Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.

Republican

Why isn't MLK listed as a republican when we was indeed one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says King was a Republican, add it to the article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never given this any thought before, but the question made me curious. According to this, this, and this, he was a registed Republican. This article should be read before making any decisions, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely likely King was Republican that year -- Democrats in the South were a pretty nasty lot -- but those citations are assertions, not evidence of anything. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I just provided the links that I found; based on what I could see, I wouldn't add that to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If Dr King voted, he must have done so as a Republican. (Whether he necessarily voted for Republican candidates in specific elections is not the issue, and whether he would prefer to be a Republican today if he were still alive is not the issue.) For most of Dr King's life African-Americans were effectively barred by the Georgia Legislature and the Georgia Democratic Party from participating in the voting process as Democrats. After the Reconstruction era Georgia's Democratic Party establishment adopted a number of Jim Crow measures, including a 1908 amendment to the state constitution that political parties were private entities which could make their own rules about membership, turning the Georgia Democratic Party into a White club if it wasn't already. Even after Smith v. Allwright which in 1944 declared the Democratic White primary in Texas unconstitutional, Georgia's White Democrats continued to keep Blacks out of the Party—by a variety of ruses which finally ended en toto with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Thus, if Dr King was voting in Georgia, until a few years before his death he could have been on the voting roll only in some way other than as a Democrat. For many Black citizens, in Georgia as well as elsewhere, the only alternative was to be at least nominal Republicans. For the background, in that one needs to consider what Georgia was like during Dr King's life, see Disfranchisement_after_Reconstruction_era_(United_States)#White_Primary, Georgia_(U.S._state)#Politics, and African Americans in the United States Congress. Rammer (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In all likelihood King was a registered Republican, but we haven't found any WP:RS that say so. But a person's voting record doesn't make him or her a Republican or a Democrat. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another book that says King was a registered Republican. It's not exactly a reliable source; the author is a professor of language and leadership at the University of Southern Colorado.

"The King Center in Atlanta says there is no proof that King was ever a Republican", but the rest of their statement (in the final paragraph of the article) suggests they're not talking about his party registration. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that one side is thinking of the Republican Party prior to the 1960s--before Goldwater, before Nixon's "Southern strategy" etc.--while the other side is thinking of the Republican Party since. Unquestionably Dr King supported Republican President Eisenhower's sending troops to Little Rock to oblige the school desegregation which Democratic Governor Faubus was trying to block, supported the Eisenhower-backed Civil Rights Bill of 1957 against which Southern Democrats in the Senate waged a filibuster. It was only as late as 1960 and the kindler gentler treatment accorded by the Kennedy campaign that Dr King began thinking more highly of the Democrats, but the segregationist stands of Democrats George Wallace and Lester Maddox were still in the future. The confusion of one phase of either party's history needs to be set aside or someone will be redefining Abraham Lincoln as a Democrat. What needs to be ascertained was whether, at the time and in the place where Dr King lived, was he registered to vote and, if so, with which party--again, with which party in that time and in that place. Rammer (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If King was a registered Republican, it was likely simply because his father was a registered and outspoken Republican for the first 30 years of King's life, as were many well-to-do Southern African-American preachers at the time. It was only during the 1960 election, when JFK made a personal phone call to voice his sympathy and support to Coretta Scott King during MLK, Jr's first stint in prison, that MLK Sr. publicly switched his allegiance, as did a significant number of African Americans due to a pamphlet handed out at black churches advertising the phone call, thus winning the narrow election for Kennedy. MLK, Jr. offered no formal endorsement so as not to offend Nixon and stall his own agenda, should Nixon be elected, but he ultimately voted for JFK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.162.249 (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good info. Got a source we can include? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have page numbers off the top of my head but this information is largely drawn from Taylor Branch's all-encompassing "Parting The Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63", as well as what I can recall from my African-American History 1865-Present undergraduate class. The Branch book would supply you with the majority of the information in the chapters concerned with the 1960 Presidential Election.70.21.162.249 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(Steven (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)) You don't register by party in Georgia - so King could not be a Reigstered Republican. See http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/voting_information.htm for the factoid that that is still the current policy. He could be a possible Republican Party member - how did the Republicans count membership back pre-1960 and would where would the Party store that information?

We'd need information on pre-1960 practices, not current ones. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(Steven (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC))True, and of course the memory of folks from Georgia who voted pre-1960 isn't proof either, but at least this give folks who care a chance to do some real research.

 As a start for them, I did find in  J. Morgan Kousser "Colorblind Injustice" (1999, UNC Press) that in 1957 State Senator James S. Peters proposed that party registration be instituted (p207). Someone want to find out if it was between 1957 to 1960? 

Barack Obama included in his legacy

Shouldn't the 44th and first African-American President be included in the Legacy section? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) He is president-elect, not president. (2) How is that King's legacy? (3) King wanted people to be recognized and judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is his legacy because had it not been for King's tireless work for civil rights, there's no way Obama would be where he is now, and second, people did exactly that, they voted for Obama's qualifications and not against him for his skin color. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at the legacy section. It's not about people inspired by King, or implicit or explicit results of his work. We'd need to list pretty much every successful African American in a formerly white sphere as being part of his legacy if we open that door. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't. The election of the first African American president is a step and a symbol; including him in the Legacy section stands for the many changes that resulted from Dr. King's work.--Parkwells (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegations in the Early Life section

Landerman56 has repeatedly removed references to the plagiarism charges in the Early Life section. I do not understand why he thinks it is inappropriate to mention charges regarding the dissertation when the dissertation is first discussed, and so perhaps he can explain himself here. Phiwum (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The information about plagiarism is quite appropriate in the section that discusses his doctorate. In fact, there is no other logical place to put it in the article. For readers who want more detail, there is a separate article on authorship issues that is linked in one of the citations. Ward3001 (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In the montgomery bus boycott wasnt it rosa parkes not clodette who had to give up her seat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.149.217 (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Party

How come MLK's party is not listed? He was a lifelong card carrying Republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.189.99 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up to the top of this page. Ward3001 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

dr. mlk jr

what was he a doctor of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.202.136 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Theology, as the article says. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar question

In the article, this sentence "On June 10, 1977, shortly after Ray had testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he did not shoot King, he and six other convicts escaped from Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary in Petros, Tennessee." seems very confusing. I'm not sure what is trying to be said. In addition, I believe that it is a comma splice. 70.178.185.201 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC) M. Morley 1-19-2009 $Insertformulahere$

where was his funeral???

where was he buried???? not in article and i think people would like to know.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.254.97 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

His funeral was at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. And the article not only states where he and Mrs King are buried but has a photo of their grave.Masalai (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"We've Got A Long Way To Go" by Gwen Stefani

Shouldn't the following song be added to the media section? "We've Got A Long Way To Go", a song by Gwen Stefani from her first solo album Love, Angel, Music, Baby samples parts of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech.Chicagorunner85 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to give a lot more to justify how a song that extracts some words from King's speech is notable enough to include. How does it improve the article on King? What does it tell us about MLK beyond his own words that are used and discussed elsewhere? And give us more than your opinion. Give us other evidence that it is important to include. Ward3001 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Chicagorunner85 is referring to the template at the bottom of the page, which includes songs about King. I don't know anything about "We've Got A Long Way To Go", but the other songs are songs specifically about King, not merely those that refer to him or sample his speeches.

In any case, the appropriate place for the discussion is Template talk:Martin Luther King. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

hi, i think that the grammar in this article could use a little work. one place is under influences... it should be "in" his life, not "on"... thank you,

Aftonjylare (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You can fix it. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag'n what not

The following paragraph has several issues:

King had a mutually antagonistic relationship with the FBI, especially its director, J. Edgar Hoover. The FBI began tracking King and the SCLC in 1957; its investigations were largely superficial until 1962, when it learned that one of King's most trusted advisers was New York City lawyer Stanley Levison. The FBI found Levison had been involved with the Communist Party USA, though the FBI considered him an inactive party member.

The description that the FBI found out that Levinson was “involved” with the CPUSA leaves much to be desire. My prior version is mores specific proving Levinson’s function in the CPUSA.

Secondly, the FBI never considered Levinson an inactive part member. His frequent contacts with Lessiovski was the primary reason that he was a person of interest. The source is very clear on this and since Christopher Andrew’s area of expertise is intelligence matters, he is far more authorative on the subject than the Stanford library biographical piece on him. CENSEI (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, your original research does not. You don't just tag an article because your content is against conensus, you know. I support removal of this tag. Will wait for another editor to happen along to see what happens.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not OR, the Andrew citation is the source and as is the article is factually incorrect. CENSEI (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is about King, not Levison, so I don't think it needs to go into detail about his involvement with the Communist Party — if what you wrote is true. I question whether a tell-all book by a former KGB agent is a reliable source.

More importantly, how is the article's neutrality compromised by whether your sentence about Levison is allowed to stay? Again, this is an article about King, not Levison. Please explain how the article is not neutral in its description of King's life and achievements. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To say that Levison was simply "involved with the CPUSA at one point in time" is a gross understatement and POV. Adding the adjective "key financer" is a neutral way to describe what his function in the CPUSA was and why the FBI would have been so interested in him. Secondly he was under surveillance because he was meeting with a KGB agent, and that seems very notable, and has, in fact been noted by noteworthy scholars.

And what is with the if snip? I would advise you to AGF and keep this discussion on the level. CENSEI (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Do you have a source that says Levison was a key financier? Christopher Andrew certainly doesn't say it.

2) You still haven't explained how the description of Levison turns the article into a non-neutral biography of Martin Luther King.

3) Despite the fact that you misrepresented what one source says and made a citation to a non-existent page in another source, I'm continuing to assume good faith concerning your motives. But I don't have to assume that what you're writing about Levison is true. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course:

Over time the FBI determined that Levison and his brothers had been connected to 26 businesses since the second world war. These business interest were often founded with CPUSA funds. Their successful ventures funneled sizeable profits to the Communist Party’s coffers; in 1954 the Levisons busy Ford dealership alone was said to generate approximately $15,000 for the CPUSA. - Judgment Days, Kotz, pg 71

Well, it certianly only applies to one section at this point not the whole article, but are you now in agreeance that the material is not correctly represented? Is that why yo modified it with your las tedit because you knew you were defending an indefensible position? CENSEI (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I never misrepresented any sources and if you werent so lazy you could have verified what I said just as easily as I did. CENSEI (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I don't see "key financier" there. That's original research. What I do see, three pages later in Kotz, is this:

[I]n November 1963 the FBI asked Jack Childs to analyze the relationship between Levison and the CPUSA. The portrait Childs painted was hardly one of Communist zealotry. He believed that the Levison brothers had "used" the party and its funds to build their own business empire and line their pockets.

2) Can you explain, in English, how the description of Levison turns the article into a non-neutral biography of Martin Luther King.

3) I was being kind when I said "misrepresented". You lied about the source in this edit. The author didn't write the opposite two pages later — in fact, Levison isn't mentioned two pages later — and if you looked at the source you'd know that. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I support removal of the tag. Even if the edit were a reasonable proposal (which it seems not to be), consensus rejection does not merit a POV tag. Given that this is a tangential biographical detail about someone else's life, conceiving it as a POV issue having to do with King is in itself suggestive of a POV agenda. I strongly urge editors to remain civil. Wikidemon (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... you support removal of the tag even though you have not weighed in on the issue I brought up. How typical of you. CENSEI (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support removal of the tag. A claim that an entire article is biased because a dubious intepretation of a minor event is rejected by editorial consensus strains reasonableness.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A dubious interpretation supported by all available sources .... sounds mor like your opinion than a reasoned arguement supported by some citations. Imagine that. CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I, too, support removing the tag. I have yet to hear an explanation why an edit dispute over a minor figure in King's biography calls into question the neutrality of the whole article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A sectional tag would be fine then. CENSEI (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't been to this page before, so not gonna !vote, but I don't think you're seeing the consensus forming here. You're the only editor who wants the tag. Might I suggest going to Levison's article and making appropriate additions there instead? --GoodDamon 14:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag gone. It's just not an appropriate usage of the POV tag. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther king white??

yes yes he is