Template:Did you know nominations/Sitdown strike
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sitdown strike
- ... that there were 583 sitdown strikes in the United States from 1936 to 1939, affecting over a half-million workers? Source:
- US Department of Labor, Division of Industrial Relations (May 1939). "Analysis of Strikes in 1938". Monthly Labor Review: Table 16.
- US Department of Labor, Division of Industrial Relations (May 1940). "Strikes in 1939". Monthly Labor Review: 28-29.
- Reviewed:
- Comment: The cited sources are online here: https://www.bls.gov/wsp/publications/annual-summaries/pdf/strikes-in-1939.pdf and here: https://www.bls.gov/wsp/publications/annual-summaries/pdf/analysis-of-strikes-in-1938.pdf
Source 1 states: "The number of sit-down strikes in 1936, 1937, and 1938 by months, with the number' of workers involved, is given in table 16."
Table 16 lists the same numbers of strikes given in source 2 below. It lists workers involved as follows: 1936: 87,817 1937: 398,117 1938: 28,749
Source 2 states: "In 1936 there were 48 so-called sit-down strikes. In 1937 the number increased to 477, but by 1938 they decreased to 52. There were only 6 strikes during 1939 in which all or part of the strikers remained at their workplaces for one or more days after ceasing work. he number of workers idle in connection with these 6 strikes was 3,416, although the number participating in the sit-down or stay-in feature is not known."
This sentence involves a very encyclopedic form of synthesis in that it adds numbers from two consecutive studies by the same source. Similar synthesis, but without inclusion of the latter number appears in Sidney Fine's book Sitdown, cited in the article.
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Carwil (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC).
QPQ not needed, expansion is recent and article is long enough. Hook is properly sourced. However, Earwig detected a 43.2% similarity. Before I pass this nom, I think it would be suitable to trim down some quotes, if possible. Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the Earwig similarity report, which highlights passages that are either in quotes or comprise part of citations (including the journal name and another cited article). The longest passage is the summary of the Matignon Agreement, a quotation I don't think I can improve upon. I've revised the article to reduce the amount of material directly quoted from Torigian and from Adamic, but keep Adamic's longer definition and Torigian's POV that the mid-1930s strikes were a distinct phase of using the tactic. Let me know whether you think these changes sufficiently reduce the reliance of direct quotations.--Carwil (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, here's the Earwig similarity report with bibliography temporarily removed.
Fair rationale. Passing nomination. LunaEcplise (for the record I'm Davest3r08) (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
