Talk:Montgomery bus boycott/Archive 1

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

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: [1]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [2] for some more kinds of retaliations and violences.--Jusjih 14:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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]

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)

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)

Supreme Court verdict?

This article claims that the Rosa Parks case and the boycott helped send a case to the US Supreme Court which struck down the bus segregation laws, but nowhere is the case identified by name, nor is there a link to it. I found Browder v. Gayle which achieved this, but it was not a Supreme Court case. Can someone who knows better than I (a white guy in Canada) please research and fix this? BeeTea (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Browder v. Gayle is the correct case. It was initially decided at the Federal Court level which ruled that bus segregation violated the constitution. Montgomery then appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. The lower court ruling was held in abeyance until the appeal was heard. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, and in that sense "decided" the case. Actually, that is the normal procedure, almost all Supreme Court cases originate in lower Federal courts and are then appealed to the Supreme Court which makes a final ruling.
Brucehartford (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Terms used?

Now the correct terms for black and white are African-american and Caucasion. Shouldn't the article be updated with these terms? I also did not find the article to have enough information. I need some unusual facts.71.146.68.11 (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Languages are always evolving and changing, so what is considered "correct" usage changes over time. In the 1950s and 1960s, "Negro" was considered the proper term. Today, both "black" and "African-American" are commonly used terms. There have been, and continue to be, extensive debates and discussions between those who prefer one over the other. As someone who writes about the Civil Rights Movement, I generally use "black" rather than "African-American" for three reasons: 1) Over recent decades there has been a marked increase in immigration from Africa, Jamaica, etc, and I think it useful to use "African-American" to distinguish recent immigrants from the descendants of slaves because the realities of their situation are somewhat different. 2) Racial discrimination based on skin-color can affect anyone whose skin is dark. In Montgomery in 1955, a dark-skinned visitor or immigrant from India or Brazil would have been subject to the same segregation as Rosa Parks, hence in that context I prefer the term "black" rather than "African-American" 3) To some degree, "African-American" seems to imply that the descendants of slaves are in the same situation as other immigrant groups (Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc) in terms of eventual assimilation and acceptance by the dominant society. But that has not proven to be the case, racial discrimination based on skin-color has been much more persistent than ethnic discrimination based on national-origin. Using "black" rather than "African-American" evokes that hard reality. Of course, those who favor "African-American" over "black" have their arguments on their side, so the debate continues. Brucehartford (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
What "unusual facts" do you need? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"hindering" a bus or hindering the lawful operation of a bus service?

[5] documents the law that was violated 'prohibits two or more persons "without just cause or legal excuse" from entering into any combination, conspiracy, agreement or arrangement of understanding for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or preventing any other persons, firms corporations or associations or persons from carrying on any lawful business.'

I'll fix the article in a few days unless there are objections.

I'll also look for cites about the harassment of boycotters. I've known about the boycott for 30 years, but never realized how long it went on. Walking/carpooling/biking to work would be bad enough but it's hard to imagine the resolve to stick with the boycott after getting pulled over because of too many people in a car (in the days before seat belts) or have (conjecture for illustration's sake) crap thrown at you while walking.

Morganw (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

E.D. Nixon NAACP Office

I corrected an error that stated that E.D. Nixon was president of the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP at the time of the Bus Boycott. Nixon had at one time been chapter president, but at the time of the boycott he was president of the Alabama state NAACP and someone else held the presidency of the Montgomery chapter. Despite no longer being president, Nixon still played a major leadership role in the Montgomery chapter and it's not surprising that many people assumed he was still president. Brucehartford (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to have some POV issues. For example:

From the events leading up to the bus boycott section: "The sacrifice of so many people allowed America to prosper from being, once a segregated country, to a country of diversity."

From the victory section: "Martin Luther King, Jr. capped off the victory with a magnanimous speech to encourage acceptance of the decision." (Emphasis Added)

There may be others that I have missed. --Noha307 (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed; tag removed. PRRfan (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed CORE & SCLC

I deleted CORE and SCLC from the list of participating organizations. While CORE as a national organization no doubt supported the boycott, and possibly sent donations to Montgomery, they had no organizational presence there during the boycott. SCLC was not formed until 1957 which was after the bus boycott ended. Brucehartford (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The statement about CORE is incorrect. CORE was a part of the boycott from the start. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as your citation indicates, individual CORE activists from the North met with and advised King on nonviolence and direct action. And CORE as an organization supported and helped publicize the boycott outside of Montgomery. But CORE, as an organization, was not active in Montgomery. CORE did not send staff members to Montgomery as Homer Jack suggested. CORE did not have a chapter in Montgomery, CORE members did not drive cars in the carpool or organize meetings, and so on. I removed CORE from the listing of "Participants:Organizations" because CORE, as an organization, did not participate in Montgomery as the listing clearly implies. If that list of organizations is to include every group that supported the boycott from afar it would every civil rights organization in North America.

Brucehartford (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Dates

This article states that "The campaign lasted from December 1, 1955 ... to December 20, 1956". Upon reading the Rosa Parks article, I notice that her arrest was on the first of December, not the start of the boycott, which it says started on the 5th. Should the date really be the 1st? --KingBobson (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the article describes the entire event including what led up to it, using the December 1 date seems reasonable to me. Particularly in light of the fact that both E.D. Nixon and the Womens Political Council were planning and working on calling the boycott during the evening hours of December 1. Brucehartford (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL DATE QUESTION: Many sources indicate that the first mass meeting of the MIA was on Monday December 5, the evening of the first boycott day, and that King's first speech to the group was at that December 5 rally at the Holt Street Baptist Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.87.80 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

This seems like a good candidate for infobox civil conflict, which is used on all protest wikipages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:7680:2D1:821F:2FF:FE68:691F (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

Sparked by the arrest of Rosa Parks on 1 December 1955, the Montgomery bus boycott was a 13-month mass protest that ended with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that segregation on public buses is unconstitutional. The Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) coordinated the boycott, and its president, Martin Luther King, Jr., became a prominent civil rights leader as international attention focused on Montgomery. The bus boycott demonstrated the potential for nonviolent mass protest to successfully challenge racial segregation and served as an example for other southern campaigns that followed. In Stride toward Freedom, King’s 1958 memoir of the boycott, he declared the real meaning of the Montgomery bus boycott to be the power of a growing self-respect to animate the struggle for civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oijre (talk • contribs)

Oijre While the text of this seems fine, where do you think it goes, and what citations back it? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to "Test case"

I'm not sure you are correct here. last time. 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)

I do not believe that Mrs. Parks' action was planned in advance. Given the way the seatin arrangement worked, I do not see how it could have been.John Paul Parks (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The confusion here is the meaning of "planned in advance." In later interviews and oral histories, Rosa Parks, E.D. Nixon, and Jo Ann Robinson were clear that a test case against bus segregation had under discussion by black leaders in Montgomery ever since the Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. In March of 1955, they considered calling a boycott and filing a test case when Claudette Colvin was arrested for not giving up her seat but chose not to due to tactical considerations. The same thing happened again in October when Mary Louise Smith was arrested. Mrs. Parks was involved in all of those discussions. She knew the NAACP was looking for a test case and knew that a boycott had almost been called in the two previous cases. However, as she has stated in numerous interviews and oral-histories, there was no specific advance plan or intention on her part to challenge the driver's order to give up her seat on December 1st. For reference information see the following "Eyes on the Prize" interviews: Rosa Parks, E.D. Nixon, and Jo Ann Robinson. Brucehartford (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Explanation for close, provided following request: There are six supports (including the nominator), and one oppose. Supporters cite the ngram, which shows the sentence case form predominating over many years, up to and including 2008, and WP:NCCAPS, which tells us not to capitalize words unless the title is a proper name. The single oppose vote mentions that the two lines in the ngram are converging by 2008, but without a WP:CRYSTALBALL there is no way you can be certain that trend continued to the present day. There is no doubt that some sources use the title case, and probably more use the sentence case, so both forms are contenders, but with a solid 6-1 majority of opinion here, I see a solid consensus to move.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


Montgomery Bus Boycott → Montgomery bus boycott – The WP:TITLEFORMAT states, "Titles are written in sentence case." According to Google N-gram, the form "Montgomery bus boycott" is far more common than "Montgomery Bus Boycott" in sentence case. Secondly, numerous articles on boycotts, sit-ins, protests, and demonstrations were extremely common during the Civil Rights Movement. All of those article titles will have to follow wikipedia policy. Mitchumch (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

ADDENDUM:Due to my failure to adjust the "year" parameters of the n-gram data posted above, I am posting a correction to my original post. The Google N-gram data posted above is for data up to 2000. From 2000 to 2008, the form "Montgomery bus boycott" is descending and the form "Montgomery Bus Boycott" is ascending. If the trend continues, then the form "Montgomery Bus Boycott" will surpass the form "Montgomery bus boycott". Mitchumch (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per MOS:CAPS and clear evidence that sources don't find caps necessary for this term. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCCAPS and the provided evidence. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the OP's n-gram stops at 2000, let's take it out to 2008 where the n-grams are quickly changing. So the n-gram data, which stopped in 2008 and is losing relevance as the years go by, shows that the capitalization was gaining rapidly as the lower-case was fading just as rapidly. The references and sources for the page also show capitalization being the norm, as does a search engine search going quite a few pages in. The iconic event has grown in the consciousness of the world over the years, as have other named events of the era, and, like many unrelated events, seems to have become a proper name. Randy Kryn 00:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It is kind of interesting how the usage in books has tended toward more capitalization ever since this article was created in 2002 with caps. It's still not a majority though; certainly nothing like "consistently capitalized in sources". Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: What element do you think will be lost from the article if the letters are changed from upper case to lower case? Mitchumch (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Not a known majority because the n-grams only go to 2008, where the trend is obvious. Because of this trend (even not using surmise that it has continued), n-grams do not provide a reason to change the capitalization of this page which has been consistent since 2002. You imply that the trend changed because of this article, which is guesswork, and an alternate and more probable guesswork point is that as time goes by, and an event settles into its proper place and importance in history, the common name becomes capitalized. This occurred with the Cuban Missile Crisis which, at the time was not a proper name yet became one in hindsight. The same for this bus boycott which, unlike other less precedent setting bus boycotts, is the one associated with the Supreme Court ruling which ended the practice or was used to end the practice in other states. It brought Dr. King, Rosa Parks, Fred Gray, Ralph Abernathy, and others to prominence, thus anchoring the start of the determinative 1955-1968 Civil Rights Movement. Thus, in hindsight, are proper names born, and eventually recognized. Such is the case with the Montgomery Bus Boycott, recognized as such by Wikipedia since 2002. Randy Kryn 11:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The sources – Randy Kryn says the article's references use upper case. Of the ones I can find that include the phrase, ref 1 uses "Montgomery bus boycott" except in headings and titles; ref 4 caps it; ref 6 uses lowercase; ref 8 uses lowercase; ref 9 is inconsistent (sometimes caps, sometimes lower); ref 10 uses lowercase (with ", Ala.," in it); ref 19 uses lowercase. Others up to this point are either not available online or don't mention the term in the text. Someone could check more. This is enough to show that Randy is probably not being objective. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: The Civil Rights Movement topic is one Randy cares deeply about. That sentiment is mutually shared with myself. I can honestly say that Randy is a rare person on Wikipedia that cares about the topic as deeply as he does. Since I share his sentiments regarding the topic I am glade he is always present to bolster this topic and to prevent other users from diminishing it. Consequently, I want to give Randy his due time and space to work through this issue that I have proposed. There is no need to rush this and the article is not being deleted from Wikipedia. I hope my past edits on this topic mirrors the value of importance that Randy has placed on it. Mitchumch (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm with you on that, too. Randy and I have come to terms; he just likes to capitalize more than WP style recommends; this sometimes interferes with his objectivity in defending those caps. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
And possibly visa versa in your uncapitalizing articles which don't need or deserve to be changed. Upper-case makes sense here, similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In retrospect this constitutes a world-changing event, and the trend in the 2008 n-gram (why use the 2000 and not the 2008 n-gram in the OP, and accent it by saying lower-case is "far more common" when the 2008 figures contradict that?) shows that "the world" has recognized it as such. Thanks for the kind words above, yet quite a few editors, some of whom should be pinged on this (just what are the rules for pinging?), put attention on many areas of the overall movement. Randy Kryn 11:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: If we put aside the n-gram evidence, then what elements from the article will be lost if the upper case letters are changed to lower case letters? I understand the argument for the iconic status of the article topic. But what do you think will happen if the case is changed?
You base your requested move on the n-gram evidence, and argue so in the nomination, and use the words "far more common" to influence comments. But I've shown that evidence to be incorrect (you used 2000, I used 2008, and God only knows what has happened between 2008 and now but the trend seems clear). I don't understand the "what will happen" question, sorry. This RM seems to highlight the lessening status of using Google n-grams as primary evidence in RM discussions. As they grow further away in time they lose relevance, and picking the 2000 figures rather than the later chart shows that they can, even inadvertently, be used to boost a POV which people commenting on the RM then use for their 'support' or 'oppose' comments without checking for themselves. Randy Kryn 14:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
For sure a poor use of the n-grams is to extrapolate trends that you see over the time that wikipedia has become a big influence on books. Is there any reason to believe that something has happened in the last 10 years to convert the names of lots of important historic events to proper names? And that the majority of books just hadn't caught up to that by 2008? Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support mainly per MOS:CAPS and evidence that sources use caps is thin and fairly conjectural. Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support—the sources do not find caps necessary (and I suspect the ngram search didn't exclude the term within titles and subtitles that use title case). Tony (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: This is a routine removal of overcapitalization. People, especially with a PR background, have a strong tendency to Capitalize Anything They Think Is Important. This is terrible style in general, and definitely not encyclopedic style. We have MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    "anything they think is important"? This is not a bus boycott, it is the bus boycott. It kickstarted a 12-year toppling of legal segregation, began the correcting of the errors from the document which emerged from the American Constitutional Convention, the barriers put in place before and after the American Civil War, and began the national and worldwide focus on the now obvious utter unfairness of the Jim Crow laws. The Montgomery Boycott was, is, and shall remain "important". Even in a universe of rules and regs where it would need an exception, this event surely rates a Wikipedia guideline exception. "anything they think is important" when referring to the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Rosa Parks, Dr. King (this is the 48th anniversary of his death), Fred Gray, and Ralph Abernathy came to prominence during it, as important an event as anything in 20th Century America. Randy Kryn 23:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Personal PoV not reflected by the majority usage in the reliable sources, which mostly lower-case this. There was only assassination of the Abraham Lincoln, and it had major consequences, but it was the assassination of Lincoln, not the "Assassination of Lincoln". The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor had global consequences, forcing the entry into WWII of the United States, and ultimately the development of nuclear weapons, from which we also got nuclear power, etc., etc., but it was the bombing of Pearl Harbor not The Bombing of Pearl Harbor. You will in fact find a few people who capitalize such things in certain contexts (e.g. patriotic books on US history), but this is the specialized-style fallacy, and is not encyclopedic writing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, the 2008 n-grams, which show the quickening trend toward capitalization as the 50th anniversary of the bus boycott approached and passed, and as this event became solidified in public and historical context. And a question, can we ping people to join this discussion? Not everyone who works on these pages has this on their watch list. Randy Kryn 00:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
"SMcCandlish What is "PR background"? Mitchumch (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Public relations a.k.a. marketing, advertising, press releases, branding, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-admin closure?

A non-admin closure on something as major as this? With no reasoning presented? Can this be taken to the next step of "appeal", I'm not too aware of what that would be. An RFC? Please advise, thanks. Nobody ever advised me on who could be pinged or not pinged on this RM, which seems an error in the system. I know several editors who would have probably liked to have heard of this. Would it be "Wikipedia legal" to let them know now, after this non-admin/non-explained closure? Thanks. Randy Kryn 21:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

With just one oppose, it doesn't look very controversial, so probably nobody would support overturning the non-admin closure. But if you want to challenge it, then WP:MRV is the place. Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll study up on that in the next couple of days. I've written a note on the closer's talk page asking for them to come here and give a bit more explanation of the close reasoning. Randy Kryn 21:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, good idea to bring it up with the closer first before dragging off to proceedings... Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Randy Kryn and thanks for leaving a note on my talk page. Since you've asked for more reasoning on my close, I will be happy to provide that tomorrow (I'll have more time then). I didn't give a detailed rationale initially because it looked like a fairly open and shut case to me. Just the one oppose, and that based on rather speculative reading of the trend of the ngram, versus six supports. There'd have to be a fairly slam dunk oppose argument to overcome an apparent 6-1 consensus. As Dicklyon says, move review is the place to go for you think it was closed incorrectly and want to challenge that. I commend your passion and contribution to this important area of the encyclopedia by the way. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Amakuru. One of my concerns here was the short time in took for you to read everything, go over the data, research the various points, and write up your close. There is no number on consensus, it could be 600-1 and the one could still contain information which would show that a proposed move is wrong. Saying that the upper-case "side" contained a "Speculative reading of an obvious trend of an n-gram" does not take into account the fact that n-grams are outdated, that the entire nomination was based on not only an old n-gram but an ancient n-gram, and that the nominator used a 2000 n-gram which bolstered his case when the 2008 n-gram was available but might not have been as dramatic. This unbalanced the case right from the start. The RM used an argument based on faulty information using a faulty method. Rules did not allow me to ping other editors who would have an opinion on this move. Aside from the n-gram data (and this RM and close may finally prove that n-grams should no longer be used for either) the long-standing upper-casing of this page, the search engine survey (did you go over a hundred or so search engine results?) and the use of upper-case in references and sources shows that the upper-case should have been kept and should be returned. The use of N-grams in deciding moves may need to be put out to pasture, and this RM and close could be exhibit number one. I do see it as a mistake, and would like to appeal, but would like to discuss this further with you and others in this section before going forward. Thanks again, Randy Kryn 2:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Closers are supposed to judge the consensus based on reasons presented, not read all the data and make up their own mind; your "faulty data" theory was presented to all the participants, and they didn't buy it. Explanation has now been added above by Amakuru, per your request. I find the rationale weak, since it doesn't really recognize MOS:CAPS and makes it sound like he's letting sources vote on our style; a stronger rationale would have been nice, but this will do. As to your "The use of N-grams in deciding moves may need to be put out to pasture", I half agree – sources don't get to vote – but we have never used n-grams in deciding moves, so there's nothing to put out to pasture. N-grams is still a useful tool for looking a usage in reliable sources; the fact that it's limited to the time period before wikipedia started spawning huge numbers of books is not a drawback in that. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Randy Kryn it's interesting you should mention the case of a many-1 vote tally where the 1 may hold more valid reasoning, because I raised exactly this point at User talk:Number 57/Archive 8#Alicia Marin a couple of weeks ago, but was told that a 5-1 vote almost always means that's the view of the community. Now I don't agree with that, a closer does still have to assess the validity of comments, but let's not deceive ourselves, five or six people saying something always carries more weight than one or two saying the same thing. We joke about !votes, but they are perhaps more accurately semi-votes. I've added a close summary now, and fundamentally, although I think you did make some good points, and in a close tally it would perhaps have been no consensus, but with six people supporting, I don't think any admin would have closed it any other way. You're welcome to take it to move review of course, but I find it unlikely that would lead to an overturning. Who knows though, you're welcome to try! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: I disagree with a couple of points in your comment here - (1) this does come fundamentally down to whether this is a proper name title or a descriptive title. Is it Cuban Missile Crisis, or is it Rwandan genocide (recently so named!). WP:NCCAPS is clear on this point in its opening paragraph. If it's a title, we should use title case. And to determine if it is a proper name, we must consult reliable sources. We can't decide that on our own, or in house, and nothing in MOS:CAPS would tell us whether this article is a proper name or not. (2) you are saying that ngrams are not used in deciding moves; well I disagree there. Of course, they are never the *only* thing, but most people find them to be a reliable and informative tool where other information to determine the correct page location is scarce. I don't think that's a particularly controversial view in the community, and I think we should continue doing it, not put them out to pasture. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The question of what's considered a proper name is best addressed in MOS:CAPS, which says "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources". A small majority, like Randy likes to extrapolate to, is not close to the threshold of "consistently capitalized in sources". Cuban Missile Crisis is a good example of an article that would not have the caps if more editors and closers would pay attention to MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Google n-gram supports using all-caps in Cuban Missile Crisis. Mitchumch (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Well you sure shoring up Randy's point about misuse of n-grams! Go read Talk:Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Requested_move_8_January_2015, where he and others misused n-grams and ignored MOS:CAPS to add the unnecessary caps. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: From what I see supporters used Google n-gram as a source for their decision. Am I missing something. WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:MOS, determines article titles. I've been on the losing end of some consensus decisions. So, I understand your position. Mitchumch (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, people on both sides used n-grams. It's a great source of data, but also easy to misinterpret, especially with all the caps that it counts in titles and headings, citations to titles, etc. So it greatly overestimates the precentage of works treating a term as a proper name. And even if there were a small majority, the criteria of MOS:CAPS, "consistently capitalized in sources", would not be close to being met. That RM just had a lot of history buffs who like to capitalize what's important to them (like Randy does). Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the further close description, analysis, and interesting discussion. I'll get back to this on Monday, deciding to take the weekend off from Wikipedia politics and just poke around on my italic-runs. These political pages often consist of many of the same names (we know who we are), and most of us stick to our POV fairly consistently, with "exceptions to the guidelines" almost never being a factor although it's still a basic and important part of Wikipedia guidelines. Much more, as this particular RM and close brings up a few different topics to mull over, and I'll take the weekend to not put attention on those. Randy Kryn 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Question, how long before someone can put up another RM, to recapitalize it? This close, I believe, was incorrect, so should I further discuss that in this section, put up a new RM, or go the appeal route? The misleading n-gram was up for two days before the nominator, after being asked several times to update it, put up an addendum, and by that time most of the editors had already commented and, apparently, "voted" on the initial nominations, so I think not only a reopening but a full new discussion and RM rewritten by the nominator of this RM is not out of the question. Maybe we should go that route first, unless the closer agrees to do a clean slate and start over with the page capitalized. Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Participants

There are several names listed as "participants" in the article. Some of the names have no Wikipedia article, no source, and no explanation of how they are associated with the Montgomery bus boycott. I'd suggest these names be removed and placed onto the talk page. I'd appreciate the input of others. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert response

@SouthernNights: Why do you think the Montgomery bus boycott article is a FA article? Mitchumch (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That FA was a typo in my edit summary. But you removed a good bit of information and renamed the sections of an article which a number of editors have worked on over the years and which is well sourced and stable. Before making such massive changes you should seek consensus for them. I'm not opposed to making changes to this article but am curious why you took out the information. And why rename the section headings which currently seem logical?--SouthernNights (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@SouthernNights: Lets start with this text:
"In the year 1944, while a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army, future athletic star Jackie Robinson took a similar stand in a confrontation with another Army officer in Fort Hood, Texas, by refusing to move to the back of a bus.[1] Robinson was brought before a court-martial, which acquitted him.[2]"
Added by User:Brightgalrs on 08:55, 4 August 2011
Quick note. I made my only edit on this article like 5 years ago. All I did was transfer material from Rosa Parks (this edit). It wasn't a proper transfer a la WP:COPYWITHIN. Anyway, no strong feelings one way or the other. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 19:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Jackie Robinson is not pertinent to this article. Acts of resistance were commonplace from the beginning of the Jim Crow era until its destruction. The two citations do not claim he is connected to the Montgomery bus boycott. The last citation is an about.com article - not a WP:reliable source. The first citation from the National Archives is a reliable source, but does not explicitly mention the Montgomery bus boycott. It would be better placed in the article of Jackie Robinson. That is why I declared this text redundant. Mitchumch (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the Robinson info, which doesn't really tie in with this topic. My bigger concerns were with the section name changes, in particular changing "Events leading up to the bus boycott" to "Prelude." I'd prefer to keep that original subhead title. Also, I disagree with the deletion of the paragraph starting with "The local background for the Montgomery bus boycott lies in growing abuse and humiliation of the black passengers by white bus drivers due to three main reasons ..." Why do you want to delete that? --SouthernNights (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: I'll do the title change first. The article is about the bus boycott. "Events leading up to ..." is synonymous to the term "Prelude". It would be no different if a section of this article was titled "History of the boycott". "History" would suffice because the remainder of the title is self evident. Another example would be about an article about a person. In the Elton John article, his life is chronicled in the "Life and career" section, not "Life and career of Elton John". It is self evident the section is about Elton John. My aim was to create concise title sections. Mitchumch (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The technical definition of prelude is "an introductory performance, action, or event preceding and preparing for the principal or a more important matter." And that's my problem -- the use of prelude implies that all the civil rights work which came before the Montgomery Bus Boycott was less important, which is not true. What came before the boycott helped set the stage for the boycott. So I'd prefer to keep "Events leading up to the bus boycott" rather than imply in the minds of readers that previous events were of a lesser importance.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: Do you object to the four subsections that I added in the "Events leading up to the bus boycott" section? Mitchumch (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I think your subsections work well. I'm also fine with the new "History" section. However, I'm not a fan of your turning Rosa Parks into a subsection and renaming it "Arrest of Rosa Parks." As with "Prelude" I feel that reduces the subject, in this case Rosa Parks, to merely her arrest. I'd prefer keeping that subsection as "Rosa Parks," similar to the other subsections under history.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: Here is the second block of text I removed:
"The local background for the Montgomery bus boycott lies in growing abuse and humiliation of the black passengers by white bus drivers due to three main reasons. First, drivers increasingly abused passengers due to their own frustrations over labor disputes and labor conditions. Second, there were fewer white passengers on the public buses and the reserved white-only seats at the front of the bus often remained empty while black passengers were left hanging over them and not allowed to sit. Third, the 1954 Brown decision also resulted in increased animosity of bus drivers towards blacks -- many of whom joined the White Citizens Councils.[3]"
Added by User:Shultziner on 13:32, 17 October 2016
The second block of text is a collection of obscure claims that do not state names of people, places, give dates, or identify specific events. The citation was retained in my edit by placing it in the "Further reading" section. These type of edit contributions need to be replaced with actual information rather than pretend to inform readers. Unfortunately, this type of edit contribution plaque numerous articles connected to the CRM. I replace them whenever I can with details or remove them. As an example of better information, Montgomery city code, specified in "Chapter 6, Section 10: Separation of races – Required" and "Chapter 6, Section 11: Same – Powers of persons in charge of vehicle; passengers to obey directions", required racial segregation upon city buses. See http://blogs.kentlaw.iit.edu/library/exhibits/montgomery-1955/images-documents/montgomery-city-code/ for an image of the city code. These obscure claims are the intellectual equivalent of an empty calorie with zero benefit. Mitchumch (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mitchumch User:SouthernNights The person who removed the second bloc of text writing that it is "a collection of obscure claims" lacking names and other details simply did not read the reference at the end of this short paragraph which is an elaborate academic explanation of the events leading up to bus boycott. It is better to read more about the boycott and the latest research on it before arbitrarily removing contributions and writing things such as "obscure claims are the intellectual equivalent of an empty calorie with zero benefit" which are unfitting. Shultziner (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shultziner: Sorry for the harsh assessment. Your citation is behind a paywall. What specifically are you referring to? There are no details in the edit contribution. Mitchumch (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mitchumch: Thank you. The citation elaborates three points about the growing abuse and humiliation of the black passengers by white bus drivers: 1. drivers increasingly abused passengers due to their own frustrations over labor disputes and labor conditions; 2. there were fewer white passengers on the public buses and the reserved white-only seats at the front of the bus often remained empty while black passengers were left hanging over them and not allowed to sit; 3. the 1954 Brown decision also resulted in increased animosity of bus drivers towards blacks. Each point is greatly elaborated on in the cited paper with many quotations and illustrations based on various data sources. The paper is available for free download at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254863654_Doron_Shultziner_The_Social-Psychological_Origins_of_the_Montgomery_Bus_Boycott_Social_Interaction_and_Humiliation_in_the_Emergence_of_Social_Movements_Mobilization_An_International_Journal_182_2013_1 You are welcome to replace the existing reference with this free one, thanks Shultziner (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Shultziner: I am reviewing the citation for the block of text you contributed. There are two points of concern. The first is you are the author of the citation. The second is the block of text is your thesis or theory that you attempted to prove in your article. Am I mistaken on these two points? Mitchumch (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mitchumch: As you can see, I am not hiding behind an anonymous username. The citation is a serious research which won the Distinguished Contribution to Scholarship Award (2014) by the American Sociological Association section on Collective Behavior and Social Movements. See here http://cbsm-asa.org/awards/

However, the block of text contains only factual claims (not a theory or thesis) that are mentioned in that paper. Those factual claims are based on several independent academic and primary sources: 1. “drivers increasingly abused passengers due to their own frustrations over labor disputes and labor conditions.” Is based on numerous sources showing the labor disputes and frustrations: Montgomery Advertiser, December 13, 1952; Alabama Journal, December 13, 1952; Montgomery Advertiser, December 14, 1952. The strike on December 12, 1953, at the height of the Christmas shopping season (Montgomery Advertiser, December 12-16, 1953; Alabama Journal, December 12, 14-15, 1953). For example, in September 1954, a white citizen wrote to a local newspaper a short article addressed to the manager of the Montgomery bus company. He noted tension on the side of the bus drivers on two newly extended routes: “The strain is noticeable on the bus drivers, too. They are hard pressed to meet the new schedules imposed on them” (Alabama Journal, September 15, 1954). Another complaint from a white citizen in that same month accused bus drivers of incivility and abuse of little children on school buses (Montgomery Advertiser, September 5, 1954). As Ralph Abernathy (1989a: 132) recalls, “Several of the white drivers were determined to harass our people at every opportunity. . . . Clearly this kind of gratuitous cruelty was contributing to an increasing tension on Montgomery buses. We tried to reason with local authorities and with bus company officials. They were polite, listened to our complaints with serious expressions on their faces, and did nothing.” See also: Businessman C.T. Fitzpatrick mentions that a special committee during 1955 investigated the charges against the bus drivers and discovered that “the company had some rough necks who were rough with everybody” and that the bus company “discharged five of the troublemakers during the session.” James J. Bailey, a white business manager was more explicit about the role of the bus drivers in causing the boycott: “The drivers were rude to both white and Negro passengers but they were ruder to the Negroes.... I, personally, think that discourteous treatment brought about the demand for change in the seating arrangement. I think that was the main source of dissatisfaction and that the desire for change in seating would never have come about if the drivers had treated Negro passengers with respect and dignity. I don’t think enough Negroes were dissatisfied about the seating arrangement for that alone to cause the boycott. . . .” Anna Holden interview with James J. Bailey, February 2, 1956.

2. “there were fewer white passengers on the public buses and the reserved white-only seats at the front of the bus often remained empty while black passengers were left hanging over them and not allowed to sit”. Data from National City Lines Inc. Southern Region Collection at the Southern Labor Archives, Georgia State University, and from National City Lines Inc. Reports to the Stockholders at the University of Chicago. Public Transit Equipment, Passengers, and Passenger Revenue, 1922-2000, Datapedia of the U.S., Issued by Bernan Associates, 2004, P. 317. See also letter by Rev. Uriah J. Fields: April 1954: “The Negro citizens of Montgomery are fed up with having to stand up on buses when there are empty seats in the front. Especially buses going to and from areas which are predominantly inhabited by Negroes” (Montgomery Advertiser, April 6, 1954). Also Robert S. Graetz (1991: 41), a white pastor who came to Montgomery in 1955, notes, “There were never enough white people on board to fill the bus, but no Negro was ever allowed to sit in those front seats, even if there was not a single white passenger on board.” See also Jo-Ann Robinson’s book (1987) on page 36.

3. Third, the 1954 Brown decision also resulted in increased animosity of bus drivers towards blacks -- many of whom joined the White Citizens Councils. See also in McMillen 1971; McVeigh 1999; Thornton 1989: 343. Former Police Commissioner Dave Birmingham explained privately that the Brown Supreme Court ruling “agitated the separation issue and generated a lot of misunderstanding between the races. There is more unrest over segregation than there used to be.” He also added that “some of those fellows [bus drivers] are mean as hell and they didn’t ask them [black passengers] to get up or to go back in a nice way. I would say that five or six of them are as mean as rattlesnakes and they did all kinds of things that made the niggas mad...” Anna Holden interview with Dave Birmingham, January 31 and February 1, 1956 (Holden n.d.) Dave Norris, president of a local workers’ union council, revealed that many of the bus drivers were affiliated with the White Citizens’ Council. He noted, “I am sure that a good proportion of them belong. Men in the lowest income level seem to be the ones who are joining . . . the type of men who do nothing but drink and talk about the ‘niggers’ for re- creation.” Anna Holden interview with Dave Norris, February 11, 1956, P. 5; see also interview with J.H. Bagley, V.D. King, and bus drivers, January 21, 1956, Pp. 3-6; interview with Mr. Day, ex-bus-driver, February 11, 1956, P. 2 (Holden n.d.).

So you see, all the text is based on many primary and academic sources of the highest quality. The text should be kept because it is the only explanation in this entry dealing with the local background for the Montgomery bus boycott. No other explanation exists why the bus boycott began when and where it did. Shultziner (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I initially objected to the removal of this paragraph b/c I felt the article didn't give any local background on why the boycott happened. However, as it was written the paragraph also downplayed the overall segregation and racism which was at the core of why the bus drivers treated African American passengers the way they did. I've rewritten the paragraph to give more context on all of this, using extremely reliable sources to back up the information. Doing all this keeps the info on the driver's secondary motives but also places it in its proper context. Let me know if this rewrite addresses everyone's concerns.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I reread @Shultziner comments above about the other reasons bus drivers acted as they did. I do not agree these reasons are more relevant than the primary reasons of racism and support of segregation, reasons which are accepted by historical consensus and supported by countless reliable sources. In addition, Montgomery newspapers during that time period were extremely biased toward the city's white establishment and continually downplayed the issues of racism and segregation which birthed the bus boycott. To rely on these papers as citations without also presenting their bias is troubling. While I have no problem with letting the article mention secondary reasons why the drivers acted as they did, this must not take the place of the primary reasons. Finally, while the Mobilization reference is a valid citation @Shultziner shouldn't be pushing a citation they wrote.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ John Vernon; United States National Archives and Records Administration (2008). "Jim Crow, Meet Lieutenant Robinson A 1944 Court-Martial".
  2. ^ Jessica McElrath, Jackie Robinson profile, about.com. (archived from the original on 2006-06-18)
  3. ^ "The Social-Psychological Origins of the Montgomery Bus Boycott: Social Interaction and Humiliation in the Emergence of Social Movements". Mobilization: An International Journal. 18.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Montgomery bus boycott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montgomery bus boycott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Colvin edit request

Hi, I don't know how to reference this, but on the week 8 videos of this online course there is a discussion of Colvin's case - https://class.coursera.org/womencivilrights-001 . Colvin was not pregnant at the time of her arrest, the decision not to make her the test case had more to do with her age and whether she had resisted arrest. She became pregnant after the trial because as her peers at school shunned her she became involved with an older man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.31.99 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


Also agree this needs to be corrected, preferably while Colvin is still with us. She's clarified this during a Democracy Now interview and our own page on Colvin explains that she wasn't pregnant at the time. The unsourced section on E.D. Dixon needs work.

Michael Young Username (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montgomery_bus_boycott/Archive_1&oldid=1224944592"