The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Dear friends on this talk page,

I'd like to request for comments whether it's a good idea to add Dr. King to the first paragraph because the subject Martin Luther King, Jr seems to me very often referred as Dr. King. Per MOS:DOCTOR. Xinbenlv (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to revert my edits adding Dr. King in Special:Diff/891702592 and Special:Diff/891700507. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is vague and ambiguous. Also, where is the RS citing that states he is widely known as just "Dr. King", alone. Kierzek (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked Google Ngram here and it showed widespread usage in books. The term "Dr. King" is also a redirect page that directs here. Mitchumch (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (Summoned by bot) No, that is not appropriate for the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No Are you seriously arguing that "Dr. King" was "a pseudonym or stage name" analogous to "Dr. Ruth"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No It is ok to be placed elsewhere in the article, but for it to be in the lead is unnecessary Cook907 (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No. WP shouldn't be giving people titles, as that's non-neutral, as it implies they're somehow special or better than others. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No per Malik Shabazz, it isn't "a pseudonym or stage name" and per Kierzek, it is vague - therefore it would be slightly confusing in the lead. Though there is no reason why it should not be mentioned wherever his doctorate is mentioned. BTW, this use is almost unknown in UK, and, I suspect is US only - very possibly confined to supporters according him simultaneous respect and familiarity. Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mentioning "Dr." However WP:CREDENTIALS allows us to cover what doctorates King had acquired: "However, verifiable facts about how a person attained his or her title should be included in the article." Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, his degrees should of course be mentioned in the education section. Otherwise, he should be referred to simply as "King" after first mention, except when it is necessary to disambiguate him from other King family members. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your consensus as No, thank you for your comments Xinbenlv (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Dear bio friends,

Bear with me for the second question, I am practicing to write wikipedia lead paragraph for bio, and my educational question is: Would it be more appropriate that the lead paragraph start with something like

"Martin Luther King. Jr (year-year) is an American civil right leader, minister of..."(slightly changing order of the current version).

My reason is Civil right leader is what he is mostly known and recognized for. Please educate me why this is better or not than the current version. Thank you!

Xinbenlv (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

· According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section the lead "gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on" and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." With these in mind the only thing that worries me about changing the order is that it would decrease the readability. The current lead sentence follows Dr. King's life in a chronological sense, but if you could re-order it and remain consistent with his life chronologically I believe it could work. I leave this open to other comments. Cook907 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. You seem to think that a new reader will not read more than nine words. That seems very little. I would imagine that anybody who was interested enough to click on the article would at least read the whole of the first sentence; then they will see that he is best known as the leader of the civil rights movement. Also, it would have been better for you to have just started a discussion than to start a Request for comment. This is the second time you've done it in a few days. Please take the time to get used to how Wikipedia processes work before starting up RFCs. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) whilst it is often the case that a person's main claim to notability is placed first, reasons of 'text flow' and 'narrative flow' also come into play. In this instance, MLK's position as a minister is covered very briefly before the more expanded text of his role in civil rights. Also, his more notable role came about initially because of his standing as a minister, which also deeply influenced his rhetorical style. For these two reasons, this is better treated in the present order. Similiar treatment occurs on many other biog's, where a compromise is affected between chronology, notability and text flow. I also endorse what Scolaire says about not starting RfC's until talk page discussion has been exhausted. Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]