Talk:Rosa Parks

"White" of "white"

Why does the article use uppercase white? Graham Beards (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Graham Beards:, I see you have now fixed this. You are correct, of course. Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That would have been because of MOS:RACECAPS. Schazjmd (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with lowercase white. It now needs Blacks to be in lowercase also to be consistent. Parks recalled going to elementary school in Pine Level, where school buses took white students to their new school and Black students had to walk to theirs: must be wrong.

Is I'd see the bus pass every day ... But to me, that was a way of life; we had no choice but to accept what was the custom. The bus was among the first ways I realized there was a Black world and a White world. an exception as the 'worlds' counter each other. Is it a Black World and a White World, I am unsure. BlueWren0123 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@BlueWren0123 @Graham Beards @Mike Marchmont I agree. It needs to be equal. If Black is capitalized, then White should be capitalized. If not, then both should be uncapitalized. AppGoo0011 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m black 62.30.197.81 (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Context or wordiness?

Hello,

About two days ago, I began to make edits to the Rosa Parks article intro.

This was the original sentence:

"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) believed that she was the best candidate for seeing through a court challenge after her arrest for civil disobedience in violating Alabama segregation laws, and she helped inspire the Black community to boycott the Montgomery buses for over a year."

In my opinion, this sentence was far too long, so I split it up and rewrote it as:

"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) believed that she was the best candidate for seeing through a court challenge after her arrest for civil disobedience. Parks helped inspire the Black community to boycott the Montgomery buses for over a year."

Another sentence within the article which I thought I had fixed.

Originally: On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks rejected bus driver James F. Blake's order to vacate a row of four seats in the "colored" section in favor of a white passenger, once the "white" section was filled."

My revision: On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks rejected bus driver James F. Blake's order to give up her seat in favor of a white passenger.

In my opinion, the latter sentence is easier to read and does not remove any necessary context.

@BlueWren0123 and @Randy Kryn undid my edits, which I totally understand and respect but I do disagree with upon scrutiny.

BlueWren argues that my edits were "disruptive," while both users argue that my edits removed important context.

BlueWren argues that the part mentioning "violating Alabama segregation laws" is very important context. I disagree. I argue that there is no contextual necessity for editors to maintain this. In my view, the fact that Rosa Parks violated segregeation laws is self-explanatory and needs no introduction. Moreover, the rest of the article exists for detailed explanations.

Randy Kryn argues that "a row of four seats" and "white" section was filled" are two important pieces of context, but I also couldn't disagree more upon re-evaluation. Is it really important to include the number of seats? Why? Is it really important to include that the white section was filled? Why? It is my belief that this is mere fluff and nothing worth including in the intro.

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable says the following:

"Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience.

As a free encyclopedia, Wikipedia serves readers with a wide range in background, preparation, interests, and goals. Even for articles about the most technically demanding subjects, these readers include students and curious laypeople in addition to experts. While upholding the goals of accuracy, neutrality, and full coverage of the most important aspects of a topic, every effort should be made to also render articles accessible and pleasant to read for less-prepared readers. It is especially important to make the lead section understandable using plain language."

What do other editors think? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the few extra words about the seat incident give clearer context to the incident.

Unless I'm misreading it, I think the NAACP sentence is saying that one of the reasons that they believed she was the best candidate was because she inspired...(and so on). Could use some tweaking. Schazjmd (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Schazjmd.

Thanks for the reply.

Why do you believe "row of four seats" and and "white section was filled" adds clearer context? I think the number of seats is completely beside the point. The omission of the number of seats does not deprive readers of any useful information. If you disagree, then may I ask what specifically it adds?

I think it's the same situation with "white section was filled." Do we really need to explain this in the lead paragraph? What useful information does it add specifically?

In regards to the NAACP sentence, I do not think it is meant to read that way. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Being asked to give up her seat for a white person is one level of racism; being asked to vacate an entire row (in which there were apparently unused seats) so a white person could have a seat without being forced to sit next to a black person is a much greater degree. I doubt many modern readers are all that familiar with just how insane segregation laws were at the time; being clear about the circumstances helps readers grasp what actually happened. Schazjmd (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with you that this context is very important, I think it may be too much to include in the intro and certainly too much to include in one sentence.

Furthermore, the original sentence never explained that she was "asked to vacate an entire row (in which there were apparently unused seats) so a white person could have a seat without being forced to sit next to a black person."

That is another weakness of the original text, including seemingly irrelevant details without explaining why they were there.

We can rework it into: "On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks rejected bus driver James F. Blake's order to give up her empty row of seats in favor of a white passenger." However, after cursory research I couldn't find exact information to support that statement about the seats being fully empty.

Alternatively, we can use my original revision and incorporate that context later into the article if it isn't already there.

In both cases there is no need to include the number of seats (a negligible detail) or that the white section was filled. (Which is self-explanatory.)

Do you agree? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Update: I think a more appropriate sentence would be "On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks rejected bus driver James F. Blake's order to give up her entire row of seats in favor of a white passenger." VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The form of words before your edit accurately describe the racially discriminatory requirement that applied at the time. It was written in a neutral form. You marked your edit as Minor. Rosa Parks' actions were not minor and modifying the description of such a significant action and the circumstances should be correctly described. Please do not minimize the circumstances. You say that after making the edit However, after cursory research I couldn't find exact information to support that statement about the seats being fully empty. That point has no relevance to the drivers order that she must move. BlueWren0123 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Marking edits as minor marks edits as minor, not others' actions. How did you come to the conclusion that I am making any statement about Rosa Parks?

My statement "However, after cursory research I couldn't find exact information to support that statement about the seats being fully empty" has nothing to do with what you think it does. It was in response to @Schazjmd's claim.

Finally, you gave absolutely no explanation as to why you oppose my edits. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

My observations: "vacate a row of four seats" on its face is a bit puzzling; it assumes the reader understands that three other people in the row got up while she didn't. The sentence could be clarified to say she "rejected bus driver James F. Blake's order to leave her seat in the 'colored' section so the 'white' section could be expanded". Per the Blake article: "Blake ordered Parks and three other black people to move to the back...." And per the National Archives citation, footnote 2: "the bus driver instructed Mrs. Parks and the other three passengers seated in that row...."

The linked term "civil disobedience" can be better deployed in another part of the Introduction. She was not arrested for civil disobedience, although she was engaged in it. She was arrested, as the text correctly says, for "violating" the law. The sentence can be shortened: "...after her arrest for violating Alabama segregation laws...." Civil disobedience appears here probably because at some point an editor wanted to include that important principle in the Introduction. But the phrase "civil disobedience in violating Alabama segregation laws" is overwritten. A very appropriate place for the phrase is the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph which can be modified: "Parks's act of civil disobedience...."

Another point, however: I haven't researched the matter, but the James F. Blake article quotes him saying of Parks, "She was in violation of the city codes", and the National Archives citation, footnote 2 in this article, says Parks "was arrested that day for violating a city law" and that "Mrs. Parks was convicted under city law"—raising the question whether the text in the Introduction that says "violating Alabama segregation laws" should be made less ambiguous and more specific. DonFB (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. You seem highly educated on the subject and I agree with your points. Would you agree my proposed sentence is appropriate?

"On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks rejected bus driver James F. Blake's order to give up her entire row of seats in favor of a white passenger."

Why or why not? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@DonFB: From the wording of your comment you have used wikipedia for your sources, <WP:NOTSOURCE> already covers this situation. BlueWren0123 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I referred to the other article as a way of suggesting accepted knowledge. But I also referred to the RS National Archives source, which has info about both the seating and the law that was violated. VegitotheKnightmare, regarding your proposed text, my response is that it's not wrong, but would probably make readers wonder how and why she was holding an entire row. Here is a slightly revised version of my suggestion above: "...Parks refused/rejected bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat along with other passengers in the 'colored' section so the 'white' section could be expanded". I would agree that the number of seats is not relevant; the question is how much explaining of the situation should be presented in the Introduction. DonFB (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. In this case, with this arrest, it should be described in as full detail as possible. Parks' deciding not to arise when ordered to by the bus driver is, without hyperbole, one of the most important moments in 20th century American history. Context, description of the seating arrangement, explaining what the law allowed or did not allow, and what Parks actually violated by not giving up her paid-for seat, all carry important information about the iconic moment and can continue to be covered in the lead in a couple well-written and edited sentences. But removing wording from the descriptor of that moment for the sake of having less words, for encyclopedic brevity, and shortening the description of her action and arrest as best sourced, is the wrong place to trim. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Randy Kryn. Apologies for the belated response.

  I agree with your statement that Parks' actions were "one of the most important moments in 20th century American history."

  However, segments like "white section was filled" and "four seats" have nothing to do with her actions and add nothing of value to the text. Instead, they detract from the text by making it harder to read by inexperienced readers. Finally, the segment which says she was "arrested for violating Alabama segregation laws" might not be accurate according to some editors.

  Now, why do you think that "white section was filled" and "a row of four seats" are indispensable context?

  Or is it because we should include every detail? Due to the magnitude of the event?

  If that's your stance, then let me ask you the following: Should we also include the color of the seats? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, all of those things, and the event, are important enough to continue to inform encyclopedically. Except for the color of the seats, I'll disagree with you on that point. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks for the clarification @Randy Kryn. I understand your viewpoint. Can you explain how the color of the seats is any different from the number of seats and the fullness of seats? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Will get back to this at some point, not now. I could answer in-depth why the law as it stood at the time revolved around who got to sit and when and where, and why these facts are important to the circumstances of the arrest. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. Eager to hear back. @Randy Kryn VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Reading the discussion again I think I've explained my position, so will keep watch on it to read what others have to say. Thanks for caring about this topic, it's an important one historically. A few extra words may not be to your liking, but other editors consider their place in the encyclopedic reporting of the event as adequate descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate your viewpoint even though I disagree. Thanks for your contributions to the discussion! VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  VegitotheKnightmare, about the color of the seats, you may be right. Not for the lead but for the text. That row of seats, along with the bus, are historical artifacts, so noting and sourcing their color would further describe both the artifact and what the bus driver had in his field of view. Thanks for the interesting idea. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I disagree. See WP:Too much detail and WP:Out of scope.

  There's absolutely no denying that Rosa Parks' actions were immensely heroic and massively important. However, Wikipedia is not a museum. In my opinion, such information is completely irrelevant in the later text and especially in the lead.

  See also Wikipedia:Why Johnny can't wiki-read. It encapsulates why the number of seats, color, and other details don't belong in the lead.

  "Many articles need to be revised to treat the lead section (also known as the introduction) as a balanced overview of the topic, and move excessive details to lower portions of the article. Long sentences can be split, or commas/hyphens can be added." VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'll keep this simple and to the point: The original sentences are better, more accurate, and provide all the needed context. Sorry, VegitotheKnightmare, but your edits don't work. I won't support your changes at all. In addition, it's worth noting that this article is very high profile and the language is the result of countless editors working here for years. To change such a high profile article we must have consensus for the change, which we do not have here. As a final note, I am blown away by you going back and forth on the "color" of the seats. That language in the lead is referring to the fact that the bus has a "colored" section, which is how the section Black people were forced to sit was referred to during this time period. Per the wikilink on that word in the lead, colored is a "racial descriptor historically used in the United States during the Jim Crow Era." That info is essential for the lead to summarize the article. The fact that you're talking about the color of the seats as if it refers to the primary colors is strange. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

FYI

 – VegitotheKnightmare and NewWikiUser8998 both indeffed

BlueWren0123 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this here. I saw your email but before I could do anything VegitotheKnightmare was already blocked. Also, this also brings into question what this now-blocked editor was trying to do with edits to this article. This is a good reminder for everyone that this article is a frequent target of trolls and racists, who sometimes attempt to spin their edits as reasonable or as improving the article but whose ultimate goal is to remove historic facts they disagree with. SouthernNights (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"Black" or "black"

Following on from the change of White -> white, I have also suggested similar for general statements such as a group of Black men falsely accused where it is a generic grouping. I think that Black community should stay as is. I will wait awhile to see if anyone comments. It would in any event be good for another editor to review if I make the changes. BlueWren0123 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the word "black"/"Black" should follow however "white"/"White" is capitalized. AppGoo0011 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it was rather carelessly implemented. I tried to change some of it, but I'm heading to sleep, so if anyone wants to take over, be my guest. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

The opening section calls her an "American activist in the civil rights movement." I don't know what the styleguide is here, but I feel like changing it to "American Civil Rights Activist" would be less wordy and more digestible. Silvanathecat (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The civil rights movement, linked at the point you question, was an actual and definable historical event encompassing the 1954-1968 CRM in which Parks took part. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Connection to Order of Eastern Star

There are a few sources connecting her with Order of Eastern Star freemasons in Alabama such as the library congress' subject file. I am wondering why there is no discussion here of this already, is it that the number of sources aren't very high, or that the authenticity is questionable? Katzerax (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Could someone with editing access please link the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_release where the article mentions the release of white balloons during funeral events for Parks

I mean link it like this:

released white balloons 

... on that text where it appears in the "Death and funeral" section.

Thank you. 2600:1700:25BF:9800:C073:822F:44B0:39A9 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Rosa park

She stood up for what’s right strong black woman! 185.85.57.88 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)