Talk:Sit-in movement

Adding all individual sit-ins

The consensus is that the "See also" section of every sit-in article during the civil rights movement should not list individual sit-ins.

The consensus is that it is permitted to list only the Sit-in movement article in the "See also" section if the article does not already link it somewhere in the prose.

Cunard (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "See also" section of every sit-in article during the civil rights movement list individual sit-ins or should they only have the Sit-in movement article that lists all sit-ins during the civil rights movement? See the "See also" sections of Greensboro sit-ins, Nashville sit-ins, and Dockum Drug Store sit-in as examples. Mitchumch (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose: not necessary, conventional on Wikipedia to send readers to more general articles and lists, and Sit-in movement article includes those sit-ins with additional information. See WP:NAVLIST for relevant policy. Mitchumch (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The see also section is not a navbar. A single link to the article about the movement is more than enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose long list of sit-ins. That's what WP:NAVBOXes are for. The "See also" section of an article on an individual sit-in should't even have a link to Sit-in movement if this article is already linked somewhere in its prose, and if that's the only thing in its "See also" section, the section should not exist. These norms are covered at MOS:SEEALSO.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with SMcCandlish regarding length of list; reference in MOS:SEEALSO states "See also" links "should be limited to a reasonable number". LPW22 (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Randy Kryn Why are you restoring individual sit-in links when an article that covers all of them exists? Mitchumch (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

'See also' is not a category or a list, it's 'See also', which includes the individual pages as well as your new list page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Randy Kryn If "See also" is not a list, then why are you creating a list? As the number of articles on sit-ins increase, are we going to link all those links on every sit-in? There were dozens of sit-ins after Feb. 1, 1960 and that list is incomplete. This is a standard convention when an article is part of a larger group. Mitchumch (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

By not a category I mean that your new list shouldn't act as a category in the 'See also' section, a single entry containing each page. The extant pages should be clearly separated and included in the applicable 'See also' section, which they have been until your chart went up yesterday. Your chart acts as a list, but the links in 'See also', although they may seem like a list to you, are actually text pages which readers may want to read, and they are so far manageable and informative. Just listing your chart and nothing else would bring the reader one-step further away from each page, and even if they take that step they'd have to find the links within the chart. Including 'Sit-in movement' as the first item, but also including links to the text of important individual pages, gives the reader a wider choice and more information. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Randy Kryn The only reason those entries are on each sit-in article was due to the absence of a central article that lists all sit-ins. Are you proposing that as new articles for all the sit-ins are created that we add each individual sit-in to every sit-in article? There are currently 78 sit-ins listed. Mitchumch (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There were only a few, if that, which had an overall national impact, so the See also sections should contain these, the sit-ins older than 1960, and the Sit-in movement link. Seems a fair consensus. Another reason to include them is that if you list 78 sit-ins on the chart then the important ones are lost amid the overall structure of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Randy Kryn What do you mean by "There were only a few, if that, which had an overall national impact"? Mitchumch (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

? Seems clear enough, but that's my personal assessment, not quoting any sources. Greensboro and Nashville, of course, stand out, and I personally like Clara Luper's work in Oklahoma City before those two nationalized the sit-in movement's impact. One of the major networks even did a half-hour or hour prime time documentary on the Nashville Sit-ins. Myles Horton and James Lawson sure knew what they were doing when it came to training the right group of people to get the job done. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Randy Kryn The point of the sit-in movement article is to finally present the pivotal events, key people, tactics & strategies, impact on local communities, and impact of the sit-ins as a whole that was born from that wave of demonstrations. No one is going to infer any of that information from seeing a handful of sit-ins listed in the "See also" sections without context. I also don't want to add those same set of sit-ins on all 78 plus articles nor do I think it is necessary. Mitchumch (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You're getting somewhat ahead of yourself. That will be a wonderful article, and a fine vision. Cool, and what you have already done is create a very good list as a foundation, nice work. Yet the page you define above doesn't exist yet, and the lead, which is the only text that exists now, seems to downplay Nashville's successful movement which was already being organized when Greensboro occurred. The concise and important list exists, your chart is first class. For the time being maybe let's leave the See also sections as they are, with the addition of the Sit-in movement link, and revisit this once the fuller page emerges? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Include links per reasoning above. Mitch, you popped in a discussion question right in the middle of our communicating, kind of like building a house around an existing sofa where two people were talking without one of them knowing about it. That said, my explanations and reasoning is above. And that said, I noticed the house when I came back to the page to ask you to add The Children, David Halberstam's 1990 book, in the 'Books' section. That one really needs an article at some point, it's truly one of the major books about the Civil Rights Movement, an extremely important work, and should be a major source for this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Randy Kryn You were disappearing every time you left a comment for several hours at a time. I was eager to wrap this up. Besides I think there will be no agreement between us. The issue isn't earth shattering, but I want to bring some resolution to this discussion. I added the book. Don't be scared to added entries. Mitchumch (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, the article you created does not yet cover the topic. At this time it's a list of movement sit-ins, not an overview article about the sit-in movement. So this question is premature, as moving the already listed items from 'See also' to replace them with a large chart does not help the flow of information on the subject but puts a layer of having-to-find-and-click between the already written articles and the reader. This is a topic to be revisited later, not prematurely changed now. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Randy Kryn The "See also" section doesn't cover the topic. Those entries in the "See also" section are a hand picked list of movement sit-ins. You have surrounded those particular entries with some personal meaning that only you posses. There is now a main article for sit-ins. Those entries in the "See also" section are sit-ins. There is nolonger a need to list them individually when there is a main article. Mitchumch (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Civil Rights protesters and Woolworth's Sit-In, Durham, NC, 10 February 1960. From the N&O Negative Collection, State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. Photos taken by The News & (24495308926).jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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:

• Civil Rights protesters and Woolworth's Sit-In, Durham, NC, 10 February 1960. From the N&O Negative Collection, State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. Photos taken by The News & (24495308926).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 121 - U.S. History since 1877

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tamurray22, Jimmerferdet32 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Social Movement Explorer, Catason.

— Assignment last updated by Public-historian-90 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)