Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.

Plagiarism Sentence

So I was reading through the article, and the following sentence caught my eye: "An academic inquiry concluded in October 1991 that portions of his dissertation had been plagiarized and he had acted improperly, but that his dissertation still "makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship"; the committee recommended that his degree not be revoked." When you go to the source that's cited at the end of that sentence, the source makes no mention of "an intelligent contribution to scholarship", but merely states that the committee recommended that the degree not be revoked because revoking the degree would serve no purpose at this time. I suggest that the sentence be edited to properly represent the cited source. I would do it, but I'm guessing that this is a controversial issue, so I wanted to bring it up on the talk page first.

Idag (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Three sources are cited: an article by Charles A. Radin in the Boston Globe dated 11 October, 1991 (the main source); a short anonymous piece in the New York Times dated 11 October, 1991 (which does not include the quote); and a long piece (dated July, 2003) collected via email in snopes.

The relevant part of the snopes piece appears to be a full version of Radin's report (compare it with the two opening paragraphs of Radin's report, being the only ones viewable free at highbeam. In any event, both the teaser in highbeam and the snopes reprint of Radin's article reproduce the quote. At first glance it looks like a comment by BU Provost Jon Westling, but he is clearly represented by Radin as quoting from the committee's statement. OTOH, the treatment of MLK's plagiarism in the article is definitely light-weight. The academic committee was not administering a light rap over the knuckles. According to Radin (via snopes):

The committee found that King "is responsible for knowingly misappropriating the borrowed materials that he failed to cite or to cite adequately." It found a pattern of appropriation of uncited material "that is a straightforward breach of academic norms and that constitutes plagiarism as commonly understood." The letter to be attached to King's dissertation, Cartwright pointed out, "indicates there are serious improprieties and points readers to sources where they can find chapter and verse."

The doctoral studies of Doctor Martin Luther King deserve a separate sub-section. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually there's already an entire article on the issues. Perhaps a {{See also}} to that article in the Early life/education section section would be appropriate, but I don't see it as a major defining factor in the man's life requiring a separate section in his summary overall biography article. It seems that in spite of recognizing the transgression, the BU academic committee felt the same way. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it does not need a separate section. It is a good idea to have a link to the separae article on the doctoral studies and issues therein. Kierzek (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Liturgical commemoration

I just moved up the mention of the annual memorials of King by the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches and created a section 12.2 to balance section 12.1 (civil Martin Luther King Day observances). Yesterday, I had added his feast day to H&O for today, and I've had some feedback after similar additions that my additions of lectionary dates aren't supported by the underlying wikipedia articles. Thus, I added the section 12.2 to this article, only to have it reverted by Fat&Happy on grounds of duplication. Apparently, I had missed the mention in the very long and convoluted Section 13, probably because the mention of Episcopal and Lutheran feast days had been placed in the same paragraph (and after) as naming of a local government building in Harrisburg PA. Frankly, the liturgical and civil memorials don't seem of the same level, particularly given the importance of spirituality in Dr. King's life and career. Since this is a Good Article (and glancing at the reverter's page, he has promoted at least Rahm Emmanuel's article to Good Article status), I don't question his credibility, but I do suggest that this remain as Section 12.2. I also respectfully suggest that Section 13 be cleaned up, since it mixes both lifetime and posthumous achievement awards and recognitions, and I can't make out any internal organization of that section.Jweaver28 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

I've heard he was sexually promiscuous.

What truth if any in this?

See this: http://www.ibtimes.com/martin-luther-king-cheated-his-wife-other-lesser-known-facts-about-civil-rights-leader-mlk-day Fletcherbrian (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That subject is already covered; see the article, section 11. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Fletcherbrian (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)