Talk:Students for a Democratic Society

message: For talk before October 2007, see Talk:Students for a Democratic Society. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussions

message: *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)
thread_title: Attribution

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Attribution section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV Problem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any connection to German SDS (Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund)? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  See also/members 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough.  Fact-tagged.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification Needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Older Discussion Archives Missing? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that's helpful, thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''New Left Notes'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lede Section vague & boring 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title: "2006 and beyond"