Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 5

Merger proposal- Plagiarism
Suggesting merging the separate plagiarism, page into the MLK main article. Assuming most traffic to the plagiarism page is generated from linking from the main page. Users searching for information unlikely to independently search for plagiarism article. Would serve Wikipedia to consolidate articles. Asserting that separate article not of sufficient independent weight to justify listing separately. Existing sections in plagiarism article would become subsections of plagiarism section in main article. Bsherr 01:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Be boldDie4Dixie 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But don't be confused about why separate articles such as this exist. The plagiarism itself is worthy of discussion and documentation,  but we need to be careful about giving it undue weight within the main article; though there's a lot of talk about it, there's considerable disagreement here as to whether the plagiarism is particularly significant in the overall picture of the life and work of King. Subtopics are how we deal with that; that nobody would search for the particular title is not relevant, as (for example) a Google search for King + plagiarism would find the article immediately. (The next thing it would find is the Nazi-owned site, martinlutherking.org.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently we have two editors who feel strongly against much mention of the plagiarism issue, one editor who feels that it should be mentioned and linked to at the time the degree is mentioned, and another who can't see what the fuss about mentioning it then would be.One who Googled King, not aware of the plagiarism issue to know to search for him and plagiarism together might not wade all the way through the article to find it.Die4Dixie 21:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a long history of the plagiarism issue being used as a club with which to beat down King's entire lifework. With honorable exceptions on both flanks, the amount of emphasis put on this issue seems to roughly correlate with how much King and the civil rights movement are hated. -- Orange Mike 21:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this to much emphasis, or would this user and I both be haters of civil rights and King?:


 * "   I think I'd have to agree with Die4Dixie here. The fact that plagiarism was found in his dissertation is relevant and can be mentioned in passing as soon as the degree is mentions. Something like:


 * In September 1951, King began doctoral studies in Systematic Theology at Boston University and received his Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) on June 5, 1955 (but see #Plagiarism for controversy regarding this degree).


 * Such a parenthetical remark would not, in my opinion, violate the undue weight principle. Phiwum 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC) "

My edit was made in good faith, the reasons are out lined above.I have no issue with King nor with civil rights. I don't see how candid acknowledgment of the controversy when the degree is mentioned detracts from his life's work; however, I do think obfuscating and hiding the controversy is a disservice to the truth. You seem to equate those who want to minimize his plagiarism with the only true lovers of civil rights, and those that want it to be discussed in a candid and frank manner as haters of King and civil rights. I reject your sweeping statement, and I categorically deny that I hate King or Civil Rights. Now do you feel that Phiwum's suggestion to be the hallmark of a hater of civil rights or do you now accuse me of bad faith in my edit? Or will you publicly assume good faith on both our parts, graciously put us into the "honorable exceptions" to your rule, or adjudicate that what I want added would not trigger the placement in either of your categories?Die4Dixie 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't think the two should be merged. As jpgordon wrote, it is common practice to "spin" a section into a new article when the section becomes sufficiently long. As an example, see Conservative Judaism, which has led to Conservative Halakha (Conservative Judaism's approach to Jewish law) and Criticism of Conservative Judaism. Each of those articles has a brief summary in Conservative Judaism (Jewish law and Criticism) with a "Main article" link at the top. (Full disclosure: In April I proposed moving the "Criticism" article back into the main article. And I was told many of these same things.)
 * As it stands, this article is already 20 "screens" long on my monitor (that doesn't include the Notes, References, or External links sections). I'm not sure that the addition of 3 more "screens" about King's plagiarism would be helpful. To be honest, if I had the time I would create a few new articles about King and Vietnam, King's Chicago project, King and the FBI, and the King assassination and shorten this article considerably.
 * 2) As I wrote in an earlier section, I think WP:Undue weight is an important consideration. Moving that material into this article gives King's plagiarism more emphasis in this article (based on text-length and "screens") than his Civil rights activism. I think this article is already out of balance (the assassination section is nearly as long as the civil rights section, and the King/FBI section half as long), but I don't think there's any good reason to go out of our way to make the plagiarism much longer. I think the current plagiarism paragraph should be a little more substantive, but I don't think it should be emphasized the way it would be if the two articles were merged.
 * 3) The plagiarism article is not just about King's plagiarism but about the media's response to it and questions about whether King's (white) professors held him to a lower standard because he was Black. If the two articles were merged, I'm not sure that those sorts of issues would be appropriate in a biographical article about King — but they're entirely appropriate in an article about King's plagiarism. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, we actually agree on something. I really don't think merging would be the best for the articles for the reason of undue weight. I think the plagiarism section is poorly written and should be worked on bearing in mind all the things said. I still think that the degree being mentioned should link to the section on plagiarism, which is all I've really maintained all along. Nothing partisan, just my humble opinion. I was really burned up when I felt that there was a lack of assumption of good faith for my original edit. I had had very little experience editing at that point, and not much more now. This discussion has taught me a lot about Wikipedia. I do see that the way that I wanted to mention it would not have been the best way to do it; however, the proposal of Phywim seems to me to be logical. I really don't see how you can mention the degree and not at the same time link to the controversy. I don't think it is POV to acknowledge the controversy when the controversial item is mentioned.Die4Dixie 00:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I concur that Phiwun's suggestion is a sound one, and well thought-out. None of the haters has bothered to kick in on this discussion so far; there's certainly no evidence that Bsherr, you or Phiwum falls into that category. -- Orange Mike 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, none at all. Assuming good faith is probably as hard on this article as in any on Wikipedia, because it's been subject to so much purely hateful attention. What we have going on here is a perfectly reasonable discussion on how best to present certain facts in an article. Maintaining the neutral point of view is tricky; "undue weight" isn't always easy to determine. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been mulling over Die4Dixie's comments and Phiwum's suggestion for a while, and I think is a good one. It's probably appropriate to give some mention of the controversy concerning the work that led to King's degree when we mention the degree, and I think Phiwum's wording does that without giving King's plagiarism undue weight. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Now we all wikilink cyberhands and sing "We Shall Overcome", right? All joking aside, I'm glad we've found a satisfactory way to handle this explosive topic. -- Orange Mike 13:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too. It's good to see that everyone in this discussion was civil and assumed good faith, since, as has been said, this is often a divisive side issue to King's legacy. Phiwum 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With the link in where it is, and the plagiarism issue having been brought up after his death, does the section need to appear on a page devoted to his biography? Perhaps the link could just go to the plagiarism/ authorship page? This would allow the reader to know that there is a controversy and if he is interested, he would be able to find it. Perhaps it could also then be linked from the See also links. What do you think, since this is not some thing that I have the experience to judge.02:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
 * I don't have any particular opinion about moving the target for my link, but I suspect others may complain that sending the reader to another full article on the issue exaggerates its importance. I don't think there's any need to put it on the "see also" list.  That seems like going overboard to make sure that no one misses the article, which is already mentioned in the text in a section devoted to the topic (and now there's an additional in-text link to that section).  Putting yet another prominent link to the article seems just one step shy of using the blink tag wherever it is mentioned.  Phiwum 11:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I never thought about it like that, but I can see how that wouldn't work like I thought it might. I was talking about the removal of the whole subsection related to it on his page . My suggestion was one trying to reduce the amount of play that it was getting on his page. Thanks for showing me how it would have the opposite effect, which is not anything that I want. You're exactly right.Die4Dixie 16:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that while the undue weight consideration is an appealing one, the use of a subpage here could nonetheless be prohibited content forking. See Content forking. While I'm not outright suggesting that it is indeed content forking--it seems to me that, in fact, there is a very thoughtful discussion taking place--it is helpful to bear this concept in mind when considering the alternative justification for the subpage--that the subpage is a spinout, as suggested in above discussion. Again, see Content forking for description of spinouts. I would point out, however, that no other section seems to have been similarly treated (though, for example, the list of honorary degrees would readily qualify as a list subpage). Also, the subpage is not long, nor is the main MLK article, though this is a subjective measure. See Article size. But I would point out that the King and FBI section is approximately the same length as the authorship issues subpage. I asked you to bear in mind my mention of content forking. I would suggest that the use of a subpage for the authorship issues, but not for the similarly sized FBI section, indicates that this may be closer to a content forking issue than not. If merging the subpage into the main article presents an undue weight concern, the best solution may be to lengthen the other secions of the MLK article, if anything. But I appreciate the discussion above! Thoughts? Bsherr 22:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bsherr, I'm in the middle of midterms now, and can't participate fully in the process. When I'm finished, sometime next week, I'll review the issues and see. I am an inexperienced editor, so the other maybe able to offer more informed opinions at this point. Happy editing.Die4Dixie 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

You have invoked "Political Correctness" in the "MLK authorship" section, therefore you cannot merge it with the main site. -dja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.1.48 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Looking through the revisions on plagiarism, there is constant and considerable change in content and form. From Animal Farm to white radio Evangelists to the amount detail on the I Have A Dream Speech to include. . . On and on. If it can't even be agree on what belongs in the plagiarism section, how can it be considered for merger with the main MLK article? It's not ready for primetime.

Merge proposal abandonment

 * Although I’m a fairly experienced Wikipedia author, I’m a newcomer to this article as well as the “authorship issues”. I, for one, am pleased and impressed with the content of both articles. I found exactly what I hoped for at each article. I don’t favor the merge. I also note that the last signed comment on the proposal to merge was 12 Oct. 2001, which is 140 days ago. Accordingly, the merge proposal should be considered as abandoned. I might add these observations: I think the authorship issues article seemed factual and balanced. As such, it seems fair. I also believe that the size of authorship issues would be comparatively too great relative to the other sections of this article and therefore would be disproportionate treatment. I also find the 95-word stub currently here to be borderline too small—even considering that it directs to an expanded treatment elsewhere. Other than a modest increase in the size of the stub section, the current arrangement seems to be the most appropriate way of handling this. Again, given that there has been no activity by registered authors for 140 days, I’ve removed the merge tag for being an abandoned issue. I suggest that if the merge tag is added, that the issue be aggressively worked and resolved within 30 days or again be withdrawn. Greg L (my talk) 03:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of rumors that are often spread attacking Martin Luther King (a la http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/mlk.htm) it seems like there should be a controversy section in this article that clarifies the accounts of plagiarism, adultery, and ties to the communist party (and his legal name, if anybody really cares). There is the section on plagiarism, but the truth about the other two allegations is hard to find tucked within the FBI section. 132.162.219.108 (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems proper that there should be some reference to the accusations of sexual impropriety in the life of Dr. King. These have been substantiated by the FBI, Coretta Scott King and many of King's closest friends and advisors. Does this change the good things that King has done? Of course not. But these do merit some weight in considering his character in light or academic and historical scrutiny. While no one has provided substantial evidence of his supposed fascination with prostitutes, it is undeniable that King engaged in numerous sexual activities with women. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover attempted to use this information against King (especially survellance evidence that indicated sexual encounters with multiple white women -- quite taboo at the time). According to friends of King, this sent him into a deep and severe depression and limited his public appearances in the last year of his life.

It seems that this sort of information would be relevant to the article and provide some semblance of academic and historical credibility about the controversies surrounding King's life. Perhaps this could be merged with the plagiarism section, forming a new section entitled CONTROVERSIES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.94.220.7 (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) "Controversies" sections are very strongly discouraged. Information about a subject's life is integrated into the article, not walled off. 2) The sexual aspects of his life are minor in the context of the whole; a whole section about it violates our undue emphasis guidelines. (And J. Edgar Hoover's accusations do not constitute "substantiation" of much of anything.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Error in article
In the 'Civil rights activism' section, third paragraph, it mentions that King went to "alabama" to visit the Gandhi family. Aside from the non capitalisation, I rather suspect this should read "India", as is mentioned a few lines later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.74.59 (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just some everyday vandalism. Thanks! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Mays delivered King's eulogy. The article states King delivered his own via pre-recorded.sermon

I don't know if this can be called an error, but I feel that under the 'Legacy' section, accusations of infidelity should be removed unless the author has a source to back it up. I hate to think of it causing negative ideas about MLK to brew in people's minds when we don't have any evidence. 99.227.222.213 (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Andrew Dawson

Semi-protected
I've semi-protected this for a week, due to the barrage of idiotic vandalism. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another problem was the duplicity of the city leaders. Abernathy and King secured agreements on action to be taken, but this action was subverted after-the-fact by politicians within Mayor Richard J. Daley's corrupt machine.

that is an opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyp1 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Biography section it says that Martin King changed his son's and his own name to "Martin" whereas it should say "Martin Luther". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.97.253 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?
why does it say that Martin Luther King. Jr. is a leader of the American Animal Rights movement? I'm pretty sure he led some other movement... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.115 (talk) 19:55, December 1, 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the result of someone vandalizing the article. It was only there for sixty-five minutes, and the account responsible has been indefinitely blocked from editing, but we do need to keep a closer eye on things. — Satori Son 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

stormfrontery
Looks like we had a link to the Stormfront site sitting here for almost a month. It's not suitable for blacklisting, as it's not been spammed, but we need to be more careful patrolling the page for edits such as this one. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is wrong with the site referenced other than being controversial? Is there hard eveidence somewhere that this wasn't true?Commment (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The site isn't just "controversial"; it's an attack site maintained by a group of neo-Nazis out to dirty King's reputation. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's completely inappropriate for us to link to it. — Satori Son 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Saint
I readded the Saint infobox because Martin Luther King Jr. does have a memorial in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (see references at the info box). This is the closest thing that Episcopal Church in the United States of America has two a canonization process and the Saints Portal on wikipedia says concerning the definition of a saint: "This portal covers saints recognized by at least one Christian denomination, either by being commemorated in their liturgical calendar or being recognized as a saint by one or more Christian churches." Unfortunately I will not be on the internet after today until after Jan. 20th, but given what I just said I don't think the info box should be controversial.Commment (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To be frank, I'm dubious about this and was tempted to remove it, but there's no real harm in leaving it until Commment returns and provides additional supporting info. Cgingold (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I haven't replied earlier. I think that I just looked and saw that the saint box had not been removed and therefore thought there was no further dispute. At this point adding any more might be useless, but just in case the question is still at all up in the air, I think that the fact that he is commemorated as a martyr in both the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches and that orginally saints were merely martyrs whose martyrdom was commemerated ("Initially, the term was used to describe those who had been martyrs for the faith. Other believers would gather at the martyr’s grave, and celebrate the Eucharist there.") it is fitting to call him a saint.  Also the following article provided in the wiki by someone else gives a basic overview of the canonization process in the Episcopal Church and is evidence that King underwent it.  http://www.morganhilltimes.com/lifestyles/178715-what-it-takes-to-become-a-saint

Commment (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Assassination
Unlike many other leading 20th century figures who were assassinated (JFK, RFK, Gandhi, Palme, Rabin, etc.), MLK does not have a separate article about his assassination. (see Category:assassinations). Especially considering the great length of this article, I think it would make a lot of sense to split off the existing section as a free-standing article, leaving behind a good summary, of course. I would hardly take such a major step without prior discussion, so I would like to know if there are any serious objections to doing this before I proceed. (Btw, I looked through all of the archived discussions to see if this had ever come up, but found no mention of it.) Cgingold (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created the article here - Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination. Remember (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A user quickly redirected this page, but I put it back up. Please let me know if editors fell that this page should not exist on either this page or the assassination talk page. Remember (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because the new article appears to be simply a copy of the text in here, which is a maintenance problem. How about significantly shortening the section in this article? Rich257 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't have time to do this now, but if someone else could I would greatly appreciate it. Remember (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Footer created
I created a footer for King at Template:Martin Luther King and you can see an example of it below. It is still a work in progress, but let me know what you think. Also feel free to revise it to make it better. Remember (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it looks pretty good! --Lquilter (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (But others now have really improved it too). Remember (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism
Under the header of Early Life -

"I understand our relastionsips. but i do not represent our lifestyles. i will not say that in life that colored ppl halfed different times. but i know that we willl have fun."

I am removing this immediately. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Never mind, somebody beat me to it. Nonetheless I suspect on today of all days this page may need to be protected. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC) i pesonaly think it shoould have weare he went to school and weare he lived and everyting eles all of his medical records and more about his family and backround of him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.162.137 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

suggestion
I was wondering if the first sentence of the Montgomery Bus Boycott section ("In 1953, at age 24, King became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama.) should be moved to the Early Life section, where King's scholar achievements and such are mentioned. ---Anonimous Contributor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.42.26 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Booksection
In my opinion there is one book missing about Martin L. K., Jr by Coretta Scott King. Would someone, who has the rights of editing these article, be so nice and just adds the following line (after proofing the correctness):

My Live with Martin Luther King, Jr. by Coretta Scott King (1969)

Thanks a lot, Daniel from Austria --62.47.34.225 (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Would someone, with the permission, be so nice and perform my suggested suggestion? I've no editing rights (Who ever knows why?) —88.117.47.90 (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I added it a few days ago: see Martin Luther King, Jr.. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Malik, I was always just looking for the book section and not for reference, my mistake. --88.117.106.3 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism
The entire "Awards and recognition" section is plagiarized from http://www.thekingcenter.org/mlk/bio.html70.48.182.94 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the plagiarism; could you be more specific? Which text? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By "Awards and recognition" I meant the "Honorary degrees" section which is basically copy-pasted from the site other then the addition of the number 20 and putting his extended name.65.93.117.23 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Reverend", not just "Reverend"
I added "the" before Reverend when referring to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxmatt (talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree - As an Episcopal minister for over 23 years, with a D.D from General Theological, I can correctly ascert (as is the case with my other Protestant colleagues), you do not use the word "the" before simply "Reverend" (the only case is within certain Catholic and Episcopal situations where you may be recognized by the Bishop as "The Right Reverend"). Otherwise, it is simply "reverend". It is not an honorariam reference, as in "The Honorable", used by political office-holders. It is a profesional distinction we earned by our degrees in seminary. You would not call your physician "The Doctor"; it is no different here. "The" should not automatically proceed "Reverend" unless it is the subject of a sentence. Use of "The" in Dr. King's case attempts to place a higher value on his professional title than others with similar professional credentials. All due respect to Dr. King, but his doctorate was no better or worse than mine and thousands of others in the Protestant ministry. This should be corrected, as it is definitely not the professional norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.36.120 (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with you on the point that a PhD from Boston University is more respected than a DD from General Theological, no disrespect intended.72.131.92.21 (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Assassination redundancy
The "Assassination" section here is verbatim the same as the article linked above it, "The Assassination of MLK Jr."

Since there is an article with the exact same information, and in fact the exact same wording, for the sake of brevity, why isn't this section removed or at least briefly summarized on this page, with the link to the detailed article? If not, why is there a separate article at all? I clicked the link hoping to find more detail, and found the linked article is merely the assassination section of this article copy/pasted whole-cloth. Even the updated material which has come to light is identical in both articles, which seems to indicate that the assassination article will not be expanded upon only, but that this page will grow as well. This destroys the reason to even have another article, which is keep the main article as to the point as possible. As it is now, it devolves into material that is repeated verbatim for a THIRD time on the James Earl Ray page, which does not directly even reference MLK's life and should not, in my opinion, be included on his bio page at all.

This page is long as it is. I would think the reason to have separate article pages is to lessen that length, while making tangential info readily available through links to the related articles.

If no one has more to add on this in the next few days, I'll attempt to summarize the assassination section here in ONE brief paragraph containing the most pertinent facts with a link referring those looking for more details to the main "Assassination of MLK" article.

I think the assassination merits is own article, and it will be expanded as more information becomes available. The assassination section on this page should be summarized concisely and much of the detailed information removed, as it is redundant to the stand alone assassination article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.167.23 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

According to your article MLK accused Americans of killing millions of viets
This is Completely untrue. You are definitely playing around with the words here as if you read his speech he implicitly states they MAY have killed them. "So far we may have killed a million of them -- mostly children"

Better fix this cause for a second your biography caused me to view MLK as a baffoon that made exaggerating estimations to prove a point, which he DID NOT DO.

Toolong46 (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Provide us a source so we can correct this, please. -jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Text or MLK speech available at: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm

reference comes in paragraph 21:

"So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers."

Montgomery Bus Boycott
The part I'm concerned with reads.....(In March 1955, a 15-year-old school girl, Claudette Colvin, had to give up her seat, but King did not then become involved). Is this to mean he had not yet become involved? If so, I think it would read better if it said King had not yet become involved rather than did not then become involved. Does anyone agree? Pandagirlbeth (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming TV Documentaries
There are at least two upcoming documentaries on MLK, History channel & CNN, can we point them out, we do point out when other notables, mainly actors, have movies coming out? Feedback? Pandagirlbeth (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Communism
The section discussing MLK Jr.'s political philosophy reads:


 * King had read Marx while at Morehouse, but while he rejected "traditional capitalism," he also rejected Communism because of its "materialistic interpretation of history" that denied religion, its "ethical relativism," and its "political totalitarianism."[12]

But this is not a direct quote of King's, it is taken from a book written by Corretta. For the sake of balance and to avoid bias in favor of King, should it not read:


 * King had read Marx while at Morehouse, but while he rejected "traditional capitalism," [Coretta Scott King says] he rejected Communism because of its "materialistic interpretation of history" that denied religion, its "ethical relativism," and its "political totalitarianism."[12]

?

Or, if these quotes are directly from King himself, then it should say.


 * King had read Marx while at Morehouse, but while he rejected "traditional capitalism," [King claimed] that he rejected Communism because of its "materialistic interpretation of history" that denied religion, its "ethical relativism," and its "political totalitarianism."[12]

It is up to the reader to decide if King should be taken for his word or not.--91.89.129.200 (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Influenced
Seriously, we need a "Influenced" heading for Martin Luther King? I'm sorry, but if the only people he influenced was his wife and Jesse Jackson, we're all screwed. 24.141.47.50 (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New info
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.157.184 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Legacy section, the information regarding Yolanda King is inaccurate. She is deceased, so the past tense should be used when referring to her.72.131.92.21 (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Full Protection
I have just undone some fairly rude vandalism, so long as this link is up on the main page it might be a good idea to give it full protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.12.10 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Last Speech: It's as if he knew (he would be killed)
Are there any sources supporting it? --Leladax (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt it... 74.185.0.47 (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

MLK support of North Vietnamese land reform
The reference made to MLK's support of North Vietnamese land reform seems a bit biased. It seems to me that in his "Beyond Vietnam" speech MLK mentions the land reform in the larger context of the Vietnamese declaration of their independence from the French. He seems to want to make more of a point about the United State's rejection of a people seeking self-determination in much the same manner as the colonial US did and what they lost as a result of what he saw as US arrogance. In paragraph 17 of "Beyond Vietnam" he states:

"For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives."

It is far from a certainty that this sugests support for North Vietnamese land reform per se. It may be a more fair characterization to think of it as support of the Vietnamese and what their needs in general were, land reform being an important example. To characterize it simply as it currently stands attributes a specific belief to him that he does not hold with respect to the text of this speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstanwyck (talk • contribs) 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Political Affiliation
King's political affiliation is listed as republican. While his father was a registered republican, King's political affiliation was unknown.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/martin-luther-king-jrs-_b_30454.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaughan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's quite unproven. It's entirely likely, since the Democrats were historically the "we hate Lincoln because he freed the slaves" party in the South. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but King's time was quite a while after Lincoln freed the slaves; Dr. King was, in all likelyhood, a Democrat if you really examine his beliefs, his choice in politicians, and how involved the Democratic Party was in the movement for equal rights for all (not to say that there weren't a good number of Republicans who supported the movement, i.e. [{George Romney|George]] and Lenore Romney).Hawk08210 (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Southern Democrats in the before, say 1964, were often segregationists, and before Franklin Roosevelt in the 30s, the republican party was still "of Lincoln" and the democratic party wasn't yet to the left of lincoln, exactly. Think about Theodore Roosevelts later political career. It's unclear what party King would have supported, but I think it's both not unreasonable to accept that his father was a registered republican, and that king was a supporter of JFK and Lyndon Johnson--at least in some capacity.Tychoish (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a Southern Democrat by origins, I agree with Tych. We make no assumptions, especially given that some of the most powerful Southern Democrats of 1968 will be found among the supporters of the 1948 Dixiecrat movement, those seeking to overturn Brown v. Board of Education, etc. Any statement without documentation fails WP:V. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Styles"
The following was added; I don't think it belongs.

Styles

 * Mr Martin Luther King (1929-1953)
 * The Revd. Martin Luther King (1953-1955)
 * The Revd. Dr Martin Luther King (1955-1968)

My thought is that "styles" are very much an English thing, not an American thing; whereas it's quite important in some societies to spell out the titles people are entitled to, in the US, it's nowhere near such a big deal, and not generally expected to be paid attention to. By way of comparison, User:Textbook's insertion of style information into Gordon Brown makes sense in the context of a British politician (though I do wonder if the baby Brown or King would have been called "Mister"; but then, I don't know that much about British styles.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The timing of the style titles above related to 1) when King was ordained as a minister (1953) and deserving of Rev., and 2) when he received his doctorate (1955) and earned the Dr. Thus they are appropriate, although usually Americans don't use "The" Reverend, but simply Rev. King, or Rev. Dr. King. It's not really about styles, but about how his accomplishments affected how he was addressed.--Parkwells (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's not something we do in the United States, and it's inappropriate for an article on such a very American person. (And I can tell you, the "styles" as shown don't come close to matching with Baptist practice.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

tapped phone
Robert Kennedy as you know and JFK ordered the CIA the Army and others to tap his phone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.44.124 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It was J. Edgar Hoover who wanted to tap King's phones, and finally persuaded the Kennedys to authorize it, in part because of some dirt he had on JFK. See Diane McWhorter, Carry Me Home: Birmingham and the Last Civil Rights Battle.--Parkwells (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Label
Could someone put on top of the interwiki, please ? thanks, Sardur (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, I think? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Lantern Spike
Need article on Operation Lantern Spike (which stipulated the surveillance of King before his death). Badagnani (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of any good sources that talk about this? I don't know much about it and didn't find anything in google. We may need to turn to books. How did you find out about it? futurebird (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have to treat it as a separate article? I don't recall the name, but think he must be referring to the FBI surveillance of King. Atty Genl Kennedy authorized it, but at the instigation of Hoover, who had some political dirt on the Kennedys. I saw references to it in Diane McWhorter's book about Birmingham Carry Me Home: Birmingham and the Last Civil Rights Battle (or something like that).--Parkwells (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

King's Plagiarism
How have we convinced ourselves that the manner in which King produced his doctoral thesis and many of his most important speeches--i.e. by means of plagiarism--is not worthy of mention in an article about him? There is no credible academic voice disputing the facts in this matter, and certainly that some of his iconic words are borrowings should be featured here. I see some have invoked the 'undue' doctrine, which I don't find applicable in this case at all.

It's interesting, too, that the facts regarding King's serial adultery have largely been expunged from this piece.

Is this an encyclopedia article or hagiography? The article about King or anyone should be factual, and not just reflect what his fans want to believe. I want to believe these choices were made in good faith, but this article seems like a whitewash. HedgeFundBob (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in the article; it's just not given undue emphasis in the context of a lifetime of works. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize
Is there a reason that King doesn't have a Nobel icon with his name? PNDebater (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's that the Nobel icons don't really belong in the infoboxes at all. Someone thought it would be a good idea to add it to some of them, and there's a discussion going on about it right now at Template_talk:Nobel icon. Feel free to weight in if you like! --Clubjuggle T / C  11:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not identified as "African American" in lead?
Is there a guide on this point? I've posed it as a question over at Talk:African American. Шизомби (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article on Samuel R. Delany doesn't identify him as an "African-American"; nor do the articles on Jimmy Carter or Frank Zappa (or Frank Zeidler) or Richard Mentor Johnson identify them as "white Americans." We don't usually identify a subject by his/her race in the lede. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure if the examples you use are good ones, largely because those people were not involved in political or social action related to race.  Additionally, "white American" isn't a phrase that has the currency of "African American."  Instead I suspect one could find articles where the biographee is identified as a Polish-American, or Irish-American or whatnot.  And while I appreciate Color blindness (race), at the same time, I'm not sure race/ethnicity of a subject should be left out of an article entirely.  In Delaney's case, the article mentions he's black, and the categories identify him as African American, which seems appropriate, given that race did not AFAICT play an important role in his chosen profession or life.  Шизомби (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, Schiz, but next time I see Chip Delany I'll mention that idea; he'll find it hilarious. (Read his books; they are some of the finest fiction of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read at least one of his works, but the title escapes me. I'm sure race played a part in his life, but I mean the article doesn't indicate any way that it did (beyond the mention of his autobiographical writing), and he didn't form an organization for AA Sci-fi writers, or anything like that, did he?  But what you're suggesting now would seem to be an argument in favor of adding it to the lead. Шизомби (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Carl Brandon Society, the closest thing the science fiction community has to that (but pleasedon't call it "sci-fi"!). I don't agree that in Chip's case, this argues for putting his race in the lede; I was just using it as an example of a prominent African-American's article. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Orangemike is precisely on target because it is part of WP:MOSBIO. If you disagree, take it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), not here. Ward3001 (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that MOSBIO was what I was looking for, but actually in Dr. King's case "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability," isn't it relevant to his notability? Шизомби (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point. As a white Southern Christian whose union was the one King was in Memphis to support when he was assassinated, I believe that his notability transcends his ethnicity; but I can see the arguments in the other direction. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or wry here, or sincere. The idea that ethnicity is something to be transcended is I suspect a peculiarly American political correctness.  Consider the article as a total outsider who knows nothing of him, should they be left to imagine him as white?  Did his race not play a significant part in his civil rights advocacy?  Did it not play a significant part in those who opposed and assassinated him?  It's hard to understand how it could possibly not be notable. Шизомби (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No sarcasm intended! I feel that he is a martyr and saint for all of humanity, and should not be seen as only an African-American hero, just a black activist; but I can certainly see the logic behind your arguments as well. (And by the way, many of us suspect that he may have been marked for murder precisely because his activism was beginning to transcend purely racial issues, and was in danger of bringing together many streams of dissent and reform; but we'll never know.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. Let's look at it like this: King's ethnicity was a, if not the, primary source of what made him into the figure he became. Had he been the white son of a Baptist preacher from Georgia, his path would have been completely different. It is as an African American he is known; I'd venture it's more significant that he is African American than that he is American. I'd support changing "American" in the lede to "African American". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I found Ethnicity to be an interesting article. Whilst I respect everyone's comments above, personally I would prefer not to refer to King as an African-American instead as an American. I hold the view that people aren't fundamentally 'ethnically' different. Tom (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar
I removed the sidebar near the beginning of the page and was reverted. Fine, but allow me to press the point here. First, we have a similar template at the bottom - "African American topics". Second, the sidebar doesn't even link to King; it seems distracting or at best serves a decorative purpose. Is there any particular reason for it to stay? Biruitorul Talk 15:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read my edit summary? As I said in the edit summary, some duplication is acceptable in a side bar and the template at the bottom. The template has more detail. Having both a sidebar and a template is not unusual on Wikipedia. For example, look at Psychology. You'll see both a sidebar "Psychology" and a template "Psychology" at the bottom.
 * "the sidebar doesn't even link to King": I'm not sure what your point is. The sidebar is about African-American issues. It belongs in the article because King was a civil rights leader.
 * And again, as I said in my edit summary, the sidebar is not for a "decorative purpose". It is informational. Ward3001 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But from an aesthetics standpoint, it really does clutter the page up. It was hard finding a home for it that didn't bork up the rest of the formatting. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Formatting is a completely separate issue from the issue of whether it belongs. Things can be rearranged a bit to improve formatting. I would do that myself, except right now I'm at a computer with a small screen; what looks good on that screen may look bad on another one. But a formatting problem is not a reason to remove it. Ward3001 (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why isn't it? I see the sidebar as competitive to the infobox.  For an article like this, the infobox is (and should be) enormous.  the sidebar normally neatly fits into the area where an infobox would be and helps both navigation and formatting.  As it is right now, the sidebar is a mess of links in the middle of the article that are at least partially duplicated by links in text and in the footer template.  It isn't completely redundant, but I just don't think it is serving a full purpose. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "Why isn't it?". I think you missed my point. I didn't say formatting is unimportant. I said it's a different issue from whether the sidebar is acceptable content for the article. The sidebar belongs in the article, and the formatting problem needs to be resolved. But it is inappropriate to conclude that the sidebar should be removed because there is a formatting problem. If we remove content because of formatting issues, lots of good content would be removed from most articles. And again, redundancy between article links and the bottom template is acceptable. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean precisely that if the sidebar is causing formatting issues, a perfectly acceptable solution is just to remove it. A sidebar isn't content.  It isn't like we are saying "that Chicago housing crisis section is causing formatting issues, junk it".  It is just a method of building the web.  We may have the discussion about whether or not the sidebar belongs in the article, but we can't act as though there is some inviolate distinction between that issue and the issue of formatting.  In this case, the article is already short on body text and long on fancy links, templates and what not.  A big criticism of the article is that it doesn't cover the subject fully and in order to rectify that without ballooning past WP:SIZE, we should start prioritizing text and images over templates.  And among the templates on the page that might go, the sidebar would be first. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I think you may be overreacting. But if you're not, then I strongly disagree with you. Let's look at an analogy. If someone put a better photo of King in the article but it is too large or too small, the solution isn't to get rid of the image. The solution is to reformat the image by changing it's size. If you think content should be removed solely because of formatting issues that can be fixed, then I think you will find overwhelming opposition. I've seen items with excellent content but terribly formatted in hundreds of articles; in every case, the formatting was fixed and the item remained. The formatting problem can be fixed. But please have a bit of patience and let someone with a better screen than mine do the fixing. And the shortcomings of the article are not made better by removing helpful content (but needing reformatting) that is already there. I don't want to assume too much, but if you think the sidebar is inappropriate regardless of formatting, please say so. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not overreacting, we are just approaching this from two different points of view. you see templates and sidebars as content, which is rightly afforded a lot of leeway (because content writing is hard).  I see templates and sidebars as cookie cutter helpers.  they are hard to make, too, but you only have to make them once.  If the sidebar is removed from this article for whatever reason, it can be found at almost any article linked from here.  That's all.  Two different perspectives. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll accept in good faith that you're not overreacting. But just to clarify things in my mind, if the sidebar was placed neatly in the article and did not detract from other content, would you oppose its inclusion on the basis of redunancy with other material or some other issue? If so, that's fine. Talk pages are for opinions, and yours is welcome. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why AGF is required, but ok. As a note, I wasn't the person who removed the sidebar.  I just exchanged an earlier version of it to the collapsible version.  As for your question I'll answer it in two parts.  If the sidebar were mostly redundant to other links and templates in the article, I would rather it be removed than kept.  If it weren't and we could find a place for it that didn't disturb the arrangement of text and images too much, I wouldn't have a problem with it being kept. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. AGF may not be required, but it's a good idea to keep in mind when there are disagreements. I realize you didn't remove the sidebar, and I agree with your change to the collapsible version. I do disagree, however, about the redundancy issue, just as I would disagree if someone wanted to remove infoboxes because of redudancy. Let's see if other editors weigh in on whether the sidebar should be kept. By the way, I repositioned the sidebar, although I'm not sure how it will look on larger screens. Ward3001 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)\


 * I guess I should have also pointed out that I don't have a very strong opinion either way. Like I noted in my GA review below, I can take it or leave it. Protonk (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points, Ward3001. First: templates and sidebars normally (though not always) link to the subject of the article - that's what they're primarily for, to link various articles together under a common heading. So that's why I noted King wasn't linked in the sidebar. Second: precisely what informational purpose is the sidebar serving? How does it help the reader interested in King's life to find links to the Nation of Islam or the Negro Leagues? Indeed, of the 60 links there, only about 3 are closely linked to King. Given that and the fact that similar links are provided in the footer, there really doesn't seem to be much of a purpose to the sidebar's presence. Biruitorul Talk 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that sidebars "normally" link to the subject of the article (although they may). Sidebars link to topics related to issues pertaining to the subject, in this case, African American issues. The information included in the sidebar enables a reader to easily go from one article pertaining to African American issues (i.e., King) to another. The King article and the articles linked in the sidebar have in common "African American issues". If a sidebar is only supposed to link to articles specifically about the subject in the article (in this case, King), there would never be a need for a sidebar and you might be correct. Maybe that is your point (we never need sidebars), but I'm not sure; if so, fine. But if that is the broader issues about which you are concerned, I think you need to address it on a more general page that discusses sidebars in general (or MoS page) rather than removing a sidebar from one article. Let me return to the Psychology sidebar. If I'm interested in psychology and I end up on the page Occupational health psychology, I see a sidebar on Psychology in general. The sidebar does not link to Occupational health psychology itself but to other related issues. From that sidebar, as someone who is interested in psychology, I can easily move to another related article. And at the bottom of the page you'll see the Psychology template with more details. There is overlap between links in the article, links in the sidebar, and links in the template for the convenience of the reader. Now, if your issue is that such overlap should not exist, again I would suggest taking it up at a broader venue rather than targeting one article with a sidebar and a template. My major point here is that the King article does not stand alone in this Wikipedia practice. I respect your opinion if you disagree with that larger practice, but I don't agree with targeting the King article. When there is a commonly accepted procedure on Wikipedia, the usual way to express your disagreement is to discuss it on a policy or guideline page, not to simply change it in one article. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)