Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 6

Republican
Why isn't MLK listed as a republican when we was indeed one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source that says King was a Republican, add it to the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never given this any thought before, but the question made me curious. According to this, this, and this, he was a registed Republican. This article should be read before making any decisions, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's entirely likely King was Republican that year -- Democrats in the South were a pretty nasty lot -- but those citations are assertions, not evidence of anything. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not an assertion. Are you censoring?? It is a fact and it needs to be added that he is a Republican. That is significant! Unless your purpose is to keep people ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.52.36 (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just provided the links that I found; based on what I could see, I wouldn't add that to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If Dr King voted, he must have done so as a Republican. (Whether he necessarily voted for Republican candidates in specific elections is not the issue, and whether he would prefer to be a Republican today if he were still alive is not the issue.) For most of Dr King's life African-Americans were effectively barred by the Georgia Legislature and the Georgia Democratic Party from participating in the voting process as Democrats. After the Reconstruction era Georgia's Democratic Party establishment adopted a number of Jim Crow measures, including a 1980 amendment to the state constitution that political parties were private entities which could make their own rules about membership, turning the Georgia Democratic Party into a White club if it wasn't already. Even after Smith v. Allwright which in 1944 declared the Democratic White primary in Texas unconstitutional, Georgia's White Democrats continued to keep Blacks out of the Party—by a variety of ruses which finally ended en toto with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Thus, if Dr King was voting in Georgia, until a few years before his death he could have been on the voting roll only in some way other than as a Democrat. For many Black citizens, in Georgia as well as elsewhere, the only alternative was to be at least nominal Republicans. For the background, in that one needs to consider what Georgia was like during Dr King's life, see Disfranchisement_after_Reconstruction_era_(United_States), Georgia_(U.S._state), and African Americans in the United States Congress. Rammer (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In all likelihood King was a registered Republican, but we haven't found any WP:RS that say so. But a person's voting record doesn't make him or her a Republican or a Democrat. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another book that says King was a registered Republican. It's not exactly a reliable source; the author is a professor of language and leadership at the University of Southern Colorado.
 * "The King Center in Atlanta says there is no proof that King was ever a Republican", but the rest of their statement (in the final paragraph of the article) suggests they're not talking about his party registration. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems that one side is thinking of the Republican Party prior to the 1960s--before Goldwater, before Nixon's "Southern strategy" etc.--while the other side is thinking of the Republican Party since. Unquestionably Dr King supported Republican President Eisenhower's sending troops to Little Rock to oblige the school desegregation which Democratic Governor Faubus was trying to block, supported the Eisenhower-backed Civil Rights Bill of 1957 against which Southern Democrats in the Senate waged a filibuster.  It was only as late as 1960 and the kindler gentler treatment accorded by the Kennedy campaign that Dr King began thinking more highly of the Democrats, but the segregationist stands of Democrats George Wallace and Lester Maddox were still in the future.  The confusion of one phase of either party's history needs to be set aside or someone will be redefining Abraham Lincoln as a Democrat.  What needs to be ascertained was whether, at the time and in the place where Dr King lived, was he registered to vote and, if so, with which party--again, with which party in that time and in that place.  Rammer (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If King was a registered Republican, it was likely simply because his father was a registered and outspoken Republican for the first 30 years of King's life, as were many well-to-do Southern African-American preachers at the time. It was only during the 1960 election, when JFK made a personal phone call to voice his sympathy and support to Coretta Scott King during MLK, Jr's first stint in prison, that MLK Sr. publicly switched his allegiance, as did a significant number of African Americans due to a pamphlet handed out at black churches advertising the phone call, thus winning the narrow election for Kennedy. MLK, Jr. offered no formal endorsement so as not to offend Nixon and stall his own agenda, should Nixon be elected, but he ultimately voted for JFK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.162.249 (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good info. Got a source we can include? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have page numbers off the top of my head but this information is largely drawn from Taylor Branch's all-encompassing "Parting The Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63", as well as what I can recall from my African-American History 1865-Present undergraduate class. The Branch book would supply you with the majority of the information in the chapters concerned with the 1960 Presidential Election.70.21.162.249 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(Steven (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)) You don't register by party in Georgia - so King could not be a Reigstered Republican. See http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/voting_information.htm for the factoid that that is still the current policy. He could be a possible Republican Party member - how did the Republicans count membership back pre-1960 and would where would the Party store that information?
 * We'd need information on pre-1960 practices, not current ones. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(Steven (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC))True, and of course the memory of folks from Georgia who voted pre-1960 isn't proof either, but at least this give folks who care a chance to do some real research. As a start for them, I did find in J. Morgan Kousser "Colorblind Injustice" (1999, UNC Press) that in 1957 State Senator James S. Peters proposed that party registration be instituted (p207). Someone want to find out if it was between 1957 to 1960?


 * At the very least, a section should be included that mentions his party status but also includes extenuating circumstances, personal beliefs, and what not. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the odd nature of party affiliations in the South in that era (as witnessed by some of this discussion, I fear that mentioning it at all would require such a lengthy explanation as to constitute undue emphasis on a matter of minor importance. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have any reliable sources yet demonstrating (as opposed to speculating) that he was a Republican? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we do not. I've checked up on the issue here and there, and the internet is vacant of any solid evidence that he was ever really a Republican.  It just simply is not a fact.  It won't be, either...  I'm also not sure of the relevance, other than to further an agenda, if it were put on with so little to back it up.  We know he wasn't socially conservative.  And we also know that he was heavily critical of capitalism.  It is *pure* speculation to align him with any party.  I think it's just a stretch to put him in with any party loyal at all.98.168.204.179 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not a lot of relevance, and it would only be a detail that might pique the reader's curiosity like it's piqued ours enough to research it. (Which is sometimes good enough grounds for inclusion of a minor detail.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama included in his legacy
Shouldn't the 44th and first African-American President be included in the Legacy section? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) He is president-elect, not president. (2) How is that King's legacy? (3) King wanted people to be recognized and judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is his legacy because had it not been for King's tireless work for civil rights, there's no way Obama would be where he is now, and second, people did exactly that, they voted for Obama's qualifications and not against him for his skin color. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but look at the legacy section. It's not about people inspired by King, or implicit or explicit results of his work. We'd need to list pretty much every successful African American in a formerly white sphere as being part of his legacy if we open that door. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you wouldn't. The election of the first African American president is a step and a symbol; including him in the Legacy section stands for the many changes that resulted from Dr. King's work.--Parkwells (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Obama should not be mentioned in this article, but maybe the two could be linked in another article. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Party
How come MLK's party is not listed? He was a lifelong card carrying Republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.189.99 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scroll up to the top of this page. Ward3001 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

dr. mlk jr
what was he a doctor of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.202.136 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Theology, as the article says. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar question
In the article, this sentence "On June 10, 1977, shortly after Ray had testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he did not shoot King, he and six other convicts escaped from Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary in Petros, Tennessee." seems very confusing. I'm not sure what is trying to be said. In addition, I believe that it is a comma splice. 70.178.185.201 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC) M. Morley 1-19-2009 $$Insert formula here$$

where was his funeral???
where was he buried???? not in article and i think people would like to know.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.254.97 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * His funeral was at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. And the article not only states where he and Mrs King are buried but has a photo of their grave.Masalai (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"We've Got A Long Way To Go" by Gwen Stefani
Shouldn't the following song be added to the media section? "We've Got A Long Way To Go", a song by Gwen Stefani from her first solo album Love, Angel, Music, Baby samples parts of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech.Chicagorunner85 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to give a lot more to justify how a song that extracts some words from King's speech is notable enough to include. How does it improve the article on King? What does it tell us about MLK beyond his own words that are used and discussed elsewhere? And give us more than your opinion. Give us other evidence that it is important to include. Ward3001 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Chicagorunner85 is referring to the template at the bottom of the page, which includes songs about King. I don't know anything about "We've Got A Long Way To Go", but the other songs are songs specifically about King, not merely those that refer to him or sample his speeches.
 * In any case, the appropriate place for the discussion is Template talk:Martin Luther King. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

hi, i think that the grammar in this article could use a little work. one place is under influences... it should be "in" his life, not "on"... thank you,

Aftonjylare (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can fix it. Politizer talk / contribs 07:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag'n what not
The following paragraph has several issues:

"King had a mutually antagonistic relationship with the FBI, especially its director, J. Edgar Hoover. The FBI began tracking King and the SCLC in 1957; its investigations were largely superficial until 1962, when it learned that one of King's most trusted advisers was New York City lawyer Stanley Levison. The FBI found Levison had been involved with the Communist Party USA, though the FBI considered him an inactive party member."

The description that the FBI found out that Levinson was “involved” with the CPUSA leaves much to be desire. My prior version is mores specific proving Levinson’s function in the CPUSA.

Secondly, the FBI never considered Levinson an inactive part member. His frequent contacts with Lessiovski was the primary reason that he was a person of interest. The source is very clear on this and since Christopher Andrew’s area of expertise is intelligence matters, he is far more authorative on the subject than the Stanford library biographical piece on him. CENSEI (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, your original research does not. You don't just tag an article because your content is against conensus, you know. I support removal of this tag. Will wait for another editor to happen along to see what happens.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not OR, the Andrew citation is the source and as is the article is factually incorrect. CENSEI (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is about King, not Levison, so I don't think it needs to go into detail about his involvement with the Communist Party — if what you wrote is true. I question whether a tell-all book by a former KGB agent is a reliable source.
 * More importantly, how is the article's neutrality compromised by whether your sentence about Levison is allowed to stay? Again, this is an article about King, not Levison. Please explain how the article is not neutral in its description of King's life and achievements. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To say that Levison was simply "involved with the CPUSA at one point in time" is a gross understatement and POV. Adding the adjective "key financer" is a neutral way to describe what his function in the CPUSA was and why the FBI would have been so interested in him. Secondly he was under surveillance because he was meeting with a KGB agent, and that seems very notable, and has, in fact been noted by noteworthy scholars.
 * And what is with the if snip? I would advise you to AGF and keep this discussion on the level. CENSEI (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you have a source that says Levison was a key financier? Christopher Andrew certainly doesn't say it.
 * 2) You still haven't explained how the description of Levison turns the article into a non-neutral biography of Martin Luther King.
 * 3) Despite the fact that you misrepresented what one source says and made a citation to a non-existent page in another source, I'm continuing to assume good faith concerning your motives. But I don't have to assume that what you're writing about Levison is true. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course:


 * "Over time the FBI determined that Levison and his brothers had been connected to 26 businesses since the second world war. These business interest were often founded with CPUSA funds. Their successful ventures funneled sizeable profits to the Communist Party’s coffers; in 1954 the Levisons busy Ford dealership alone was said to generate approximately $15,000 for the CPUSA. - Judgment Days, Kotz, pg 71"
 * Well, it certianly only applies to one section at this point not the whole article, but are you now in agreeance that the material is not correctly represented? Is that why yo modified it with your las tedit because you knew you were defending an indefensible position? CENSEI (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never misrepresented any sources and if you werent so lazy you could have verified what I said just as easily as I did. CENSEI (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see "key financier" there. That's original research. What I do see, three pages later in Kotz, is this:
 * [I]n November 1963 the FBI asked Jack Childs to analyze the relationship between Levison and the CPUSA. The portrait Childs painted was hardly one of Communist zealotry. He believed that the Levison brothers had "used" the party and its funds to build their own business empire and line their pockets.
 * 2) Can you explain, in English, how the description of Levison turns the article into a non-neutral biography of Martin Luther King.
 * 3) I was being kind when I said "misrepresented". You lied about the source in this edit. The author didn't write the opposite two pages later — in fact, Levison isn't mentioned two pages later — and if you looked at the source you'd know that. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I support removal of the tag. Even if the edit were a reasonable proposal (which it seems not to be), consensus rejection does not merit a POV tag.  Given that this is a tangential biographical detail about someone else's life, conceiving it as a POV issue having to do with King is in itself suggestive of a POV agenda.  I strongly urge editors to remain civil.  Wikidemon (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... you support removal of the tag even though you have not weighed in on the issue I brought up. How typical of you. CENSEI (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support removal of the tag. A claim that an entire article is biased because a dubious intepretation of a minor event is rejected by editorial consensus strains reasonableness.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A dubious interpretation supported by all available sources .... sounds mor like your opinion than a reasoned arguement supported by some citations. Imagine that. CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I, too, support removing the tag. I have yet to hear an explanation why an edit dispute over a minor figure in King's biography calls into question the neutrality of the whole article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A sectional tag would be fine then. CENSEI (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't been to this page before, so not gonna !vote, but I don't think you're seeing the consensus forming here. You're the only editor who wants the tag. Might I suggest going to Levison's article and making appropriate additions there instead? -- Good Damon 14:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tag gone. It's just not an appropriate usage of the POV tag. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

On that night, Indianapolis was the only city which did not burn.
What is this quote in the article supposed to mean?

"On that night, Indianapolis was the only city which did not burn."

It seems like it was taken, out of context from somewhere. I've removed it, but feel free to put it back rewritten to make sense in this context. Sligocki (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't quite get that wording either, but it is a pretty well known fact. Because of Robert Kennedy's speech in Indianapolis that night, that was the only American city with a significant black population that had no real rioting or violence that night. -- Otto 17:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox: Influences and Influenced
What should be the criteria for including a person among King's influences or those influenced by him?

Today I removed Theodor Herzl and Emmett Till, who were both included as influences. Abraham Lincoln is still there; what influence did Lincoln have on King's thinking?

Albert Lutuli is listed among those influenced by King; his biography doesn't mention King, although this article mentions Lutuli. Al Sharpton isn't mentioned here, but in Sharpton's bio he cites King as an influence (in an indirect way). Somebody added Barack Obama, who isn't mentioned here, nor is King cited as an influence in Obama's biography.

Any thoughts?
 * Yeah, remove the entire influenced by section; rare would be the African American leader nowadays to not say they were influenced by King. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. 's Zodiac Animal and Zadiac Sign
I am here today to told what is MLK's zodiac animal and what his zodiac sign, too... I add this because I believe his traits relate zodiac which bring to dream that he talking about.... MLK is snake and aquarius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroxhikaro (talk • contribs) 06:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Influenced by Jesus Christ
Shouldn't only actual people (to everyone) be listed in "Influences" in the Infobox? --afarnen talk 06:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm removing "Jesus Christ" until someone gives a good reason to keep it. --afarnen talk 21:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't people get influenced by movies, television and games? probably many other non-people as well. Whether or not he (Jesus) was real doesn't make much difference. He was a diehard christian after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.46.216 (talk • contribs)

This is an an obnoxiously and deliberately offensive edit. The only reason I'm not reverting it is that virtually any Christian's infobox would list Jesus as an influence, and thus it's rather superfluous to leave Him in there (particularly in the case of a Christian clergyman). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You would, indeed, think it's a "given"!! --leahtwosaints (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is pretty absurd to not consider Jesus Christ, or at least whatever historical figure originated the teaching attributed to him, as a real person... Whatever he did or did not mean or really do, the idea that a figure didn't exist (and by the by, the name "Jesus" was popular at the time, so you may as well call this figure "Jesus"), is inane--ESPECIALLY for the purposes of this article, because Jesus the figure generally agreed upon by those who believe in him ... did influence MLK Jr. Extant or not, "Puff the Magic Dragon" is probably gonna be a major influence for the "Puff the Magic Dragon" fanclub. On the other hand, of course, the influence of (perceived or real!) Jesus on MLK Jr. is pretty self-evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.32.223 (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Drum Major Instinct" speech misquoted at the end of "Legacy" section of Martin Luther King, Jr.
I recently heard the speech on the radio and then noticed the misquotes in the end part of the speech that was quoted at the end of the 'Legacy' section. Here are sources with the correct version:

1) http://www.theharwoodinstitute.org/ht/redisplay/1/printerfriendly/1

2)

3) Martin Luther King, Jr By Peter John Ling Published by Routledge, 2002 ISBN 0415216648, 9780415216647 page 303 (can been seen on books.google.ca link below)

4) http://governmentchangeagents.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/martin-luther-king-the-change-agent-lives-on/

Here is the end of the speech that is found in all those sources, with the correct phrases that need to be corrected in the wikipedia entry in bold:

I’d like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. (Yes)

I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. (Amen)

I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. (Yes)

And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked. (Yes)

I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. (Lord)

I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. (Yes)

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. (Amen) Say that I was a drum major for peace. (Yes) I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. (Yes) I won’t have any money to leave behind. I won’t have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. (Amen) And that’s all I want to say.

Here is the wikipedia entry version, I inserted the correct text and crossed out the erroneous phrase beside the corrected text.

Subsection
King spoke earlier about what people should remember him for if they are around for his funeral. He said rather than his awards and where he went to school, people should talk about how he fought peacefully for justice.:

I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I've tried to be right on the war question [ on the walk with them ]. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were [ all to a ] naked. I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. And I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major. Say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter."1968 Year In Review, UPI.com"

Minor changes here
I changed the words I'm fucking for God to I'm F***ing for God. Children use this too.--Jjohnston90 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Wikipedia isn't censored. — Malik Shabazz 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems like a stretched definition of censorship. I suppose the abbreviation is unambigous. --Jonund (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Suppose as you like, but Wikipedia does not change direct quotes. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm inclined to remove the entire quote; it's purely salacious and adds nothing to the understanding of MLK. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion?
Would it be opening a huge Pandora's box to mention songs that have been written in his honor? I'm thinking specifically of Patty Griffin's "Up to the Mountain (MLK Song)", and especially, Stevie Wonder's tribute which helped win his birthday as a National holiday.--leahtwosaints (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The infobox at the bottom of the article has links to "Media" (including songs) about King. I've added the Patti Griffin song. — Malik Shabazz 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

martin
you shoulds talk about what he bwas fighting for like the bus story and more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.166.234 (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Socialism
I couldn't help but notice that the role King's Socialist outlook had on his life is practically ignored in this article. Is this delibrate or the result of a simple lack of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.222.95 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * King was never a Socialist, although the Socialist Party would undoubtedly have welcomed him. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For all intents and purposes, he was, espescially towards the end of his life. It's cited in the article itself.--Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Article: "The Unknown Martin Luther King, Jr."
This link [ http://www.amren.com /mtnews/archives/2009/01/the_unknown_mar.php Article: "The Unknown Martin Luther King, Jr."] has twice been removed by one particular editor, first with a remark in including the words "What's next? a link to Stormfront?" which I do not understand, and later to dismissing the link as "racist", which like many convenience-words ending in "ist" can be defined to mean whatever the user intends it to mean (often a derogatory and empowering substitute for lack of intellingent reasoned discussion). I do not think the link is one to be treated as vandalism, which I am sorry must be common in any article about a well-known leader. The subject matter of the linked article does not seem to be concerned with expression of a particular point of view on race (if this is what "racist" means): if it did it would not be relevant to the MLK page. But it does seem to be biographical, has some nice photographs, and is well-written and reasonable, and therefore of interest. As an experienced (non-American, with no point of view on the subject of the article) contributor to wikipedia, I believe a variety of appropriate links to a subject is of interest, and contributes to understanding. And a variety of independent views expressed of a subject enriches, and is the way to approach the truth, like any scientific research: it is not for editors to filter links because they contain matter showing the subject to be less than perfect - we are all human - and I can understand that this might be the reason.

Enough. Please can there be viewpoints on the relevance of the link to MLK ? And consensus. Welcome from the editor mentioned above and others. Thanks. P0mbal (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't link to fringe sites such as AmRen without a very good reason, and there isn't one here; the article in question is an opinion piece by a non-notable grad student, and is of no particular value to the article. Sorry you don't like the term "racist", but it's an appropriate description for Amren. This article gets a vast amount of racist vandalism -- that's why it's semi-protected -- and non-vandalism pointing to racist sources is immediately and properly suspect. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And to answer your implicit question: Stormfront is a racist hate site, but less subtle than AmRen. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jpgordon and Orangemike, I'll accept that, interesting, good reasons, one learns all the time. P0mbal (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I cherish and recommend the handmade buttons you can find at some science fiction conventions which proclaim, "Oh, no! Not another learning experience!" -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)