Jump to content

Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Shot

King was shot at 6.03pm. I believe this article is based in favor of William Pepper's ridiculous argument that the Government killed King.If you must leave this in please allow your readers to access some work which critlllicises the conspiracists' view.You cite David Garrow's book yet do not inform your readers that this King biographer and expert called the Jowers trial 'shameful' and the King family's acceptance of Pepper's claims "egregious and embarassing". The following article may give some balance to your reporting. He had 4 children with Coretta scott. http://crimemagazine.com/05/martinlutherking,0612-5.htm

Criticism Not allowed?

Why is no criticism allowed on martin luther king in regards to links? Why the dogma?

I also echo that concern. If the criticism is presented in a scholarly fashion, it should be permitted. The fact that the Martinlutherking.org website is run by Stormfront should be irrelevant. Clicking on the Martinlutherking.org website doesn't automatically dump you into Stormfront. Dr. King was an ordinary human being who performed an extraordinary mission; accounts about the personal issues he confronted as well as the mistakes he made would prove inspiring and convince more people to reach beyond their limitations to do great things.

  • NPOV does not mean giving Nazis such as Stormfront a platform. Don't bother trying to sneak the .org site in (as so many Stormfronters have done over the last couple of years); it will be found and deleted quite quickly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to lobby for its inclusion in the additional links -- clearly labeled as a White Supremacist publication. People ought to know the sort of outrageous character assissination that site stoops to. Besides, it's fun holiday reading.

martinlutherking.org's pagerank is already absurdly high. Please do not consider its inclusion, disclaimer or no. Despite their claim to a "true historical examination" there is nothing scholarly about them. Jasongetsdown 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Stuff with no headings

are you sure about the time of assasination, I alwas thought that MLK was dead in the afternoon, around 5 to 6 pm ?!

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/ --> Zouhair

Is there no way to protect a page just from anonymous editing? Has it ever been tried? If so, does it make an elephant? --JimWae 06:59, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

MLK: The Red Reverend Here's my webpage talking about Dr. King's socialist beliefs.



Was the U2 song about the US Bloody Sunday or the UK one? -- The Anome

Remembering Bloody Sunday January 30, 1972

  • On January 30, 1972, soldiers from the British Army's 1st Parachute Regiment opened fire on unarmed and peaceful civilian demonstrators in the Bogside, Derry, Ireland, near the Rossville flats, killing 13 and wounding a number of others. One wounded man later died from illness attributed to that shooting.

The march, which was called to protest internment, was "illegal" according to British government authorities. Internment without trial was introduced by the British government on August 9, 1971.

The British-government-appointed Widgery Tribunal found soldiers were not guilty of shooting dead the 13 civilians in cold blood.


30 January, 1997 marked the 25th anniversary of the killing of thirteen people and the wounding of a further fourteen (one of whom was to die shortly afterwards) in Derry in 1972 by the British Army. The passage of those years has not lessened the meaning of what happened on that day, summed up by the term synonymous with it, "Bloody Sunday", the trauma of which sent shock waves of anger, grief and indignation that were felt throughout the island of Ireland, the wider Irish community abroad and the international community.


The passage of twenty five years has not dimmed the memories of that day for those who were present and particularly for those who lost loved ones. Memories are vividly recalled with deeply felt emotion about lost fathers, sons and brothers. The Government is acutely aware that time has not diminished this sense of pain and loss. It is also aware that their grief has been deepened by their belief, widely shared, that the events of Bloody Sunday have yet to be set out in a truthful and credible official account. The Bloody Sunday relatives believe that the Report of Lord Widgery was a deliberately incomplete and wilfully misleading official version of events designed for the sole purpose of exculpating the actions of the British Army.

The Northern Ireland / Free Derry one...

Looking at the lyrics, it could be about either, but I have a feeling that with U2's Irish background it is likely to be the latter. -- The Anome

Plus there are numerous interviews (and some onstage hectoring) by Bono which make it perfectly clear which one they're talking about...(e.g. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/devolvedpolitics/story/0,9137,582283,00.html)

There might be some confusion stemming from the fact that their song Pride in the Name of Love was about the assassination of MLK.

Anyone know if Dr. King was named after Martin Luther? Or is it just a coincidence?

he was named after his father (known popularly in Atlanta and the Civil Rights community as "Daddy King"), who was named after Martin Luther. They're a dynasty of preachers. A minor point - I know that he is usually called 'Dr. King' in Civil Rights discourse, but in encyclopedia articles one usually drops titles after the first occurrence.--MichaelTinkler

Daddy King was actually born Michael King and his son was named after him. In 1934 Daddy King changed both his name, and that of his son, to Martin Luther after a trip to Europe

Does anyone know about his supposed plagiarism on several of his graduate papers? I have heard about this but I do not know if it's true. Either way, it would be a good thing to mention if anyone has some info on this.

Probably some more stuff on his assassination too...

--alan d

King used chunks of other people's writings in virtually all his written work (including many of his speeches). He also frequently signed his own name to things other people wrote (for him and with their consent - things like statements and minor speeches, while acting for the civil rights movement), and reused material in different times and places (lots of the stuff from I Have A Dream he had been using for yonks). It's hard to categorise all this as "plagiarism" exactly, for he tended to rewrite and mix it with original material. He just wasn't overly concerned with original authorship. I'll re-read the books i've read on this at some point and write about it in detail. That is, unless I forget. --AW

I moved MLK's opinions on anti-Zionism to here from the antisemitism page. Justification:

  • MLK is not an expert on the topics of Antisemitism or Zionism or whatever, and his quote is basically just rhetoric and the expression of his own opinions
  • MLK was an important figure in the US Civil Rights movement, yes, but that doesn't make him an "expert" -- what he said might be important because it encapsulates the opinion of a large number of people, and defines a social movement -- but MLK's opinions in themselves are no more likely to be correct than some guy next door
  • the putting of the quote on that page seemed to me to be mainly an appeal to authority (kind of like quoting a physicist about the existence of God, or a movie star about the morality of abortion or something like that)
  • if someone wants to strip out the rhetoric, and give the gem of MLKs argument on the antisemitism page, go ahead -- which would probably be "Many people, especially but not only Jews, consider anti-Zionism to be a cover for antisemitism. [Then add brief response of those who disagree]" (if thats not said there already).

-- SJK

There should be more about this man, other than his views on Jews. What about civil rights? --Uncle Ed

There is. 68.6.102.52 deleted most of it though. Now restored. --mav

for the record, a google search of "Baboon mouth" retrieved twelve citations. Of the twelve, the only ones that contextualize MLK refer to a single song. So, on the entire internet, there is only one reference to "Baboon mouth" and King. Therefore, "Baboon mouth" has no place in this article. Kingturtle 17:30 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Rather than remove all the "anti-King" links -- including to extreme right-wing groups, including one to the John Birch Society -- I added small quotes from each to clarify what they are about -- which was not necessarily clear from the shorter titles. Bcorr 03:36, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- I don't think the Zionist hoax really belongs in this enry.

Good point. I've moved it here. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:44, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Views on anti-Zionism

"When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism."

Those words were spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1968 appearance at Harvard [ from "The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel" by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter magazine, December 1969]. However the following "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," appears to be a hoax [1].

".. You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews - this is God's own truth. Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind....And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe....The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'! ...Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews - make no mistake about it."

I've finally removed these -- they don't really seem appropriate in that they go beyond a reasonable balance:

BCorr|Брайен 00:46, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Michael Luther King, Jr.?

These seem like reputable sources to confirm what I have stated about Martin Luther King's birthname.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/martinluther/who_said.html
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/king_martin_luther.shtml

Hi Darrien -- the Snopes page you listed has the following quote from MLK's father:
I had been known as Michael Luther King or "Mike" up until I was 22 . . . when one day my father, James Albert King, told me: 'You aren't named Mike or Michael either. Your name is Martin Luther King. Your mother just called you Mike for short.' I was elated to know that I had really been named for the great leader of the Protestant Reformation, but there was no way of knowing if papa had made a mistake after all. Neither of my parents could read or write and they kept no record of Negro births in our backwoods county . . . I gladly accepted Martin Luther King as my real name and when M.L. was born, I proudly named him Martin Luther King, Jr. But it was not until 1934, when I was seeking my first passport . . . that I found out that Dr. Johnson, who delivered M.L., had listed him in the city records as Michael Luther King, Jr., because he thought that was my real name.
To me, this is not enough to say that he was born Michael King. Snopes is usually quite definitive in its statements, and in this case they basically say that they don't know. And the BBC article clearly confuses MLK with his father. So for me this still falls into the "urban legend" category. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 04:11, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


RE: Name change not being an urban myth: As far as reputable sources for King's original name being Michael King Jr. see the Autobiography of Martin Luther King edited by Carson Clayborne (who edits the King papers so he should have some idea what he's talking about!), http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/King_Sr_Martin_Luther_King.htm also by Carson and http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1009 written by John Kirk, a British Civil Rights historian--138.251.122.58 17:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think they did. Read the snopes article, which quotes from his father at length. His father was originally named Michael, which was later changed to Martin. Due to a paperwork slip-up, some of his birth records used "Michael", but that was not his parents' intention, nor was he ever known by the name. RadicalSubversiv E 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • but that was how his birth was registered. By ignoring (& repeatedly deleting) this in the article you open yourself up to a charge of bias. If you try to hide it, it's like you think it's a big deal--JimWae 08:29, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
I've just added a note explaining the situation. Also, I don't appreciate being accused of bias (and I'm not even sure what the bias would be -- an ideological slant against my own first name?). My intention in removing the claim was to improve the article's accuracy and uphold a previously-established consensus that the information was incorrect. Moreover, I'm not the only one to have done so ([2], [3]). RadicalSubversiv E 08:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The bias - if it existed (which I cannot know, but since you claim to be puzzled as to what it would be, I'll explain it) - would be of the form of "wishing to leave out a fact which might make King Sr. seem a bit diminished, making him seem a little more vain, calculating, and publicity-conscious, in that he changed his name from something mundane to something taken from a figure of history." It's important for the facts of the name change to be made clear and not glossed over: I myself visited this page to find information in regard to the urban legend, will is still very much alive, that "MLK Jr. changed his name, early in his career, to make it sound more impressive." I find now that the name change was done by Sr. not Jr., and further was put in place when Jr. was still a very young child, so that turns out to be something which refutes the urban legend, and does not reflect badly on MLK Jr. ~~ WDG Jan/13/2006
  • In the late 1960s or early 1970s, I saw a television special on King that mentioned that MLKJr had been born with a slightly different name. According to this report, and I believe that it was an interview with MLKSr, MLKSr once was talking about Martin Luther to his son, who was around seven years old at the time, and MLKJr suggested that they both call themselves "Martin Luther" King. Dad thought it was a good idea, and so they did it. ~~ DWC Jan/16/2006

Other stuff

I removed the following quote and its citation from the article:

King also was a strong supporter of the State of Israel, voicing his support nearing its 20th birthday. Congressman John Lewis recalled "On March 25, 1968, less than two weeks before his tragic death, he spoke out with calrity and directness, stating, 'peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and security must be a reality.' During the UN Conference of Racism held in Durban, South Africa, we were all shocked by the attacks on Jews, Israel and Zionism. The USA stood up against these vicious attacks. Once again, the words of King ran through my memory, 'I solemly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews - because bigorty in any form is an affront to us all.'"

Here's why. This long quote, while accurate, would belong in the article on Rep. Lewis. And more importantly, the short qoutes-within-the-quote are of very questionable authenticity. Congressman Lewis stated that King made this comment "shortly before his death" during "an appearance at Harvard." According to the Harvard Crimson, "The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago--April 23, 1967" ("While You Were Away" 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by Stanford University's Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge or Boston. [4], [5]. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr. Plagiarist

One of the most publicly “hidden” facts is that Martin Luther King plagiarized his doctoral thesis from the Crozer Theological Seminary.

Here is the story as reported in The New Republic, Jan 28, 1991 v204 n4 p9(3) Embargoed. (Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarism story cover-up) Charles Babington. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1991 The New Republic, Inc.

On November 9 The Wall Street journal published what was widely seen as a solid, page-one scoop: Martin Luther King had plagiarized parts of his doctoral dissertation. The next day the rest of the press followed with front-page stories, crediting the journal for the news. What they didn't reveal was that many of them had had the story themselves-a story that had been widely rumored, and easily available, for a year-and not printed it. The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Atlanta journal/ Constitution, and THE NEW REPUBLIC had all failed to run articles even though at least one editor at each journal knew of the King story last spring, and three right-wing journals had already published it.

The story begins on December 3, 1989-eleven months before The Wall Street Journals coup. The Sunday Telegraph of London carried an article headlined: "Martin Luther King-was he a plagiarist?" The column, by Frank Johnson under the pen name Mandrake, said, "Researchers in his native Georgia must soon decide whether to reveal that the late Dr. King ... was, in addition to his other human failings, a plagiarist." The column even identified the smoking gun-the dissertation of fellow Boston University student jack Boozer, from whom King lifted large passages verbatim. Mandrake quoted Ralph Luker of Atlanta, top assistant to Clay-borne Carson, the Stanford historian chosen by Coretta Scott King to direct the King Papers Project. Luker virtually confirmed the allegations with his painstaking efforts to sidestep all questions about plagiarism. As a final goad, Mandrake wrote, "The story has not yet been published in the United States." Johnson says he got the King plagiarism story from a British professor who had visited the United States, and that he's not surprised the U.S. press ignored his article. American reporters' powers of perception tend to fail them on questions of race, gender, gays," he told me.

I first heard this story in elementary school and used it as a way of refusing to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr Day. I was removed from class and sent home for causing a disturbance. The media still can’t get things right.

  • I find the mention of Dr. MLK jr's supposed plaigarism to be tasteless and demeaning to the cause he fought for and the people that fought for it. I would like to have it removed so that racists and bigots can't add their trash to wikipedia. --Iconoclast 19:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The material is, strictly speaking, accurate, but it was presented in a POV and insulting way. I've attempted to improve it. Comments welcome. RadicalSubversiv E 03:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The presentation of King's wanton plagiarism is extremely POV. We are told that his ripping off virtually his entire doctoral thesis and much of his most famous public speechs is somehow a wonderful expression of an African tradition. BIAS. Sixpackshakur 02:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The tone of the plagiarism discussion in the article is, again, extremely POV. Makes it sound as though he has been accused, but may or may not be guilty. I am reintroducing my edit and will continue to do so. 70.19.110.64 18:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

School

What were his degrees in?


I added some detail on Martin Luther King Jr's death. Juicyboy 325. 11/16/04

I'd like to add that "MLK: The Red Reverend" link and change the "Democratic Socialist?" heading to "Democratic socialist?" if possible.
gaidheal 19:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Archives_and_Records_Administration instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Archives , now a disambiguation page.

What ever you do please do not allow the following link to ever be listed on this page: http://www.Martinlutherking.org It has very politically incorrect points of view and documents about Martin Luther King that commits the crime of defaming the dead. Please ensure this link never is included in the article, all of the information on this site was written by ultra radical right wing extremist neo-nazis.Dariodario 14:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit I find this posting very suspicious. The link wasn't listed in the first place, and terms like "censorship" and "politically incorrect" are not typically self-descriptive terms. I've got my eye on you. --Fastfission 14:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The site might be linked to the Stormfront movement, but none of the fact presented in the articles are presented as simple assumptions but are presented as facts supported by references. And as such should be considered an additional source of texts on the case of Martin Luther King.

I'm no fan of Stormfront or other so called white nationalist groups, but you really give your motivations away calling it 'politically incorrect'. Should we then remove all mention of criticism of abortion, pornography, feminism, affirmative action, neurodiversity and all support of the death penalty? To quote Voltaire: 'I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it' Lord Patrick 04:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Patrick. The term "Politically correct" means censorship and proves the authors point. Wikipedia should only deal with important facts regardless if they are "politically incorrect"

JJstroker 10:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It would seem that the first paragraph in this section is placed as a "red herring" to call attention to (advertise) the martinlutherking.org site. Anyone who interprets the message's statement that the site is "politically incorrect" (which it may well be, depending on your politics) is overlooking that the intent of dariodario is to advertise the site to other neo-Nazi types and to perhaps get a "liberal, open-minded" person to visit the site, too. "Free speech" isn't the issue here, Lord Patrick and JJstroker, it's simple deception. And simple deception has a place in Wikipedia, too. It's just best that we recognize it as such. ~~ DWC 01/16/2006

Molloy and the "Communist training camp"

For now I'm reverting Molloy's switch from the Oval Office picture to a front page apparently from a 1963 article in Roy V. Harris's segregationist tabloid newspaper, the Augusta Courier, which bore a picture and a headline. Molloy, please support your characterization of the picture as "Martin Luther King at a Communist training camp." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've now removed the picture twice. First, because it replaced one that was already there with no explanation. Second, because such an obvious piece of segregationist propaganda must be contextualized as such. Describing the Highlander Folk School as a "Communist training camp" is not NPOV. RadicalSubversiv E 05:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suspected copyvio

An anon just pasted this large text into one of the sections. I reverted it as a potential copyvio.

Origin

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Junior was born on January 15, 1929 to Reverend Martin Luther King Sr. and Alberta Christine Williams King. He was born in 501 Auburn Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia. King also had two siblings, an older sister named Willie Christine King Farris and a younger brother named Alfred Daniel Williams King.

Education When he was five years old, Martin Luther King, Jr. started to go to school before reaching the legal age of six, at the Yonge Street Elementary School in Atlanta. When his age was discovered, he couldn’t and didn’t, continue going to school until he was six. After Yonge School, he was attended in David T. Howard Elementary School. He also went to the Atlanta University Laboratory School and Booker T. Washington High School. Because he worked hard and received high scores on the college entrance examinations in his junior year of high school, he advanced to Morehouse College without formal graduation. Having skipped both the ninth and twelfth grades, Dr. King entered Morehouse College at the age of fifteen. In 1948, he graduated from Morehouse College with a Bachelor degree in Sociology. That autumn, he enrolled in Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania while he also studied at the University of Pennsylvania. He was elected President of the Senior Class, won the Peral Plafkner Award as the most outstanding student and he received the J. Lewis Crozer Fellowship for graduate study at a university of his choice. He was awarded a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Crozer in 1951. In September of 1951, Martin Luther King, Jr. began doctoral studies in Systematic Theology at Boston University. He also studied at Harvard University. His dissertation was written in 1955, and the Ph.D. degree was awarded on June 5, 1955. Martin Luther King Jr. was awarded honorary degrees from many colleges and universities in the United States and other foreign countries. They include: • Doctor of Humane Letters, Morehouse College • Doctor of Laws, Howard University • Doctor of Divinity, Chicago Theological Seminary • Doctor of Laws, Morgan State University • Doctor of Humanities, Central State University • Doctor of Divinity, Boston University • Doctor of Laws, Lincoln University • Doctor of Laws, University of Bridgeport • Doctor of Civil Laws, Bard College • Doctor of Letters, Keuka College • Doctor of Divinity, Wesleyan College • Doctor of Laws, Jewish Theological Seminary • Doctor of Laws, Yale University • Doctor of Divinity, Springfield College • Doctor of Laws, Hofstra University • Doctor of Humane Letters, Oberlin College • Doctor of Social Science, Amsterdam Free University • Doctor of Divinity, St. Peter’s College • Doctor of Civil Law, University of New Castle, Upon Tyne • Doctor of Laws, Grinnell College Occupation and Life Martin Luther King Jr. entered the Christian ministry and was appointed to be a minister in February 1948 at the age of nineteen at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia. Following his appointment, he became Assistant Pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church. Upon completion of his crams at Boston University, he approved the call of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. He was the pastor of Dexter Avenue from September 1954 to November 1959, when he had to move to Atlanta to guide the activities of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. From 1960 until his death in 1968, he was co-pastor with his father at Ebenezer Baptist Church.

Dr. King was an essential figure in the Civil Rights Movement. He was designated President of the Montgomery Improvement Association, the organization that was accountable for the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott from 1955 to 1956 (381 days). He was detained thirty times for his contribution in civil rights activities. He was an initiator and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference from 1957 to 1968. He was also Vice President of the National Sunday School and Baptist Teaching Union Congress of the National Baptist Convention. He was a member of many national and neighboring boards of supervisors and labored on the boards of trustees of numerous long time established people and agencies. Dr. King was selected to membership in several well-taught societies including the acknowledged American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Family Dr. King married Coretta Scott King on the 18th of June in the year 1953. Together, they had 4 children; Yolanda Denise who was born in November 17, 1955, Montgomery, Alabama, Martin Luther III who was born on October 23, 1957, Montgomery, Alabama, Dexter Scott was born on January 30, 1961, Atlanta, Georgia and Bernice Albertine on March 28, 1963, Atlanta, Georgia. They lived in different places because Martin Luther King did quite a lot of moving. Community Martin Luther King Jr. worked as a co-pastor with his father at Ebenezer Baptist Church, a key figure in the Civil Rights Movement, was elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association, a member of many important boards including civil right supporters. The conditions of the areas where he work might have been okay because a) he was a Negro and Negroes didn’t have better environment than others but b) the areas that he worked in were important so think of them as second-rate buildings. Conclusion Other people do and should think of Martin Luther King as a hero, someone who equaled human rights in a non-violent way and believed that everybody was the same. His main accomplishment and contribution to our lives was to let everybody understand that it didn’t matter what the color of one’s skin is, white, black, yellow, orange or purple. It just mattered that they were people and they deserved the same rights as everybody else. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated while standing on his motel balcony in Lorraine Motel, Memphis, Tennessee by assassin James Earl Ray on April 4, 1968. He died of a fatal bullet wound and was buried in the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site in Atlanta, Georgia. Anecdotes When Martin Luther King was signing books one day, he was stabbed in the chest with a letter opener by a mad black woman just before he went to visit Indian Prime Minister Nehru. Martin Luther King has gotten in to jail over 50 times for his contribution in civil right activities. Martin Luther King’s birth name is actually Michael. Both he and his father changed their names to Martin at the age of six because Martin sounded better. Martin Luther King received a lot of awards for his outstanding non-violent civil rights battle. The awards he has won are the following. • He was selected as one of the ten most outstanding person of the year 19570 by Time Magazine. • He was listed in Who’s Who in America, 1957. • He won the Spingarn Medal from the NAACP, 1957. • He won the Russwurm Award from the National Newspaper Publishers, 1957. • He won the Second Annual Achievement Award from The Guardian Association of the Police Department of New York, 1958. • He was selected as one of the sixteen world leaders who had contributed most to the advancement of freedom during 1959 by Ling Magazine of New Delhi, India. • He was named “Man of the Year “by Time Magazine, 1963. • He was named “American of the Decade,” by the Laundry, Dry Cleaning, and Die Workers, International Union, 1963. • He won the John Dewey Award, from the United Federation of Teachers, 1964. • He won the John F. Kennedy Award, from the Catholic Interracial Council of Chicago, 1964. • He received The Nobel Peace Prize, at age 35, the youngest man, second American, and the third black man to be so honoured, 1964. • He won the Marcus Garvey Prize for Human Rights, presented by the Jamaican Government, posthumously, 1968. • He won the Rosa L. Parks award, presented by The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, posthumously, 1968. • Lastly, he won the Aims Field-Wolf Award for his book, Stride Toward Freedom. Martin Luther King was also quite an accomplished author He wrote many novels including • Stride Toward Freedom, 1958. The story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. • The Measure of a Man, 1959. A selection of religious lectures. • Why We Can’t Wait, 1963. The story of the Birmingham Campaign. • Strength to Love, 1963. Another selection of religious. • Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967). Reflections on the problems of today’s world, atomic bombs racism, etc. • The Trumpet of Conscience, 1968). The Massey Lectures, sponsored by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

I couldn't find an exact match with a google search, but the bullets in there tell me it almost certainly was copied from some other source. There was quite a bit of similarity in this page I found, http://www.wsu.edu/MLK/about.html but it was nowhere near an exact match. Possibly one was the source of the other, or both cribbed from the same source. There looks to be some decent additions that could be made to the article with the info found here, but I don't have the time right now. --Ponder 23:22, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Democratic socialist?

This section was not encyclopedic so I removed it. It belongs in wikiquote. Maybe there should be a subheading for Martin Luther King's beliefs?

It is decidedly encyclopedic and merits expansion. In his later years, King spoke about democratic socialism fairly frequently, and there are even some biographers who speculate that he was operating from a fundamentally socialist approach since he first read Marx in college. Regardless, the existence of Wikiquote does not mean that secondary sources should not be quoted in Wikipedia articles. RadicalSubversiv E 08:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also, please sign your comments on talk pages. (by typing ~~~~). RadicalSubversiv E 08:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

King and the climate of the times

"This statement is remarkable since King rarely allowed his positive response to democratic socialism to be recorded. His usual practice, according to one of his aides, was to demand that they "turn off the tape recorder" while he expounded on the virtues of "what he called democratic socialism, and he said, 'I can't say this publicly, and if you say I said it I'm not gonna admit to it." King "didn't believe that capitalism as it was constructed could meet the needs of poor people," the aide said, "and that we might need to look at what was a kind of socialism, but a democratic form of socialism." Even in the speech that contains the passage cited above, King said he wasn't "going to allow anybody to put [him] in the bind of making me say everytime" that he wasn't a communist or a Marxist. Still, as democratic socialist Michael Harrington said, King was highly reluctant to name his radical position in public. King didn't want to arouse suspicion and thus compromise the achievement of economic and racial equality. "Dr. King had a genius for this," Harrington said. "How do you phrase the message so that you don't betray the message but you put it in terms which are understandable and accessible to people on the street?" Harrington claims that King "certainly wouldn't use radical phraseology in many cases for that reason." The great Marxist historian C.L.R. James recalls that King told him that while he believed in radical ideas, he couldn't "say such things from the pulpit." James say that King "wanted me to know that he understood and accepted, and in fact agreed with, the ideas that I was putting forward--ideas which were fundamentally Marxist-Leninist." James concluded that King was "a man whose ideas were as advanced as any of us on the Left.""

From the page linked at the bottom "The Red Reverend". That's why I think we should have a sentence referring to his refusal to come out and say that he was or was not a socialist. gaidheal 20:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem with labeling King is the problem with labeling King. The African-American community has a long tradtion of communal/socialist economics. But once one labels someone a "socialist," that puts them in the ambit of white socialism, socialism as a construct of Marxism, socialism as a construct of the white left -- when such is not the case, certainly, with King and with most African-Americans. In the African-American community there is a common saying, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his need." This, in a kernel, is African-Amercan/African communal socialist tradition -- without all the bilateral "commie-Yankee" connotations. That's why it is best to let King's words speak for themselves -- without the label. IMO, the reader is intelligent enough to draw his or her own conclusions from the quote already provided. deeceevoice 20:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A good point, one that I agree with for the most part, but I would say that we need something to point out the fact that while King identified in some way with demoractic socialism, it was always in private - it's a part of who he is, and why he is not perceived as a socialist in modern culture. (Unlike another African (albeit from the continent of Africa) communitarian, Julius Nyerere, for example.) Maybe we can work out some sort of compromise wording? gaidheal 20:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What you've rewritten is acceptable to me! gaidheal 20:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not for me -- sorry. It's nicely written, but wildly inaccurate. King's radicalism had little to do with LBJ's Great Society, which was emphatically not a "brand of democratic socialism". And while King was very concerned about the cost of the war in Vietnam relative to domestic needs, it's very misleading to connect that to his growing commitment to democratic socialism. If you read his statements about socialism (even the public ones about "social democracy"), his point was that government social spending on its own was an inadequate solution to the structural injustices of capitalism: i.e., even if the U.S. were to withdraw from Vietnam and spending the money saved on jobs, housing, etc., it still wouldn't be enough.

I just read your characterization of my edit as "wildly inaccurate." Not so. The statements about his concerns about critical economic resources being usurped by the Vietnam was indeed correct and completely valid. King --for whatever reason -- did not go on the record against capitalism, per se, instead focusing on economic justice and peace. The march on Washington following his death with the mule-drawn cart and the establishment of "Resurrection City" on the Mall was a continuation of King's call for a reprioritization of U.S. government spending to focus on problems of the poor and marginalized and a guaranteed income, which he started to enunciate in "Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?" deeceevoice 17:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One matter which should be addressed here is King's notion of the "beloved community", a term he used frequently and pubicly and which clearly incorporated socialist ideals. RadicalSubversiv E 21:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The notion of "beloved community" is a very strong one in the black Christian community -- indeed, in Christian theology, generally -- another context for King's socialist tendencies. Saying that does in no way contradict King's criticism of the capitalist model -- which is also quite common in the African-American community. (We are very much aware that the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the tremdous fortunes amassed on the backs of black folks is what gave rise to world capitalism in the first place!) I also think it's important that note be made of King's sense that capitalism was an inadequate economic model, with built-in inequities and injustice. But I don't have time to do it. Anyone else wanna take a stab at it? deeceevoice 21:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philosopher?

Might as well strike a discussion before dismissing MLK as a philospher.

Doing a simple search finds that some people do indeed think he's a philospher. Such as [6], though not exactly what I would call a prime source for philosophy, but nonetheless they picked him as a philosopher of the week.

MW defines philosopher as:

1 a : a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : SCHOLAR, THINKER
1 b : a student of philosophy

can you (Knucmo2 specifically) prove both of these wrong? Did he not see the wisdom in Ghandi's ways of non-violence?

I wouldn't rank him with Descartes, Socrates, or any of the other great philosopher, but he still was a philosopher. You (Knucmo2) say in your summary that wikipedians general equate "thinkers" to "philosophers", but that's just it: one who thinks to seek wisdom or enlightenment is a philosopher. Heck, MW even links to "thinker" as a similar word. Cburnett 19:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

King gets a free pass in this article

King is certainly not universally admired, and the soft handling he gets in this article is absurd.

An honest examination of the man cannot disregard the well-established issues of his philandering, his drinking and his abuse of women in addition to the reams of borrowings from other writers and speakers.

A very biased article reflective of a PC mindset. No different and probably less honest than martinlutherking.org.


You racist? Wikipedia is NPOV if you haven't noticed. Of course he is imperfect. racists are too demanding of minorities and other racial groups. Not saying you are a racist though. - Some dude

Funny how the minute someone has something negative to say about someone who happens to black, they are accused of being racist. I'm not the guy accused of being racist, I just had to say my piece. No doubt I'll be branded as a racist as well, though. - 216.78.45.128 08:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

i removed a "HE WAS ONE OF THE BEST MEN EVER TO LIVE" line from under the list of his children.--Wh173b0y 18:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

(portion removed)

The article addresses King's marital infidelity. If you want an exposé, then I suggest you go elsewhere. It's not a primary focus of this article -- any more than Jefferson's gaggle of half-white children by his slave Sally Hemmings (who was his wife's half-sister, by the way; how sick is that?) is the primary focus of his article on Wikipedia. In fact, the article barely mentions it. Nor does it address the hypocrisy of Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence, his racism/white supremacy. All in all, I'd say the article on King is very fair. deeceevoice 13:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Authorship Issues to Accusations of Plagiarism

"Authorship issues" would seem to be an appropriate subtitle in an article about a text whose authorship is being questioned. It does not seem appropriate in an article about a man, since the authorship of the man's life is not in question, but rather his own originality or lack thereof in his writings. It also seems like a way to skirt the issue. Almost all of the most respected figures in history have been human beings and subject to the limitations of that inescapable fact; it seems wrong to pussyfoot around whatever mistakes MLK might have made. "Accusations of Plagiarism" more directly addresses the issue, in my opinion, and is still NPOV (it does not imply truth or falsehood to those accusations).--67.123.232.156 18:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • But that's NPOV to the point of obfuscation; he wasn't merely accused of plagiarism, he committed plagiarism. "Authorship issues" is quite neutral, and a reasonable person might very well parse that as "issues regarding King's authorship of academic and religious works". But perhaps another subheader title would be even better? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, while what King did in his academic work can definitely be labeled plagiarism, it's not at all clear that the same can be said of his speeches, which fall within a strong tradition of language-borrowing in folk preaching (see the Keith Miller work referenced in the article). RadicalSubversiv E 19:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very good points. I like the section heading as it is now ("Plagiarism and authorship issues"). Thanks for the fix. --67.123.232.156 00:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The author of the below articles has emailed asking for these links to be included; since this isn't an area of my interest or knowledge I am leaving it to active editors to decide whether to include them:

[7] [8]

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Authorship issues

Cognition has expressed desire in deleting the info on King's authorship issues, calling it dubious. The information is sourced from Stanford and the King Papers Project, both reliable and unbiased sources. The Urban Legends Reference Pages investigates thoroughly and is regarded as a reliable source. A simple statement of the fact that researchers have made the claim that King plagiarized, albeit unfortunate, is not an attempt to smear anybody. Gdwq 9 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

Some website founded by "a couple from California" who met on an online newsgroup? Whether or not you find it reliable is a moot point. It does not have an established reputation. Keep in mind that countless readers will be just as skeptical as I am. Find something from, for example, AP or another encyclopedia, and then it will not strike people as a smear attempt. Cognition 9 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
The Urban Legends Reference Pages is cited all over Wikipedia. Besides, that is not the only source for the information. There is also a source from the King Papers research project. Here are some more sources:
  • http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/chronology.html
  • http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/thesis.html
  • Martin Luther King, The Plagiarism Story, by Theodore Pappas (executive editor of Encyclopedia Britannica) ISBN 0961936452
  • "To Their Dismay, King Scholars Find a Troubling Pattern", Wall Street Journal, Nov 9 1990.
Abstract: Finding out that Martin Luther King apparently borrowed words and ideas extensively from other sources for his doctoral dissertation and other scholarly writings without giving proper citations has caused an uproar among scholars who worked on the Martin Luther King Jr Papers Project.

Most readers won't have on hand copies of the Wall Street Journal from 15 years ago to verify those claims. They all have internet access. But the additional online links you've provided are even less convincing than the ones from that site founded by that "couple in California." Gerry Harbison, who runs the site that you are citing, apparently is a biochemist, not a King scholar. A Google search for "Gerry Harbison" and Martin Luther King only comes up with 15 hits. [9] So who knows what he has to do with MLK. For all readers know, he could be some King-hating professor using the webspace provided to him to dig up mud. Cognition 9 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)

Theodore Pappas is the executive editor of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. If he is not reliable, then the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica is not reliable. You can get the WSJ article online by searching their site for the article title. Gdwq 9 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/additional_resources/articles/palimp.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_the_project/staffFrame.htm
Clayborne Carson Professor of American History & Director of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project
During his undergraduate years at UCLA, Dr. Carson was a participant in and observer of African-American political movements. Since receiving his doctorate from UCLA in 1975, he has taught at Stanford University, where he is now professor of history and director of the King Papers Project. Dr. Carson has also been a visiting professor at American University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Emory University as well as a Fellow at the Center for the Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford.
--JimWae 2005 July 9 07:35 (UTC)

Okay, you seem to have similar info coming from websites run by organizations with establised reputations. Still, the section is one-sided because it comes with the selection bias of those wannabe muckraking journalists from California who run that "Urban Legends" website. It will need to be rewritten and balanced before it reappears in the article. Cognition 9 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Clayborn Carson, the one who reported on the plagiarism, is an African American and thus cannot have a racist incentive or motive to smear King. Gdwq 9 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
Race doesn't have anything to do with anything. Wikipedia itself has an article on black self-hatred, which deals with African Americans who harbor racist sentiments against African Americans. This isn't a comment on Clayborn Carson, but the reasoning above. [10]. Cognition 9 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Boston University, where King got his PhD in theology, conducted an investigation that found he plagiarized approximately a third of his doctoral thesis from a paper written three years earlier by another graduate student. This cannot fly without any critical feedback on that report reported. Until then I will put in a section NPOV notice. Cognition 9 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

Snopes as a source

Snopes is one of the more reliable sites on the Internet, is used as a source in numerous articles here & referenced upon occasion by TV news. The world is not black & white. Quit removing them as a source. They are ususally right & you again were wrong --JimWae 2005 July 9 08:07 (UTC)

Getting snappy now. For every user who finds that source unfamiliar, you will have countless readers who are unconvinced. Keep in mind the importance of establishing credibility among the readership, which will be held to a very high standard given the importance of the subject. Cognition 9 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
Is the Wall Street Journal not enough? Gdwq 9 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

Look, the accuracy of this information is pretty much beyond dispute. You can attack Scopes if you want, but their essay on the subject does a pretty job summing up the facts, and cites several of the best academic literature on King (Garrow and Miller's books, in particular, are fairly authoritative). As it happens, they've got a pretty impeccable record for good research, regardless of the amateurish look of the site. Nothing here needs to be rewritten or removed. RadicalSubversiv E 9 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

I am not attacking Snoops. I am not attacking the accuracy of this information, though it seems suspect when it comes to selection bias. I am alerting the writers of this section to the likelihood that readers will not find the links provided convincing. That source is still not well known outside the community of "blogger" types. Many readers will prefer traditional news agencies and publications. Cognition 9 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)

Cognition, you are wasting our time now. After demanding that section be improved, you want to weaken it again (such as by removing names & making it "ONE researcher") so somebody else (or you using yet another name, perhaps?) can come back & waste everyone's time again? Snopes is very reliable. Snopes + Stanford is about as reliable as can be--JimWae 2005 July 9 08:19 (UTC)

Well, is Wikipedia going to be considered reliable to its own editors or general readers? As a new user and general reader, I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a counter-argument. The lack of one stated in response to that section will raise suspicions among many readers that this section is a King-hating smear campaign. Cognition 9 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)

More references

  • Clayborne Carson; Peter Holloran; Ralph E. Luker; Penny Russell. Martin Luther King, Jr., as Scholar: A Reexamination of His Theological Writings. The Journal of American History, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Jun., 1991), pp. 93-105.
  • Martin Luther King, Jr., Papers Project. The Student Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Summary Statement on Research. The Journal of American History, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Jun., 1991), pp. 23-31.
  • David Levering Lewis. Failing to Know Martin Luther King, Jr. The Journal of American History, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Jun., 1991), pp. 81-85.
  • David Thelen. Becoming Martin Luther King Jr: An Introduction. The Journal of American History, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Jun., 1991), pp. 11-22


There must be another side. So quit biasing the article in favor of your side. Boston University sought not to act on it, and many people will find that more telling than a few studies by people who may or may not have other motives. Cognition 9 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)

Cognition get off the PC brainwashing mode. I know you leftists simply follow the PC credo but when someone rightfully critizes someone yuo believe is an Icon, you get defensive. MJW

They said that although he acted improperly, his dissertation still makes an "intelligent contribution to scholarship".

Here is some good reading:

  • Charles A. Radin. "Panel confirms plagiarism by King at BU". Boston Globe, Oct 11 1991, p. 1 Gdwq 9 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that you've mastered the anti-King side. But NPOV mean that the pro-King side needs to be offered too. Cognition 9 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)

Yes Cognition you have also shown well your Leftist Socialist leanings, why not also be openminded to things you disgree with? MJW

Section POV claim

  • The best counter-argument (which I added long ago) is that BU did not revoke his degree. The article now mentions BU still considered it significant contribution to scholarship (not very convincing to me on BU's part - & MLK is still kind of a hero to me) & that his skill at "voice-merging" became a great asset. How much more can be said to support him? Quantifying the extent of plagiarism is a numbers game. UBC zoology dept gives MLK as an example of complete or near complete plagiarism: http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/bpg/plagiarism.htm. Other estimates are 45% on first half & 21% on second half (attributed to BU but only available 2nd hand on-line). One-third is right between those #s. Do I take it that your section POV claim is based only on the number given? That is not a POV claim, but a claim for accuracy using sources. The world is not divided simply into beasts & angels, Coggy. --JimWae 19:49, 2005 July 9 (UTC)

Branch article

The appropriate topic for a branch article would be the charges of plagiarism. I can predict pretty surely that if we do that, the charges against him will start to use much stronger language than so far in main article & "voice merging" will likely be attacked as a kind of Newspeak. Btw, Coggy, have you contributed anything to this section or to the article yet? Do you think I have nothing to do but do research for you? I would rather let article sit for a bit & see if we can condense that section - you do realize it was expanded mostly because you insisted on more & more evidence, right? Btw, it did not sit well with me when I first read it either, but I think I did recall the 1990 reports anyway. You likely were too young then --JimWae 06:24, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

Let's discuss the branch first. Perhaps there could be a separate article on the study releasing those findings, but an article on the dissertation on Tillich and Wieman and is nevertheless a better fit than the biographical entry. Cognition 06:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Re your latest "compromise" - it won't work. There's a tonne of info on this on the web, and NOT mentioning it more prominently is POV by omission.

There's tons of info for just about anything on King. But in proportion to the amount of info on King overall, this issue is a very minor footnote. Hence it isn't even mentioned in Britannica and Encarta. They do not even mention what I have added in the compromise version. Cognition 06:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You've left out charges re his other paperrs & his speeches. Buck up, face it that these are the facts, & deal with it. It is a BIG issue that will not stay swept under the rug (what you seem to be attempting) and will only grow in importance if people try to hide it. I ask you to put the article back the way it was - you are, or nearly are, violating 3RR. --JimWae 06:30, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

We do not have to debate contending POVs. This is a matter of proper placement of information, and I am making the argument that the Wikipedia King article should not include random tidbits that interest the editors personally, but instead weigh the significance of the information, as do Britannica and Encarta. Cognition 06:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not up to you or me to censor this. Censoring it will only increase the vehemence of those who hate him - and give them more ammunition to get others to agree --JimWae 06:56, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

It's not at all censorship, but rather just improving the hierarchy and organization of the encyclopedia. That's why there are so many cases in which someone very notable has articles on his/her books separate from the biographical entry. Cognition 07:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Your branch article is not about King's dissertation - it is still about the authorship issues - but with a misleading title --JimWae 07:19, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

It's merely incomplete. I will get around to adding a section summarizing its main arguments. Cognition 07:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Then any discussion of plagiarism in speeches will be off-topic. Look Coggy, yesterday you did not believe any of this was even true & now you are telling us how we should deal with it. I think you need to stop & deal with it yourself first --JimWae 07:41, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the edits and not the personalities. Attacking me, after all, says nothing, since I am not alone. My stance seems to be the one taken by Britannica and Encarta. Cognition 07:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate what JimWae is trying to do, I have to strenously object to this "branch article." First, because it is unnecessary -- the King article is quite short (embarassingly so, really), and there's no need to split into sub-articles for length reasons.

Not for length reasons, but for relevance and organizational reasons. Just because the article is short, doesn't mean that we can or should make up for it by focusing on random topics that other encyclopedias don't even mention. By your reasoning, since there are so many biographies on King, someone could come along and write a section on what kind of socks he liked, or what he liked to eat for breakfast. Cognition 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, the title is inappropriate, insofar as it frames all the matters under the discussion under the rubric of whether King plagiarized, which is not all of what's under discussion -- "voice merging", for example, is not exactly a defense against plagiarism charges, as Miller himself unearthed much of the rhetorical borrowing for the first time. The previous "Authorship issues" as a section heading was far more appropriate, and avoids the frequent Wikipedia trap of creating original back-and-forth arguments.

A few sentences can go in the main biographical article (Britannica and Encarta don't even have one), but additional detail longs under the rubic of whether certain works, mainly his dissertation, contained uncited material. Cognition 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

And Cognition, you are now way out of line, and everyone on this talk page has been remarkably patient with you. The fact that no one has sided with you in any way should be an indication that you may be out of line. Please try actually reading Wikipedia's editorial policies, and referencing them specifically, instead of just spouting off generic allegations without any evidence to back them up.

The fact that no one has sided with you in any way... An argument ad populum is a logical fallacy. Cognition 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
By the way the basis of your argument is factually incorrect. User:Iconoclast seemed to see it my way earlier this year. See his comment up toward the top of the talk page.

Cognition 08:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Iconoclast's comment was not about the current text, but about something blatantly POV added by a racist troll, which was subsequently heavily revised by me and others. RadicalSubversiv E 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

RadicalSubversiv E 07:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think this article should report the following facts:

  • King plagiarized much of his doctoral dissertation.
  • After studying the issue, BU decided not to revoke his Ph.D.
  • Many of King's speeches borrowed significantly from other preachers without explicitly crediting them.
Yes, there absolutely is. There are scholarly works, which have been cited here, demonstrating both points conclusively -- you have yet to point to anyone besides yourself who questions their conclusions. RadicalSubversiv E 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

All three of these are facts beyond question. We can then report some of the research and commentary on these issues in order to provide the reader with more context. The previous text did that, and I have yet to hear a reasonable objection to it, or a sound reason why it should be split from the article. In any case, there is no earthly reason why all of these issues should be discussed under the heading of "accusations of plagiariasm."

This controversy can be mentioned, but it doesn't deserve its own section in the main biographical article for the same reason that this topic isn't even mentioned in the Britannica and Encarta articles on King. Cognition 08:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

RadicalSubversiv E 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


  • I don't think it's a question of whether the issue 'deserves' its own section or not. It certainly deserves to be covered. When it was shorter, it needed to be organized somewhere - which turned out to be its own section. Now that it is longer, it became too dominant in the main article. But readers of the main article need to be given a preview of the branch articles -- and I do not think we have yet done enough of that in the main article
  • -- and Encarta & EB are not our arbiters for anything, btw. They have to sell their wares & so in their greater concern not to offend anyone at all (even if the person taking offense is offended only becuase they misunderstand) they are less adventurous --JimWae 08:41, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
    • They are not our arbiters for anything, but they are an example of two instiutions that take a different view from your opinion on the relevance of this topic in a biographical entry on King. I'm just bringing them up as a case in point illustrating the POV counter to your own. King is known as a civil rights leader. If he he were just known for his doctoral dissertation, he would not have an article in any encyclopedia. It makes little sense to discuss a review of his dissertation held after his death in about as much detail as his civil rights leadership in the main biographical article on King. Cognition 08:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
      • They have to sell their wares & so in their greater concern not to offend anyone at all (even if the person taking offense is offended only because they misunderstand) they are less adventurous Maybe so, but that's no reason for Wikipedia to embrace the opposite extreme and fashion itself after tabloid "muckraking" journalists or dirt-digging "citizen journalist" bloggers. Cognition 08:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind, it is far from just my "POV" that this issue deserves to be mentioned - it's been worked on by many over the last year - and my contributions to it were to defend King - not to whitewash him - (like by removing the section completely, perhaps). Which encyclopedia prepares you best to argue with the next King-hater who spills on you? EB? Encarta? If you relied on them you'd have been blind-sided on this issue. The length became an issue because you did not consider the sources - still the same as they were last week - reliable (you could have read more at those sources yourself). The main article still needs more preview of the branch article, though. Many prominent people have a criticisms section - perhaps you've seen one or 2 of them before? Btw, the issue extends to his oratory too - though plagiarism is far from the correct word for that issue. --JimWae 09:02, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
  • Also note the executive editor of EB, Theodore Pappas wrote a whole book on MLK plagiarism issue - so I guess somebody at EB thinks it's important enough for some reason--JimWae 09:13, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

Bias!

I'd like to see the bias and writers opinion removed from this page.

He is one of the most significant leaders in U.S. history and in the modern history of non-violence, and is considered a hero, peacemaker and martyr by many people around the world.

, especially its director, J. Edgar Hoover, who had deeply detested the civil rights leader.

Since his death, King's reputation has grown to become one of the most revered names in American history to the point where he is compared with Abraham Lincoln.

It's really not needed, an encyclopedia needs to be informative, not subtly persuasive. If you like the guy, write a book about him, don't sacrafice neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fashbinder (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not an opinion that he's considered a hero etc by many people around the world. It's not an opinion that he's one of the most significant leaders in US history. It's not an opinion that Hoover detested King. It's not an opinion that that his reputation has grown as said. This is reporting on opinions, not expressing opinions -- which is exactly what an encyclopedia should do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia is about reporting facts first, not opinions, like you just did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.215.220.34 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Buh? It's not a fact that he's considered a hero? What's your point? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not stating that he is those, but that many people think he is, the evidence is easily seen. If you walk into a room full of people and say something like "MLK sucked", "MLK did nothing", etc, you would most likely get some angry responses and questions, if you don't believe me, try so yourself, lawl... 24.0.130.58

A Fan of Star Trek

Please don’t remove the ‘Star Trek fans Category’ link from this page and describe it as ‘vandalism’ as King was a fan of Star Trek, and according to this history website [11] he met with Nichelle Nichols, who played Lt. Uhura, and convinced her to stay on when she told King that she was considering leaving the show. Star Trek may not be a great work of literature, but it does present King’s vision of a future where anybody, whether they be White, Black or Vulcan, can live and work together peacefully and productively. In short I do not feel that putting King in this category is inappropriate or disrespectful and I certainly do not think its vandalism.

Philip Stevens 11:47, 23 October 2005

  • Um, the site you cite is a Wikipedia mirror; Wikipedia can't use itself as a source. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, how about this link [12] Philip Stevens 14:58, 23 October 2005.
    • That site is also a Wikipedia mirror. Look at the bottom of the page. Besides, even if it weren't a Wikipedia mirror, it doesn't assert that King was a Star Trek fan; it asserts that he encouraged Nichols to stay with the series as a good role model. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have seen an interview with Nichelle Nichols about her encouter with King and how he told her that he was a fan of Star Trek. However, this program does not exist on a webpage, and it is not the sort of knowledge that is likely to. Can we not just source the program. Anyway, it would hardly count as vandalism if it wasn't true; it's not as if being a Star Trek fan is in conflict in all King believed in - far from it.163.1.162.20 16:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, no, it's not vandalism, but it's also unsourced. Certainly the connection is widely spread; it shouldn't be too hard to find something first hand (like, Nichols saying he was a fan, or Roddenberry, or Shatner, or, even better, King.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Here is a better, but not perfect, source and it’s not a Wiki mirror. [13] Philip Stevens 19:05, 23 October 2005
    • I think Dr. King should go into this category. The evidence that he was a Star Trek fan may not be overwhelming but it is strong enough. In that category are Prof. Stephen Hawking, Whoopi Goldberg and Mae Jemison (the first non-white woman in space). Although I am not a fan of Star Trek myself, I can see no stigma attached to being one. - 147.143.102.11
      • Who says it's a stigma? "Not being a stigma" isn't a criterion for inclusion in a category. I'm just looking for some source that adds some substance to the story. The NNDB thing isn't awful, but what would really work is something that actually quotes Nichols, rather than ascribing some statement too her -- especially considering how widespread this story is. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion is moving off the point a little. My original point was that King should be put into the Star Trek fans Category and that putting him there should not be described as vandalism. I feel the latter point has been made, but I will concede that until a good link to a primary source, that says MLK was a fan, can be found and placed here, he should remain out of this category. I think its best to leave it at that. Philip Stevens 07:46, 26 October 2005

Detail on what formed King's thinking ...

Hope this does not sound crass, but for a page on a significant figure there seems little detail about how his political thinking developed. Shame we have no material about how King may have been influenced by Mahatma Gandhi.  freedom

I am having a look at this. As nobody else will.  freedom Annawright 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe he once said something about Ghandi's criticism of an eye for an eye, but I don't know anything else. 24.0.130.58

A quick search on Google turned up a quarter of a million hits on the two names together - he does not seem to have met '''Gandhi''' (sic - note spelling!) but it is extremely well documented that the latter's history and experiences had a profound impact on King.  freedom Annawright 17:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther King and accomplishments

FBI coverup

Mlk wasn't killed by james earl ray. If you went to the scene of his murder, as I did, you'd see something very strange... if your interested, look up the 2002 investigation by ted wilburn. (www.whatreallyhappened.com)

Lets go to the storm front website too! Let's all hop the crazy train! Boehringer

martinlutherking.org

I am embarassed to report that there was a link to the Stormfront site "martinlutherking.org" in this article since November 27th. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why were his files sealed?

I am curious, they mention his FBI files were sealed, but why? What is it they want to hide from the public? Volksgeist 10:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the vast amount of intelligence the FBI would have collected about his friends, families, associates, and contacts? And because of the abusive nature of the FBI's investigation of him? (This is solely a guess.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Humanist?

Should MLK be in the Humanist Category? Checking the article on Humanism, it mentions that although most Humanists are secular, not all are...OK so far...but then says that Humanists deny the supernatural - I don't think MLK would deny the supernatural, so is he a Humanist? Camillustalk|contribs 20:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Date conflict?

"King was assassinated the next evening, April 4, 1968 ... [confessed murderer James Earl] Ray took a guilty plea to avoid a trial conviction and thus the possibility of receiving the death penalty although it was highly unlikely that he would have been executed even if he had been sentenced to death, since the US Supreme Court's 1972 decision in the case of Furman v. Georgia invalidated all state death penalty laws then in force."

Just when was the trial? Jones was captured two months after King's death and confessed on March 10, 1969.

(1) If the trial itself took place before the 1972 decision, then this decision isn't relevant.

(2) If the trial took place after the decision, this fact is not explicitly made clear in the article.

Improvement drive

Black Consciousness Movement has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved, vote for it here! --Fenice 11:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

My memory is that...

...a recent time magazine taked about how towards the end MLK started trying to help not just black but other minorities and whites as well. When asked why he wanted to help whites from the Appalachians (sp) his answer was "are they poor?".

grazon 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would LOVE to see that sourced and added! :-) - CobaltBlueTony 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

this is the magazine (I skimmed it in the store).

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101060109,00.html

grazon 20:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

he said it! 132.241.41.233 20:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from hateful speach on wikipedia. There are more appropriate venues for your opinions [stormfront.org]. Jasongetsdown 14:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dream

I have added the dream part to King's page. That page should be deleted 220.247.252.252 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

MLK's sexual liasons?

I feel that explaining the legitimate allegations of Kings infidelity should be included in the article. Normally I would refrain from discussing ones personal life however King was a preacher so I feel that it's important. It is contradictory towards his message however this may help humanize him in the eyes of the people. Even yahoo news and several credible left wing news stations acknowledge it. The article should be as accurate as possible and non bias. I want to do a write up but I want everyone to agree. Any thoughts?

JJstroker 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The allegations are mentioned in the section on King and the FBI. I don't think we are here to "humanize him in the eyes of the people." Jasongetsdown 14:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr./Archive_1&oldid=1136994113"