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)

It is not an assertion. Are you censoring?? It is a fact and it needs to be added that he is a Republican. That is significant! Unless your purpose is to keep people ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.52.36 (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2009 (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 1980 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?

At the very least, a section should be included that mentions his party status but also includes extenuating circumstances, personal beliefs, and what not. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the odd nature of party affiliations in the South in that era (as witnessed by some of this discussion, I fear that mentioning it at all would require such a lengthy explanation as to constitute undue emphasis on a matter of minor importance. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable sources yet demonstrating (as opposed to speculating) that he was a Republican? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we do not. I've checked up on the issue here and there, and the internet is vacant of any solid evidence that he was ever really a Republican. It just simply is not a fact. It won't be, either... I'm also not sure of the relevance, other than to further an agenda, if it were put on with so little to back it up. We know he wasn't socially conservative. And we also know that he was heavily critical of capitalism. It is *pure* speculation to align him with any party. I think it's just a stretch to put him in with any party loyal at all.98.168.204.179 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not a lot of relevance, and it would only be a detail that might pique the reader's curiosity like it's piqued ours enough to research it. (Which is sometimes good enough grounds for inclusion of a minor detail.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

I agree that Obama should not be mentioned in this article, but maybe the two could be linked in another article. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (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)

Shouldn't the separate article on authorship issues be listed in the "See also" section? This seems more appropriate than as a citation--unless I'm mistaken, encyclopedias generally do not cite themselves as sources.208.199.244.2 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (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)

On that night, Indianapolis was the only city which did not burn.

What is this quote in the article supposed to mean?

On that night, Indianapolis was the only city which did not burn.

It seems like it was taken, out of context from somewhere. I've removed it, but feel free to put it back rewritten to make sense in this context. Sligocki (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't quite get that wording either, but it is a pretty well known fact. Because of Robert Kennedy's speech in Indianapolis that night, that was the only American city with a significant black population that had no real rioting or violence that night. -- Otto 17:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox: Influences and Influenced

What should be the criteria for including a person among King's influences or those influenced by him?

Today I removed Theodor Herzl and Emmett Till, who were both included as influences. Abraham Lincoln is still there; what influence did Lincoln have on King's thinking?

Albert Lutuli is listed among those influenced by King; his biography doesn't mention King, although this article mentions Lutuli. Al Sharpton isn't mentioned here, but in Sharpton's bio he cites King as an influence (in an indirect way). Somebody added Barack Obama, who isn't mentioned here, nor is King cited as an influence in Obama's biography.

Any thoughts?

• Yeah, remove the entire influenced by section; rare would be the African American leader nowadays to not say they were influenced by King. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. 's Zodiac Animal and Zadiac Sign

I am here today to told what is MLK's zodiac animal and what his zodiac sign, too... I add this because I believe his traits relate zodiac which bring to dream that he talking about.... MLK is snake and aquarius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroxhikaro (talk • contribs) 06:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Influenced by Jesus Christ

Shouldn't only actual people (to everyone) be listed in "Influences" in the Infobox? --afarnen ^talk 06:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing "Jesus Christ" until someone gives a good reason to keep it. --afarnen ^talk 21:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't people get influenced by movies, television and games? probably many other non-people as well. Whether or not he (Jesus) was real doesn't make much difference. He was a diehard christian after all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.46.216 (talk • contribs)

This is an an obnoxiously and deliberately offensive edit. The only reason I'm not reverting it is that virtually any Christian's infobox would list Jesus as an influence, and thus it's rather superfluous to leave Him in there (particularly in the case of a Christian clergyman). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You would, indeed, think it's a "given"!! --leahtwosaints (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty absurd to not consider Jesus Christ, or at least whatever historical figure originated the teaching attributed to him, as a real person... Whatever he did or did not mean or really do, the idea that a figure didn't exist (and by the by, the name "Jesus" was popular at the time, so you may as well call this figure "Jesus"), is inane--ESPECIALLY for the purposes of this article, because Jesus the figure generally agreed upon by those who believe in him ... did influence MLK Jr. Extant or not, "Puff the Magic Dragon" is probably gonna be a major influence for the "Puff the Magic Dragon" fanclub. On the other hand, of course, the influence of (perceived or real!) Jesus on MLK Jr. is pretty self-evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.32.223 (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Drum Major Instinct" speech misquoted at the end of "Legacy" section of Martin Luther King, Jr.

I recently heard the speech on the radio and then noticed the misquotes in the end part of the speech that was quoted at the end of the 'Legacy' section. Here are sources with the correct version:

1) http://www.theharwoodinstitute.org/ht/redisplay/1/printerfriendly/1

2)

3) Martin Luther King, Jr By Peter John Ling Published by Routledge, 2002 ISBN 0415216648, 9780415216647 page 303 (can been seen on books.google.ca link below)

4) http://governmentchangeagents.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/martin-luther-king-the-change-agent-lives-on/

Here is the end of the speech that is found in all those sources, with the correct phrases that need to be corrected in the wikipedia entry in bold:

I’d like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. (Yes)

I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. (Amen)

I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. (Yes)

And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked. (Yes)

I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. (Lord)

I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. (Yes)

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. (Amen) Say that I was a drum major for peace. (Yes) I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. (Yes) I won’t have any money to leave behind. I won’t have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. (Amen) And that’s all I want to say.

Here is the wikipedia entry version, I inserted the correct text and crossed out the erroneous phrase beside the corrected text.

==

King spoke earlier about what people should remember him for if they are around for his funeral. He said rather than his awards and where he went to school, people should talk about how he fought peacefully for justice.:

“ I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I've tried to be right on the war question [on the walk with them]. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were [ all to a] naked. I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. And I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major. Say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter."1968 Year In Review, UPI.com"

”

Minor changes here

I changed the words I'm fucking for God to I'm F***ing for God. Children use this too.--Jjohnston90 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia isn't censored. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a stretched definition of censorship. I suppose the abbreviation is unambigous. --Jonund (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Suppose as you like, but Wikipedia does not change direct quotes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm inclined to remove the entire quote; it's purely salacious and adds nothing to the understanding of MLK. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion?

Would it be opening a huge Pandora's box to mention songs that have been written in his honor? I'm thinking specifically of Patty Griffin's "Up to the Mountain (MLK Song)", and especially, Stevie Wonder's tribute which helped win his birthday as a National holiday.--leahtwosaints (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The infobox at the bottom of the article has links to "Media" (including songs) about King. I've added the Patti Griffin song. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

martin

you shoulds talk about what he bwas fighting for like the bus story and more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.166.234 (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Socialism

I couldn't help but notice that the role King's Socialist outlook had on his life is practically ignored in this article. Is this delibrate or the result of a simple lack of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.222.95 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

King was never a Socialist, although the Socialist Party would undoubtedly have welcomed him. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, he was, espescially towards the end of his life. It's cited in the article itself.--Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Adultery

There is good reason to believe the FBI claim about the recording is right. They used it to blackmail him, which would not make sense if the recording was ambigous. Classifying it for a long time also awakens suspicions about trying to avoid a scandal and shielding a national icon. In any case, the claim by his associates is duly reported, and readers are free to draw their own conclusions. --Jonund (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to give undue weight to an alleged incident whose only purpose is to satisfy some editors' prurient interests. The FBI was known to fabricate evidence. Do you have any reliable sources that indicate King was blackmailed with this recording? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not insult me. I am writing about a serious issue.

It is hard to fabricate a tape that sounds like MLK:s voice. The source is the Final report of the Senate Committe to study governmental operations. By the way, the authors of The Lawless State: The Crimes of the U.S. Inteligence Agencies - certainly no friends of the FBI - believe the tape is accurate. --Jonund (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a serious issue. It doesn't really say anything about MLK that isn't said in the rest of the section. Already, we've got more about his alleged adultery than about his opposition to the Vietnam War (for example). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a serious issue? Are you joking? Faithfulness is a prime virtue. Charachter is the measure of a man. Note that the guy is regarded as a saint by some Christian churches, and, apparently, by secular society as well.

King spoke out clearly in public about the Vietnam war, so there is not the same challenge to establish what his position in fact was. --Jonund (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The one particular quote is not a "serious issue", is what I meant. We've already got a large section discussing the entire issue; the prurient quote doesn't add any understanding of the man. ("Oh, he may or may not have spoken dirty in bed." Big deal.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding you. I disagree, however. The exclamation is blasphemy. A minister who says so, in addition to betraying his wife, is seriously astray. An other reason to report the incident is that it played an important role, as it was used to blackmail King. --Jonund (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Then we'll need to expand and discuss the "blasphemy", since "fucking for God" is a sacrament rather than a blasphemy in some religions, and we don't get to assume the reader knows there's something particularly special about the allegations that King used the expression; and we'll need to add material demonstrating that this particular quote was a significant part of the blackmail operation. And besides, if he was committing adultery, what he exclaimed doing it isn't really very important either, is it? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We can add that it was this tape they used for blackmailing King. Nobody believes hieros gamos (or whatever you refer to) is a Christian sacrament. The blasphemous nature of his exclamation is evident to any one with a superficial knowledge of Christianity. --Jonund (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can get consensus to include the lengthy discussion it will entail -- including full details of the blackmail -- it will go back in. It's not just for the two of us to determine. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue of King's extra-marital activities already has more "real estate" than it deserves. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jonund would be well advised to stop his daily insertion of material that lacks onsensus, lest he gain the attention of an uninvolved administrator, who will simply look at the history of the page and conclude slow-motion edit warring is happening. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be clear on the current controversy. As I understand it, Jonund says that there was a recording of King uttering a particular phrase while committing adultery. He would like to include mention of this fact in the article. Why do others object?

• Because there is not a reliable source verifying the existence of this recording.
• Because there are reliable sources disputing the existence of this recording.
• Although the existence of this recording is well-documented, the material should not be included in this article for some other reason. (What reason?)

What is the primary reason folks don't want to include this material? (For my part, I have no strong opinion, but the material seems to be primarily salacious and irrelevant to the subject and so I tend to agree that it should be omitted.) Phiwum (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As you say: it's primarily salacious. It adds little to the understanding of King. WP:UNDUE. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and think it should be omitted.--Parkwells (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While I think Jpgordon and I largely agree, I don't think that this is a matter of WP:UNDUE. That policy is about not giving minority viewpoints too much space in an article. This isn't about minority viewpoints, as I see it, but about trivial, salacious details that distract from the topic at hand. Thus, we may think that Jonund is giving this topic undue weight in the usual sense of the term, but not in the sense of the policy WP:UNDUE. Phiwum (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're probably correct. (Though the viewpoint of the FBI in this case is the fringe minority opinion by now!) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A Christian saint who commits blasphemy - that's certainly no "trivial detail". It adds a lot to the understanding of the man.

Then there is the role the tape played in the FBI blackmailing. I think a reference to the Senate report after the passage about the letter which King interpreted as an encouragement to commit suicide is enough to demonstrate the significance of the tape in this regard. But jpgordon demands consensus to "include the lengthy discussion it will entail -- including full details of the blackmail". It seems like he won't tolerate a reasonable indication of this aspect.

I suspect the reason why people want to cover up this information is that they feel I have myself committed blasphemy by disclosing true but embarassing sides of King. You are not supposed to tell about the darker sides of saints, religious or secular. --Jonund (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We have an entire long section devoted to the allegations of adultery; nobody is suggesting we remove it; therefore, your suspicions are valueless. What I "tolerate" is pretty much irrelevant; if the consensus of the editors here disagrees with my position, I, like anyone else, get to move on and find another topic of interest. Or I can keep promoting my point of view on the talk page, if I want. What I can't do is repeatedly make the article the way I want it; that's just edit warring against consensus, and is something we try to avoid around here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, it appears quite staggering that an aspect with such a bearing on King's sainthood should go unmentioned. This is quite a detailed article (as it should be) and this topic should be treated with necessary depth, just as the rest of the article. --Årvasbåo (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The topic of King's adultery is treated with appropriate depth; in fact, one could argue that more attention is paid to it than it deserves in the context of his life. The issue is whether a specific tape recording belongs in the article, and it isn't at all clear to me what that recording has to do with King's sainthood in two Christian denominations not particularly known for beatifying and canonizing saints. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The blasphemy is an aspect in its own right. It's one thing to reluctantly yield to sexual temptations; to express contempt for God and his commandments by wanton exclamations shows that the reverend is not merely a sinner struggling with his carnal appetite, but an exceptionally unsaintly man.

I'm astonished to hear Malik Shabazz having diffculties understanding the connection between King's orgy in the Willard hotel and his sainthood. Jpgordon mistook wanton fornication for a sacrament. This attempt to exclude the incident really looks crazy.

King is not only recognized as a Christian saint by two churches, but in a sanctification-like manner, he is payed tribute by the U.S. government by the observation of public holidays. Such pious commemoration might suggest a blameless character. --Jonund (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• There is not such a thing as "blameless character", be it secular or religious. Even Jesus is recorded to have said "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7). And nobody did. Let's stop playing it prude here. He was a man and as a man he acted. That is not to say he was just the adulter man next door. What bothers me is if Mr Jonund here would be so demanding to his neighbor (who has done nothing for the advance of America as a nation.) as he tries to be here, to a man who not only dedicated his life to the improvement of all American's (not only the black) life (even though, perhaps, he had some issues on his own) to the extend as to be killed in the line of duty. It is too easy to point fingers.--Agcala (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• In no part of the proclamation of the Martin Luther King Jr's Day as a holiday it says anything about Mr King being a blameless character. As a matter of fact no such a qualification is requiered at all. The honor is given for whatever the man did, not because whatever he did not. Thus such assumption lacks any grounds.--Agcala (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that such a sinner and unholy (according to your assessment) man is recognized as a Saint for two Christian churches should give you Mr Jonund some ground to reconsider. Things are never black and white Mr Jonund. Or maybe you think your proposal of modification of the article would make those churches to recant their decision? I am sure you do. --Agcala (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The word can be used in a relative sense, just as Phil 2:15 does (as I understand it) when it says we can become blameless. But the formulation was not the best, as it brings unnecessary confusion here.

It’s hard to commemorate one side of a man while ignoring his character, even if that side is truly admirable.

I would, of course, welcome if the churches stopped making fools of themselves and recanted their decisions. But I certainly don’t expect them to do that. I think they knew whom they recognized as a saint, but for those churches, politics and being in touch with time is more important than holiness. --Jonund (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to find reliable sources supporting your point of view. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. My edits have been supported with reliable sources. If you mean that I should provide sources proving that saints are expected to have a good character and that wanton fornication is not a Christian sacrament, I think your sarcasm is misplaced. --Jonund (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Jpgordon's point is: If, as you say, (a) King is widely revered in the U.S. as a saint, (b) the commemoration of his birthday with a public holiday suggests he had a blameless character, and (c) the specific allegation that he said he was "fucking for God" is so illuminating as to his character beyond general allegations concerning his adultery, you shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources that say so. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. There are several credible sources that tell about the exclamation. That a minister says so is illuminating as to his character is, however, so obvious so I cannot imagine any reason why the sources should explain the implications. Explaining the obvious sometimes makes you seem less than smart. --Jonund (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Article: "The Unknown Martin Luther King, Jr."

This link Article: "The Unknown Martin Luther King, Jr." has twice been removed by one particular editor, first with a remark in including the words "What's next? a link to Stormfront?" which I do not understand, and later to dismissing the link as "racist", which like many convenience-words ending in "ist" can be defined to mean whatever the user intends it to mean (often a derogatory and empowering substitute for lack of intellingent reasoned discussion). I do not think the link is one to be treated as vandalism, which I am sorry must be common in any article about a well-known leader. The subject matter of the linked article does not seem to be concerned with expression of a particular point of view on race (if this is what "racist" means): if it did it would not be relevant to the MLK page. But it does seem to be biographical, has some nice photographs, and is well-written and reasonable, and therefore of interest. As an experienced (non-American, with no point of view on the subject of the article) contributor to wikipedia, I believe a variety of appropriate links to a subject is of interest, and contributes to understanding. And a variety of independent views expressed of a subject enriches, and is the way to approach the truth, like any scientific research: it is not for editors to filter links because they contain matter showing the subject to be less than perfect - we are all human - and I can understand that this might be the reason.

Enough. Please can there be viewpoints on the relevance of the link to MLK ? And consensus. Welcome from the editor mentioned above and others. Thanks. P0mbal (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't link to fringe sites such as AmRen without a very good reason, and there isn't one here; the article in question is an opinion piece by a non-notable grad student, and is of no particular value to the article. Sorry you don't like the term "racist", but it's an appropriate description for Amren. This article gets a vast amount of racist vandalism -- that's why it's semi-protected -- and non-vandalism pointing to racist sources is immediately and properly suspect. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And to answer your implicit question: Stormfront is a racist hate site, but less subtle than AmRen. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jpgordon and Orangemike, I'll accept that, interesting, good reasons, one learns all the time. P0mbal (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I cherish and recommend the handmade buttons you can find at some science fiction conventions which proclaim, "Oh, no! Not another learning experience!" --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes by Malik Shabazz

I don’t know what is meant by saying that the statement “King seldom made a major decision without consulting with Levison” (Nick Koetz) is out of historical context.

I’m no less puzzled by a reference to original research regarding the report from a CPUSA official who said King, according to Levison, was a wholehearted Marxist – a report that was adduced as support for Hoovers suspicion.

Insinuations about Hoover’s motives are out of place. (“The attempt to prove that King was a Communist was in keeping with the feeling of many segregationists that blacks in the South were happy with their lot but had been stirred up by ‘communists’ and ‘outside agitators’.”) Hoover tried to prove that MLK was a communist because he believed that was the case.

It is misleading to say that Levison had “ties” with the Communist Party in “various business dealings”. He was a high–ranking member and a key manager of the party’s finances.

King’s Communist connections and his adultery were definitely more than mere allegations and should not be called that in the subheadings. --Jonund (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're selectively reading the source. Read more than just the single page that has the quotes you're cherry-picking and you'll see that Hoover refused to believe his own FBI reports that Levison had severed all ties with the Party by 1963. In fact, the FBI wondered if Levison and his brother had used the Party to finance their business ventures.

The issue with historical context is that you've placed a quote that refers to the 1950s in a section that describes a 1965 interview.

Please read more of the source, and please read the context in which you're placing your additions. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 18:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that my version of Levison's role essentially contains the information you give, and gives additional important information, as well.

I'm not sure that Levison had severed all ties to the Party, as his formal membership seems to have been intact (in september 1963, Gus Hall was frustrated with Levison's rebuffing Party orders. He should have no expectations of an ex-party member).

Levison was a high-ranking Communist for many years. It seems unlikely that he would have maintained this position for so long time if his sole interest was personal financial gain. Apart from fundraising and financial management he also had more ideologically oriented tasks. Double-agent Jack Childs, who certianly understood what trouble FBI could make for the people under surveillance, may have wanted to protect a friend as Levison or King, whom he, as a leftist, probably had sympathies for. A disenchanted Communist who is recruited as a double-agent and reactivated may be trustworthy in some respects, but not in others. Considerations like these may have laid behind Hoover's conclusion that the reports about Levison's severing himself from Party discipline were not trustworthy. Also, he may have thought Levison was smart enough to fake his estrangement in order to avoid being revealed. FBI:s attempts to approach Levison had proved futile. That may also have influenced Hoover's impression. What this comes down to is that we should not take the value of Child's last report for granted. But I change Levison's position to past tense.

At least at one time, King seldom made a major decision without consulting with Levison. What indicates that their relationship changed dramatically after that? On the contrary, Kotz, describes Levison as one of King's strategic advisers in New York in 1965 (p. 361). Both the Kennedies pressured King to dissociate himself from Levison and O'Dell, and King was deeply worried about the damage their exposure could cause the Civil Rights movement. Yet, he fired O'Dell only after public charges and could not bring himself to end his relationship with Levison. --Jonund (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy concerning original research. You're speculating on Levison's role, Childs' rationale, and other matters. You're using phrases such as "may have wanted", "may have laid", "may have thought", and "may have influenced", which indicates speculation—original research—on your part. If the source is reliable, we have to take it at its word. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

PS - Levison isn't mentioned by Kotz on page 361. Misrepresenting what a source says is a serious no-no. It makes other editors wonder which of your other edits are unreliable. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you give a distorted picture of Levison's role by saying that he had "ties" with the Communist Party in "various business dealings". It sounds like he happened to have some business contacts with it in a normal financial career. What I tried to say is, that the Childs's version - which you seem to take for granted - is by no means a self-evident interpretation. So much for my "original research".

Kotz' reference to Levison as King's strategic adviser is on p. 351, not 361. I apologize for the misspelling - and presume that most readers will excuse an occasional mistake even in rendering a page number. --Jonund (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article protected for 3 days. Use the TALK space to resolve these disputes

I am not taking sides here. It is important that these issues get resolved through dialog in the talk space rather than in edit wars on the article. Please use the space below to iron out an agreement. Kingturtle (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that a dispute was going on here. Three days had gone since I completed my countering of the arguments in the version i restored last time, and nobody had taken up that discussion. Since that, the editors have been active in an other section of this talk page, but not regarding the revert in question. If somebody in the future disputes it, nothing prevents us from taking up the discussion again.

Anyway, I appreciate your honest motives. --Jonund (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have extended the block on this article. Dialog needs to take place to resolve the edit war. Kingturtle (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The individual who is editing against consensus "can't see that a dispute was going on here", and her/his response to other editors is WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I'm not sure what there is to discuss. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 16:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is NO CONSENSUS against my latest revert, where I was careful not to touch the adultery-section. In fact, I have countered all arguments bearing on this edit and NOBODY HAS DISPUTED THAT VERSION.

Ramdrake, of course, in an edit summary, has said "this isn't about whether the arguments have been countered, but whethere they have gained consensus. I don't see that they have". If somebody still objects to my version, I expect him/her to give arguments for an alternative position, not to assume that a dispute goes on until every one has explicitly renounced his/her former position.

Can you explain how WP:IDONTHEARTHAT bears upon my responses to other editors? --Jonund (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the redirect was broken. It's been fixed.

There is consensus against your edits to the "Adultery" section of the article, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. You've been edit-warring over it since April 22.

With respect to the FBI information, three different editors have reverted your changes. That should clue you in that you're going against consensus. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation that I refuse to get the point is unfair. I have been elaborating the arguments in the normal fashion of a discussion. The position that blasphemy by a minister and saint is of no particular importance is amazing, and I'm waiting for good arguments for that.

Consensus is not about counting editors.

The number of editors who have reverted my changes about the FBI information is irrelevant, since they have not taken the whole discussion into account. If not even one can come up with arguments, it seems like you are yourself guilty of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I expect dissenters to counter my refutations; otherwise we have to conclude that the matter has been settled in favor of my edits. --Jonund (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The editors who have reverted you are relevant. Also your argument seems to be that since MLK doesn't seem to meet up with your expectation of a saint, that large amounts of space should be devoted to exposing what you perceive as his faults. Well, some space is already devoted to the subject, and I don't know what increasing the amount of discussion of his faults would do, except disparage the character. Rather, I suggest you go through the regular discussion process and if you still can't manage to get consensus around your views, you could either accept consensus as it is, or try to generate a wider consensus through an RFC (WP:RFC). In either case, unliaterally reverting to your changes will only get you blocked, eventually.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jorund, dissenters do not have to "counter your refutations". They can simply disagree with you. There's a fairly good discussion above with you arguing with Malik, and just because you have the last word in it doesn't make you right. You have to actually promote what you're saying and convince people and obtain consensus to add non-trivial things like this. An argument that ends without resolution is not "consensus". And yes, obtaining consensus may take more than 3 days. It might take several months to get enough people to come around to your point of view. That's simply how it is.

Furthermore, so far, all you seem to be wanting to do is add some fairly biased material using some seemingly biased sources to back it up. I can't support that without some really good arguments from your side of the fence. So unless you come up with a better argument or take a vote or do *something* else to assert that your material should be in the article, and can come up with consensus on it, my vote is to leave your changes out entirely. I do not see them as contributing to the article in any serious way. They're simply biased and useless bits of info that should not be in an encyclopedic entry. -- Otto 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverts without arguments are of no value. Allowing people to ignore arguments and have their ways simply because they don't like certain information subverts the entire Wikipedia project.

Otto's remarks look like a thinly vailed example of arrogant obstinacy and only serves to expose his own difficulties with overcoming his bias. I hope other editors will show more respect and openness.

Please, note that we have two different topics: King's communist connections and his adultery. The discussion about the first issue seems to have petered out, and there should be no hesitation about reinserting the information. Discussion about the second issue has continued longer, but objections to the passage seem to boil down to (a) the position that lewdness and blasphemy are immaterial qualities in a Christian saint, and (b) a feeling that King's character should not be debased by exposure.

(a) is so excentric that I think it's rather pointless to argue against it. (b) raises the question why King's character would be above discussion. If moral character is a primary quality of a man, as most philosophers have concluded, and as King recognized, his character should be closely elucidated. I can understand that people for whom King has meant a lot don't like to be reminded about this issue, but that should not interfere with the article.

The tape adds not merely quantitatively, but qualitatively, to the section, as I have demonstrated.

I have been more hasty to revert than I should while the discussion is going on, and I regret that. Several responses have not encouraged a high view of this discussion, but I should have had more patience. --Jonund (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion concerning the first point hasn't "petered out". It's being discussed in this section. Your preferred version has been reverted by three editors. There's no such thing as a consensus of one.

With respect to the adultery issue, you've been asked to find a reliable source that supports your position. Instead, you're repeating the same tired arguments and now you're attacking other editors' motives. Please stop. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jonund, in either case, I don't see that you have consensus to restore the disputed material. That, 'in and of itself' (lack of consensus) is a sufficient reason to revert whether you like it or not. I simply do not accept your contention that since MLK has been sainted by some Christian churches, that any perceived flaws to his character should be discussed at length. These "flaws" are already mentioned, and many historical aspects of the character are far more worthy of discussion than an alleged story of infidelity, or of possible ommunist connections, IMHO. And for the record, I'm still unsure as to how having ties to communists can be considered a flaw of character...--Ramdrake (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jorund, I can't see how you can consider my remarks to be "arrogant obstinacy". Read what I said again, as basically it boils down to a) you want to add biased material and b) you want to use biased sources to back that up. I don't really care whether MLK was a saint or a sinner or anything else. You clearly do, but I absolutely do not. I'm looking at the article as an *encyclopedia article*. The actual content of it is irrelevant to me beyond that. This is Wikipedia, and we require reliable sources and a neutral point of view. Your proposed additions fit neither of these. -- Otto 15:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder how much of our friend Jonund's info is in fact derived from this site?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about MLK:s communist connections has petered out. In this section you have claimed that there is no need to discuss it; that is something different from actually discussing the issue. I find the claim absurd. The discussion ended with Malik leaving a lot of questions unanswered:

• At one point, King seldom made a major decision without consulting with Levison. What indicates that their relationship changed dramatically after that? Isn't Kotz's statement that Levison in 1965 was one of King's strategic advisers in New York an indication that King still had trust in him?
• What's wrong with citing the report from a CPUSA official who said King, according to Levison, was a wholehearted Marxist?
• Why should we make insinuations about Hoover's motives?
• Why should we exclude the information that Levison was a high–ranking member of the Communist party and a key manager of the party’s finances and that his party activities involved ideological tasks, and instead claim that he had merely "ties" to CPUSA in "various business dealings"? Isn't that a distortion of his role?
• Why should we take Jack Child's interpretation of Levison's motives for granted, despite the possibility that Hoover had valid reasons for doubting it?

In case somebody wants to dispute my version he or she has to answer such questions. Ignoring them is arrogant and obstinate. How can I trust the motives of people who behave like that?

As to the adultery section, I also miss refutations of my arguments.

• Why is an FBI tape useless, although it has been used to blackmail King and deemed too sensitive to be made public for many decades? Why isn't it enough to let King's followers give their opinion, along with the FBI?
• Are lewdness and blasphemy really immaterial qualities in a Christian saint?
• Is it really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important?

But instead of answering these questions, Malik says they are tiresome and leave it at that!

Other credible sources have given testimony to the authenticity of FBI:s version.[1] It has been reported in serious sources (who mention FBI as the primary source and do not attach enough importance to the disclaimer of King's coworkers to mention it).[2][3][4]

It's not that "any perceived flaws to his character should be discussed at length". Blasphemy is something different from giving in to sexual temptations, and this incident aggravates the nature of King's affairs. And his adultery is by no means discussed at length. Right now, it is one paragraph (1390 characters, including blanks). The rest is about FBI:s blackmailing and other things. My version would add 428 characters. Other aspects of his character are also covered, and may get more coverage, if considered eligible.

My intention was not to describe King's communist connections as a character flaw.

None of my information is from this site. Why don't you check my sources, instead of speculating? In this posting, I refer to a site that has taken its info from the site in question, but the point is that they quote Newsweek. I suppose we can trust that their quote is correct. --Jonund (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep repeating yourself, Jonund. It's easier than finding a reliable source that supports your point.

PS: Your selective reading and cherry-picking of the sources is unacceptable. I don't need to refute your point because the source does it already. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 23:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Jonund has failed to address the central issue covering all of his "points": would the inclusion of these points add to the encyclopaedicity and subject of the article, or are they simply minor points that would detract from reading MLK's bio? I'm strongly of the opinion that none of these points really add anything worthwhile to the article. Also, the fact that some of the sources Jonund cites display large "White Pride" banners leave some doubt as to the reliability of those sources.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on Jonund's comments above, he still hasn't addressed whether that material is necessarily relevant for this particular article, as per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Regarding the misconduct of a Christian saint being relevant to an article, frankly, no, that is not a valid or even relevant point at all. He is not a Christian saint, in the way that term is generally used. The phrasing of the article is misleading there. Neither the Anglican Communion nor the Luthern Church have anything like the process for having someone added to their calendars as the Catholics do. And even the Roman Catholics have a woman who was apparently an active prostitute only a few days before her death canonized, even if as a martyr. You will also note that even a confirmed atheist and racist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, is commemorated in the Anglican calendar. I would suggest that the phrasing be altered to indicate this. Perhaps something along the lines of "He is commemorated in the Calendar of saints of the Episcopal church and ELCA." John Carter (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have given a summary of the questions Malik have left open in order to make it easier for newcomers to get an overview of the discussion, and to help certain users to see their neglects. Malik talks condescendingly about repeating myself, although the repetition is due to his refusal to answer my questions. I have provided reliable sources for my points.

I don't cherry pick or read the sources selectively. I have taken the whole story into account and explained why the parts of Kotz's story Malik refers to do not invalidate the parts I have taken as my starting point. Note that my rendering of Levison's relationship to the CPUSA essentially contains the information contained in his, but adds detail and nuance.

I have addressed the encyclopaedicity and subject of the article rather thoroughly (repeating myself). None of the issues are "minor points". The details about his communist connections are, in fact, the issue of the FBI section. No article that deals with King's relationship to FBI can be honest and objective without mentioning these. The claim that they detract from King's (rather detailed) bio once again remind us of the need by his fans to whitewash him.

Ramdrake thinks some (in fact, there were only one) source that doesn't share our views about race should be suspected of falsifying quotes from Newsweek. That seems far-fetched. Fortunately, I found the original source online, so he can check the accuracy.[5]

John, I have said more about the relevance of the adultery issue (I suppose it's only that you refer to) than in the comment above, see 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC), 12:42, 3 May 2009. You use WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the wrong sense, as Phiwum suggested, 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

If the Roman church has canonized an active prostitute, that is not an argument in this case but a strong argument that her prostitution should be mentioned in her article (who is she?). I'm not sure about your description of Cady Stanton. She was theologically unorthodox, as the Epicopalian Church is today, but who says she was an atheist? (I have only read the WP article hastily). To call her a racist seems to require a wide definition of the word. Anyway, these traits are covered in her article, although I would prefer more detail so that I could form a sure opinion. The Anglicans and Lutherans lack the process of adding saints to their calendars that the Roman Catholics have, but the important point is the same: saints are supposed to be good Christian moral examples. That's what King is widely recognized as in the secular world. Encyclopaedia Britannica regards King's misconduct as relevant to their article on him. The section is shorter (as is the article), but they note that his character was "more complex than biographers initially realized or portrayed". --Jonund (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, Jonund, you seem unable to get the point. The article already deals with King's misconduct, and it already mentions King's possible connections to the communists. What you are asking for is for more space to be devoted to these topics in a general biography about King's life. So far, you have failed to convince me, or for that matter most other editors on this article (from what I can see) that these issues deserve more space than is already devoted to them. And I really don't think you'll convince us any better by trying to tell us we interpret Wikipedia policy wrongly.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Phiwum's suggestion was that your additions do constitute undue weight in the common sense of the word, but not in the sense of the Wikipedia policy on minority viewpoints (WP:UNDUE). So yes, there seems to be a consensus that your additions are indeed inappropriate for this article.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that at 119kB, the article is already possibly too long. To propose adding more to it doesn't seem like a particularly inspired idea. Like I said, this doesn't mean that the material might not be well qualified for inclusion elsewhere, but on an article that already measures a bit too long adding more material than the article already has about comparatively minor matters seems like a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I find it difficult to believe that you mean it. The problem is hardly a paragraph more or less, nor that the material would be insufficiently important. Rather, it seems to be important for you to suppress information that is a significant treath to King's secular sainthood. The studious avoidance of engaging in discussion about the issues makes me smell a rat. Answering my questions would probably have led to a shorter discussion than all the subterfuges did.

The article already deals with King's "possible" connections to the communists - but it distorts what was going on. Levison's role is concealed and Hoover's motives are perverted by innuendo. --Jonund (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

By the above statements, I regret to say, that you have made it rather clear that your own motivations are not so much driven by the quality of the article, but rather by your own prejudices. Articles are not supposed to be adjusted to fit the individual opinions of individual editors. I could argue with you that the article makes very little reference to MLK's "secular sainthood", as you term it, and that your use of the term clearly indicates that you are operating from a POV position, and that as per WP:POV we are not supposed to reflect such POVs to any great lenght. In effect, considering that you are the one trying to add the content, it is incumbent on you to produce sufficiently reliable and numerous sources to verify that what you seek to add meets wikipedia requirements. You have been, basically, told several times that in the eyes of virtually everybody else you haven't done that yet. Until and unless you can produce better evidence, I would not expect that situation to change, although you might be held to be engaging in tendetious editing as per that page if you should continue in this way. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is that reliable source about King's "secular sainthood" that you were asked about nearly a week ago? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF is wrong with you people?!? Get a life! Do not understand how pathetic it is that you are here arguing about this? If the information is relevant to the section it is being placed in, and it is accurate, I do not see any reason that it should not be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.164.112 (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy demands this. If the IP above does not understand how policy, including WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, is not relevant, than may I suggest the IP refrain from commenting, maybe create an account to ensure that it isn't simply another editor seeking to make a second statement under another name, and certainly review policies and guidelines before making such comments. I would also urge the IP to refrain from perjorative language as they have used in both of their edits here. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for King's secular sainthood can be found, for instance, here.[6][7][8][9][10]. In America Reborn: A Twentieth Century Narrative in Twenty-Six Lives, Martin Walker devotes a chapter to "Martin Luther King Jr., and American sainthood" and writes: "King had moved beyond the labels that had defined him in life. ... Powell and Goldwater embodied that sublime selectiveness of memory that encouraged America to rever a lost leader as a secular saint." pp. 327-328 Jonund (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I did NOT write the comment above. Good to hear you defending WP policy about arguing the case. Many of my arguments still wait for a rebuttal. Jonund (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Bravo. It took you ten days to Google "Martin Luther King" and "secular saint". How about the other parts of your claim: that the commemoration of his birthday with a public holiday suggests King had a blameless character, and that the specific allegation that he said he was "fucking for God" is so illuminating as to his character beyond general allegations concerning his adultery? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 05:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have refered to the public holiday and to the churches that consider him a saint. Only with the concrete question on May 8, I realized that you were serious in requiring a source for his secular sainthood. Workrelated factors have prevented me for some days from googling and from checking Walker's America Reborn.

"Blameless character" is an exaggeration, and a bad formulation. But he is an example. Millions of young Americans are taught to venerate him. As some of the sources point out, the King cult has made him into something that he is not.

As for the last question, I have to tire you by repeating myself: "The blasphemy is an aspect in its own right. It's one thing to reluctantly yield to sexual temptations; to express contempt for God and his commandments by wanton exclamations shows that the reverend is not merely a sinner struggling with his carnal appetite, but an exceptionally unsaintly man." --Jonund (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Then please find a reliable sources which expresses the consensus view that blasphemy is a far worse sin than adultery. And that blasphemy is an "exceptionally unsaintly" sin. I'm not aware of any.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is still good reason to question whether this material is really relevant to this article. Statements about what are, basically, subjective opinions of his character are not really included in that many biography articles. Neither does saying that "he is an example" really qualify as relevant to adding more material regarding these matters. While I can see that there might well be sufficient material for a separate article on Martin Luther King, Jr. in popular culture, and that discussion of the holiday and public perception of him after the fact would be relevant to that article, I have yet to see any real evidence given that it is necessarily relevant to this article. And, as someone who works a lot with Christianity related articles, I myself am completely unaware of any sources which say that one mortal sin is necessarily "worse" than other. I cannot avoid getting the impression that Jonund's interests seem to be more about "making moral statements" from his or her personal perspective or otherwise subjectively describing the subject than about the subject himself in any real way. However, the RfC is still open. It may be possible that certain parties might object to my posting a comment on the talk pages of all the WikiProjects which have placed their banners on this article specifically requesting additional input regarding the RfC, but I think that the other editors involved in that project would probably be among those most sympathetic to Jonund's stated reasons. In fact, I now have done so. I would have to believe however, that the consensus opinion, if any, arrived at as a result of the RfC would have to be seen as being basically binding on the subject until there is some clear change in the matter later. John Carter (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas calls blasphemy the most serious sin, since it is directed against God, and it aggravates all other sins.

Few contemporary people have received recognition comparable to MLK. There is, indeed, a need to know his character and be able to form your own opinion about whether he deserves his status. --Jonund (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Allegations concerning King's character and his advisor's Communist connections 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC) There is disagreement whether to include a reference to an FBI recording of a sexual encounter allegedly involving King and a controversial exclamation. In addition, editors disagree about how the article should discuss FBI allegations concerning Communist connections of one of King's advisors, as well as the legitimacy of deleting material without refuting the arguments in favor of it.

1. [11] An FBI recording of a sexual tryst allegedly includes King saying he was "fucking for God". Is it necessary or appropriate to include specific reference to the tape in the article?
2. [12] One of King's advisers was an important member of the Communist Party. During the period in question, FBI investigations were inconsistent concerning whether those ties were on-going and how deep his commitment had been. How should the article describe those allegations?

A few more details regarding the material in question would be very useful. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that helps a little. I can't see how the inclusion of the details of the material regarding the tape is necessary for the article, considering that the text already deals with the extramarital sex in some detail. Having said that, a mention of the tape in the article probably makes sense, considering that it does seem to have gotten enough attention to be noteworthy. The apparently dubious nature of the alleged quotation makes the inclusion of the alleged quotation particularly questionable. Regarding the ties with the Communists, I regret to say that I myself am far from an expert on the details here. Personally, I would think that it would make sense to say that his aide had ties to the Communists in business, and that the FBI may have overreacted to that. Reference to the alleged social ties of blacks to communism probably would not belong in this article, as it isn't that directly relevant to the subject. How much space that material gets would be dependent on how much attention it has gotten in the world. I regret to say that I am not that familiar with the subject that I can say anything about that one way or another. My gut impression, for what it is worth, is that the aide, at this point, probably qualifies as notable and could have a separate article, and that article might go into greater detail about the subject. For this article, though, I personally would probably mention only that the FBI had serious concerns about King's ties to the Communists. The accuracy or inaccuracy of those concerns isn't that relevant to this article though, and probably shouldn't get much attention, particularly as it is really only peripheral to the subject himself. Just a few opinions, anyway. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The description you had access to left out one issue, the legitimicay of deleting material without refuting the arguments in favor of it.

The discussion has given important viewpoints that you may find useful. I understand that you don't want to read the entire discussion. Perhaps my recent, lengthy, response gives some clue. Others may add what they find helpful. --Jonund (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF is wrong with you people?!? Get a life! Do not understand how pathetic it is that you are here arguing about this? If the information is relevant to the section it is being placed in, and it is accurate, I do not see any reason that it should not be there.65.100.164.112 (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole section on his extra-marital activities seems way over the top and needs editing down IMHO. All that needs to be said is it looked like he screwed around a fair bit, maybe even had a mistress, and throw in some sources. Who cares what he said while he was doing it? Sounds like POV pushing - it's not a hagiography, but it's not an inquisition either, and its not a definitive analysis of his life - it's a Wikipedia biography. If Christians have a problem with what he said while he screwing, that is their issue, and irrelevant in his biography - I don't need to know what he ate for breakfast, if he had flatulence, whether he called his pecker 'Jimbo the trouser-snake', or whether he referred to orgasms using religious metaphors, or whatever - it isn't that important unless you have certain views about things like blasphemy (POV stuff). Given this was all part of black propaganda operations against him, it's value is questionable anyway. Mish (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above - a summary by third-party sources is more than enough. Let's keep this in perspective. Providing quotes from primary sources: FBI tapes is essentially (OR) Original Research, in creating a kind of narrative that one editor thinks is important. I disagree. King is not the first politician or religious leader (whether liberal or conservative) to also have attracted and been attracted to groupies, and succumbed to his desire. Enough already - he was human. It's an old story, not a new one. What he is rightly known for is his work in collaborating with people and leading movement for social justice with a large moral vision.--Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel a remark like that definitely has a place in a biographical article. It's just one brush stroke in the portrait, but it's one that shouldn't be erased. Each reader will gain insight into MLK by reading that remark. For some it will colour him a hypocrite, for others a blasphemer, for me, a guy with a sense of humour. But our job is simply to paint the picture as best we can, and to let the reader make of it what she will.--MoreThings (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And regarding the FBI material in (2)? John Carter (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get back to you on that, I didn't read it all. One thing that did strike me was that "For his part, King seldom made a major decision without consulting with Levison." is a very strong statement written in the editorial voice, the cite notwithstanding. That's fine if several sources are agreed that the assertion is fair; if that's not the case, I think I'd like to see it made even clearer that it's the opinion of a single commentator. --MoreThings (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the linkage to the CNN piece via [1] does not lead me to anything that suggests the 'fucking for God' quote - just a CNN article and a barely legible memo. If this was an allegation, and one which those who in King's party heard it deny they heard on the tape, then it is simply that, an allegation. Either you need a source which states this allegation, and the contradiction of the allegation, and state it for what it was (an allegation that is contested), or with access to the actual tape you could state it as a fact, but that would be original research; or you leave it out, because it is not our job to accurately disseminate allegations that cannot be verified, and which originate in a counter-intelligence campaign. On point [2] I am less able to comment, because I don't have access to the book cited. If his advisor was a 'critical' member of the Communist Party, I'm not sure it is a problem - but if it is another allegation, then it should be treated as such, either as a description of the allegation with a source that details the allegation as an allegation, or not at all, but not as an established fact. If there is a source which cites verifiable evidence that at the time concerned he was a key member, then that simply report that he was, but if not, it's another allegation. So something like XY&Z are of the opinion that... would cover that. Mish (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to sympathize with MischMich above. My major objection to the inclusion of the quotation is that it has apparently been disputed as being an accurate reproduction of what the party said. If it was, perhaps, less than clear that it is accurate, or possibly (hey it happens) planted evidence or otherwise artificially made, then it could in no way be an accurate reflection of anything regarding King himself, but only be an indication of the extremes gone to by others. In neither case would it really be capable of necessarily providing any sort of accurate insight into the personality of the subject. I don't myself necessarily believe that it was planted or otherwise artificial, but the government has been known to engage in such extreme conduct elsewhere and I don't think we can necessarily dismiss it out of hand in this case without better evidence than we currently have. John Carter (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

okay. That's to broaden the question a bit. My remarks were to the phrase per se, and were in answer to the "Is it necessary or appropriate...?" question in the RFC. I took as read that the remark met our other criteria for inclusion. I've now checked and I couldn't find the phrase in the article or the memo, so at the moment I don't feel we have a reliable source. If it is there and I missed it, then my response is as follows.

I'm not really convinced by you argument for not including it. If you'll forgive me for paraphrasing, you seem to be saying: yeah, but perhaps the FBI planted the evidence and committed perjury, I don't really think they did, but they might have done, so let's not include it :) I think we have to take the testimony of an FBI man under oath as a reliable primary source, and CNN as a secondary.

The COINTELPRO section in the Hoover article details some of the methods used by the FBI, and notes the harsh criticism it received. Perhaps a brief summary of that information would be appropriate at the top of the FBI and wiretapping section to add further context. My own opinion, though, is that claiming that it was "indistinct" it a pretty weak denial, and I'd have expected something a lot stronger if the assistants really felt they had a case to make. Either way, I'd say include it and let the reader decide.--MoreThings (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No disagreement. And you've actually probably checked further into the evidence than I have, so I can't disagree there. Like I said, I don't think it was "planted" or anything, although such has occasionally happened. Personally, my favorite option if it existed were to just add an audio link to the bloody tape and let people hear it themselves, but I don't get the impression that's possible in this case, and we might be criticized as "peddling porn" if we did. But, if there isn't yet a reliable source to verify the claim, then there is no reason to include it. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I agree with all of that, John. As things stand, it can't go in.--MoreThings (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The FBI source has been confirmed by a third party,[13] and there are serious sources that have accepted it, as I said (May 6). Also, remember that FBI was able to use the tape for blackmailing, which they could not have done if it were a forgery, and hardly if it were indistinct. --Jonund (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Jonund seems to be assuming, falsely, that forgeries and indistinct material cannot be used for blackmail purposes. I believe that statement is demonstrably incorrect. Please see Mark William Hofmann for how forged documents can be and at least occasionally are used for blackmail purposes. On the basis of that information, it seems to me that Jonund is operating on a very clearly flawed misinterpretation of fact in the above post, and that the post's own credibility is damaged by that. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The circumstances of the Hofmann example are too different from the FBI tape to allow such conclusions. Hofmann - an unusually skilled forger who succeeded in fooling all experts - was able to scare the Mormon church with sensitive documents, because they believed, or feared, that these were authentic. If the FBI tapes were forged, MLK had known that he was not guilty. That gives an other position to fight back. In order to use the tapes for blackmailing, FBI had to be certain that their inauthenticity could not be revealed. They were aware of the risk of serious embarrassment if the blackmailing was unmasked. Producing a voice conversion of sufficient quality to fool every one is very difficult; in the 1960's it was even more difficult, given the technical progress since then.

There was no indistinct material among the successful Hofmann forgeries; on the contrary, when he failed to produce the required level of reliability (in The Oath of the Freeman), he was soon finished.

There is no indication that this material was forged, although the investigations did reveal a lot of embarrassing information about FBI's activities. --Jonund (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the above, however, even remotely provides any evidence to the effect that the content regarding the tapes should receive greater attention than it does in this article. In fact, reviewing the discussion so far, there seems to me to be only one person who doesn't think that the amount of material you want on the subject should be included. Should that remain substantially unchanged, I would ask that you please familiarize yourself with the content of WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The content aspects of the disputed text in the adultery section still include the following unanswered questions:

• Are lewdness and blasphemy really immaterial qualities in a Christian minister who has on top of that been commemorated by two churches as a "saint"/hero/martyr?
• Is it really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important?

The relevance of the text has been supported, except by myself, by Årvasbåo, More Things and 65.100.164.112.

There is an abundance of reliable sources who take it for granted that King uttered the words that FBI heard on the tape.[14][15][16][17][18] Reliable sources arguing against the veracity, on the other hand, seem to be nonexistent. In fact, the wide occurence of this belief is an argument for covering the incident, even if the evidence had been weak. The grounds for seriously questioning the reliability of the FBI version (along with King's coworker's version) remain unclear to me. --Jonund (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is still a grotesque and massive WP:UNDUE violation, and no amount of citation of Aquinas and the like is going to change that. The incident, if it ever happened (and Hoover's FBI is as blatant an example of a non-reliable source as ever got trusted in a more innocent era), is a mote in King's eye, of the sort beloved by folks with beams in their own. Naturally, every King-hater on the planet loves to dwell on it obsessively (not that I am putting you in that category, Jonund); but that doesn't make it genuinely germane to this article. (I'm also a bit bothered by the scare quotes around the word "saint" in the paragraph above this one, as they seem to hint at a NPOV breach.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but to answer your first two points would assume a certain moral POV that extends beyond the content or sources. As a Christian, I have to say that I don't give a toss who King screwed, how often, the positions, or what he said while he was dong it - it makes me think no less or more for him. I don't see this as having bearing on the discussion - if some Christians have issues about other people's sex lives, that is their problem - I don't see the relevance. I think moral character is important - but I wouldn't presume to usurp God's role by judging others' moral character. Personally, I have less problems with a Christian minister screwing somebody they aren't married to than a Christian napalming women and children - it all depends on your POV I guess. It isn't our job to be concerned about these matters - Greek philosophers embraced pederasty - and this was seen as normal - not lack of moral character. The issue is decided on its significance and reliability - it is only significant if you have a certain POV, and it doesn't seem that certain, only that a few people believe it. There's a lot of sources that say Lady Gaga is a hermaphrodite - but until there is a source that shows she claims to be a hermaphrodite I wouldn't accept it. Gossip is abundant, especially once people die, because they have no possibility of denial or refutation. The guy is long dead, so let him rest, eh? If he was alive I might think differently - but really - so what if he did? And did he really? And does it make any difference to his legacy? No, apart from the petty-minded, not one bit. Mish (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Orange Mike and Mish are entitled to their opinions about the relevance of King's deeds and utterances, but not to assume that their private opinions are of grater weight than established theologians and philosophers. The consensus about the importance of moral character goes far beyond those philosophers who defended pederasty. Excluding the two questions I mentioned in my previous post from the discussion of relevance is to take a certain philosophical and theological position. In order to dismiss the disputed text, those questions have to be answered.

God has never reserved to himself the task of judging people's moral character, in the sense we do here. Faking ignorance regarding King's character seems like hypocrisy. All we can demand is that he be judged fairly, taking all matters into consideration.

The reason that I used quotation marks around the word "saint" was that Mish suggested so in his post on May 17 under the subheading "King has a feastday..."

By comparing the sources I mentioned with gossip, and calling them "a few people", Mish only betrays his failure to take this discussion seriously. --Jonund (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You did know that this is an encyclopedia, right? Do many encyclopedias take positions on philosophy and theology in articles which are not directly related to those subjects, particularly biographies? Please indicate to me any other encyclopedia which explicitly offers the sort of treatment of a biography based on philosophical or theological positions as you are indicating should be done here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, John. We seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is a biography, not a discussion of King's moral failings. Save the sermonizing for Sunday morning. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 17:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing something as gossip does not mean I don't this seriously - I am quite serious about not taking gossip seriously. I don't have a problem about a reference to documented allegations of extra-marital relations - but I see no need to go into fine detail in an encyclopedia beyond ensuring anything said can be retained with an accurate source and not as synthesis. So sure, people have reported he screwed around, so say so with the source, and leave it at that. If the source is cited, the interested reader can pursue the allegations through the sources and come to their own conclusions - we do not have to do that for them. We are not here to judge moral character, that is not the task of an encyclopedia, regardless of God's, King's, your, or my views, this is not a sermon, it is a biography, and NPOV is not hypocrisy. I suggest you take a look at Aleister Crowley as an example of how somebody many regard as having character flaws can be dealt with in a neutral way, yet still provide the information a general reader might seek. All people have character flaws, even saints and martyrs. There is no point conducting a crusade over somebody who has been dead so long. I never came across a philosopher who had a view on this - but if there are theologians who have expressed views about King, then by all means cite them on King - otherwise it is about your views, supported by some kind of synthesis involving what some theologians have said about morality and then applying that to King. Mish (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia biography, not a book, not a meditation on people's failings or an essay on temptation. It's enough to cite third-party sources that he, like many men, especially leaders, could not resist the temptation of illicit sex. No need to quote a supposed FBI tap. That goes far beyond an encyclopedia-type entry. We should be looking to historians' accounts, rather than the FBI, as to how to weight this for the encyclopedia. People can make up their own minds as to what they think about his ego and spirituality by going to the sources.--Parkwells (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

More agreement, perhaps, than there seemed to be. The disputed text should be there, with a reference to an historian's account, and let the readers draw their own conclusions about King's character. Our judgments do not belong in the article; we discuss the issue on this page because of its bearing on the relevance of certain statements. What I tried to say in my previous post is that by excluding the questions I mentioned from the discussion of relevance is to take a philosophical and theological position - something WP is not entitled to do. I see no need to cite philosophers' and theologians' views about King; the fact that they have clear opinions about moral character and blasphemy, on the other hand, should be taken into account when we form our opinion about the relevance of these subjects. --Jonund (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, so we have a consensus, we include a comment that some commentators have alluded to King's alleged extra-marital relations as suggesting a character flaw, with citations to those writers who have written on this, we do not elaborate on details that involved undue quotation of contested material (such as that of the FBI), but we do provide a citation that can be followed up with the context of his alleged extra-marital relations, and leave it at that. Mish (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

But the historians have acknowledged the blasphemous quote. --Jonund (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in the source provided. In the sources provided from the link to the article revision at the start of this RfC 99.9% of the material covers the FBI counter-intelligence investigation, which includes threatening letters. The bulk of this concerns the FBI's conviction that King was a communist, and how the only thing that was established was that he was definitely not a communist, although one of his important aides had been, and may still have been (it could not be proven that he still was). Within this there is this statement: "The first incident involved King at a party at the Willard Hotel in Washington. The FBI recorded the party and captured the sounds of a sexual encounter in the room afterwards." That is it. We avoid tertiary sources, and primary sources whould be treated cautiously; this is a secondary source and acceptable, and so represents an analysis of primary material which would be acceptable. So, going beyond this would be problematic - because the primary material was part of a campaign to discredit King, which uncluded attempts to blackmail and silence him. It is fine to describe the FBI campaign for what it was, that the campaign found no King had no communist connection, although an aide may have had connections at some point, and that it recorded a sexual encounter at a party. There is no mention of blasphemy in the sources. If you were to go into detail about the tapes/transcripts in the actual archive, then this would involve undue weight, because it would need to include the details of the challenges to its authenticity, locate it in the context of a campaign to blackmail and discredit King, and this would start to take you into original research, because it would become an analysis of primary material. Mish (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems that the right source was lost in the text. King's exclamation is quoted by Kotz (who occurs elsewhere in the article) on p. 85.[19] Jonathan Rieder also mentions it, on p. 62,[20] as does Eric Dyson, on p. 162.[21]. Kotz also mentions the claim of indistinctiveness by King's coworkers, which should also be mentioned. The campaign to blackmail and discredit King is accounted for in the article. --Jonund (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasted considerable time trawling through an irrelevant article referenced in the RfC, and based my response on the basis of that link in the RfC. In fact, I have wasted too much time generally on an issue that doesn't really concern me too much. Now you tell me the comment was in a different source - I cannot comment on the third, as it makes no sense to me. It is clearly a refuted allegation, and as such it should only be used as such. Given the misleading reference embedded in the RfC, the best course of action would be to withdraw this part of the RfC, leaving the part on Communist connections - and resubmit a fresh RfC on this aspect alone, with the correct links. When that has been done I will comment on that RfC. I have nothing more to say on this one than that. Mish (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Allegation of Communist connections

Rather than having the last two paragraphs of this section feature competing direct quotes by Hoover and King, it would be better to have third-party historians' appraisals of the issues: what was the context for involvement by leftists in the communist party (many had been involved in the 1930s and many had left - just because communists had been or were involved did not mean that there were not severe racial problems to be solved in the US); Hoover spent more time on the Communists than trying to enforce against/deal with KKK racial crimes and threats to social order), what do historians think about the issue by this time and its significance for the movement, how independent do they think King was - that would give readers more information and appraisal. The issue is not just what the FBI allegations were, but how to think of those in the context of the times. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a journalistic account with lots of quotes.--Parkwells (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

King has a feastday, and is a 'hero of the church', possibly a martyr, but not a saint.

I noticed that there are references in the text to MLK as a saint. The communion of saints in the Anglican church is rather a broad one, which essentially includes all who have died in the faith, so in that respect King is as much a saint as my late father. The Anglican church has no formal method of beatifying individuals (I am aware of) in the way of the Roman and Orthodox churches, which is quite a stringent process, and not one King has been subject to. The formal 'saints' in the Anglican churches are primarily drawn from those created before the reformation Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Celtic. If you follow the Episcopal link in th text, it a is news report about somebody other than King being added to the calendar of feasts, which notes other Episcopal 'saints' (i.e. people in the calendar of feasts), including King. It is actually slackness that reports this as a list of 'saints', it is a list of feasts, some of which are saints feasts. Going to the calendar itself, what there is for King is a feast day, but nothing about sainthood. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is included, but there is no mention on the Wikipedia article of his being a saint. Similarly for the Lutheran church, if you go to the page linked, what you will see is an entry for his feast in red. Red for a feasted celebration signifies 'martyr', not saint. Bonhoeffer is included in the Episcopal calendar of feasts because he died because of his Christian stance, so is more appropriately a martyr, and the same is the case for King (although some Orthodox theologians would argue that martyr is not appropriate, as that too has certain stringent requirements in that church as well). Giving somebody a feast day is not the same as declaring them a saint, or even a martyr. He comes closer to a martyr than a saint. The best that can be said is really that he has a feast day, and some think this means he has been beatified, but there is no evidence to support that. Examples of where the use of 'martyr' is reflected in practice are: [22][23]. However, if you look at our own page on this, Saints in Anglicanism, it is clear there that people awarded feasts after the reformation are described as "Hero" of the church. So, whatever the Lutherans might or might not have called him, in relation to the Anglican/Episcopal church King needs to be described as a 'hero'. Either use the correct term as 'hero of the church', (without inverted commas), or 'martyr' (with inverted commas, and a footnote). Or simply say nothing more than he has feast in two churches, and leave it out of the lead altogether. Thanks. Mish (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, according to the churches anyway, anyone who is a martyr is by definition also a saint. Whether the Anglican Church has ever officially decided he is a "martyr" is another matter, I don't know. I do agree that changing the phrasing to indicate that he is a "hero of the church" in the Anglican church and the ECLA and commemorated in their calendars, as that seems to be a more neutral way of presenting the information. John Carter (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this change that would be contested, or shall I just go ahead and do it? Mish (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My own view is that it's okay, but I would wait to give Jonund a chance to comment. Jonund seems to have issues concerning King and sainthood. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, no rush, 'Saint' with a capital 'S' is not supported '"a saint"' (complete phrase in inverted commas) maybe, but being based on a media report either misunderstanding or taking liberties with what Anglican 'heros' & Anglican and Lutheran feasts are, it would need a footnote explaining the details. Mish (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Saints in Anglicanism says: “Those martyrs and confessors given the title traditionally, prior to the establishment of the canonization process or since the break with Rome, are generally still considered both "saints" and "Saints." The title "Hero" is sometimes used as well…” (italics mine). Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America) calls the Lesser Feasts and Fasts "the calendar of saints”. I cannot see any problem with using the term saint here. --Jonund (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - those 'prior to the [...] break with Rome' are considered "saints" and "Saints", but after that they are not, because the Anglican (and Lutheran) churches have no canonisation process. If it is insisted that "saint" be used (which is disputable), "saint" needs to be highlighted in inverted commas as per the article you cite, Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America):

• The Episcopal Church does not canonize individuals [...], holding instead that all baptized Christians are saints of God and have the potential to be examples of faith to others. Episcopalians pray for each other and for all Christians as members of the Communion of Saints, including both the living and the dead, since all are in the hands of God. With this understanding, a wide variety of Christians from various denominations and traditions are thought of as "saints" in the Episcopal Church, such as Martin Luther and Augustine of Canterbury. Others recognized as "saints," while not of major ecclesiastical significance, are rather examples of holding moral positions that may have compromised their acceptance by society at the time they lived. Such "saints" include William Wilberforce and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, for example.

And the full quote from Saints in Anglicanism conveys this clearly as well:

• Those martyrs and confessors given the title traditionally, prior to the establishment of the canonization process or since the break with Rome, are generally still considered both "saints" and "Saints." The title "Hero" is sometimes used as well, more often to refer to those Saints who have lived and died since the time of the Reformation.

Nowhere is there any suggestion that anybody since the Reformation is afforded the title Saint. Returning to the Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America), it makes clear that the calendar includes traditional Saints and others:

• The Episcopal Church publishes Lesser Feasts and Fasts, which contains feast days for the various men and women the Church wishes to honor. This book is updated every three years, and notable persons are added to the liturgical calendar.

• This is the calendar of saints and blessed found in the Book of Common Prayer and Lesser Feasts and Fasts; the relevant official resources of the Episcopal Church.

The distinction between the historic saints, the legacy of the time before the break with Rome, and those that are included since then is clarified here:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19625_15278_ENG_HTM.htm

• Lutheran church orders restricted holy days to feasts of our Lord, the days of apostles and evangelists, St. Stephen, the Holy Innocents, St. John the Baptist, St. Michael the Archangel, and All Saints. The BCP followed the example of the German church orders, although other observances were later added. The calendar of the church year of the 1979 BCP includes the names of saints and many others whose lives are commemorated with feasts (pp. 15-33). Lesser Feasts and Fasts also includes a short biographical sketch for each person commemorated. New commemorations may be added to the calendar with the approval of two General Conventions.

So, commemorations in the calendar of saints and lesser feasts and fasts includes people who are not saints, such as those inserted since the Reformation, and it suggests this is a development of a similar approach to that of the Lutheran church. Unless a direct citation from the two churches concerned can be found that specifically refers to their making King a Saint, this should not be used, because it is a synthesis and/or original research - either state that he is commemorated with a feast, or that he is regarded as a "saint" (with footnote explaining that the Epsicopal and Lutheran churches have no process of canonization, etc.). Please. Mish (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the words you left out in the first quote change the meaning to its opposite. "Those martyrs and confessors given the title traditionally, prior to the establishment of the canonization process or since the break with Rome, are generally still considered both "saints" and "Saints."

"This is the calendar of saints" refers to the sentence before, which is about Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Why else the word "this"?

Hobart and Nelson's A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (1851) defines Festivals as days set apart for the remembrance of some special mercies of God or the memory of the apostles and other saints who were instruments in conveying to us the knowledge of Jesus Christ. --Jonund (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I read that is that there have been new saints established since the reformation, by the Roman Church, and some are recognised by the Anglican church. All this says is that the Anglican recognises Roman, Orthodox and earlier saints prior to the Reformation, and some created after. I do not have to discuss this - go to the relevant pages which cover this - you are making the assertion of his being a Saint in this sense. If you like I can set up an RfC and put it forward, see what other Anglicans understanding about this usage. Not sure what the point of the last sentence is, I never said it didn't. The calendar of saints is made up on the BCP list and the lesser feasts and fasts. All you have to do is find a reference to the Anglican beatification process, and how this was used for King, and I'll call it day. Mish (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. But it may also be that "generally still considered both 'saints' and 'Saints'" is to be understood in contrast to those having been canonized. An RfC is a good idea.

The point of the last sentence was that "saint" can be safely used. --Jonund (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple solution, put it as "saint", in inverted commas, with a footnote giving explanation. I don't have an issue with this, only that we don't mislead people in thinking he is a saint in the way that Saint Francis of Assissi (for example) is a Saint. Mish (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America) also contains the following statement in the lede: "The Episcopal Church does not canonize individuals, holding instead that all baptized Christians are saints of God and have the potential to be examples of faith to others." On that basis, I think we could reasonably state that at least every member of that church, and possibly others depending on how nitpicking we want to be, could be called a "saint", but I wonder whether anyone would argue that every baptized Episcopalian has to be held to "saint" standards or have lengthy content regarding how they failed to live up to that standard. The only "saint" the Anglican Church has ever individually canonized, by the way, is King Charles I, as per Calendar of saints (Church of England). John Carter (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

<undent>Comment, based on a very quick scan of the above. Many of those whom we consider to be Saints (capital S, no quotes) are not, in fact, canonized. Say, Saints Peter and Paul. It is improper (technically speaking) to speak of the canonization of anyone prior to 22 January 1588, when the Congregation for the Causes of Saints was established. A few prior to that were "canonized" by papal bull, but most by local useage. That means, with the est. of the Congregation after the Reformation, that only the RCC canonizes - does that mean that we can only use Saint (capital S, no quotes) to speak of Roman Catholics? Seems arbitrary to me. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anglicans accord traditional saints in history this title from various traditions - Orthodox, Roman, and Celtic, and back to before these traditions came about. That misses the point. The Anglican/Episcopal church has never said he is a saint. Whether it is fair or not that the Anglican church doesn't make saints is irrelevant. Accuracy and verifiability are what are relevant. Why are we saying something in the lede (and the text) that is both false and unverifiable? That is not the way we do things. Mish (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(e-c)If I remember right, though, all those parties were included in the RCC's Calendar of saints, or at least a local diocesan calendar. I can and do acknowledge that, technically, it could be argued that only those who were post-Congregation can in one sense be "officially" called saints, beatus, venerable, etc., but I would hope that popular usage of "Saint" in describing them, like "Saint Peter", would be enough. Alternately, being included in the calendar of a church which regularly uses the term "saint" for people in that calendar would be reasonable, as would calling anyone who has been referred to by RS by that term in a fairly obvious direct, way, such as can be said about "Saint John Calvin" in some of these sources here. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

First I've heard 'Saint John Calvin'; wasn't aware Presbyterians had post-Reformation saints. Thing is though, is he an Anglican or Lutheran saint? - or more to the point, is MLK? All it needs is an official Anglican/Episcopal or Lutheran announcement declaring he is to be regarded as a Saint. Not much to ask, is it? So far, none has been offered. Calvin is not in Saints in Anglicanism, and King is not in the list of 'heroes', but is mentioned in connection with his being acknowledged as a martyr. So, if "saint" is not palatable, how about simply martyr? This would seem to fit the facts: Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)#."Saints" in the liturgical calendar: "There is also no use of the title "saint" for anyone other than biblical persons. [...] This is to prevent oddities of convention [...] as well as to underline the Lutheran emphasis on the priesthood of all believers. Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)#January. If you look at Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America) you will notice that saints are called Saint, like Saint Thomas, while others, like Thomas Cranmer, are not. (Take a look at Thomas Cranmer, no mention of his being a Saint) Martin Luther King is not accorded the title of Saint either. So, the usage here seems to conflict not only with external sources, it conflicts with what the rest of Wikipedia says on this as well. Mish (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No real disagreement there, actually. I was more or less trying to address the matter of pre Congregation "saints" who are also included in other calendars and called "Saints", not MLK in particular. The biggest problem as I see it is the fact that the articles are called "Calendar of saints". If they weren't, saying "MLK is commemorated in the (maybe liturgical calendars?) of the ELCA and Episcopal Church" would probably be the optimum solution. The fact that the articles are called "calendar of saints" tends to give the impression that those included are saints, unfortunately. Also, with the article being kind of locked, it would probably be the best alternative to come up with some specific phrasing that would be mutually acceptable before making any changes to it. John Carter (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would be OK with "saint" and a footnote, or 'recognised as a martyr', or just 'hero of the church'. There seems to be some debate about whether the RC should recognise him as a martyr; I don't think it worth waiting till hell freezes over to see what the outcome is. A martyr fits the colour of the feast (red); like Bonhoeffer, he is accorded a feast for speaking justice grounded in scripture and being murdered on account of it. Mish (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I made the change to martyr, because it is more accurate than saint, and that is what we are supposed to be doing here - being accurate. Mish (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A martyr or saint? The fact that he was killed by someone makes him a murder victim not a martyr/saint. Would his activity have made him a saint if he had not been murdered, had he lived to old age? Who knows, but possibly, though I am not for a moment condoning the horrible act, the person who murdered him did him a favour. Well, the purpose of editors here is to report of the fact of whether or not he was actually made a saint/martyr by some official and qualified organisation, not to consider among themselves or seek a consensus of their own opinions. But I feel sick when I think of people who have been killed in political conflict, and I wonder if they are all no less martyrs or saints than many over-publicised people. But it seems a fact of human nature that we have to pick on individuals for this category. Let's have a day for remembering all the absolutely innocent victims of conflict, of road traffic accidents, loved people we have known. P0mbal (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how this is relevant. The point is that he was being called a saint in the article on the basis of his being included as having a feast day in two reformed churches which do not canonize people as saints; the feast day appears to be celebrated as that of a martyr in both churches, but one of them uses the term 'hero of the church'. Martyr reflects the reason for his inclusion more closely than saint which cannot be shown, so that is why it is put there. Martyr is a term applied when a Christian is killed on account of his proclamations of faith - whether we consider King worthy of this, or whether people killed in political conflict are equally deserving of the title is irrelevant - the point is that two churches appear to regard him this way, that is why it is included, not because we think he is. The only way around this would be to omit this completely, which some would suggest is not encyclopedic as it would be a selective omission. Mish (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree editors are getting way off topic. This is not the place for a debate as to whether editors agree with the actions of the two reformed churches which have honored King as martyr and hero. It is documented that they have done so in order to recognize the moral value of his work and leadership. Just add it in and let's drop this topic.--Parkwells (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I did that two weeks ago. Mish (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

King's sexual conduct

There is disagreement whether to include a reference to an FBI recording of a sexual encounter allegedly involving King and a controversial exclamation. [24]

Note that the reference in the diff is wrong. The quote is found in Taylor Branch Pillar of Fire, p. 207.[25] It is also related by Nick Kotz, Judgment Days, on p. 85,[26] Jonathan Rieder: The Word of the Lord Is Upon Me, p. 62,[27] and Eric Dyson: I May Not Get There With You, p. 162.[28] --Jonund (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

---

My two cents:

I've been reading the discussion page in great depth over the last 30 or so minutes, and I have a suggestion about some criteria to judge whether or not to put the "f---ing for God" comment in this article. My own untrained view of what constitutes pertinent information for an encyclopedia article would be as follows:

1. The information must be from a reliable source.

2. The information must be of general interest (i.e. famous speeches vs. what the guy liked to eat for breakfast).

3. The information must be not too in depth for the article (i.e. a line-by-line dissection of Dr. King's speeches is not appropriate).

Based of these three (self-made) criteria, here is how I rate whether the comment should be included in the article

1. Yes: The editor Jonund has a lot of sources that seem to me (without looking at the books) to be at least reasonable in the credibility. An investigation by me would either confirm or deny this impression. However, I am assuming that the editors have perused the material sufficiently, and I didn't notice any comments to the effect that the sources could be discounted as 100 percent fabricated, so I'm voting yes here.

2. Probably not: The quote by Dr. King is certainly very ribald. However, people (myself included) say/have said a lot of things while in that particular situation. So, I tend to forgive him. If it had been in a speech, or in a letter to someone, I might have given it more weight. But, to just say it to lover in the heat of the moment is different. I'm voting probably not because, while interesting, I think that the comment represented a misquote and thus loses its interest to the public. I want to hear about what he believed, not about what he ate for breakfast or said to his lovers in bed.

3.No: I think that this information is a little too in depth for the article. As was mentioned by some of the consensus editors, the purpose here is not to write a biography of the man, but to write an encyclopedia article.

So, my final vote is that the quote should be excluded -- for now. If there surfaced more evidence that this quote represented an "official" viewpoint of Dr. King (i.e. written in a letter, etc.) then it may well merit inclusion, if only because it would be sufficient to call into question some of the historical perceptions of Dr. King. However, even there, due caution would need to be exercised. Dr. King was, and remains, a very emotionally charged topic for many people -- either for or against.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.241.131 (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and for taking time to read through the exchange. King's ribaldry, however, was more than an impulse of the moment. It characterized him. He was a raunchy man who hired prostitutes and would laugh away that as well as his friend's attempt to ravish a teenage girl. The whole environment of SCLC was marked by this lewdness, which was a way of marking inside status.[29] Rieder has to explain that Levison was indeed an intimate friend of King, although he could never say "motherfucker".[30] The FBI letter called King an "evil beast" and threatened that his "filthy fraudulent self" would be bared to the nation. That really makes one wonder about the content of the tapes that occasioned such strong words. --Jonund (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

My two cents (reply):

You've convinced me on the second point (that it was something that Dr. King believed, not just pillow talk) from the reference provided.

If this was the case (as it appears to me to be), then the "f---ing for Jesus" reference, or something like it, may warrant inclusion in the article. This would mainly be because it would be radical enough to change the historical perspective on this figure. It may help to paint him 1. A just a man (who helped bring good and important change to the world) and not a saint 2. More of a political leader than a religious leader.

To me (to draw a parallel) this would be like finding out that Mother Teresa was an atheist or a lesbian in her personal life. I would still respect the work that she did, but I would see her as more of a political figure. Maybe this is the correct way for history to view Dr. King -- more as an Al Sharpton type figure and less as a Mother Teresa type.

Maybe we could edit the section as follows

Original

Having concluded that King was dangerous due to communist infiltration, the focus of the Bureau's investigations shifted to attempting to discredit King through revelations regarding his private life. FBI surveillance of King, some of it since made public, attempted to demonstrate that he also engaged in numerous extramarital affairs.[148] Further remarks on King's lifestyle were made by several prominent officials, such as Lyndon Johnson, who once said that King was a "hypocritical preacher".[157] Ralph Abernathy, a close associate of King's, stated in his 1989 autobiography And the Walls Came Tumbling Down that King had a "weakness for women".[158][159] In a later interview, Abernathy said he only wrote the term "womanizing", and did not specifically say King had extramarital sex.[160] King's biographer David Garrow detailed what he called King's "compulsive sexual athleticism." Garrow wrote about numerous extramarital affairs, including one with a woman King saw almost daily. According to Garrow, "that relationship, rather than his marriage, increasingly became the emotional centerpiece of King's life, but it did not eliminate the incidental couplings that were a commonplace of King's travels." King explained his extramarital affairs as "a form of anxiety reduction". Garrow noted that King's sexual adventurism was the cause of "painful and overwhelming guilt".[161]

The FBI distributed reports regarding such affairs to the executive branch, friendly reporters, potential coalition partners and funding sources of the SCLC, and King's family.[162] The Bureau also sent anonymous letters to King threatening to reveal information if he did not cease his civil rights work.[163] One anonymous letter sent to King just before he received the Nobel Peace Prize read, in part, "The American public, the church organizations that have been helping—Protestants, Catholics and Jews will know you for what you are—an evil beast. So will others who have backed you. You are done. King, there, is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significant [sic]). You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy fraudulent self is bared to the nation."[164] King interpreted this as encouragement for him to commit suicide,[165] although William Sullivan, head of the Domestic Intelligence Division at the time, argued that it may have only been intended to "convince Dr. King to resign from the SCLC."[151] King refused to give in to the FBI's threats.[166]

In January 31, 1977, United States district Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr., ordered all known copies of the recorded audiotapes and written transcripts resulting from the FBI's electronic surveillance of King between 1963 and 1968 to be held in the National Archives and sealed from public access until 2027.[167]

Across from the Lorraine Motel, next to the rooming house in which James Earl Ray was staying, was a fire station. Police officers were stationed in the fire station to keep King under surveillance.[168] Using papered-over windows with peepholes cut into them, the agents were watching the scene while Martin Luther King was shot.[169] Immediately following the shooting, officers rushed out of the station to the motel, and Marrell McCollough, an undercover police officer, was the first person to administer first-aid to King.[170] The antagonism between King and the FBI, the lack of an all points bulletin to find the killer, and the police presence nearby have led to speculation that the FBI was involved in the assassination.[171]

Changed

My changes in italics

Ralph Abernathy, a close associate of King's, stated in his 1989 autobiography And the Walls Came Tumbling Down that King had a "weakness for women".[158][159] In a later interview, Abernathy said he only wrote the term "womanizing", and did not specifically say King had extramarital sex.[160] King's biographer David Garrow detailed what he called King's "compulsive sexual athleticism." Garrow wrote about numerous extramarital affairs, including one with a woman King saw almost daily. According to Garrow, "that relationship, rather than his marriage, increasingly became the emotional centerpiece of King's life, but it did not eliminate the incidental couplings that were a commonplace of King's travels." King explained his extramarital affairs as "a form of anxiety reduction". Garrow noted that King's sexual adventurism was the cause of "painful and overwhelming guilt".[161] Sources suggest that King was very open about such affairs in his personal life, even referring to his activities as "f---ing for Jesus"

The FBI distributed reports regarding such affairs to the executive branch, friendly reporters, potential coalition partners and funding sources of the SCLC, and King's family.[162] The Bureau also sent anonymous letters to King threatening to reveal information if he did not cease his civil rights work.[163] One anonymous letter sent to King just before he received the Nobel Peace Prize read, in part, "The American public, the church organizations that have been helping—Protestants, Catholics and Jews will know you for what you are—an evil beast. So will others who have backed you. You are done. King, there, is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significant [sic]). You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy fraudulent self is bared to the nation."[164] King interpreted this as encouragement for him to commit suicide,[165] although William Sullivan, head of the Domestic Intelligence Division at the time, argued that it may have only been intended to "convince Dr. King to resign from the SCLC."[151] King refused to give in to the FBI's threats.[166]

In January 31, 1977, United States district Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr., ordered all known copies of the recorded audiotapes and written transcripts resulting from the FBI's electronic surveillance of King between 1963 and 1968 to be held in the National Archives and sealed from public access until 2027.[167]

Move the last paragraph to another section about "cospiracy about Dr. King's death" or something. It's out of place here, because it has nothing to do with adultery.

Across from the Lorraine Motel, next to the rooming house in which James Earl Ray was staying, was a fire station. Police officers were stationed in the fire station to keep King under surveillance.[168] Using papered-over windows with peepholes cut into them, the agents were watching the scene while Martin Luther King was shot.[169] Immediately following the shooting, officers rushed out of the station to the motel, and Marrell McCollough, an undercover police officer, was the first person to administer first-aid to King.[170] The antagonism between King and the FBI, the lack of an all points bulletin to find the killer, and the police presence nearby have led to speculation that the FBI was involved in the assassination.[171]

Does anyone else agree/disagree with these changes? I think they would include the information that Jonund wants, clean up the article a little, and offer new insights into history.

Thanks.

I have retitled this section, as it is a discussion about one aspect of the RfC, resumed in this section after the RfC was formally closed.

Yes, disagree, it is not accurate. As I understand it, while it may be the case that Sources suggest that King was very open about such affairs in his personal life, that needs to be backed up with those sources. But, conjoining that statement with even referring to his activities as "f---ing for Jesus" is misleading and phrased in a way that lacks balance ('even'); this statement was not made in the context of any openness of his affairs on King's part, it refers to a different matter, that of being spied on while allegedly engaged in extra-marital sexual activity and stating he was "fucking for Jesus". That is not a comment about his sex life, or openness, but an alleged account of a sex act that involved adultery and blasphemy, which could shed certain light on his character. If it were agreed that it should be used, as a quote, it would need its own source to substantiate it.

However, looking at the MoS for dead people Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_the_deceased, similar guidelines operate as for living people, but without the urgency, so Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well-known_public_figures and related guidelines still apply: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. The question then is one of judgement - how relevant, notable and well-documented is this? I don't see it as particularly noteworthy, or relevant, to King's life or even his sexual conduct. All it says is that while we know King fooled around, the FBI claim they have recording of him fooling around. Has anybody made a big deal about "fucking for Jesus"? As in a newspaper rather than a small reference in a book? No. So, how far can it be said to be notable in a way that what he had for breakfast that day (if mentioned) is notable? If I were to think this said something about King's character, that would be because of a POV about saying "fucking for Jesus", but that in istelf doesn't make it notable per se. What is the point of putting it in? How does it improve the article, and thereby Wikipedia? If it did go in, then it needs to also reflect that this was an allegation, that reporting of it is based on transcript, rather than recordings themselves, and that representatives of King's who heard the original recording dismissed that this what it was claimed to be. All that would need to be done with verifiable sources and in a way that did not accord the matter undue weight. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this wording? Sources suggest that King was very open about such affairs in his personal life and talked frivolously about it.[31] One instance was recorded by FBI, whose technicians claimed they heard his distinctive voice exclaim: "I'm f---ing for God!" Kings assistants, who heard portions of the tape, claimed the sound was indistinct.[32] Congressmen who heard the tape appear to have found it distinct.[33]

The value of the quote follows from the widely held view that character is important. Systematic adultery is almost universally regarded as a sign of bad character; so is hypocrisy. And leading theologians say blasphemy is a most serious sin. --Jonund (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

My two cents (last comment, promise)

To me, the value of including such a quote comes because it exposes a dichotomy that apparently existed in Dr. King's life between an outward ministry and an inward obsession with sex. To me, to restate the last example I used, it would be like finding out that Mother Teresa was inwardly an atheist and had said as much during her private conversations. What does that change about her work for the poor? Nothing. But, it gives a new light on her character, personality, and motivations that would be missing otherwise. Hypothetically, if Mother Teresa HAD said that, I really would want to know; and I would find the admission very interesting in any in depth article about her life. The same thing for if Carl Sagan had secretly received last rights on his death bed. It would be a very interesting point to make in an article about his life.

I really think that this is a parallel situation with Dr. King. First, I remember Dr. King as a political leader that helped initiate important change and bring about racial equality. I have a lot of respect for what he did there. Second, I remember Dr. King as a minister. That's the image of him that I was taught in middle school, and that's the image that most Americans probably hold of doctor king today. However, if he inwardly didn't believe in religion or even held contempt towards it, it would be a point that I would like made in an article about his life. It would help me to see a more complete picture of the things listed above. Also, ask yourself if, had a similar type of comment been recorded from Mother Teresa or another historical figure, would you leave it out of an article about their life?

Finally, I know that Dr. King is a very emotionally charged issue for a lot of people still. Thank you for considering my arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.100.9.11 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of undue weight I am concerned about: comparing a habit of talking dirty to "finding out that Mother Teresa was inwardly an atheist and had said as much during her private conversations"! I understand that some folks consider casual blasphemy a profound sin; but that's POV. Others consider "Christians" supporting predatory capitalism to be a much more hideous blasphemy; but again, that's POV. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe the amount of "ink" that's been spilled on this subject. Orange Mike is right, of course. The fact that "people" consider adultery, blasphemy, or hypocrisy signs of bad character are all irrelevant. The article already discusses King's extra-marital affairs in appropriate proportion to their relative importance in his life. He isn't known because of his sexual affairs, and what he said when he achieved orgasm is even less relevant.

This matter is well past its expiration date. Can we please put an end to this discussion? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it is not possible to manage this without attributing it undue weight that is only justified from a POV about this material. Let's call this a day. We've had the RfC, there's no consensus to insert this material. It is a one-man-crusade. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I didn't even care about this article before, but now I'm kind of mad by the way you've dismissed my point of view. Your arguments for doing so are preposterous too.

I think the general consensus among Christians is that saying your committing sin in the name of God is blasphemy. This is NOT why I wanted the article included if you read my last arguments carefully (which I'm guess you didn't) but just to point that out.

If so much ink has been spoiled on it, why not just stick it in there so we can leave it alone? As I said before, I think it provides another viewpoint of Dr. King's motivations and internal workings that would be hard to provide any other way. I am NOT saying this to be sensationalist either, as has been implied. I'm simply saying it because, from a historical point of view, it is something I would be interested in knowing about the guy. If he really did privately think that invoking the name of the Lord when committing adultery was okay or funny or whatever, that is interesting -- at least to me and the three other people I asked for an opinion on it. Furthermore, I would consider it just as much of a point of view to say that something like that is not interesting. Who says it isn't? Is it just because this is Martin Luther King that this additional information isn't interesting?

If you can honestly tell me that were this another, less emotionally charge historical figure who had a ministry but privately said the same kinds of things about God that this wouldn't merit inclusion in the article, then by all means leave it out. But, I think that it would go in if it were anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.178 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your views were not dismissed, but one person pushing for this over several weeks, and you agreeing, doesn't make consensus. There was an RfC, and there was no consensus - the view is divided, so it shouldn't go in. It doesn't matter what most Christians might hypothetically think about this - unless there is a reliable source about what most Christians think about this allegation made as part of an FBI campaign to discredit King. The way people want to insert this, given the detail already included on his sexual conduct, gives it undue weight - especially as the intention is to underpin a point of view that he was a blasphemer, a view which is not expressed in any source so far provided, so here would entail original research. If you want to make a point about King being a blasphemer, and therefore not a man of God, then the way to do that is to find an accurate, reliable, verifiable source that states this. This would be separate from his sexual activities, and would then allow for material that is used in making that claim. Without that, what he said while having sex is about as relevant to his sexual conduct as the position they were in while it happened, whether he wore a condom, or whether he smoked afterwards. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why ink is wasted is because things do not have to go in to Wikipedia because people persist in badgering until people give in and allow them in - they go in because that is the decision people make. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One last time, and then I'll let it go, mainly because I don't want to sign in, change the page, and start a revert war. But, to answer your last post.

"Your views were not dismissed, but one person pushing for this over several weeks, and you agreeing, doesn't make consensus. There was an RfC, and there was no consensus - the view is divided, so it shouldn't go in."

Point taken. We're two, and I seem to remember at least one other editor's tacit support (three) against roughly three or four editors. So, even split -- with a sample size of six.

"It doesn't matter what most Christians might hypothetically think about this - unless there is a reliable source about what most Christians think about this allegation made as part of an FBI campaign to discredit King."

Oh, come now. You can't tell me, with a straight face, that you seriously believe that you need a source to predict what Christians would think about Dr. King's alleged affairs. Christians condemn adultery. You don't need a source to tell you that. As for the FBI methods, that's actually a separate matter -- but more on that later.

"The way people want to insert this, given the detail already included on his sexual conduct, gives it undue weight - especially as the intention is to underpin a point of view that he was a blasphemer, a view which is not expressed in any source so far provided, so here would entail original research. If you want to make a point about King being a blasphemer, and therefore not a man of God, then the way to do that is to find an accurate, reliable, verifiable source that states this."

Here again, I think you're splitting hairs over an obvious point. Most Christians would consider the statement that someone is "f---ing for God", especially when they're committing adultery, to be blasphemous. Besides, the way that I worded the original sentence specifically left out the charge of blasphemy. Also, if I remember my original claim, I think I said that it would present an interesting extension of the historical view of Dr. King -- not specifically of him as a blasphemer, but at the least as an unrepentant man.

" This would be separate from his sexual activities, and would then allow for material that is used in making that claim. Without that, what he said while having sex is about as relevant to his sexual conduct as the position they were in while it happened, whether he wore a condom, or whether he smoked afterwards."

Whether he wore a condom, etc. as you eloquently put it, really doesn't reveal anthing about the internal workings of the man. A comment about "f---ing for God", in my opinion, does. For example, I think that people can still use a variety of positions, etc. and still be active Christians. However, if they commit adultry and then refer to their activities as "f---ing for God", one has to wonder.

"Why ink is wasted is because things do not have to go in to Wikipedia because people persist in badgering until people give in and allow them in - they go in because that is the decision people make."

Electrons wasted really, but point well taken. This will be (probably) the last try from me. I know I'm not going to convince you to insert the comment, but I still wanted to explain my reasoning a bit more before I gave up.

Probably the whole reason why I started pushing for this in the first place was because I noticed what seemed like a slant in the section on King's adultery when I was reading through the article. The article spends four sentences actually talking about King's adultery, a paragraph and a half talking about the FBI's attempts to blackmail, etc. King over his adultery, one sentence talking about a Judge sealing the FBI records, and a seemingly unrelated paragraph talking about some conspiracy speculation about the FBI being involved in King's assassination. So, out of the section on "adultery", less than 1/4 of the section actually talks directly about Kings adultery! Do you see my problem here? It's like Wikipedia is trying to make the argument for the dead man to sanctify his life, and that's something that Wikipedia shouldn't do. Even if you choose not to include this quote, this section still need major revisions. I guess I could log in and try to edit it for content, but I don't want to start a revert war. 128.187.0.178 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you have confirmed what I was saying, the point of inserting it is in a way to make a point that reflects a particular POV. We do not do that. Some Christians might find this important, others won't, but whether they do or not is irrelevant - things don't get included on that basis. What King said during sex is not notable because some people think so, but because it has been widely reported as significant. The issues about his adultery have been, and this is reflected, the issues about the FBI have been, and this has been reflected - whether he was a blasphemer or not has received no attention in reliable sources, as far as I can see. If we were to imagine that most Christians would see this comment that way is irrelevant - linking all that together with one contested statement to justify its insertion on that basis alone falls somewhere between undue weight, synthesis and original research - but I wouldn't know how to make the call which it was. I happen to think you are wrong anyway, most people would not find it as significant as is made out. Feminists, for example, would find his sexual behaviour an issue, but not what he said while engaged in it - in the same way that Clinton's actions were not problematic sexually, but because of the compromising of the power relations involved. In that context, King's 'womanizing' is an issue because of how he dealt with power and related to women, not because of adultery - the adultery is only significant from one POV. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the ip's position. The quotation helps the reader see MLK in the round. It's a revealing biographical snippet and it adds dimensionality. In deciding whether the quotation is trivia, I ask myself whether after reading it I feel I know more about MLK and understand better who he was. The answer is an unequivocal yes. It really has nothing to do with POV. It's simply about painting an accurate and full picture of the article's subject. I'd like to see the "I'm not a Negro tonight!" quotation included, too.

Of course it's important to know how MLK is seen by history, and how he appeared to those who saw him on platforms. For me it's also important to understand how he appeared to those who shared his life, and these quotations gives the reader a brief glimpse of one such view.--MoreThings (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, I could agree myself that the quote might be somewhat revealing about the character of the man, if it were certain that it was in fact something he said. Unfortunately, the reliability of the tape had been challenged at the time, even if only by individuals who themselves were probably biased, and that makes its inclusion questionable. Also, unfortunately, with such a quote, it's hard to be sure what it might reveal, because, frankly, we have no idea of the mental context behind it. If he thought it was his responsibility to create lots of kids, OK, then it would make sense. Do we know the motivation of the statement, if he in fact made it? Unfortunately, no. That would tend to make the quotation something that various individuals could easily read any number of things into, generally completely on their own, and creating that sort of unnecessary ambiguity is something we generally try to avoid. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the sources: if they're reliable, then job done. We need verifiability, not truth. We don't need to prove that he said it; we need RS stating that he said it, or stating that the FBI claimed to have proof that he said it. Regarding ambiguity: I feel the points you make apply to almost all quotations. We can never know the motivation for anything anyone says (though I think it's reasonable to assume that these remarks were not deeply premeditated!) Similarly, we can never know how a reader will interpret a quotation. But we do have to make a call, as editors, whether any given quotation merits inclusion. My view is that this one does. I expect most readers will go through the same process as you and I have in determining how much to read into King's words. Our job is simply to provide the raw material and to leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusion.--MoreThings (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Even in dead people's biographies, we still tend to respect privacy, so if something is alleged about their private life that was not significant, it doesn't go in. The books are out there, people can read them. It is a Wikipedia article, not a definitive account about the man's life. I'm not wasting more time on this - you've had the RfC, there is no consensus to include it, and wearing people out by dragging this out doesn't give you consensus. I'm not discussing this any more. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For me that acid test is this: forget about trying to double-guess what a hypothetical reader might want, and think about what you would want if you were a reader. If you genuinely feel that knowledge of these remarks has added nothing to your understanding of MLK, that it would make little or no difference to your perception of him were you completely unaware of them, then I completely understand your position. If, on the other hand, you feel that the information is important and has been helpful to you, but that it needs to remain out of the article for fear that it will be misunderstood, or that some readers will find it offensive, or that some might willfully take it out of context, then I think you're making the wrong decision.

But as you say, if the consensus is that it should stay out, then all of this is moot, and it should stay out.--MoreThings (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 155.100.9.11 about the comparison with Mother Teresa. If she were a lesbian, I would definitely find that interesting and notable. And the case against segregation is not hurt by King’s escapades (just as the case for helping poor people would not be hurt by anything questionable Mother Teresa might have done).

How well established is the blasphemous quote? As WP includes charges that have been widely reported, this should be considered well established. Here are some serious sources: Taylor Branch, Pillar of Fire, p. 207;[34] Nick Kotz, Judgment Days, p. 85;[35] Jonathan Rieder: The Word of the Lord Is Upon Me, p. 62;[36] Eric Dyson: I May Not Get There With You, p. 162;[37]; The Nation, May 1, 2008;[38] Slate, February 4, 1998;[39] Pop Matters;[40] Newsweek, January 19, 1998.[41]

The fact that it has been widely published should settle the issue, but we can also note that a third party (members of Congress) has, apparently, not found the tape indistinct.[42] The decision to bury the tape for a long time arises suspicion that there was something to hide.

The majority view of those commenting on blasphemy is that it is a serious sin, and WP:UNDUE requires that the article reflects this. It has been characterized so by Thomas Aquinas (as already mentioned), who says that “it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbor. … it is called the most grievous sin, for as much as it makes every sin more grievous.”[43], The Book of Common Prayer, explains that ”our duty to God [is] To show God respect in thought, word, and deed”,“[44] The Book of Concord, calls blasphemy “the greatest sin that can be outwardly committed”; [45] The Baptist Confession of Faith says: “Therefore, to swear vainly or rashly by the glorious and awesome name of God…is sinful, and to be regarded with disgust and detestation. …For by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked and because of them this land mourns.”[46] The Heidelberg Cathechism answers question 100 about blasphemy by stating that “no sin is greater or provokes God's wrath more than the blaspheming of His Name”,[47] and The Westminster Larger Cathechism explains that “The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane...mentioning...by blasphemy...to profane jests, …vain janglings, ...to charms or sinful lusts and practices.”[48] Calvin found it intolerable “when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked.” (Harmony of the Law, vol. 4).

King’s ribaldry and immorality, in fact, played a far larger role in his life than the article currently lets us know, as Rieder shows. The fact that he is known for other things is no argument for omitting or playing down these aspects. Of course, virtually no one is known for their sexual affairs, nonetheless those may be significant parts of their characters, explain other aspects of their lives and contribute to a fuller understanding of the person. --Jonund (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that John Carter has added a {{round in circle}} template. I should have done that long ago, but I have patiently tried to explain the case for those who have difficulties to get the arguments. Perhaps it is now time to insert the quote in the article (and, of course, the overdue text about King's communist connections). Or are there new arguments that need to be answered? --Jonund (talk) 18:07, June 26, 2009

No, you have come up with no new arguments, and your tired old ones have not convinced anybody but yourself. And as you have been told a dozen times before, your threatened insertions are against consensus, violate WP:UNDUE, and will be reverted. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:58, June 27, 2009

Agreed. If consensus were to change, which is likely only to happen if new material comes out, then it might be reasonable to discuss adding the material. Until then, I would have to say that trying to reinsert the material would be likely only to result in it being almost immediately removed again. Continuing discussion on the idea without new evidence being produce might itself potentially be problematic in terms of WP:DE and lead to disciplinary measures, so, personally, I think it makes sense to let the discussion die. And I only placed the template on the top of the page because I thought someone might try to bring forward the same old material which has been fairly seriously rejected again. Evidently I was right in thinking that? John Carter (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of fundamental questions that need to be answered if you want to keep the quote out of the article. I have asked them before and I have to repeat them again:

• Are lewdness and blasphemy really immaterial qualities in a Christian minister who has on top of that been commemorated by two churches as a saint/hero/martyr?
• Is it really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important?

The refusal to deal with them makes it questionable whether you are interested in arriving at consensus. To talk about "tired old [arguments]" when you don't bother to answer them is pathetic. Simply claiming that the incident is irrelevant does not do. Mere opinions do not count.

I have proved that the incident has been widely reported by serious sources who accept its factuality, which is enough for verifiability; moreover there is quite good evidence for the accuracy of the original source (that is, the quote is likely ‘’true’’, which is more than WP has ambitions to prove). Yet editors persist in treating it as dubious. Blasphemy is, beyond question, a serious sin according to Christian theology, which makes it a significant view that should influence our judgement of what is relevant for inclusion in the article (but not entitle us to brand it as unethical in the main namespace). Yet the status of blasphemy is treated as an arbitrary opinion. I have also demonstrated that ribaldry and immorality – which the quote is a good example of – was typical of King’s lifestyle. Yet no notice is taken of that. This kind of dismissals gives the impression that you have designs on refusing to let any shadow fall over your idol, and are prepared to use sheer force to reach your goal. I hope I’m mistaken, but this is the signal you give. --Jonund (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

All you're saying here is that you want it because you want to insert your particular POV in the article, and that we'll use consensus to keep it out. Yep. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have followed this discussion right from the beginning, and I'm amazed by the arrogance of those who want to keep out information. WP does not work that way. You have to listen and deal seriously with arguments. There are questions that are waiting to be answered.

The definition of consensus by Jimbo Wales - "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal" - seems to be completely ignored. Please, take heed of these lines from wp:consensus: "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority."

Editors should be more observant of what is going on here and don't treat the most sedulous contributor as a lone voice. I have expressed my support for the quote before. So has More Things, 128.187.0.178 and 65.100.164.112.

If we misunderstand each other (which is human), it should be possible to clear out. This discussion, however, makes me distrustful as to the preparedness to allow anything that conflict with your own POV. Please, show your good will by dealing with the arguments. --Årvasbåo (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't overrule WP:NPOV or common sense. The fact that King may have been guilty of blasphemy or hypocrisy or other immorality is not relevant when writing an encyclopedia article. Decrying a person's moral character, or lack thereof, has its place in a sermon, not in a Wikipedia article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 01:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The irrelevance of King's character is your POV, which goes against the owerwhelming majority of theologians and philosophers. Nobody has suggested that WP decries King's moral character, only that we account for the facts from both sides, so every one can form their own opinion. --Jonund (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And the overwhelming majority of theologians and philosophers are frankly irrelevant to a biography article. To add more material would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. We cannot and will not be able to include all information everybody wants on this subject in this one article. Simple logic would indicate that. You have been told this repeatedly. Why is it that you have to date failed to comprehend this fairly simple point? Please refrain from continuing an argument that has been found inadequate. The purpose of placing the tag was specifically to try to get such basically pointless repetitions stalled, as this page should not have to face the same questions on a regular basis. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

John, have you understood my point at all? WP:NPOV says: “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” “The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.” “As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'.” "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

The refusal to represent (in a neutral way) facts that are deemed significant for (widely held) moral, philosophical and theological reasons violates WP:NPOV. It impedes people’s ability to form their opinion on the subject. Moreover, it makes it problematic to judge what is significant. We need criteria for those judgements, and these aspects seem to be prominent and widely used. As you don’t accept the fact that the incident has been fairly widely reported as a ground for including it, that criterion also falls.

This is clearly not about using too much space. The episode takes up very little space. Neither is it undue weight, as it describes an important aspect of King’s life – indeed, this side is underexpounded and reflects serious concerns.

I’ve been talking to a brick wall, but tried to remind of the points that debaters have missed and lay out my case more persuasively and in a more detailed way in order to help you get the point. I’m not impressed by the dismissal of my arguments. To treat me that way is impudent and only prolongs the talk.

WP:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing describes a disruptive editor as one who does not engage in consensus building:

• repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
• repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Efforts to engage my arguments would have spared us a lot of unnecessary quarrel. I hope it’s not too late to reach progress. --Jonund (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have understood the point. It is you who have failed to see that (1) your own requested addition may itself be in violation of NPOV, by placing undue weight on material which several people have stated is not as objectively important as you seem to demand everyone else see it, which is through the lens of a given religious/theological perspective, and (2) that you are seemingly consistently ignoring the clear consensus on the subject, as per WP:CONSENSUS. If you can do nothing but repeat arguments which have already been found inadequate, I very strongly suggest that you cease them. Thank you."" John Carter (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you have not understood it. You eliminate widely held perspectives rather than presenting them fairly and neutrally. You don't counter the new arguments I raise. You falsely claim there is a clear consensus [in your favor] on the subject. You overlook WP:UNDUE "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." You attribute a demand from my side that everyone see it from a "religious/theological" perspective, although I only insist that such a perspective should also be heard. You don't motivate why theological aspects should be banished. You also overlook that the issue has moral/philosophical aspects, which are independent of religious views.

Your comments are in contrast to your normal balanced editing (so far as I'm familiar with it), suggesting that you may have become absorbed by the discussion and lost your objectivity and perception. That's human. I recommend you, however, to take a break until you can deal dispassionately with the subject. --Jonund (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The above comments seemingly refuse to take into account the results of the now-closed RfC on this subject filed by the above editor, which was closed and seemingly came away with the response that, at that time, there was no consensus to add additional information regarding this subject to the article, which already discusses the material to some degree, even if not to the degree that Jonund by his own admission, and seemingly in violation of behavior guidelines, still "insists" be added. If Jonund cannot be satisfied with the results of actions he has himself initiated, then I suggest that he either withdraw from the article or perhaps find another article relevant to the subject where the material can be added, or even create such an article, which is a far from unprecedent way to deal with such information. There are already several individuals about whom there exist multiple articles, and if the material is notable enough, there is no reason to believe that this could not, at least potentially, be another one. However, there is a fairly clear lack of consensus to add the material he still "insists" be added, and such refusal to acknowledge the results of the recently closed RfC, and the comments of others regarding how there did seem to be at least a consensus not to add additional material regarding this subject, is not particularly helpful. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for some constructive suggestions. However, some things need to be said. The first RfC led to a second one, and the person who intervened was eventually convinced by my arguments. Others have persisted in opposing additional information, but the problem is that it is difficult to know whether there is a serious concern for the article behind this position or, whether they want it excluded simply because they don’t like to have their icon look less than saintly. This is a matter of principle. Is it permissible to omit facts and disregard arguments because you don’t like them, if this is the case, and then refer to “lack of consensus”?

The two questions I have tried to get answered are of the nature that they need more than a yes or no–answer. The subsequent posts make it necessary to sum up the further questions that remain unanswered:

• Which objective criteria do you propose for determining which viewpoints are significant? How is it possible to dismiss the majority of theologians and philosophers as irrelevant? Aren’t you placing your own opinions above those, which is against WP:UNDUE?

• If you feel that it is improper appeal to theologians and philosopher because their position is a POV, are you aware that “The [WP:NPOV] requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly,” and “As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'”? On what grounds do you eliminate widely held perspectives? Or can you demonstrate that these quotes are invalid in this case?

• How do you deal with the fact that ribaldry and immorality (on a far larger scale than the occasional succumbing to temptation) was a typical trait of King’s life? Shouldn’t this be given due weight in the article, by being mentioned?

I may have misunderstood things you have tried to say. If so, please, try to be explicit in telling me where my logical error is.

John stated that the quote could be revealing if it were certain that it was in fact something King said. Now, WP is about verifiability, not truth, and he has not responded to the fact that the quote is verifiable and in all likelihood true. I would like to hear his answer. --Jonund (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I keep checking this article periodically to see which direction this debate will actually go, and I'm a little disturbed by what I am seeing. So far, I am seeing a group of editors that is being quite dismissive towards the arguments of Jorund and his rather carefully constructed arguments. In his support, I really don't see a consensus against including this information, and I think that his arguments and evidence at least deserve an answer instead of an (paraphrasing) "We already answered you so shut up and go away" type argument. First off, to me, Jonund keeps bringing up new point/evidence beyond that originally discussed above, so you haven't answered his argument. Second, , the points that he makes seem (at least to me) to be valid and well supported, so I think that they deserve more respect.

To reiterate, the reason why I became interested originally in this page and this section in particular is because of the lackluster quality of the page in its current format. When I first stumbled on this page and the section about Dr. King's adultery, I was surprised that the majority of the section was about everything else besides King's adultery, including FBI conspiracies and judges sealing records. When I went to the talk page, I stumbled upon this discussion and have been increasingly dissatisfied with it, particularly with the seeming cursory dismissal of information from Jorund, as the discussion has progressed. I am personally interested in this information about Dr. King since I feel that the statement that he was "f-ing for God" reveals a lot about the inner workings of his mind. Moreover, the three other people I've told about the quote (all of whom have, at best, a very passing interested in King and Wikipedia in general) all thought that it was an interesting fact about his life and something that they would like to read in an encyclopedia article about him. In the words of one young lady, "It is an interesting fact because it reveals a lot about his character" (exact quote). I agree. Some of the other editors I've read on here seem to agree as well. I feel that the main reason the quote isn't in the article at the moment is because of a small, dedicated group of editors that are working hard to exclude it. I feel that this is wrong and counterproductive to the aims of this encyclopedia.

I am formally asking the editors of this page to reconsider the inclusion of this quote. I agree there was an original rfc (or whatever it's called) to exclude it. However, it seems that new evidence has been presented since then and that new contributors have weighed in, and that the results of this original rfc may no longer be valid. I am formally requesting a new one be opened, and I am submitting the votes of four people for the quote inclusion. Emails of these people can be provided if needed for verification. Thank you. 128.187.0.178 (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You'd think that Brigham Young would have better educational standards than this.

All of Jonund's arguments, so far, have been about the importance of the quote according to theologians or philosophers or what have you. What you, and he, fail to see is that none of these things matter... This is Wikipedia. So unless you can justify it in Wikipedia terms and standards, it's not going in, and that's really all there is to it.

Furthermore, this is a biographical encyclopedia article. It is not intended to be comprehensive, nor should it be determined to give you insight into "the inner workings" of the man's mind. An encyclopedia article is a starting point only. It gives you all the appropriate facts, basic history, that sort of thing. Read WP:ENC. Insight into the man's mind is most definitely a Point Of View topic, and Wikipedia is strictly NPOV. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. In short, your agreement with Jonundor anybody else is worthless unless you can make an argument in Wikipedia-speak using Wikipedia-rules. That's just the way it works.

Oh, and for the record, I absolutely do not agree with you. This material is unverified, poorly sourced, presents a highly biased point of view, and would be wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article even if those were not the case. It should absolutely not go into the article. -- Otto 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You have still failed to refer to objective criteria for deeming the quote irrelevant. The opinions of most theologians and philosophers constitute such a criterion. The opinions of a cabal of wp editors do not constitute anything such.

This is the vulnerability of wp. A few dedicated editors can destroy articles by refusing to pay regard to arguments that contradict their agenda. The gravity of these conditions makes this discussion a matter of principle, and that is the most important reason that I have invested a lot of effort in a careful and patient discussion about the topic. Will we allow wp to be hijacked in this way? Let me point out that disciplinary measures may be necessary if the dodging of a serious discussion persists.

The systematic refusal to answer my arguments, as well as Otto's claims that the quote is unverified and poorly sourced, although I have provided 8 serious sources, strain the limit of what can be taken to be done in good faith. If somebody feels my judgment is too harsh, you still have the chance to show your good faith by answering my arguments. It's long overdue; yet it should be easy if there is anything to say in favor of your opinion. --Jonund (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason your arguments have not been responded to is that, basically, they are no more than repetitions of previous points by you in the RfC, which closed with no consensus to add the information. Your arguments regarding the opinions of theologians and philosophers has been answered earlier, when it was said that they were, basically, irrelevant to a biographical article. And the systematic refusal to address the points of the material being unverified, poorly sourced, and presenting a highly biased viewpoint is another concern. It seems that once again someone has to very seriously suggest that the editors who are continuing to belabor this dead issue either do as requested and produce sourcing which would meet wikipedia standards, make another RfC, although given the recentness of the last one there may be few if any responses, or let a discussion which does not seem at present to serve any useful purpose whatsoever end. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The answers to my questions whether a) lewdness and blasphemy really are immaterial qualities in a Christian minister who has on top of that been commemorated by two churches as a saint/hero/martyr? and b) it is really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important, have been a simple no. That is, you have assumed that your private opinions are more important than those who have committed their lives to reflecting on these issues. My attempts to explain the ramifications of my questions in the form of some new questions have gone unheeded. I find this staggering.

I think it's now well established that you are trying to avoid arguments and stick to a dogmatic position. If you believe such contributions demonstrate "no consensus to add the information", you are mistaken. WP:UNANIMOUS says: "Editors should make a good faith effort to reach a consensus. That means that the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it." WP:DE describes you as one who "Does not engage in consensus building". I suppose posting on WP:ANI is a proper way to deal with the refusal to engage in a serious discussion. --Jonund (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please bring this matter to WP:ANI so we can finally put this matter behind us. How many times do you have to be told before you'll listen: Wikipedia isn't the place to air your grievances about the importance of moral character. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 06:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, Jonund could, conceivably, request mediation either informally through the Mediation cabal at WP:MEDCAB or formally through WP:MEDCOM. But I also agree that his continuing to keep this more or less one-man argument going, particularly considering that it seems to apparently ignore the outcome of the RfC he himself initiated, could be seen as an unwillingness to abide by wikipedia's rules and honestly does no good whatsoever. John Carter (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"You have still failed to refer to objective criteria for deeming the quote irrelevant. The opinions of most theologians and philosophers constitute such a criterion. The opinions of a cabal of wp editors do not constitute anything such."

If you want to try to get it added to theologianphilosopherapedia, then by all means, that argument holds some weight. However, this is Wikipedia. Cope. -- Otto 15:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Response

Sigh. You'd think that Brigham Young would have better educational standards than this.

Sigh. Does this qualify under the strategy of "when all else fails make a personal attack?" How unprofessional and counterproductive! Sigh.

All of Jonund's arguments, so far, have been about the importance of the quote according to theologians or philosophers or what have you. What you, and he, fail to see is that none of these things matter... This is Wikipedia. So unless you can justify it in Wikipedia terms and standards, it's not going in, and that's really all there is to it.

Did you not read the rather long argument posted by Jorund above? He spent several paragraphs both explaining and justifying the inclusion of this argument in terms of Wikipedia language and policies. I could also do this (though perhaps not as eloquently -- darn BYU education gets in the way) but I don't feel the need to since he ALREADY DID THIS. Seriously, didn't you read his post?

Furthermore, this is a biographical encyclopedia article. It is not intended to be comprehensive, nor should it be determined to give you insight into "the inner workings" of the man's mind. An encyclopedia article is a starting point only. It gives you all the appropriate facts, basic history, that sort of thing. Read WP:ENC. Insight into the man's mind is most definitely a Point Of View topic, and Wikipedia is strictly NPOV. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. In short, your agreement with Jonundor anybody else is worthless unless you can make an argument in Wikipedia-speak using Wikipedia-rules. That's just the way it works.

Let me respond to this in pieces. First off, I know that an encyclopedia is a "starting point" and is "not intended to be comprehensive". If I wanted to include the full text of all speeches ever delivered by King in the article, I might see your point. However, I don't think that the inclusion of a single sentence that includes a three word quote and the historical context of that quote really pushes away from the brevity of the article.

Out of the three links that you've given that refer to Wikipedia policy, WP:ENC, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT, I really see nothing in there that would exclude the inclusion of this quote. Have you actually read any of these pages? To summarize, for example, the WP:NPOV page "requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." Here Jorund is trying to get a well-documented quote published in the text of the article, one that would provide many readers an interesting insight into the life of King and is apparently well documented by the sources listed by Jorund. I'm also at a loss to explain how providing insight into the mind of of a historical figure is NPOV, especially under the definition of it provided by Wikipedia. Again, did you actually read this page? I think that most people would actually read a Wikipedia article specifically to try to gain additional insight into someone's life by an unbiased presentation of the facts about that person's life. That's exactly what this quote attempts to do.

Finally, I find the use of terms like "worthless" in this context to be pejorative and I think that you should refrain from using them in the future. Just because you find something to be of no worth doesn't mean that others won't view it differently. If you need proof of this, try watching the Antiques Roadshow sometime. So, you shouldn't eliminate a fact from an article about a historically important person based solely on premise that you don't care about the quote. "That's just the way it works," as you would say.

Oh, and for the record, I absolutely do not agree with you. This material is unverified, poorly sourced, presents a highly biased point of view, and would be wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article even if those were not the case. It should absolutely not go into the article. -- Otto 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Jorund named a half-dozen sources verifying the quote. Name one that disputes it. If the quote is indeed "unverified", "poorly sourced" and "presents a highly biased point of view" as you say, then you should have no trouble at all coming up with several, perhaps even dozens, of quotes from scholarly sources that share this opinion of the quote. Until then, I'm going to treat this statement as what it currently is: your personal opinion of the quote.

Next?

Btw, the IP address is different because I'm on the road, but this is still 128.187.0.178

It is not our place to prove the quote is not legit. Quite the opposite, in fact. See WP:V. Furthermore, the sources given are questionable at best, and blatantly biased at worst. How do I know that? I read them. Have you? -- Otto 15:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have read the quote and sources that the come from, Otto. From my initial reading of these, I've come to the conclusion that they present valid research. So, I guess that we're at an impass here if we're going for the "democracy" factor. However, I don't even think that this should be a problem. Quotes have been presented as evidence from published, verifiable sources. Now, it's your turn to present evidence debunking, individually or collectively, all of these quotes. Your request for Jorund, myself, etc. to provide verification of the quotes beyond that which has been provided is preposterous. They're published, verifiable quotes. What more do you want? Futhermore, what basis do you have for claiming that these quotes are "blatantly biased"? Do you have a quote from a researcher (other than you) who reviewed these quotes and came to the same conclusion? If not, that constitutes original research on your part, as I noted above. If you can get your opinion published in a research journal, I might even start caring about it. Until then, not so much.

Did you have anything else?

128.187.0.178 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I pointed you towards WP:V for a reason. From that page:

Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.

The sources presented so far are highly questionable, at best. It doesn't matter what publication included the quote, what's the *source* of the quote? Anybody can repeat a bad quote.

Furthermore, your notion that this is somehow about anybody else's "evidence" vs. yours is laughable. We're not interested in truth or proving or disproving you. We don't much care what it is you think about morality, or ethics, or theology, or philosophy.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth.' —that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

It's just that simple. You have failed to present a reliable source, as defined by WP:RS that is sufficient for inclusion of this highly controversial "quote". Your sources are biased in that they contain much racist material, much anti-King rhetoric from their sources (which was in fact the FBI who were anti-King at the time). Furthermore, you have failed to present how this quote is significant in the context of an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a book solely about the man or about the FBI's investigation of him).

In other words, you've failed to show, on any level, why this material should be included in the article. It's just that simple. I don't know any better way to explain this to you. All it would take would be one credible source and a convincing argument that this material is important enough to be included in the summary account of the man's life (which is what an encyclopedia entry is, a summary only, not in-depth material). Even if you could get the first, I fail to see any argument that could satisfy the second. It's basically three words that you want to include, which are potentially offensive and cannot be credited to the man with any form of reliability.

So no, I'm still against it, and will remain so until such time as you satisfy the proper criteria. -- Otto 21:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

These allegations come from the same FBI that did its level best to destroy King, his work and his ministry during his lifetime. How does that constitute reliable sources? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Otto,

First, lets get our definitions straight on here. Wikipedia is based on VERIFIABILITY of sources. However, you seem to be mixing this term up with BIAS of sources. Unless I'm missing it in the text of WP:V, a perceived bias of a source is NOT a reason for exclusion of that source. Let me give examples to be a little more clear.

The whole crux of the argument that you and other editors seem to be presenting to exclude these arguments is that you perceive a "bias" or "racism" in them against Martin Luther King. Without getting into whether or not these article are "biased" or "racist" against him (I don't believe that they are, but that's another story) I submit that the question of whether bias exists in them is totally irrelevant to whether the facts presented in them are verifiable and accurate.

Suppose that I wanted to write a biography of former President George W. Bush. I could easily spend most of my time talking in great detail about the allegations of his drug abuse and womanizing before he became president. In my discussion of these allegations, I could cite several reliable sources in connection with these allegations. Would my piece cast Bush in an unfavorable light? Yes. Would the facts and sources cited in my article therefore be not accurate or verifiable (assuming my research was good)? Hardly.

Another example. I could also write an article about former President Bill Clinton where I spend most of the article talking about his (alleged) affair with Monica Lewinsky, alleged involvement in Whitewater, alleged previous affairs with other aides, etc. In support of this, I could use information obtained by Ken Starr's investigation discuss these allegations. Would my article potentially cast Clinton in an unfavorable light? Yes. Would my article still contain verifiable facts and citations? Yes.

On the surface, these articles appear to present verifiable, accurate facts from King's life. I've read them and come to that conclusion. If you have come to a different conclusion, I am asking you: Why do you come to this conclusion? What SPECIFICALLY about these articles makes them appear to you to fail the verifiability test? In good faith, we (as editors) must accept these sources to be accurate unless we have specific reasons not to.

The burden of proof falls on YOU in this case because direct sources have been provided which seem to be accurate that verify this quotation. If you want to make a case for the exclusion of this quote, give me some example cited from the text of things that would make you question the verifiability of these sources. I'm really curious more than anything. I want to know what SPECIFICALLY do you object to about all of these sources individually that eliminates their verifiability?

Once we've eliminated this obstacle, we can then talk about whether the information is relevant.

128.187.0.178

Influences and influenced, redux

OK, someone now wants just two people -- Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama -- listed under "influences". Before that there were a handful of people; before that nothing. I really think "nothing" is the best we can do there, given that pretty much every African-American leader (if not ever African-American) has been influenced by MLK; if we start picking and choosing who we're going to put there (Al Sharpton? Colin Powell?), we're doing original research. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer more, but there's not enough room - none is just as inappropriate, when as you say, so many were influenced - I could add Jim Wallis, the UK Student Christian Movement, Trevor Huddleston, before starting on black politicians and religious leaders here in the UK. I take your point, how does one select? I didn't realise this was what you meant. Fine, remove Jesse Jackson, and leave the most influential African American people know about in there. That is well sourced as somebody he influenced, and gives a better picture of King's influence than a selective list. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, there's no need to create such a list for a man of such universal influence. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jpgordon here. We don't have a list anywhere of being influenced by Jesus, or George Washington, or for that matter Simon Bolivar. With people of this level of importance, broad influential impact is more or less a given. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving?

This page is currently at 193 kB. Does anyone think the time for archiving may have been reached? John Carter (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but most of it seems to be this one argument. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing Influence

Under the influences section, I believe that there should be a section detailing the influence of Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible in the work of Dr. King. I don't know why this is neglected, but it is surely a more significant influence than Ghandi. It's probably impossible to find a speech or writing by Martin Luther King, Jr. that does not reference or allude to a biblical passage. I'd argue that the teachings of the Bible are THE most significant influence in the life and work of Dr. King.

(P.S. I'm a new wiki-editor, so I hope I did this right. Please forgive any formatting errors. Thanks!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eracer001 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For an active Christian minister, this falls rather in the "water is wet" category, and is considered unnecessary to mention. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What Political Party Was He??!!

This huge gigantic article and not one mention of whether MLK was a republican or democrat? (or did I miss it?) I wanted to learn if MLK voted republican or democrat, so I came to Wiki. I cant find it in here. So I have to go somewhere else. Can someone please include MLK's political affiliations? Did he vote republican or democrat, or neither? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no reliable evidence that he belonged to either party, which is why the article doesn't mention it (that, plus the fact that it might be considered trivial). King may have voted Republican before the 1960s, because many Democratic politicians in the Southern U.S. were strong supporters of segregation. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Many? Most. A Democrat could hardly get elected otherwise; and a Republican couldn't get elected nohow no way (since Lincoln was one.) Anyway, Malik's right; we just don't have any evidence of party registration at any time. I'd love to see some. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)