Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. authorship issues

Where is the Note
Reference [4] links to the PDF of the thesis, indicating that it contains a note about the plagiarism. I cannot find that note in the document. I also accessed the version mentioned in that reference from November 2014, but it appears to be the same as the current version. SabreWolfy (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi SabreWolfy. You raise a good question. Footnote 4 (and 14, which appears to be a duplicate) links to the copy of the dissertation at the Martin Luther King Papers Project at Stanford University. Based on the introduction and the pagination, I think it's an excerpt from King's complete writings, which the project has been publishing for several years.
 * As I understand it, the note is attached to the dissertation in the Boston University archive. I'm editing from a smartphone now, but when I have access to a desktop computer I'll see whether the original dissertation is available online. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I did some further research, and I wasn't able to find another online copy of the dissertation. It may be part of Boston University's Martin Luther King Jr. collection, which appears to be cataloged online but accessible only in person. Even a BU page about Tillich and King cites the Sanford site as a source for the dissertation.
 * I'm going to tag the article for better sourcing and clarification concerning the note. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Considering fair points from each side and alternate suggestions; there's no consensus for moving now. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr. authorship issues → Martin Luther King Jr. and plagiarism – Current title is needlessly vague and weasely. Until you read the first line you have no idea what "authorship issues" are. The issue is plagiarism. The proposed wording does not indicate that King committed plagiarism (although reliable sources are pretty clear about it), but only indicates that that is the issue. I considered "Plagiarism of Martin Luther King Jr.", but that is ambiguous, and "Martin Luther King Jr.'s plagiarism" looks too informal. "Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarism accusations" might be an improvement, but these are more than just accusations at this stage. Srnec (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Way too strong.  The title must not read as asserting as fact something that is not proven.  Martin Luther King Jr. and plagiarism allegations maybe.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First, the allegations are proven and accepted by RS. Second, the proposed title does not assert that MLK plagiarised. Still, I am fine with your suggestion. Srnec (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The "allegations" have been proven, and "authorship issues" is clearly weasel words for "plagarism". Don't introduce false ambiguity. Natureium (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes, King was found to have plagiarized in his college paper, but the page isn't only about that. It's also about his borrowing of phrases from other preachers, which can't really be described as plagiarism. The title "authorship issues" thus covers both general concepts covered in the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason as Randy Kryn. There is a consensus that King plagiarized his academic papers, but this article is also about assertions that some of his speeches included phrases, allusions, themes, or portions taken from others' speeches. There is absolutely no consensus that plagiarism was involved in that. In fact, lumping the two issues together may constitute original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this whole thing should go elsewhere entirely. "voice merging" is not an "authorship" problem, and to which extent "authorship" is an applicable term for orally delivered speeches (which are easily improvised on during delivery--Lincoln did the same at Gettysburg, I believe) is a matter of discussion--not something we should enshrine in an article title. This content then should be merged into the section in his biography on style or the stand-alone article on MLK's rhetoric--oh, wait, neither of those seem to exist. So for one of the greatest public speakers in American history we have an article, half of which consists of some half-baked and uneducated criticism of his verbal borrowings, but not one on his actual style. "I Have a Dream!" "Yeah but you have authorship issues". No. The material about the dissertation should just go into his biography, in a condensed fashion (by taking out the long quotes, for starters, and the play-by-play of the "discovery" taken out), and the article redirected to that section. I'm going to stop looking at this article: its very existence is upsetting and embarrassing. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The allegations against him of plagiarism have been proven. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I disagree with that these are still unproven allegations - they have been studied and discussed at length. However, I agree with  that this paper has a broader topic of King's borrowing of ideas and phrases over his lifetime in circumstances that aren't plagiarism. I also think that the term plagiarism carries a moral judgment inappropriate for a NPOV encyclopedia, although I suspect others may disagree on that. Daask (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Proven?. RSs say the allegations are proven?  All the allegations?  The word being “plagiarism”?  Then why doesn’t the lede say this in simple terms. If RSs state the fact explicitly, then rewrite the lede citing them. The title mustn’t be stronger or more POV than the lede. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As Malik Shabazz said, not all the allegations, but the one concerning his thesis. From the main article: "Decades later, an academic inquiry in October 1991 concluded that portions of his dissertation had been plagiarized and he had acted improperly." Also, Clayborne Carson says "his academic papers do contain passages that meet a strict definition of plagiarism".That's from p. 50 of the first volume of King's papers, edited by Carson. The proposed title does not accuse King of plagiarism. It merely clarifies that "authorship issues" means (accusations of) plagiarism. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I get it. He was a pretty sloppy scholar. The details meet the definition of plagiarism. Still, it is a negative label and the secondary sources don’t so baldly assert it. Another softening word is needed, my !vote for example. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Proposed title is more clunky than current.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)