Talk:Students for a Democratic Society

Old discussions

For talk before October 2007, see Talk:Students for a Democratic Society. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

• The original version of this article incorporated text from the Wikipedia article Students for a Democratic Society. -- But|seriously|folks  02:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Title

The title should be changed to Students for a Democratic Society (1960s organization)Fairlane75 (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the present title choice was deliberate on my part. It was chosen to indicate the year the organization was founded. According to this article, the 1960s SDS first appeared in 1960, thus the "1960 organization" bit. Yes, it went on for some time longer than that, but it's sufficiently descriptive, just like how there's now another SDS, that was formed in 2006, and is marked as such. It also has lasted past its founding year. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Attribution section

Is this really necessary? Saying that the article includes text from an earlier version of the same article with a different title? The justification given is that it is necessary for GFDL compliance, but that seems a little absurd to me. I'll read through the GFDL when I have time later today, or, alternatively, if anybody wants to do something about this/explain this justification to me now... --superioridad ^(discusión) 00:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The proper attributions are already placed in more appropriate locations, as that "attribution" section is highly non-standard. Who on earth put that in there? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Problem

The article is written from the POV of an old SDSer. Needs a more objective tone and less editorial leading.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Any connection to German SDS (Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund)?

There was an organization in Germany at the same time and with pretty similar views and goals, also abbreviating to SDS, the Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund, which was the backbone of the German student movement. Was there any connection or is this just a coincidence? -- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See also/members

An editor recently added a long list of names to "See also". Presumably, those were members. A list of notable (blue linked) members would be appropriate, if we have adequate sources for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The majority of these names appear identified as members in Helen Garvy's "Rebels with a Cause," a documentary film (and associated book) on the subject. The rest are identified as SDS members within their individual biographical entries on Wikipedia.--Historytrain (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Then we can use the sources in those biographies as cites for a list, along with the film/book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback: I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and am not sure of either the process or the protocol for reinstating the members list I created (and SchuminWeb deleted). As a compromise measure, I'd like to create a child entry to the SDS entry that might serve as a members list. Is that something you think would be appropriate, and if so, might you be in a position to help me do it? I would then work to annotate the names appearing on the list. Thanks for considering this request. --Historytrain (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing that's very important nowadays is making sure that assertions about living people are properly sourced. I suggest working on the sources first, and adding names as sources can be found, rather than restoring the whole list and then trying to find the sources. Second, lists on Wikipedia are traditionally limited to "notable" people, notability determined by the presence of a Wikipedia article. In other words, "red-linked" names should be left off, unless there is strong evidence that an article is well-deserved and overdue. Here's what I suggest. Work on the list on a draft page, Talk:Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization)/draft, and once enough names have been added with sources copy it into the article under the heading, "Notable members". Then we can add more names as we find the sources for them. Does that sound reasonable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems entirely reasonable. Thanks for the advice. I don't want to clutter the main entry, but I would like to help readers/researchers get a better sense of the membership of SDS beyond Tom Hayden. Your suggestion should help accomplish that very effectively. Many, many thanks!--Historytrain (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources?

The statement "By 1968 and 1969 they would profoundly affect SDS, particularly at national gatherings of the membership, forming a well-groomed, disciplined faction which followed the Progressive Labor Party line." seems to beg for some support. Elfride.swancourt (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Fact-tagged. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:39, 1 December 2009 (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 move per request as the primary topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization) → Students for a Democratic Society — It seems obvious to me that the 1960s SDS (covered by this article) is a much more noteworthy organization than the 2006 one. Two considerations supporting this view: the 1960s organization article refers to a number of books solely about that organization, while AFAIK, there are no books about the 2006 organization, and the traffic statistics tool says this article was viewed 7000 times this month, while the article on the 2006 organization was only viewed 1500 times. So the 1960s organizations is a primary topic, and should be covered at the Students for a Democratic Society article, which is currently a disambiguation page. VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. Article hits don't mean much, and additionally, it seems too soon for there to be books written about an activist group that's not even four years old yet, vs. an organization that existed more than 30 years ago. Historically, the reason that this page exists as it was is because there was previously one article for both SDSes. It was determined to make the split because the two organizations were separate, but neither one had precedence over the other as a primary topic, and then turn the original title into a disambiguation page. I believe that neither of the two SDSes has a claim as the "primary topic", and thus the current disambiguated main title seems most correct. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm inclined to support the move. It's hard to gather statistics on this. One that's easy to find is the number of inbound links from other articles. It appears that the 2006 group has about 30 links while the 1960 group has about 280 links.[1][2] Of articles that link to the disambiguation page (there shoujdn't be any, but they're another indication) it looks like most if not all refer to the 1960 organization. Is there any indication that the 2006 group has anywhere near the prominence, even today, of the 1960 group?   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Despite the bias for recent subjects (which is probably why the 2006 organization has as many hits as it has), the 1960 organization has already secured an outsize place in history. Even the 2006 organization was an attempt to 'revive' it, or at least appropriate its name and goals. Quigley (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. With only two articles it's best to get the majority where they want to go directly, with a hatnote for the minority to get where they want to go with one click. No one wants to land on a dab page. Based on the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC this article is clearly what most people are seeking. It has 10 times the incoming links and as recently as May had 10 times the pageviews. In May the dab page at Students for a Democratic Society had 18,027 views, this article had 19,808 views, and the 2006 org had 1,698 views, indicating that less than 10% of readers were looking for the New SDS. (There was a spike for the 2006 org in late July/early Aug, but even then its views were many fewer than the original org.) Station1 (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

Clarification Needed

The last paragraph under the early years section needs a year included (where it says "October 1,") --Ganstaform11 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Older Discussion Archives Missing?

The first section on this talk page mentions older discussion from before October 2007 being moved to another location, but it's not linked and I can't seem to find it anywhere. Does anybody know where that discussion is? As I understand it, that page would include the record of a decision to split of Students for a Democratic Society (2006 Organization) as a separate article, which imo should be retained here (or at least linked to from here) for archival purposes. I checked on the talk page for Students for a Democratic Society (2006 Organization), but the discussion content in question isn't there either. Anybody know where that older discussion content is? Thanks. 131.156.156.20 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(1960_organization)&oldid=388039097. If you think it may be valuable, you can undo this edit and then link to that talk page. Station1 (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

New Left Notes

This article mentions New Left Notes a couple of times (and cites it at a few points) but never describes it or contextualises it – beyond what's implicit we never learn when it was published, by whom, etc. Can something be added somewhere that would provide clarity? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Have added something on New Left Notes--does that do the job. ManfredHugh — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManfredHugh (talk • contribs) 08:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ManfredHugh: Yes, that's helpful, thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Lede Section vague & boring

All the lede says is: 1) Another 60's self-important hippy organization, 2) with 30,000 supporters recorded nationwide by its last national convention in 1969. Yawn.. Fortunately I happen to know better. (Like most (non-desperate) readers I too ignore [despicable] lazy-link rabbit-holes.) Please see: MOS:LEDE

"The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. ...consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, ...."

--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:E4FA:E6D7:7E44:8D28 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Just Saying

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

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

• Womens liberation movement.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"2006 and beyond"

Have transferred the reversed edit to the Wiki article on Democratic Socialists of America under the Section "2020 election" where it is more appropriate. This article is about the SDS of the 1960s, so there really is no "2006 and beyond." 2006 is only mentioned because of the founding of an organisation of the same name, i.e. the new SDS. The May 2020 open letter the edit references is from members of the 1960s SDS, but they cannot speak for that long defunct movement. The issue they are addressing concerns not the SDS but the contemporary DSA--its refusal to endorse Biden ManfredHugh (talk)

I agree with your decision. Mentioning the existence of new DSA is probably relevant from a legacy standpoint, but going in detail about modern-day policy disputes is too granular. And I appreciate you moving the information to the relevant page, rather than simply deleting. Jlevi (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)