Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

JimWae (talk | contribs)

3 user groups
37,710 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Aerdil (talk | contribs)
60 edits
m →Support for Israel: - Formatting
→Support for Israel: Israel's right to exist
Line 181: Line 181:


:::Perhaps a mention over his worry about an "immobilizing effect", accounting for his apparent support for both Israel and situation of the Palestinians, would be justified in the context of his anti-Vietnam War peace efforts (within Section 10: Opposition to the Vietnam War). But it still seems unnecessary to me. [[User:Aerdil|Aerdil]] ([[User talk:Aerdil|talk]]) 08:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Perhaps a mention over his worry about an "immobilizing effect", accounting for his apparent support for both Israel and situation of the Palestinians, would be justified in the context of his anti-Vietnam War peace efforts (within Section 10: Opposition to the Vietnam War). But it still seems unnecessary to me. [[User:Aerdil|Aerdil]] ([[User talk:Aerdil|talk]]) 08:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

:::::Here's one more reliable source for King on Israel: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/kingsecurity.html It supports his supporting Israel's right to exist; I will look for more sources--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae|talk]]) 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:20, 1 May 2011

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

Template:Notaforum

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]

It's been a long time and no response to this, so can I assume the above text including it's direct sourcing is an approprate addition to the MLK article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjchambers (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see the sources first; it's a pretty good summary. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Supremacist Websites

I feel like we should make some sort of note about the KKK owned MartinLutherKing(dot)org. Discuss? Temporarily posting this huffpost article, until a better one can be found explaining the issue http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/white-supremacist-site-ma_b_809755.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=011711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief 04:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why bother sending traffic that way? It's hard enough to keep the dot org site out of the article in the first place. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
recognize that there people who say negative things, and also so kids who go online looking for MLK stuff know to recognize it as what it is. Jademushroom (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. How would you phrase this? --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"As with most figures of great change, there have been attempts to vilify Martin Luther King in order to degrade his work and the Civil Rights Movement in general. The Klu Klux Klan has attempted to do this when they purchased MartinLutherKing(dot)org in XXXX year. They've also blah blah blah"
I dunno. Take it and run with it, English is not my first language :P Jademushroom (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might also note that some states did not immediately recognize King's birthday as a holiday, some not until 2000! There's a section called "Reluctance to observe" at Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out, we have an entire article about the holiday. Regarding the dot org, that language wouldn't be appropriate. "As with most figures of great change" -- according to who? Be careful about original research; we can't say why the Klan did something unless a reliable source says why; we can't even say the Klan did it, since they didn't (rather, an individual formerly a leader in one of the organizations calling itself the Klan did.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yea i figured that when I typed it. I'm still holding the "English is my Second Language" flag, I dont feel comfortable writing it. Jademushroom (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about a section called "Criticism" or "Opponents"? Even though there is an MLK Day article, I think it bears pointing out that some states really dragged their feet recognizing the holiday. Regarding the anti-King web site, you could say "Opponents of Dr. King have set up innocuous sounding websites to spread false information and rumors about him." with a reference to an article about this. I can probably find an article about the holiday, too. We can also dig up some quotes from famous politicians who opposed or criticized King. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
actually, that sounds amazing. It keeps us very neutral, and opens ppl's minds to other minds. Also, it "inoculates" ppl against false websites such as that Jademushroom (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing this article needs to do is add the troll-bait of a separate "Criticism" section. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Criticism sections in general make for bad articles, and in this one, they'd be pure fool bait. Our job is not to "inoculate" purple, and our job is not to "open pimple's minds." --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a common misperception that King was a venerated figure and a recognized moral conscience in his own time. In fact, he was considered a trouble-maker and a serious threat to political stability and to the Vietnam War effort, and Hoover (FBI) was constantly trying to compromise him politically by revealing embarrassing material about him. It doesn't serve our readers well to cover up opposition to King's efforts, but it does help whitewash (so to speak) the racism that disparages his efforts and tries to block his recognition. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you said, except the last line. Mainly because I couldn't understand it (English not my first language). but any ideas? Jademushroom (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ghostofnemo's characterization is flawed. King was indeed venerated in his own time; and as far as "recognized moral conscience" is concerned, I'd venture his Nobel Peace Prize is evidence of that. Yes, he was also hated and feared. We have a large section about Hoover's efforts to discredit King, and discussion about contemporary opposition to King fits well into the biographical narrative. Opposition to him today is the sole domain of extreme fringe groups, and a section dedicated to them would be undue weight. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jpgordon. Given the fact there is a separate article on MLK Day, there is no need to cover the facts and events as to it in redundancy herein. Further, opposition is discussed as to his positions (back in his lifetime) as to Viet Nam, etc. Also, as pointed out, the efforts of Hoover and the FBI are noted in detail. Adding more, especially by way of a "Criticism" section would be placing undue weight on said matters and bring in POV problems. Kierzek (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Israel

Is this really among King's more notable positions? Plus, the quotes are half made up. King's support of labor unions was more significant. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the part about Zionism - which was synthesis. Refusing to be speak about Zionism does not equate to supporting Zionism--JimWae (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was notable, if you check the source he repeated this stance on repeated and several occasions during his whole career and as late as two weeks before his death. I dont see how removing the part about Zionism would be legitimate since he clearly supported the project that was and is the State of Israel (which means he supported Zionism at least implicitly in any case) and he also defended Zionism publicly explicitly by saying for example that those that criticized it were being anti-semitic. So Im changing it back to the original (I didnt add the quote, but when it was added I changed it to something more appropriate for the topic of the heading. The heading was and is about Israel and Zionism, not anti-semitism as the first quote someone else added was about). Just because his views on this might be controversial to some doesnt mean we shouldnt be including them if they are correct (and they have been confirmed). /BobbyRipper 2011-03-24

The quote about anti-Zionism and antisemitism is bogus. Please don't add it back or I'll remove it. King didn't appear in Boston or Cambridge in the months before his death. Please read our article about the Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend for more information about the facts of the case. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would bother to check the source it is NOT quoting the, indeed debunked, "Letter to an Anti-Zionist friend", it is quoting a speech at Harvard University 1968 and it has been confirmed by multiple reliable sources. Im changing it back and please dont change it again without proper research! /BobbyRipper, 2011-03-24

If you would take a moment to read our article, you would see that it also debunks the myth of the 1968 speech at Harvard. As I wrote above, King didn't appear in Boston or Cambridge in the months before his death. No such speech. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_article=369 , the original source of the quote (which is in no way equal to an endorsement of Zionism) is the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chronicle article does not give a date - just "shortly before". But it does not matter - King refused to talk about Zionism because in his estimation the questioner betrayed anti-Semitism in his question. The Chronicle article does not say MLK supported Zionism & it is WP:SYNTH to read the quote as if it does --JimWae (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm the partly guilty party here. After I reverted his section full of quotes from the same website, BobbyRipper came back with a de minimis section on the subject, consisting of a one-liner. Attempting to clean up a bit, and maybe add just a tiny bit of meat, I picked the quote about how an attack on Jews as an ethnic group is an attack on all. Subsequently, I decided the quote in the article about Israel's need for security would be more pertinent, but by then we were off on a pro-Zionism tangent, so I decided to let it go to it's logical conclusion. Which is where we are now. Is it a major position? Probably not, but support for Israel and opposition to antisemitism, taken together, seem worth a short (five or six lines) section. If the site used is not considered RS, support for some of the quotes and positions mentioned there should be able to be found elsewhere, and might actually become an article improvement. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2356.shtml has King in Cambridge 1967-APR-23, but the quote is still not well-established - not that it endorses Zionism anyway--JimWae (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malik asked above: "Is this really among King's more notable positions?" In my opinion, Dr. King's stance regarding Israel is very peripheral to any article on King and his achievements. And a discussion of King's views on Israel-Palestine would be complex and lengthy (as is any discussion of that issue). That said, based on both my personal memory and research, King stood strong and clear for justice, peace, nonviolence, and equally strong against racism and anti-semitism. His public statements regarding the Israel-Arab conflicts were influenced by all of those factors plus how they impinged on the Vietnam War and his opposition to that war. In those statements he tried to be nuanced and even-handed and conciliatory to both sides, recognizing the needs of both. In At Canaan's Edge, Taylor Branch describes King's appearance on Issues and Answers in 1967 as follows:

On the Middle East, King thought a complex peace required security for Israel and development for the Arab nations. "The whole world and all people of good will must respect the territorial integrity of Israel," he said. He proposed also a 'Marshal Plan' to relieve desperate poverty among the mass of Arab citizens and refugees. "So long as they find themselves on the outskirts of hope they are going to keep the war psychosis alive."

In a later passage, Branch quotes a King letter to Morris Abram: "Israel's right to exist as a state in security is incontestable. At the same time the great powers have the obligation to recognize that the Arab world is in a state of imposed poverty and backwardness that must threaten peace and harmony." Brucehartford (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is important because the black radicals and the Black Muslims, who strongly opposed King, were taking an anti-Israel position, and this was driving away much of the Jewish support for the civil rights movement. Therefore, King was trying to thread his way through a very difficult domestic political crisis.Rjensen (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) there's a section titled "American Jewish community and the Civil Rights movement" and that might be a better place for some analysis of how Middle East issues affected the Civil Rights Movement. My recollection is that SNCC's position on Israel affected Jewish support for SNCC but had little effect on Jewish support for Dr. King's organization SCLC. White support for the Civil Rights Movement did broadly begin to decline in the late '60s, and to a degree Jews were part of that. But my memory is that Israel played only a minor role in that compared to the urban uprisings, violent/revolutionary rhetoric from some Black leaders (not Dr. King), and most importantly the shift of Movement activity from southern segregation to issues of job discrimination, open housing, community control of schools, slums and slumlords, and white businesses exploiting black communities (issues that many northern whites saw as threats to what we might call the "northern way of life"). Brucehartford (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous RS have identified the issue of Israel and the PLO as critical in worsening relations between the Jews and the blacks. See for example, Taylor Branch, At Canaan's Edge (vol 3) pp 617-21 (on p 621 he notes that King was deep into the anti-war movement in 1967 and his attacks on LBJ angered supporters of Israel who depended on US support). The standard history is Broken alliance: the turbulent times between Blacks and Jews in America (1995) by Jonathan Kaufman, with over 80 pages that refer to Israel. Furthermore, Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States (2000) by Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey refers to Israel or the PLO in over 150 of its pages. That's a lot of attention indeed. Rjensen (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the facts that the sole source is currently an opinion article by a politician, MLK Jr. was not an expert on Middle East foreign policy and rarely spoke about Palestine-Israel conflict - to the extent where there are only one or two contested quotes about it even after a public career spanning fifteen years, and in terms of relevancy to the biography and views of MLK Jr. this section is extremely unimportant, I'd suggest that the section remain deleted. The current section as written, derived from just one or two contested quotes, merely seems to be a form of NPOV in order to make a political appeal to authority for a contemporary conflict. Two things should be proven before it's re-added: a source that is more verifiable and legitimate than an op-ed article quoting a person who claimed to hear a quote during a dinner, and a source that shows its relevance to the career and views of King. As it stands, this would be like adding a section about the views on Israel for every civil rights activist, like Gandhi, regardless of whether those views consist of just one or two murky and largely unverified quotes. Viewing the guidelines of NPOV about undue weight, and the guidelines concerning verifiability, would suggest that this section should remain removed until better sources that prove its relevance are posted. Aerdil (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the key point: MLK was deeply involved in the peace movement and the Six Day War dramatically changed the context, with Jews especially moving to support LBJ. King felt the Mideast war had an "immobilizing effect" on anti-Vietnam protest work, says Taylor Branch 3:621 Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few issues with that point: Those assertions in Branch's book still do not collaborate any explicit and important support for Israel; the statement in the original edit, as written, was somewhat misleading in that respect. The fact remains that, as far as I can tell, MLK Jr. only rarely spoke about the mid-east situation publicly. The difficulty of finding any explicit and recorded statements or quotes about it seems to speak to that. The RS that have been posted imply that the only time he did was when he mentioned that the controversy surrounding Israel interfered with his anti-Vietnam protest work. And he qualified it with a mention of the "imposed poverty" of the Palestinians (which the original edit did not mention/left out).
Going back to an earlier point you made, Jewish and African-American relations certainly have a long and important history of conflict and animosity in the U.S., but that's peripheral to Dr. King's work - he does not seem to comment on those relations in any frequent or notable way. The attention paid to this in the RS you posted would belong in African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), but it seems stretching it to say it justifies a section on King's page concerning supposed support for Israel.
In any case, a short notation from a 3,000 page comprehensive biography doesn't warrant a section in his wikipedia page, in my opinion. However, if there are reputable sources that show MLK Jr. gave numerous speeches or wrote often about Israel and Mideast conflicts, then certainly a section could be written to reflect that. As it stands however with the current source on the table, it'd be giving this subject undue weight to include it in its own section.
Perhaps a mention over his worry about an "immobilizing effect", accounting for his apparent support for both Israel and situation of the Palestinians, would be justified in the context of his anti-Vietnam War peace efforts (within Section 10: Opposition to the Vietnam War). But it still seems unnecessary to me. Aerdil (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one more reliable source for King on Israel: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/kingsecurity.html It supports his supporting Israel's right to exist; I will look for more sources--JimWae (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F426945157