Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 3

message: As I believe MLK was a genuine hero and such, I hate what I am about to say, but without doing so, this encyclopedia cannot stay fair and balanced. I am requesting that a "Criticism" section of MLK be added to the article. This is simply because while he is largely accepted in mainstream circles, and respected among many, myself included, there are many who question his legitimacy. This goes beyond the plagirism issue. I believe this section should be added because it would agree with fairness and the representation of all perspectives. I am prepared to deal with the controversy this is going to create and must note that this is not my intention. Again, we need to keep this encyclopedia neutral, we can't have people or ideologies listed without listing the arguments of those who oppose them. Please let me know what you think.(EnglishEfternamn 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for a Criticism Section

message: Martinlutherking.org a disgusting racist site run by stormfront(which is run by a former grand wizard of the klu klux klan. It's full of disgusting lies, and I can only imagine how many kids looking to do projects and reports have seen this bullshit and clicked on it.
So now, the number one searches for Martin Luther King, and Jew, lead to racist sites. Something should be done about this.Drsmoo 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only #4 now; some consolation, given how sneaky they are about pretending to be a legitimate site! --129.89.249.106 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The number 1 site when searching for Martin Luther King on Google is now a racist site

message: I receive a advertisment who said that I did vandalism, I posted recently questions about MLK in this page and they were erased and they are considered as vandalism. Why ? Roger_Smith
*Your questions were not erased; they were moved to the bottom of the page, which is where new stuff is supposed to go. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: The chronology in this whole section is hopelessly confused.  Whoever wrote this has events in 1965 happening before events in 1963, Johnson is president and then Kennedy is president again, the whole thing is a mess.  Somebody needs to clean this thing up; frankly, I'm thinking of deleting the entire first paragraph of this section, since that's the one that's causing most of the confusion, without adding THAT much new information. -- Minaker
*Hm, you might be right, I reverted possibly out of confuseration. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology in the "March on Washington" Section

message: Shouldn't there be a template at the top of the page explaining why IP addresses can't edit this article (like )? And could someone who is allowed to edit this page please make the following correction: in the "King in Popular Culture" section there is a red link to "I have a dream". Please change this to "I Have a Dream" with the correct capitalisation, or you could make a redirect I suppose. Thanks, 81.159.110.127 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I fixed the link.  The template is not required, especially if the protection is going to be a long-term exercise, so I'll defer to Can't sleep, clown will eat me on that.  Maximusveritas 10:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for fixing it Maximusveritas (wow, your user name's a bit of a mouthful)! I'm a bit confused about the templates thing, I just think there should be something explaining why IP adresses can't edit it somewhere, but never mind :-). 81.159.110.127 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon Editing

message: *
The outcome of the auction should be worth a sentence or two.  deeceevoice 09:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Upcoming auction

message: I've noticed through this thread the repeated disinformation and misinformation attempting to brand King as a communist, adulterer, etc. etc. It might be a good idea to address these accusations up front and cite the sources of these accusations, as well as how hate groups like Stormfront are disseminating them today.
However, this may be a total digression and it may detract from King's overall legacy. I would like to get some input on this before attempting to write this piece. If it detracts from King's total message, I don't believe it would be worth it.
Additionally, it might be good to add to the "assassination" section under the King v Jowers wrongful death suit that the King family was awarded damages from Loyd Jowers to reimburse funeral expenses only (something that equal hundreds, and not thousands of dollars). Let me know if this fact would be worth mentioning and I can add it including citation. 
A small fact under "assassination" - I believe the undergrowth/shrubs were cleared the morning after Dr. King's assassination, not days after, as borne out in trial transcripts from King v Jowers. What is the source for "days" after? 
Overall this is a great piece on King - thanks to all who worked on it!JKQ 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Racist groups attack King mainly with chauvinisms anyways, and even if it was true that King was either a communist or an adulterer, how the hell does that change all the good that the man did in his time?.
just like to point out there is nothing wrong with being a communist, the regimes we are familiar with as "communist" are nothing but socialists in sheeps clothing.  true communism has no central government.  I realize this has little to do with King but felt it necassry to point out.
I thought it was  a well known fact that he was (in some form) cheating on his wife, however I question whether or not this should be included in the article as I assume it lacks adequate citation.D-cup 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible addendum to Legacy section 

message: He rejcted the virgin birth, original sin, and the Trinity. This may merit mention. 	 
01:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King as a heterodox thinker

message: I've always been told that using "Dr." & "Ph.D." in the same name was incorrect, as the Ph.D. automatically conferred the status of doctor.   However, I'm not sure what to do in this case.  Since he is so well-known as "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.," the normal approach of dropping "Dr." and keeping "Ph.D." doesn't seem to be the best answer, even though it's the one most style guides seem to endorse.  Would someone more intimately familliar with the article like to take a swing at changing it, or suggesting an alternative?  --Ssbohio 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name in the introductory paragraph

message: I have removed one link (diff) per evidence that it is being spammed here by a hate group site: . (ESkog)(Talk) 03:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: this article like most on wikipedia is written from the POV of a modern day 'liberal' and makes it seem like king would be one of them. in fact he'd be appaled by modern day liberals, and i think most people would see this. his was a triumph of faith and the modern day aithiestic liberal has trouble seeing this. this article is being written from the POV that all that is good, must be left wing, and that king must be a liberal because he was good. please correct this to inlcude that king would be horrified by modern day liberals and their perversion of american politics—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.200 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 August 2006  (UTC)
:Please try and make some specific criticism of the article on the talk page, or try some article edits before inserted the POV tag.EricR 18:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So to be NPOV, the article has to guess widly that today MLK would be a NeoCon? Eh I'm removing the NPOV tag until something more substantial is brought up. --W.marsh 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll debate it. King likely would not be a democrat today, liberal wellfare programs do nothing for minorities other than feed them off of Uncle Sam's teat in a continuing cycle of dependency ( that was highly editorial and opiniated but most things on wikipedia seem to be). Also George Washington despite his disdain for partisanship was a Federalist, a party more inline with the Republicans than the Democrats. Belief in limited gov't interference in business, strong military, religious (or at least acknowledging the presence of God in Washington's case). Of course the federal gov't is much more powerful today than it was in Washington's day so there is some room for argument.
What do you make of the fact that most, if not all, of the people who worked with him (Jesse Jackson for one) are now Democrats?  Please do not hate all people who use welfare.  A close friends mom had to go on welfare for a few years when tragedy struck the family and it was awful to see her have to feel any shame for accepting a public hand.  We did not get to where we are as humans by hiding alone in caves, we got here by helping each other out, please don't make it harder for people to ask when they need it.
Back to the left wing POV while I havent read the article yet (I often read the discussion first) the comments in the discussion seem very left.Eno-Etile 07:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  left wing POV problems 

message: The external link under video and audio material for Google Video of "I've Been to the Mountain top" speech is broken (link). Does someone have a correct link? I was unable to find it. Ryan Roos 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the reference section, these don't work tonight either:
http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=49210#49210 currently numbered 1
http://www.playboy.com/features/features/mlk/04.html currently numbered 2
http://www.historynewsnetwork.org/articles/10325.html currently numbered 16
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-martin-luther-king.xml currently numbered 21
Also, the External link http://black-leaders.com/home/ has no obvious mention of Martin Luther King. Art LaPella 05:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The historynewsnetwork.org link (number 16) worked when I tried today. Also I doubt that the playboy.com (number 2) link is legitimate.Ryan Roos 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It looks to me like playboy.com recently reorganized their site; the interview archive isn't shaped the way it used to be. Certainly the interview is a real thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was to quick to discount playboy.com based on the nature of the web sites content (adult entertainment). I checked the internet archive wayback machine and found the some of the information there. Ryan Roos 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken External Link 

message: The article is 59 kb. Does anyone else think it's too long? Maurreen 21:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be shorten a little bit more. I personally think if we could get this shortened to 50 KB, it would have a better shot at becoming a featured article. --Nishkid64 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: Can't someone do something to the link on note 6 so it doesn't extend the page's width? 81.79.110.97 11:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 6 

message: Isn't it a bit revisionist that the post-assassination riots get only one fleeting mention.... Rioting that erupted in every city across the nation, killing dozens, costing billions, causing the mobilization of the entire Army not deployed to Vietnam, and utterly destroying parts of the nation's capital and other cities. See 1968 Washington, D.C. riots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.163.64 (talk • contribs) 01:55, October 11, 2006
:: No, that's right.  I remember those times when I was in high school.  This was followed by RFK's assasination and an upsurge in student and anti-war protests and the further radicalization of the African American struggle with the emergence of the Black Panthers. Seemed like there might be revolution or civil war on the agenda.Tom Cod 19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Riots

message: This article suffers from liberal bias.  Here are two clear examples:
1)  The article notes that King advisers Stanley Levison and Hunter Pitts O'Dell were linked to the Communist Party USA by sworn testimony before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.  Without offering any credible evidence to the contrary, it goes on to state that HUAC was later "discredited" for using coercive tactics with witnesses (for which no reference is offered).  The implication is that the Communist Party affiliation is not credible; in fact, it does not appear to be disputed whether Levison, for one, was a communist.  See, e.g., http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/levison_stanley.htm.  The swipe at HUAC is, therefore, merely a liberal swipe at one of their prime bogeymen -- the anti-communist efforts of the 1950s.
2)  Beginning with the title of this section "Authorship Issues" (no mention of the "p" word)the section goes on to state that uncredited "textual appropriation" was a "habit" of King's, which "some have criticized" but which "should not necessarily be labeled plagiarism."  Well.  Given that the Boston University review of the matter DID label it plagiarism, it is hard to see this entire section as anything other than a biased effort to minimize the significance of King's record of transcribing other authors' works without quotation or attribution.
In at least these two respects, I think this article is biased.  I would go so far as to call it an uncritical and intellectually dishonest hagiography.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.213.3 (talk • contribs) 18:18, October 11, 2006
*The plagiarism issue is dealt with in full in the main article, Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues. I've removed the "HUAC was discredited" paragraph, per your suggestion. Any other complaints? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually seems pretty well balanced to me; the rationalization of a reliable source is presented, as is a refutation of the rationalization. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, like Moses, his legacy is based on his leading his people to freedom along with others.Tom Cod 06:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yours is a legitimate point; but I'd be more comfortable discussing it with somebody not hiding behind anonymity.--Orange Mike 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific Liberal Bias Complaints 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 18:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Martin Luther King, Jr.]] 

message: In 1980 I went to Canterbury, England the heart or "vatican", to the extent there is one, of the Church of England or the "Anglican" communion aka the Episcopal Church in the U.S., which I was a part of during my years at Church Farm School and where I was at the age of 15 when King was assasinated in 1968.  Thus I was most impressed when visiting Canterbury to see in the same venue where St. Thomas Becket and other medieval saints are buried, in a cathedral built circa 1100 A.D., that there is a shrine to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Tom Cod 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonized by Anglicans?

message: " January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme Court, listening as lawyers argued New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case rising out of King's crusade against segregation in Alabama. The minister was something of an honored guest: Justice Arthur Goldberg quietly sent down a copy of Kings account of the Montgomery bus boycott, "Stride Toward Freedom," asking for an autograph. That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries of 'I'm f--ing for God' and 'I'm not a Negro tonight!' "
(01/19/98 Newsweek, Page 62)
It is said that King's close personal friend, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, in his 1989 book, "And the walls came tumbling down.", claimed that King used church money to hire prostitutes and beat them.
I didn't read this book. Does anybody know about this ?
Marvoir 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsweek and Abernathy about King

message: King was born in Atlanta, Georgia to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Sr. and Alberta Williams King. (Birth records for Martin Luther King, Jr. list his name as Michael.)
This is lazy "research," as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s father was named Michael, too, at the time of his birth. When King, Sr. changed his name to "Martin Luther", he changed his son's, too. There should be some reference to the fact that this was done in homage to the founder of Lutheranism. --Boondigs 12:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Michael to Martin Luther 

message: He was a great activist and a charasmatic speaker, but one must always be careful with the word "charasmatic" because their are connotations to that word that make those labeled as such hypnotic to their followers.  Another problem with the deification of such a figure raises issues of white supremacy.  Why does Martin Luther King have a holiday and not Malcolm X?  Why are we taught about Booker T. Washington and Madame C.J. Walker, but not Marcus Garvey, bell hooks, and Margaret Garner?  The reason is that the education system is still under white supremacist rule and while the majority of the school year is spent covering European domanance throughout history in required courses such as social studies and world history classes, only a small fraction of that time (black history month) is spent learning about the same few african americans who didn't pose much of a threat to white rule.  Of course Marcus Garvey, Nat Turner, Malcolm X, Margaret Garner and bell hooks aren't offered holidays or taught to students in public schools to the extent that the appeasing, obedient blacks are; the ones who only want live in peace with a group of people who gained promanence in America by killing off its earlier inhabitants and going to far away places to dehumanize other human beings and make them life long slaves.  And their descendents sit in classroom chairs and learn about the "feats" of their ancestors while saying that racism died with the civil rights movement.  Please.  As long as whites benefit from violent acts of oppression and dehumanization they will do all they can to keep the beneficial system in place...even if it is at a subconscious level and even if they have to excuse the violent acts of teir ancestors in the process.  And the way to do that effectively is to hail the appeasing minorities as models of perfection.  That is my opinion on the matter and I think the mystery of his "mystical" mass appeal should be allowed to enter into the discussion of his legacy. Timeloss 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He posed a helluva threat to the white establishment of that day, not to mention a lot of conservative whites (Southern and otherwise) who feared what he represented. Read up on the threats to his life in Chicago, etc.! Do you really think his ignorant assassin acted alone?--Orange Mike 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Luther King and White America 

message: It seems that this article is simultaneously rated A-class and B-class. Any explanation? --Lenoxus 19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the class? 

message: Will someone please verify/add these facts?
*Ray had band-aids in the bundle of evidence, he had committed past crimes where he covered his fingerprints with them, this explains the lack of fingerprints in the bathroom and how only two of his were found on the gun.
*Ray had purchased binoculars with the same scope of the rifle on the same day King was assassinated.
*Ray's Mustang was actually reasonably far away, someone took his spot next to the front door of the rooming house so he had to repark farther away, and he may have been scared from the immediate police response, dropping the framing conspiracy "bundle"
Also, if "Ray's petty criminal history had been one of colossal and repeated ineptitude; he'd been quickly and easily apprehended each time he committed an offense", how was he still on the run from the cops after escaping from prison?  And even though the witnesses said it came from the bushes, the famous picture of them pointing toward the window, because the investigators asked them at the scene where they heard the shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.137.215 (talk • contribs) 22:41, November 21, 2006
*Verifying these items is your job if you want them added. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Conspiracy Facts

message: Hello
I am currently viewing this page as I have to gather information for a report and found that there were some entries double-present. One of them was even mixed up with another one (which was already listed above) so I deleted them both.
*Thanks. Probably happened as a result of someone (me, as likely as not) too quickly reverting vandalism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double section: March on Washington/Rustin 

message: I just reverted the addition of "Zionists" category. Although King opposed anti-Semitism (even when cloaked in the name "anti-Zionism"), I could not find any reference to his being part of the political movement known as Zionism. If you replace the category, please cite a source. --Grahamtalk/mail/e 02:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote was spoken by Martin Luther King Jr. in response to a question at Harvard University: "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism." from [The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel" by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24] I believe this quote makes him a zionist.--Sefringle 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep in mind that it was in the 1960s, when such a broad statement may have been more mainstream and factual when speaking in geneal. So, no, i don't think this singular quote makes him a Zionist, assuming it is even real. I have yet to find a decent cite for it. Ernham 08:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionist 

message: Weren't the FBI guys those who killed Martin Luther King jr?  --John Knife 21:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBI 

message: I removed a sentence stating that King compared American involvement in Vietnam to Nazi use of concentration camps. The actual statement by King was: "What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medic ine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe?"  It is a more specific comparison, and the sentence that I removed - "He once even equated U.S. involvement in Vietnam to Nazi Germany's use of concentration camps. (Quoted in Lind, 1999)" - makes his statement sound absurd by making it much more general (Of course, one could take issue with the source: "Vietnam: The Necessary War" is probably a book that could be judged by its cover). --Thucydides411 06:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Challenges

message: Why does the article refer to King as "Dr." King in the intro (and throughout the body)?  Einstein and Salk aren't called "Dr. Einstein" or "Dr. Salk".  I'm sure this has been well-discussed, but if someone could point me to the discussion, I'd like to see it.  Much thanks.  Phiwum 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the title by which he's been normally referred to for decades now. Most Baptist ministers do not have doctorates (a college degree is not a prequisite of the ministry, in Baptist tradition), and I assume that his admirers were prone to using it as a way of emphasizing his learnéd status. --Orange Mike 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dr." King? 

message: The article is in error in stating that he was a Southern Baptist minister.  He was an American Baptist minister. Very few Southern Baptist Churches of his day would have welcomed him. 209.247.23.23 13:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, he was a National Baptist, not American. Support for (or refusal to support) his movement led to the creation of the Progressive National Baptists; so I fixed the link. --Orange Mike 03:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Luther King, Jr.'s denominational connection