Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. authorship issues/Archive 1

Apparently neither taught to King nor demanded of his acedemic work
All I see is character assassination based on claimed inadequate referencing by a student according to standards apparently neither taught to King nor demanded of his acedemic work. King wanted a doctorate. The proffessors wanted a paying student. Neither were trying to turn King into some kind of expert in documentation creation. They helped educate a man who has had a positive influence on America greater than all the nobodies critisizing his referencing style all put together. 4.250.138.208 07:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Amen. Cognition 08:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not character assassination - all involved agree that King lifted whole sections from another paper. It is not character assassination to uphold standards. The article states that King "might" have believed it was OK, but that does not make it OK. Other students who had the same teachers have said it was quite clear to them that lifting entire passages was not allowed - anybody who has even the slightest idea what plagiarism means knows you are not allowed to lift paragraph after paragraph changing only a few words here & there - and not even acknowledging your source in your bibliography
 * The world is not filled only with angels & beasts. It gave me no pleasure to work on this article --JimWae 07:55, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
 * The article should not accept your position as the correct one, just as it should not accept mine as the correct one. So the proper thing is to report the conclusions of both King's defenders and critics without making judgments of its own, as opposed to basing the article on your POV. Cognition 08:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

And I thanked you for it. Look, this isn't a competion. The content is now more neutral, so we are ready to deal with the issue of proper placement. BTW, I like the redirect. Cognition 08:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are way, way, way out of line Coggy -- I found the material supporting King - you did nothing but complain--JimWae 08:11, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

The effect is character assassination. Discrediting an important figure is a known propaganda technique. People remember things without remembering where they got them. King wrote as taught and rewarded (by grades). Redefining "standards" different than that applied by the teacher who gave and graded the "assignment" after the man is dead and can't defend himself is pathetic manipulation of public opinion by known and documented propaganda techniques. Even the chief of the FBI engaged in character assisination against King and you are going to argue no one took up the cause of battling the King legacy or that this isn't exactly the sort of smear campaign one would expect? Don't be naive. 4.250.168.91 07:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure there were attempts at character assassination. However, this allegation seems clearly to be true - and some of the others likely had some basis too - the womanizing, perhaps. Lots of prominent men have been womanizers - that does not mean they did not do great & good things. Look, he did it & it was wrong - anyone who has the slightest understanding of what "plagiarism" means knows you're not allowed to present paragraph after paragraph without attribution. If he did NOT know it was wrong, that raises all kinds of other questions about his academic skills & his value-system. He comes off better if he knew it was wrong, but was weak & thought it a "small" offense. Sweeping this under the rug will just provide more ammunition for the King-haters. Confront it & move on. It does strengthen the grounds for removing him from the philosopher category, though. (He was known for his oratory - not for being philosophical - anyway) --JimWae 07:11, 2005 July 11 (UTC)--

1: Good addition to see also. 2: There is enough truth in what you say for me to only add to the see also and let the reader judge for themself. 3: Does the bible adequately reference Gilgamesh? or whoever they stole the flood myth from? Religion is so very different from science and King's path as a leader rather than an academic together make me think it irrelevant (in addition to the fact HIS TEACHERS DIDN'T CARE ENOUGH TO NOTICE ANY OF ALL THE ALLEGED TIMES HE DID THIS - SUPOSEDLY NUMEROUS). I doubt he thought it mattered either. He wasn't a wonk and didn't want to be one. I'm sure you and I have any number of different values, but being wrong according to you doesn't make me wrong anymore than you are wrong because your value heirarchy differs from mine. He's a philosopher???? Surely you jest. He was a Christian following Christian values. What pray tell did he add to what could already be found in Christianity? 4.250.168.91 07:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Argument based on similarity of effect is like arguing killing in self-defense is the same as murder, because in both cases the guy is dead. There's a logical fallacy called Affirming the consequent (If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P.) Since your argument is more causal than logical, it does not quite apply the same way. Your argument also touches on guilt by association - one of the very tactics used against MLK. --JimWae 07:45, 2005 July 11 (UTC)   --JimWae 07:33, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

Yes motive matters. I fail to see how motive of King or his detractors helps your position unless you are saying King's referencing style is a matter of fact. Yes it is. It is the labeling of that style that is in question. Your last two comments are distractions or misconceptions of my point. I hope I have clarified I'm not questioning the facts; only their labeling and emphasis. 4.250.168.91 07:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding a "See also" link to "discrediting tactic" - insinuating this article is a discrediting tactic without a citation is original research. If you want to cite someone who says the plagiarism allegations were attempts to discredit King, go ahead, but don't try to insinuate it with a "See also". Gdwq 11:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

When people call water wet they don't need to cite a source. When someone questions whether water is wet, then finding a source is useful. 4.250.168.51 23:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A discrediting tactic is an attack against a public figure as a person rather than an attack on their policies or contributions (in other words, irrelevant to the logic of the cause itself) intended to discourage people from believing or supporting their cause. The fact that King's documentation style is found wanting by unbiased people is neither in doubt nor a discrediting tactic. The are labels and emphasis placed on it that easily qualify as a discrediting tactic. Which labels and how much emphasis qualifies must remain a matter of opinion, for which a wide range of quotes could be mustered if that were in doubt. 4.250.168.51 00:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed text by FWBOarticle
"Some point out that defences of pragiailism or King's frequent infedelity including allegation of sex with prostitutes are an example of personality worship. The rightness of the cause is use to whitewash any faults of an important civil right advocate. Anyone who criticise King is implicitly blanded as anti civil right, i.e. a racist."

Where to begin. First off, "Some point out" is weasel wording. "frequent infidelity" is unsourced and possible character attack. So is the sly "allegations of sex with prostitutes". Cite please. "The rightness of the cause is used to whitewash..." is original research. If you can find someone else who has published saying that there is a whitewash, then feel free to quote that person. We are not here to pass judgement on the world. Same with "Anyone who criticise (sic) King is implicitly blanded (sic)" etc. Original research unless you can replace it with a quote by a non-wikipedian saying it. I really shouldn't even have to point this out. Your additions were really the sort of ramble that belongs on the talk page, not as part of an encyclopedia. -Kasreyn 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let start by pointing out that my edit is in response to "Some people claim that discussion of these matters is just a character assassination in the form of an discrediting tactic (to civili right movement)". Is this a weasel wording or mere summary of prevailing opinion in defence of King.  Trying to summarise prevailing or commonly found general opinion is not an original research because such opinion is not original or new. Secondly, souce of "frequently infidelity" and "allegation" of sex with prostitute can be found everywhere including here. We will get more complete picutre in 20years time.  Lastly, one side of edit clearly describe the tactic as attempt to discourage people from supporting civil right movement thorugh character assasination.  How could it not be countered in general opinion that such accusation of indirect attack on civil-right-movement/anti-racism-movement is unfair. Selectively deleting only one side of edit is a blatant attempt at censorship. You might see lot of opinion you might not want to read in wikipedia.  That is not enough excuse to delete if such opinion is clearly attributed.  FWBOarticle 12:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, if you want, we can remove "Some people claim that discussion..." etc as equally weaselish; no complaints here. As for your "source" of the infidelity allegation, wikipedia can't claim itself as a source!  Think!
 * In any case, you're right that we should remove all POV speculation from the article. I'll get to work on that right away.  But Wikipedia would become the laughingstock of the entire world if it started citing itself as a reference.  -Kasreyn 23:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Try googling with terms such as "King" "Infidelity". There are tons of references many from reputable published sources. FBI wiretrap is a public record.  King's infidelity is such a well establishe fact that many article including wikipedia don't even bother to reference it. Allegation of sex with prostitute is made by one of his confidant and this is also well published.  If you really want to know more, read Taylor Branch's trilogy of King's biography.  It is probably the most authoritative work. Lastly, read the wikipedia policy.  General/Prevailing/NonOriginal/Public opinion is not an original research.  One does not need to source, say, "WWI started in 1914" edit.  Plus, if you have problem with my Engrish, feel free to "correct" it.  Please do not use it as a pretext to delete opinion/view/fact which you don't want to read.  FWBOarticle 01:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here. Hope this article put the thing in perspective. Another comment I pulled somewhere else. "Was he a great American? No argument here. Was he a fraud and a hypocrite? He was that, too." FWBOarticle
 * Wrong. If you want the section back in, add the sources with it.  I'm perfectly within wikipedia policy removing the entire section as original research, and I will continue to do so.  I did not delete your section because it was poorly spelled and written, I deleted it because it was not supported by sources.  -Kasreyn 02:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * O.K. I don't really know what you want. I can give sourced reference which tend to be more critical.  Feel free to find opinion supporting King's plagiarism. FWBOarticle
 * I'm sorry if I seem harsh to you, it's not my intention to be unkind to you. But if you want the information on "reactions" to be on wikipedia, it has to be encyclopedic, which means you need to provide sources.  If you have sources which can support the allegations which were made in that section, then by all means restore the section with links to the sources supporting it.  What's important here is we must make it clear to our readers that it is not wikipedia which is making allegations of plagiarism and buying prostitutes, but that we are reporting on other people's allegations, nothing more.  -Kasreyn 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Something wrong? Compare Snopes
I do get the feeling something is wrong here, but would prefer someone else to check.

I don't see the statement Boston University, where King got his ThD in systematic theology, conducted an investigation that found he plagiarized approximately a third of his doctoral thesis from a paper written three years earlier by another graduate student. This consisted of about 45% of the first half and 21% of the second half.  properly referenced.

Firstly, there's PhD and DD, but Doctor of Theology as ThD is new to me, and the main article says 'Ph.D.'. More importantly, I don't see supporting evidence from the two web links as to the proportions that were supposedly plagiarised, whether a third or 45%, just that in general he sometimes failed to provide adequate citations.

The word 'plagiary' my dictionary lists as "noun (archaic) someone who steals the thoughts or writings of others and presents them as his or her own; the crime of plagiarism" - yet it is used with a different meaning both in the Carson quote and in the 'HNN' sources. It would seem we are relying on only one source here, Ralph Luker.

I've moderated the section on speeches, since it seems from the text on Snopes that the 'borrowing' (a rather imprecise word) was overstated. --Cedderstk 03:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is libellous, unsubstantiated and unsourced
In accordance with wikipedia's strict biographical rules, most of this article needs to be deleted. The only reliable source on here is Stanford University's webpage. Snopes.com, blogs and blog comments certainly don't count. I'm going to give people two weeks to find some reliable sources, and after that I'll set about this article with a hacksaw. The Enlightened 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the provided references look pretty solid to me: Sunday Telegraph, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Journal of American History, etc. The inline citations do need beefed up, though. -- Satori Son 19:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And you can't libel a dead person anyway. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What no one seems to think of
is that Martin Luther King, Jr., was an exceptionally well-educated and erudite man. Is it not reasonable to suppose that he might assume others would be aware of whom he was quoting? Not remembering to account for the ignorance of others is a common flaw in the well-educated. For instance, when a person quotes something so famous that every idiot knows it by heart, do we make a big fuss about "plagiarism" if they fail to go out of their way to say who they're quoting? How is this a difference in kind rather than degree? -Kasreyn 15:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the speeches, perhaps, but I don't think anyone would assume others would be aware of some obscure Boston University dissertation from just three years prior. --Delirium 05:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't quoting Shakespeare or the Old Testament for heaven's sake. Please. Be honest with yourself. S.A. Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.63.172 (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Article Reflects POV
King's plagiarism has been documented, and his doctoral dissertation has an appropriate note attached to it, acknowledging that he was guilty of it. The only thing that is unacceptable about that is that the university, having acknowledged the plagiarism, should have then revoked his degree.

To suggest that "he was not taught" or "did not know" is unacceptable. He was a university student, and he can be presumed to know the rules to which university students (at least all of the white male university students) are held. The evidence, as reflected in other comments on this page, suggest that he was taught. Can anyone cite an example of a white male student who committed plagiarism on the scale practiced by King and who was allowed to keep his degree?

John Paul Parks (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is not a forum to discuss issues related to King's plagiarism, but to discuss ways to improve the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 22:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Could there be a hyperlink to more information on Archibald Carey, Jr.?
I came across this article because I find him historically interesting and worthy of note in his own right, and surely I am not the only one. I wonder if his name could be hyperlinked either to the wikipedia article about him, or to here: http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/carey-archibald-1908-1981. I am asking because I am not a very active Wikipedia editor, and I don't know if The Black Past, 'An online reference guide to African American History,' is considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia or not. --DeputyHeadmistress (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

POV edits by Malik Shabazz
I've noticed on many of the entries of African American figures, Malik Shabaz is making POV edits without any rationale.  I added some short text from Rev Carey's 1952 address to the Republican Convention to allow a comparison between Carey's words and King's in his 1963 speech. Try and find this anywhere else on the web. Also, I added a short entry on a 1905 speech by African American author and essayist Charles Chesnutt, which King was most likely well aware of from his reseach, to show striking similarities between Chesnutt's and King's speeches. Both these additions showed factual integrity. Shabaz summarily deleted them without any compelling rationale.   —Rosspz (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)rosspz


 * 1. Carey's speech is easy to find. For example, it's here, which seems to be where you copied and pasted it from. Note the unusual phrases ("Building to a crescendo") and odd capitalization ("LET FREEDOM RING!") that "your" edit shares with the white supremacist League of the South website.
 * 2. Since no WP:RS makes any connection between King's speech and Chesnutt's, not only was your inclusion of a long portion of Chesnutt's speech unnecessary, but it was synthesis and original research. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The incivility and personal attacks don't really help your case either, Rosspz. Malik Shabazz is correct that your edits are what's considered original research, and Wikipedia does not publish original research in any form. If the Carey speech is online elsewhere, it's much better to link to it from here that to reproduce large chunks of it - an encyclopedia is supposed to provide a summary of a topic, not an exhaustive thesis. Natalie (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No one has linked to a copy of Carey's speech from here, hence the important quotes belong here. There are many people here who think it is suitable and one person with an obvious bias reverting people's contributions. 24.23.89.145 (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How amazing! ONLY two speakers quoted from the same patriotic song? Both King and Carey mentioned some states in common, but the ONLY mountain both singled out was Stone Mountain - a monument to the Confederacy. Inappropriate?

Is "I have been to the mountaintop" is a rip-off of Moses too? The standards for speeches & dissertations are so completely different. The dissertation plagiarism is a serious issue. Detailed analysis of the speeches is just "piling-on". There is scarcely a speech in history that did not draw upon previous speeches and literature.

Had King ever heard of Carey's speech? Probably. However, the detailed comparison of speeches should be handled by a reference to an external source. Detailed excerpts from Boozer do not belong in this article - there is even less justification to include details of Carey's speech. --JimWae (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I added a weblink to the Carey/King texts and put the partial texts in a footnote. These were deleted.

If you try to find the Carey text on the web you will only find it here (where I got it from: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp), and, apparently on a white supremiscist webpage I've never heard of, but which was cited by Malik Shabazz. Since Carey's words are so hard to find, don't we want to at least give a weblink to them and/or put them in a footnote. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to put information freely out there in a readily retrievable format. It seems like we're not doing that here.

Snopes is a ridiculous source and it has an incorrect version of the speech. This is a very weak argument, imo, to claim others have the text then only providing snopes and a white supremecist site. Is this the level of research wiki wants their page based on??24.23.89.145 (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the basis of my research and which I based my edit of earlier this month.


 * http://boards.blackvoices.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=937&nav=messages&webtag=ti-talkoftheday&tid=67120


 * http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/carey_archibald.html

CAREY, ARCHIBALD J., JR. (1908-1981) An influential Chicago minister and politician, Archibald Carey maintained a close relationship with Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1957 Carey visited the King home while participating in the Montgomery Improvement Association’s annual Institute on Nonviolence and Social Change. Carey was born in Chicago in 1908, the son and grandson of ministers. He received degrees from Northwestern University’s Garrett Biblical Institute and Chicago-Kent College of Law. During his professional life he wore many hats: lawyer, bank president, politician, judge, and minister. He was pastor of Woodlawn AME Church in Chicago from 1930 to 1949 before moving to Quinn Chapel AME Church, Chicago’s second oldest Protestant church, where he served until 1967. Carey also served as Republican alderman of Chicago’s Third Ward (1947 to 1955) and was an alternate member of the United States delegation to the Eighth General Assembly of the United Nations in 1953. In 1955 President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Carey vice-chair and, later, chairman of the President’s Committee on Government Employment Policy. By 1966 Carey had changed his party affiliation to Democrat, and was elected as a circuit court judge in Cook County, Illinois, a position he held at the time of his death in April 1981. During the Montgomery bus boycott, King enlisted Carey’s aid by appointing him chairman of a Chicago committee that was asked to inform the headquarters of Montgomery’s bus company of the concerns of black Montgomery residents. During April 1956, Carey also helped organize an ‘‘Hour of Prayer’’ in Chicago that raised $2,500 for the MIA. King’s ‘‘I Have a Dream’’ address at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom parallels themes in Carey’s address at the 1952 Republican National Convention in Chicago, which concluded: "from every mountain side, let freedom ring. Not only from the Green Mountains and the White mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from the Ozarks in Arkansas, from the Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Great Smokies of Tennessee and from the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia ’’ (Carey, 8 July 1952). Carey, Address to the Republican National Convention, 8 July 1952, AJC-ICHi. King, ‘‘I Have a Dream,’’ 28 August 1963. King to Carey, 27 December 1955, in Papers 3:93–95.
 * http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/ihaveadream.html

"I HAVE A DREAM" (28 AUGUST 1963) Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered at the 28 August 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, synthesized portions of his previous sermons and speeches, with selected statements by other prominent public figures, which he used to convince his audience that: “Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. (King, a Call, 82)” King had been drawing on material he used in the “I Have a Dream” speech in his other speeches and sermons for many years. The finale of King’s April 1957 address “A Realistic Look at the Question of Progress in the Area of Race Relations,” envisioned a “new world,” quoted the song “My Country ’Tis of Thee,” and proclaimed that he had heard “a powerful orator say not so long ago, that… Freedom must ring from every mountain side…. Yes, let it ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado…. Let it ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let it ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let it ring from every mountain and hill of Alabama. From every mountainside, let freedom ring” (Papers 4:178─179). King borrowed this final segment from a speech that Archibald Carey, a minister, politician, and King family friend, delivered at the 8 July 1952 Republican National Convention. King capped the 1957 speech by paraphrasing lyrics from the spiritual Free at Last: “And when that happens we will be able to go out and sing a new song: ‘Free at last, free at last, great God almighty, I’m free at last’” (Papers 4:179). In King’s 1959 sermon “Unfulfilled Hopes,” he describes the life of the apostle Paul as one of “unfulfilled hopes and shattered dreams” (Papers 6:360). He notes that suffering as intense as Paul’s “might make you stronger and bring you closer to the Almighty God,” alluding to a concept he later summarized in “I Have a Dream”: “unearned suffering is redemptive” (Papers 6:366; King, 84). In September 1960, King began giving speeches referring directly to the American Dream. In a speech given that month at a conference of the North Carolina branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, King referred to the unexecuted clauses of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and spoke of America as “a dream yet unfulfilled,” (Papers 5:508). He advised the crowd that “we must be sure that our struggle is conducted on the highest level of dignity and discipline” and reminded them not to “drink the poisonous wine of hate,” but to use the “way of nonviolence” when taking “direct action” against oppression (Papers 5:510). King continued to give versions of this speech throughout 1961 and 1962, then calling it “The American Dream.” Two months before the March on Washington, King stood before a throng of 150,000 people at Cobo Hall in Detroit to expound upon making “the American Dream a reality” (King, a Call, 70). King repeatedly exclaimed, “I have a dream this afternoon” (King, a Call, 71). He articulated the words of the prophets Amos and Isaiah, declaring that “justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream,” for “every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low” (King, a Call, 72). As he had done numerous times in the previous two years, King concluded his message imagining the day “when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing with the Negroes in the spiritual of old: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!” (King, a Call, 73). As King and his advisors prepared his speech for the conclusion of the 1963 march, he solicited suggestions for the text. Clarence Jones offered a metaphor for the unfulfilled promise of constitutional rights for African Americans, which King incorporated into the final text: “America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned” (King, a Call, 82). Several other drafts and suggestions were posed. References to Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation were sustained throughout the countless revisions. King recalled that he did not finish the complete text of the speech until 3:30 A.M. on the morning of August 28. Later that day, King stood at the podium overlooking the gathering. Although a typescript version of the speech was made available to the press on the morning of the march, King did not merely read his prepared remarks. He later recalled: “I started out reading the speech, and I read it down to a point…the audience response was wonderful that day…. And all of a sudden this thing came to me that….I’d used many times before.... ‘I have a dream.’ And I just felt that I wanted to use it here….I used it, and at that point I just turned aside from the manuscript altogether. I didn’t come back to it” (King, 29 November 1963). The following day, in the New York Times James Reston wrote: “Dr. King touched all the themes of the day, only better than anybody else. He was full of the symbolism of Lincoln and Gandhi, and the cadences of the Bible. He was both militant and sad, and he sent the crowd away feeling that the long journey had been worthwhile” (Reston, “‘I Have a Dream…’”). SOURCES Carey to King, 7 June 1955, in Papers 2:560─561. Hansen, The Dream, 2003. King, “The Negro and the American Dream,” excerpt from address at the Annual Freedom Mass Meeting of the North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, 25 September 1960, in Papers 5:508─511. King, “I Have a Dream,” in A Call to Conscience, eds. Carson and Shepard, 2001. King, “A Realistic Look at the Question of Progress in the Area of Race Relations,” Address Delivered at St. Louis Freedom Rally, 10 April 1957, in Papers 4:167─179. King, “Unfulfilled Hopes,” sermon delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, 5 April 1959, in Papers 6: 359─367. James Reston, “‘I Have a Dream…’: Peroration by Dr. King Sums Up a Day the Capital Will Remember,” New York Times, 29 August 1963. King, “Address at the Freedom Rally in Cobo Hall,” in A Call to Conscience, Carson and Shepard, eds., 2001. http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=49241&bheaders=1

Archibald Carey Jr.'s Speech and King (#49241) by David T. Beito on December 21, 2004 at 5:56 PM Ralph:

A thoughtful piece. Have you ever looked into the story of how and why King apparently took part of his "I have a Dream Speech" from one delivered by Archibald Carey Jr. When I was looking through Carey's papers for the bio of T.R.M. Howard, I found a copy of Carey's speech (which was to the the Republican National Convention in 1952) and saw some of striking parallels in wording especially to the closing section of King's speech.

Re: Archibald Carey Jr.'s Speech and King (#49242) by Ralph E. Luker on December 21, 2004 at 6:12 PM Thanks, David. I'm not sure we know how it happened. I don't recall whether we know whether Carey's speech was published somewhere or not. There seems little doubt about King's lifting some of Carey's rhetoric from that 1952 speech. It is possible that MLK heard it the same way I did. He may have seen it on television. King would have been 23 years old when Carey gave that speech. He would have graduated from seminary, been in his early graduate school years, and at home for the summer to serve as assistant pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, his father's congregation. MLK, Sr., was a Republican and it is highly likely that King Sr. and Jr. would have been gathered around the television set for Carey's address.

Re: Archibald Carey Jr.'s Speech and King (#49243) by David T. Beito on December 21, 2004 at 6:51 PM Did you see it on televison? I always wondered if a copy of that speech has been preserved on film and how his delivery compared with that of King. Interestingly, Carey received several fan letter after the speech. One was from a little known city councilman in Phoenix named Barry Goldwater.

Re: Archibald Carey Jr.'s Speech and King (#49244) by Ralph E. Luker on December 21, 2004 at 7:00 PM I confess to having watched the wall-to-wall coverage of the 1952 Republican and Democratic conventions on television. They really were interesting to watch before the public relations experts seized control of everything and so sanitized them that there isn't very much interesting to see or hear at major party political conventions any more. I suspect that CBS or NBC has a viewable version of Carey's speech, tho no one has dug it out yet and played it alongside King's speech for comparison. The Goldwater letter is an interesting find.

attribution (#49256) by Greg James Robinson on December 22, 2004 at 12:33 AM I agree that Ralph's post is much to the point. The evidence that King expanded his practice of plagiarism as he progressed academically is indeed disturbing, as is his success at it. Clearly, nobody was on their guard and questioning where a charming young African American student could have absorbed so much information about Mahayana Buddhism. It is no doubt akin to Alex Haley's success at ducking responsibility for plagiarism and fabrications, as Philip Nobile has shown in his compelling research. (I discovered some years ago that Job Ben Solomon, an 18 century slave author and biographical subject, had told of Juffure and of being sold into slavery and sent from Gambia to Annapolis, which confirmed for me that Kunta Kinte had to be copied.) It is an object lesson for us white professors not to be overgenerous with African American students, simply out of fear of building on discrimination. I can't help but think of what would have happened if King's plagiarism had been discovered in full during his lifetime, but then Helen Keller seems to have emerged with her future reputation intact from the scandal of her plagiarism of a children's book. In any case, while I am glad that Ralph's post has fostered such serious self-examination by my colleagues here, I think that it is possible for us as professors to take too much responsibility on ourselves for plaigarism. I do not expect my students to repeat back to me what I have said; if anything, I make a point of being generous whenever possible with the works of students who present positions with which I disagree. Similarly, King's actions demonstrate the fallacy of the old saw that taking one author's ideas is plagiarism, and taking many author's ideas is research; rather, the copying of others's language is the tangible sign of knowingly appropriating their ideas. I have just learned from a Chinese colleague that cheating, including plagiarism, is rampant in China. There are thus presumably larger forced at work here than just a failure of our own society.

Re: attribution (#49423) by Ralph E. Luker on December 25, 2004 at 12:19 PM Mr. Appell, I suspect that if you knew more about the subject than you do we'd have a little more nuanced statement from you.

Re: Archibald Carey Jr.'s Speech and King (#49419) by brad t appell on December 25, 2004 at 11:33 AM Who cares? No one did more to advance the cause of moral values

It's clear Carey and King were friends. It's clear there are similarities between parts of their speeches. Doesn't it make sense to put some information before readers so they can see the actual words. I thought putting information out there is the purpose of Wikipedia. I still can't see what all the fuss is about what seems to be a simple factual statement. Two friends share ideas and here are the two versions of what they said. Why should we be so coy and make it virtually impossible for most people to read the two versions for themselves. 63.87.116.131 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)rosspz

Comment
If this information is so hard to find, why does a Google search of "I Have a Dream" and "Archibald Carey" result in more than 1,500 hits? The paragraph should have a reference, such as this one. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A few points. Try going into the items in the Google search and try to find Carey's actual words.  You can't.  Also, I like the King Encyclopedia reference--it shows Carey and King were friend--but it doesn't set out Carey' words.  Can we make a link to Carey's words--so an interested reader can actually view them and see the connection between them but how King made them more powerful--or perhaps set them out in a footnote like I did.  Is either of these acceptable to the group.  I think it would make the article more complete.  Rosspz (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)rosspz


 * A Google search for "I Have a Dream" and "Archibald Carey" and "Let Freedom Ring" produces more than 800 hits. Eleven of the first 15 hits have Carey's speech (the exceptions being Wikipedia, YouTube, and Google Books). Why do you keep insisting that it's hard to find Carey's speech when it's clearly not so? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the popular links have the real words to Carey's speech, I found them in ^ Hansen, D, D. (2003). The Dream: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Speech that Inspired a Nation. New York, NY: Harper Collins. p. 108 which is only available as a review in google. Here I only put the words from the King encyclopedia. 24.23.89.145 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC) There should be room for the entire end of the speeches here. We are not going to fill up the internet.

You know, you're right, there are some references to and quotes of Carey's words. But I had a hard time finding them until you provided the link. The New York Times today, Feb. 20, 2008, had an article on the discussion about Obama, Clinton and Gov. Deval Patrick and the borrowing by each of the other's words. The NYT provided a graphic of the different versions of the words of each. It was very helpful and informative. Here is a link: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/20/us/20080220_SPEECHES_GRAPHIC.html

That is what I have been trying to do. It will help the reader see the words of both speakers, Carey and King. The real question is should it be (1) a link right after the reference to Carey's speech; (2)a footnote with the partial texts; or (3) a link in the external refernece section. Which do you think is best. Thanks. 63.87.116.131 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)rosspz

Pretty good
actually, I would like to commend the editors of this page. Not only do they have the testicular fortitude to produce a page which will be slammed as "racist" but they produced it very well with cites and excerpts to give as NPOV a position as possible. To them I would say that whenever one questions another's hero, they one doing the questioning will always be criticized. 64.8.15.206 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Again
I did not realize this had been debated here when I tried to add Carey's speech and was NPOV reverted. The inisistence about sourcing badly misreads wiki's rule:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make.

I listed a primary source with a "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source". It is appoproate and one of the most clear pieces of evidence besides his thesis. To remove it as "unecessary" is not proper, imo and is certainly an NPOV violation as many people have pointed out. 24.23.89.145 (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to Martin Luther King Wiki
The Martin Luther King wiki uses this plagiarism wiki as a citation. It should be a hyperlink, not a citation. Wiki cannot be its own source. Can someone with access please make the change? Also the mention of plagiarism on the MLK wiki has a 2nd citation and the link for that is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream2000 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

24.23.89.145 (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article called "Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues" and not "Martin Luther King, Jr. plagiarism issues"?
Why is this article called "Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues" and not "Martin Luther King, Jr. plagiarism issues"? The issues in the article are solely ones of plagiarism and not more general ones of "authorship", e.g. using a ghostwriter.

| Elsewhere in Wikipedia straight forward reference is made to "plagiarism". Why not here? Deicas (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and make necessary changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream2000 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The title of this article should conform to the other Wikipedia articles, which use the 'plagiarism_controversy' standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Plagiarism_controversies I would do it, but I'm not sure I can, and even then I'm afraid I'd break something... 65.0.150.133 (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anybody can make such a change, and I considered doing so, but, really, we all know it would be reverted and cause no end of controversy. The title, using "authorship," covers the topic well enough and the first sentence tells that the subject involves plagiarism. We don't need to roil the waters. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Page 340 Tells Us Where The Faulty Citations Originated From
MLK had a habit of fumbling his note cards and this needs to be included.73.37.188.180 (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Link and text of Carey's speech
After I tried to post the words of Carey's speech to the I have a dream page, it was deleted and moved to here by DRmies. I did not agree with this but went along since this page is linked. Now Malik Shabazz has tried to delete the words claiming they are not relevant and redundant??? The words of the 2 speeches are the most convincing proof of plagiarism outside his thesis.

IMO, this page is like many others on wiki, so far NPOV because of edits by obvious supporters. 24.23.89.145 (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't write that Carey's speech was irrelevant or redundant. I wrote your quotation from it was an "unnecessary copy-and-paste from [the] source". Since the footnote link includes the relevant portion of Carey's speech, there's no need for the Wikipedia article to include it as well. (We don't include King's speech either.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course King's speech should be here, how else can anyone see the authorship issues? King's speech is copyrighted, Carey's is not. Wiki is not just a series of footnotes, there has to be a story somewhere. Any decent article on this speech should include both speeches side by side. Anything else is simply trying to conceal the truth behind wiki's rules. This page attempts to claim all primary sources are not allowed. This is not true. You are in the vast minority here and the argument that you can find it elsewhere easily is just not true. The link to snopes you provided gives an incorrect version of the Carey speech. Since the real version is very rare, it makes sense to print it here. Snopes is not a real source, as mentioned above. One person should not be able to overrule the wishes of everyone else. The only wiki admin to get involved said a link to Carey's speech was needed. This has not been provided. I gave the exerpt from the King page, but the rest of the speech also exposes the similarity to the 2 speeches. Claiming 2 sentences don't belong in this tiny article does not seem like a valid argument. 24.23.89.145 (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How dissimilar can 2 speeches be that take as their theme "From every mountainside, let freedom ring". The sentence structure and rhetorical style are very different. Both name mountains, but only one mountain is the same. Mountains were chosen from both North & South - which was part of the divide of the day. As far as the charge of plagiarism goes, this pales in comparison with the dissertation issues. Standards for originality in speeches & dissertations are extremely different. Numerous presidential inaugural addresses also borrow from other speeches & works. Incidentally, the only issue I see with snopes is that it omits "the Great Smokies of Tennessee" - but it gives more of what follows. It is not having in common "from every mountainside let freedom ring" that points to any unoriginality - else Carey's speech was also unoriginal. Pointing out that similarity ought not be part of the summary of commonlaities. --JimWae (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This, perhaps is more of Carey's address. Be better to find a link to the entire address. --JimWae (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's even more of Carey's address at Archibald Carey, Jr. --JimWae (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently King had given similar addressES in 1956 (Dec 3 and Dec 17): http://books.google.ca/books?id=GkHrnFzEykwC&pg=PA479&lpg=PA479&dq=%22from+every+mountainside%22+%22let+freedom+ring%22+carey&source=bl&ots=MXXwKuYMPl&sig=aNpP-xY5C5B91Lf_q-FfFzaFoeE&hl=en&ei=IMR6TK_nMYb4swP3j-DjDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22from%20every%20mountainside%22%20%22let%20freedom%20ring%22%20carey&f=false --JimWae (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be quite fair to say it had long been part of King's repertoire --JimWae (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1957 in St Louis: "As I heard a great orator say some time ago," King remarked, “freedom must ring from every mountainside.” http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2009/1/2009_1_26.shtml --JimWae (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see this added to the article with proper references. I just don't understand your conclusion that the speeches are not similar. I put the exerpt in the Carey page, but as someone said earlier, you can't just keep cross referencing wiki, it is circular logic. The fact that he took the speech over and over does not make it any more of his. Giving credit once does not mean you never have to do it again. How do you know how many times let freedom ring was repeated from the source given? I think you are arguing for the entire quote to be given, until someone can find a link to Carey's whole speech, as was requested by the admin. It makes great sense since there is so much misinformation out there and so many who are confused. The only way for readers to see the whole picture is to have an article with all the data in one place. -- 24.23.89.145 (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody is saying the speeches are not similar. Nobody is claiming he was the "author" of that part of the speech. Nobody is saying that part of the speech was his own. The question is whether it amounts to "plagiarism". People often use speeches they have given before & they often build upon speeches of others. The standard for originality in speeches is quite different from the one for dissertations. Most people had never heard that speech before, he was being loudly & repeatedly asked to give it again, & The March on Washington was an opportunity for it to reach a wider audience. The "plagiarism" issue for the speech is far less compelling than for the dissertation. "Let Freedom Ring" (and "from every mountainside") was part of the song long before it was part of Carey's speech - and virtually everyone instantly knew that phrase was not original to MLK. There is no evidence the repetition of "I have a dream" was part of Carey's speech. Had the speech been part of a dissertation, it likely was sufficiently different that it would not be deemed plagiarism if it were the only instance of "uncited adoption" -- and standards for speeches are far more relaxed than for dissertations. Certainly it would have been "better" had he acknowledged "as another orator said some time ago". However, any detailed examination of the 2 speeches would be original research AND would make the article lose focus. --JimWae (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It takes no "detailed examination" to determine whether or not Carey used the words "I have a dream" in his speech. All you have to do is listen to it. Unless I somehow missed it just now, he does NOT say it, which makes anyone who says he does it a clear racist character assassin. Archibald Carey, Jr's 1952 GOP convention speech [RARE AUDIO ]

He sound shrill and angry like many republicans of that day, and this. I encourage anyone to listen to this angry rant and compare it to the calm power and love expressed in King's 1963 speech.

Please, I'm begging people with time that are more well versed on this topic than I to fix this page, put it in it's proper context and not have this blatant character assignation be one of the first thing a young person might read about king. Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above comments are proof Wikipedia cannot be trusted. Had it been any other person, the article would have had the words "plagiarism allegations" included in the title. 41.44.184.96 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Art's Definition on Google Search
Art:The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

While I do not deny my strong dislike of the one-sided Black Power movement motivated me to make these edits, I can assure you they are neutral. Appropriation is different than plagiarism.184.97.194.191 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:WEASEL. 41.44.184.96 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Fact and Opinion
Plagiarism section contain opinion explaing or defending why King did what he did. I believe it is better to separate fact from opinion. FWBOarticle

He took a course on plagiarism
Surely it's worth noting that King took a course on scholarly standards while at BU. This undermines the argument that he was somehow unaware of what he was doing, or that different standards were applied to them. This fact is noted in Thomas Pappas' book Plagiarism and the Culture War, though I don't have the page number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.241.26 (talk • contribs)