Talk:Rosa Parks/Archive 1

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

message: I removed this:
She was also the sister of Gordon Parks.
A source would need to be sited for this, especially since scouring Google for all possible combinations of "Gordon Parks", "Rosa Parks", "brother", and "sister" proved fruitless.
And, besides, if anything, they'd be siblings-in-law, not blood relations ("Parks" is a married name).
--b. Touch 22:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gordon Parks' sister? 

message: The date of the settlement of the OutKast lawsuit was anonymously changed from April 14, 2005 to April 15. Since no source is cited, I have no idea whether this is a correction or vandalism. Could someone please try to sort this out? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
:Why worry about when the lawsuit was settled when there is no explanation of what the lawsuit was, who brought it, when it was brought, who the defendants were, what the actionable facts were, etc? --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 10:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of settlement of lawsuit 

message: The article says, in the Civil Rights and Political Activity section, 
*"Partially in response to her arrest, Martin Luther King, Jr., then a relatively unknown Baptist minister, led the year-long Montgomery bus boycott, which forced the public transportation authority to end the practice of racial segregation on public buses. This event helped spark many other protests against segregation. Meanwhile, in 1956 Parks's case ultimately resulted in United States Supreme Court's ruling that segregated bus service was unconstitutional."
I don't think this makes sense, as the Supreme Court ruling wasn't a "meanwhile"--it was at least partly related to the boycott.  — Braaropolis | Talk 18:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Montgomery Boycott

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

message: Someone pasted into the article, without citation, "Also note that Jackie Robinson took a similar, but less-well-known stand while an Army officer in 1944." Intriguing; with proper citation (and assuming the "stand" actually was similar) it certainly belongs in the article. But without citation, and without indicating exactly what Robinson did it's not much use. Does someone have details and citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
: So that was me.  What are looking for in terms of a "citation"?  I thought perhaps the link to Jackie's web site might have been enough.  He was an Army officer in training in Texas.  White bus driver on post told him to get to the back.  He refused and was court-martialed for it.   Beanbatch 16:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Jackie's web site"? I don't mean to sound grouchy, but… he's dead. He was dead before the Web. He doesn't have a web site, and I don't see anywhere you provided a citation. A Google search turned up a half-decent citation, and I will restore this to the article, with a citation I found. If you have a better citation, especially something that gives the story in some detail, please do cite it, because I would consider what I quickly found to be a barely-adequate one. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article on Jackie Robinson states "After leaving UCLA his senior year, Robinson enlisted in the US Army during World War II. He trained with the segregated U.S. 761st Tank Battalion. Initially refused entry to Officer Candidate School, he fought for it and eventually was accepted, graduating as a second lieutenant. While training at Fort Hood, Texas, Robinson refused to go to the back of a bus. He was court-martialed for insubordination, and therefore never shipped out to Europe with his unit. He received an honorable discharge in 1944, after being acquitted of all charges at the court-martial." I don't know but it sounds perhaps consistent with those times.--Dakota 04:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackie Robinson 

message: Moved from top of page:
I'm a Wikipedia newbie, so I don't know how to do this, but she now needs to be added to the 2005 deaths category.
Thanks, liz 02:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it. --TantalumTelluride 03:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been done. --TantalumTelluride 03:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Deaths 

message: According to Civil Rights Pioneer Rosa Parks Dead At 92, she died at St. John Hospital in Chicago, but according to News of Parks's Death from MSNBC (from the AP), she died at her home. --TantalumTelluride 03:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reuters says that she died at home also. Since I trust the Associated Press and Reuters more than I trust Chicago's local Channel 4 News, I'm removing the link to Channel 4. --TantalumTelluride 03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did she die? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Parks&offset=20051025030001&action=history
:I don't know where Rosa Parks is now, but I doubt she's in the front of the bus. --TantalumTelluride 04:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, all the vandalism confused me. I doubt she's in the back of the bus. Your comment was entirely appropriate. --TantalumTelluride 04:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front of the bus time Mrs Parks. 

message: Is there a reason she's listed as a seamstress first, and not a civil rights activist?  My concern is that there seems to be systemic denial of Rosa's Park's place as an active participant and organizer of the civil rights movement.  There is a widespread belief that she was the "victim" who needed rescuing from folks like MLK Jr - when frankly, that's not true.  So what gives with listing her primairly as a seamstress? Bugg42 08:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, The Gnome, that's exactly the misconception that I'd wish Wikipedia would be able to confront.  Rosa Parks most certainly did refuse to move as an intentional act of civil disobedience.  She was an active member of the NAACP and had participated in various civil rights programs.  She had been the Secretary (an elected position) of the Montgomery, Alabama NAACP chapter for ~12 years prior to her arrest.   She was an activist by all definitions of the word.  Did you even read the article in question? Bugg42 06:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seamstress? 

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

message: This article is linked from the front page today, as a result of Rosa Parks' death. It is too bad this happened, with the "Outkast" section in its current deplorable state. Would someone who has been working this article please read just that section?
Please note that it starts the story in the middle, with an account of a judge in "the case" (what case??) appointing an independent representative for Parks. There is no discussion of what the lawsuit was about, who brought it, when it was brought, who the defendants were, who the judge was, whether there were any plaintiffs other than Rosa Parks, why Parks needed an independent representative since it was apparently a lawsuit brought by her, where the case was argued, why record companies were named as new defendants in the refiling, who was Outkast, and a myriad of other details that are necessary for this section to make any sense at all.
I'm sure the section is meaningful to someone who already knows what the lawsuit was all about, but believe me - the whole world doesn't. I'm in Alaska, and I've never heard of Outkast or of Rosa Parks' lawsuit against him/her/it/them. This isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry and it needs fixing. I'd put a cleanup tag on this page if it weren't currently linked from the home page. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 10:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what we don't appreciate is spam.  A twice linked to unremarkable blog post from a unnoted personal blog.  Probably spam.  Stopping self promotion is the standard here.  If you want to contribute your views, find published pundits that agree. lots of issues  | leave me a message 23:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was self-promotional -- you sought to drive traffic to your blog.  Your ad-linking was intrusive and unwanted appearing at the end of a facutal statement as a footnote when the blog post was clearly not a verifying news source, splattered out of place at the end of another paragraph, and then finally inserted at the bottom of the external links pile.  lots of issues  | leave me a message 11:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outkast Lawsuit - What is it?

message: I'm trying to find a famous image in which a white woman screams at a black woman in front of a university during a civil rights protest. The black woman was trying to enrol as a protest during segregation in the US. The racist woman later denounced racism and began campaigning with the woman she had been abusing in the image. I would very much like to find out their names and find a copy of the image, if anyone here can help please leave a note on my talk page, thanks. - 
Solar 19:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are thinking of the Little Rock Nine integrating Central High School (Little Rock) in 1957.  The photo is not on Wikipedia but can be seen here.  The 15-year old black girl is Elizabeth Eckford and the white woman behind her with the expression of hate is Hazel Bryan Massery.  Massery later apologized to Eckford.  - BanyanTree 23:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous image 

message: Deleted from History? Where is the Wikipedia Rosa Parks page for October 24/05 from 20:30pm, Vancouver time? IMHO,I don't think that a public archive is well served by deletions from the public record of the evidence of racial hatred today, much as it may prove troubling to cherished beliefs about "progress".
I emailed Wikipedia
> Mr. Wales,
> 
> I read the Rosa Parks entry on October 24/05, at 8:30 pm, Vancouver
> time. The entry contained deeply disturbing racist content in the Death
> and Funeral section.
> I have combed through the page history and can find no record of this
> version of the page ever having existed. I am teaching a graduate course
> at the University of XXX on New Media, and it is a concern to me, and to my class, that I would like
> to resolve.
> I have spent many hours trying to find this version of the Rosa Parks
> entry. It just seems to have vanished.
> 
> Any assistance you can provide would be most gratefully received.
> 
Mr. Wales <of Wikipedia> replied:
It was probably deleted.  We routinely delete offensive content.
In the most common case, the offensive material would simply be
reverted, but if it is bad enough, it is not uncommon for an admin to
simply delete it outright, even removing it from the history.  I would
imagine this is what happened in this case. edit by User:TheProf - BanyanTree 16:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When Simon Wiesenthal died we got a lot of hassle for not removing hatred material from the article history. You simply vcannot please all the people all the time. Admins are empowered to remove vandalsim from the history of the page but only do so in rare circumstances. See   SqueakBox 16:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As an admin I do not see the "view deleted versions" note on the Rosa Parks, which would indicate that there have been deletions.  If you are looking for "deeply disturbing racist comments", then the history is full of it, as evidenced by the rate of vandalism and vandalism reversion.  Simply look at the versions before those with "revert" or "rv" edit summaries.  I took a look at the edit history around the time you mention but was not able to spot the exact edit you mention. - BanyanTree 16:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: The caption under the pic of Parks being fingerprinted by Deputy Sheriff D.H. Lackey says that happened on February 22, 1956. I don't know about Alabama court procedure, but it seems to me if she was taken downtown from the bus on December 1 to be charged that's where/when she would have been booked, fingerprinted and photographed. Why such a timelag (if there was one)? Moriori 21:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the date after seeing this on the NYT.  I am also confused about why there would be such a delay, but assume that the Times would not mess up something as particular as that...  - BanyanTree 22:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have considerably more faith in the NYT than me! ):-  I have been doing a lookaround at Rosa Parks info and can't find any mention elsewhere of that date. She  was arrested Dec 1 and went on trial that month. See http://www.montgomeryboycott.com/timeline_rosa.htm. I think we should just delete the date from the caption. What do you think? It can always be restored if someone can come up with evidence to show the date was correct. Moriori 00:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  It clearly can't be the actual day of the arrest as there wouldn't have been a reporter taking photos of random people getting fingerprinted, unless Montgomery police procedures are quite unusual, but am willing to have it removed while it's being clarified. Cheers, BanyanTree 01:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think I just figured it out.  This site references several NYT articles, e.g. "Alabama Indicts 115 In Negro Bus Boycott" on 22 February 1956."  This event is referenced in this site: "In the second half of February the white establishment decided to arrest nearly 100 blacks for violating Alabama's anti-boycott law."  Which reminded me of this story, in which various mugshots including that of King's were found in a closet.  I am pretty confident in saying that these pictures were taken by the police two months after the boycott began after a large group of activists had been rounded up and jailed in an attempt to crush the boycott.  - BanyanTree 01:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one. I think your are totally correct. I will amend the caption. Cheers  Moriori 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: When was the photo taken?

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

message: There has been some back and forth editing on Parks' middle name.  Both Lee and Louise have many google hits, and a recent AP report uses both without stating why it changes.  One of the few that attempts to draw a connection between the two is this Guardian article that states Rosa "Lee" Louise Parks.  Can someone shed some light on this? - BanyanTree 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one reverting the last Lee --> Louise change, so I should explain that I did it purely based on number of google hits favouring Lee with a more than 100:1 in number of hits. I don't know anything authorative about the matter, so if it was wrong, I appologise. Shanes 14:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lee clearly outnumbers Louise, though I see a lot stating her name at birth as Rosa Louise McCauley.  This includes a list of alternative names and variants with Louise.  I wonder if "Rosa Lee" is a casual form of "Rosa Louise"?  I'm going to change the birth name to Louise though feel free to revert if something more substantial is turned up.  - BanyanTree 14:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: FYI - a redirect from Rosa Louise McCauley has existed since November 2002, so this is obviously not the first time a Wikipedian has tried to work this out... - BanyanTree 14:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee vs Louise 

message: I would like to send them a sympathy card.  --Admiral Roo 10:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know Rosa's family's address? 

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

message: I'd like to start an article on Browder v. Gayle. This is mentioned in the Rosa Parks article. I'm trying to find out more information on it. It's a historic case by the Supreme Court. --speedoflight 05:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This should have its own article as the legal details of the case should not be here. - BanyanTree 04:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browder v. Gayle 

message: As much as I loved Rosa Parks, this article does gush a bit. It needs to be revised; I will work to do it if I have a chance. --FuriousFreddy 17:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the section "Debated aspects of Parks' story and its place in the Civil Rights movement" was readded back in with an "NPOVing" edit summary.  I had merged the contents of this section into the general chronological body a couple of days ago as it basically consisted of repetition or, worse, information not contained within the general timeline so one had to get past the biographical section to find out key information about it.  I don't see the point of a section stating things like "People say she was just a seamstress but she was actually part of the NAACP", when the article just spent a screen's worth of content outlining her prior involvement in the civil rights movement.  That's not even "debated", it's just misinformation that everyone involved has debunked, and highlighting it appears to me as setting up strawmen so they can be struck down.  This article certainly needs some background on how Rosa Parks was the right person surrounded by the right support structures at the right moment in history for the civil rights movement to coalesce around her and make her a symbol, but a series of "Gotcha!" bullet points doesn't even come close.  Unless somebody comes up with a good reason why this section should exist, I will remove it shortly. - BanyanTree 17:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: You might want to create the article, Death and funeral of Rosa Parks, and move the information from the Death and funeral section to that article. -- SNIyer12 18:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should be properly summarized and cut down here, not moved to a seperate article. --FuriousFreddy 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Death and funeral

message: "Parks said she did not plan her fateful bus defiance act, "I had not planned to get arrested. I had plenty to do without having to end up in jail. But when I had to face that decision, I didn't hesitate to do so because I felt that we had endured that too long. The more we gave in, the more we complied with that kind of treatment, the more oppressive it became." (Rosa Parks, 1992)
During a radio interview with Sydney Rogers in 1956 in West Oakland, when asked as to why she decided to not vacate her bus seat , Rosa Parks said, "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen of Montgomery, Alabama.""
The intro should be a small bare statement of facts.
lots of issues  | leave me a message 04:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed half of lead 

message: I am strongly opposed to including comparisons of the amount of time that the various networks devoted to the funeral. FauxNews may be Bush shills, but including that info takes away from Rosa.--SarekOfVulcan 00:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that in 6 months, no one will think this belongs in an encyclopedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  News coverage of funeral 

message: "The entire black community ended up boycotting public buses" - Should "entire" be removed? wasn't there anyone who crossed the boycott lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.20.216 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm glad you mentioned that. There needs to be a source for such a sweeping claim. I wouldn't doubt that a large majority of Montgomery's black community participated in the boycott, but there must have been a few who crossed the lines.  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 09:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was pretty comprehensive. It may have been total. I don't think this was misleading as it stood, but I guess that lacking citation, the change would be relatively harmless. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montgomery Bus Boycott Section 

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

message: Is it notable that the front seat in each King County Metro bus has a black sticker on it in Parks's memory?--SarekOfVulcan 20:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say notable if true and citable. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  King County Metro tribute 

message: Anything left to do?
lots of issues  | leave me a message 19:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more citations might be a good idea, for starters. And from a broader perspective—a little too much of the article seems to be based on autobiographical sources and quotations, rather than being more objective, encyclopedic text. Also, if there are any photos at all of her earlier than her arrest, it would be fantastic to get our hands on them, since currently the photo we have in the "Early years" section is one of the oldest photos of her on the page! I haven't removed it because it frames the text very nicely and I don't see a suitable replacement, but if at all possible, we should find a good image to put there instead. Also, do we really need four of the images illustrating this page to be police documents, and two to just be nearly-identical pages of writing? The information's useful, but it's not the most effective way to illustrate and contribute to this page to have so many unreadably small document thumbnails; getting rid of one of the two pages of the police report, or finding a better way to have them both on the page, would add more variety to the page if we could add other sorts of images instead, especially more photos, if possible. For example, if there are any photos of the bus driver... Hm, on considering it, perhaps we want to move the photo of the bus in the museum to that section, which would also open up more room to move the "Early years" photo down to further in the article, once we have a replacement.. The article's looking good, though. -Silence 20:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I will agree that it might be good to merge the 2 police reports into 1 bigger image but disagree with removing any of the images because it's what makes this article interesting. I've read so many newspaper reports of Parks' death and almost none have even featured the police reports, finger prints, bus seat illustration, etc. It makes for very interesting context to the article to see these images. Never ever doubt that a picture is worth a thousand words!!!  I will agree that it would be nice to have ones of her as a child, young woman, etc. I have looked on the National Archives, Library of Congress sites for other images of her that have not been featured in any of the newspapers and so far, have only found the one on "Early years". Typically these types of childhood, young woman images have to be shared by her family. Maybe her family might have chosen to not share any of them. Does this article let a reader understand who Rosa Parks the civil rights icon is? Yes it definitely does and it contains some very powerful insight into her thoughts because of her quotes about her arrest, actions. Do not erase any of these quotes!!! What the article needs is more illustration of her life in her "Later years", i.e. what groups did she work with, things that she did, people she associated with, changes in viewpoint (if any), etc. etc. I do think the article should round out and not just focus on her life as a civil rights icon but to extend to other facets of her life as well. --speedoflight 01:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, I didn't recommend the removal of any images or any quotes. Just the opposite, I asked for more images, more references. And I agree that her later life's of chief importance; I just feel we should have an appropriate image from her childhood (maybe of an area where she grew up?) if possible. If not, so be it. -Silence 01:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for your clarification. I may have misunderstood what you meant. I haven't read a lot of articles about Parks' life in her later years. I have seen photos of her appearing with Mrs King (MLK's widow) but again, it's stuff about her on the civil rights issue. As mentioned, I think we should add more to the article to showcase her life rather than just an icon.  --speedoflight 09:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is needed to get this article to featured 

message: This article seems to be vandalized a lot by anonymous posters (those identified by IP address only). Does anyone know if Wikipedia has plans to disallow anonymous posters to edit/create articles? --speedoflight 15:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and it would be a bad thing for them to change, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan 21:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  While some anon posters don't vandalize, historical data shows that many do. I've seen this happen on many articles. It takes a minute to register but it shows level of commitment from a user. I support changing to only allow registered users to edit/create. If a registered user vandalized, it's so much easier to ban that person over time than some anon IP. --speedoflight 08:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I semi-agree.  A sort of "anonymous protection" would be good for such high profile pages as this that are constantly vandalized.  And yes, while there are many good anonymous editors, it really does only take a minute to create an account.  I know it's not exactly in the"spirit of the wiki", but it wastes time to have to revert one page so many times.  And that kind of idea wouldnt be wikipedia-wide, just on pages that are constantly vandalized.  I donno, the idea has some appeal.jfg284 you were saying? 09:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The 50th anniversary will soon pass us by.
Lotsofissues 21:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect that there will be some serious objections to this being FAed, but it may stand a chance if we're all willing to battle hard to correct every mistake that is raised. I expect an uphill battle, though, and if this FA fails, it'll be tough to renominate it before the anniversary's passed. Still, you're right that we need to get started immediately if it's going to be on the main page, considering all the bureaucracy that must be gotten through both to get featured and to get featured-on-main-page. In fact, it's almost to the point where I don't think there's a point worrying about getting this done for the 50th anniversary and we should just continue improving the article more gradually; but I suppose it couldn't hurt to give FC a try, since it's a much more effective and active system than Peer Review is, and thus will most likely get us much quicker and more detailed results. Some minor things we may want to fix before the FA, or at least early into it: a fair use rationale for :Image:Rparksmug1.jpg might be safest, and we should definitely have a rationale for :Image:AdvertiserParksDies.jpg, :Image:Rosaparks clinton.jpg, and :Image:Metro-Rosa-seat.PNG (the latter of which we may not even be able to use on this page because it's not "free" enough, plus it doesn't really illustrate anything important). So. Go ahead. Nominate it. Couldn't hurt. -Silence 21:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to drop the Metro sticker: as you say, it doesn't illustrate anything important. Just seemed like a good idea at the time.--SarekOfVulcan 23:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I'm going to chime my $0.02 in. I've seen past feature articles and some aren't as well written as this one is. Some don't have anywhere near the level of citations they could or should have. So apparently, there's not a standard yardstick to measure by. It seems to me, it's relatively subjective. --speedoflight 15:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. But expect this article to receive much, much closer scrutiny than most FAs, because it's such a high-profile figure. In general, more important articles need to be higher-quality than less important articles to be FAd, simply because there's more to lose by saying "X article is one of our best" if it's not when it's a higher-profile article that many more people will check out and judge. -Silence 20:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideal or not - nominate already 

message: thumb|right|Moved this image from the main page; doesn't seem to be free.
Updated sticker with email from webmaster to help clarify nature of permission.--SarekOfVulcan 22:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro sticker 

message: So we are line with copy policy. Lotsofissues 00:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which photos to junk 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosaparks_1964.jpg
Lotsofissues, please read the EXACT caption on this image:
: Rosa Parks. Photograph by Associated Press. 1964. Location: NYWTS
: Reproduction Number: LC-USZ62-109426 Note: No copyright found; checked by Library of Congress staff, December 2000.
: United States Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/235_pop.html
It is a photograph by AP but it's copyright is NOT found and it has been checked by the LOC staff. It is an image filed by the LOC and has a related link to it stored in their archives. It even has a LOC reproduction number. It has been released to the public domain by the US govt. I am not sure why you removed the image claiming that its copyright belongs to AP.
--speedoflight | talk to me 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have inserted the image back but to the later years section where it should be instead of the early years portion where a childhood pic should be more appropriate. --speedoflight | talk to me 11:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *What about the newspaper image in "death and funeral"? Do we have Fair Use justifaction for that, or what? -Silence 23:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Through common practice, covers qualify under fair use.  Lotsofissues 00:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *And the front page of a newspaper is a "cover"? Most "covers" don't have the text of the work itself on them. A newspaper's front page is more like the first page of a book than the cover of one. -Silence 00:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's more accurate to compare it with the cover: The visible presentation of the product selected by the creators to arouse interest inside.  Lotsofissues 16:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *But the cover is not part of the actual content of the work. The front page of a newspaper is. Is there any actual Wikipedia policy or guideline (or law) anywhere that addresses whether a "front page" falls under the Cover Fair Use umbrella? Even if there is, I'd say it's borderline enough that we should have a Rationale for it, especially since the section isn't about the newspaper itself. -Silence 20:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of 1964 Photo 

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

message: This article is really nicely done.  Definitely worthy of being a featured article!  My compliments to everyone who contributed to bring it to this high standard.
-- LiniShu 01:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, I went and found the version before the date of her death was added.  It is here, and the civil rights contribution section was one paragraph longer than the description of the OutKast lawsuit.  Good work by a large and ever-rotating number of editors over the past month.  - BanyanTree 02:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice Work!

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

message: Be nice to our hero and stop the vandalism!  Thanks in advance. Lharvill 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. There will always be vandalism, and it will always be reverted. They're editing a couple of letters on an Internet document, not doing something to "Rosa"; it matters little more than if they wrote on a piece of paper in their home, "I hate Rosa Parks", and then threw it away. Trivial. -Silence 21:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be Nice! 

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

message: An anon managed to restore the disheveled bullet point section "debated aspects" from months ago.  It took the hard work of good editors to design a coherent place for all those bullet points into the text of the article.  By slapping back the bullet points, the anon also made the text sloppy and sometimes word for word redundant. Yet the section was not removed for 2 weeks despite how many ppl watch this article.  It's a sad illustration of the "Darwinian" myth of Wikipedia.  Good articles must come down.  Lotsofissues 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's just a part of the natural growth cycle of all Wikipedia articles. First, an article gets improved more and more by people interested in making the article Featured. It reaches Featured status, and then, all the editors are happy and move on to other projects. Then the article slowly degrades over time, and other FAs get increasingly better so the FA standards increase, and the degraded article has its Featured status taken away (unless some especially dedicated editors jump in at the last minute to quickly bring it back up to snuff) and must again be worked on by dedicated editors to slowly reach Featured status. It's just part of the natural cycle of Wikilife, and the end result of all that work and re-work and repeated upgrading is, presumably, is a far better article. -Silence 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still a little embarrassing that this section managed to get reinserted.  That's a lot more blatant than the slow decay post FA-push.  Lotsofissues may recall that it actually was removed, reinserted and removed again in the week after her death.  Many editors, such as myself, were off the wiki for the holidays so presumably new edits were not being checked as rigorously, which may partially explain it. - BanyanTree 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I haven't edited this article I thought it was a great FA article. I'd support reverting to the FA version. We could then compare the changes since then and add in any that actual improve the article.--Alabamaboy 00:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article decaying before our eyes