Talk:I Have a Dream

Beginning

I can't believe that this article said that "I have a dream" was the first phrase of the speech. Whoever wrote that must have never listened to the speech or even read it. In that case, why the hell were they writing an article on it?! What's more, why did noone else pick it up? CGS 23:16, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Ah - I see it was only put in yesterday. CGS 23:35, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Kennedy quote?

For a long time, this page included a claim that Kennedy's reaction to the speech was simply to say, "He's good." I haven't been able to find any reference, outside Wikipedia, to this quote, so I've deleted it from the page. Please provide information, and preferably a citation, if you know of any support for this quote. —Steven G. Johnson 02:48, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, its been two years since your deletion, but Steve, an article appeared in the ABC news website, with Peter Jennings which verifies the quote. http://i.abcnews.com/WNT/story?id=129482

As to it being his only reaction, I think i had seen in some documentary that Kennedy did in fact repeat King's words back to him to show that he was impressed - although I cannot remember the Source for that! Ashandil 03:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Extra Verse

I've included an extra verse to the speech. It may be me, but I've heard this part recited more often than any other. If you wish to remove the section, please explain here. Thanks. Dean.l 18:52:50, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

This part should be merged with Martin Luther King's page and deleted220.247.252.252 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Extemporized??

I read an article once that suggested that the famous part of this speech was an afterthought; and extemporized when a supporter said something like "tell us about your dream!" I am not sure, but have an idea that the supporter had heard King speak at another gathering. Could someone who knows the truth add some detail about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.45.165 (talk) 15:16, January 20, 2006

See:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had originally prepared a short and somewhat formal recitation of the sufferings of African Americans attempting to realize their freedom in a society chained by discrimination. He was about to sit down when gospel singer Mahalia Jackson called out, "Tell them about your dream, Martin! Tell them about the dream!" Encouraged by shouts from the audience, King drew upon some of his past talks, and the result became the landmark statement of civil rights in America -- a dream of all people, of all races and colors and backgrounds, sharing in an America marked by freedom and democracy. [1]

—Steven G. Johnson 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Kennedy quote

Someone added this without citing any reference:

President John F. Kennedy, who met King later the same day, was said to have been highly impressed by King's rousing speech. He met King with an approving nod of the head and by saying "I (too) have a dream".

Please provide a source for this, as a quick Google search doesn't turn up any other references to this alleged quote. (I'm curious to know how Kennedy pronounced the parentheses, too!). —Steven G. Johnson 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Expansion

Can someone please flag this to be expanded? There is so much more that could be said about this speech than what is already contained in the current versions of the article (as of Feb. 2006).

For starters, there should be a section on how the speech was received (several sources I've come across imply that the speech was not run on Television/radio stations in the south when Dr. King gave it). In addition, there needs to be greater elaboration on the speech’s impact on American race relations and on political rhetoric in general. Finally, the whole debate as to whether or not the speech is in the public domain should in and of itself be at least as long as the current version. (Note: I also made some minor edits - removed language that was derogatory, i.e. one of the greatest speeches in American History relied on the use of "platitudes" etc. - not very accurate or complimentary) —Anon 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is a whole article on the court dispute over the copyright: Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.. —Steven G. Johnson 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

a famous speech / the most famous speech (POV)

I suppose this is considered the most famous speech by most people, so why say it is the most famous speech?--Robin.rueth 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you rephrase your question? The article says "...a famous public speech by", not "the most famous speech". --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand... you admit that most people consider it King's most famous speech... so you wonder why we say so? This is an encyclopedia. I'd think it would be obvious that we definitely print things that most people consider to be correct. If you're trying to make an argument that it's "too obvious" to deserve mention, I couldn't disagree more. I consdier it best practise to assume total ignorance on the part of our readers. Kasreyn 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stating opinions as fact is covered at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Both guidelines discourage this type of language. Cacophony 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, famousness is not opinion, it is fact. Whether speech x is more famous than speech y can be objectively determined. If it's absolutely necessary I can go find a reliable source describing "I Have a Dream" as King's most famous speech. I was merely pointing out that I really didn't think it was necessary; there is such a thing as being overzealous in our sourcing. But if you insist, I will. Kasreyn 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How would these do? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Kasreyn 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, would you look at that... took me only five minutes to find five good sources! You can do this at home, too. Kasreyn 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are just examples of others opinions, not an objective measurement of "x vs. y". What you need is a scientific study that determines how many people have heard of it compared with other speeches. If you really wanted to, you can say "So and so considers this to be the most famous speech ever". See how Ulysses (novel) cites its ranking as #1 on the Modern Library List of Best 20th-Century Novels (at the end of the introduction!) as an example. Cacophony 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The wording under debate is "the most famous public speech by Martin Luther King", not "most famous ever by anybody". I don't think it's especially remarkable to name something "most famous" (or more weakly "best known") if we're only talking about one individual's oeuvre. Of Dr. King's speeches, this is the most famous. We call "I Have a Dream" its "popular" nickname, is that something we need a scientific study for? I am not saying the article is great, but this is nitpicking. --Dhartung | Talk 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite Dhartung, much improved. While I agree that it is not a major issue, these phrasing issues need to be discussed. It is just the gears of the wiki grinding away. Cacophony 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

The World Wide School page linked gives a different answer to the copyright issue; which is correct? — Mutt Russell, 12:15, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I believe the current page is correct; the 11th circuit overruled an earlier ruling that is (apparently) the source of the info on the page you mention. Steven G. Johnson 21:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. — Mutt Russell, 14:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I came to this article to read the speech, and found it wasn't in here. Granted, there are a couple of links to it, but still - it seems wrong to write an article about how important the speech was, its style, and how it was recieved, yet neglect to put in the speech itself.Yarilo2 14:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The speech is copyrighted by the King estate, and they have sued for infringement more than once. [7] The speech is not ours to distribute (without permission). In any case this is an article about the speech; that's what an encyclopedia does. --Dhartung | Talk 14:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be mentioned in the article (the copyright thing)? In any case, I didn't know about the copyright problem, so I'll take the speech off.Yarilo2 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is from [8]:

Permission is hereby granted to download, reprint, and/or otherwise redistribute this file, provided this distribution statement is included and appropriate point of origin credit is given to the preparer and Douglass.

Coffee2theorems 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I'm pretty confused now. However, I'd rather have the speech than not have it, and it seems to be legal, so I put it back in (with what I thought was appropraite credit)-Yarilo2 20:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have listed this page on Wikipedia:Request for copyright assistance. Cacophony 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to Cacophony's call for advice - IMHO, there is no doubt that the Douglas project doesn't own the copyright, the King estate does. You could contact the Douglas project to see if they have a license from the King estate to permit redistribution, but without some positive confirmation, Wikipedia needs to treat the speech as copyrighted. Thanks, TheronJ 01:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some uncertainty because a US court declared the text public domain during the 1990s, but that ruling was eventually overturned and the copyright enforced. Under US law the public distribution of a text does not in itself abrogate copyright (see Bell v. Combined Registry, the Desiderata case) (sorry, misremembered opinion here). [9] Thus the copyright remains, even if the King estate chooses to allow the Douglas Center to distribute the work. They are distributing copyrighted work with permission. This is not the same as Wikipedia having permission, however (for example, Wikipedia content may be mirrored elsewhere in a commercial context). In any case, the proper location for the text of the speech is not Wikipedia itself but m:Wikisource, and I see that the English Wikisource has a notice requesting that noone add the speech due to the extant copyright, which will remain in force until 70 years after King's death. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Altough the estate claims to have copyright; this was not established in court. However they are more than willing to sue over the matter and no one has spent the money needed to prove them either right or wrong in the matter. Copyright is legaly unknown, but eveyone respects the estate's claim.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's well put. Like a patent, a copyright is only good until someone gets a court decision declaring it invalid. For now, though (1) the King estate claims copyright; and (2) in light of the CBS decision, their claim is at least plausible. TheronJ 15:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The CBS "decision" doesn't really count. The estate won the intial decision. CBS appealed and got a favorable ruling regarding "limted distribution" and the case was remanded for determination. The parties settled out of court. That means no decision. However the claim of copyright is certainly plausible. I do not encourage anyone to distrube this text without permission. At the same time it is incorrect to claim Copyright has been established.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. CBS won the initial decision. On appeal the 11th Circuit reversed the district court and established that the King estate did hold copyright to the speech. They then remanded the case "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion". What they meant by that is that even though the speech is copyrighted, CBS's use of it could still have been lawful under fair use and the district court should find out. The parties settled out of court before this was decided. It's still fair to say that the ruling established that the estate does hold the copyright to the speech and that it is not in the public domain. Haukur 18:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Relationship to Malcolm X?

This is something that I've often wondered about the speech, but I'm nowhere near close enough to an expert on the civil rights movement to answer it: around 6:45 or so ("let us not not satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred," etc) I often think that King is responding to Malcolm X and his peers in the black nationalist movment. I guess what I'm getting at is that I would like to see some discussion on this page of the speech in the context of the greater civil rights movement, but I personally don't feel qualified to add anything myself. --thither 07:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. While I would personally agree with your interpretation, we really can't use anything like this unless it's attributed to an outside source. Original Research is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, and for us to add our personal interpretations of what Dr. King may have meant into the article would definitely be OR. If you can find a reliable 3rd-party source we can link to, that shares your analysis of that portion of the speech, I would see no problems with adding it. Cheers, Kasreyn 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Did Mahalia Jackson urge King to mention the dream?

Did gospel singer Mahalia Jackson either whisper or call out to King, who was about to sit down, "Tell them about your dream, Martin. Tell them about the dream."? Or did she mention it before his trip? So far this seems like urban legend, or at best, anecdotal. I've inquired of Snopes as well. NjtoTX 14:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Should it be noted that

Part of this speech is used in a song by Gwen Stefani called 'long way to go'? -Anthony- 09:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The source for "I have a Dream"

In his autobiography (The autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr., edited by Clayborne Carson) Dr. King mentions that he never planned to say "I have a dream" but once he said it for the first time in the speech, he didn't go back to his prepared speech and spoke off-the-top of his head. Should this be mentioned more in-depth?

Vandalism

I came across an amazingly blatant instance of vandalism on the first line here. I'm not sure if it'll be listed in some edit history here, but if it is, please block whoever did it. Something about a "big hairy cock" instead of "I have a dream". I edited it back to what it was supposed to say -- but there might be more instances in the rest of the article; could somebody please run a thorough check? 77.106.158.223 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Nizingur