Jump to content

Talk:Rosa Parks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Opening comments

first off. wikipedia is a great site for african americans.... you can get a lot of information for projects!

Thanks, anonymous user. Tokerboy

Could someone look into the details of Irene Morgan? The way she's listed, the article makes it sound like the NAACP did not represent her. But in fact, her case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and she was represented by Supreme Court lawyers. As I understand it, she actually won that case, but on Commerce Clause grounds (because she was on an interstate bus) rather than 14th Amendment grounds, which may explain why Rosa Parks is more famous. So that's a pretty egregious error. But I might have this all wrong, I'm relying on a single unconfirmed source. Katahon 21:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Outkast

okay i know all of you think that this wasnt a serious case but, i belive it is considering that they are both african americans and she helped make them free. Thanks-jujupuff

The section on Outkast lawsuit is completely useless. It refers to some lawsuit about Outkast being dropped, but doesn't explain how their was a lawsuit in the first place. I assume Outkast are some kind of punk band, and they either made a song with her name in it or they used her in a video, or referred to her something else. Either way it needs explaining

NPR has described Rosa Parks's activist training before the bus event, and her planning it, rather than just being so tired that on the spur of the moment civil disobedience felt more attractive than complying. I've never heard the story elsewhere, but if it's verifiable, IMO it is important to the article. --Jerzy(t) 00:30, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Should be verifiable. It's well known. She studied at the Highlander School, which I see lacks an article, see [1]. See also [2] for Rosa Parks being at the Highlander School. -- Jmabel 01:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's absolutely true. It isn't well known -- like so much history, it's taught as if events occurs almost haphazardly, rather than people organizing for social change. Oh well. Wikipedia can help change that with more information about things than your average encyclopedia -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 01:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think you all missed the point, and I edited the article to try to help, but I'm not at all sure that my framing of the issue is right, either. The point is that the article claimed something that was simply false, namely that the NAACP had turned away Irene Morgan. That's manifestly untrue, as they actually litigated her case all the way to the Supreme Court and won. The issue raised by Katahon is NOT whether or not Rosa Parks somehow worked to get her case heard, or if her selection was due to her activism, or whatever. That's not really an issue, and why should it be? Anyone who thinks that it detracts from the mythology of Rosa Parks hasn't really got a grasp on how Supreme Court quality test cases come about.

The point is that it's a slur against the NAACP, and a simple factual error, to say that they had turned away prior protestors. That's a sort of "anti-myth" that's still a myth.

The reality is that NAACP pursued a very successful legal strategy over a very long time period, attacking segregation laws in a piecemeal fashion. They established precedent in small areas, and worked to expand that precedent. The Irene Morgan case overturned state segregation laws on Commerce Clause grounds, which meant that state laws mandating bus seating would no longer apply to busses travelling interstate. The Rosa Parks case, on different constitutional grounds, expanded that ban to intrastate Jim Crow laws. RosaFan 13:14, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RF, i am grateful for your edit, and i think your defense of it is effective. I would not presume to speak for those who responded to my point here, nor have i studied the various recent edits other than yours (so i could comment a little bit informedly), but my own sin is ignoring K's comment except by going off on a tangent from it: since i was too ignorant to add that could deal with K's concern, i added a comment that IMO could also lead to improvement of the article; i trust there is no need for me to defend the value of the information added at least to this page.
(On a little of a personal note, which may offer perspective of some slight value, i'd like to mention that hearing that NPR account shattered my very clear image of a middle-aged woman, probably a domestic servant, who spontaneously asked herself "How much of this shit am a really willing to take?" The truth may be "well known", and i admit to having been little more than a sympathizer with the civil-rights struggle, but i knew Highlander existed long ago, and was involved in some activist training, without this fact shaking up my naivete.
(And FWIW, frankly, it's hard for me to be sure which version of Rosa Parks is more heroic for me -- i think the real one, bcz it means it was an informed decision, probably with the explicit awareness that people like her were most likely going to die before it was over, rather than her just having greatness thrust upon her by the spur of the moment.)
--Jerzy(t) 01:36, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)

Gordon Parks' sister?

I removed this:

She was also the sister of Gordon Parks.

A source would need to be sited for this, especially since scouring Google for all possible combinations of "Gordon Parks", "Rosa Parks", "brother", and "sister" proved fruitless.

And, besides, if anything, they'd be siblings-in-law, not blood relations ("Parks" is a married name).

--b. Touch 22:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Date of settlement of lawsuit

The date of the settlement of the OutKast lawsuit was anonymously changed from April 14, 2005 to April 15. Since no source is cited, I have no idea whether this is a correction or vandalism. Could someone please try to sort this out? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Why worry about when the lawsuit was settled when there is no explanation of what the lawsuit was, who brought it, when it was brought, who the defendants were, what the actionable facts were, etc? --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 10:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Middle name

Online sources seem roughly evenly divided between "Rosa Lee Parks" and "Rosa Louise Parks", with no particular tendency among what I'd usually think of as "higher caliber" sites. Does someone have something definitive? Should we perhaps mention that both variants are often given? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Montgomery Boycott

The article says, in the Civil Rights and Political Activity section,

  • "Partially in response to her arrest, Martin Luther King, Jr., then a relatively unknown Baptist minister, led the year-long Montgomery bus boycott, which forced the public transportation authority to end the practice of racial segregation on public buses. This event helped spark many other protests against segregation. Meanwhile, in 1956 Parks's case ultimately resulted in United States Supreme Court's ruling that segregated bus service was unconstitutional."

I don't think this makes sense, as the Supreme Court ruling wasn't a "meanwhile"--it was at least partly related to the boycott. — Braaropolis | Talk 18:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, we should remove "Meanwhile". -- Jmabel | Talk 00:17, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

382 days, or 381 days?

These sites state that the boycott lasted for 381 days.

Today in History: December 1 - "Her arrest sparked a 381-day boycott of the Montgomery bus system and led to a 1956 Supreme Court decision banning segregation on public transportation."

Gale - Free Resources - Black History Month - Biographies - Rosa Parks - "Ebony correspondent Roxanne Brown wrote: "For 381 days, Blacks car-pooled and walked to work and church."

Apsmif101

Edit: It also says 381 days on NAACP - "The boycott lasted 381 days." So I'm changing it.

Apsmif101

language...

is "negro community" in the article politically correct? (clem 22:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC))

  • Depends what you mean by "politically correct". It is the term they would have used for themselves at the time, though I would think probably with a capital "N" (not entirely cut and dried here, since it's an adjective). I think it is probably the correct term for the period, though I doubt anyone would object to changing it to "African American community". -- Jmabel | Talk 22:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I see this has now been changed. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


It's 2005. We need to stop worrying about "politically correct" and concentrate on respect and a neutral point of view. Personally I haven't heard anyone use the term "politically correct" in a non-joking context since 1990. thx1138 12:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

Someone pasted into the article, without citation, "Also note that Jackie Robinson took a similar, but less-well-known stand while an Army officer in 1944." Intriguing; with proper citation (and assuming the "stand" actually was similar) it certainly belongs in the article. But without citation, and without indicating exactly what Robinson did it's not much use. Does someone have details and citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So that was me. What are looking for in terms of a "citation"? I thought perhaps the link to Jackie's web site might have been enough. He was an Army officer in training in Texas. White bus driver on post told him to get to the back. He refused and was court-martialed for it. Beanbatch 16:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
"Jackie's web site"? I don't mean to sound grouchy, but… he's dead. He was dead before the Web. He doesn't have a web site, and I don't see anywhere you provided a citation. A Google search turned up a half-decent citation, and I will restore this to the article, with a citation I found. If you have a better citation, especially something that gives the story in some detail, please do cite it, because I would consider what I quickly found to be a barely-adequate one. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Jackie Robinson states "After leaving UCLA his senior year, Robinson enlisted in the US Army during World War II. He trained with the segregated U.S. 761st Tank Battalion. Initially refused entry to Officer Candidate School, he fought for it and eventually was accepted, graduating as a second lieutenant. While training at Fort Hood, Texas, Robinson refused to go to the back of a bus. He was court-martialed for insubordination, and therefore never shipped out to Europe with his unit. He received an honorable discharge in 1944, after being acquitted of all charges at the court-martial." I don't know but it sounds perhaps consistent with those times.--Dakota 04:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

African-American?

Not that it matters, of course (and I think that's the lesson we're supposed to get out of it), but Rosa Parks is in no way black.. like.. not even a little. Unless you're going to tell me all those photographs were severely overexposed... she's white.. or possibly white mixed with hispanic. I guess in the days of segregation, a little 'color' was as bad as any, but she really truly looks as white as me.. What gives?

she is actually mulattoid, but back in them days the one drop rule meant that if you were even part black you would be opressed.

Just goes to show that the whole "racial/ethnic" thing is not just about the colour of a person's skin. An albino Nigerian is still a member of that race. There are a whole range of other characteristics that distinguish races. Anyway, Rosa Parks was first and foremost an American, and a true patriot. JackofOz 20:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

ROSA PARKS IS NOT WHITE SHE IS ALL BLACK ITS JUST THAT HER DAD IS LIGHT SKINNED BLACK WHICH MADE HER THAT WAY. ITS UNDERSTANDABLE HOW YOU ALL GOT THAT MIXED UP BECAUSE OF THE BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOS. BUT SHE IS INDEED AFRICAN AMERICAN ALL THE WAY. 

                                       SINCERELY,
                                             A LOVING FAN OF R.P.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.24.5 (talk • contribs) 9 Nov 2005

Rosa Parks was a quadroon. She is just as "white" as an Eastern European with recent a Asian ancestor.

--Rekkr 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you got a source which proves this?

--Chueyjoo 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


There is no need to write in all caps to empishise your denial of truth that she has white ancestry, and also "light skinned black" is a contradiction as asinine as "dark skinned white". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chueyjoo (talk • contribs) 29 Nov 2005

While certainly oxymoronic on the surface, in traditional American racial categories, "light skinned Black" is perfectly clear. It would mean a person, almost certainly of mixed ancestry, with relatively light skin (possibly even passing the proverbial "paper bag test") but still generally perceived as African American. Linguistically, the reason this construct is possible is that the word "Black" became detatched from the color and came to refer to perceived race. Sociologically, the reason is that the prevailing American construct of race often classifies people as Black/African American if they have any ancestry from sub-Saharan Africa via slavery.
Similarly, in traditional American racial categories, "dark skinned White" is perfectly clear. It would mean a person perceived to be of European ancestry, but whose skin is dark. This would be the case, for example, for many Sicilians, who quite probably have some (North) African ancestry (from, say, 1000 years ago), but also for other people such as some dark-skinned Askenazaic Jews, who probably do not, except insofar as the whole human species is likely of African origin.
Our all-caps friend, though, does seem to be confused. While undoubtedly some African Americans are of purely African ancestry, plenty are not, and they are no less African American for that. Unless you want to end up having to say that, for example, Malcolm X was not African American. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

2005 Deaths

Moved from top of page: I'm a Wikipedia newbie, so I don't know how to do this, but she now needs to be added to the 2005 deaths category. Thanks, liz 02:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Fixed, thanks!

I'm on it. --TantalumTelluride 03:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It's been done. --TantalumTelluride 03:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I did it, then accidentally deleted it . . . grrr vandals had me tripped up. Thanks whoever put it back. - orioneight (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to say this is one of the greatest women ever to live in this world.Jack Cox 03:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Where did she die?

According to Civil Rights Pioneer Rosa Parks Dead At 92, she died at St. John Hospital in Chicago, but according to News of Parks's Death from MSNBC (from the AP), she died at her home. --TantalumTelluride 03:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Reuters says that she died at home also. Since I trust the Associated Press and Reuters more than I trust Chicago's local Channel 4 News, I'm removing the link to Channel 4. --TantalumTelluride 03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Front of the bus time Mrs Parks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Parks&offset=20051025030001&action=history

I don't know where Rosa Parks is now, but I doubt she's in the front of the bus. --TantalumTelluride 04:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant she's riding first class on her way to heaven. grazon 04:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, all the vandalism confused me. I doubt she's in the back of the bus. Your comment was entirely appropriate. --TantalumTelluride 04:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

good info here

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw123049_20051024.htm

Seamstress?

Is there a reason she's listed as a seamstress first, and not a civil rights activist? My concern is that there seems to be systemic denial of Rosa's Park's place as an active participant and organizer of the civil rights movement. There is a widespread belief that she was the "victim" who needed rescuing from folks like MLK Jr - when frankly, that's not true. So what gives with listing her primairly as a seamstress? Bugg42 08:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


> Describing her as a seamstress, first and foremost, is I believe both accurate and relevant. Rosa Parks was not an activistr who boarded the bus specifically to "create trouble" and start a ruckus. She was "simply" trying to carry on her life with as much dignity as she was allowed and as much as she chose to assert. If, instead of Rosa Parks, it was an activist "on a mission", the impact would have been probably very strong but we would not remember the person as fondly and as admiringly as the vast majority of the people seem to do. Her example remains outstanding, in that it involved a seemingly small act, yet it was actually (like most true heroisms) a grand act. The Gnome 12:13, 25 October 2005

Actually, The Gnome, that's exactly the misconception that I'd wish Wikipedia would be able to confront. Rosa Parks most certainly did refuse to move as an intentional act of civil disobedience. She was an active member of the NAACP and had participated in various civil rights programs. She had been the Secretary (an elected position) of the Montgomery, Alabama NAACP chapter for ~12 years prior to her arrest. She was an activist by all definitions of the word. Did you even read the article in question? Bugg42 06:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is mediocre

Biographical gaps, disorganized, lazy bullet point formatting in place of real prose. Hopefully with new attention we can bump this up to comprehensive FA level. Please do not add to the bullet points in the meantime... lots of issues | leave me a message 08:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Outkast Lawsuit - What is it?

This article is linked from the front page today, as a result of Rosa Parks' death. It is too bad this happened, with the "Outkast" section in its current deplorable state. Would someone who has been working this article please read just that section?

Please note that it starts the story in the middle, with an account of a judge in "the case" (what case??) appointing an independent representative for Parks. There is no discussion of what the lawsuit was about, who brought it, when it was brought, who the defendants were, who the judge was, whether there were any plaintiffs other than Rosa Parks, why Parks needed an independent representative since it was apparently a lawsuit brought by her, where the case was argued, why record companies were named as new defendants in the refiling, who was Outkast, and a myriad of other details that are necessary for this section to make any sense at all.

I'm sure the section is meaningful to someone who already knows what the lawsuit was all about, but believe me - the whole world doesn't. I'm in Alaska, and I've never heard of Outkast or of Rosa Parks' lawsuit against him/her/it/them. This isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry and it needs fixing. I'd put a cleanup tag on this page if it weren't currently linked from the home page. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 10:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the PC police are out in force here, as links to this critical analysis of Parks Outkast suit and other late period activities have been repeatedly deleted as either an "external link" or as a simple link from within the Outkast section. So there's to be no criticism of Parks even linked to this article? Her (or her handlers) attempt at suppressing this Outkast record was arguably a significant abuse of her iconic status to suppress free speech that wasn't simply butt kissing. Is that the standard here? -Al Barger

No, what we don't appreciate is spam. A twice linked to unremarkable blog post from a unnoted personal blog. Probably spam. Stopping self promotion is the standard here. If you want to contribute your views, find published pundits that agree. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Spam it is not. "Self promotion" I suppose might be subjectively arguable, but it is a relevant non-commercial article. I've got some issues with this icon, but I don't need to expound on them in this encyclopedia entry, which I would understand to be oriented to facts rather than interpretations. As I see the page now, there's a link at the end of the Outkast part. Readers interested in it can take it from there. That's all I ask. Thank you. I'm not sure about this "leave message" function, but I can be reached easily enough through my MoreThings.com website. -Al Barger

It was self-promotional -- you sought to drive traffic to your blog. Your ad-linking was intrusive and unwanted appearing at the end of a facutal statement as a footnote when the blog post was clearly not a verifying news source, splattered out of place at the end of another paragraph, and then finally inserted at the bottom of the external links pile. lots of issues | leave me a message 11:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Al, people can also talk to you via your talk page. The easiest way to do that, though, is if you *sign your name* to your entries. Not by typing it in, as you appear to have been doing, but by holding down the Shift key and using the key to the left of your 1 key above the letters on your keyboard: ~ Striking that key 4 times will (if you have signed in to your Wikipedia account) sign your name and link people to your talk page. Thanks. NickBurns 02:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI to Jeff: FYI, Outkast is a hip-hop group that has garnered critical acclaim. The group's main members are two African American men. Their song was not intended as a slight to Ms. Parks, but Ms. Parks and members of her family were concerned that her name and image were being used without her approval and appears to be the motivation for the lawsuit. The song itself is called "Rosa Parks" and features the lyric "Ah-ha, hush that fuss, everybody move to the back of the bus." PS, I'm not touching the article until I can do more research and cite sources. But figured this may give you some more information. NickBurns 18:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, OutKast are duly linked, and the article on them certainly explains who they are. We rarely use more than a few brief words to describe who someone is when the curiosity can be satisfied by following a link. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for your help on this. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 19:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Famous image

I'm trying to find a famous image in which a white woman screams at a black woman in front of a university during a civil rights protest. The black woman was trying to enrol as a protest during segregation in the US. The racist woman later denounced racism and began campaigning with the woman she had been abusing in the image. I would very much like to find out their names and find a copy of the image, if anyone here can help please leave a note on my talk page, thanks. - Solar 19:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You are thinking of the Little Rock Nine integrating Central High School (Little Rock) in 1957. The photo is not on Wikipedia but can be seen here. The 15-year old black girl is Elizabeth Eckford and the white woman behind her with the expression of hate is Hazel Bryan Massery. Massery later apologized to Eckford. - BanyanTree 23:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The white man

Do we know who the white man concerned was?

Assuming that you're speaking about the white man for whom Parks was asked to give up her seat, I have not seen him identified in any of the articles I've read today. - BanyanTree 00:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I've been trying to find out myself. I have scanned through many articles but none have identified the white man's identity. --speedoflight 21:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the man is James Blake
No, no. They're not asking who the bus driver was (Blake), they're asking who the man is who came onto the bus and thus caused Blake to move the section back. Would be an interesting bit of trivia at best, but not nearly as important as Blake's roll. -Silence 13:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
As I read closely to the verbiage and description used for the events of the day in many, many articles, the "white man" sounds symbolic, rather than of a particular individual. From past accounts, it's been said that there were several people who came aboard the bus and Blake told Parks to move to allow these white people to sit. Thoughts? --speedoflight 18:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

Deleted from History? Where is the Wikipedia Rosa Parks page for October 24/05 from 20:30pm, Vancouver time? IMHO,I don't think that a public archive is well served by deletions from the public record of the evidence of racial hatred today, much as it may prove troubling to cherished beliefs about "progress".

I emailed Wikipedia

> Mr. Wales, > > I read the Rosa Parks entry on October 24/05, at 8:30 pm, Vancouver > time. The entry contained deeply disturbing racist content in the Death > and Funeral section. > I have combed through the page history and can find no record of this > version of the page ever having existed. I am teaching a graduate course > at the University of XXX on New Media, and it is a concern to me, and to my class, that I would like > to resolve. > I have spent many hours trying to find this version of the Rosa Parks > entry. It just seems to have vanished. > > Any assistance you can provide would be most gratefully received. >

Mr. Wales <of Wikipedia> replied:

It was probably deleted. We routinely delete offensive content.

In the most common case, the offensive material would simply be reverted, but if it is bad enough, it is not uncommon for an admin to simply delete it outright, even removing it from the history. I would imagine this is what happened in this case. edit by User:TheProf - BanyanTree 16:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

When Simon Wiesenthal died we got a lot of hassle for not removing hatred material from the article history. You simply vcannot please all the people all the time. Admins are empowered to remove vandalsim from the history of the page but only do so in rare circumstances. See [3] SqueakBox 16:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
As an admin I do not see the "view deleted versions" note on the Rosa Parks, which would indicate that there have been deletions. If you are looking for "deeply disturbing racist comments", then the history is full of it, as evidenced by the rate of vandalism and vandalism reversion. Simply look at the versions before those with "revert" or "rv" edit summaries. I took a look at the edit history around the time you mention but was not able to spot the exact edit you mention. - BanyanTree 16:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

When was the photo taken?

The caption under the pic of Parks being fingerprinted by Deputy Sheriff D.H. Lackey says that happened on February 22, 1956. I don't know about Alabama court procedure, but it seems to me if she was taken downtown from the bus on December 1 to be charged that's where/when she would have been booked, fingerprinted and photographed. Why such a timelag (if there was one)? Moriori 21:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the date after seeing this on the NYT. I am also confused about why there would be such a delay, but assume that the Times would not mess up something as particular as that... - BanyanTree 22:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
You have considerably more faith in the NYT than me! ):- I have been doing a lookaround at Rosa Parks info and can't find any mention elsewhere of that date. She was arrested Dec 1 and went on trial that month. See http://www.montgomeryboycott.com/timeline_rosa.htm. I think we should just delete the date from the caption. What do you think? It can always be restored if someone can come up with evidence to show the date was correct. Moriori 00:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. It clearly can't be the actual day of the arrest as there wouldn't have been a reporter taking photos of random people getting fingerprinted, unless Montgomery police procedures are quite unusual, but am willing to have it removed while it's being clarified. Cheers, BanyanTree 01:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I just figured it out. This site references several NYT articles, e.g. "Alabama Indicts 115 In Negro Bus Boycott" on 22 February 1956." This event is referenced in this site: "In the second half of February the white establishment decided to arrest nearly 100 blacks for violating Alabama's anti-boycott law." Which reminded me of this story, in which various mugshots including that of King's were found in a closet. I am pretty confident in saying that these pictures were taken by the police two months after the boycott began after a large group of activists had been rounded up and jailed in an attempt to crush the boycott. - BanyanTree 01:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice one. I think your are totally correct. I will amend the caption. Cheers Moriori 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Ok, I see you have already done so. Thanks. Moriori 01:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

New Picture

Anyone else think that the main article needs a new picture of Rosa Parks? The one on there now is so pixially, and seams like it was 'streched'--Gephart 07:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I made a switch of the images. I also think the pic is too pixelated to be the opening photo in the infobox. --speedoflight 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Lee vs Louise

There has been some back and forth editing on Parks' middle name. Both Lee and Louise have many google hits, and a recent AP report uses both without stating why it changes. One of the few that attempts to draw a connection between the two is this Guardian article that states Rosa "Lee" Louise Parks. Can someone shed some light on this? - BanyanTree 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I was the one reverting the last Lee --> Louise change, so I should explain that I did it purely based on number of google hits favouring Lee with a more than 100:1 in number of hits. I don't know anything authorative about the matter, so if it was wrong, I appologise. Shanes 14:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Lee clearly outnumbers Louise, though I see a lot stating her name at birth as Rosa Louise McCauley. This includes a list of alternative names and variants with Louise. I wonder if "Rosa Lee" is a casual form of "Rosa Louise"? I'm going to change the birth name to Louise though feel free to revert if something more substantial is turned up. - BanyanTree 14:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
FYI - a redirect from Rosa Louise McCauley has existed since November 2002, so this is obviously not the first time a Wikipedian has tried to work this out... - BanyanTree 14:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know Rosa's family's address?

I would like to send them a sympathy card. --Admiral Roo 10:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sympathy

May Rosa live in peace. --Admiral Roo 10:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Browder v. Gayle

I'd like to start an article on Browder v. Gayle. This is mentioned in the Rosa Parks article. I'm trying to find out more information on it. It's a historic case by the Supreme Court. --speedoflight 05:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This should have its own article as the legal details of the case should not be here. - BanyanTree 04:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

As much as I loved Rosa Parks, this article does gush a bit. It needs to be revised; I will work to do it if I have a chance. --FuriousFreddy 17:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that the section "Debated aspects of Parks' story and its place in the Civil Rights movement" was readded back in with an "NPOVing" edit summary. I had merged the contents of this section into the general chronological body a couple of days ago as it basically consisted of repetition or, worse, information not contained within the general timeline so one had to get past the biographical section to find out key information about it. I don't see the point of a section stating things like "People say she was just a seamstress but she was actually part of the NAACP", when the article just spent a screen's worth of content outlining her prior involvement in the civil rights movement. That's not even "debated", it's just misinformation that everyone involved has debunked, and highlighting it appears to me as setting up strawmen so they can be struck down. This article certainly needs some background on how Rosa Parks was the right person surrounded by the right support structures at the right moment in history for the civil rights movement to coalesce around her and make her a symbol, but a series of "Gotcha!" bullet points doesn't even come close. Unless somebody comes up with a good reason why this section should exist, I will remove it shortly. - BanyanTree 17:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Death and funeral

You might want to create the article, Death and funeral of Rosa Parks, and move the information from the Death and funeral section to that article. -- SNIyer12 18:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it should be properly summarized and cut down here, not moved to a seperate article. --FuriousFreddy 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

removed half of lead

"Parks said she did not plan her fateful bus defiance act, "I had not planned to get arrested. I had plenty to do without having to end up in jail. But when I had to face that decision, I didn't hesitate to do so because I felt that we had endured that too long. The more we gave in, the more we complied with that kind of treatment, the more oppressive it became." (Rosa Parks, 1992)

During a radio interview with Sydney Rogers in 1956 in West Oakland, when asked as to why she decided to not vacate her bus seat , Rosa Parks said, "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen of Montgomery, Alabama.""

The intro should be a small bare statement of facts.

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


It is OK to remove this from the lead but it needs to be put somewhere else. Those are extremely powerful statements from Rosa Parks. Don't erase them completely. --speedoflight 05:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

News coverage of funeral

I am strongly opposed to including comparisons of the amount of time that the various networks devoted to the funeral. FauxNews may be Bush shills, but including that info takes away from Rosa.--SarekOfVulcan 00:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that in 6 months, no one will think this belongs in an encyclopedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Montgomery Bus Boycott Section

"The entire black community ended up boycotting public buses" - Should "entire" be removed? wasn't there anyone who crossed the boycott lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.20.216 (talk • contribs)

I'm glad you mentioned that. There needs to be a source for such a sweeping claim. I wouldn't doubt that a large majority of Montgomery's black community participated in the boycott, but there must have been a few who crossed the lines. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 09:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
It was pretty comprehensive. It may have been total. I don't think this was misleading as it stood, but I guess that lacking citation, the change would be relatively harmless. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Photos of Fingerprints, etc.

Why were the accompanying photos, i.e. arrest photos, finger prints, bus diagram removed? These are important photos that accompany the article. Moreover they are from the National Archives. --speedoflight 21:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

King County Metro tribute

Is it notable that the front seat in each King County Metro bus has a black sticker on it in Parks's memory?--SarekOfVulcan 20:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say notable if true and citable. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What is needed to get this article to featured

Anything left to do?

lots of issues | leave me a message 19:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Some more citations might be a good idea, for starters. And from a broader perspective—a little too much of the article seems to be based on autobiographical sources and quotations, rather than being more objective, encyclopedic text. Also, if there are any photos at all of her earlier than her arrest, it would be fantastic to get our hands on them, since currently the photo we have in the "Early years" section is one of the oldest photos of her on the page! I haven't removed it because it frames the text very nicely and I don't see a suitable replacement, but if at all possible, we should find a good image to put there instead. Also, do we really need four of the images illustrating this page to be police documents, and two to just be nearly-identical pages of writing? The information's useful, but it's not the most effective way to illustrate and contribute to this page to have so many unreadably small document thumbnails; getting rid of one of the two pages of the police report, or finding a better way to have them both on the page, would add more variety to the page if we could add other sorts of images instead, especially more photos, if possible. For example, if there are any photos of the bus driver... Hm, on considering it, perhaps we want to move the photo of the bus in the museum to that section, which would also open up more room to move the "Early years" photo down to further in the article, once we have a replacement.. The article's looking good, though. -Silence 20:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I will agree that it might be good to merge the 2 police reports into 1 bigger image but disagree with removing any of the images because it's what makes this article interesting. I've read so many newspaper reports of Parks' death and almost none have even featured the police reports, finger prints, bus seat illustration, etc. It makes for very interesting context to the article to see these images. Never ever doubt that a picture is worth a thousand words!!! I will agree that it would be nice to have ones of her as a child, young woman, etc. I have looked on the National Archives, Library of Congress sites for other images of her that have not been featured in any of the newspapers and so far, have only found the one on "Early years". Typically these types of childhood, young woman images have to be shared by her family. Maybe her family might have chosen to not share any of them. Does this article let a reader understand who Rosa Parks the civil rights icon is? Yes it definitely does and it contains some very powerful insight into her thoughts because of her quotes about her arrest, actions. Do not erase any of these quotes!!! What the article needs is more illustration of her life in her "Later years", i.e. what groups did she work with, things that she did, people she associated with, changes in viewpoint (if any), etc. etc. I do think the article should round out and not just focus on her life as a civil rights icon but to extend to other facets of her life as well. --speedoflight 01:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Er, I didn't recommend the removal of any images or any quotes. Just the opposite, I asked for more images, more references. And I agree that her later life's of chief importance; I just feel we should have an appropriate image from her childhood (maybe of an area where she grew up?) if possible. If not, so be it. -Silence 01:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification. I may have misunderstood what you meant. I haven't read a lot of articles about Parks' life in her later years. I have seen photos of her appearing with Mrs King (MLK's widow) but again, it's stuff about her on the civil rights issue. As mentioned, I think we should add more to the article to showcase her life rather than just an icon. --speedoflight 09:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article seems to be vandalized a lot by anonymous posters (those identified by IP address only). Does anyone know if Wikipedia has plans to disallow anonymous posters to edit/create articles? --speedoflight 15:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, and it would be a bad thing for them to change, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan 21:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
While some anon posters don't vandalize, historical data shows that many do. I've seen this happen on many articles. It takes a minute to register but it shows level of commitment from a user. I support changing to only allow registered users to edit/create. If a registered user vandalized, it's so much easier to ban that person over time than some anon IP. --speedoflight 08:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I semi-agree. A sort of "anonymous protection" would be good for such high profile pages as this that are constantly vandalized. And yes, while there are many good anonymous editors, it really does only take a minute to create an account. I know it's not exactly in the"spirit of the wiki", but it wastes time to have to revert one page so many times. And that kind of idea wouldnt be wikipedia-wide, just on pages that are constantly vandalized. I donno, the idea has some appeal.jfg284 you were saying? 09:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue is discussed on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28perennial_proposals%29#Abolish_anonymous_users

--speedoflight 09:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ideal or not - nominate already

The 50th anniversary will soon pass us by.

Lotsofissues 21:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I expect that there will be some serious objections to this being FAed, but it may stand a chance if we're all willing to battle hard to correct every mistake that is raised. I expect an uphill battle, though, and if this FA fails, it'll be tough to renominate it before the anniversary's passed. Still, you're right that we need to get started immediately if it's going to be on the main page, considering all the bureaucracy that must be gotten through both to get featured and to get featured-on-main-page. In fact, it's almost to the point where I don't think there's a point worrying about getting this done for the 50th anniversary and we should just continue improving the article more gradually; but I suppose it couldn't hurt to give FC a try, since it's a much more effective and active system than Peer Review is, and thus will most likely get us much quicker and more detailed results. Some minor things we may want to fix before the FA, or at least early into it: a fair use rationale for Image:Rparksmug1.jpg might be safest, and we should definitely have a rationale for Image:AdvertiserParksDies.jpg, Image:Rosaparks clinton.jpg, and Image:Metro-Rosa-seat.PNG (the latter of which we may not even be able to use on this page because it's not "free" enough, plus it doesn't really illustrate anything important). So. Go ahead. Nominate it. Couldn't hurt. -Silence 21:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to drop the Metro sticker: as you say, it doesn't illustrate anything important. Just seemed like a good idea at the time.--SarekOfVulcan 23:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm going to chime my $0.02 in. I've seen past feature articles and some aren't as well written as this one is. Some don't have anywhere near the level of citations they could or should have. So apparently, there's not a standard yardstick to measure by. It seems to me, it's relatively subjective. --speedoflight 15:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Correct. But expect this article to receive much, much closer scrutiny than most FAs, because it's such a high-profile figure. In general, more important articles need to be higher-quality than less important articles to be FAd, simply because there's more to lose by saying "X article is one of our best" if it's not when it's a higher-profile article that many more people will check out and judge. -Silence 20:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Metro sticker

File:Metro-Rosa-seat.PNG
Moved this image from the main page; doesn't seem to be free.

Updated sticker with email from webmaster to help clarify nature of permission.--SarekOfVulcan 22:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, someone took a picture of the sticker in context: http://www.flickr.com/photos/csb13/65856539/

Removed section: "Presidential Medal of Freedom Award Ceremony"

I previous tried to expand and reorganize this section slightly to make it less of a quotes repository, but really, it would be easier to just move it to Wikiquotes or Wikisource or similar than to try to paraphrase or otherwise play around with it. I understand that it was intended to be a sort of capstone, but I don't think it's necessary; in a way, it kind of pounds the message home a bit too ardently, weakening the article's effectiveness. Anyway, here it is, so it's out of the way for the FA process until we can decide where to put it:

Presidential Medal of Freedom Award Ceremony

On September 9, 1996, Rosa Parks was presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom at a Congressional Black Caucus Dinner. President Bill Clinton stated in his speech at this occasion that

"When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on an Alabama bus 40 years ago, she ignited the single most significant social movement in American history. When she sat down on the bus, she stood up for the American ideals of equality and justice and demanded that the rest of us do the same. When our descendants look back in time to trace the fight for freedom, Rosa Parks will stand among our nation's greatest patriots, the legendary figures whose courage sustained us and pushed us forward. She is, and continues to be, a national treasure."[4]

The complete award citation is as follows:

"On December 1, 1955, going home from work, Rosa Parks boarded a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, and with one modest act of defiance, changed the course of history. By refusing to give up her seat, she sparked the Montgomery bus boycott and helped launch the civil rights movement. In the years since, she has remained committed to the cause of freedom, speaking out against injustice here and abroad. Called the First Lady of Civil Rights, Rosa Parks has demonstrated, in the words of Robert Kennedy, that each time a person strikes out against injustice, she sends forth the tiny ripple of hope, which, crossing millions of others, can sweep down the walls of oppression."[5]

Which photos to junk

So we are line with copy policy. Lotsofissues 00:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Would anyone like to fax to UPI for permission for some the historic images? Lotsofissues 00:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of 1964 Photo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosaparks_1964.jpg

Lotsofissues, please read the EXACT caption on this image:

Rosa Parks. Photograph by Associated Press. 1964. Location: NYWTS
Reproduction Number: LC-USZ62-109426 Note: No copyright found; checked by Library of Congress staff, December 2000.
United States Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/235_pop.html

It is a photograph by AP but it's copyright is NOT found and it has been checked by the LOC staff. It is an image filed by the LOC and has a related link to it stored in their archives. It even has a LOC reproduction number. It has been released to the public domain by the US govt. I am not sure why you removed the image claiming that its copyright belongs to AP.

--speedoflight | talk to me 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess all copy issues taken care of except for that iconic photo belonging to UPI? Lotsofissues 23:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Through common practice, covers qualify under fair use. Lotsofissues 00:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And the front page of a newspaper is a "cover"? Most "covers" don't have the text of the work itself on them. A newspaper's front page is more like the first page of a book than the cover of one. -Silence 00:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it's more accurate to compare it with the cover: The visible presentation of the product selected by the creators to arouse interest inside. Lotsofissues 16:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • But the cover is not part of the actual content of the work. The front page of a newspaper is. Is there any actual Wikipedia policy or guideline (or law) anywhere that addresses whether a "front page" falls under the Cover Fair Use umbrella? Even if there is, I'd say it's borderline enough that we should have a Rationale for it, especially since the section isn't about the newspaper itself. -Silence 20:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Main page FA?

It's seeming less and less likely as time goes on that this article will get on the main page in the near future. The "December 1" FA slot (the 50th anniversary of her refusing to get off the bus) has already been taken, and the "December 5" FA slot (the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott) will probably be taken soon as well, and the FA is going very poorly (very few non-conditional support votes, one "oppose" vote from a voter who seems to have disappeared entirely, and the image situation is becoming more and more confusing and tangled). I expected some huge community-wide effort to get Rosa Parks featured, not a handful of barely-involved and only vaguely-interested editors like me. :P But whatever. I've put together a quick possible main-page box so we at least have some idea of what our theoretical goal would entail. Feel free to edit it to make any improvements you can, this is just the "first draft", if that: -Silence 21:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Rosa Parks (February 4, 1913–October 24, 2005) was an African American civil rights activist and seamstress whom the United States Congress dubbed the "Mother of the Modern Day Civil Rights Movement". Parks is famous for her refusal in 1955 to obey a bus driver's demand that she give up her bus seat to a white passenger. Her subsequent arrest and trial for this act of civil disobedience ignited the Montgomery Bus Boycott, one of the largest and most successful mass movements against racial segregation in history, and launched Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the organizers of the boycott, to the forefront of the civil rights movement. Her role in American history earned her an iconic status in American culture, and her actions have left an enduring legacy for worldwide civil rights movements.

Nice Work!

This article is really nicely done. Definitely worthy of being a featured article! My compliments to everyone who contributed to bring it to this high standard. -- LiniShu 01:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded! I read this right after Mrs. Parks died, and was curious to see what changes had been made--I'm impressed! Good job, y'all. nmw 02:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I went and found the version before the date of her death was added. It is here, and the civil rights contribution section was one paragraph longer than the description of the OutKast lawsuit. Good work by a large and ever-rotating number of editors over the past month. - BanyanTree 02:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

It states that "Some historians have argued that civil-rights leaders, who were predominately middle class, were uneasy with Colvin's impoverished background". It's not clear if the footnote referring to the Slate article is where we find out who the historians are. Could we make it clearer which historians believe this? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Horrible citation style

I didn't realize just how bad the citation style in this article was, until I looked carefully. Consider citation #6, "Civil rights icon Rosa Parks dies at 92" from CNN.com. Nowhere in this article does it actually give the URL of this article. I find this incredibly foolish. (The same comment applies to multiple other citations in this article as well) Raul654 13:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations are just complete affect. By displaying a long list of citations we hope to fool visitors into believing the article was written with expertise. They aren't meant to be usable. Duh! Lotsofissues 20:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit stupid. I'm adding links to the articles now, though. --Foofy 21:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that adding links isn't beneficial as links die out and you end up with dead links that point to nowhere, causing more frustration and less usability. It also makes managing of this article difficult due to expired links. This is why the actual title, date, publication of the article was cited instead (APA format). Typically articles are archived under different URLs at their respective publications. If you read the Wikipedia guide to citation, you will note that they suggest that you put in footnotes and then note the exact title, date, author, publication, retrieval date, etc. in the Reference section. I have done this for areas where I listed my footnotes. So I would highly suggest that you do NOT add links. --speedoflight | talk to me 07:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree iwth what speedoflight says here. Nothing should be removed but linking the title of the article to the URL is almost universal practice, and is endorsed on Wikipedia:Cite sources. And, no, it's not terribly difficult to maintain: if the link goes dead, it can usually be recovered from the Internet Archive. There is no case where adding the link makes it harder for a reader to access an article, and many where it makes it easier. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
If an article can be recovered from another source, why point it to a source that can potentially be dead? I don't know about you, but I don't want to run into a habit of becoming a Wikepedia article manager for life. That's not effective at all to anyone's time. A good cited source highlights the date, publication, author (if any), publisher (if applicable). With that information, you can typically find an article. If not and that article is truly expired, then well...that's another story. I have seen FAR too many Wikipedia articles that have dead links all over the place and makes the article look really bad as it's likely the article's original authors (or those who were interested in the article) have moved on to other endeavors. They could have just eliminated this problem by citing well and if someone were truly interested in finding out what that article said, he/she can go find that article with the source information. CNN and NY Times often blatantly tells you that a particular article will expire by a certain time. FYI, you can't find every article in the Internet Archive. I've tried to find some articles and have failed to find what I need. --speedoflight | talk to me 07:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
There's a fair chance that if you couldn't find it on the Internet Archive, that was because it was too recent (although its also possible that their owner specifically requested that it not be archived). They deliberately lag by six months to a year in what they post. And once they exist, they are permanent, but there is no way to search the Internet Archive except by URL, so if we don't note the URL while it is active on the Web we have no hope of finding it.
This is getting pretty far off the topic of Rosa Parks. If you want to propose that despite being on the web, we should not link to references that are available on line, I believe you should take that proposal to Wikipedia:Cite sources, but I predict you will find that the consensus runs at least ten-to-one against you. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Be Nice!

Be nice to our hero and stop the vandalism! Thanks in advance. Lharvill 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. There will always be vandalism, and it will always be reverted. They're editing a couple of letters on an Internet document, not doing something to "Rosa"; it matters little more than if they wrote on a piece of paper in their home, "I hate Rosa Parks", and then threw it away. Trivial. -Silence 21:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Correction needed

this is something needs to be fixed "He admitted guilt and, on August 8, 1995, was sentenced to eight to 15 years in prison." If somebody can search for the article and find out how long was the sentence, it would be nice. 200.55.124.138 21:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Race

Rosa was obviously a mulatta sista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.178.251 (talk • contribs)

Article decaying before our eyes

An anon managed to restore the disheveled bullet point section "debated aspects" from months ago. It took the hard work of good editors to design a coherent place for all those bullet points into the text of the article. By slapping back the bullet points, the anon also made the text sloppy and sometimes word for word redundant. Yet the section was not removed for 2 weeks despite how many ppl watch this article. It's a sad illustration of the "Darwinian" myth of Wikipedia. Good articles must come down. Lotsofissues 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's just a part of the natural growth cycle of all Wikipedia articles. First, an article gets improved more and more by people interested in making the article Featured. It reaches Featured status, and then, all the editors are happy and move on to other projects. Then the article slowly degrades over time, and other FAs get increasingly better so the FA standards increase, and the degraded article has its Featured status taken away (unless some especially dedicated editors jump in at the last minute to quickly bring it back up to snuff) and must again be worked on by dedicated editors to slowly reach Featured status. It's just part of the natural cycle of Wikilife, and the end result of all that work and re-work and repeated upgrading is, presumably, is a far better article. -Silence 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It is still a little embarrassing that this section managed to get reinserted. That's a lot more blatant than the slow decay post FA-push. Lotsofissues may recall that it actually was removed, reinserted and removed again in the week after her death. Many editors, such as myself, were off the wiki for the holidays so presumably new edits were not being checked as rigorously, which may partially explain it. - BanyanTree 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
While I haven't edited this article I thought it was a great FA article. I'd support reverting to the FA version. We could then compare the changes since then and add in any that actual improve the article.--Alabamaboy 00:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rosa Parks's sister-in-law, Sylvester McCauley's wife.

I finally found out her name. Her name was Daisy Elizabeth Gallmon-McCauley. She was born in 1924 and died in 1981.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosa_Parks/Archive_1&oldid=1137163736"