Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.

Bizarre...but true

I noticed some guy blanking large chunks of this article with summaries accusing it of being "leftist propaganda". Most of it was vandalism, although I noticed this strange comment about Luther King Jr. and Charles Xavier that I thought he might have had a point on. Turns out he didn't - a quick look here [1] shows that Xavier is actually apparently based on the character. The strangest things, eh? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was almost ready to delete that, then I came to the talk page first. IMHO the phrase "the basis" is still a little extreme. And frankly, it might belong on the Professor X page, but it doesn't seem to warrent mention on MLK's page. Jordoh 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wave of vandalism and POV

To be expected on MLK day, I suppose. I just posted a blog entry mentioning the attacks on this page--and the defenders against them. If you are interested, it is at: [2]. I have tried to fix several instances of vandalism or POV attack, but so far today, another editor has carried out the task ahead of me. Congratulations folks!--Cberlet 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Freezing this Page Around the Holiday

Given that there is vandalism occuring here, it might be a good idea to freeze this page around MLK Day every year.

Highlander folk school

It's fascinating when a 50-year-old calumny is revived for the benefit of tarring King's reputation. This one in particular is nastier than most. See Highlander Research and Education Center; the "communist" accusation is verbatim from the segregationist Georgia Commission on Education. If you want to include it in a section entitled "unquestionable lies about King", please do so. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the freeze

When I first viewed this page, one of the headings was "Leroy the Big-Lipped Nigger", which at first confused me, until I realized that it was vandalism. Fortunately, it's been fixed.

It's quite heartening to know that we have to lockdown pages like this to protect against wonderful comments like this. And here I thought we had made progress in the world.

Lots of petty vandalism happening today -- must be that everyone's back to work and has net access. Can we consider getting {{sprotect}} again? bikeable (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

This man is one to remember in our hearts and minds. He was a very good person. And I lovehim for what he did... I admire him...

Futher challenges section - rips off FAIR?

This section seems to, shall we say, closely follow this article dating from Jan 1995, which was recently dusted off from FAIR's archives and linked on their main page. Some parts are verbatim. Someone care to recraft the section so there's not obvious copyvio? 222.166.160.74 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King Jr.

Im doing a 1000 word essey on him.Hes an amazing person!

I'm guessing you won't do so well on that "essEy" judging by your English skills ;) Weatherman90 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

28th august, 1963

thought the final march with M.L. Kings final speech was on Wednesday, 28th august, 1963..... in the article there's somehow not this date named.....

There are some major problems with the dates in the section on the March on Washington. The march took place on August 28, 1963. Bloody Sunday took place later, on March 7, 1965. I'm not familiar enough with MLK to definitively say whether ot not the other events described in this section are correct. Could someone with more knowledge about this clean this section up? - Maximusveritas 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King, communism, and smear campaigns

King clearly worked with some communists, but to claim that "many" of his "advisors were avowed communists" is a stretch. The claim was made by some who sought to smear King as part of organized campaigns. I think it is unfair. Even if the Communist Party USA, claimed credit for "starting the civil rights movement," the claim is obviously false, and so why is it in this article other than to perpetuate a false smear?--Cberlet 12:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where avowed communists linked to the Communist Party USA, which credit themselves with starting the civil rights movement.^{[citation needed]}

The Communist Parties website says they started the civil rights movement. Secondly many of Kings closest advisors were in fact communists such as Baynard Rustin, Stanley Levision, and about 1-2 more people. I find it odd that he would chose to associate himself with committed communists dont you? His own biographer said King privately described himself as a marxist. I think the line should be reinstated. FYI its not a smear if its accurate. That shouldnt be a reason to censor information.

71.131.205.182 07:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling King a communist was not just an attempt to "discredit" and "slander": even if he did not have direct ties to the party, he at the very least suffered from the same delusions as the International Communists if he even believed half of what he propagated. King's incompetent idealism deserves some attention; tell us, Mr. King, just how you plan to achieve your goal of racial equality in a free market capitalist system with inherent inequalities? This article is ripe with liberal nonsense, which is hardly a surprise for Wikipedia. I notice there are no comments about King's disgraceful personal life, or the more controversial details about his final hours. Meanwhile, other figures with less popular views in this day and age are slammed and railroaded at every turn. Although it is solely my opinion, I am not a great fan of someone who propagates the merits of his "dream" without outlining the means to get there. The only two methods that are remotely feasible are establishing socialism or eliminating the concept of race, or at least white culture, altogether...its clear which path the United States has chosen. --155.247.166.28 19:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I deleted the post about Reagan calling King a "near-Communist" since the lone source, from FAIR.Org's Paul Rockwell, isn't sourced and I assume based on opinion. I am unable to locate an independent source about Reagan calling King a Communist. The line should not be reinstated until an independent source is located

'All 50 states' date?

Martin Luther King Day says 1999, but here it says 1993. So, anybody know which is correct? 24.17.48.241 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The date was actually 2000, with New Hampshire passing the legislation to make the holiday in 1999. The date has been updated on both pages and a reference has been included. --Allen3 ^talk 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Married the late...

I dunno about everyone else, but reading "King married the late Coretta Scott" sounds to me like he married a dead person. Is this really proper English? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should read the late M.L. King married the late Coretta Scott.

Motown

King released recordings of several of his speeches as Motown LPs. Does he count to be placed in Category:Motown performers? --FuriousFreddy 06:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda don't think so; are there any other documentary-style Motown LPs? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There were. There were a lot of spoken-word artists on the label, as well. You're probably right about not pla cing him in the category. --FuriousFreddy 23:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video on Martin Luther King Jr. by national vanguard

I would like to add this video, but the chabal will not allow it, so how do I bring it to arbitration?

according to solargeneral.net they say:

Most Popular Video: http://www.solargeneral.com/library/MartinLutherKing.rm 18,000x this video has been downloaded in Jan.

How do I get this video through arbitration to be added to the article?--Lokison 08:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is not for discussing specific content. National Vanguard is a marginal race hate group. A link to their video is not appropriate for this page. In any case, there are usually a number of steps that need to be tried before arbitration is granted. For your information, in English the spelling is "cabal." The spelling "chabal" is primarily used by antisemites to suggest secret Jewish control.--Cberlet 14:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relationship between Stormfront (who hosts the site) and National Vanguard? (The site is amusing; its rhetoric is quite similar to that of Julius Streicher.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Long as the video is accurate factual information it should be added regardless of who hosts it as long as it has education value. Wikipedia is walking the lines of censorship.

71.131.205.182 07:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago and De Facto Segregation

I recently added on to the section about MLK's 1966 Chicago Freedom March. Less than five minutes later, it was edited out. I mentioned his objective was to challenge de-facto segregation, only to be defeated by Northern hypocrisy. I can understand how those who defend MLK's legacy don't like to talk about Chicago as much as other parts of his public life since even his closest advisors have admitted that it was a defeat for his cause. But what I thought should be added to the section was that MLK was not only strongly opposed by American Nazi leader, George Lincoln Rockwell, but also by many influential local whites who had supported his cause down south. One reason could be that the Chicago Freedom March brought back memories of the 1919 race riots, which city residents did not wish to repeat. With that said, I strongly urge more additions on what was the biggest episode in Chicago history, prior to the 1968 Democratic convention.

Sure. Provide us some sources providing this information -- in particular, the importance of Rockwell. WP:CITE. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 05:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textImportance of GLR and MLK

According to Frederick Simonelli's "American Fuhrer" and William Smaltz's "Hate", George Lincoln Rockwell led numerous confrontations against Martin Luther King. In 1961, he countered the Freedom Riders by driving a Hate Bus into the Deep South. In 1963, he led a counter demonstration to MLK's March on Washington. In 1965, he was in Alabama to oppose King's Selma-Montgomery March, where he was able to get himself into a memorable photo confronting King*. In addition, GLR's followers would attend King rallies, where they would constantly heckle the speakers. Finally, in 1966 Chicago, after seeing how King had police protection in marching through a white neighborhood, Rockwell challenged the Chicago police to do the same for him if he were to march through a black neighborhood. This time, people who would never have associated themselves with a Nazi, agreed with him, because he was the only one to stand up for preserving the status quo by opposing forced integration of neighborhoods.

There must be more sources about the episode especially with the upcoming 40th anniversary of the Chicago Freedom March, which historians and people who witnessed it will probably get together and talk about. In the meantime, the two books I have just mentioned, are the main sources about George Lincoln Rockwell, both considered balanced. The reason I consider GLR important to this article is because by the time of his assasination, he was becoming quite an annoying thorn in MLK's cause. Bold textWKR85

If found, the picture would be well worth adding to this article.

King biographer comments on the article

"An e-mail request to a variety of scholars to look at articles in their fields turned up some complaints. David Garrow, author of a Pulitzer-winning book about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., replied: I called up their MLK entry, and right in the second sentence there's an obvious error: that King was awarded both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom before he was assassinated. Wrong. He was awarded that presidential medal in 1977, by Jimmy Carter."" link

Lotsofissues 09:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last night on Earth

This article contends that King spent his last night on Earth in a liason with prostitutes and credits this to Ralph Abernathy while his book says nothing of the sort. This must be changed.

Good. Fix it! --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

authorship issues

"While some political opponents have used these findings to criticize King, most of the scholars in question have sought to put them into broader context; for example, Keith Miller, probably the foremost expert on language-borrowing in King's oratory, has argued that the practice falls within the tradition of African-American folk preaching, and should not necessarily be labeled plagiarism."

This is misleading and a cover up. Plagiarism is wrong and if you are caught doing it you should be denied your degree. It is not ok under any circumstances but this article is saying that its ok for blacks and common. Why should they be held to another standard? King clearly didnt earn his PHD and there is a clear POV violation. Who is Keith Miller and why does his cleverly placed remark deserve to be in the article?

71.131.205.182 07:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]