Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 3

Request for a Criticism Section
As I believe MLK was a genuine hero and such, I hate what I am about to say, but without doing so, this encyclopedia cannot stay fair and balanced. I am requesting that a "Criticism" section of MLK be added to the article. This is simply because while he is largely accepted in mainstream circles, and respected among many, myself included, there are many who question his legitimacy. This goes beyond the plagirism issue. I believe this section should be added because it would agree with fairness and the representation of all perspectives. I am prepared to deal with the controversy this is going to create and must note that this is not my intention. Again, we need to keep this encyclopedia neutral, we can't have people or ideologies listed without listing the arguments of those who oppose them. Please let me know what you think.(EnglishEfternamn 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

The number 1 site when searching for Martin Luther King on Google is now a racist site
Martinlutherking.org a disgusting racist site run by stormfront(which is run by a former grand wizard of the klu klux klan. It's full of disgusting lies, and I can only imagine how many kids looking to do projects and reports have seen this bullshit and clicked on it.

So now, the number one searches for Martin Luther King, and Jew, lead to racist sites. Something should be done about this.Drsmoo 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's only #4 now; some consolation, given how sneaky they are about pretending to be a legitimate site! --129.89.249.106 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually doing a project on MLK and I found that website. I began to believe many of lies and disgusting "facts" about huykmtnmyineN hgb deaebrgvi i bearnv im. I later went on to find this website, Which give's a completey different view of King. I now know which one to believe! -- Vicky

The site is not racist...it's exposing the truth that Multiculturalists hide, it mentions nothing "racist". If there is something critizing a black "hero", as you call him, the first thing said, of course, is "Racist". If these facts weren't true why would a federal judge seale them untill the year 2027? When he was in Norway, getting his Nobel Peace prize, King was stopped by police chasing a girl down the Hotel corridor, NUDE. You people practacly worship him as if he was a God or something. Arnie Gov 06:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions
I receive a advertisment who said that I did vandalism, I posted recently questions about MLK in this page and they were erased and they are considered as vandalism. Why ? Roger_Smith
 * Your questions were not erased; they were moved to the bottom of the page, which is where new stuff is supposed to go. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Roger_Smith

Chronology in the "March on Washington" Section
The chronology in this whole section is hopelessly confused. Whoever wrote this has events in 1965 happening before events in 1963, Johnson is president and then Kennedy is president again, the whole thing is a mess. Somebody needs to clean this thing up; frankly, I'm thinking of deleting the entire first paragraph of this section, since that's the one that's causing most of the confusion, without adding THAT much new information. -- Minaker
 * Hm, you might be right, I reverted possibly out of confuseration. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Kennedy was assasinated in 1963, so MLK was most likely not at a meeting with Kennedy in 1965

Cult of Personality
Under Legacy, perhaps, I think some mention should be made that many people, including Eric Dyson, have critised the sometimes excessive mystique that has developed around King. I don't deny that the man did help millions of people achieve better economic and political status, that his messege was one of peace and brother, and, though I don't agree with all of his stands, positive. However I don't like cults of personality - especially those that develop after there subject is dead.


 * So how do you feel about the "cult of personality" we have around Lincoln? Yes, Old Abe was imperfect, but like King has earned his place in our history and yes, cultural mythology.Tom Cod 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not really an issue of his flaws, which are fairly stated in the article, but of his posthumous deification and how that makes even those who agree with him uncomfortable--Dudeman5685 01:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC) : I made a similar comment towards the bottom if you're interested.


 * I totally agree with this assessment of King.74.227.146.215 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been avoiding checking to see what response I would get, but I'm pleasantly surprised. Yes, I understand the "cult" around national figures like Lincoln and Washington (there is even a painting called the"Apotheosis of Washington, in the capitol). To an extent all these are harmless, especially when it comes to deceased figures; perhaps a need for "civil religion" is just a part of human political psychology.


 * Its not wrong for many African-Americans to thinks of MLK as the "Washington" or "Moses" of their people, but cults of personality like that should always be kept at arms length for fear of getting out of hand, or eclipsing historical reality. Just a thought.--Dudeman5685 18:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon Editing
Shouldn't there be a template at the top of the page explaining why IP addresses can't edit this article (like )? And could someone who is allowed to edit this page please make the following correction: in the "King in Popular Culture" section there is a red link to "I have a dream". Please change this to "I Have a Dream" with the correct capitalisation, or you could make a redirect I suppose. Thanks, 81.159.110.127 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I fixed the link. The template is not required, especially if the protection is going to be a long-term exercise, so I'll defer to Can't sleep, clown will eat me on that.  Maximusveritas 10:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing it Maximusveritas (wow, your user name's a bit of a mouthful)! I'm a bit confused about the templates thing, I just think there should be something explaining why IP adresses can't edit it somewhere, but never mind :-). 81.159.110.127 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming auction

 * 

The outcome of the auction should be worth a sentence or two. deeceevoice 09:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, the auction was cancelled. An anonymous group of people purchased the papers from the King family for an undisclosed sum; the papers will be housed at Morehouse College. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And they went on display today! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who got the money?
Who got the thirty million paid for the papers? His Kids?

Possible addendum to Legacy section
I've noticed through this thread the repeated disinformation and misinformation attempting to brand King as a communist, adulterer, etc. etc. It might be a good idea to address these accusations up front and cite the sources of these accusations, as well as how hate groups like Stormfront are disseminating them today.

However, this may be a total digression and it may detract from King's overall legacy. I would like to get some input on this before attempting to write this piece. If it detracts from King's total message, I don't believe it would be worth it.

Additionally, it might be good to add to the "assassination" section under the King v Jowers wrongful death suit that the King family was awarded damages from Loyd Jowers to reimburse funeral expenses only (something that equal hundreds, and not thousands of dollars). Let me know if this fact would be worth mentioning and I can add it including citation.

A small fact under "assassination" - I believe the undergrowth/shrubs were cleared the morning after Dr. King's assassination, not days after, as borne out in trial transcripts from King v Jowers. What is the source for "days" after?

Overall this is a great piece on King - thanks to all who worked on it!JKQ 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Racist groups attack King mainly with chauvinisms anyways, and even if it was true that King was either a communist or an adulterer, how the hell does that change all the good that the man did in his time?.

just like to point out there is nothing wrong with being a communist, the regimes we are familiar with as "communist" are nothing but socialists in sheeps clothing. true communism has no central government. I realize this has little to do with King but felt it necassry to point out.

I thought it was a well known fact that he was (in some form) cheating on his wife, however I question whether or not this should be included in the article as I assume it lacks adequate citation.D-cup 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have any info on........
His thoughts about The Beatles? I mean he was surely around when The Beatles were in their prime, so of course he has heard of them, I wonder what he thought about them though, what.....with them beeing pro-peace, etc. Or would anybody have any info about what they think about martin luther king. -Dragong4


 * I think most importantly was what did the Beatles thought of him. I know, its cheap to use the old switcheroo answer here, but still.

Republican/Democrat party controversy
I've read that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. This info should definitely be included in his bio.


 * Alabama at the time was a Democratic dominant-party state, so although he might have claimed to be a Republican at some time, it wouldn't have meant much. See List of Governors of Alabama. Gazpacho 08:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Careful though because Reagan Republicans and Neo Cons are NOT republicans like King was, if this is mentioned I move that it be included that he would NOT be a current supporter of the party or that there are signifigant differences now. Just don't want to add fuel to ignorant arguments.
 * What's the mystery here? Everyone knows that MLK was a card-carrying member of the COMMUNIST PARTY. He carried, like, twelve cards.
 * In all seriousness though, as far as I can tell from basic Googling (which I know doesn't count as real research but is the best I can do at the moment), whatever party affiliation he had, if any, is a mystery, and the best we can do is guess. Obviously such "guessing" has no place in the article proper, as it would totally violate NPOV. --Lenoxus 19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as the statement "What's the mystery here? Everyone knows that MLK was a card-carrying member of the COMMUNIST PARTY. He carried, like, twelve cards." goes it would be interesting to actually read what Dr. King had to say on the subject. In his 1963 collection of sermons "Strength to Love"  the sermon entitled "How should a Christian View Communism?" would seem to negate this view as Dr. King takes a very definitive anti-communist stance.Reverendmhamm 09:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are just so very wrong the Republican party is virtually unchanged since the days of Lincoln. Ignorant arguments such as? Would it be wrong to say King wouldnt be in favor of welfare? Incidently it seems highly likely that early civil rights leaders would have been Republican just because most slave holders and later segregationists were southern DEMOCRATS.Eno-Etile 07:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As a child of a southern democrat (c. 1941) and a northern republican (c.1941) who had parents of the same parties I can assure you that according to them there has been a huge change in the parties. My republican father would be the first to tell you that the current republican party is not representative of his beliefs on most issues.  I agree that mention of King as a Republican should also take into consideration these changes.  Not saying he would agree with Democrats on everything but seems he wouldn't agree with rall epublican policy as well, just seems to lend itself to easily to reactionary arguments on both sides if not carefully approached.D-cup 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement "the Republican party is virtually unchanged since the days of Lincoln" is ludicrous on its face; virtually unchanged over 150 years? Ridiculous and impossible. The fact is the party has changed dramatically in just the last 40 years. The Dixiecrat of the 50s and 60s is today's Republican; it's the Southern strategy writ large and in full control of the party. Having been born and lived my entire life in the South, I've seen the transition up close and personal.

AU Tiger ʃ talk /work 23:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to admit that my previous statement was a bit of a hyperbole.But the parties are both pretty much aligned the same that they were 150 years ago. There are some changes but republicans are still the conservative party and democrats are still the liberal party. The only major difference I can think of is that republicans have become slightly more pro-states rights, and that democrats have become much less pro-states rights.Eno-Etile 23:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have studied any 19th-century politics. The Republicans of 150 years ago were less conservative, more liberal, than the Democrats; there were no flaming reactionaries such as those who ran the Southern Democratic party and were quite common in the Northern.Orange Mike 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. Might you be thinking of the Democratic-republicans? The republicans are the inheritors of the federalist party (which was less libertarian economically and socially than the democratic-republicans). Democrats are the politcal decendants of the democratic-republicans. Some ideals of the two original parties where mixed due to the short-lived whig party (most whigs became republicans later on I believe). And unsigned comments dont hold much weight.Eno-Etile 08:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

King as a heterodox thinker
He rejcted the virgin birth, original sin, and the Trinity. This may merit mention. 01:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Cite a source on that. 169.229.64.25 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Name in the introductory paragraph
I've always been told that using "Dr." & "Ph.D." in the same name was incorrect, as the Ph.D. automatically conferred the status of doctor. However, I'm not sure what to do in this case. Since he is so well-known as "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.," the normal approach of dropping "Dr." and keeping "Ph.D." doesn't seem to be the best answer, even though it's the one most style guides seem to endorse. Would someone more intimately familliar with the article like to take a swing at changing it, or suggesting an alternative? --Ssbohio 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

External link
I have removed one link (diff) per evidence that it is being spammed here by a hate group site: [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=183229&page=3]. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

King's support of Israel
This article needs to mention King's support of Israel. It and his opposition to the Vietnam War helped to contribute to his legacy and dropping popularity in his final years, and are still remembered today. Minutiaman 06:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We have a user removing Dr. King's pro Israel statement adding what I believe to be a false statement that this famous statement is false. Both sources he uses (one website clearly opposes Israels right to exist and supports Hezbollah) clearly show his statement to be false The quote he says is false is completely endorsed by both sites. There is a questions another pro Israel sermon "Letter to an anti Zionist Friend" Below is a January 21, 2002 op-ed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, who worked closely with Dr. King. In the op-ed, he shares Dr. King’s views on Israel, views which stressed Israel’s democratic nature and Israel’s need for security. And he also relates that Dr. King said, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

This quotation has been confirmed, so you should feel assured that you can use the quotation in letters. Just be sure to mention that it came from Dr. King’s 1968 Harvard University appearance....http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

The anti Israeli site states

...In 1968, according to Seymour Martin Lipset, King was in Boston and attended a dinner in Cambridge along with Lipset himself and a number of black students. After the dinner, a young man apparently made a fairly harsh remark attacking Zionists as people, to which King responded: “Don’t talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking Anti-Semitism.”

And a 2nd statement ....In a meeting with Jewish leaders a few weeks before his death, King noted that peace for Israelis and Arabs were both important concerns. According to King, “peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity.” http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-01/20wise.cfm

The second article does go on to state why the authors opinion the Dr. King would actually be anti Israel but that is the authors POV and not relevent to the facts of what Dr. King actually said.

It is clear the the current edit is the editor POV as his own sources disagree with him. I will wait one day to correct the site in case anyone wishes to add something to the discussion on how to correctly edit the site 72.144.229.191michaelh613

So the edit is false and should be removed. IMHO It clearly is an attempt to enter a POV that is not Dr. Kings I am going to wait one more day for any responses before reverting the edit.


 * I think you may be misreading the edit. The quote "When people criticize Zionists..." can be attributed to King w/ multiple sources. The research to debunk "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend" was done by CAMERA, hardly an anti-Isreal organization. King was a strong opponent of anti-semitism as can be backed by many reliable sources, but this letter is apparently not one of those.
 * Regardless, the current text is a bit misleading, and the letter's status as a hoax is probably not notable for this article. I think the best thing to do for right now is to simply delete the section until we can come up w/ some better wording.EricR 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, I was the editor mentioned above. I am happy with the section being deleted, as my edit was mostly a placemarker to replace a recently-introduced (copyvio of a?) text which may well be famous, but which is also definitely a hoax - I verified myself that one of the two sources was fictitious, and the links are I think sufficient to confirm that the rest cannot be attributed to King.  Such a placemarker is the only way I can think of to prevent mythical or unsourced information being reintroduced (c.f. Gordon Brown's glass eye).  My edit read "the sources and remainder of the text... are fictitious" (emphasis added), that is, the quotation "When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews" may represent King's opinion as reported after the event. However, there is clearly difference as to the interpretation of the actual quotation between Tim Wise (Author of the Zmag article and so-called 'self-hating Jew') and 72.144.229.191, and as Wise points out would be hard to extrapolate from that to the present situation and to do so would be unencyclopaedic conjecture.  The Znet site by the way represents a respected left-wing libertarian publication and is not thematically 'anti-Israel' and certainly not supporting Hezbollah, but I thought best to counterbalance it with a 'pro-Israel' link in case of any dispute to show the certainty that the passage was not written by MLK.  (There is a little more about the original quotation at what seems to be a genuinely  pro-Palestine site at ).  Of course, Wise's criticism of Israel's foreign policy does not by itself invalidate him as a source or notable commmentator. --Cedderstk 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

left wing POV problems
this article like most on wikipedia is written from the POV of a modern day 'liberal' and makes it seem like king would be one of them. in fact he'd be appaled by modern day liberals, and i think most people would see this. his was a triumph of faith and the modern day aithiestic liberal has trouble seeing this. this article is being written from the POV that all that is good, must be left wing, and that king must be a liberal because he was good. please correct this to inlcude that king would be horrified by modern day liberals and their perversion of american politics —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.200 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please try and make some specific criticism of the article on the talk page, or try some article edits before inserted the POV tag.EricR 18:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So to be NPOV, the article has to guess widly that today MLK would be a NeoCon? Eh I'm removing the NPOV tag until something more substantial is brought up. --W.marsh 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets all try to remember that athiests make up less than 2% of society yet seem to make up "the entire liberal media", plenty of religious democrats too people. I personally believe king would not like either party but it seems evident that he would NOT be a republican. Don't think this will ever or should ever be in the article though. Should we also debate what political party George Washington would be now? Doen't seem to help anyone but people arguing political points.


 * I'll debate it. King likely would not be a democrat today, liberal wellfare programs do nothing for minorities other than feed them off of Uncle Sam's teat in a continuing cycle of dependency ( that was highly editorial and opiniated but most things on wikipedia seem to be). Also George Washington despite his disdain for partisanship was a Federalist, a party more inline with the Republicans than the Democrats. Belief in limited gov't interference in business, strong military, religious (or at least acknowledging the presence of God in Washington's case). Of course the federal gov't is much more powerful today than it was in Washington's day so there is some room for argument.

What do you make of the fact that most, if not all, of the people who worked with him (Jesse Jackson for one) are now Democrats? Please do not hate all people who use welfare. A close friends mom had to go on welfare for a few years when tragedy struck the family and it was awful to see her have to feel any shame for accepting a public hand. We did not get to where we are as humans by hiding alone in caves, we got here by helping each other out, please don't make it harder for people to ask when they need it.

Back to the left wing POV while I havent read the article yet (I often read the discussion first) the comments in the discussion seem very left.Eno-Etile 07:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? We get to express our POV on talk pages; the trick is to keep our POV out of the articles. As far as your debate is concerned, please leave that stuff for discussion forums. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 08:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Broken External Link
The external link under video and audio material for Google Video of "I've Been to the Mountain top" speech is broken (link). Does someone have a correct link? I was unable to find it. Ryan Roos 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the reference section, these don't work tonight either:

http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=49210#49210 currently numbered 1 http://www.playboy.com/features/features/mlk/04.html currently numbered 2 http://www.historynewsnetwork.org/articles/10325.html currently numbered 16 http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-martin-luther-king.xml currently numbered 21 Also, the External link http://black-leaders.com/home/ has no obvious mention of Martin Luther King. Art LaPella 05:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The historynewsnetwork.org link (number 16) worked when I tried today. Also I doubt that the playboy.com (number 2) link is legitimate.Ryan Roos 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? It looks to me like playboy.com recently reorganized their site; the interview archive isn't shaped the way it used to be. Certainly the interview is a real thing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was to quick to discount playboy.com based on the nature of the web sites content (adult entertainment). I checked the internet archive wayback machine and found the some of the information there. Ryan Roos 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that link 16 works today. So does link 1. Art LaPella 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Length
The article is 59 kb. Does anyone else think it's too long? Maurreen 21:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it could be shorten a little bit more. I personally think if we could get this shortened to 50 KB, it would have a better shot at becoming a featured article. -- Nish kid 64 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Note 6
Can't someone do something to the link on note 6 so it doesn't extend the page's width? 81.79.110.97 11:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I shortened the appearance. It's a pretty useless link, though -- it goes to a restricted search system. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Riots
Isn't it a bit revisionist that the post-assassination riots get only one fleeting mention.... Rioting that erupted in every city across the nation, killing dozens, costing billions, causing the mobilization of the entire Army not deployed to Vietnam, and utterly destroying parts of the nation's capital and other cities. See 1968 Washington, D.C. riots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.163.64 (talk • contribs) 01:55, October 11, 2006


 * No, that's right. I remember those times when I was in high school.  This was followed by RFK's assasination and an upsurge in student and anti-war protests and the further radicalization of the African American struggle with the emergence of the Black Panthers. Seemed like there might be revolution or civil war on the agenda.Tom Cod 19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Revisionist"? Assume good faith. It could simply be an omission; I certainly hadn't thought about it one way or another until you mentioned it. Anyway, feel free to add it. You'll need to provide verifiable reliable sources for items such as "causing the mobilization of the entire army" and "costing billions"; at least according to our article, the DC riots cost some $27 million, so "billions" would mean 100 riots on the scale of DC's (just as an example of a claim that would need substantiating.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Specific Liberal Bias Complaints
This article suffers from liberal bias. Here are two clear examples:

1) The article notes that King advisers Stanley Levison and Hunter Pitts O'Dell were linked to the Communist Party USA by sworn testimony before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.  Without offering any credible evidence to the contrary, it goes on to state that HUAC was later "discredited" for using coercive tactics with witnesses (for which no reference is offered).  The implication is that the Communist Party affiliation is not credible; in fact, it does not appear to be disputed whether Levison, for one, was a communist.  See, e.g., http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/levison_stanley.htm.  The swipe at HUAC is, therefore, merely a liberal swipe at one of their prime bogeymen -- the anti-communist efforts of the 1950s.

2) Beginning with the title of this section "Authorship Issues" (no mention of the "p" word)the section goes on to state that uncredited "textual appropriation" was a "habit" of King's, which "some have criticized" but which "should not necessarily be labeled plagiarism."  Well.  Given that the Boston University review of the matter DID label it plagiarism, it is hard to see this entire section as anything other than a biased effort to minimize the significance of King's record of transcribing other authors' works without quotation or attribution.

In at least these two respects, I think this article is biased. I would go so far as to call it an uncritical and intellectually dishonest hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.213.3 (talk • contribs) 18:18, October 11, 2006
 * The plagiarism issue is dealt with in full in the main article, Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues. I've removed the "HUAC was discredited" paragraph, per your suggestion. Any other complaints? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't believe that the MLK article adequately summarizes the full article on the plagiarism. I suggest that the section head be changed to "MLK and Plagiarism" and that the paragraph read something like this:

Although not widely recognized during his lifetime, it became clear after his death that King systematically plagiarized others’ works. A 1991 article in the Journal of American History said that "plagiarism was a general pattern evident in “nearly all of his academic writings" including his doctoral dissertation. King’s plagiarism of his doctoral dissertation was officially investigated and confirmed by Boston University, which found that substantial portions of the dissertation was lifted wholesale from the work of another Boston University doctoral student named Jack Boozer. While officially acknowledging the plagiarism, Boston University stopped short of posthumously revoking Martin Luther King’s degree. One writer, Theodore Pappas, author of Plagiarism and the Culture War, states that King’s plagiarism "was an indefensible act that should warrant the revocation of his Ph.D." Others, such as Keith Miller, take a more lenient view, arguing that the practice falls within the tradition of African-American folk preaching. It is today generally accepted that, in addition to King’s doctoral thesis, many of his other writings and speeches borrowed extensively and without attribution from others.

The existing summary is just an extended rationalization and love-fest.
 * OK, then try to write one that's somwhere in the middle between the current "love-fest" and the 95% attack that you suggest. WP:NPOV and all that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's me again (logged in from a different computer). I don’t agree that my last draft was “95% attack.”  I mean – after all – if one is a systematic plagiarist, there really isn’t much to present in mitigation of that basic reality. So meeting you in some mushy middle ground does not, I think, constitute intellectual honesty or a fair presentation of the truth of the matter. The fact of the extent of the plagiarism needs to be stated plainly, and not rationalized away in a haze of equivocation, rationalization, and lame excuses. However, the two sentences regarding Pappas and Miller, being merely contrasting opinions and not facts, I suppose could be cut if you feel that would soften the “attack” aspect. Finally, IMO the existing caption to the section “Authorship Issues” is the lamest thing of all. Enough mincing words! Time to call plagiarism by its name.
 * Please sign your postings with ~ You'll need to make yourself more comfortable with the concept of WP:NPOV. What you seem to want is a condemnation. Do I read you incorrectly? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a clear and plain statement of the truth, without all the "well it wasn't really a problem, after all they didn't actually take away his PhD and really it's the done thing in African American culture." Such excuse-making is plainly biased. 71.233.85.163 03:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we're reading the same paragraph. Let's break it down:
 * 1) Since the '80s, authorship issues have arisen.
 * 2) Unnecessary aside.
 * 3) Boston U discovered he plagiarized, but declined to revoke his degree.
 * 4) King started doing this early in his academic career.
 * 5) Many of his speeches borrow heavily from other preachers and evangelists.
 * 6) This falls within the tradition of African-American preaching.
 * 7) King shoulda known better in academia, since he took a course on standards and ethics.
 * It actually seems pretty well balanced to me; the rationalization of a reliable source is presented, as is a refutation of the rationalization. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK – agreed, let’s break it down:

1) The section heading appears to have been written by counsel for the defense: “Authorship Issues” is easily skimmed by, and fails to state plainly the fact of plagiarism. Seems like a deliberate softening of the hard truth.

2) First sentence: “Beginning in the 1980s, questions have been raised regarding the authorship of King's dissertation, other papers, and his speeches.” The issue isn’t that “questions have been raised” the issue is that plagiarism has been demonstrated irrefutably.  We now have a combination of a gauzy and weak Section heading and a misleading topic sentence.  So far, the reader is not being led to the point at all.

3) The BU finding is obscured with some mealy-mouthed committee language about an “intelligent contribution to scholarship.” Nobody (certainly not I) question MLK’s intelligence: it’s the lack of academic integrity that is at issue.  The quote, again, is inserted by counsel for the defense in an attempt at mitigation.

4) Placing the opinion of Keith Miller and his excuse-making about African-American folk-preaching (something – even if true – that is irrelevant to academic standards regarding plagiarism) further softens and elides the point that MLK was a sytematic plagiarist.

5) Overall, what you have failed to do is to face the plagiarism issue squarely, acknowledge it, create context for it in terms of objective academic standards and (indeed) the fact that it is an unfortunate negative part of the legacy of a national hero. Throughout, the vagueness and ambiguity, particularly in the avoidance of labeling MLK’s conduct as plagiarism, appears to this reader to be an effort to make what defense lawyers would call “a plea in mitigation.”  Indeed, the whole paragraph appears deliberately hagiographic.

6) Why not just state the facts in a straightforward manner as I indicated, and let the reader go to the other page for further details? Why take up the role of counsel for the defense?  71.233.85.163 13:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that we're dealing with two different issues here: the academic plagiarism, which is indefensible, and the lifting of others' words in speeches and preachings, which is arguably (since someone notable has argued it) in keeping with his religious tradition. I think that's where the fuzziness you object to is coming from. By the way, I didn't write any of this material. Details: (3) regarding BU -- well, why didn't they revoke his degree? They provided a reason, and we say what that reason is. (4) is called providing a neutral point of view. (5) isn't our job. If "hagiography" was desired, there'd be no mention of the plagiarism at all -- especially since it doesn't really have any impact on the man and his accomplishments; as an academic, yes, he's cheat, but his reknown isn't based on his academic background, but rather on his (generally ghostwritten) words and his presentation of them. I actually think the summary is pretty well balanced, as I said. The facts are laid out sparsely; responses are also mentioned briefly; and the reader is directed to a fuller discussion. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, like Moses, his legacy is based on his leading his people to freedom along with others.Tom Cod 06:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

________

Well M. Gordon, I respectfully disagree for the reasons stated above. But since this article is not open source, evidently no changes will be forthcoming, this would appear to be the time to retreat from the field. 71.233.85.163 23:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is open source, like pretty much everything on Wikipedia. But almost every edit from non-registered users has been vandalism -- I'd put it in the range of 95% -- so editing the article is simply a matter of registering a userid and waiting a few days. So why not just register? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so terrible to criticize MLK? The guy did a good thing w/e but he wasn't soley responsible, he wasn't a saint, and he wasn't infallible. He plagarised bottom line softening it is pointless, insulting and it only serves to spread ignorance. Should BU posthumously retract his degree? Of course not. Should they have done it sooner? Probably. Is it pointless now? Yes. Should it still be mentioned and discussed? Duh this whole site is about collecting and centralizing information whether it be obscure, pointless, basic, controversial, or purely acedemic. MLK great guy but he was still a person who made mistakes intentionally or not.
 * Who said it's terrible to criticize MLK? Who said his plagiarism shouldn't be mentioned and discussed? It already is mentioned and discussed. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is that King is a known plagiarist, and thus referring to his plagiarism as "authorship issues" is a way of trying to gloss over a discomforting fact.
 * Yours is a legitimate point; but I'd be more comfortable discussing it with somebody not hiding behind anonymity.--Orange Mike 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's referred to plagiarism on other biographies where there is less evidence. See Steven Ambrose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Ambrose
 * Yes, and the word "plagiarism" appears three times in the section in question; now that it's in the header, it's mentioned four times. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Slandering or truth?
Quote from the article: "Beginning in the 1980s, questions have been raised regarding the authorship of King's dissertation, other papers, and his speeches. (Though not widely known during his lifetime, most of his published writings during his civil rights career were ghostwritten, or at least heavily adapted from his speeches."

"Ghostwritten" by whom? Can this be proven? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.173.229.169 (talk • contribs).
 * This statement requires a citation to back up its allegation. I will add a  tag.  --  Dcflyer 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The ghostwriter, at least some of the time, was Bayard Rustin. See, for example. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and let's hope that our critic is really concerned about plagiarism and not trolling to find some basis to attack someone who rightly deserves to be a cultural icon for his leadership of the civil rights movement for which he sacrificed his life. Virtually all political leaders, including JFK, use speechwrites and ghostwriters.  For example it has been said that "Profiles in Courage" was written by Theodore Sorenson.  Granted, plagiariam of an academic work obviously is a little more serious, if true and not actually maliciously fabricated.  Nonetheless, it entirely trivializes these historic figures to dwell extensively on these personal transgressions which is generally the intention of those who seek to dig up and trumpet them  (prior to this, it was that he had sex with a woman other than his wife on at least one occasion). For example the attacks on King emanate from those who had nothing but contempt for the civil rights struggle.  Thus Reagan beginning his campaign in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the heartland of segregationist resistance to that struggle in the mid-60s and his boorish comment in 1968 after King was assasinated that we should not revere someone who thinks he can pick and choose what laws to obey.  By that logic the Jews should have respected the Nuremberg laws.  As far as Communists, always a small and misguided minority, being involved in that struggle;  hey, that's true to some extent and redounds to their credit to that degree.  Why didn't more "anti-communists" get involved in that struggle: because these critics tended to be racist redneck oppressors who supported segregation and used communism and red-baiting as another excuse for their backwardness.  King got the Nobel Peace Prize, George Wallace and Jesse Helms didn't. Actually, most of the leaders of the civil rights movement were not Communists at all but mainstream "liberals" and other concerned people of good will.  Taylor Branch's Eyes on the Prize is an excellent history of this.  King not a saint?  see below.  I'm sure a close scrutiny of any saint would reveal an imperfect human being and that sainthood may be a flawed concept. Tom Cod 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, what does this have to do with the fact that King used a ghostwriter? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is that important?Tom Cod 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The question asked here was straightforward: did King actually use a ghostwriter, as is asserted in the article. What does your comment have to do with the question? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It expresses my opinion of that question and its context. Tom Cod


 * Oh. What is the relevance of your opinion to the question of whether King used a ghostwriter? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you're not getting it. My opinion is that I don't care if he used a ghostwriter or not.  Surely he had to.  A person in his position would simply not have had the time to do all that writing.  Thus most Presidents' speeches are almost all written by others who are hired for that purpose.  For an example of King's ideas that could not have been ghostwritten see Letter From a Birmingham Jail [] Tom Cod 06:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, OK. Then what's your point? What suggestion do you have to improve the article? Are you suggesting we not mention it at all, because you don't care and because your conclusion is that he had to? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is a good article and this issue seems fairly treated based on what I know of it. My comments were in response to certain polemics posted above.  Thank you. Tom Cod 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh! In that case, sorry for my tone. Oh, the hell with it. Sorry for my tone regardless. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Martin Luther King, Jr.
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  18:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Canonized by Anglicans?
In 1980 I went to Canterbury, England the heart or "vatican", to the extent there is one, of the Church of England or the "Anglican" communion aka the Episcopal Church in the U.S., which I was a part of during my years at Church Farm School and where I was at the age of 15 when King was assasinated in 1968. Thus I was most impressed when visiting Canterbury to see in the same venue where St. Thomas Becket and other medieval saints are buried, in a cathedral built circa 1100 A.D., that there is a shrine to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Tom Cod 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He's also included in the statues of 20th-century martyrs at Westminster Abbey. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Newsweek and Abernathy about King
" January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme Court, listening as lawyers argued New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case rising out of King's crusade against segregation in Alabama. The minister was something of an honored guest: Justice Arthur Goldberg quietly sent down a copy of Kings account of the Montgomery bus boycott, "Stride Toward Freedom," asking for an autograph. That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries of 'I'm f--ing for God' and 'I'm not a Negro tonight!' " (01/19/98 Newsweek, Page 62)

It is said that King's close personal friend, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, in his 1989 book, "And the walls came tumbling down.", claimed that King used church money to hire prostitutes and beat them.

I didn't read this book. Does anybody know about this ?

Marvoir 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to be real careful with what the FBI claims its bugs picked up -- essentially, the FBI is not a reliable source regarding King. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Was it proved that the FBI slandered King ? Were FBI men condemned therefore ? And what about the (alleged) claims of Rev. Ralph Abernathy ?

Marvoir 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) "Much has been written in recent years about my friend's weakness for women. Had others not dealt with the matter in such detail, I might have avoided any commentary. Unfortunately, some of these commentators have told only the bare facts without suggesting the reasons why Martin might have indulged in such behavior. They have also left a false impression about the range of his activities." "Martin and I were away more often than we were at home; and while this was no excuse for extramarital relations, it was a reason. Some men are better able to bear such deprivations than others, though all of us in SCLC headquarters had our weak moments. We all understood and believed in the biblical prohibition against sex outside of marriage. It was just that he had a particularly difficult time with that temptation." "In addition to his personal vulnerability, he was also a man who attracted women, even when he didn't intend to, and attracted them in droves. Part of his appeal was his predominant role in the black community and part of it was personal. During the last ten years of his life, Martin Luther King was the most important black man in America. That fact alone endowed him with an aura of power and greatness that women found very appealing. He was a hero — the greatest hero of his age — and women are always attracted to a hero." "But he also had a personal charm that ingratiated him with members of the opposite sex. He was always gracious and courteous to women, whether they were attractive to him or not. He had perfect manners. He was well educated. He was warm and friendly. He could make them laugh. He was good company, something that cannot always be said of heroes. These qualities made him even more attractive in close proximity than he was at a distance." Then, too, Martin's own love of women was apparent in ways that could not be easily pinpointed — but which women clearly sensed, even from afar. I remember on more than one occasion sitting on a stage and having Martin turn to me to say, "Do you see that woman giving me the eye, the one in the red dress?" I wouldn't be able to pick her out at such a distance, but already she had somehow conveyed to him her attraction and he in turn had responded to it. Later I would see them talking together, as if they had known one another forever. I was always a little bewildered at how strongly and unerringly this mutual attraction operated. A recent biography has suggested without quite saying so that Martin had affairs with white women as well as black. Such a suggestion is without foundation. I can say with the greatest confidence that he was never attracted to white women and had nothing to do with them, despite the opportunities that may have presented themselves. Of course, J. Edgar Hoover became preoccupied with Martin's private life early in the civil rights movement, and this preoccupation was a significant factor in Hoover's pathological hatred of him and the movement he headed. Early in the game the FBI began to bug our various hotel rooms, hoping to discover our strategy but also to gather evidence that could be used against Martin personally. "I remember in particular a stay at the Willard Hotel in Washington, where they not only put in audio receivers, but video equipment as well. Then, after collecting enough of this 'evidence' to be useful, they began to distribute it to reporters, law officers, and other people in a position to hurt us. Finally, when no one would do Hoover's dirty work for him, someone in the FBI put together a tape of highly intimate moments and sent them to Martin. Unfortunately — and perhaps this was deliberate — [his wife] Coretta received the tape and played it first. But such accusations never seemed to touch her. She rose above all the petty attempts to damage their marriage by refusing to even entertain such thoughts." Essentially, the "beating prostitutes" crap is just that -- crap, and racist crap at that. Pretty commonly disseminated among the negro-hating crowd, though. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard to "condemn" a dead man, and King's primary adversary at the FBI was J. Edgar Hoover. There is a ton of material out there about Hoover's obsession with discrediting King. As far as the Abernathy is concerned, I don't know, I also haven't read the book. However, here's a relevant excerpt from the Abernathy book:

Thank you. In section 6, one should perhaps write (rather than "It isn't clear if King actually engaged in extramarital affairs or not.") :

" Ralph David Abernathy did acknowledge in his 1989 autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down, that Martin Luther King engaged in extramarital affairs (evidence of which was sometimes recorded by the FBI through hotel room bugs) : ' We all understood and believed in the biblical prohibition against sex outside of marriage. It was just that he had a particularly difficult time with that temptation. (...) A recent biography has suggested without quite saying so that Martin had affairs with white women as well as black. Such a suggestion is without foundation. I can say with the greatest confidence that he was never attracted to white women and had nothing to do with them, despite the opportunities that may have presented themselves. '

These acknowledgements of Abernathy are often referred to in an abusive manner. " Marvoir 11:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why bother with it at all? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Because what Abernathy said is often referred to in an abusive manner on the internet. Marvoir 16:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that, actually -- stuff that Abernathy didn't say at all is invented. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a second reason, which I forgot : the sentence "It isn't clear if King actually engaged in extramarital affairs or not" in the article seems wrong. Marvoir 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm trying to figure out the minimum to say about it. If the liars weren't all over it, I'd say "it's just smut, who cares, leave it out." It's not like there's any contradiction between fighting for civil rights and being a horndog. (Hell, getting laid was a prime motivator for a lot of young activists, and probably still is. I could tell you about some peace marches in the '60s...) You're right, though; the section as written is very problematic, and the liars need a refutation here if only because, if we're silent about it, someone will come along and put in the lies. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

From Michael to Martin Luther
King was born in Atlanta, Georgia to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Sr. and Alberta Williams King. (Birth records for Martin Luther King, Jr. list his name as Michael.) This is lazy "research," as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s father was named Michael, too, at the time of his birth. When King, Sr. changed his name to "Martin Luther", he changed his son's, too. There should be some reference to the fact that this was done in homage to the founder of Lutheranism. --Boondigs 12:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lazy research? Hm. Here's Martin Luther King, Sr., speaking to the New York Post in 1957: I had been known as Michael Luther King or "Mike" up until I was 22 . . . when one day my father, James Albert King, told me: 'You aren't named Mike or Michael either. Your name is Martin Luther King. Your mother just called you Mike for short.' I was elated to know that I had really been named for the great leader of the Protestant Reformation, but there was no way of knowing if papa had made a mistake after all. Neither of my parents could read or write and they kept no record of Negro births in our backwoods county . . . I gladly accepted Martin Luther King as my real name and when M.L. was born, I proudly named him Martin Luther King, Jr. But it was not until 1934, when I was seeking my first passport . . . that I found out that Dr. Johnson, who delivered M.L., had listed him in the city records as Michael Luther King, Jr., because he thought that was my real name. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Niether "senior" nor "junior" ever legally change their names. MLK jr only began using the name "martin luther" when he became a minister.Ernham 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true. Why would his father lie about it? That Dr. Johnson made a mistake doesn't mean that was his "legal name". Feel free to find any actual evidence that MLK Jr. ever used the name Michael or that he was called Michael by anyone ever. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, there's no evidence that Michael was ever MLK Sr's name; he was called Mike by his Mom, but there's no birth records or anything else for him. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been trying to find the true story of MLK's name. What the article currently says is that it was a birth certificate mistake, but I have found no evidence of this whatsoever - even the cited source does not say so:  http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp  The most consistent story I've found is something similar to a 2002 article in Time:  "Born Jan. 15, 1929, in a middle-class Georgia family active for two generations in the civil rights cause, he was the second child and first-born son, named after his father, Michael Luther King. The elder King, pastor of Atlanta's Evenezer Baptist Church, changed both their names when Martin was five to honor the Reformation rebel who mailed his independent declaration to the Castle Church." (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101850101-194842,00.html)  I would edit the W. article but I'm not sure enough of anything. --mp
 * But the Snopes thing says exactly that, at least in quoting King Sr.:  found out that Dr. Johnson, who delivered M.L., had listed him in the city records as Michael Luther King, Jr., because he thought that was my real name. My guess is we need to go to (gasp) a Real Book and see what the scholarly biographies say. Time isn't exactly solid in their sourcing either, unfortunately. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice User:Ernham is adding the "Michael" stuff again. Please cite your sources on this or it will be reverted. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther King and White America
He was a great activist and a charasmatic speaker, but one must always be careful with the word "charasmatic" because their are connotations to that word that make those labeled as such hypnotic to their followers. Another problem with the deification of such a figure raises issues of white supremacy. Why does Martin Luther King have a holiday and not Malcolm X? Why are we taught about Booker T. Washington and Madame C.J. Walker, but not Marcus Garvey, bell hooks, and Margaret Garner? The reason is that the education system is still under white supremacist rule and while the majority of the school year is spent covering European domanance throughout history in required courses such as social studies and world history classes, only a small fraction of that time (black history month) is spent learning about the same few african americans who didn't pose much of a threat to white rule. Of course Marcus Garvey, Nat Turner, Malcolm X, Margaret Garner and bell hooks aren't offered holidays or taught to students in public schools to the extent that the appeasing, obedient blacks are; the ones who only want live in peace with a group of people who gained promanence in America by killing off its earlier inhabitants and going to far away places to dehumanize other human beings and make them life long slaves. And their descendents sit in classroom chairs and learn about the "feats" of their ancestors while saying that racism died with the civil rights movement. Please. As long as whites benefit from violent acts of oppression and dehumanization they will do all they can to keep the beneficial system in place...even if it is at a subconscious level and even if they have to excuse the violent acts of teir ancestors in the process. And the way to do that effectively is to hail the appeasing minorities as models of perfection. That is my opinion on the matter and I think the mystery of his "mystical" mass appeal should be allowed to enter into the discussion of his legacy. Timeloss 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What particular suggestions do you have for improving the article? That's pretty vague. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is basically that in the "legacy" section where other leaders such as Malcolm X are attacked for disagreeing with King it should be noted that part of his legacy and increased popularity after his death has to do with whites feeling comfortable with him. He did not threaten them and because of that he is hailed above all other black leaders in mainstream america.Timeloss 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. If you can provide verifiable reliable sources asserting what you claim, then it might fit well into the article. I'm not disagreeing with your position -- it's certainly an interesting point of view -- but we don't get to put our own opinions or analyses on article pages. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I assumed that it was a given that whites are more accepting of Martin Luther King than Malcolm X but I will find a verifiable source that has the same opinion.  I also assumed that it had something to do with the fact that Martin posed no physical or emotional threat to whites while Malcolm stated: "By any means necessary."  But I could be wrong.  I'll look it up.Timeloss 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He posed a helluva threat to the white establishment of that day, not to mention a lot of conservative whites (Southern and otherwise) who feared what he represented. Read up on the threats to his life in Chicago, etc.! Do you really think his ignorant assassin acted alone?--Orange Mike 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes he was perpetuating ideas that separatists resented, but he always gave whites a CHOICE whether or not to treat blacks with dignity. Just as Booker T. Washington—after slavery was OVER and blacks were supposedly free—asserted that newly freed men who had spent a lifetime of degradation now carried the burden of proof; they had to prove that they were worthy of freedom through tireless efforts to live up to whites ideals of successful capitalists.  Again, Booker T. gave whites a CHOICE whether or not they would treat blacks as if they were "free" even though on paper they already were.  Malcolm gave no choices; treat us like human beings or else we will gain power the same way your ancestors systematically gained theirs; through violence and force.Timeloss 05:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's still a choice, though: treat you like human beings, or kill, or be killed. Not a very pleasant choice -- but certainly a lot of people would have chosen to fight. Those speaking from a religious point of view also offered a choice: treat you like human beings or burn in hell -- and certainly a lot of people would have chosen to burn in hell; bigotry is like that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually Timeloss, that "by any means necessary" quote is usually misused and out of context. But your point is taken, there is no question that Malcolm represented a more militant, separatist part of the civil rights movement.  That being said, after he leaves/gets kicked out of the Nation of Islam and goes on pilgrimage to Mecca in 1964 he begins to recast his "us vs. them" rhetoric in his public speeches. Look at Haley's afterword in the autobiography and the last speeches (his last given before he was assasinated)in Bruce Perry"s "Malcolm X: The Last Speeches" (New York: Pathfinder, 1989) as source.  He even begins to talk with Dr. King in '65 after having publicly decried him. I think you're relying too much on "Autobiography" for your source. Reverendmhamm 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What Martin understood was that even if the militant wing of the civil rights movement were to somehow prevail, it would be a hollow victory. Societies that live by the sword most likely will perish in revolt. Martin wanted to build a just society built around his faith in the human spirit. After all he was a Baptist preacher who loved the Lord!

What's the class?
It seems that this article is simultaneously rated A-class and B-class. Any explanation? --Lenoxus 19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Conspiracy Facts
Will someone please verify/add these facts? Also, if "Ray's petty criminal history had been one of colossal and repeated ineptitude; he'd been quickly and easily apprehended each time he committed an offense", how was he still on the run from the cops after escaping from prison? And even though the witnesses said it came from the bushes, the famous picture of them pointing toward the window, because the investigators asked them at the scene where they heard the shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.137.215 (talk • contribs) 22:41, November 21, 2006
 * Ray had band-aids in the bundle of evidence, he had committed past crimes where he covered his fingerprints with them, this explains the lack of fingerprints in the bathroom and how only two of his were found on the gun.
 * Ray had purchased binoculars with the same scope of the rifle on the same day King was assassinated.
 * Ray's Mustang was actually reasonably far away, someone took his spot next to the front door of the rooming house so he had to repark farther away, and he may have been scared from the immediate police response, dropping the framing conspiracy "bundle"


 * Verifying these items is your job if you want them added. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Double section: March on Washington/Rustin
Hello

I am currently viewing this page as I have to gather information for a report and found that there were some entries double-present. One of them was even mixed up with another one (which was already listed above) so I deleted them both.
 * Thanks. Probably happened as a result of someone (me, as likely as not) too quickly reverting vandalism. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello... I see that The March On Washington is still there twice... well

Zionist
I just reverted the addition of "Zionists" category. Although King opposed anti-Semitism (even when cloaked in the name "anti-Zionism"), I could not find any reference to his being part of the political movement known as Zionism. If you replace the category, please cite a source. --Grahamtalk/mail/ e 02:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This quote was spoken by Martin Luther King Jr. in response to a question at Harvard University: "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism." from [The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel" by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24] I believe this quote makes him a zionist.--Sefringle 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that it was in the 1960s, when such a broad statement may have been more mainstream and factual when speaking in geneal. So, no, i don't think this singular quote makes him a Zionist, assuming it is even real. I have yet to find a decent cite for it. Ernham 08:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Serial Womanizer
Anyone who has studied Dr king jr knows he was a womanizer, i feel like that isnt really stressed in this article whatsoever. I added it in the introduction section, and some selfrightous person came and immidaitly swept it under the carpet, i feel like it should be put back in. I also feel a more comprehensive piece of writing should be added about his affairs with women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 16:08, December 3, 2006


 * Well, the only places one sees the phrase "serial womanizer" associated with King are Nazi sites and blogs, so there's no reliable source for the characterization. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't stressed in the introduction because (even if true) it is a very trivial part of his life. The phrase "serial womanizer" itself is as blatant a violation of the NPOV guidelines as one could ask. Nobody but a small coterie of radical King-haters cares much about this aspect of his life and career, compared to all his other contributions. Failing to highlight the allegation in the brief opening section is not "sweeping it under the carpet." -- Orange Mike 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would pretty much disagree with you orange mike, it underpinned about the 10 most important years of his life as he was blackmailed (or at least an attempted to be) by hoover, people are determined to remember him as great, and he was great, but lets not kid ourselves, lets not sweep it under the carpet. The term "serial womanizer" is the opinionated, but only seemingly correct terminology for it. A better phrase might be a "secret womanizer", which takes all malice out of the statement, however correct the malice is. Respect these words, thank you - Olir

FBI
Weren't the FBI guys those who killed Martin Luther King jr? --John Knife 21:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Further Challenges
I removed a sentence stating that King compared American involvement in Vietnam to Nazi use of concentration camps. The actual statement by King was: "What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medic ine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe?" It is a more specific comparison, and the sentence that I removed - "He once even equated U.S. involvement in Vietnam to Nazi Germany's use of concentration camps. (Quoted in Lind, 1999)" - makes his statement sound absurd by making it much more general (Of course, one could take issue with the source: "Vietnam: The Necessary War" is probably a book that could be judged by its cover). --Thucydides411 06:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Dr." King?
Why does the article refer to King as "Dr." King in the intro (and throughout the body)? Einstein and Salk aren't called "Dr. Einstein" or "Dr. Salk". I'm sure this has been well-discussed, but if someone could point me to the discussion, I'd like to see it. Much thanks. Phiwum 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the title by which he's been normally referred to for decades now. Most Baptist ministers do not have doctorates (a college degree is not a prequisite of the ministry, in Baptist tradition), and I assume that his admirers were prone to using it as a way of emphasizing his learnéd status. -- Orange Mike 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s denominational connection
The article is in error in stating that he was a Southern Baptist minister. He was an American Baptist minister. Very few Southern Baptist Churches of his day would have welcomed him. 209.247.23.23 13:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Robert G. Robertson


 * Nope, he was a National Baptist, not American. Support for (or refusal to support) his movement led to the creation of the Progressive National Baptists; so I fixed the link. -- Orange Mike 03:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (a Southern Baptist by upbringing)