User:LizVel/sandbox

Article Evaluation (Alonzo Horton)

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

'''The section of the Wikipedia article discussing his intervention of returning the extra dollar that a man gave him while selling a pig in New York is rather distracting. There needs to be a tie in or have it correlate to the sentence "by his 20's he had developed a keen entrepreneurial spirit." There seems to be some grammatical and wording errors that may distract the reader or have them re-read the sentence in order to better understand what the article is talking about.'''


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

'''The information discussing Alonzo Horton's involvement in San Diego should be in its own section in the article, including his initial arrival to the city. What could also be added in the personal life section should be the involvement of him and his wife within San Diego and the emphasis he had in creating many known landmarks in Downtown San Diego.'''


 * What else could be improved?

'''There is some bias in the work that portrays Alonzo Horton in a positive light. There should be a neutral stand point by adding some of the negative aspects that Alonzo Horton did rather only maintaining the positive aspects. Furthermore there should be more information of Alonzo Horton's work as a philanthropist in the San Diego area during the Progressive movement.'''


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

'''There isn't really a neutral standpoint as the article for the most part seems to praise Alonzo Horton for his skills as an entrepreneur. This can particularly be seen in the quote which seems to be the overall claim in the article stating that "Alonzo Horton went down in history as a tireless, enthusiastic supporter of the interests of whatever locality he happened to be living in."'''


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

'''There is a strong underrepresentation on the descriptions of Horton's involvement in Hortonville, Wisconsin. There isn't any description of his initial plans, his purpose or any important aspects of the founding of ths town except for the fact that he named the town after himself. There needs to be more of a description of what drove him to create this city and what happened to the city as a result or any important landmarks he left behind in the city.'''


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

'''The claims in the article seem to be copy and pasted from the original website source, and there isn't any acknowledgement of other aspects he did in his life besides Wisconsin and San Diego, something that the original source does discuss towards the end. Furthermore, when clicking one of the other links listed in the reference page, a blank page shows up with the words "That page can't be found. One source seems to have only one aspect of information relevant to the entire article, but the rest of the original source has nothing to do with Alonzo Horton's involvement with the Unitarian Church.'''


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

'''The references seem to be from approved websites that do focus on historical figures and key events as well as databases. The rest seem to be from books that only link to a preview read from Google Books. There is only biased towards the Unitarian Church website discussing the early formations in San Diego, where there seems to be more emphasis on the church members and less involvement towards Horton's influence on the church itself and its founding.'''


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

'''The conversations discussed concerning this article seem to focus more on the contradiction over whether or not Horton had any children. The original article seems to have stated that he did not have any children, however one of the editors seems to have found a source stating that one of his own children claimed that Alonzo Horton had married five times. There also appears to have been a modification of the external links and their overall format found in the references section of the article'''


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

'''According to Wikipedia, this article is rated as a C-Class or a Start-class/low importance category. It is also part of the Balboa Park Project, the Wiki-project for Biography, Wiki-project California/Southern California, and finally Wikiproject Connecticut and Wikiproject Wisconsin.'''


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

'''Wikipedia seems to discuss this topic as in to find whether or not the overall facts presented in this article are considered genuine or not. In contrast to how we discuss in class, where there seems to be more of an emphasis in a topic's importance in every aspect of a historical period's people and society; there is rather an more importance to stay neutral and to present all information on the table that is relevant to the subject regardless of its portrayal of the topic in a positive or negative light'''

3 ARTICLE SELECTION
Mexican Movement of 1968


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

'''The article's content is relevant to the topic in that it provides a well detailed summary mainly focusing on the event of the protest and the key factors that led up to the defining moment of what happened during this movement. There seems to be some aspects of the article that are missing such as "the silent march" and there isn't any further description discussing into further detail of what the police had caused. There seems to be more information on the introductory section than there is on the main sections describing each aspects of the protest. Also, since this event did take place during the Olympics at 1968, there seems to not have any description on what other countries responded to the event. Since this was at an international event, there should be more information of what the government did to explain the situations to the other countries present. Also, there needs to be more information on whether or not this had a stronger influence on the overall counterculture movement in North America. Did it fuel counterculturalists in the US? Did this event influence student protesters in the US or in other countries where youth protesting was high? How did outside countries or the US government respond to the event?'''


 * Is it written neutrally?

'''There seems to be more of a bias towards the student protesters and the information seems to be too brief. There seems to be only an interest in presenting the information rather than portraying both sides leading up to the event and the aftermath that came as a result. If the article had more information on the demographic of the students and the overall responses that the government did to appeal the students as well as more descriptions of the aftermath, there would've been a more neutral stance. Even though the bias is not directly written in the article, by how the article is structured, the reader can sense an implied bias towards the students'''


 * Does each claim have a citation?

'''Some of the claims do have citations while other lists of information seem to lack a citation or source that shows where the writer received that information. Overall, there are a good amount of cites, but some claims and information presented in different articles may need some citations.'''


 * Are the citations reliable?

'''For the most part, the citations come from reliable sources and from authors with credentials. Few of these citations can't be accessed on the internet and are in the form of a physical version, however alot of these can be accessed online. There are three authors that seem to reoccur in the list of sources, so there might need to be more variety in sources. One source seems to be a Youtube video of footage on the event so it is debatable whether that specific footage can be counted as reliable or not.'''

Chicana Rights Project

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

'''The article's content is relevant to the topic in that it discusses the origins and motivations behind the creation of this project. It also discusses the overall purpose and intended impact that this organization wanted to have in the community it was located in and the main key figures who ran this organization. What would be improved would be to add more information on the important aspects that this organization had in the Hispanic community and further detail on the programs or resources that they game to Chicana women. It would also be nice if the article discussed the response that the community had, both good and bad towards this organization. It only briefly summarizes when in certain sections there could be more information to add upon.'''

Is it written neutrally?

'''Even though it appears to be neutral in the initial section discussing the organization overall, there seems to be a lack of going into further detail on going into the main points focused on the organization. It seems to want to portray the organization in a positive light despite the amount of small information that it has. In order to be more neutral than it already is, it would need to have the responses that other organizations had to this specific one. There could be more descriptions of the differences that the two leaders of the organization had and the factors leading up to it; to continue off of this the article could've also briefly summarized the notable court cases that this organization took part in rather than simply linking them to another article'''.

Does each claim have a citation?

Each claim presented does have a citation, everything is listed in the Works Cited section of the article.

Are the citations reliable?

The sources seem to be reliable, even though a few sources can be accessed online, most sources come from the official website of the project itself or from academic journals that focus on history and social work.

Goddess of Democracy

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

'''The majority of the article is very relevant to the topic in that it discusses the purpose behind the creation of the statue and the overall symbolism that the statue had in an important aspect in history. This article discusses the reaction of the Chinese public to the statue, however it doesn't discuss the government's view or the perspective of other countries towards the creation of this piece. However, there is one section of the article titled "Democracy University" that seems to be out of place and it could be improved by having a tie in with the creation or symbolism behind the statue.'''

Is it written neutrally?

'''The article is written in a neutral perspective by providing only factual content and events where both sides were involved and not solely focusing on what one group did and not on the other. There is a balance of information portraying the two sides. However since there is so much information provided there needs to be more organization on dividing each section to its respective piece.'''

Does each claim have a citation?

Each claim does seem to have a citation and there are images provided to the reader in respect to what each section is discussing.

Are the citations reliable?

'''At the most part a good portion of the citations seem to come from reliable sources, there is a question to whether or not these sources are up to date or not. One issue was that when I clicked to one of the citation links presented in the Works Cited, a window saying Error 404 not found appeared on the page. However it seems that the original source did come from an accredited website.'''

Sources for Wikipedia Article
https://www.pbs.org/video/the-lemon-grove-incident-gcrfxv/

http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/1986/april/lemongrove/

https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/lemon-grove-incident/

http://pointloma.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62065544895&site=ehost-live

https://aztlan.sdsu.edu/chicanohistory/chapter07/c07s02.html

https://patch.com/california/lemongrove/lemon-grove-incident-remembered-80-years-later

http://pointloma.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ793848&site=ehost-live

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/26/local/me-alvarez

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com.pointloma.idm.oclc.org/lib/pointloma-ebooks/reader.action?docID=895466&ppg=95

https://search-proquest-com.pointloma.idm.oclc.org/docview/1022987077/AC59BBD65FEF46A7PQ/13?accountid=13223

file:///C:/Users/eliza/Downloads/The%20Lemon%20Grove%20Incident%20-%20San%20Diego%20History%20Center%20_%20San%20Diego,%20CA%20_%20Our%20City,%20Our%20Story.pdf

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160ACR146

https://www-jstor-org.pointloma.idm.oclc.org/stable/40543670

https://www-jstor-org.pointloma.idm.oclc.org/stable/1373047

https://www-jstor-org.pointloma.idm.oclc.org/stable/3700092

https://www-jstor-org.pointloma.idm.oclc.org/stable/20185106

LEMON GROVE INCIDENT EDITING
The Lemon Grove Case (Roberto Alvarez vs. the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District), commonly known as the Lemon Grove Incident, was the United States' first successful school desegregation case. The incident occurred in 1930 and 1931 in Lemon Grove, California, where the local school board attempted to build a separate school for children of Mexican origin. On March 30, 1931, the Superior Court of San Diego County ruled that the local school board's attempt to segregate 75 Mexican and Mexican American elementary school children was a violation of California state laws because ethnic Mexicans were considered White under the state's Education Code. Although often overlooked in the history of school desegregation, the Lemon Grove Case is increasingly heralded as the first victory over segregative educational practices and as a testimony to the Mexican immigrant parents who effectively utilized the U.S. legal system to protect their children's rights.

Background[edit]
The segregation of Mexican and Mexican American children was commonplace throughout the Southwest in the early-to-mid 1900s. While the California Education Code did not explicitly allow for the segregation of children of Mexican descent, approximately 80% of California school districts with substantial Mexican and Mexican American populations were segregated. The other 20% of school districts maintained partial forms of segregation, such as segregated classrooms within mixed schools. School boards in cities such as Pasadena, Santa Ana, Riverside, and Los Angeles offered various rationales for such segregation. Many districts relied on linguistic arguments, claiming that segregation was necessary given English "language handicaps". Others cited the need to train Mexican and Mexican American youth for "appropriate" jobs. Several districts argued that "Americanization" schools were necessary to properly assimilate Mexican and Mexican American youth. Authorities often promised that Mexican and Mexican American youth could be integrated upon their mastery of the English language and their complete Americanization; yet these pledges almost always went unfulfilled. Records indicate that such "Mexican schools" had substandard facilities, shorter school years, and poorer quality of instruction. Furthermore, in the city of Lemon Grove itself there was a growing resentment against its Mexican population due to the sudden rise in growth rates for this particular demographic as well as the overall fear of the loss of white collar jobs from US citizens and giving them to Mexican Americans.

Case background[edit]
In this context, the integrated grammar school of Lemon Grove was an anomaly. The Mexican and Mexican American students, children to the fifty-odd Mexican immigrant families from Baja California, accounted for about half of the school's 169 students. Furthermore, the student population found within the Lemon Grove School District was approximately 75 Mexican and Mexican American students and 95 white students. On July 23, 1930, the all-Anglo Lemon Grove school board decided to build a separate school for children of Mexican heritage without giving notice to their parents. The plan was discussed by the school board and subsequently endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and local PTA. By August, the board felt that the "situation had reached emergency conditions" due to overcrowding and "sanitary and moral" issues stemming from the Mexican and Mexican American youth. Furthermore, in this plan to separate these students from their peers, the school board expected that "the Mexican community would docilely separate itself and send its children to the new school."

This "new school" where the students were to be separated  was an old two room building that came to be known within the local Mexican American community as la caballeriza, meaning "the barn". After an emergency meeting between the board was conducted on August 13, the Mexican and Mexican American students of the school were expelled and later on their school supplies/belongings and desks were later transferred to the building. On January 5, 1931, Lemon Grove Grammar School principal Jerome Green, acting under instructions from school trustees, turned away Mexican children at the schoolhouse door, directing them to the new school. In response, parents were outraged at the response refused to send their children to the new school, since they were not allowed back at the main schoolhouse, this resulted in a boycott. Through this boycott, 75 students remained at home and the local press took note of this protest, writing this in the headlines as "the Mexican Student Strike."

Despite their lack of representation in official channels of power such as the PTA or the Chamber of Commerce, the parents quickly organized El Comité de Vecinos de Lemon Grove (the Lemon Grove Neighbors Committee). The parents sought the assistance of the Mexican consul in San Diego, Enrique Ferreira, who put them in touch with two attorneys. These two San Diego attorneys were Fred Noon and A. C. Brinkley. Noon worked in the city since 1928 and knew Spanish in order to communicate with parents. The Comité also sought the support of the broader Mexican and Mexican American community on both sides of the border, the Mexican government also gave this parent organization their full support as they protested against his decision made by the school board and the PTA. Furthermore, the community in Lemon Grove responded with both moral and financial support that allowed the Comité to cover the costs of the upcoming lawsuit. Other responses from the community included the support of Mexican and Spanish speaking news media from Mexico and the US; one particular news outlet known as La Opinion was able to closely follow and report on the legal actions and wrote editorials supporting the students involved in the strike. Through these media outlets, El Comité was able to gain significant support from "the community, the press and the Mexican Consul."

Lawsuit, trial, decision and results [edit]
The Comité, with the assistance of Noon and Brinkley, filed a suit against the Lemon Grove School Board in the Superior Court of California in San Diego on February 13, 1931. Submitted in the name of Mexican American student Roberto Alvarez, the petition accused the school board of "an attempt at racial segregation… by separating and segregating all the children of Mexican parentage". The suit also pointed out that 95% of the children who the school board sought to segregate were U.S. citizens and thus "entitled to all the rights and privileges common to all citizens of the United States. Alvarez and ten other students gave their recounts that proved that their separation of the school was actually built on inaccurate information concerning the intelligence and learning capabilities of Mexican and Mexican American students and a prejudiced assumption that these students didn't have an understanding of the English language. Alvarez himself was chosen to be named as the plaintiff for this court case due to the fact that his academic records proved to be a counter to what the school board was presenting to the court case.

The Lemon Grove school board denied all of the suit's allegations and, asking school boards throughout the Southwest, insisted that the separate facility was designed for the benefit of the Mexican and Mexican American youth. The Board maintained that the school was not designed to segregate Mexican children; rather, it argued: 1) that the new facility could house up to 85 pupils and that it boasted a fully equipped playground, 2) that the facility was located in the predominantly Mexican area of town so that children could travel safely to school without risking the walk across the main road, 3) that the majority of the children lacked sufficient knowledge of English and could benefit from special attention, and 4) that it was an Americanization school in which "backward and deficient" children could receive better, and more appropriate, instruction. The evidence revealed in trial challenged the "backward and deficient" characterization of the Mexican and Mexican American children and, most pointedly, the board's location and language arguments.

The landmark lawsuit resulting from the "Lemon Grove Incident" became the first successful school desegregation court decision in the history of the United States. On March 30, 1931, the presiding Judge Chambers issued his ruling in favor of Roberto Alvarez. The judge repudiated each of the school board's claims. Although allowing that the school board could "separate a few children to offer special instruction," he wrote, "to separate all the Mexicans in one group can only be done by infringing the laws of the State of California." In the decision, the judge ruled that children of Mexican origin could not be segregated under the laws of the state of California, because they were "of the Caucasian race", and laws allowing the segregation of "Oriental", "Negro", and "Indian" children therefore did not apply. The judge also ruled in favor of Alvarez during this court case since he believed that "the pedagogical and curricular segregation" that the board wanted to implement actually inhibited on how these students needed to learn and in fact needed to be exposed to other American children which in his words was "so necessary to learn the English language."

The decision was not appealed, in large part due to the perceived risk of further financial burdens to the district and negative public image. For decades, the only official mention of the court case in local records came in the notes of a post-trial school board meeting, "All members of the board present. On account of having lost the court decision there was some discussion about the return of Mexican (children) pupils but only a spirit of good will prevailed, and it was decided that everything was to continue exactly as it did prior to January 5th." Not even the history of the Lemon Grove School from 1880 to 1966, prepared by a former superintendent, referenced the case.

The ruling did result in the immediate re-entrance of the Mexican and Mexican American students to the grammar school; the school did not appeal to the court case and instead rapidly followed the decisions following the court case. However, the ruling did not have concrete implications for desegregation in other segregated California schools. It was not until over a decade later, with Mendez v. Westminster, that schools desegregated statewide.

Significance[edit]
Despite its initial obscurity and limited broader impact, the Lemon Grove Case has increasingly gained recognition for its place in the trajectory of school desegregation as the first successful desegregation case. Moreover, scholars agree that the case constitutes a testament to the Mexican immigrant families who, despite a hostile political climate, refused to accept separate and inferior educations for their children and who leveraged the U.S. legal system to challenge such a violation of their children's rights. As noted by historian Robert Alvarez Jr., "This was the first situation when a group of immigrants had gotten together, challenged a school board and won." Some scholars also believe that the case may have contributed to the defeat of a bill in the California state legislature (commonly known as the "Bliss Bill") that would have made it legal to segregate children of Mexican descent under the state's education code. At the local level, too, the case has received recognition. Another aspect that this court case left behind was the issue regarding classifying Mexican Americans as being "white." Particularly concerning Judge Chamber's ruling on the students' being classified "of the Caucasian race." The verdict that came as a result from this case "did not challenge racial segregation per se" which meant that this exception would not span out to all students of color; in  a sense these students weren't categorized under a group that enabled them to be permitted under the law to be segregated by districts and schools. The judge's ruling for the students in favor of the students in this court case was viewed as that the learning capability of these students "would help them overcome their colored status" through their education. Furthermore, since this court case did not expand or create an effect that led to the eventual desegregation of other schools in the state, the case was only recognized at a local level.

In 1986, PBS with the collaboration of an ethnic studies professor in UCSD, Robert Alvarez, made a documentary film highlighting historical footage and interviews in order to portray the actions done by parents and students as part of the protest against the school board On March 9, 2007, the Lemon Grove School District recognized Roberto Alvarez, the schoolboy who was the lead plaintiff in the case. The auditorium at the Lemon Grove Middle School, which is on the site of the former grammar school, was dedicated in his honor. Furthermore, in 2011 to commemorate the 80 years since this trial occurred, a professor from Palomar college arranged for the screening of a documentary focusing on the lives of Mexican Americans living during the time period this court case was held and titled this as "The Lemon Grove Oral History Project." On May 5th 2016, in order to commemorate the 85 years since the court case was ruled a bill was created in acknowledging March, 30th as being a historic date to remember concerning the City of Lemon Grove.