Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Otto42 (talk | contribs)

1 user group
1,708 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Peter (talk | contribs)
10,572 edits
→Edit request: new section
Otto42 (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
1,708 edits
Line 411: Line 411:


I hope that this request will be considered. [[User:Perpetualbooks|Perpetualbooks]] ([[User talk:Perpetualbooks|talk]]) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope that this request will be considered. [[User:Perpetualbooks|Perpetualbooks]] ([[User talk:Perpetualbooks|talk]]) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

: I can't find any information to this effect that comes from a reliable source which would not also be considered a primary source. Basically, the only places I see this sort of stuff are either New Church or Swedenborg related. Nothing from what I'd consider an uninterested third party.

: If you can source the information, then it might be an interesting addition to the article. But realistically, a single quote in a single book that is only given by questionable sources is not enough to justify mention in the article, I think. Not to say that it might not be sourced later and possibly develop into something more interesting. -- [[User:Otto42|Otto]] ([[User talk:Otto42|talk]]) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:34, 19 April 2010

Template:Notaforum

Template:FAOL

Former good article nomineeMartin Luther King Jr. was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
October 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 25, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of September 10, 2006.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Plagiarism allegations in the Early Life section

Landerman56 has repeatedly removed references to the plagiarism charges in the Early Life section. I do not understand why he thinks it is inappropriate to mention charges regarding the dissertation when the dissertation is first discussed, and so perhaps he can explain himself here. Phiwum (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The information about plagiarism is quite appropriate in the section that discusses his doctorate. In fact, there is no other logical place to put it in the article. For readers who want more detail, there is a separate article on authorship issues that is linked in one of the citations. Ward3001 (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the separate article on authorship issues be listed in the "See also" section? This seems more appropriate than as a citation--unless I'm mistaken, encyclopedias generally do not cite themselves as sources.208.199.244.2 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the montgomery bus boycott wasnt it rosa parkes not clodette who had to give up her seat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.149.217 (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair on history, we should dig deeper into the plagiarism allegation and thus established once and for all whether the person mentioned truly merited the doctoral degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.181.230 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of Wikipedia's core policies, No original research, prohibits editors from "digging deeper" and making our own determinations of things like that. Our job is to report what other sources say. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the information is extremely well supported and referenced: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/us/boston-u-panel-finds-plagiarism-by-dr-king.html so that's not a major concern, as such.
Whether it's appropriate information for that section is questionable. I think it may be worthy of its own section, actually. -- Otto (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There once was a separate section about King's plagiarism, but somebody wanted the discussion moved up to the section with his dissertation. I seem to recall that after the information was added to the "Early life" section, it also had a line directing readers to the "Plagiarism" section. I'm not sure when or why the "Plagiarism" section disappeared. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Influences and influenced, redux

OK, someone now wants just two people -- Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama -- listed under "influences". Before that there were a handful of people; before that nothing. I really think "nothing" is the best we can do there, given that pretty much every African-American leader (if not ever African-American) has been influenced by MLK; if we start picking and choosing who we're going to put there (Al Sharpton? Colin Powell?), we're doing original research. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer more, but there's not enough room - none is just as inappropriate, when as you say, so many were influenced - I could add Jim Wallis, the UK Student Christian Movement, Trevor Huddleston, before starting on black politicians and religious leaders here in the UK. I take your point, how does one select? I didn't realise this was what you meant. Fine, remove Jesse Jackson, and leave the most influential African American people know about in there. That is well sourced as somebody he influenced, and gives a better picture of King's influence than a selective list. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, there's no need to create such a list for a man of such universal influence. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Jpgordon here. We don't have a list anywhere of being influenced by Jesus, or George Washington, or for that matter Simon Bolivar. With people of this level of importance, broad influential impact is more or less a given. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving?

This page is currently at 193 kB. Does anyone think the time for archiving may have been reached? John Carter (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Influence

Under the influences section, I believe that there should be a section detailing the influence of Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible in the work of Dr. King. I don't know why this is neglected, but it is surely a more significant influence than Ghandi. It's probably impossible to find a speech or writing by Martin Luther King, Jr. that does not reference or allude to a biblical passage. I'd argue that the teachings of the Bible are THE most significant influence in the life and work of Dr. King.

(P.S. I'm a new wiki-editor, so I hope I did this right. Please forgive any formatting errors. Thanks!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eracer001 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an active Christian minister, this falls rather in the "water is wet" category, and is considered unnecessary to mention. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Political Party Was He??!!

This huge gigantic article and not one mention of whether Martin Luther King Jr. was a republican or democrat? (or did I miss it?) I wanted to learn if MLK voted republican or democrat, so I came to Wiki. I cant find it in here. So I have to go somewhere else. Can someone please include MLK's political affiliations? Did he vote republican or democrat, or neither? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to answer the question "What political party was he?" In the deep South of that era, voter registration rolls often did not record or ask for party affiliation. Not officially registering people by party was a tactic used to prevent blacks from voting in Democratic Party primaries which in the "solid South" were the only elections that really mattered. If there was no official party registration, the all-white Democratic Party could prevent blacks from participating, and preempt Federal suits aimed at opening up the primaries. (See the example Alabama registration form at: http://www.crmvet.org/info/litapp.pdf [a PDF file]). Dr. King steadfastly focused on issues rather than electoral politics. While Dr. King's father identified himself as a Republican, Dr. King never identified himself as a member of any party. He never endorsed any candidate though, of course, he was constantly asked to do so. He also refused all calls to run as a candidate for office himself. Nor did Dr. King ever say who he voted for in any election. The historical record is very clear that Dr. King did not want to be identified as a partisan of any political party. Brucehartford (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable evidence that he belonged to either party, which is why the article doesn't mention it (that, plus the fact that it might be considered trivial). King may have voted Republican before the 1960s, because many Democratic politicians in the Southern U.S. were strong supporters of segregation. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many? Most. A Democrat could hardly get elected otherwise; and a Republican couldn't get elected nohow no way (since Lincoln was one.) Anyway, Malik's right; we just don't have any evidence of party registration at any time. I'd love to see some. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His niece claims that he was a Republican. However, she's a tad biased. Article here: http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/Alveda%20King%20article.pdf . Read Page 2 (marked as page 17 in the PDF). It's a really good read, but the bias comes more than shining through towards the end. -- Otto 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reliable source, though; we've got assertion (from someone who was a child at the time), without any way to back it up. Even if it is true, which it probably is. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i think his daughte would know better htan we would, even if the dems would rather not think about that. Smith-JOnes 20:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course she would. But we're not talking about a daughter, we're talking about a younger brother's daughter. And the "dems" are quite aware that, until 1968, Southern Democrats as a group were segregationists, old-guard Jim Crow-supporting Democrats still resentful of Lincoln. That's until 1968. That's when they finally realized the Republican Party was a more comfortable home, and that's where they all went. Southern Democrats are now a completely new breed, and the Democratic Party is far better off without the old-style ones (even if it did cost the 1968 election.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, but as you can imagine any political pary would be eager to align itself with a fiure as popular and wellrespected as Dr King. while democrats and republicans are undoubtedl different as they were hundreds of years ago, it does seem as if there is some level of political corruption in trtying to hijack dr. kings legacy for one party or another, his niece is one of the few trustwrothy sources we have of kings political beliefs at the time that you specified Smith-JOnes 01:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
But that's really too weak a source, by Wikipedia's standards. I could be persuaded otherwise, though. What was her involvement with her uncle, for example? On what basis is she asserting his Republicanism? And at what period? --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i dont not agree with you that the source is curently too weak for inclusion under WP:NOT or i feel that given time the full story might emerge and reveal itself under the proper circumstances if you and we all choose to permit it with out presentful? Smith-JOnes 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I understand -- "permit it with out presentful"? Anyway, it is indeed too weak for inclusion, and given time, if the full story emerges, then we'll have adequate documentation. By the way, please fix your signature; they're supposed to have links in them to your user and talk pages. If you're having trouble, put a {{helpme}} about it on your talk page. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
indeed, it does mean what i have indicative forth to mean, with regards to being took weak to be inclorpated into the main article. And my signature appears to be perfectly fine -- my talk page is easy to find, seeing how many people come to visit me and edit things on it nearly everyday LOL! Anywa, thanks for your advice and your help with this thorny issue User:Smith Jones 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"indeed, it does mean what i have indicative forth to mean, with regards to being took weak to be inclorpated into the main article." WHAT??? User Smith-Jones, English is clearly not your first language. And you are being sloppy about it, to boot. Surprised no one else pointed that out to you. In any case, The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was most definitely NOT a Republican, and he sure as hell wouldn't support today's RepubliKKKan Party. BobCubTAC (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems he may not have had any party-affiliation - and as voting is by secret ballot, we may never know what he voted. [1]. Mish (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for that article. I like: Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Republican or Democrat,” said Alveda King, who was previously elected to the Georgia House as a Democrat, but later appointed to state and federal commissions by Republicans. “But everybody uses Martin Luther King Jr.’s name for their own benefit.” . --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i dont feel the need to mentron that. we can just say that it is unclear which party that he wasn't not affiliate with, or that he did not publicaly state his allegiance to one party or a other User:Smith Jones 02:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. In the source I presented, Alveda King states "My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or “Daddy King”, was a Republican and father of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican.". Then, in this article on ajc.com, she says “I have not talked to Kimau-Imani. I don’t even know who he is,” she said. “I have never said Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. I never saw his registration card.”.
So at this point, I can't say that using Alveda King's words can possibly be a reliable source. -- Otto (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thats interesting, but the ajc.com could easil be fabricated. many sources use partisan politics to jusify their portrayals of instorical figures and Dr King has been the victim of this posturing by ajc.com a lot more often than many other major historical figures who have also been the victimized of this political posturing by leftwing blogs and other biased sources like ajc.com. I dont think that it can be included for this particule issue because of its known history of bias which has been demonstrated in discusions prior to this on other discussions related to this sujet. User:Smith Jones 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So any assertion on this matter would fail verifiability, even if we accept your rather unusual assertion that one of the most respected newspapers in the South is a "biased source." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it allays any concerns about the Atlanta Journal-Constitution quote possibly being a fabrication for political purposes, one can note in Alveda King's own blog that she acknowledges previously stating that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Republican, but now says that she misspoke with that statement. She says that she should have said that while she never saw his registration card, she believes he probably voted Republican. So we're definitely back to not having any reliable documentation of his party affiliation. Mwelch (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

67.160.60.10 (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Can someone get rid of the text that's about his political affiliation at the moment? It's poorly edited drivel, likely placed by some guerilla political organization.[reply]

 Done I thought I had taken care of that earlier. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

!!!!! PLEASE FIX INCORRECT LINK IN EXTERNAL LINKS !!!!!

There is a dead link listed under "external links" for "The Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project". This is the most authoratative and visited web site on the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr., so it would be great if this can be corrected. The correct URL for this link is: http://www.kinginstitute.info.

!!!! NEW AUDIO RESOURCE AVAILABLE -- PLEASE ADD !!!!!

The "Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Global Freedom Struggle" online encyclopedia, presented by The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, includes streaming audio and transcripts for over 20 of King's major speeches and sermons. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could add this to the "video and audio" external links section of this document. The URL for this resource is: http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/multimedia_contents.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgb700 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adultery redux

Nobody has answered my post from August 12 (including the link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Refusal to engage arguments). Malik Shabazz has archieved all discussion without further comments. If somebody has objections to my version, I expect them to answer my arguments, otherwise I go ahead and restore the text. --Jonund (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that this was resolved - there was no consensus to go with your proposed insertion of dubious material, people got tired of the circular discussion and wandered off. As I recall, you referred it to ANI, where it was closed as 'unresolved'. I advised you to RfC it to Biographies, but as it stands there is no reason why it should be inserted, given the weight of opposition (and reasons). Just because you cannot accept other people's reasons is not a reason for inserting it. Mish (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jonund, you've had several bites at the apple, and you haven't developed a consensus for the information you want to include in the article. Give it a rest already. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 02:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What they both said. It's clear are not going to gain consensus for including the "fucking" exclamation, so you really need to give it up. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All,

I apologize for not making another comment until now. I was away on vacations.

At any rate, I took the liberty of requesting the paper copy of Branch's book "Pillar of Fire" from my library. The author specifically has a footnote (found at the bottom of page 207 in my version) about the "I'm fucking for God" comment where he says, "The author did not hear the bugging tapes from the Willard. These quotations, together with the one on page 250, are from interviews with three FBI officials of varying rank and outlook who did hear them. The eavesdroppers; shards presented here are the blackmail verson of King, which FBI officials put into historical effect with a host of subsequent reports and oral briefings designed to ruin him [King].

Partly in reaction to the FBI's intrusive, hostile characterization, King's admirers have responded with anguish and outright denial over the subject of his extramarital affairs."

This footnote represents the complete text (at least as far as I could discover) as to the authors statements about the verifiability of the quote above. From the text and the footnote, it is clear (to me at least) that the author disagreed strongly with both the manner in which the information was obtained and later exploited. However, the author does freely admit that he did not personally listen to the tapes and that he received the same account from three different "FBI officials" who did hear the tapes, all from "varying rank and outlook". Also, no mention of the FBI officials referring to fuzziness on the tape or a dissenting opinion as to what the tapes said is mentioned in the text. Considering all of these facts, I think that the verifiability of Kings quote (properly attributed to the FBI as its source) should meet the standards of Wikipedia.

As for the notability of the quote, that one is the more easily argued of the verifiability and notability arguments against the quote's inclusion. I'll try to make a brief, but complete, argument for the notability of the quote below.

First off, we're all still here talking about it. If it were something like "King's cat was named Fuzzy" or "King's wife gave him a pair of green golf pants for Christmas", the information would have been removed without further comment. The fact that we're all still here talking about the quote, with about 193K of arguments for/against and about a dozen or so editors commenting must mean that the information is important to some people.

Second, the information has been particularly well documented by primary, secondary, and tertiary sources (cited previously by Jorund). Again, if the information wasn't notable, it probably would have been cited in a very complete biography of King and never repeated again. The fact that people keep reusing the information over and over for different commentaries and stories about King's life suggests that it really is something that people want to know about.

Third, I would make the argument that (similar to one Jorund has already made), even if these first two facts didn't hold, it would still be important to certain subsets of the population because of the public image of King and his perception in society. Most people would see King as a Christian minister, and the ribaldry expressed in his action in the Willard hotel, particularly his seeming pride in his sexual exploits, fly directly contrary to that image.

Fourth, I think the information presents a very insightful look into King's mind and mentality -- one which can mean lots of different things to a given group of people. For example, Christians might look at King's statement (or alleged statement if you prefer) and see it as evidence of hypocrisy. An atheist might look at it as a sign that King was actually secular in his personal beliefs and as a sign of increasingly widespread secularism in society. Feminists might look at it as a sign of the continued oppression of women in society, despite strides made by women during the last century. Another group of people might look at the quote and have an even more novel interpretation about what that meant to King's inner self. The point of this exercise is that the quote has a lot of information and can mean a lot of things to many different people. This would be in direct contrast to a less significant, less notable piece of information (such as one about King's cat, etc.) that would offer relatively little insight into King as a person.

Finally, Jorund, even though I personally believe that you're right to want the quote included, the other editors might be correct by saying that you'll never see it put into the article. Wikipedia is about consensus after all (not who is right), and a determined group of editors can probably keep out any piece of information they want from a given article, if they're willing to invest the time to do so. Under the standards of Wikipedia, I think the quote should be included. Other editors see things differently. At this point, I am personally willing to concede the battle, if only for the sake of moving my work on to other articles.

Regards,

128.187.0.178 (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he only reason this has attracted so much comment is because one editor is persistent in pushing for its inclusion, supported by a couple of others when he does so, despite objection by a greater number of editors. If people were not interested, then it would have gone in - the interest that counters it is vigilance. As you say, the source is poor, one hearsay report given a brief mention in a biography (with details limited to a footnote), copied into three other biographies from the original. While that seems fine for a detailed biography, it seems undue for a summary biography here. As you say, there is no consensus for this material to go in, and RfCs, ANIs etc. have not changed that. If Jonund cannot accept this, then he needs to discuss the wording of an RfC to biographies here first, then place the RfC there. However, I would add that the pursuit of this for so long is not a 'battle', it is 'attrition', and this persistence is uncivil (persistently ignoring the lack of consensus), lacks good-faith (failing to accept other editors' genuine reasons), and disruptive (as you say, we all have better things to do). Mish (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would only, once again, state that as an encyclopedia, we have no real encyclopedic reason to include any such information because of alleged "insights" it might provide readers. I have rather clearly stated, I believe more than once, that encyclopedias are not involved in the business of providing at best dubious "insights" into subjects, but rather to present clear and objective information that is clearly and demonstrably relevant to provide a thorough, basic understanding of the subject. We do not have any obligation to provide dubious "insights" into any subject, regardless of how often others go on about the subject. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John,
I keep calling it an "insight" because I'm not sure what other word to use here. I would argue that most people read an encyclopedia article not only because they want information about the subject of the article, but also because they want something in a more digestible form that might give them more understanding (?), insight(?), etc. into the subject. Otherwise, why not just read a list of facts about King that went 1. "Blah, blah, blah ..." 2. "Blah, blah, blah ..." and so on? 128.187.0.178 (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Insight" seems to serve as a euphemism for The Truth™ About M.L. King. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A list of facts" is essentially what an encyclopedia article is supposed to be. Except instead of presenting it in a list form, it's in a prose style and organized to be easy to read and, hopefully, understand.
Providing "insight" into some topic is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. The purpose is to provide a) information and b) references for further information. That's it.
"Insight" is therefore both biased and non-encyclopedic, by definition. It's not what is supposed to be here. -- Otto (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a real good way to express that. Thanks. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Branch's footnote makes it clear that this alleged quote was part of the party line of the FBI, an agency which confessedly was seeking to befoul his reputation and sought to drive him to suicide. That people are still taking it seriously enough to keep trying to put it into this article as fact shows the Big Lie principle in action. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again. Is there some way of stopping this? We had this discussion already - can I refer to the {{Round in circles}} tag at the top of the page. Mish (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

controversy

what about the hotel he was murdered at because he was there to have sex with a woman other than his wife

John Kennedy. he and his father campaigned against jfk because he was a Catholic. A man known for civil rights is a hypocrite if he believes catholics are below becoming politicians.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for either of those allegations? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Luther King wasn't there to commit adultary. He was there in Memphis to help the garbage workers. Besides his friends and supporters were there. Please check your sources. 10:29, 26 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thriller95 (talk • contribs)
Uh... I'm pretty sure Roman Catholics walked in Civil Rights marches as well... 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riots also occurred in Baltimore after King's assassination

I believe it should be noted that riots occurred in Baltimore as well after Dr. King was assassinated. The riots changed the social and economic landscape of the city to this very day.

for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1968 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuriousk (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on the Martin Luther King, Jr. article

{{editsemiprotected}} I'm not sure how to report or change this typo, hope I'm doing this okay...

In the entry for Martin Luther King, Jr., there is a commonly-made error.

“In 1958, while signing copies of his book Strive Toward Freedom in a Harlem department store, he was stabbed in the chest by Izola Curry, a deranged black woman with a letter opener, and narrowly escaped death.”

The book title is, "Stride Toward Freedom" not 'strive'.

 Done Algebraist 21:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the word clergyman on the first line of the article goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor but it must go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergyman

Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimofpak (talk • contribs) 07:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King's Political Party.

It should be noted Martin Luther King supported the Republican Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.38.149 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this many times in the past. Nobody has presented any reliable sources that state King was a Republican. As far as which party he "supported", I'm not sure if that's known, because I don't think King ever publicly campaigned on behalf of, or otherwise supported, either party or its candidates. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I also put this up in the "What Party is HE?" section:

Actually I have very directly sourced in a letter MLK wrote in 1956, he wrote that although he was unsure of who to vote for in the election between Stevenson and the moderate Eisenhower, that "In the past I always voted the Democratic Ticket." http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/papers/vol3/561001.004-Letter_to_Viva_O._Sloan.htm

Also there is a sourced quote that in 1960, although MLK was not public in his support that "privately he supported Kennedy." http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/enc_JFK.htm

I'd like to add these to the main article, but realize this has been a hot topic and would like to add it in the proper way to generate light, not heat. Any suggestions?

Timothyjchambers (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I've always assumed King voted Republican, because the Democrats were associated with the status quo in the South. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you've found the documentation we were looking for; we can't say he was a registered Democrat or anything like that, at least from the "in the past" quote. Could you check that second link again, please? It doesn't lead to anything useful. --jpgordon::==( o )

Sure, here in fact is a better direct quote about MLK's private support of JFK's Presidency in the 1960 election, and his thoughts that he would have likely would have publicly supported Kennedy in his next election had there been one. This is from the book "The Autobiography of Martin Luther King" and this has a working URL:

"I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one. I took this position in order to maintain a nonpartisan posture, which I have followed all along in order to be able to look objectively at both parties at all times....Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964." http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/home/pages?page=http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/autobiography/chp_15.htm

Thanks. I'd love advice on how to add these direct sourced quotes to the main body of the article in the best way to generate light not heat on a touchy subject. Timothyjchambers (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two cents here. There is a running theme (even from my grade-school education in the 1960's/1970's) that MLK was non-partisan by intent. I have no sources, but the quote above certainly rings true as an indication that he consciously avoided any political party affiliation (which would certainly answer the question as "none" or "independent"). I think that this idea could be inserted into the "Influences" section as a principle that apparently guided his work. Steveozone (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about lanaguage similiar to this, in which I would add references and sources for all quotations:

Martin Luther King and Public Stance on US Political Parties

As the leader of the SCLC, King had a policy of not publicly endorsing a political party. "I feel someone must remain in the position of non-allignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the consience of both - not the servant or master of either."

Elsewhere he discussed his views that both parties had thier own issues, "I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses." and closed with, " And I'm not inextricably bound to either party."

And King certainly did critique both parties performance on promoting racial equality:

"Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights."

Martin Luther King Jr's Personal Political Advocacy

Although King never publicly supported either US political party or Candidate for President, in a letter he wrote in 1956, he said that although he was unsure of who to vote for in the election between Stevenson and the moderate Eisenhower, that "In the past I always voted the Democratic Ticket."

And in 1960, Martin Luther King privately voted for democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one," but then he ads that he would have made an exception to his policy of non-endorsement in 1964, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."

Timothyjchambers (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"African-American" civil rights movement

This wording is misleading. This was not specific to "African-Americans" other races were involved so I changed it to American civil rights movement. Calling it an "African-American" movement marginalizes what MLK actually did. He was not out to help African-Americans he was for all Amnericans.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an accurate description: the movement primarily was intended to secure equal rights for African Americans. They were being denied the right to vote in the American South, they were being denied equal access to public accommodations, etc. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. King said on many occasions the movement was was about eliminating discrimination based on race. Blacks were not the only racial group who were discriminated against. Asians and other ethnicities were also included. If what you are saying is true that would contridict everything he stood for. Sourcechecker419 (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being precise. There have been American civil rights movements for lesbian and gay civil rights, women's civil rights, migrant workers' civil rights, and so on. The particular civil rights movement with which King was associated was the African American civil rights movement. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point in putting labels on everything? He was prominant in American Civil Rights. There is no point into breaking it down into lifestyle choice, gender, etc. Only fighting for a certain ethnicity undermines the and contridicts everything he stood for.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "point" is, every article should enhance understanding of its subject, and the lede should bring the topic into clear and primary focus. There can be no serious dispute based on the entirety of the article (and all reliable sources) that the primary focus of MLK's efforts was to bring attention to and greater understanding of discrimination against african-americans in the US, notwithstanding other values that MLK clearly championed or other effects that his campaigns have had on society (all of which can and should be discussed in the article as well). Steveozone (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you seriously believe that MLK's primary focus was not on the black civil rights movement, then you really need to listen to his speeches again. I'll quote the beginning of "I Have a Dream":
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Can you seriously tell me that he was also talking about, say, equal rights for gays in that speech? Yes, his primary message was one of equality. But his focus was on equality between black and white. This is a valid point to make in understanding the subject at hand, and to gloss over it by omission is dishonest to the subject. -- Otto (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Have a Dream Speech

The "I Have a Dream" speech was given on August 28, 1963, but there is no mention of that date in the "March on Washington 1963" section (it is only mentioned in the wiretapping section). I think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunsparrow (talk • contribs) 04:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

birth date is 18th jan 1929

pls chk out the dob of martin luther king jr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.165.119 (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source? Jeremjay24 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter's Name

Rev. Dr. Martn Luther King Jr.'s daughter's name is printed here as "Yolanda King" when it was in fact Yolanda DENISE King. If no-one has any objections (and no-one should), then I will correct that spot in the article. BobCubTAC (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy surrounding MLK assassination

MLK, Jr's family and their attourney, William F. Pepper, won a wrongful death civil suit in 1999 against Loyd Jowers for his part in a conspiracy to kill MLK, Jr. that included local police, the FBI, the CIA, and mafia figures.

Jim Douglass was one of the only journalists to sit through the three week trial, and his report on it was published in Probe magazine and here:

http://www.ctka.net/pr500-king.html

When the result of this court case was summarily ignored by the mainstream press, William F. Pepper wrote and published the book "An ACT of State - The Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr." about his research and conclusions.

Blskinner (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE will pretty much keep this out of the article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I'd think a wrongful death suit result would be worth including in the article.
~ender 2010-01-18 17:42:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.19.194 (talk)
Well, regardless, the "developments" section of the article does discuss the various controversies, including this one. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contribute much on wikipedia (in fact I just created this account), but recently I was a bit perplexed by the lack of available audio on the internet of Dr. King's speeches. I took it upon myself to create an archive of 21 of his speeches, available as streaming mp3s, or to download, because I feel it's the sort of thing that the internet, well, needs.

The link is here, for your consideration for this article: http://texarrakis.com/library/mlkspeeches —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genesayssitdown (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for these recordings? --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded them off of bittorrent. I do not know their original sources, but it is possible they are not in the public domain, as the I Have A Dream speech is technically not ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Inc._v._CBS,_Inc. ), however I believe that (and without being a legal expert of any kind) was focused largely on improper commercial applications of his speeches, in this case the famous "I Have A Dream" speech.

In any case, the ruling appears to have been decided on the behalf of the King Estate, and NOT CBS. This choice is up for you guys to make. Genesayssitdown (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a link to the site from Sermons and speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. out of concern that copyrights are being violated. Please see WP:ELNEVER, which seems to require that the website license the speeches. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable, but wouldn't it seem you would probably need to take off the rest of the links to audio/video, and text of king speeches on this article for the same reason? The I Have a Dream speech is pretty specifically mentioned in the ruling I posted above, and these articles are already plastered with external links to what I assume are unlicensed copies of the speech. I just found this mention here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Copyright_dispute , which states some unlicensed use of these speeches in whole may be lawful, in regards to fair use. Genesayssitdown (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that he arranged his death - are there sources supporting it?

I wonder if the alternative hypothesis that the circle of King might be responsible for his death for creating a Martyr is sources supported anywhere. It's weird that he would directly refer to his assassination on his last speech and the last phrase he said was to play really good a song related to funerals. --Leladax (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all like 'Judas, I know you'll betray me and then I'll die' to me. --Leladax (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so weird. Ever hear a Baptist preacher give a sermon that didn't address the dangers that mortals face, the prospect of death, and the promise of everlasting life? Every speech MLK is known for touched on these pertinent themes, and by April 1968 he was no doubt well aware that he had become subject to the sort of threats that all such provocative political figures must bear. There'd have to be some very strong sources to justify the assertion that he planned his impending death, or similar assertions condemning or even implicating those around him. Steveozone (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant in the Freedom Movement and a scholar of the Civil Rights Movement, I've never heard of any shred of evidence or come across any credible source that King or anyone associated with him had anything to do with his assassination. I find the idea preposterous. Looking back on it, many of us who were participants in the civil rights movement believe that Dr. King's prescient remarks about his own death in his last speech were either coincidence, or his response to credible death threats made against him. It is worth remembering that when Dr. King came out in opposition to the Vietnam War in 1967 and then began organizing a multi-racial Poor People's Campaign to unite blacks, whites, latinos, indians, and asians in a fight for economic justice, powerful forces in both the economy and government turned against him with great hostility. Those enemies are a far more likely to have been behind the assassination than Dr. King or his supporters. Brucehartford (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Participant?" Careful, Bruce, as the "Circle of King" remains mysteriously ambiguous and entirely undefined, as all such terms are when used in speculative comments regarding any purported conspiracy, whether involving radicals, rogues, or government ;) Steveozone (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look I didn't want to offend anyone and I'm well aware this idea may offend, but I thought it might be interesting to research sources about it precisely because the sensitive nature of the question might have hidden it easily from discussion. Now, my own idea came not only because of the last speech and his last phrase on the balcony but those were supported by the general 'vibe' i get from this person that he was extremely (as in deeply) religious. Jesus complex isn't unheard of. I have to stress though, the question is mere speculation and it was only done for aiding research for sources on this article. I do hope it's not like that. --Leladax (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, we don't get to do original research here. If a reliable source has written about such an idea, it might be worthy of inclusion in the article. But speculation isn't helpful on Wikipedia, at least not speculation by Wikipedia editors. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Bus Boycott - Wrong length

{{editsemiprotected}} The Montgomery bus boycott lasted for 381 days, not 385. It started December 5. --Skallagrym (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to verify this?  fetchcomms☛ 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Second paragraph under the "Career" heading. --Skallagrym (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a matter of opinion. The Montgomery Bus Boycott article says it started on Dec. 1st, when Rosa Parks was arrested. Dec. 5th is when she was found guilty. In that article, it states "The boycott was triggered by her arrest", which would indicate that the Dec. 1st starting date makes the most sense. Note that the article also says that the flyer calling for the boycott was handed out on the night of Rosa's arrest. -- Otto (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a documentary on the boycott stating that it lasted 381 days, but I don't know where THEY got that info. Skyintheeye (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Family

Why does it say "Gandhi Family" in the Gandhi and Rustin section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keecheril (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's who King met on the visit referenced in that section. If the question is whether he met Mahatma Gandhi on this visit, the answer is no, as Gandhi had been dead for some ten years. Steveozone (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Gandhi Family" of India (Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi etc) is not related to Mahatma Gandhi. During the '59 visit Dr.King visited sites where the Mahatma lived. He probably visited Mahatmas sons, I don't know. Saying "Gandhi Family", I think, is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keecheril (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quote correction

Someone please fix the Harry C. Boyte quote from "assigned to organize" to "assigned me to organize". The reference has the latter and certainly makes more sense. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Keecheril (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race?

So he was 100% African descent, as far we know? Chrisrus (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to someone? Sounds like a conversation you've been having, and he seems to me to have been relatively decent (perhaps your opinion may differ). Racial discrimination is several steps removed from any kind of rigorous verification of one's ancestry (assuming such can be done), and based solely on the observer's perception and preconceived ideas. The civil rights that MLK and others fought for were historically denied to persons based on that perception, regardless of whether that discrimination was aimed at 100%, 90%, 50%, or "quadroons" (or just funny looking people). Steveozone (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to having just read the article. I was looking for that information and didn't find it. I was wondering if he was mixed race at all. Chrisrus (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. What would "mixed race" mean here in this article? Steveozone (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't see why this question has prompted such a hostile retort. It's true that the question is a bit vague and also likely to be unknowable, but it seems as if Steveozone's response is simply unfriendly. Phiwum (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can assume that at least one of his ancestors had non-African ancestry, as rape was part of the legacy of slavery. However, I've never seen any reliable sources (or any sources at all) discussing this aspect of King's ancestry. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I certainly did not intend my comments to be unfriendly, and apologize if that was felt. I did, however, intend to provoke some thought, as to whether it is possible to categorize anyone based on their "race" and whether that would mean anything in any discussion of a person's life and accomplishments. Let's say that MLK had some "white" (whatever that is) "blood" (as the expression goes). Does that tell us anything important about what he said, or did, or accomplished, or what he is remembered for? Would it matter? I think based on personal experience, and based on MLK's statements regarding race, that "mixed" or "some white" or "some black and let's discuss proportions" is not particularly productive. If I offended, let me know how I did. Steveozone (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

The following message was placed in the wrong place, and then the user (not logged in) asked me on my talk page for help. So I'm just re-posting it here for you to consider as requested. Peter 22:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request that the Martin Luther King Jr page has the following added under the section headed," Influences ".

Dr. King was not a stranger to Swedenborg theology. He credited Swedenborg with giving us the “best possible understanding of God’s message.”

The link with Swedenborg was discovered in 2006 when King’s extensive library sold at Sotheby’s to Morehouse College in Atlanta. Some of his handwritten notes, unpublished sermons, and key books were exhibited during the auction. Among display items was a copy of Emerson’s A Modern Anthology (1958). On the opening page, King had written: “Swedenborg enables us to understand why we were created, why we are alive, and what happens to us after our bodies die. Swedenborg enables us to have the best possible understanding of God’s message as it exists in those Bible books which constitutes God’s Word.” At present, the collection is closed while items are being catalogued. Swedenborgian scholars are eager to delve into King’s manuscripts as soon as the collection opens to the public. Rev. Mark Perry of the New Church in San Diego says, “I would love to have the opportunity to study Martin Luther King’s Library for more evidence of Swedenborg’s influence. Given the influence that Swedenborg’s Writings had on people like Helen Keller, Jorge Borges, George Innes, Emerson, Blake and many others, it does not surprise me that Dr. King also read Swedenborg.”

This information can be verified by going to www.newchurch.org/about/articles/martinlutherking-article.html and numerous other respectable sources.

Such an omission from Dr King's influences section is major, bearing in my what he actually said.

I hope that this request will be considered. Perpetualbooks (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any information to this effect that comes from a reliable source which would not also be considered a primary source. Basically, the only places I see this sort of stuff are either New Church or Swedenborg related. Nothing from what I'd consider an uninterested third party.
If you can source the information, then it might be an interesting addition to the article. But realistically, a single quote in a single book that is only given by questionable sources is not enough to justify mention in the article, I think. Not to say that it might not be sourced later and possibly develop into something more interesting. -- Otto (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F357028982