Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Biography: Core

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Georgia (U.S. state) Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard

Saints

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:PastACID

Template:V0.5

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

King cheated on his Ph.D. Why sugarcoat it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Aren't you the guy who wants "serial womanizer" included in the intro? You might consider a POV check on yourself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• aren't you one of the guys who doesnt want to include that King was a womanizer? Consider a POV check on YOURself! Olir 16:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't want to include your "serial womanizer" language, as you could provide no reliable source for the terminology (and the only instances of it we could find were from sites that were quoting Stormfront, basically.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (1) It isn't "sugarcoating it" to say, as the current text does, that "questions have been raised" -- that's a serious accusation in writing. (2) "Cheating" is a vague term; describing the specifics -- as the current paragraph does -- is much better. Plagiarism, failure to properly cite, "stealing" ideas, copying answers, buying a paper -- all of these things could be classed under "cheating", or not, depending on the circumstance. (3) And especially where, as here, the facts and significance of the facts have been and are disputed by scholars, then it's best to stay away from definitive, judgmental terms like "cheating" that may have the ring of a POV. --LQ 16:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved to define cheating by specifically noting that he lifted work from other authors without citation, which is what he did, and what i wrote. And it is sugarcoating it to say "questions have been raised". Questions have not only been raised but they've been answered, he DID. You leave it open as if you think he might not have cheated by saying "questions have been raised" which is disgustinglu from POV (and incorrect) and not what should be on wikipedia. Unfortnatly this seems to be the nature of this article. I can think of a huge list of negative aspects of his life which are intrigal to the study of king, which are simply not mentioned. Olir 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've made it clear that you only consider negative things about King integral to the study of him. Indeed, it seems to be almost the only thing you "contribute" about, other than Blink-182. Why do you have such a hate-on for this man? --Orange Mike 19:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well you've named two out of three of my biggest interests, mike. Blink 182, The Taiping Rebellion and Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Ive done a lot of discussion about the former two on wikipedia. But as i read King's wiki, i only see positive things, like this article is trying to make out that he was a great perfect man, it skims over some of the darker parts of his life which are central to the study of him. it ignores any negative interpretation of him for the "facts" that the people on the discussion page scream about (the facts being GOOD facts, not bad facts). And i do not hate this man. Although I do know he made a lot of mistakes in his approach to the civil rights movement and i know he was a generally hypocritical and immoral man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do you think those "darker parts" are central? Can you provide us with a reliable source asserting the same? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In a lecture by probably the greatest historian on King tony badger highlights:

  Copied vast amounts of Ph.D thesis

  Womanizer - politically stupid, gave FBI power over him

  Strictly Christin movement could not reach to non christians

  King was southern based and useless in the north e.g. his speach in chicago 1957, northerns looked upon him as just a southerner/northern blacks couldnt understand him, he was too parochical

  Everything in his movement depended on him, he was indespensible for example abernathy in his takeover was useless

  King hiijacked civil rights movements, movements didnt seem serious without him. He was very much disliked by the SNLC

  Nation of islam - hated christian movement

  King was acceptable to whites because of his class, he was a 'white persons black man'

  King was a compromiser, disliked by revolutionary groups

  Only untill 68' did he begin to break parochialism, e.g. his attackon vietnam war

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Interesting. Do you have a cite for that? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a lecture by Tony Badger at cambridge university entitled "Martin Luther King Jr. Who Needs Him?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that Prof. Anthony Badger (a genuine and respected scholar in American studies) ever gave such a lecture. What is the basis for your claim? --Orange Mike 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Because i went to the lecture. I think he has it on tape now. Anyway, do you disagree with the facts? Olir 13:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Olir: "I heard somebody say it once" by no means meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A public lecture, unfortunately, can't be verified, unless the recording was published -- in other words, it has to be on the Internet or in a library or available for purchase so that people can verify, at will. Did Badger or Cambridge publish this, or is this a personal recording? --lquilter 13:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As to "disagree[ing] with the facts" -- the points listed above are a mix of facts, interpretation, opinion, and sentence fragments whose meaning is unclear. It's also unclear if Badger was saying they were his views, or if he was repeating them as, say, allegations that have been made about King. That's why WP:V is important. With respect to King, who has had volumes of scholarship, my own standard would be something like the standard for science in a courtroom: The current majority accepted view is included, and significant dissident or minority views also included. The thesis point is made in the article, as are some of the other issues you raise (e.g., King's influence in the north, the tensions between various wings of the CRM, King's opinion about Vietnam War, etc.). So I'm not even sure what the point is of listing all these very disparate points here.--lquilter 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please could you add la.wiki Martinus Lutherius King Jr., thank you--85.0.83.133 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

la:Martinus Lutherius King Jr., done.EricR 13:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Montgomery Bus Boycott, according to our article, lasted from December 5, 1955 to December 21, 1956. This is one leap year, 16 days: 366 + 16 = 382. Am I missing something? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those last weeks I have been troubled with many things said about many Martin Luther King notably many that said that he was a communist, raped and slept with many with womens, that he was a plagiarist etc. Not only these things are write in Don Black's martinlutherking.org but they are corroborate by the wikipedia article. I have many questions:

• Does King was a communist
• Did he had raped/extramarital affairs with women ?
• Does all his speeches are plagiarism.

Answer hurry to these questions please, this is important for me. Don Black and David J. Garrow must laugh they put many doubts in my head. Roger_Smith

• Reading stuff on a Nazi site about MLK will likely give you false impressions. Was he a Communist? No (though he certainly had allies who were Communists; for whatever reason, American Communists were strongly pro civil rights). The rape allegations are at best unsubstantiated; yes, he seems to have had sexual relations with women outside of marriage; and his speeches were a mix of original work and the work of others -- whether this constitutes "plagiarism" is somewhat complicated, because it's entirely within ministerial tradition to draw strongly upon the work of other ministers when creating sermons, etc. (As opposed to his plagiarism on his college work, which was simply wrong.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• He wasnt a communist, although Hoover certainly thought he was. Hoover, instead of uncovering King being a communist= found out that he was a womanizer when he bugged Kings home, hotel rooms and phones. He also found out that he liked to sleep with white women. Thus he sent messages to king informing that he should kill himself, king never did and hoover never uncovered him. His speechs may have not all been written by him, but i dont see the problem with this, do you need to cite authors when you make a speach? But he did cheat on his Ph.D by lifting uncited work, this was wrong and illegal.
  • The "sleeping with white women" is untrue, according to Ralph Abernathy (who substantiated King's extracurricular sex life). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And according to Tony Badger, Abernathy was "The stupidest man I ever met" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • (a) Please sign your posts. (b) So? That someone remembers someone else saying someone else is stupid isn't helpful information. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Olir makes these claims about what Prof. Badger says about various things, but cannot provide any cites for them. --Orange Mike 23:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And do you think the work is David Garrow is unfounded ? Roger_Smith

There seems to be some objection to the use of the phrase "most famous leader" or "most prominent leader" in describing MLK. I've been accused of "vandalism", and informed that it's "unsourced OR". It's not exactly hard to find hundreds of references on the Web that describe him as "most" famous or prominent leader (even when one subtracts the Wiki mirrors and cut-and-pastes); for example, [1] from the Oxford African American Studies Center; this lecture under the auspices of the US State Department; this from the New Georgia Encyclopedia. I'm curious also just who else could conceivably be more famous or more prominent in the American civil rights movement. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering...does anyone know MLK's favorite song? Just curious... James chen0 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ...(I know, there is slim chance, but someone might know...=] )[reply]

Just before he was shot and standing on the same balcony, Dr. King asked Ben Branch, standing in the parking lot of the Lorraine Motel to make sure to play "Precious Lord -- Take My Hand" a hymn written by Thomas Dorsey that hallmarked the career of "The Father of Gospel Music" Marketex 00:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Boston University let him get the Dr. degree in the first place? If MLK lifted paragraphs from some obsecure and aged papers, people may never find out his plagiarism. He was stealing from a student graduated from the same school just 3 years before. This is not a problem with "Dr." King. This is a problem with the Boston University. -- Toytoy 03:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Or perhaps was 50 years ago. Why not ask them? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr" king cheated on his Ph.D by lifting uncited work. I dont see how the university is to blame, if they knew im sure they wouldnt have let him.

OK, someone keeps putting in stuff like, Martin Luther King, Jr. was born as Michael King on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. He was the son of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Sr. and Alberta Williams King. He began using the name "Martin Luther", in honor of Martin Luther, after he became a minister, though he never legally changed his name. To this day, he lived and died as Michael King. Could we have some evidence of that? The "to this day" language is lifted directly from a highly questionable piece of email, dealt with in full here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is well-known in scholarly-circles. http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/King_Sr_Martin_Luther_King.htm. I don't agree with the usage of "lived and died as", but most of the rest is correct, and I will continue to add it back. Sequestering of the truth is something communists do, not wikipedians. Yeah, right. Who am I kidding. Deleting of valid factual information as this can be described as vandalism, btw. Ernham 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This says the name change from Michael to Martin was in 1934:

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1009

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/additional_resources/articles/encyclo.htm.

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. It's also just one guys opinion, versus stanford.edu. Take note of the by-lines. It's also incorrect. The names were never even actually changed, they just started using different ones. Needless to say, they warrant little encyclopedic merit.Ernham 07:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second. Your own source doesn't back up the statement I'm questioning: He began using the name "Martin Luther", in honor of Martin Luther, after he became a minister, though he never legally changed his name. Another point: "legally changing ones name" wasn't the same in the '30s as it is today, and even today it varies dramatically from state to state. Many places, your legal name was exactly what you said it was as long as there was no intent to deceive -- and not that long ago. So there's no reason one would find documentation of a name change, in many places. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facts (this is an ecyclopedia, by the way):

1. Neither of them ever legally changed their names.

2. Both of their LEGAL names were Michael, not Martin Luther.

3. Martin Luther senior began using "martin luther" later in life.

4. When Martin Luther Junior was born, Martin Luther senior told the doctor that the name he wanted was "his own name", which at the time was Michael.

5. Michael senior used the rationality that he told the doctor that his son should be given "his own name" that it should retroactively make his sons name Martin Luther as well.(Michael Luther senior wasn't too bright), and this was his argument for why Michael junior should begin to use Marting Luther instead of Michael. He did just that -- when he was 24, not a day before. Ernham 07:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CITE your sources. So far, the only source you've cited says nothing of the sort -- other than spotting King Sr's name change date as 1934, when King Jr. was 5. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done so to satisfactorily substantiate what I have placed in the wiki. I don't care what you think about the rest, though I supplied it since you may come across information that confuses you.Ernham 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for "not a day before 24"? The Stanford source I listed above said 1934; this source says "when he was about 6":

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/mlk/king/biography.html

This site refers to a 1957 NY Post article which also gives the 1934 date:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp

Strangely enough, this official bio doesn't even mention that he was born with the name "Michael": http://www.thekingcenter.org/mlk/bio.html

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the other "stanford source" is not from stanford, it's a reference they apparently have listed on their cite, however. Like I said, by-lines. Repeating lies doesn't make them any less true. The only controversy comes from Michael Seniors sole claims of what was what. The facts are he was known by others as Michael King until his twenties and then began using the name Martin Luther and his legal name was always Michael.Ernham 08:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conf.) I endorse Jpgordon and Jim on this one - your source doesn't state what you claim. Other sources specifically state things that counter your claim. In my opinion, that makes their opinion > yours on a foundation policy level. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Then it should be utterly simple for you to provide a verifiable reliable source that he was known by others as Michael King until his twenties, and that his legal name was always Michael. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't care. Such trivial crap, really. Ernham 08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With 20/20 hindsight:

If I were to ask an audience today whether or not you think the Jim Crow laws were morally right, most people would answer no. However, if I posed this question 50 years ago, they would say yes. Once upon a time, Martin Luther was a common criminal. The police were enforcing the law they swore to uphold. So, do you side with a common criminal or law enforcement? The Germans said they were just following orders. To this day, people say the same thing although publicly acknowledging that the Jim Crow laws were morally wrong. What gives? Are people just trying to save face? Brad C. January 13, 2007

The only persons who might respond that "Jim Crow Laws are morally right" would, in my humble opinion, be those who were morally wrong. Marketex 00:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Any suggestions for improving the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His title before he died was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.! Kids who learn about him all over America and the world know him as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yes, but standard practice is not to use honorifics. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Easter the Jesus Day mentioned in the article? Because that's a very odd edit.

• It is. I just removed the entire clause; it's not particularly helpful. I imagine Christmas is what's meant by "jesus day". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sources that indicate anyone was actually killed. See the article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches

The text should be revised or eliminated. Thanks for the clean up.

Near the end of the article, it states "This the only federal holiday dedicated to an individual American." However, earlier in the article it is stated that MLK Day is "the fourth Federal holiday to honor an individual (the other three being in honor of Jesus of Nazareth, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus)." Certainly George Washington would be considered an American, which would make MLK Day one of only TWO federal holidays dedicated to an individual American.Laurauden 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct. I removed the earlier statement; I've removed this one too, since "This is one of only two federal holidays..." is pretty pointless. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section states the King was supporting "garbage workers" when he was assassinated. This should be changed to "Sanitation workers". The workers were not, as the article states 'protesting for higher pay and better treatment. They were protesting for the right to strike which while being legally entitled to they were denied by city officials.

• I'll replace "garbage workers" with "sanitary public works employees", as they were described by the AFSCME notice. But I'm not sure you're right about the nature of the strike. The AFSCME notices (of course, they're hardly an unbiased source) refer to their demanding "union recognition, dues deduction, a meaningful grievance procedure and wage improvements." Do you have another source we could use? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the anonymous poster is getting his/her "facts"; contemporary newspaper accounts, books about King, etc., are all in line with the AFSCME notices. The issues were recognition of the union, and the disparate pay/treatment of the black workers which the union represented, compared to their white counterparts. --Orange Mike 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My father, who recently passed away, was born in 1929, the same year as Martin Luther King. He went through US Army Basic Training at Fort Jackson, SC in the Spring of 1951. He told me that he lived in the same barracks as King and that King was his squad leader. All of the bios I have seen online show that King studied for a divinity degree at Crozer Theological Seminary in Upland, Pennsylvania, graduating in May 1951, and the following September King enrolled at Boston University in the Ph.D. program. However, no mention of what King did in between graduating Crozer and entering BU. I believe that as an ordained minister, King was granted an exemption from military service. However, if King was drafted as was my father, then he may have been obligated to go through Basic Training while waiting for his exemption to be approved. Can someone confirm this by requesting King's service record from Fort Jackson? My father was certain that he was one of the first to march with Martin Luther King.

I don't like the fact that the photo at the top of the article shows Martin Luther King with another person, Lyndon Johnson. The top photo should show King, or King with other civil rights leaders, or King with his wife, but not King and President Johnson. King opposed Johnson's Vietnam War. --Revolución hablar ver 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, Johnson did huge things for King's cause. You're right, though -- we need a good solo pic of King for there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I dropped by to review the article. It is well on its way to GA status, but could use some work. The lead is a bit short and disorganized (See WP:LEAD for suggestions on how to compose a lead). The article could use more documentation, especially to remove the {{fact}} tags. I look for about one note per paragraph. Finally, I think that the pending possible colaboration will help the article a great deal. I'll put the nom on hold to give time for folk to work on it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also nitpick that the references are in two different formats and should be made into one uniform style. I personally like Harvard Referencing but whatever as long as they are all in the same format. Quadzilla99 08:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the articles main title should be changed to "Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr." to reflect his full title and simply make redirect pages for any other titles one may choose to give him? Does anybody agree? Donaldhenderson 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. See WP:MOS#Academic titles. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. The guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic_titles. --Dystopos 23:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the guys in the white hats in the background Nation of Islam "Fruits of Islam"? If not, who were they? I've always wondered...

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/Martin%20Luther%20King.bmp 12.17.141.39 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Nation's attitude towards King, I am skeptical of your hypothesis. There's no way to tell from this tiny photo. They may be union butchers or pressmen or something, for all I can tell. --Orange Mike 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That picture shows Dr. King delivering his "I have a dream" speech during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, with union marshals wearing white hats. --Ezeu 03:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if that might be the case. My wife's a union steward, and can fold you one of those hats in less than a minute out of a sheet of newspaper.--Orange Mike 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]