than the author of this paragraph - which has been struck multiple times by the community - can come up with a real reason it should stay, it goes. 73.182.158.50 (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm definitely not "3 Rocks Research" -- I live just outside London, England, not in Fresno. :) These are all good and valid points and, I must admit, I hadn't quite realised how much this was a self-published source. I would still argue that the text does increase the neutrality of the article, but since it is essentially a self-published source, that's kind of a moot point. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to come at you so hot. If you're not from here (and even if you were, if you're not from California) you could be excused for not picking up on the local biases - that persist to this day - regarding hispanics in general, immigration, and migrant labor. To include the dogwhistles deployed by the people who think the clear sighted unbiased criticism of outsiders can be dismissed specifically because it comes from outside.

Very common argument used in the US south during Civil Rights, and nowadays during social justice protestors. Those complaining are always 'outside agitators' who don't understand the local culture and 'want to cause trouble'.

More than willing to be convinced, but 3 rocks would first need to demonstrate that Guthrie cared at all about the visa status, that that was his primary motivating reason behind writing the poem/song (despite him being on record saying in interviews and in the song itself, that it was the erasure of their identities that motivated him to write it), and that his understanding of the visa bureaucracy was in fact mistaken.

Given that they assume all 3 points in order to take a swipe at a New York leftist who criticized their society/culture? I think a higher burden of proof is warranted. Anyway, thanks for being reasonable, sorry again for getting hot. 73.182.158.50 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)