Talk:Montgomery Bus Boycott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Retaliation?

in response to an initial act of harm, and (usually) (B) that the initial act was unjustified.

A word that is certainly neutral is "responded" -- this sidesteps both issues raised by a word like retaliate.

I tried to fix some problems with the article. I clarified some sentences, reorganized others, tried to remove POV aspects, and I opted to use the term "black" instead of "African-American." Let's face it, under racial segregation, restaurants would not ask you your country of origin. They would look at the color of your skin. Not only that, but the article African American states that the preference for "black" is well-accepted.

--cprompt

You may want to read [1] for some more kinds of retaliations and violences.--Jusjih 14:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

I couldn't tell from the version preceding my recent edit whether the violence was committed by the White Citizens Councils, or by individuals acting on their own. The use of "however" suggests the latter, but the KKK (kafyr, kafyr, kafyr) reference suggests the former. Can't find it on the web.Mike Malana Help?
Tualha 07:49, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...welll i think that the term "African American" shows respect for the African Americans. Humph..dont you? because they arnt really BLACK...black is like...

the color of black eye liner:

or a black tee shirt:

or some really tight black leather pants

...i mean...i dont like being called white...i prefer...tan, or caucation or peachy skinned. not tht anyone has ever called me peachy skinned, but white makes me feel albino. not tht i hav a problem with albinos, everyone has thier own skin, now children, its whats on the inside tht counts. DUH!

--- In England we call people who look white, white, and people who look black, black. If they're inbetween they're usually described as Indian or tanned. To consider this in any more detail isn't helpful.

[edit] Response to "Test case"

I'm not sure you are correct here. last time i fucked a goat was yesterday, and i almost got sootted, moslt because iy was on open street. From what I can tell, E.D. Nixon had planned court action against Alabama segregation and wanted someone to break the law so that he could do so, but whether a boycott was in the works is up for dispute. Here's Taylor Branch on the issue:

"King himself would divide the credit between Nixon and the Women's Political Council, citing Nixon for taking the first steps to fight the Parks case and the women for conceiving of the boycott. Nixon himself would later claim credit for both, stating that he had told his wife--after leaving the Parks home but before hearing from [Jo Ann] Robinson a few hours later--that there would be a boycott. King's partisans would dismiss Nixon's assertion with more than a hint of condescension, but Nixon's side of the story would be taken up later by various kinds of revisionists." - Parting the Waters, 132 (FN)

I think that the dispute should be left open, and I'm going to make the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandergreenb (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Test case

"When she was arrested on December 1, 1955, the local civil rights organizations, with which Ms. Parks was involved, saw this as the ideal opportunity for political action."

That's not accurate--Parks was actually chosen as a test case, or else chose herself. I am sure this was a miswording, and not an actual oversight, as the author was clearly aware she was employed by the NAACP ("involved" with a local civil rights organization, as the author says originally). Would be a pretty long stretch to say she was anything but a test case, knowing her strong political associations.

Here's a bit on the topic: http://www.writingco.com/c/@lD92Tg8mLd0cc/Pages/rosaparks.html


Fixed it myself, but left this for discussion.

[edit] Speculations in Wikipedia articles

If reasonable speculations are not allowed to stay in this articles, how about removing reasonable speculations in other Wikipedia articles, such as "However, "La Marseillaise" has been associated throughout history with the French Republic and its values, making a change unlikely" in La Marseillaise as well? Please cite any Wikipedia policy to justify your removals of speculations. If you CANNOT, I am going to get ANY Administrators to step in to consider reasonable reversion and to LOCK UP this page for protection, as things are getting DESTRUCTIVE!--Jusjih 3 July 2005 06:04 (UTC)

[edit] Remove white drivers comment

I understand that the comment "Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work" is the subject of an edit war about the reason these whites drove their servant to work. I would suggest that this entire comment be deleted b/c there is a high chance this is merely an urban legend. I grew up in Montgomery and I repeatedly heard this statement presented as fact by white people who were embarrassed by their city's history and wanted to make it seem that the city's whites had not been so set against the boycott. Despite these statements, though, I never saw any documentation of this occuring. In addition, even if some whites did this, it was on a small, individual basis. UNLESS someone can produce a reference that "Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work" the entire statement should be removed.--Alabamaboy 7 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)

Sorry, Alabamaboy, but you don't know your state's history. That white women drove their black domestic servants to work is a well-documented historical fact. Just a quick google, and there are ample examples of documentation. Here's just one: [2]. Further, the so-called "edit war" -- not! -- was about some silly, hazy statement inserted by someone with a fixation on traffic that served no useful purpose because it imparted absolutely no information whatsoever. Go back and read the exchange. The statement regarding white women driving their black domestics to work is restored. Further, the add-on about whether white women doing so was out of sympathy with the boycott or simply because they wanted their household chores done is also a matter of historical record -- and an important point. Without this language, it could appear that this act of defiance was a display of solidarity with the boycotters, when it likely generally was not. I recall a documentary which recounted a confrontation between a white housewife and a white police officer, who had stopped her car as she went to pick up her black houseservant, admonishing her against helping "those nigras." She shot back that he wasn't going to stop her from getting her housework done. If he wasn't going to find her someone white to cook and clean and get her children off to school in the mornings, then he'd better get the hell out of her way -- and she drove off in a huff. It's documented. Leave it be. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
As I said on your discussion page, then the answer is to insert that reference into the article. As my original comment said, I wanted to see documentation on this fact. Since you proved it, I support you on the issue. I have also inserted your reference to the statement. However, there is no need to attack me over this. I never said the white women were supporting the boycott--in fact, I said just the opposite, that they were trying to rationalize their lack of support. The way things work out on Wikipedia is through discussion and debate, not through attacks. I also left a statement on the other users discussion page that there should not have been any traffic issues back then b/c the city wasn't that big. Traffic patterns in this article are irrelevant. --Alabamaboy 7 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)

What you read as an "attack" is a simple statement of fact. Clearly, you did not know your state's history in this regard. Otherwise, you would not have deleted the reference to white women driving their domestic help during the boycott -- which is a well-known and oft-cited historical fact. About the irrelevance of traffic patterns in this matter: precisely my earlier point. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)

Even though I have not found reliable evidence of traffic jam on the roadways in the boycott, The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Montgomery Movement Begins suggests that sidewalks were crowded.--Jusjih 06:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of Montgomery Improvement Association

I wrote an article on the Montgomery Improvement Association. I only knew of it as that name not as the Montgomery Bus Boycott. They are pretty much the same in regards to information with a few minor differences. The Montgomery Bus Boycott article is longer and has a better layout. So I'm proposing that they be merged. but if that is not the community consensus, then I propose that Montgomery Improvement Association be speedy deleted. (I've crossed that out based upon WikiSceptic's opinion on the matter. Only reason for not removing the merge suggestion is because as Orane has pointed out the "Montgomery Improvement Association" meets all the requirements for a merge.)KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that "Montgomery Improvement Association" should be merged to "Montgomery Bus Boycott". Both articles practically give information on the exact same thing; the boycott.
According to Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, its good to merge if:
  • There are two or more articles on exactly the same subject. (check)
  • There are two or more articles on related subjects that have a large overlap.(check)
  • If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. (check)
With all this said, "Montgomery Improvement Association" article only provides a succinct account of the information provided in the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Keep

As one of the two organizations that played critical roles in the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Montgomery Improvement Association does deserve to be studied and recorded in its own entry; much of what relates to the MBB should be moved there, but the MIA article needs to be expanded by research into the MIA itself, and must balance out the entry on the rival pro-segregationist White Citizens Council which itself must be retained. Also, even if there is some information overlap, the MIA entry must be retained. Again, the MBB page ought to include more information on the Claudette Colvin case and the Browder v. Gayle case integrated into it. WikiSceptic 04:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with WikiSceptic on the fact that the "MIA" deserves it's own article. But the information is redundant. Hence the suggestion for the merge. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 22:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)HONKY TONKY POOPY!!!

[edit] Rosa Park's arrest "sparked" the boycott

This article's references to Rosa Parks were insidiously wrong. Rosa Park's arrest was not a spontaneous action which *spontaneously* "sparked" the montgomery bus boycott. It was planned before hand. This subtle lie destroys any useful legacy of the boycott specifically and "the civil rights movement" as a whole.

There were organized boycotts against segregation in Montgomery as early as 1905 207.178.98.49 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence for this, please? I am interested in this matter as well. Professor Noam Chomsky makes this suggestion in an interview and I'd like to see evidence for it. Skuu 13 March 07.

- Interview with Chomsky: [3] - M.L.King Jr.'s diary seeming to refute this claim: "Mrs. Parks's refusal to move back was her intrepid and courageous affirmation to the world that she had had enough. (No, she was not planted there by the NAACP or any other organization; she was planted there by her sense of dignity and self-respect.)" [4]

[edit] Rosa Parks Act and vandalism here

I just found an old news about the Rosa Parks Act in a newspaper. I have added some info to the article. Also, please be aware of increasing vandalisms here. I just noticed some non-sense edits in this talk page.--Jusjih 16:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Rosa Parks

The Rosa Parks article has considerably more information about this subject than this article does. Richard75 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps information needs to be transferred and/or shared, but this should certainly be it's own article; it is a far too important historical event to be condensed into another article.

I agree that it should be merged Trouserdemon 21:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is a lot of info on the Rosa Parks page that should instead go here--after discussion on that page. OverMyHead 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not enough

today in my ap history class as a review for the ap exxam our teacher makes us watch videos of people and events in history today we watched a video about the Montgomery Bus Boycott this article dosen't cover half of the stuff that occured for some reason the excecution of the boycott and the actual boycott have very little details. This event started the modern civil reights movememnt I personally don't think it should be such a small article --Missionimpossible 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to expand the article. --Bensin 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)