Talk:Coretta Scott King/Archive 1

Vandalism
Wow, I must say that it is extremely disheartening to see how people continually vandalise this article. I'm sure that I speak for most people when I say that not *ALL* of us agree with everything the late Mrs. King said. Seriously, who agrees with someone else...ANYONE else (for that matter!) on EVERY issue?!?

But that gives no-one claim or right to go around posting obscenities or editting out facts to insert derogatory garbage. Please, please, please everyone...remember that this is an OBJECTIVE article about someone who cared very much for the future of the world, and for human rights.

Help by contributing CONSTRUCTIVELY to this article...please do not make extra work for people who have to clean up after flagrant vandals! Thanks. :)

Controversy
Ok, did you think it was innapropriate to add the reaction (eg: of conservative talk show hosts) to partisan-speeches at her Funeral? --Teenwriter 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Meagre article
For a woman who has led such an increidbly active life, both as the partner of one of America's greatest citizens, and as one of America's greatest citizens in her own right, this article is terribly short. Will someone knowlagable about CSK's life and times please beef this up considerably? She deserves it. Fergananim 18:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

King Center
This article has absoluely nothing about the King Center, which Mrs. King established in 1968. This needs to be remedied. Jim62sch 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I remedied it. Feel free to edit as necessary. Jim62sch 14:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Her Death
Shouldn't a link to this article be moved to the "in the news" section on the front page? --SigmaX54 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and I agree. SNIyer12 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See the note on this topic here: Talk:Main Page. NoSeptember  talk  21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mexico?
How did she end up in Mexico in the first place?

She went to an "alternative medical" facility of last-resort to treat the ovarian cancer. Mhking 04:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Coretta Scott King died on early morning Jan. 31, 2006 not Jan 30, 2006. (that's according to the Washington Post Archieve)

Precise date
Why hasn't anyone changed the date yet?? I'll do it. -- Kpengboy

I noticed the top of the page says she died the 31st, but the bottom of the page says she died the 30th. Which is right? --Icelandic Hurricane 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The AP says "died Tuesday". I'll change the other reference to the 31st. --Dystopos 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says the approximate time of death was 11:25 PM, so I'll make sure we're unanimous on the 30th. --Dystopos 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, it seems like she died on January 31. See ABC News. See MSNBC. See AP. See TIME. What are the sources for January 30? joturner 01:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I don't know what to say. There are just so many conflicting reports. Although the Atlanta Journal-Constitution seems to indicate otherwise, four major news organizations have cited her date of death as January 31. joturner 01:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * CNN said "last night" in their article earlier today so that is were the "30th" came from. Reuters and The L.A. Times said earlier that her daughter had tried to wake her up at 1:00am this morning. I believe she passed early in the morning making it the "31st" and not the "30th." It wasn't on ABC "World News Now" or CBS "Up To The Minute" or CNN overnight and so it should be the "31st" and not the "30th." Or atleast wait a few days so the King family can give out more information and the media has more information before making it the "30th" if it is the 30th. There seems to be more news outlets that say 31st.


 * The Atlanta Journal-Constitution says "The civil registry office at Rosarito Beach said she died of cardio-respiratory failure, cerebral vascular illness and ovarian cancer. The family said she died at about 11:25 p.m. Eastern Standard Time." link (reg req'd) --Dystopos 01:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Which would make it around 8:25pm local time, which means she died on 30 January, not 31 January. Local time is the determinant of the date of death, not any other time zone.  JackofOz 02:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is just one source. As I listed above, there are several major news organizations that cite her date of death as January 31. Are there any more (particularly American) sources that agree with January 30? joturner 02:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Mexican sources be preferable? She did, after all, die in Mexico. JackofOz 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is just one source, but they do cite the family, to which it would be understandable if they had more intimate access, for that particular nugget of information. And they give a precise time, which contrasts with the other outlets who have seemingly generalized from "died overnight". Naturally as more authoritative sources are available, they will be used, but for now, the AJC seems to have the most claims to authority. --Dystopos 02:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In light of what JackofOz said, American or Mexican (or heck, North American or South American) sources should be used. I say that because that may affect the depiction of the date of death. Some Far Eastern or Australia sources may say January 31 because it was well into January 31 in their time zones. joturner 02:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right (see more on this below). Which is why the date is established using the time zone of the place where the event happened, in this case Mexico. American sources seem evenly divided between 30 and 31. JackofOz 19:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually work in the newsroom at Atlanta NBC affiliate WXIA (I'm nightside web producer for 11Alive.com) -- we've been able to confirm with both family and clinic sources that she passed late Monday night. Mhking 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

January 30

 * Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Coretta Scott King, who struggled four decades to keep her husband's dream alive, died Monday...The family said she died at about 11:25 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. joturner 03:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reuters - Mrs. King, who had been diagnosed with terminal ovarian cancer, died late on Monday in Mexico, where she had been seeking possible treatment, a family spokeswoman told Reuters. joturner 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * CNN Coretta Scott King, the widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., died Monday night joturner 03:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The New York Times - Coretta Scott King, known first as the wife of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., then as his widow, then as an avid proselytizer for his vision of racial peace and nonviolent social change, died Monday at a hospital in Mexico. She was 78.
 * WXIA-TV Atlanta - Mrs. King, 78, passed away Monday night at an alternative treatment facility in northern Mexico where she was being treated for terminal cancer.

January 31

 * Reuters - "Her daughter was with her at the time she passed, probably about 1 to 1:15 this morning," said Bishop Eddie Long of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia, the pastor of King's youngest child Bernice." joturner 03:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ABC News - Coretta Scott King, wife of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., died Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2006, at the age of 78. joturner 03:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * MSNBC - Jan. 31: Coretta Scott King died Tuesday. joturner 03:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Associated Press - Coretta Scott King...died Tuesday. She was 78. joturner 03:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * TIME - Coretta Scott King, the widow of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., died in her sleep early Tuesday morning at the age of 78. joturner 03:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Forbes - On the day Coretta Scott King died, Lori Smith wanted to pay her respects... That implies she died on Tuesday. joturner 03:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post - She died about 1 a.m. Pacific time (4 a.m. Eastern), said Lorena Blanco, a spokeswoman for the U.S. consulate in Tijuana. Judy Smith, the family's spokeswoman, said King's daughter Bernice was with her when she died.
 * The Washington Post - Hundreds of people -- from powerful politicians to ordinary schoolchildren -- gathered here at the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s mausoleum to mourn Coretta Scott King, who died early Tuesday in a small alternative medical facility in Mexico. joturner 05:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Times - King, who had heart problems and had suffered a major stroke in August, died at 1 a.m. Tuesday at Santa Monica Health Institute, an alternative medicine center in Rosarito Beach, Mexico, said Lorena Blanco of the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana. Doctors at the clinic told Associated Press that King was fighting advanced ovarian cancer when she arrived there Thursday. She died of respiratory failure.
 * The New York Times - The 78-year-old widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. died Tuesday in Rosarito, Mexico, where she was seeking treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. joturner 22:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Won't there be a death certificate to clear all of this up? gren グレン ? 03:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think so, which is why I'm confused as to why there is a discrepency over the date of her death. I cannot believe in this day the news outlets can't agree on a verifiable fact. The New York Times is printing an article on February 1 with Monday as King's date of death while The Washington Post is printing an article on February 1 stating she died on Tuesday. joturner 05:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to dismiss the sources that "seem to imply" one way or another, which leaves the ones that purport to give the actual time - either shortly before midnight or in the early morning hours. If there was a discrepancy of a couple of hours in mid-afternoon, no one would worry about it. In this case it's got a bunch of us editors all aflutter with uncertainty. Perhaps we should pass the time on one of the active collaborations while we wait for a definitive source. --Dystopos 05:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It may take some time for the death certificate to be completed and issued, as most death certificates are not completed until funeral arrangements have been finalized. I'm also not sure if the "doctor" who certified her death can do so in Mexico, being a convicted felon. It may be necessary for a credible physician to examine her and sign the detah certificate. --Charlene.vickers 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue crops up time and time again. The media wants to make its reports sound as up to the minute as possible, so things that might have happened 48 or more hours ago often get reported as happening "yesterday".  Things that happened yesterday (even at 1 am yesterday) get reported in today's late evening news as happening "overnight".  Accuracy in the reporting of death dates has little meaning to the media.  Where there are different time zones involved, this just further confuses the story, because the media usually write the story from the perspective of where they and their readers are, not from the perspective of where the event/death happened.  Wikipedians are unusual in wanting to know the fine details of stuff like this.  Most people couldn't give a damn, so the media provides only that level of quality of information.  Such is the world in which we live.  JackofOz 05:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Clinic and its presiding doctor The clinic was controversial and was run by a chiropractor who had legal troubles in the U.S. See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/international/americas/04mexico.html?ex=1156910400&en=e157771a028165be&ei=5070 Dogru144 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ovarian Cancer
The main cause of death was advanced stage ovarian cancer. I will put that on the page. , , , 

Rest in sweet peace
Mrs. King for your journey here is ended, and your paradise begins.--Jayla "hi" 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

ML King's extramarital affairs
Mention should be made of the troubles in their marriage due to Martin's known philandering and alleged use of prostitutes. -- unsigned comment by User:24.215.251.235


 * If you have verifiable documented information (and not FBI/Hoover propaganda), feel free to add the information. Why bring this up without adding the information yourself? --Charlene.vickers 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's good practice to discuss potentially controversial edits before tossing them into the frenzy. --Dystopos 05:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "FBI surveillance showed that King had dozens of extramarital affairs. Although many of the pertinent records are sealed, several agents who watched observed him engage in many questionable acts including buying prostitutes with SCLC money. Ralph Abernathy, who King called "the best friend I have in the world," substantiated many of these charges in his autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down...[in] I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism. He believes this made King even more admirable. He also deals frankly with King’s philandering and plagiarism" http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html -- unsigned comment by anonymous contributor


 * My suggestion is to discuss the effect of this on Mrs. King (since this is her biography) using verifiable facts which are not generally in dispute, and to provide specific citations for those. --Dystopos 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What a gross breach of privacy to publish a user's IP address -- particularly in a case where no vandalism has taken place. -- unsigned comment by anonymous contributor
 * According to Wikimedia's Privacy Policy, contributing to Wikipedia is a public act of publication. You can only insure privacy by not making contributions. Creating an account will effectively mask your IP from the public. It is Wikipedia policy to sign comments on Talk Pages (See Talk pages and Sign your posts on talk pages). It is permissible to use a pseudonym to sign a comment, but if you aren't logged in your IP will still be stored as part of the page history, which is publicly viewable. --Dystopos 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the FBI there has NEVER been one woman who has come forth to tell of these so called "affairs" which could be because it did not happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.210.67 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Congressional resolutions

 * It seems like a link to the full text of these resolutions would be adequate. This isn't the Congressional Record. --Dystopos 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to the Congressional Record page in question: http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=3538386850+4+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Streaming Coverage
More as an FYI, coverage of a 2-hour special report will air at 10:30 a.m. ET, to be followed by ongoing coverage of the mourners filing past Mrs. King's casket in the rotunda of the Georgia State Capitol on Saturday, February 4 (coverage will continue through 10 p.m.) from WXIA-TV & 11Alive.com. WXIA will also stream coverage of events on Monday and Tuesday (including the funeral service itself, scheduled for Tuesday at 12 noon ET), also at 11Alive.com (yes, I'm shamelessly promoting our site, but with this kind of event, I'd think the interest would be there. Mhking 03:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

King Center
In the section "Final Days" the article states that she was unable comment on the "debate as to whether her late husband's birthplace should continue to be maintained by the city of Atlanta or the National Park Service." From the press coverage that I've seen, I thought the debate was over whether to turn the King Center, not birth homethe over to the NPS. MLK's childhood home is already part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site, but the King Center, which includes MLK's grave, was in a financial crisis and there were questions about its future. Was there a seperate debate on the birth home or is the article confusing the birth home with the King Center debate? Sayeth 16:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The King home is maintained by the Park Service, however the King Center, a half-block away, is not. That is where the dispute and in-fighting is. One group (with the support of the King Center board) wants to cede it to the NPS, while the other side (with an equally vocal contingent) supports continued maintenance by the family/King Center board - which, in and of itself, has it's own problems stemming from fiscal mismanagement over the years. Needless to say, I don't think that all four of the kids will be sitting down together for Thanksgiving dinner this year... Mhking 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's what I thought, so I was a bit confused by the statement in this article that the birth home was disputed. I'll change the article. Sayeth 19:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Funeral
There is a memorial service Monday evening (streamed at 11Alive.com) with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Joseph Lowery, Andrew Young, Steve Wonder, Aretha Franklin, Dr. Johnetta Cole and others expected to speak.

The funeral on Tuesday (as of my story meeting a couple of hours ago at work) will have AT LEAST 40 different speakers. Once you count in the musical numbers, the funeral (which was originally expected to run 3 hours) will most certainly run at least 4 1/2 to 5 hours, if not longer. Mhking 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I pulled Hillary Clinton off of the list of dignataries when I added Bush-41. The list of poltiicans is immense; she's not the only Senator on the dais. There's several Senators and House members on the list I have here (no, I'm not permitted to post the full list at this point; it's embargoed until sometime tomorrow), plus a full laundry list of other celebrities. Needless to say, here in the newsroom, several of us are betting that the service, originally pegged to run from noon to 3, will run until at least 7 or 8 in the evening. Mhking 04:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

gravy train
No mention of questionable ethics regarding money: Cacophony 04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ""It's unfortunate that the King family has devoted its life and livelihood to the commodification of the image of Martin," says Manning Marable, professor of history and political science at Columbia University."
 * "Perhaps most galling was the family's demand to be paid to allow construction of a King monument on the Washington Mall."
 * "Other controversies — such as selling the rights to her husband's "I Have a Dream" speech for use in cell phone commercials while limiting access to his papers by serious scholars and journalists- only sharpened the criticism that King and her family were putting personal profit before public interest."
 * "The estate actively licenses the right to reproduce Dr. King's works, and has sued news organizations and scholars for using excerpts of King's speeches without permission or payment. One of the most meaningful moments in American public life, a bracing call to human dignity and progress by one of America's great leaders, is available only to those who can curry favor with the King family or pay them enough money"
 * ""The man who stood for the spiritual values of this country is being exploited," said longtime NAACP fundraiser Gilbert Jonas"

Personally, I've been critical of the King family's ethics in the past, but this isn't the time or the place for it.Mhking 04:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't find the arguments that I cited above made anywhere else on Wikipedia. I think they belong here because as the wife of MLK, she is the head of his estate.  If she wanted his speeches in the public domain, it would have happened.  Saying "this isn't the time or the place" is not a valid reason to not include it.  WP:V and WP:NPOV are two very important guidelines that need to be considered before omitting unflattering information.  Wikipedia has been taken to task in the press recently regarding whitewashed biographies.  The only argument about this critism is where it belongs.  For now I'll leave it at the bottom of the page.  Cacophony 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if the criticisms are of King herself, then certainly they do belong here, and should be within the scope of the article. Larger criticisms of the King family as a whole would be better served (IMO) in the King Center article than here. It is a measure of being even-handed. Mhking 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. In actuality, most of the critism against "The King" family is mostly directed towards Dexter King and Yolanda King, not Coretta King. | QzDaddy 03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My two cents - the issue of copyright and compensation for use of King's works really needs to be included in a wider piece on IP, the Commons and how these issues have affected American culture generally. King is certainly an emotional lightning rod for this issue, but his is not the only estate with IP rights. I have always found it interesting that, among the many, many personal estates that license ip rights, Dr. King's and Malcolm X's are the ones singled out for ridicule. Any piece on this issue should of course include the fact that King copyrighted his own works during his lifetime and that he also sued for infringement. The King family has often maintained that he did so in order to provide for his family in the event of his likely and untimely death, as he had little other financial means that he could make available to them. The issue is unfortunately not as cut and dried as "if Mrs. King wanted to make the works public domain that's what would happen." To portray it as such would be to seriously misrepresent both Mrs. King and Dr. King's thoughts on the subject.JKQ 18:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism not of Coretta Scott King
I've removed a whole load of stuff actually about Fred Phelps and not Coretta Scott King. There is more in there which is largely about Jerry Falwell's opposition to MLK in the sixties. I propose that this does not belong here - it belongs in the MLK article if anywhere. Any objections if I remove it? DJ Clayworth 19:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How about if you just cut it down and insert references to other Wikipedia articles instead? NiftyDude 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone did it for me. DJ Clayworth 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My intent may not have been clear and may have offended. My apologies.
I got a message from one of the other Wikipedia editors, and his feelings were hurt. I want to appologize to him and to anyone else who may have been offended. Below is the message I sent in response, and I share it with all of you as well.

You completely miss my point. I, too mourn for the late Mrs. King. The things she was "villified" seem to me badges of honor she should wear proudly.

I think this reflects WELL upon Mrs. King.

This just speaks volumes about her detractors-- Phelps and Falwell.

I am PROUD of EVERYTHING Mrs. Kings has accomplished and I mourn with you. And I understand your anger and hurt, but it is misplaced. I meant well.

If you can find a better way to make my intentions clear without overly-biasing the Wikipedia article, then please do.

Peace.

''This was in response to the following message (I've left the author's name out) You are heaping on Vilifications to MLK's wife at the very moment of her funeral. What fine and serene Judgement and Character you must have. Go and dig up some dirt on someone who deserves that, like maybe Bill Frist or some rich White boy, like that. Huh?"''

NiftyDude 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because she was the wife of a great leader and herself a great person does not make her beyond criticism. The purpose of this article is not to describe how wonderful she was and how we should all admire her, but to provide a NPOV.  Nobody is without fault and hers shouldn't be whitewashed.  The fact that she just recently died is not a valid reason to omit it either.  It is our responsibility as contributors to provide a non-biased article and currently it fails to do so by leaving a void for dissenting voices.  Anyone who disagrees needs to move somewhere that does not enjoy freedom of speech.  Cacophony 21:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While criticisms may be a valid part of the article, I wanted to go on-record as not intending to be critical.

My posts of "criticisms" written by Jerry Falwell and his heir apparent Fred Phelps, in my opinion, reflect poorly on Phelps and Falwell, not on Mrs. CSK.

Name
Can I suggest that we refer to the subject as Coretta throughout the article, because referring to her as King is asking for confusion with her husband. I for one am unclear as to who put together the series fo Freedom Concerts. DJ Clayworth 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that to refer to an African-American on a first-name basis in an article like this may invite misunderstanding. Until recently, it was considered part of standard gramatical practice to write letters to White people addressed to, "Dear Mr. Smith," and black people would be addressed to "Dear Bobby," for example.

It may invite misunderstanding.

How about CSK?

NiftyDude 13:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I never heard of that form of discrimination before. I personally would prefer to be referred to by my first name than by initials, though. How about "Mrs King"? That's both respectful and unconfusing. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Warriner's English Grammar and Racist Common Practices
When I was in 4th grade, our English teacher had us tear a page out of our "Warriner's English Grammar and Composition" book and throw it in the trash.

The page instructed something like: When writing a business letter, begin it with "Dear Mr. Jones." Unless that person is a child or a colored person, in which case you begin with, "Dear Bobby," for example.

That was circa 1978. That doesn't mean it was still standard practice in 1978, just that our textbooks were old enough to have been written when that was common practice. My guess is the book was written between 1965-1969, but I could very well be way off.

Would this be a good Wikipedia article subject by itself?

NiftyDude 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting ... are you sure it was "Warriner's English Grammar and Composition"? I can't find any biographical information about John E. Warriner online, but I thought he was a professor at a Northern university (which doesn't necessarily prove anything about his individual views, but would seem to make it less likely that he would have espoused the race-based form of address you described). I used Warriner's textbook when I was in school in the 1980s, although it was probably a later edition and it didn't contain any racial references along those lines. If someone can get a hold of one of Warriner's textbooks, most of which appear to be out of print, we could at least get a biography of John E. Warriner into Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 04:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was Warriner's. In any case, just because it was in his book wouldn't mean it was his personal philosophy. It's a book on how things were "properly" done, not necessarily about how he personally thought it should be done. NiftyDude 04:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work
I visited this page a few times before she died and I must say you guys have done a good job improving it since then. Good work.–Clpalmore 6:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

i definitley think that Mrs. Coretta Scott King was a very inspirational women in our society. She gave all other women in our society the courage to stick up for what they believed in. Its just ever so terriyfying that she had to do this because she was discrimanted against for her color, and her rights. God Bless YOU CORETTA

Made small correction to article
The issue of intellectual property use for the proposed mall was not between the government and the King estate, but between the King estate and Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity, the specifically APA's need to engage in fundraising activities to build the monument.

redundant quotes
I--Natalie 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) deleted some quotes that were in the same section twice.

Controversy surrounding funeral
Recent changes to the above section included the following:

1) Insertion of the characterization of Carter and Lowry's statements as "humiliating Bush." This is a clear violation of NPOV and Verifiability. "Humiliated" is a loaded and subjective term.

2) Insering references to other groups Westboro has picketed. This is irrelevant to the article.

3) Inserting references to "Feminist Outlawz," an activist group that gets 186 hits on Google, all from low-traffic sites. The group apparently counter-protested Westboro. Westboro's picket deserves mention as it bears a direct relation to King and has received extensive media coverage. Westboro was protesting King. King is an element of that equation. FO protesting Westboro bears no relation to King except via the venue. King is not an element of that equation. Anything can be tangentially related to King. This has no direct relation to her. I would surmise that the paragraph was almost certainly added directly by a member of FO, which is a violation of wikipedia rules against adding information that you have a vested interest in promoting. Argyrios 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I dispute your point #2, because it is not irrelevant to the article. It's not as if Fred Phelp's only protested King's funeral, he protested every funeral he could to get himself attention. Leaving out the fact that he protested Matthew Shepard's funeral, as well as several Iraq war veterans (who had no connection to his anti-gay stance in any way) makes it seem like he was specifically targeting this funeral, when in reality he and his moron followers go to every funeral they can to drum up publicity and promote hate speech. Giving some perspective on this human piece of trash (Phelps) will help wiki readers understand that he does this all the time and that he is known for his funeral protests. I'm going to add a small line giving that perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.167.106.88 (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Who got the 30 million?
Who got the thirty million from MLK's papers sold after her death? The kids? Why were they willig to have them split up at auction and possibly go over seas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.3 (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Coretta Scott King
Coretta Scott was born April 27,1927 in Marion,Alabama,USA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.5.2 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Coretta Scott King
Coretta Scott was born April 27,1927 in Marion ,Alabama.Her sister Edythe Scott is yourer then she is.She had old brother named...will I don't what his name is.So nowill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.131 (talk • contribs)