Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Sundayclose (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
49,678 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rmlee7 (talk | contribs)
1 edit
Line 389: Line 389:
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017 ==


{{edit semi-protected|Martin Luther King Jr.|answered=no}}
{{edit semi-protected|Martin Luther King Jr.|answered=yes}}
His correct title is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. [[User:Rmlee7|Rmlee7]] ([[User talk:Rmlee7|talk]]) 19:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
His correct title is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. [[User:Rmlee7|Rmlee7]] ([[User talk:Rmlee7|talk]]) 19:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{notdone}} {{ping|Rmlee7}} Thanks for pointing this out, but Wikipedia's manual of style does not use academic titles. See [[MOS:CREDENTIAL]] His doctorate is discussed in the article. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 20:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:59, 2 August 2017

Template:Vital article

Good articleMartin Luther King Jr. has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day...Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 25, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
January 24, 2013Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 4, 2005, April 4, 2006, and April 4, 2007.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of September 10, 2006.
Current status: Good article

Template:Not a forum

Please put the comma back

I'd ask an administrator to please put the comma back in the title: Martin Luther King, Jr. The page was moved without discussion, and I opposed that move but didn't do anything about it at the time, knowing that at some point a discussion here would take place. Yet, as with Martin Luther King, Sr., which also had its comma removed, it then was put back because it clearly was a controversial move as a discussion was taking place and continues to take place, the comma on this page probably should be returned for the time being. It was recently decided that either using a comma or not using it is fine on Wikipedia (if I'm reading it right). So in the case of any discussion about comma usage on Martin Luther King, Jr., the standard comma - which he used, for example, on his book titles - should be present, as it had been since the article's inception. Randy Kryn 4:28 26 March, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, it looks totally weird without the comma. Here the King Center's use of the comma.--A21sauce (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A21sauce, and I agree but the deed is done across all "Jr." and "Sr." names on Wikipedia (and see the name change discussion below which closed after editors gave me the ole "you hold him down and I'll kick him" here and on my talk page). This certainly is not Dr. King's name, and the best alternate is to soon have a new RM asking to change the name to simply 'Martin Luther King' (he's known as MLK, not as MLKJ) which may be a viable move request at some point (probably not now, the dustup is too fresh and emotions seemed to have been stirred). Randy Kryn 17:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name Changes

In the 1930 Census, Martin King, Sr. and Martin King, Jr. were listed as Marvin L. King, not Michael. In the 1940 census, Martin was then Martin L. King, but his father remained Marvin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddaniel37 (talk • contribs) 21:04, January 16, 2016

The US Federal Census is not considered to be a sacrosanct source for the details of an individual's life. The information that the enumerators write down can be very wrong and must always be corroborated whenever possible. If you have indeed found the correct entry (this happens a lot), and not an entry for a similar family in the same area, then you have proved for yourself how erroneous the info can be. Another example: in the 1940 Census, my mother's family, "Frantz" (living at the same exact street address as the 1930 Census), was entered as "French". But she's still my mother who bore the surname of Frantz.
Some ways in which the information could be entered in error:
  • the enumerator and the informant didn't speak the same language;
  • this was before birth certificates and IDs were required for everything - people just didn't remember the dates of events like they must do now;
  • the enumerator had bad handwriting that is hard to transcribe today;
  • the Census sheets sustained damaged that makes them hard to transcribe today;
  • the enumerator may have been older with some hearing loss;
  • the enumerator may not have spoken with the head of a household, but with one of their children or even a neighbor down the street.
Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think what the other editor may be getting at is the article's assertion that King's father changed their names to Martin following a 1934 trip to Germany is clearly impossible if MLK Jr. is already called "Martin" (or miswritten as Marvin) in the 1930 census, the year after his birth. Libertybison (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– It's time to adjust the MLK articles per the consensus preference expressed in WP:JR, and to match the rest of the WP articles on famous Jr and Sr people. All recent WP:RM discussions on MLK-related and similar cases have closed with a consensus in favor of following the no-comma preference that's recommended by essentially all modern style and grammar guides and by our own Manual of Style. MLK Jr.'s and Sr.'s names, and the names of these places and topics, are commonly found in reliable sources without the comma, and have been since the 1960s, so there's clearly no need for an exceptional exception in this case. Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom – See these recent discussions for precedents:
and also see all the rest of the Jr-comma-related RM discussions since the RFC that amended WP:JR, all of which show consensus for no comma:
Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. & cited precedents.--JayJasper (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, and you can overwhelm with here's and there's and yet the name of this American and world icon is Martin Luther King, Jr., including the comma. Look at your list. Wanting to change the King Memorial, which is well documented by its sources and its internet presence (as well as its physical presence on the D.C. Mall), is not only bad for an encyclopedia, for history, and for accuracy, but it's kind of on the way to head-scratching. Exceptions are allowed. Grandfathering pages was encouraged in the comma close, and this iconic figure is certainly worthy of an exception to keep his real name (does the exceptions-clause on guidelines actually mean anything?). And what do n-grams tell us? A dollar to donuts that the comma, which is carved onto Dr. King's tombstone, is on the cover of all his books, and designates his National Memorial in Washington, has a "winning" showing in the n-gram primary. Randy Kryn 22:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google n-grams does not do punctuation, so it tells us nothing. The memorial was established by law as "Memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr.", avoiding the mismatched-comma problem that our current title has. Other sources avoid it by using the two-comma or no-comma version; we can make our own choice, and can use the preference expressed in WP:JR to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the Memorial, as deemed by the National Park Service, Congress, the U.S. President and White House, the stone at the site, and the Foundation that built it at their actually quite beautiful website, and just about anyone who knows that a comma in a person's name is just a pause pertaining to the name and not what follows, is Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial or, in the case of Congress, contains the comma. Deal with it, but please deal with it by leaving it alone and not, in an encyclopedia, giving one of the few major monuments on the U.S. National Mall a made-up name that you prefer. Randy Kryn 10:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Style and grammar guides that cover this issue never suggest that it changes a name to include a comma or not. Several specifically use MLK Jr. as an example of this styling choice:
And most manuals consider it a grammatical error to use a comma before but not after, as yes even the NPS does for this memorial; see Talk:Comma#In English: Commas used with "Jr[.]" and "Sr[.]". It honors the man and the memorial better to fix the error than to repeat it. Dicklyon (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:ISNOT a US government agency; we don't really care what the US govt.'s house style is. WP has its own style manual, based on reliable academic sources, the vast majority of which do not use this comma and recommend against it (as I documented months ago at Talk:Comma#Jr.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this is just because I opposed your RM earlier today? Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You opposed it with the words "We are not trend followers", which may apply to this comma RM as well. This has happened often, that when someone opposes these massive comma moves which are being used to remove the real names of people and things from what is supposed to be an honored encyclopedia, they get personally criticized, and the guidelines/policies that they point to are ignored. WP:OTHERSTUFF, as concerns this RM, is just fine. Randy Kryn 10:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GREATWRONGS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, WP:OTHER is never a sufficient argument by itself (never mind that it's an essay). From its nutshell: "Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them." ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Thank god someone's done this. Tony (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:JR, common usage, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral because who actually cares about this. clpo13(talk) 18:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:JR, and the RfC that resulted in the no-comma rule. The title of that RfC used this very article (MLK) as the example, with supporting RS documentation. I.e., the RfC already closed with a consensus to move this and similar articles. This RM could technically have been speedied, both on that basis, and because in three months of a two or three individuals' tendentious resistance to MOS:JR's implementation, every RM on this question has concluded to remove the comma when present and to not insert one where absent. The articles listed here are among the last remaining cases of "comma-Jr." style on the whole project, and their continued presence is both a WP:CONSISTENCY problem and a WP:SOAPBOX-against-guidelines problem. Clpo13 is correct that we should not give a damn about such trivia, but the fact that a few people are making it their mission to stonewall on this issue is disruptive and it needs to be put to bed. The punctuation trivia isn't the issue; the anti-consensus campaigning is the issue. No one agrees with every single MoS, AT, and other guideline and policy rule, and no such rule has unanimous agreement. We agree to abide by them as a set (and to seek consensus for changes to them, and live with it when we don't get the the version we want) so we can work productively. If everyone went to war over every naming and style nit-pick they had a pet peeve about, WP could consist of pretty much nothing but 24/7 naming and style bickering. We have these WP:PAG to curtail such battlegrounding; unhappiness with a line item in any of them is never an excuse to engage in more of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do dashes, caps, and other style items, too, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No sources are provided in the nomination to support the moves. A very quick link on the website of one of the entities here clearly shows prominent comma usage. WP:JR does not prohibit comma usage if sources consistently use it. —  AjaxSmack  03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the precedents, the onus would be on those wanting an exception to show that sources are consistent. In this case they are very much not, as discussed in the original RFC; e.g. in these books on the MLK Memorial we see no comma in several, two commas in several, and one comma in several. On the individuals, many books go comma-free: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and lots more. There's a nearly unlimited set of sources to choose from, the comma usage is nowhere close to consistent. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A few examples of "prominent" usage by some sources AjaxSmack and RandyKryn favor is not evidence of consistent usage across reliable sources. There's not even a bare 50.01% majority using the commas; the source research I did, both books and news RS, in the RfC shows clearly that they're in the minority (and 50.01% would not be enough, anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AjaxSmack, you say "WP:JR does not prohibit comma usage if sources consistently use it." It is shown here beyond any doubt that the sources do not consistently use the comma in the name! Hence moving is the only logical conclusion. After all, it is clearly preferred in our guideline. gidonb (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Absent cherry-picking of sources, none clear the "clearly and consistently preferred" threshold specified in WP:JR. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per MoS:JR and RfC. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:JR. Without the comma is commonly used (see for example [9]), as is with the comma. Our guideline correctly states that without the comma should be preferred. gidonb (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per house style. — JFG talk 00:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems Britannica lists Dr. King's name with the comma, as well as that of his National Memorial (I didn't know, and am sorry to see, that they have ads on their pages). With that said, and with an editor now withdrawing his opposition to this move, it's obvious that this RM will pass and that the comma-conflict is over. Some of the very few editors who comment or even know about such matters - an extremely small universe of editors whose decisions then catch many others by surprise when they see the resulting changes - have told me, more or less, that I'm 100% wrong and they are 100% right. Maybe that's so, maybe a new world of styling is taking over and things that some of us take for granted are no longer accepted as normal. Wanting to keep this simple comma in one tiny corner of Wikipedia - the Martin Luther King pages - seems to have caused unintended distress. My apologies for contributing to the distress some editors felt over this, my disappointment that Wikipedia has gone down this route, and my hope that we've all learned from what seems to have been an exercise in frustration to some yet certainly a caring for Wikipedia and the world of shared-knowledge by all. Randy Kryn 4:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's much distress or surprise involved, just some frustration over how hard you've fought for your corner. I've tried to make sure that the comma-free style is noticed, everywhere I can. Lots of titles, templates, categories, discussions, etc., have by now brought the modern styling to the attention of everyone who is likely to notice or care. I haven't heard of anyone being surprised recently. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prostitute Scandals & Domestic Violence (Against Sex Workers) Missing

I did a search for the word "prostitute" and "hooker" in the article - and the Talk page - and there were no results. The closest this article comes to accurately portraying this aspect of MLK's life is mentioning his affairs. I don't think that it is fair to leave this out and I would say the same if someone like David Duke, Trump or other racist whites had pages where such negative stuff was left out/toned down so it's not a case of a white person trying to defame a black leader. The evidence regarding MLK's use of prostitutes - and to a lesser extent his abuse of predominately white prostitutes/sex workers - is well documented by his friends, enemies and unbiased 3rd parties. MLK's hypocrisy should be mentioned. I'm not asking that unsubstantiated rumors like MLK beating white prostitutes and requesting that they call him their "white daddy" be included as that is not verifiable and isn't relevant. I simply think that his dark-side should at least be outlined more clearly, just like his accomplishments are. I don't think that is a racist request and my motivations are not racial in nature. I don't think hypocrisy should be ignored because someone is a hero to many people.

To put this request in contrast, Ted Haggard's Wikipedia page includes info on his alleged use of prostitutes in the very beginning of his page. The page starts with a 2 sentence long intro and then the 3rd sentence is about the prostitution and drug allegations. I would say that is far too prominent as it comes before virtually everything he did in life. Mr Haggard is a white pastor and was the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals for several years so he is similar to MLK in some respects. There is a precedent to including such information. Mr Haggard denies the prostitution allegations and if you compare the evidence between the two cases I doubt anyone can seriously claim that the allegations against MLK are not as substantiated as those made against Mr Haggard. In fact, the evidence of MLK's use and abuse of prostitutes is far stronger and much more documented than the evidence against Mr Haggart. There are only two reasons why someone would not want this information about MLK included in the article: 1. They are unaware of the number and reliability of the reports regarding MLK's use of prostitutes. 2. They are biased imho. If references are needed I can supply a list. Please let me know your thoughts. user: Anon User 4:10 16, August, 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:8300:E073:A054:1D6B:3B81:B2D7 (talk)

On the other hand, see Aspiring agents learn from mistakes of FBI's 'shameful' investigation of Martin Luther King Jr.. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for unproven rhetorical statement 2nd para last sentence

Their is a disturbing lack of citation\s at the end of the second paragraphs' last sentence. I am paraphrasing here:"he was one of the greatests orators of the 20th century." what professor\s of oratory rank him as such? this statement uses Rhetoric with no citations. to be one of four or five of an entire century in the u.s.a. would be an accomplishment. this rhetorical statement infers the entire world, not just american english speakers. it panders to political correctness UNLESS citations by trained and WORLD instructed masters of 20th century oratory are included....oration is a political science and must be treated so....the statement should be left AS IS but WITH CITED PROOF.Hortenseescapee (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hortenseescapee, and welcome to Wikipedia. There's no reason to shout (CITATIONS FOR UNPROVEN RHETORICAL STATEMENT 2ND PARA).
With respect to your comment, you're asking about the opening, or lead section of the article. Its purpose is to summarize the article and consequently, information in the lead is often left without footnotes, because the information is elsewhere in the article with citations. (See WP:LEADCITE for a complete explanation.)
The sentence in the opening section is part of a pair that say "King also helped to organize the 1963 March on Washington, where he delivered his famous 'I Have a Dream' speech. There, he established his reputation as one of the greatest orators in American history." In the section of the article titled "March on Washington, 1963", it says:
"I Have a Dream" came to be regarded as one of the finest speeches in the history of American oratory.[1] The March, and especially King's speech, helped put civil rights at the top of the agenda of reformers in the United States and facilitated passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Moore, Lucinda (August 1, 2003). "Dream Assignment". Smithsonian. Retrieved August 27, 2008.
  2. ^ James T. Patterson, Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945–1974 (Oxford University Press 1996) pp 482–85, 542–46
  3. ^ Harvard Sitkoff, The Struggle for Black Equality (Hill and Wang; 2008) pp 152–53
So the sentence in the opening section does have citations, just not right there. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard University

According to this King spent two years at Harvard (not sure when). See also Raphael Demos. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MLK's skipped grades

Are you sure MLK had skipped 12th grade? I've read that it was 11th grade that he'd skipped, not 12th grade. Here's my source(go to fact number 6). [1] LegoBen201714 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hello LegoBen201714, and welcome to Wikipedia. We generally try to use high-quality reliable sources for our articles, and I'm afraid that website doesn't meet the bar. I found dozens of sources at Google Books that say King skipped 9th and 12th grades, but most of them -- like the source used in this article -- are biographies intended for young readers and not high-quality sources. Some of the high-quality sources I did find include The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (which was assembled from his writings years after his death) and the introduction to this volume in The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. that says he skipped 9th grade and (on the following page) that he had the opportunity to go to college right after 11th grade (thus skipping 12th grade). Hope that helps. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2017

Jchen9207 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

47.16.167.0 (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend King redirects here

How important is the redirect Reverend King to this article? I am asking because there is a popular Nigerian pastor that was sentenced to death about a decade ago that is famously referred to as Reverend King. I wanted to move his article to the appropriate name only to discover that the name redirected here. Ps: I know MLK quite well, but still didn't completely expect Reverend King to redirect here. Darreg (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darreg, I've added a hatnote to the Nigerian figure from MLK's article. As mentioned to you today at RfD, you should create a move request if you want to rename Reverend King Ezeugo. You may contact me on my talk page if you need help doing this. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BDD Thanks sir. I will do that soon. Darreg (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2017

King was a member of the prestigious Fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha. 2605:E000:302E:4000:35B0:9FEF:7A98:EAA5 (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No source. El_C 03:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

watch to hear

The article reads, "You may watch the speech, 'Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam,' by Martin Luther King here." However, it is an audio speech, so it should read, "You may hear the speech, 'Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam,' by Martin Luther King here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.187.255.17 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for an obvious but missed correction. Randy Kryn 23:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'injustice in health care'

At a Convention of the Medical Committee for Human Rights held in Chicago in March 1966, Martin Luther King Jr declared:

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane” (source)

Imo, it's worth mentioning in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views

The current sub-heading is incredibly short, and should be expanded. There seems to be a lot of nuance that isn't discussed. I'm doing some reading now, and I'm anything but an expert, but it's raising some questions about what MLK's actual relgious viewpoints are. In this paper written in 1949, he seems to be saying that the Christian beliefs of ressurection, Jesus' divinity, and virgin birth are not literally true, but rather mythology.

This article also discusses how he rejects biblical literalism. According to it:

King didn't believe the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale was true, for example, or that John the Baptist actually met Jesus, according to texts detailed in the King papers book. King once referred to the Bible as "mythological" and also doubted whether Jesus was born to a virgin, Carson said.

If he was not a Biblical literalist as these seem to imply, then it would be pertinent to include them. It may need a full article to get the full nuance of his theological views. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King was skeptical of many of Christianity's claims. At the age of 13, he denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus during Sunday school. From this point, he stated, "doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly." However, he later concluded that the Bible has "many profound truths which one cannot escape" and decided to enter the seminary.

These sentences are presented right now as if these two pieces of evidence are contradictory. If my reading of the above articles is correct, then it seems that this isn't a contradiction, but rather a very liberal non-literal kind of theology. This theology holds that scripture is not authoritative on facts and science, but rather only authoritative on morality. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017

His correct title is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Rmlee7 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done @Rmlee7: Thanks for pointing this out, but Wikipedia's manual of style does not use academic titles. See MOS:CREDENTIAL His doctorate is discussed in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F793609195