Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Refusal to engage arguments

Refusal to engage arguments
There is a discussion on Talk:Martin Luther King about the inclusion of a quote that may be illuminating of his character. Some editors refuse to accept that character may be a relevant aspect of the man. User:Jonund has presented arguments why he thinks it is relevant. They have been met with a dogged refusal to engage the arguments or answer concrete questions. This is a violation of WP:DE, which describes a disruptive editor as one who does not engage in consensus building:
 * repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
 * repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Two RfC:s have been submitted. One led to intervention by an editor (and administrator) that engages in the same kind of behavior that has been described as disruptive editing. The other led to intervention by an editor who takes the opposite position. The discussion on the talk page is long; much of the relevant material is found under the section RfC King's sexual conduct.

The behavior of some editors prevents progress in the article. In my opinion, it's a serious treath to wp:s integrity and credibility if a number of dedicated editors are able to stop the addition of material that they apparently oppose on dogmatic grounds. I ask for proper measure to be taken to guarantee that the editing process is not obstructed. I suppose a warning is the best way to start. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Allright. I'll hereby warn you not to misrepresent the arguments used by people with a different opinion. They have reviewed the sources, and concluded that the four sources given are actually one source plus three repeaters, and the first source is most probably based on hearsay from the FBI, not on proper research. I have also noted that people oppose the inclusion not only because of reasons of verifiability, but for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. No one opposes the section on his extramarital affairs, but the inclusion of one piece of dirty talk, based on such poor sourcing, is not warranted at all. This has nothing to do with "refusing to accept that character is a relevant aspect" and even less with disruptive editing. This is standard policy application. After two RfC's, it may be best to quietly drop this instead of continuing like this. Fram (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As one of the many editors accused in this notice, I will add that Fram's summary pretty much covers it. The only editor who is really insistent on including the material under dispute feels that one exclamation that Hoover's COINTELPRO-era FBI claimed King made in a moment of passion, is so incredibly revelatory of King's nastiness that it must, simply must be included in the article, because otherwise people won't realize what a horrible, skanky blasphemer King was. (Full disclosures: I have belonged to at least one organization destroyed by FBI manipulations during this era; and still belong to AFSCME, the union on behalf of whose garbageworkers King was speaking when he was assassinated.) The insistent editor backs this up with references to how important this issue is to all the best theologians of his (the editor's) religious tradition as he interprets it. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am also one of the many editors accused, I think perhaps the admin who is alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior. A review of the talk page will reveal two things: (1) that there is pretty much a single editor insisting that additional material regarding King's sexual conduct be included so that the article will conform to that single editor's POV regarding how the individuals who are regarded by some as a form of "religious icon" seemingly must, by definition, have their known shortcomings explored in detail, and (2) another editor who, as far as I can tell, thinks that a quote from King must be included because of "insights" it offers into King's personality, despite the fact that I am aware of no encyclopedias that include such information for such purposes, and that doing so very likely even runs against the spirit of encyclopedias, which is to present unbiased factual information. I would very much welcome a clear reference to either a policy or a guideline which indicates that either is considered acceptable, something I believe I have to date never seen. Otherwise, I have to very much question the motivations of an editor who starts a discussion such as this one regarding, basically, how editors who are ltimately trying to ensure the article remain NPOV are somehow behaving so badly that it has to be brought to a noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I thought I was the admin alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior. The OP does have a point; I'm not bothering engaging in the sourcing and verifiability issues, because I don't think the quote belongs in the article for reasons unrelated to the sourcing. I also don't think there's any admin intervention required here; nobody has taken any administrative actions in regard to this discussion, nor suggested any is necessary (except when a bit of edit warring was going on a few weeks ago, but that's ceased.) Slightly heated discussion is ensuing on the talk page, which is exactly where such discussion belongs. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As yet another one of the editors alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior, I don't care whether the sources are reliable, although I have my doubts. My view is that what King may or may not have exclaimed during orgasm doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, period. — Malik Shabazz 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We should be firmer about sanctioning editors who abuse the dispute resolution process (whether ANI or other venues). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My position is simple. There was an RfC, I came and commented, the majority of commentators did not agree with the POV of the editor who posted the RfC, the discussion continued, despite the consensus being against one editor.  The RfC was closed, and I stated that as the RfC was closed and because the consensus was that there was no weight in the argument for inserting the material (drawing on several WP policies) I made it clear that was my position, and that as far as I was concerned the matter was closed, and took the page off my watchlist.  So, I am surprised to see this is ongoing still.  My understanding is that if one makes an RfC, and consensus is against the proposal on grounds in line with WP policies and guidelines, that is the conclusion - not that a single editor persists in agitating discussion until (through a process of attrition) he gets his own way.  The arguments have all been laid out quite clearly, so I see no reason why we need to keep going over this, unless some new information has come to light.  There ought to be a process where editors who place an RfC, but do not like the responses of commentators, then malign those who do not respond in ways that would favour them, are disciplined.  What is the point of placing an RfC if you aren't prepared to accept the response you get? Those who responded in a way that contradicted the wishes of this editor were accused of various things - when clearly the bias was on the part of the editor who appears to have an axe to grind. Mish (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, if an RfC is questioned, then the apparent next step is to seek mediation. I have already indicated as much on the talk page of the article in question. Why this step was instead taken is something I have very serious difficulty understanding. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I responded to the RFC and argued in favour of inclusion. I've loosely followed the discussion since. After the RFC Jonund continued to put his case and, in my eyes, did so with very cogent argument. He raised several points which, as far as I saw, were not answered with anything other than claims that he was trying to insert a POV. I didn't see it that way at all and I have no idea what his POV is. I've no opinion on whether ANI is an appropriate venue for this, or whether the disruptive editing policy is applicable. Consensus is not about head counts. In my opinion Jonund has presented the superior and most convincing argument. John's suggestion of mediation sounds reasonable to me--MoreThings (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies for having not looked over the previous discussion before posting here, and having forgotten that there were additional supporters of the idea. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I think there have also been at least a couple of IPs arguing in favour. The first paragraph from this post  by one of them sums up the way it looked to me, too, from a distance. --MoreThings (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I recall there were a couple of supporters, and they fell quiet, but the consensus seemed to be not to insert. The issue of POV was raised by Jonund initially, as I recall, when people wouldn't accept his reasoning, which was basically along the lines that the information was relevant because of certain religious beliefs; it is a problem, and when accusing disinterested editors who respond to an RfC of having a POV, one shouldn't be surprised if it is pointed out that the reasoning for inclusion appears to reflect a certain POV itself.  As I recall, the argument was that most Christians believed something, and this was evidence that King transgressed this standard of what a Christian leader should be, and that made the information relevant.  I didn't think that Wikipedia was about endorsing specific religious views, and basing the eligibility of entries on that basis.  The issue about the source was that it was an allegation about what a primary source said, that in itself being a problematic primary source as it was part of a counter-intellegence operation aimed at discrediting King, and that the material was challenged at the time and still is.  As I recall, it was thought that if it were to be included, it should be so on the basis that it was an allegation that had been refuted, and not as something that could be verified beyond 'so-and-so said this', as we do not have access to the original source, and the allegation was based on a transcript.  There was also the issue that the RfC was based on the wrong link - i.e., the link given in the RfC did not relate to a relevant source at all.  This became clear at the close of the RfC, and was the point at which I felt I had little more energy to engage with the discussion further.  With hindisght, however, I think that simply including a source on the basis that 'all Christians' believe 'such and such', and this source will make them realise 'so and so' was 'something-or-other' is bogus - especially when there is already extensive discussion about the guys philandering.  The only sense I got that this source was worth including was because from this it would be clear to 'most Christians' that he was a blasphemer, and therefore not 'a man of God'.  Sorry, I don't see this as a valid reason for including dubious material.  To me that is not a POV, it is a no-brainer where Wikipedia is concerned. Of course, my memory is not infallible, and I don't have time or energy to go through the (long) discussion right now. Mish (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to basically agree with the above. The quote in question was challenged at the time, and thus would require indicating it was an "alleged" statement or something similar. If there were a specific reliable source which said something to the effect of, "based on this comment, it is clear that King committed one mortal sin while in the act of committing another mortal sin, and thus cannot be seen as being even a weak Christian", I could maybe, maybe, see that being included. But to argue that information must be included to substantiate an argument which no one produced evidence of a reliable source as ever making is at best crossing into POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with several of the points above but I guess this is probably not the place to rehearse the arguments. I think the thrust of Årvasbåo's incident report is that Jonund has been presenting reasoned argument which has met with no real counter-argument, but has been dismissed in the way described by the IP I linked to above. The way Årvasbåo and the IP describe the debate is also the way it loooked to me. I don't know what mediation involves but that certainly sounds to me as though it would be more appropriate than looking for any kind of administrative intervention, if that's what is being requested here. --MoreThings (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is written from a neutral, secular point of view. Character may be relevant to an encyclopedic biography, but where the incident being described was obviously driven by a politically motivated attempt at discrediting a public figure, where no longstanding notability has been established, where the argument for inclusion is clearly being made in religious terms, and where no apparent encyclopedic grounds for inclusion seem to have been provided, what exactly do you expect? – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If Årvasbåo is saying what I think he is saying, then, with respect, none of you what you have written above has anything to do with this incident report. It's not about the whether the quotation should be included. It's about whether editors have been refusing to enage Jonund in discussion about its inclusion. Anyhoo, I ought not to put words in Årvasbåo's mouth. --MoreThings (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, on re-reading your post, I see that I misinterpreted it, somewhat. I would reply that, from what I saw, Johund was indeed making his case on encyclopedic grounds. His case was that the other editors would not engage with him in a debate about whether inclusion would be encyclopedic. Anyway, I'm off to bed. --MoreThings (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would only add that the quotation was at the time it came out argued as of at best dubious sound quality and coherence at the time it was first "released", making adding a quotation which was even at the time considered by some (yes, possibly biased) listeners as incoherent would be very likely violating neutrality rules, by taking one side's opinion over a possibly garbled quotation over another side's without any clear evidence to support taking that position. To include a possible misreading of an apparently dubious quotation as evidence of anything is particularly problematic. This is over and above the other existing concerns regarding the alleged content which have already been expressed here. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking as someone previously uninvolved, it looks to me like consensus is firmly against including the quote at this time. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the title of this thread, and looking at the things listed under 'are you in the right place?', where the topic of this thread is not listed, I have to ask: is ceasing to engage an editor's argument once an RfC has closed, even though he persists in maintaining he is right when the consensus appears to have gone the other way, something that needs administrative attention? I don't see how this fits here.  Any action that needs to be taken should be directed at the person who posted the thread, like pointing out that Jonund did an RfC, that his arguments were weak, and people didn't seem to agree with him, and that he should deal with it. Mish (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking through the discussion thread once more, I would counter the accusation of disruptive editing; for a start it was not the discussants who sought to make such an edit, and a long discussion was engaged with - disagreement is not failing to build consensus; rather this looks more like a case of WP:Tendentious editing on the part of one editor, in trying to force this material in, and disregarding the input of other editors and those who responded to the RfC.  I cannot see that the discussion has substantially changed since my departure - and this was part of the reason I left.  The page I just referred to makes clear that when an editor persistently makes the same point over and over again, it is wise to reflect on whether this is a POV issue.  The same points were made, and contrary to the wording of this ANI they were responded to - exhaustively - but ignored, with the same points being restated again.  I do not see how mediation will help in this, because there was an RfC and the editor would not accept what people said.  All that is needed is for the editor(s) promoting the insertion to accept that, rather than escalating the matter in the hope that they can override the consensus not to insert it in some way.  Now, if I do not respond here, or on the discussion page, again, it is not because I am refusing to engage the arguments - I have done that - and I consider there is no more to say.  That is because I do not have strong views on this, unlike the editor(s) who seem to want it inserted (obviously, or we wouldn't all be here now, would we?). Mish (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mish, you say "[Jonund's] arguments were weak, and people didn't seem to agree with him, and that he should deal with it." You go on to paint it as POV-pushing by a single editor. You imply both here and on the talk page, that you are not interested in further discussion. You finish up by saying that everyone who wants it inserted is probably also a POV-pusher. All of that is exactly the kind of behaviour that is alleged in this incident report. One editor whom nobody agrees with? There is Årvasbåo, who opened this report, Jonund himself, me, the ip I linked to above, and the second IP I mentioned. That's 5 people mentioned in this thread alone. POV-pushing? It's easy just to invoke these acronyms, but where is the argument to substantiate your claim? What exactly is the POV that is being pushed? I don't have a clue which POVs the others might hold about anything. The only POV we share is that the article would be better for the inclusion of the quote. What do you think my point of view is? What do you think the IP's is? I've named five people above who would dispute your claim that consensus exists for exclusion. What's wrong with mediation? --MoreThings (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No. That is not what I said. (Your statement is also self-contradictory). What I said was that the editor who brought up POV-pushing in the original discussion was Jonund, when those who responded to the RfC did not agree with him, and his arguments suggest something about his own POV - that we have to put this in because of something Christian's believe about blasphemy and he says scholars are agreed upon - nothing that actually relates to the sources. I said nothing about other editor's POV. What I said was about overriding there being no consensus to insert the material, I did not say why people might want to do that - I said nothing about POV in that respect. It is not I who accused editors of responding to an RfC on an article they had no history with of bad faith - that is implicit in the wording of this ANI. Sure, if mediation will help you to accept that people did not agree with the insertion, mediation could be valuable. But I am not sure I wish to engage in a process where, having engaged in an RfC in good faith, I once more have my motives questioned, and having gone through these arguments once, then taking the article off my watchlist when the RfC had closed, then being dragged here to account for why I had stopped discussing the insertion once the RfC was closed, and finding myself accused of disruptive editing of an article I had made no edits of before the RfC, or in connection with the RfC, and then have to go through all the arguments again. I would prefer to be doing something else, to be honest. Something a bit less trivial than whether a man who died 40 years ago might have said something while he was having sex with somebody he wasn't married to, and whether that is still significant today. Mish (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's cool, Mish. I'm not looking to get into a tit-for-tat—just adding my 2p on here as I did on the RFC. Let it go whither it will. --MoreThings (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, nor do I. To me, this discussion ended when the RfC ended, and I am surprised that it is still going on. Mish (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To give the lie to my previous post, and to be sucked into a gratuitous tit-for-tat: I don't think the discussion is ended; I think it should be continue. Okay, no more, I promise :) --MoreThings (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not impressive. A number of editors who have been involved in disruptive editing on the article talk page spam this page with irrelevant posts, and a few administrators, who haven't bothered to investigate or comprehend what the dispute is about bite the person who brings up a serious issue. Nobody has yet dealt with the question raised at the opening of this thread, let alone answered the questions my opponents so obstinately have dodged for two or three months.

An early formulation of my questions was:
 * Are lewdness and blasphemy really immaterial qualities in a Christian minister who has on top of that been commemorated by two churches as a saint/hero/martyr?
 * Is it really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important?

Since the answeres amounted to a simple no, I elaborated the questions thus:
 * Which objective criteria do you propose for determining which viewpoints are significant? How is it possible to dismiss the majority of theologians and philosophers as irrelevant? Aren’t you placing your own opinions above those, which is against WP:UNDUE?
 * If you feel that it is improper appeal to theologians and philosopher because their position is a POV, are you aware that “The [WP:NPOV] requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly,” and “As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'”? On what grounds do you eliminate widely held perspectives? Or can you demonstrate that these quotes are invalid in this case?
 * How do you deal with the fact that ribaldry and immorality (on a far larger scale than the occasional succumbing to temptation) was a typical trait of King’s life? Shouldn’t this be given due weight in the article, by being mentioned?

If there is a case to be made against the inclusion of the quote, why don't you have the quote bueried by answering the questions? The avoidance to do so shows a very poor ability for a matter-of-fact manner, or a bad faith. There is no way to evade the questions and substitute answers with dogmatic positions.

Pace Luna Santin , Wikipedia is not written from a secular point of view. It's written from a NPOV, which means "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". You don't need to be religious to understand the quote's bearing on MLK's character and agree that it is important. I'm not trying to discredit King, but to give information from several sides, which enables the reader to get a nuanced picture of him. And even if I had political motives and where out for discrediting, that's not to the point. WP articles are judged on the merit of their contents and not the editor's supposed motives (sometimes bad motives render good results). There is indeed a longstanding notability in this case. Serious sources continue to report the quote. The encyclopedic grounds for inclusion become evident once you answer the question I have asked.

The verifiability part of the dispute now seems to have been settled. Let me anyway remind you that I always wanted to include also the statements of King's coworkers, to get all significant views represented.

For an example of a WP article who reports an incident perceived as evidence of hypocrisy, see Peace Now. Probably that incident was less offensive in terms of the values of the General Secretary, since he also had the law to take into account. Yet, editors find it relevant to point out behavior that seems to contradict his own values (which, in his case, are shared by few of his fellow citizens).

As the problem of disregarding questions that might settle the issue has not been solved, I appeal to disinterested administrators to take responsibility and intervene. I understand that the amount of text deters those editors, but WP cannot function with behavior on this level going unchalleged. --Jonund (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A number of editors who have been involved in disruptive editing on the article talk page spam this page with irrelevant posts: Those are fighting words. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it shows who is refusing to engage who's arguments. Clearly my responses were not engaged with, as they are regarded as 'spam' and 'disruptive' - and when I decided not to waste any more of time on somebody who simply ignored anything that was said to them, I get accused of refusing to engage with his arguments.  Note that allegations about King's adultery are included here: Martin Luther King, so Shouldn’t this be given due weight in the article, by being mentioned? shows some confusion on Jonund's part, as it is mentioned in the only way possible - as allegations.  On the other hand he says Since the answeres amounted to a simple no, when it was responded to with more than just 'no', in some detail as I recall.  I could go through the inaccuracy and self-contradiction in more detail, but as that would be 'spam' and 'disruptive editing' according to him, I will do what I have done with the discussion on the article, I will be silent (and this seems to be what this is all about - silencing disagreement).  Please note that I am not refusing to engage, however, I am simply being silenced. Mish (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, "allegations" about King's adultery are included in the article, but my question was about something more: "ribaldry and immorality (on a far larger scale than the occasional succumbing to temptation) was a typical trait of King’s life".
 * The answers to my questions have lacked substance and hardly give more information than that you don't think moral character is relevant. Three editors have pointed out that my arguments have not been met with any real counter-arguments. My repeated attempts to get real answers should have given you a memento about the need for engaging my arguments seriously. That you ignored my patient attempts to have an honest discussion about the points i believe are crucial, and now play innocent, speaks volumes about your ability, or willingness, to contribute constructively.
 * Assertions like "you didn't answer!" and "yes, we've said all that needs to be said!" are not conducive to the discussion. I expect administrators to lay it down that ignoring arguments is not acceptable and only places you out of the consensus-seeking community. The editors also still have a chance to answer my questions clearly and thoroughly. --Jonund (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not aware you asked about citing a source that discusses King's moral character. You have a source for this then: "ribaldry and immorality was a typical trait of King’s life"?  If an author has said this, then it should be included in accordance with the weight due - and stated as what it is - that so-and-so gives evidence that "ribaldry and immorality was a typical trait of King’s life" (as a quote, referencing whoever).  My apologies, I thought you were still arguing that this statement should be inserted on the basis of WP:OR - that theologians/philosophers say that people who do X are Y, King did X, therefore King was Y - because based on the source provided in the RfC that would be synthesis. Mish (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Jonund, why are you repeating your same tired arguments here? It seems clear you're more interested in writing a Sunday morning sermon than an encyclopedia article. You seem like a petulant child whose got his fingers in his ears, repeating "I don't hear you." You have no right to demand answers to your silly questions, and then reject them if they don't suit your purpose. Grow up already. And to everybody else, please stop feeding this troll. — Malik Shabazz 00:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have been through the history of RfCs at biographies for the time concerned, where one might expect an RfC for a biography to be placed, and there is no RfC for King in May or June. The first of the two alleged RfCs was placed at society - but there is no record of a second RfC having been placed there - so unless the second RfC was placed elsewhere, it does not appear any mention of a second RfC appears anywhere other than the article page, which would mean it would be unlikely tod raw comment apart from those editing or still hanging around after the first RfC was closed.
 * 5th May shows no RfC under biographies for King:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies&diff=prev&oldid=288360408
 * 8th June shows nothing related to the second RfC, and the first entry after June 7th is June 12th, under which it is not listed.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies&diff=296042557&oldid=294902870
 * The discussion of the second 'RfC' went on for more than 30 days, and there seems to be no record of it closing with any consensus or not.
 * the orginal RfC was listed here in Society on 5th May:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_sports,_law,_and_sex&diff=next&oldid=288067500
 * there are no entries there from the 7th until 10th June, so there was no second RfC for King listed there:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_sports,_law,_and_sex&diff=next&oldid=295029127
 * I did comment on this during the discussion around that time - and there was still no second RfC there on 1st July - and the whole way this discussion was being carried out seemed to be a waste of time, as it was being done under the auspices of an RfC that did not exist (unless it was listed somewhere other than biography or society - as there is no record of it having been in either place).
 * This means that the first RfC was engaged with, fully, and that was the only RfC touching this matter, and given this is a biography, to get comments about such disputed material the first RfC and the second so-called-'RfC' should have been posted to the RfC noticeboard under biographies. Mish (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Background Since this seems to be at least somewhat important to the above discussion as editors (Mish) propose that people want to insert this quote because of a POV, I wish to clarify my own feelings/attitudes towards MLK. From a personal standpoint, I think MLK did a great thing for this country and the world in general. I really don't harbor any bias or racism against him. In fact, I am actually in an interracial marriage (my beautiful wife is from Mexico)and so I am grateful for the civil rights movement in general, which made my marriage possible.

From an academic standpoint, I have no interest in MLK beyond that generated by this article. I originally became involved in the discussion surrounding the inclusion of this quote because of my judgment of the merits associated with the quote itself, not because of any notions that I have of what facts should be presented in a biography about his life.

However, having said that, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 1) Whether I THINK the quote should go into the article 2) Whether the quote should go into the article. Those arguments should be based on the encyclopedia merits of the quote alone, not on any bias I have (or anyone else has) for/against the quote.

During the time that I've been active on the page, there has been some refusal to engage Jorund's arguments for the inclusion of the quote. I have no opinion on whether administrative action is appropriate in this situation, but I do opinion that more effort should be made by the side who opposes the insertion of the quote to suggest SPECIFIC REASONS why they think the quote fails Wiki's criteria for inclusion. I finally managed to move the discussion along on the question of verifiability, and I think that it has been more or less settled by discovering that the author from whom the citation was taken won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on MLK. I think that Jorund has presented some good arguments about why the quote would be relevant (by Wikipedia standards) which have yet to be answered in specific terms. To make things a bit clearer, somebody needs to go through and do the following.


 * Jorund's Point
 * Counter Point
 * Jorund's Point
 * Counter Point

Etc.

If we could have this kind of conversation, the issue would be resolved in (max) probably 2-3 weeks time -- one way or the other. 128.187.0.178 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertions made above (Mish) that the discussion is closed. Respectfully, Mish, if it were closed, then I wouldn't be typing this. It is still open and very active, which is great for Wikipedia. Discussion rocks! However, in order for discussion to work, there has to be a two way dialogue. Jorund has proposed very specific, logical (to me), and seemingly well thought out reasons why this quote should be included. Can anyone present some very specific counterarguments to Jorund's reasoning? I think if we could have just one editor from the side who opposes insertion go through Jorund's arguments and answer them in a very specific, direct, and point-by-point manner, this argument would be resolved one way or the other within a couple of weeks time. Failure to do so is what is prolonging this argument. 128.187.0.178 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the discussion is not closed - but the only RfC there has been was closed without consensus at the beginning of June, and the citation that RfC was based around didn't even include a quote - just a link to a magazine article that made no mention of that part of the RfC. I am only concerned with this discussion because it is asserted that when an RfC closes without consensus, people who respond to that RfC are disruptive if they do not engage subsequent arguments (and apparently disruptive when we did, because that was regarded as spam).  My suggestion would be for Jonund to spend some time formulating his request properly, with the right source, and post his RfC to a more relevant noticeboard - biographies - and notify people on society as well, so there is an opportunity for people who take an active interest in biographies (and know the policies and guidelines better than others, no doubt) so that they can advise on this. Mish (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * TBH, I am a bit pissed about this misrepresentation. Somebody sets up an RfC about inserting some material, with links to an online CNN article that makes no mention of the material to be inserted, engages a lot of discussion, the RfC closes without consensus to insert.  Then he re-drafts the question with links to sources that do mention the material, one of which is a link via Google Books Germany (but the text there doesn't contain the alleged quote), and further on in the discussion gives a link to support King's adultery, which makes no mention of adultery, but 'ribald' parties that his associates held that he was associated with - and proceeds on getting all this discussed as an RfC, without checking to see that it is not actually described as an RfC anywhere other than on the talk page it is being discussed on.  A second month of wasting people's time because he has failed to check he has done this correctly.  Then, he brings a complaint about people who did engage in discussion here because he didn't get the outcome he wanted (which he wouldn't regardless of the outcome when one RfC closed without consensus, and another was not actually an RfC).  I made clear in the discussion that followed the closure of first RfC that I was not wasting more time on this.  Yet, here I am, wasting my time.  I agree with the earlier poster - Jonund is troll (i.e. a time-wasting attention-seeker), now using this ANI to further his trolling and extend a discussion the RfC for which ended at the beginning of June. Mish (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are the links, via Google Books (English):


 * Rieder, Jonathan: The Word of the Lord is upon me (p.62)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=2Bz15QXS-qMC&pg=PA62&dq=%22The+Word+of+the+Lord+is+upon+me%22+Jonathon+Reider+%22fucking+for+God%22&ei=VdRkSoKlGZHWlAS3prTGDg
 * At one point on the FBI tapes of the Willard Hotel tryst, King is heard to cry out at the peak of sexual passion, "I'm fucking for God!" and "I'm not a Negro tonight."(p.62)
 * (cites Branch 'Pillar of Fire', p.207 as source)


 * Kotz, Nick: Judgment Days (p.84-85)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=FgvF5_nPPH8C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=Kotz+%22Judgment+days%22+%22fucking+for+God%22&source=bl&ots=CFPiZmucnh&sig=eByZFBOEujLZpU38o-6Jdrx3MIo&hl=en&ei=rNJkSozTJMKZjAeAn9nyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
 * Three technicians later told King's biographer Taylor Branch that they had "heard King's distinctive voice ring out above others, with pulsating abandon, saying 'I'm fucking for God!' and 'I'm not a Nefro tonight!' Aides to King who later heard what they believed to be portions of the Willard Hotel tapes disputed the FBY's accounts, claiming that the scratchy sounds were indistinct and difficult to comprehend."
 * (cites Branch 'Pillar of Fire')


 * Dyson, Michael: "I may not get there with you"
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=7Ld2AAAAMAAJ&q=dyson+%22I+May+Not+Get+There+With+You%22+%22fucking+for+God%22&dq=dyson+%22I+May+Not+Get+There+With+You%22+%22fucking+for+God%22&ei=ydNkSuW0LpLilATR4NHHDg
 * (Cannot access text, Google description of link:)
 * King is said to have uttered during one of his sexual romps that "I'm fucking for God," (p.162)


 * Branch, Taylor: Pillar of Fire
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=-_RY6K-Qo0wC&q=%22Pillar+of+Fire%22+Taylor+Branch+%22fucking+for+God%22&dq=%22Pillar+of+Fire%22+Taylor+Branch+%22fucking+for+God%22&ei=ANZkSv-FG4LglATZ-72wDg&client=mozilla
 * (Cannot access text, Google description of link:)
 * refs p.207 "I'm fucking for God!": Author's interviews with FBI officials. (p. 648)


 * All three seem to be derived from Branch's book, which is based on material from the FBI campaign to discredit King, and which is disputed by King's aides. The author appears not to have heard the tape, but states that this is what FBI officials say they heard.  It is therefore still an allegation, and should be dealt with as an allegation from people who were engaged in a campaign to discredit King, and refuted by his aides.  To ascertain how to treat such material, you need to refer to policy and guidelines on biographies - and particularly note that this represents one sentence in a book spanning nearly 650 pages, so it can be argued that this would represent undue weight in an encyclopedia article (which is then repeated just as briefly in other books).  Looking at the text surrounding this, and text that Jonund has cited eslewhere relating to 'adultery' 'ribaldry' etc., this makes up at best one or two pages in the book(s).  So, the balance for the article, as it stands, seems about right.  The detail about the FBI in the book is more extensive, as this is the context within which this text appears, and covers more far-ranging attempts to discredit King - so again, the context this appears in would be expected to take more prominence than one of the allegations emerging from within that campaign.  Dealing with this material outside the campaign would be synthetic.  At best, it could be mentioned as one of the allegations, but not as something that is verifiable about the character of King.  This is my concern about the arguments for insertion - a comment in relation to the context of the allegation does not appear satisfactory, and what is being demanded goes beyond the source to develop WP:OR about what this material suggests about Kings character.  That cannot be derived from the source in relation to this allegation. Mish (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This thread is in danger of growing longer than the one on the talk page! Everyone seems to be agreed that discussion is not over, so the question is: where do we go from here? I think everyone now has a clear idea not only of their own position, but also of all the objections that have been raised against that position. I wonder if we should ask everyone to restate their case--for or against inclusion. It should be possible to include in your statement rebuttals of any objections you case has met. We could do that either through mediation, another RFC, or back on the talk page. Given the heat of the discussion, I'm wondering if it might be better through mediation. That might keep help keep discussion focused strictly on the issues. Who knows, it might even be interesting!--MoreThings (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Much as I dislike the idea of spending more time on this, given that there has not yet been a properly formulated (i.e. one that has a link to the right source) and successfully posted RfC (as opposed to one that wasn't posted anywhere other than the talk page) on this issue yet (which probably explains why the discussion has been so torturous and extensive), the originator should formulate a proper RfC, allowing other editors to view it on the talk page before posting it to ensure the wording is agreed as neutral (and is free from error), then post it to the biographies section of the RfC noticeboard, and inform society and projects listed on the discussion page. Then a proper discussion can take place on the talk page - on the basis of the RfC rather than having to address things that get inserted subsequently like what philosophers or theologians may have said about moral behaviour, and what 'most Christians' may or may not think about something. Mish (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, my preference for mediation is because I think it might be the quickest way to get from where we are now to a resolution. I also think it might be possible to have some worthwhile debate. I wonder if another RfC won't lead to another enormous round of frustration and recrimination, but I'll go with the flow. Let's see what everyone else wants to do.--MoreThings (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mish, I think you may have misunderstood my reasoning. My appeal to theologians and philosophers have been made on the talk page to establish that the quote is relevant. I have never proposed that the article say King is this or that, based on OR. The article should only refer what King has said and done, with all significant views represented. What is significant, due weight etc. has to be supported by arguments, and what the rules say about synthesis is not applicable here.


 * The value of books whose information is derived from Taylor Branch is that they show that his account of the incident has been reported by other serious sources, who accept it. WP is about verifiability, not truth (although there is a good case for the truth of the FBI version, as their ability to use it for blackmailing suggests, as well as a congressman testifying to having heard the tape whithout any mention of indistinctness.)


 * Here is a diff that shows my RfC–post. As far as I can see, I have done it correctly and a bot should take care of the rest. Has something gone wrong?


 * Above you state that ”because the consensus was that there was no weight in the argument for inserting the material (drawing on several WP policies) I made it clear that was my position”. To me, that seems clearly like a dismissal of arguments and an attempt to decide the matter without taking all information to account. I’m not sure what you mean with subsequent arguments. What I cannot understand is how you can claim that my arguments were dealt with (in any substantial sense). I used the word spam since nobody tried to answer my questions, which the post here by Årvasbåo identified as the problem, but instead prolonged the discussion considerably with other things.


 * I was considering making an other RfC and see if that helps us understanding each other better. One reason was sympathies for your wasting time because of a wrong link. Your post branding me as a troll who edits in order to get attention, however, shows that you don’t take the discussion seriously. An attempt to understand each other is not possible under such circumstances. The least I expect is that you apologize. Until that, I wait for administrators to take measure against your and your allied’s behaviour.


 * Thank you, Malik, for putting your level of discussion so overtly on public display. --Jonund (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)