Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Adultery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes by Malik Shabazz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus is not about counting editors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegation of Communist connections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC King's sexual conduct

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

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

My two cents:

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

1. The information must be from a reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two cents (reply):

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

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

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

Maybe we could edit the section as follows

Original

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

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

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

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

Changed

My changes in italics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

My two cents (last comment, promise)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that, with the source that I found below, I believe that the question of verifiability of the quote has moved beyond any reasonable doubt (Otto disagrees). See the discussion under "Response" for more details. Does anyone want to discuss relevance next? I think that this is the easier of the two hurdles to clear (verifiability and relevance) for the inclusion of the quote. Jorund, do you want to start off the discussion again, or shall I? 128.187.0.178 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next?

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

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

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

Did you have anything else?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Otto,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

128.187.0.178 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.15.153 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Otto,

To futher address your argument about the sources not being reliable because they came from the FBI -- an organization that was out to "destroy" King -- lets look at a parallel from our time.

It is very likely the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton was out to "destroy" Clinton. Starr and his team dug up anything and everything they could about Clinton to find dirt on him. One of the things they found was evidence of his alleged affair with Monica Lewinsky. However, this has almost nothing to do with whether the information obtained by the investigation was accurate. He did have sexual whatever with that woman, and anyone would accept the evidence obtained from the Starr investigation as reliable in helping to establish that fact.

Similarly, the FBI may have been out to get King. However, King said what he said on the tape recording. The quote should not be excluded solely because of the perceived motives of the FBI in the case.

I took the liberty of checking those sources given above. Three of them all cite the fourth one as the source for the quote, Taylor Branch's Pillar of Fire. I cannot see what that book uses as its sources, but as far as I am aware, this tape is supposedly the source for it at some point. However this tape isn't actually available, is it? What is the source in Pillar of Fire? Is it the tape itself, or is it some FBI agent saying what was on the tape?

I question the authenticity of the quote. Self-referential sources are not good enough, IMO. You can only verify that the FBI claims that he said these things, not that it ever actually happened or that King ever actually said it. -- Otto 20:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Otto,

Finally, you've expressed a valid concern about the verifiability of the sources. If the other three sources are indeed quoting Taylor Branch, then the validity of the citation does indeed hinge on him. However, I believe this source to indeed be valid. This is the description of the author given from the Library of Congress website about a related work by the same author.

"Pulitzer Prize-winner and bestselling author Taylor Branch makes clear in this magisterial account of the civil rights movement that Martin Luther King, Jr., earned a place next to James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in the pantheon of American history." ^[1]

So, I think that the quote would be valid, unless you're willing to question the published research of a Pulitzer Prize winning author.

I'm not willing to do that.

Shall we move on to relevance?

128.187.0.178 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.15.153 (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm not impressed by how award winning he is, and I do question him. What's his source material? If he's such a good researcher, then he should cite where his material came from.

If his source material is simply some guy from the FBI saying what he heard, then the source is rather obviously biased. On the other hand if this alleged tape actually exists and he heard it, then that's a different kettle of fish, isn't it?

The nature of the quote depends on the source. Does the tape exist or not? Where's the evidence for this quote? Because if not, if all there is is somebody who was trying to discredit MLK saying that he said these things, then the quote obviously is invalid and the discussion of anything else is pointless. -- Otto 15:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Otto,

This argument has now become dumb on your part. Wikipedia is NOT about "truth" -- it's about "verifiability". An "expert" in the field has said that King said this quote and published it. His credentials speak for themselves. He is an expert in the field; YOU ARE NOT!!! If you want to do some original research on the topic, get it published by a national publisher, and include that material as a source in this article, be my guest. Until then, I really don't care what you think about the research by Branch. Who are you? What are YOUR credentials in the field?

Wikipedia is not a place for original research by its contributors. We are editors -- nothing more. 128.187.0.178 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No original research is required or needed. Quite the contrary. Nor is the argument dumb, it's real and should be fairly obvious. Basically, your source doesn't say what you claim it says.

If you want to use that source to assert that King said these words, then you are in the wrong and I'll dispute it. If you want to use that source to say that the FBI claims that he said these words, then that's fine.

So, what is it that you're asserting? Because if you're asserting that the quote is valid, the given source simply does not back up that claim.

In short, you need to actually read the damn book. It doesn't say that King said those words. Really. -- Otto 18:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Otto,

I'm fine with inserting the quote in the context of "According to FBI sources, King stated . . ." That would be the appropriate way to insert the quote in any case.

Have we reached a consensus then? Are we ready to insert the quote?

128.187.0.178 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It still adds nothing but prurient interest and shock value; it does not add to the reader's understanding and comprehension of the subject. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

jpgordon,

Have we finally reached an agreement about the verifiability portion of the argument about the inclusion of the quote? I'm taking the lack of objection from you and Otto as evidence that we have reached consensus on this portion of the argument. Am I correct, or do we need to discuss anything else?

I only ask because I would like to move on to the relevance portion of the argument about the inclusion of the quote, and I don't want to have to be back tracking to verifiability. Are we all agreed that the quote is verifiable then?

128.187.0.178 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would agree that the quote probably meets WP:V, given the source, which was from a reputable publisher. That however doesn't necessarily mean it should be included. There are other factors to consider. One of them is WP:UNDUE. Particular for an individual like this, there is a lot of material which can be gotten from reliable sources, given the huge volume of material out there about him. For inclusion in this, the main article on the subject, the material should be among the most relevant. Right now, we've got quite a few paragraphs devoted to this subject, so, while I myself can question the starting of the section, as the way it is now phrased places the FBI's intentions before the facts themselves, which could cause some editors to confuse the two, I don't see how the "f---ing" quote really adds to the understanding of the subject. Granted, in matters such as these, particularly considering I am far from an expert on this subject, I'm not sure what "facts" (of the who/what/when/where/why type) are going to be available, and whether BLP might apply in some cases to the other party involved in these contacts. And, as I think we've said before, "insight" is not what people come to an encyclopedia for, nor is attempting to give people an "insight" when we ourselves cannot be sure what "insight" people may draw from material something we should make a priority. We are here to present facts, not to try lead people to draw "insights" or conclusions based on them. If there were material which could be seen as clarifying the thinking behind the quote, that could reasonably be included. But the quote causes people to ask questions we can't answer, and I doubt anyone living can clearly answer, and as such could reasonably be seen as being not necessarily fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

John,

Thank you for acknowledging that point. I finally feel like the discussion is moving along. I agree that there are two parts to the inclusion of the quote, what I have termed "verifiability" and "relevance" for lack of better terms. I'm sure that Wikipedia uses slightly different terminology.

Out of the two, verifiability was perhaps the point that was easiest to argue for inclusion from the side that wants the material included. Relevance is the harder point to argue. I will make a posting a little later (I have too little time today) about why I think the quote may be relevant, but the side for inclusion admittedly does have a weaker case here. If you remember, I was also not convinced of this point at first and remain only about 85% convinced that the quote should be included in the article based off this. However, the arguments are strong enough that we should thoroughly hash all of them out and hopefully try to settle the debate one way or the other. As I said, I hope to make a more complete argument about this later, when I hopefully have more time available. Thank you. 128.187.0.178 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.20.97 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, nor a catalogue of sin. If some of you want to start your own wiki about what famous people may or may not have cried out during sex, you're quite free to do so on your own dime. I see no demonstration of relevance beyond the fact it's titillating. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This comment might bear discussing, here, so I hope no one will mind my repeating myself: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral, secular point of view. Character may be relevant to an encyclopedic biography, but where the incident being described was obviously driven by a politically motivated attempt at discrediting a public figure, where no longstanding notability has been established, where the argument for inclusion is clearly being made in religious terms, and where no apparent encyclopedic grounds for inclusion seem to have been provided, what exactly do you expect?" – Luna Santin (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Points arising out of the WP:ANI

For the record, there was an RfC, it failed - I have not been made aware that there was a second RfC, and as far as I can see, there has not been - it was not listed when I looked prior to departing from this discussion. I am surprised to see it is still going on, and that it has been referred to admins. I have skimmed through the discussion since my departure, and I have not seen anything new, only re-statement of the same things that were already discussed in the RfC. This is why I left, and why I have no intention of rejoining the discussion. This is not arrogance, I did not agree with the contention that the material had to go in, and having reviewed the discussion I still don't. I will not expand on why that is, because I feel that there is little more to say beyond what has already been said by many editors, including myself, to the same points restated over and over again. Mish (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mish, the second RfC was made on June 8th and is headlined RfC King's sexual conduct. It was originally called simply RfC, then somebody changed it into King's sexual conduct, and recently the RfC was put back into the headline.

To the previous editor, I will also repeat myself from the same page: Pace Luna Santin, Wikipedia is not written from a secular point of view. It's written from a NPOV, which means "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". You don't need to be religious to understand the quote's bearing on MLK's character and agree that it is important. I'm not trying to discredit King, but to give information from several sides, which enables the reader to get a nuanced picture of him. And even if I had political motives and where out for discrediting, that's not to the point. WP articles are judged on the merit of their contents and not the editor's supposed motives (sometimes bad motives render good results). There is indeed a longstanding notability in this case. Serious sources continue to report the quote. The encyclopedic grounds for inclusion become evident once you answer the question I have asked. --Jonund (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jonund: I was only aware of one RfC, and on closure a new section was started which extended the discussion about the RfC, addressing King's sexual conduct - however, I was not able to find the RfC listed anywhere other than this talk page - could you provide a link to where this RfC was made, so I can see what the outcome was? I did begin to engage the discussion in that section, but as I was unable to find an active RfC that related to it, I assumed the 'RfC' in the section title referred to to the previous (closed) RfC, and as I had come here for the RfC, and because the discussion was going round in circles and I had nothing new to say, I removed the page from my watchlist and moved on. Mish (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I can find the earlier RfC was brought up here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Anglicanism#Martin Luther King, Jr. Request for comment, and it is usual when an RfC is made to notify projects involved. That RfC does not appear to have been listed on the RfC noticeboard for biographies, and after a month closed with no consensus. What you are calling the second RfC was not posted on the list of biography RfC's, nor was the Anglicanism Project notified. So, I am wondering how, if the only place this second RfC was posted was in this article's talk page, it can be said to be a second RfC? As it was not referred elsewhere for comment. I would also question whether it is appropriate that (were this an RfC in anything other than name - as it appears not have been referred to anybody other than those already involved in the article) when an RfC is closed without consensus, that a second RfC is opened up immediately covering the same issue? Mish (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have looked through the history of RfC's on biographies, and neither were listed there:

6th May shows nothing relating to the original RfC, and the only reason it reached the Anglican project was that one of the discussants posted it - not the instigator. Was any other involved project notified that there was an RfC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies&diff=prev&oldid=288360408

8th June shows nothing related to the second RfC, and the first entry after June 7th is June 12th, under which it is not listed. Was any involved project notified that there was an RfC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies&diff=296042557&oldid=294902870

The discussion of the second 'RfC' went on for more than 30 days, and there seems to be no record of it closing with any consensus or not.

If I am mistaken, please show me where. Mish (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have gone back through the history, and this shows that the orginal RfC was listed here in Society Society on 5th May:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_sports,_law,_and_sex&diff=next&oldid=288067500

But, there are no entries there from the 7th until 10th June, so there was no second RfC listed there:

7th - 10th June http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_sports,_law,_and_sex&diff=next&oldid=295029127

which I did comment on during the discussion around that time - And it was still not there by 1st July.

So, there seems to have been one RfC to society, the second 'RfC' not posted to society or anywhere else, and neither to biography, which is where RfCs on biographies might be expected to be posted when requiring comment about whether it is appropriate to post material about the subject of a biography to their biography. Mish (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of the quote, there are several other issues which I think would have to be addressed if it were to be added. It would have to be acknowledged up front, probably even before the inclusion of the quote itself, to be in accord with WP:NPOV, that the alleged quote is only one interpretation of a statement made on a tape, and that there was at the time a verifiable contention raised regarding the reliability or accuracy of that interpretation. We would be obliged to state that to be in accord with the sources on the matter. It would also probably have to be added that the party making the allegation was itself broadly perceived as being far from neutral regarding the subject, based on what I have read. If there were any other indications as to what may have been said on the tape, they would have to be included as well. Come 2027, when the material is released, of course, then we will have a bit more substantial material to go on. Until then, considering that noone can definitively say what was or was not said on the tape at this time, we would have to impartially present all relevant sides of the matter. Personally, I have to think that doing so would be likely to mean adding a rather substantial amount of material to the article, and I have to question whether there is anything like just cause to add it. In response to the now often-repeated allegation that such material must be included because of his being included in the Calendar of Saints of the Australian Anglican Church (which is the only one I saw this article linked to in my quick review) it should be noted that he is, in that calendar, described as a martyr. I am unaware of the specific meaning attributed to that term in the Anglican Church, but I am aware of how it is used in the Roman Catholic Church. There, anyone can be a martyr provided that they die for the faith. Anything and everything they may have done in life prior to that death is, basically, irrelevant. I had mentioned earlier a prostitute who is a canonized saint. I honestly don't know if we have an article on the person about whom I was thinking, but I do remember that Holweck in his dictionary of saints described her as being a prostitute who admitted to being a Christian during one of the Roman persecutions and was on that basis martyred. If we have an article on her, I have no doubt that material is included, because that's basically all Holweck says about her. If we don't, I can't imagine how it will not be included when and if such an article is created. Saint Dismas is another example of that principle. On that basis, I would have to say that inclusion of that material to help counterpoint his being considered a "saint" is at best faulty thinking, and, quite possibly, effectively trying to turn two wrongs into a right, the "wrongs" in question being a misinterpretation of what being a "saint" means and the mistaken belief that such material must be included on that basis. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jonund, you said that "Wikipedia is not written from a secular point of view. It's written from a NPOV..." - I have to admit confusion, there: how does a secular point of view differ from a neutral one? Per wikt:secular, the word does not mean "anti-religious" but rather "not specifically religious". Are you seriously proposing that we're non-neutral if we don't make the article "more religious"? (quotes mine) If the material is relevant, the argument for inclusion must be made in non-religious, encyclopedic terms, and I don't see how that's happened, yet. You mention that significant views from reliable sources should be included, and that's precisely why I feel the quote should not be included: to the best of my knowledge, it's not a significant view, and it's not been widely reported in reliable, neutral sources. Much of the argument for notability seems to rely on synthesis (Wikipedia:No original research), non-neutral sources (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), or unimportant, sensationalist news articles (Wikipedia:Undue weight). I had no intention of attacking your character, so I should clarify, I'm not accusing you of attempting to discredit King, but rather pointing out the obvious fact the FBI was trying to, when they recorded and distributed this quote. Per John Carter, the amount of text that would be required to fairly present the quote would seem to ascribe far more importance to it than seems appropriate. Finally, you mention grounds for inclusion become clear once someone answers your question... sorry, which question? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's apples and oranges. I don't see the scale that equates agnosticism or secularity with neutrality and both theism and atheism with non-neutrality. NPOV refers to neutrality with respect expert opinion. Neutrality is not an absolute that exists outwith any article. It is entirely dependent the body of opinion related to any given article. From wp:npov "...it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but rather a specific, editorially neutral point of view..." Regardless, this seems to me more about wp:undue that wp:npov. One side appears to see the quotation as gratuitous trivia, whereas the other sees it as carrying real encyclopedic weight. Regarding sources, they don't need to be neutral. They need only be reliable. --MoreThings (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of the those who do not believe the quotation merits inclusion, I have to disagree with what I consider the misrepresentation of my position in the above. I do not consider the quotation to be "gratuitous trivia", but rather to be a piece of material which, to be such that additional material will have to be added if it is added, to ensure that the article adhere to policy, and that the inclusion of all the material that policy would demand would give the content undue weight. Also, I once again remind everyone that it is incumbent on those who seek to add material to demonstrate how and why it should be added, based on policies and guidelines. To date, about all I have myself seen is a number of arguments based on, basically, faulty reasoning and personal opinion not apparently based on any specific policy or guidelines. Neither is sufficient grounds for inclusion of material. If and when I actually see an argument for the inclusion of the material based on policies and guidelines, then it would make sense for me to respond to that argument. However, I have yet to see any such argument put forward, and, without a good reason for the material to be included given and defended, there is no reason for the material to be included. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John, I apologise if I misrepresented your position. I certainly didn't intend to do that. I genuinely understood that to be roughly your position, and the position of others. That's one reason I suggested a restatement of positions in the AN/I thread. It would also remove this discussion of which questions have been answered and which haven't. My own view is based much more on the biographical merit of the quotation than on anything to do with religon. We had an exchange earlier, in which I discussed my position. You said you could agree, to an extent, with my point but that it was moot because we couldn't prove King said what is alleged, and even if he did say it, we couldn't know why he did. I returned that we didn't actually need to prove he said it, just that the FBI alleged he did. At that point our exchange petered out. I'd be interested in picking that up, but I'm conscious that we are doing this piecemeal, and at this rate the end looks a long way away. --MoreThings (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if we are to place any degree of weight on it, such as making it something which others can use to form opinions, we should not have any real questions that he did in fact say it. The sources themselves make it clear that the accuracy of the quotations is in question, and WP:NPOV would demand that we give no verifiable opinion on the subject any more weight than any other. Therefore, to include the alleged quotation at all, we would also be obligated to include the information that it was contested at the time, and that the group making the allegation was not one which could be counted as being necessarily objective, as per my own statements above. Policy demands such statements of all clearly verifiable sides of such a contentious issue. The fact that the quote is so clearly doubtful does nothing but add to the question of whether any interpretation of it could itself be reliable. This is over and above the question as to whether adding all that information would give the subject undue weight in the main biographical article on the subject. Honestly, I have said before, and say again, that I personally think that the bulk of this material might best be placed in a separate article, where a fuller, more detailed discussion of it could be given, without weight concerns. This would still leave a question as to how much material to include in this article, but I think something roughly similar to the existing text would probably, ultimately, be agreeable to most editors, with a few revisions as required. That may sound like an attempt to avoid the issue, but it is not. It would in fact allow inclusion of all potentially relevant alleged quotes, a more detailed discussion of King's motivations and self-concept based on his behavior, the reactions of others to the allegations at the time and later, etc. This subject already has one sub article, and given the amount of material available on it I don't think that it would be unreasonable to perhaps create another one. John Carter (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some more thoughts on this. I initially thought that we had an RS which gave us either the FBI stating under oath that King had spoken these words, or the FBI stating the same thing in some other official capacity. If we had that, I think the very fact the FBI had made that accusation would warrant inclusion, regardless of whether or it not it was true. As far as I can tell, we don't have that. We have a biographer who spoke to three FBI technicians, and they stated that the tapes contained those words.

Upon reflection, I still think it should go in. As a reader, I would definitely want to be informed that a reliable biographer spoke to three FBI technicians who made that claim. As a reader of biographies, I'm not just intrested in the great ideas, themes and deeds; I am at least as interested in the living breathing, fornicating, adulterous vessels in which those ideas are fermented. I'm interested in the grubby deeds as well as the great ones, the profane as well as the profound. I can absolutely hear the man who said "I have a dream" saying "I'm not a negro tonight" in these, er, interesting cirucmstances.

So you can no doubt tell that I've come to the conclusion that he probably did say these things. But I am explicilty not saying I think he said it, therefore it should go in. I'm saying I think we have an RS which gives us grounds to include it, and as editors we have to decide whether it merits inclusion. From that point, I flip into reader mode and, yes, it definitely should go in. I believe he said these things and I find them fascinating and revealing on many different levels. And if I'd concluded that he didn't say these things, I'd still want to have known that the technicians said he did, in order that I could make my own mind.

I don't think it's about policy. I think it's about editors making editorial decisions. If you read through the same information that I have and conclude that, as a reader, you wouldn't be particularly interested in this material, then that's fine and I'm happy to go with the consensus one way or another.--MoreThings (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and I have explained why I don't think it should. The way the discussion went, the majority of people who responded felt it shouldn't. While that is not consensus for it not to go in, it is certainly not consensus for it to go in, and that is what is needed. That was the editorial decision. Because this is a biography, we do have to account for appropriate guidelines and policies in this (not with the same urgency as WP:BLP, but with the same principles). If you don't agree, refer it for RfC to the biographies noticeboard. This is an encyclopedia article, not a comprehensive biography. Pointers to the full biography are necessary, but to treat what amounts to a page covering these allegations which has been repeated in half-a-dozen books, which amount to over 2,500 pages in all, has to be undue weight. We don't know whether the allegations were true, or whether King and his pals were having a good laugh putting on a show (knowing who was listening), or whether the FBI men were lying, or mistaken, or what. That is the point. All we know is they think they heard something, and that King's associates were said to have partied hard, and King was said to be associated with that in some way. Something along the lines of:

King's associates are reported to have engaged in 'ribald' parties, which King is said to have joined in with. At these parties he is said to have sworn, used 'street-talk' and racial epithets, and engaged in extra-marital sex; when challenged on this, King and his associates treated the matter lightly. In interview, the FBI agents engaged in Hoover's operation to discredit King confirm aspects of this behaviour. (citing appropriate source(s))

That is what is verifiable from the sources - what people have said people said they heard or saw - or what people said people said people said they saw or heard - and it has to be dealt with on that basis, as 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay and allegations that have appeared in WP:RS. (anyway, the cock-sucking quote is by far the funniest and most endearing of the three). Mish (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that due weight is the key issue. Once we've established an RS, I think wp:due is the only policy we need think about. That the quotations are only a few words in the source doesn't matter at all. His place and date of birth are only a few words, but we include them. "Jesus wept." is the shortest sentence in the bible, but it gets more than its fair share of column inches. "...no such undertaking has been received..." has resonance for Brits, "There you go again!", for the colonials :), "...one small step...", for everyone. WP:due has nothing to do with size. We can't make editorial decisions with a calculator; and some utterances cannot be paraphrased. Our job is to make the article as insightful as possible by including the most illuminating material, verbatim if need be.

MLK was a driven man. He probably knew that he was giving his life to this cause, and the cause was about the difference between being a Negro and not being a Negro. His whole life was about that, and about his relationship with God. That he yells those words in that circumstance with a woman who was not his wife (what colour was she?) has to give you pause for thought. At least, it does me; I've been mulling it over for a while, even though I know there's a [imo slim] chance he didn't say any such thing. Maybe it was just a throwaway ribaldry, maybe it's something more revealing, either way it's one of the more interesting snippets in the article, and I think we should leave it the reader to decide. The cock-sucking one, heh, as you say it's the funniest and most endearing. It does help in painting the picture, and in odd way it gives context to the other quotations. But if it's either/or then I much prefer the others. Anyway, your preference for that one is just you back to your obsession with size, Mish :)--MoreThings (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I worry that equating agnosticism and secularism displays a lack of understanding of one or both terms. =\ Neutrality and secular application of policy inherently walk hand in hand, here; arguments made via direct appeal to religious belief are non-encyclopedic by nature, unless we're working on a religious encyclopedia. I'm not saying we can't include religious views. Not at all. Rather, I am saying that arguments for including those views can and should be discounted unless they can be grounded in academic, encyclopedic values like relevance, notability, and verifiability. Reliability of sources is important, and quite so, but I don't see how completely ignoring the neutrality of a source -- as you seem to propose -- could ever be well-advised when considering its credibility. Given the very high number of sources available, why should we rely on one which obviously had an axe to grind? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't equate secularity and agnosticism. My point is that you can't say that neutrality sits anywhere on any given scale. Neutrality has no meaning outside of a specific article. Outside of a specific article you can define it only in general, abstract terms. Regarding neutrality of sources, most sources are heavily partisan in favour of the proposition that the earth is not flat. Maybe there are some sources which claim it is. If most expert opinion is concentrated at one end of the spectrum of debate, we should use mainly those sources. The editorial voice itself remains neutral, "Most experts agree that the earth is round", but the sources don't: "The earth is round. Flat-earthers are lunatics", said one respected scholar. If the Flat Earth view carries sufficient weight, then we could use a non-neutral source from their end of the spectrum, too. --MoreThings (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, then, I thought you had equated the two. Mother always told me what happens when I assume. With your last post, here, it's starting to sound to me like we might be describing roughly the same idea from different angles. So... where a small number of very partisan sources have said or been quoted in passing saying that the earth is flat, and the vast majority of sources seem to have said nothing at all on the subject -- which more or less describes my impression of the scenario with this quote -- what do we do, then? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are probably fairly close on the principles. My response to the RFC was basically that I like the quote, but the quote isn't in the source, so it cant go in the article. From a distance, I saw that Jonund had added more sources, and didn't see much opposition to them, so I assumed that they were okay. These sources don't really have anything to do with partisanship, they're about fact. Either the FBI did quote him as saying that in court, or they didn't. The sources here simply need to be reliable. I see Jonund has reposted the links and I'll check them out when I have sec. [The round earth thing would really be about fact, too, but we were using the whole thing as a metaphor for an argument about which there is real doubt].--MoreThings (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As the discusssion on WP:ANI had been archived, although the question remains unresolved, I have moved it to ~~Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Refusal to engage arguments~~ WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Refusal to engage arguments. I also added a comment there, including, among other things, my answer to the RfC conundrum.

Since Mish questions the propriety of opening an other RfC, I have to remind him of his statement on June 7 that "the best course of action would be to withdraw this part of the RfC, leaving the part on Communist connections - and resubmit a fresh RfC on this aspect alone, with the correct links."

I have provided[49] links to 8 serious sources who report the incident (most of them secular :)), so I can't see how it would be unsufficiently noted. All of those sources have been neutral or friendly to MLK. Half of them are academic; none of them is sensational. Are you suggesting that they are "a small number of very partisan sources" that could be compared to "saying that the earth is flat"? I suppose we must be misunderstanding each other.

As far as I can see, the formulation I proposed take into account the objections that the quote was questioned, without using too many words: Sources suggest that King was very open about such affairs in his personal life and talked frivolously about it.[50] One instance was recorded by FBI, whose technicians claimed they heard his distinctive voice exclaim: "I'm f---ing for God!" Kings assistants, who heard portions of the tape, claimed the sound was indistinct.[51] Congressmen who heard the tape appear to have found it distinct.[52] The role of the FBI is already covered in the article.

The questions I refered to were these:

Are lewdness and blasphemy really immaterial qualities in a Christian minister who has on top of that been commemorated by two churches as a saint/hero/martyr?
Is it really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important?
Which objective criteria do you propose for determining which viewpoints are significant? How is it possible to dismiss the majority of theologians and philosophers as irrelevant? Aren’t you placing your own opinions above those, which is against WP:UNDUE?
If you feel that it is improper appeal to theologians and philosopher because their position is a POV, are you aware that “The [WP:NPOV] requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly,” and “As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'”? On what grounds do you eliminate widely held perspectives? Or can you demonstrate that these quotes are invalid in this case?
How do you deal with the fact that ribaldry and immorality (on a far larger scale than the occasional succumbing to temptation) was a typical trait of King’s life? Shouldn’t this be given due weight in the article, by being mentioned? --Jonund (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Jonund, your points:-

As the discusssion on WP:ANI had been archived, although the question remains unresolved, I have moved it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Refusal to engage arguments. I also added a comment there, including, among other things, my answer to the RfC conundrum.

This is a dead link, so I cannot tell what you are talking about.

Since Mish questions the propriety of opening an other RfC, I have to remind him of his statement on June 7 that "the best course of action would be to withdraw this part of the RfC, leaving the part on Communist connections - and resubmit a fresh RfC on this aspect alone, with the correct links."

No, I suggested on the ANI you should open up a second RfC, preferably addressed to the biographies section of that noticeboard. And yes, I did say that on June 7th, and you failed to do so - as I pointed out on the ANI, there is no record in the history of 'Society...' of this RfC having been successfully lodged - only a section created here calling itself an RfC. An RfC that fails to go beyond those already participating is not a valid RfC. So far, there has only been one RfC, and I would argue that addressing an issue that relates to biographical information, it should have been posted under the biographies section. I would still encourage you to do so.

When you submit your second RfC, you can add these subsidiary points, along with all (eight? - this is news!) sources now claimed, and relate them to WP policies and guidelines that show how they are relevant.

I have shown (above) three of these sources are effectively repeating one source - his biography - where it is explained that this was alleged by FBI officials involved in a campaign to discredit him when they were interviewed by the author. As such, it could only be stated as an allegation. Please list the further four sources, in particular the one mentioned above about them stating this in court (presumably under oath?)- as I have yet to see this one. I do not have time (nor will anybody else responding to an RfC) to search through pages of discussion to winkle out citations you have inserted here and there throughout the discussion to add weight to your argument. Similarly, having taken the time to track down what is available from these four sources via Google (English version, rather than the German version you provided), only two of them make the actual comment in question available, repeated from the original source in the biography (the text, and therefore context, of which is not accessible, although it appears this is a quote from three FBI officials), I have managed to review the text you say gives information about King's life - what it seems to discuss is the lifestyle those he was associated with may have engaged in, and how they joked about this. This is one or two pages out of over a thousand pages of text. You are arguing that this is important not because of the weight given in the text, but an interpretation of views expressed by others on moral issues that are not sourced, and are not connected with this text. All this would need to be spelled out clearly in the RfC.

Are lewdness and blasphemy really immaterial qualities in a Christian minister who has on top of that been commemorated by two churches as a saint/hero/martyr?

I am not in a position to answer this question - it is immaterial to the question. Do you have a WP:RS that argues this about King?

Is it really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important?

I don't think we are in a position to discuss this, and am not sure how it is material to the question. Again, do you have a WP:RS that says this in relation to this issue?

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

This is a rhetorical question, so it is unclear how one would answer it. Do you have a relevant WP:RS for King in this context?

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

Again, this is a conclusion you are making based on an assumption stated as the previous rhetorical question. As it is a question you have asserted (that I have not seen anybody express in the way you claim them to have), I am not sure how to answer it. Nobody is discussing this but you, because it does not relate to WP policies or guidelines.

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

Get your 'facts' straight; this was connected with those he associated with, and featured in approximately 0.3% of his biography, and this appears to be the most weight given across all sources on King, then there should be at least 0.3% of such material within the article. My impression is that the material that is already there is derived from WP:RS, placed in the context it has been derived, and probably exceeds 0.3% of the article, as 0.3% of the article would be less than one line of text. If it would be possible to deal with all these allegations and anecdotes (what you call 'facts') in a neutral way and without undue weight in a single line of text, I'd be happy with that. But I don't see how you are going to do that, given it has taken you months of discussion and failing to stick to the point so far, as well as one RfC where you inserted the wrong citation as evidence, and another RfC which wasn't successfully posted as an RfC, and an ANI which never reached any conclusion, and all sprawled across pages and pages of discussion.

I am simply not prepared to search through volumes of discussion to figure out where you might have slipped in yet another source, that you now claim makes up eight sources for this material, and simply link to a history page of discussion with several links to point to said source(s). I have taken the trouble to find you four sources via Google Books (English) - now there appear to be four more. Fine - provide all four other links below, with a brief note about what they are, and why the relate to the discussion. Otherwise we will keep going round in circles. I am not a mind reader. Put your argument, with links to the sources explaining how these relate to your argument, and the statement you derive from these links that is brief, neutral, and you want to be inserted. Do it now. Mish (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also have to agree with the above. It would be a violation of [{WP:SYNTH]] to make any statement regarding King which is not directly made by reliable sources about him, and probably a violation of the same rule to use general statements about "morals" as a basis for making statements regarding any individual's "morals" in their individual biographies, and, unless those sources themselves devote a considerable amount of space to that material, it would probably be a violation of WP:UNDUE to discuss them to any greater degree. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

To address the text suggested by Jonund specifically:

Sources suggest that King was very open about such affairs in his personal life and talked frivolously about it.

citing Rieder, Jonathan: The Word of the Lord is upon me (p.62 - 1 page out of 394 pages)

http://books.google.com/books?id=2Bz15QXS-qMC&pg=PA62&dq=%22The+Word+of+the+Lord+is+upon+me%22+Jonathon+Reider+%22fucking+for+God%22&ei=VdRkSoKlGZHWlAS3prTGDg

At one point on the FBI tapes of the Willard Hotel tryst, King is heard to cry out at the peak of sexual passion, "I'm fucking for God!" and "I'm not a Negro tonight."(p.62)

(cites Branch 'Pillar of Fire', p.207 as source)

1. Asserts King strayed from his marital vows, in company (author's assertion).

2. Refers to Branch's biography describing what FBI agents told him about tapes of 14 hours of 'party babble' - what sounded to them like people, including King, having sex.

3. King is reported to have used vulgar, lewd, street, talk (author's assertion).

4. Reports a 'ribald' atmosphere, of which King was a part (Rutherford's assertion).

5. Cites from Garrow that a party involved a prostitute and a sexual assault upon a 17-year-old secretary (King is not mentioned). People laughed (including King), when confronted. (Rutherford's assertion)

One instance was recorded by FBI, whose technicians claimed they heard his distinctive voice exclaim: "I'm f---ing for God!" Kings assistants, who heard portions of the tape, claimed the sound was indistinct.[51]

citing Kotz, Nick: Judgment Days (p.84-85 - 1 para out of 522 pages)

http://books.google.com/books?id=FgvF5_nPPH8C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=Kotz+%22Judgment+days%22+%22fucking+for+God%22&source=bl&ots=CFPiZmucnh&sig=eByZFBOEujLZpU38o-6Jdrx3MIo&hl=en&ei=rNJkSozTJMKZjAeAn9nyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Three technicians later told King's biographer Taylor Branch that they had "heard King's distinctive voice ring out above others, with pulsating abandon, saying 'I'm fucking for God!' and 'I'm not a Negro tonight!' Aides to King who later heard what they believed to be portions of the Willard Hotel tapes disputed the FBY's accounts, claiming that the scratchy sounds were indistinct and difficult to comprehend."

(cites Branch 'Pillar of Fire' as source)

6. Notes FBI tapes still disputed, and cites Branch being told by FBI agents that King said "I'm fucking for God" and "I'm not a Negro tonight".

7. States that aides who heard the tapes said the quality made it "difficult to comprehend".

Congressmen who heard the tape appear to have found it distinct.

cites a site that would not pass as a WP:RS. The source discusses relevant part of the tape in the context of Branch's biography. The Congressman does not discuss the quote. That this shows the tapes were audible is WP:OR in relation to the quote to be inserted, as the congressman does not describe this.

8. What the source says is that Rowan wrote that congressman John Rooney told him that in 1964 he and his congressional committee had heard J. Edgar Hoover play an audiotape of what appeared to be an orgy held in King's Washington hotel suite. Rooney said that over the sounds of a couple having intercourse in the background, King could be heard saying to a man identified as Abernathy, "Come on over here, you big black motherfucker, and let me suck your dick." (and a comment about King being gay follows)

Katz, p.103, does describe how in 1964, in connection with his testimony before a House committee, Hoover spoke off the record about King's alleged sexual indiscretions, and shared tapes and transcripts with chairman John Rooney. This then led to rumours starting from the committee being passed to colleagues. Some argued the information should be released to expose King, but Hoover would not allow this. (no details about what was on the tapes, but some discussion about why Hoover would not release them, when they would derail the civil rights bill - it appears they would compromise the FBI as much as King if they were released)

These are all tertiary sources, and the original secondary sources cited are:

Branch, Taylor "Pillar of Fire" - text unavailable (p.207 - 1 para out of 746 pages)

http://books.google.com/books?id=-_RY6K-Qo0wC&q=%22Pillar+of+Fire%22+Taylor+Branch+%22fucking+for+God%22&dq=%22Pillar+of+Fire%22+Taylor+Branch+%22fucking+for+God%22&ei=ANZkSv-FG4LglATZ-72wDg&client=mozilla

(Cannot access text, Google text link:)

p.608 refs p.207 "I'm fucking for God!": Author's interviews with FBI officials.

Garrow, David "Bearing the Cross" - text unavailable. (1 para? out of 800 pages)

http://books.google.com/books?id=HecWJnClV3wC&dq=Garrow+%22Bearing+the+Cross%22&ei=cTJnSvDfAYnaNeeU7KUB

Rowan, Carl "Breaking Barriers" - text unavailable. (1 para? out of 395 pages)

http://books.google.com/books?id=LpjWAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Breaking+Barriers%22+Carl+Rowan&dq=%22Breaking+Barriers%22+Carl+Rowan&ei=EzVnSpbgO5GCNMab3KUB

Also, though not cited above, there is Dyson, Michael: "I may not get there with you" ((p.162 - 1 para? out of 404 pages)

http://books.google.com/books?id=7Ld2AAAAMAAJ&q=dyson+%22I+May+Not+Get+There+With+You%22+%22fucking+for+God%22&dq=dyson+%22I+May+Not+Get+There+With+You%22+%22fucking+for+God%22&ei=ydNkSuW0LpLilATR4NHHDg

(Cannot access text, Google text link:)

King is said to have uttered during one of his sexual romps that "I'm fucking for God,"

This also appears to be a tertiary source based on Branch

The 'fact' is that all this material about what King may or may not have said is based on what three FBI agents said they heard, and was reported as such in the main original secondary source, as well as the denial that this could be heard by his aides; that the allegation has been repeated in tertiary sources makes it no more reliable than the original source, which appears to be clear on its status as an allegation. The other material is also based on anecdote, hearsay and gossip - and should be treated as such. The material makes up a very insignificant part of all the texts concerned, as is detailed by presenting the weight given in relation to the number of pages in each book. The 'fact' that the veracity of the information is not straightforward, open to doubt, and mainly based on allegation and rumour, suggests it should be treated cautiously. Given the problems in finding a way of presenting the material in a neutral and straightforward way suggests it would be better being left out of a biography altogether. Mish (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned that I had moved a WP:ANI page and added some comments. The proper link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Refusal to engage arguments. The dead link ensued from an other editor moving it to the right namespace (as can be seen in its history). I’m sorry for the confusion. As I explain there, I thought I had done the RfC submission correctly, and I still don’t understand why it doesn’t show up in the history of “Society…”. I can add that I took the intervention of 128.187.0.178 for a response to the RfC I believed I had successfully submitted. Posting under Biographies is very likely a good idea, which didn’t occur to me.

There appears to be misunderstanding regarding sources. I have mentioned 8 sources who report about the incident, but I never claimed they were ‘’original sources.’’ In fact, one of them, Taylor Branch, is, or appears to be, the original source which the others have used. My point was that the incident has been fairly widely reported by sources who have a good reputation and take the incident to be true. (I know of no one who disputes the factuality of the incident.) This is relevant, since WP is concerned with verifiability. (By the way, if a link to Google books don’t show any content at all on the book page, try to use the forward button.)

Mish avoids some of my questions by asking me if I have reliable sources that appeal to moral character etc. in the context of this incident. That is an unfair demand. Nowhere do WP policies require that the criteria for significance are mentioned in the sources that deal with the concrete incident. Significance may be laid down according to more general criteria. Articles would be difficult to write if we required the sources not only to provide facts, but also to explain why they are important.

Mish’s assertion that ribaldry and immorality is featured in 0,3 % of his biography, which appears to be the most weight given across all sources on King, is wrong. I suppose he refers to Ried, but the theme is definitely covered more than so if you take time to investigate the book. Dyson devotes a chapter of 20 pp. out of 313 (excl. notes) to sexual persona. The reviewer in ‘’Pop Matters’’ finds it important enough to use about 30 % of the space for this theme. Anyway, every one should understand that the importance of a particular theme, aspect or incident is not related to the amount of ink used on it. Some things are said well with few words, while others invite longer analyses. Authors may have myriads of reasons to dwell on a topic more or less than its importance might seem to suggest. By the way, if you want an explicit statement that King’s immorality is an important aspect of his life, Dyson provides it. As Stephen Hall states in his review, “Dyson suggests that these characteristics inform King’s life in the same way as his strident and principled stands on racism (northern and southern), the Vietnam War and poverty. Only by looking at these issues critically, can we seek the true meaning of King’s legacy.[53]

Whatever you think of Straight Dope as a RS, the important fact is that they refer to Carl Rowan’s memoir, which is a RS. The quote “fucking for God!” is not mentioned here, but an other ribald comment is, and there is no indication that the tape is indistinct, so there is circumstantial evidence that the tape is of sufficient quality.

To call the quote rumour is disparaging. It’s based on a source that can be evaluated fairly well and has been accepted by a reliable secondary and several tertiary sources, while rejected by no one (to my knowledge). The disputed text represents arguments pro and con, and thus enables the reader to draw his or her own conclusion. --Jonund (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegations in the Early Life section

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

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

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

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

To be fair on history, we should dig deeper into the plagiarism allegation and thus established once and for all whether the person mentioned truly merited the doctoral degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.181.230 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's core policies, No original research, prohibits editors from "digging deeper" and making our own determinations of things like that. Our job is to report what other sources say. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the information is extremely well supported and referenced: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/us/boston-u-panel-finds-plagiarism-by-dr-king.html so that's not a major concern, as such.

Whether it's appropriate information for that section is questionable. I think it may be worthy of its own section, actually. -- Otto (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There once was a separate section about King's plagiarism, but somebody wanted the discussion moved up to the section with his dissertation. I seem to recall that after the information was added to the "Early life" section, it also had a line directing readers to the "Plagiarism" section. I'm not sure when or why the "Plagiarism" section disappeared. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

^ http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0630/2005040177-d.html

[1] ttp://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0630/2005040177-d.html

[1]