Talk:Stand in the Schoolhouse Door

Back door

I thought I read somewhere that this was just a publicity exercise, and that the Feds and Wallace had agreed to have the students walk in the back door during his stand so that the media couldn't photograph them. Does anyone have a source for that? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did the general say "It's my sad duty..."? Was he a bigot too? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have been simply polite and well mannered (he was talking to a democratically elected official in front of the press) unlike certain persons who quickly jump to insulting conclusions. Flamarande (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I initially thought it sounded bigoted as well; however it seems the General was active in defending civil rights (or at least did not renege his duty), so one could also interpret his describing it as "sad" to refer to the fact that the situation degraded to the point that an army general needed to demand the mayor step aside on orders from the President. Anthiety (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Frivolous References

This is my pet peeve on Wikipedia - an otherwise historic article followed up by a list of random tidbits from frivolous media. Where do we draw the line? Obviously a documentary is notable and relevant, but a MadTV skit, or 2 minute scene in a movie? It just de-bases the entire article. Anthiety (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Troopers unarmed

If I notice correctly, the two troopers on Wallace's left in the first photo have empty holsters. Were they expecting to be taken into custody by federal agents? knoodelhed (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hanging from the neck

Wallace has something hanging around his neck. What is it? Looks like some kind of electronic gadget, this might be relevant if it is some kind of recording device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun53 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Called President John F. Kennedy

This sentence: Katzenbach called President John F. Kennedy, who federalized the Alabama National Guard. confused me greatly. Eventually I decided that it must mean that Katzenbach telephoned JFK - is this correct? And federalized the Alabama National Guard - somehow JFK changed the status of the National Guard over the phone from state to federal? and this gave them greater authority? --catslash (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well maybe it should be clarified in the article, but here "federalize" means to put the guard under the direct command of the President, rather than the government of the state. Ishboyfay (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why leave out the Bob Dylan song?

Why leave out the Bob Dylan song?

Surely it was a significant needling at the time?

Anyone able to edit it into the article?

---

"Don’t stand in the doorway, don’t block up the hall"

Bob Dylan and George Wallace.

Bob Dylan is thought to have written The Times They Are A-Changin' some time in September / October 1963.

A few months earlier, on June 11, 1963, a national incident took place at the University of Alabama.

Two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, arrived at Foster Auditorium to register for classes. They were met by George Wallace, the Democratic Governor of Alabama, who blocked their entry by standing in the doorway in a symbolic attempt to keep his inaugural promise of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and stop the desegregation of schools.

This became known as the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door incident.

Bob Dylan was referencing Wallace's stand with the third stanza of his song:

Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don’t stand in the doorway Don’t block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There’s a battle outside and it is raging It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls For the times they are a-changing

In 2011, George Wallace Jr. published book about his father, "The Man You Never Knew".

He explains in the book that his father first ran for governor in 1958 as a moderate, even getting support from the NAACP, and he lost. Four years later, he was the staunchest candidate on segregation because that's what brought out big crowds.

"To a large extent it's about the bargain he had to make — perhaps a faustian bargain — for the power that he wanted," wrote George Wallace Jr.

Excerpt from a review of the book:

"Wallace recalls that when he was 14 in 1965, his father stopped by one night and asked for a song. Wallace had just learned Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin.'"

"The governor's face changed when his son got to the poignant lines, "Don't stand in the doorway. Don't block up the hall."

""I remember him turning to me with a startled look in his eyes. What was he thinking when he realized the lyric was about him?" Wallace asked."

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I found an article that detailed Wallace, Jr. talking about the incident and used that as a citation for a paragraph in the article. The book is a bit difficult to find. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Autherine Lucy 1956

It's not quite true that no African-American was admitted before 1963. Although she didn't succeed in staying due to riots and administrative shenanigans leading to her expulsion, nevertheless some mention should be made of Autherine Lucy. Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Please add the information to the article. Mitchumch (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Executive Order 11111

Executive Order 11111 has recently been created, covering much of the same ground as this article. I have prepared a merged version of the two articles at User:Bencherlite/sandbox1 and seek views on whether there is anything to be gained by keeping them apart. The full text of the order itself is on Wikisource already, so need not be included on Wikipedia as well. Bencherlite^Talk 08:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Only the first paragraph in EO, barring the final sentence, covers SITSD. The rest covers the fallout of the Order and related executive orders. Of course there will be a bit of overlap between the two because the Order was made in response to SITSD but had further reaching implications. In fact, the SITSD article didn't even mention Executive Order 11111 by name and as was said earlier, to merge them would give UNDUE to to the Order in the SITSD article. On another note, it fulfils GNG and the proposed STATUTE also stated that pieces of legislation are notable. While STATUTE may not be a policy, it is a helpful guideline. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • — Note to closing editor: The C of E (talk • contribs) is the creator of Executive Order 11111 that is the subject of this merge proposal. Bencherlite^Talk 09:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Only the first paragraph in EO, barring the final sentence, covers SITSD. So in other words, half of the article duplicates SITSD.
  • The rest covers the fallout of the Order and related executive orders. In other words, the rest of the article covers the fallout from the incident, and mentions one (not plural) related executive order.
  • As was said earlier You mean, "as I said earlier".
  • It fulfils GNG but that doesn't mean that it must be in a separate article - our readers are better served by learning about the incident and the aftermath in one article, rather than artificially splitting off part of the episode.
  • the proposed STATUTE also stated that pieces of legislation are notable WP:Notability (law) is a failed proposal and so is worthless for your arguments.
  • While STATUTE may not be a policy, it is a helpful guideline. No, it is a failed proposal and not even a guideline, let along a helpful one.
  • You haven't mentioned that you stand to gain WikiCup points from your DYK nomination of 11111, which might be thought to be a factor why you would not want a merge to take place. Bencherlite^Talk 09:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
    • You are trying to put words into my mouth. All content there is related to the Executive Order. I wrote it with my own words, I did not copy from the other article. As I said, of course there will be overlap as EO was in response to SITSD but had further reaching consequences as the order affected all schools in Alabama not just the University, a fact which is mentioned in the Order article. Futhermore, it is a little presumptive for you to assume I created it for WikiCup points. I further note that you didn't contest the fact that the Order is not even mentioned in the established SITSD article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I did not accuse you of copying - it is simply that the subject matter is duplicated since the two articles cover the same topic from two different angles. When people think about this, do they think about "SITSD" or do they think about "Executive Order 11111"? The former, surely, so let's have all the information in one article. Your bit of overlap is in fact half of your new, short article - not so little as to warrant two treatments of the topic. I agree that the order is not mentioned in the current version of the article - it is in my merged version, which is what I'm inviting discussion about - but actually you should have put a link in SITSD to your article when creating it, otherwise how would people find out about it? It would be an orphan and no use to anyone. You have still failed to say what is wrong with the merged version, I see. And finally, are you saying that you will not be claiming WikiCup points for this DYK nomination? Bencherlite^Talk 09:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is part of a larger list of Executive Orders. Please see List of United States federal executive orders and specifically List of executive actions by John F. Kennedy. I am not opposed to removing content not directly connected to the Executive Order 11111 article. Conversely, I am not opposed to removing content not directly connected to the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door article. Mitchumch (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of those executive orders don't have their own articles; this one does only because it was part of an independently notable historical event, about which we have an article already. Splitting the information across two articles seems strange. No-one has yet said what is wrong with the merged article I have drafted! Bencherlite^Talk 10:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Mitchumch, isn't this comparable to Executive Order 10924? That's just a redirect to Peace Corps because the subject of the executive order is independently worthy of an article and there's no point in duplication of information. The 11111 article would remain as a redirect and as a member of Category:Executive orders of John F. Kennedy. Bencherlite^Talk 08:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Merge – per Bencherlite's points, and support drafted merge article. Unlike other historic orders (like Executive Order 9066, which has far-reaching ramifications in terms of redress, apologies and compensation), this order has no effect today other than the minor technicality that it is still in force. That can easily be fitted into a single article (unlike 9066, which entailed interment of three different ethnic groups). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Merge yet another DYK spin off for no good reason, as clearly demonstrated by Bencherlite. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No it is not a spin-off, the SITSD article didn't even mention the order by name so how can there be a spin off when there was no content to spin off? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Per the nomination "Executive Order 11111 has recently been created, covering much of the same ground as this article.". Thanks, my vote stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Merge – Bencherlite has a good point here. His sandbox merge also shows that the story flows better if they are merged, there is no need for repetition. The EO itself doesn't seem to be notable independently of the SITSD event. HaEr48 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I have merged the articles. Bencherlite^Talk 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Vivian Malone registering.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vivian Malone registering.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 11, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-06-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Vivian Malone entering Foster Auditorium on June 11, 1963, to register for classes at the University of Alabama through a crowd that includes photographers, National Guard members, and Deputy U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. During the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door, George Wallace, the Democratic Governor of Alabama, stood at the door of the auditorium to try to block the entry of two black students, Malone and James Hood. Intended by Wallace as a symbolic attempt to keep his inaugural promise of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever", the stand ended when President John F. Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard and Guard General Henry Graham commanded Wallace to step aside.Photograph: Warren K. Leffler; restoration: Adam Cuerden

Reverted edit on 13 June 2019‎

SnowFire Please clearly explain to me why it is inappropriate for this specific article to use the parameter "side" from Template:Infobox civil conflict. According to the "Usage" section from that template, "side1/side2/side3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict."

What is it about this conflict that makes it an exception? Is it the presence of military personnel and commanding officers? Your explanations on 11 June 2019 and 13 June 2019 do not clearly state why you think this article is an exception. Mitchumch (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mitchumch. I don't feel the "sides" parameter improves the article, so like all optional parameters, out it goes. It's repeating the "notable people" but in a fashion that isn't that helpful - Wallace IS the Governor of Alabama. I'm not sure "civil conflict" is the best way to present this event anyway, as it is meant more for things like protests vs. counter-protests as the template documentation notes. Many historical events can be portrayed as "conflicts" with some squinting but the relationship is weak here. Anyway, all the information is in "notable people" so it should be left as that.

Finally, to amp down the language a bit, "inappropriate" is over the top for representing my position - it's not like it's a policy violation, but the "sides" param is not an improvement, just like any bit of content (e.g. somebody adding a long section about Governor Wallace's biography and background which might all well be true, but this would be the wrong place to have too much detail). In the same way, there's no "exception" here, there's no such standard in the first place that all optional parameters be filled out. Reverse if anything: any content added needs to be justified. But that's just procedural worries, main thrust of my point is the first paragraph above. SnowFire (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

incorrect infobox

The currently-employed {{infobox civil conflict}} is inappropriate for this article; it should be changed (possibly to {{infobox event}}) or removed. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)