Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 1

message: King was shot at 6.03pm.
I believe this article is based in favor of William Pepper's ridiculous argument that the Government killed King.If you must leave this in please allow your readers to access some work which critlllicises the conspiracists' view.You cite David Garrow's book yet do not inform your readers that this King biographer and expert called the Jowers trial 'shameful' and the King family's acceptance of Pepper's claims "egregious and embarassing".
The following article may give some balance to your reporting.
He had 4 children with Coretta scott.
http://crimemagazine.com/05/martinlutherking,0612-5.htm
===Criticism Not allowed?===
Why is no criticism allowed on martin luther king in regards to links? Why the dogma?
I also echo that concern.  If the criticism is presented in a scholarly fashion, it should be permitted.  The fact that the Martinlutherking.org website is run by Stormfront should be irrelevant.  Clicking on the Martinlutherking.org website doesn't automatically dump you into Stormfront.  Dr. King was an ordinary human being who performed an extraordinary mission; accounts about the personal issues he confronted as well as the mistakes he made would prove inspiring and convince more people to reach beyond their limitations to do great things.
*NPOV does not mean giving Nazis such as Stormfront a platform. Don't bother trying to sneak the .org site in (as so many Stormfronters have done  over the last couple of years); it will be found and deleted quite quickly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: martinlutherking.org's pagerank is already absurdly high. Please do not consider its inclusion, disclaimer or no. Despite their claim to a "true historical examination" there is nothing scholarly about them. Jasongetsdown 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shot

message: Why is no criticism allowed on martin luther king in regards to links? Why the dogma?
I also echo that concern.  If the criticism is presented in a scholarly fashion, it should be permitted.  The fact that the Martinlutherking.org website is run by Stormfront should be irrelevant.  Clicking on the Martinlutherking.org website doesn't automatically dump you into Stormfront.  Dr. King was an ordinary human being who performed an extraordinary mission; accounts about the personal issues he confronted as well as the mistakes he made would prove inspiring and convince more people to reach beyond their limitations to do great things.
*NPOV does not mean giving Nazis such as Stormfront a platform. Don't bother trying to sneak the .org site in (as so many Stormfronters have done  over the last couple of years); it will be found and deleted quite quickly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: martinlutherking.org's pagerank is already absurdly high. Please do not consider its inclusion, disclaimer or no. Despite their claim to a "true historical examination" there is nothing scholarly about them. Jasongetsdown 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Not allowed?

message: are you sure about the time of assasination, I alwas thought that MLK was dead in the afternoon, around 5 to 6 pm ?!
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/ --> Zouhair 
----
Is there no way to protect a page just from anonymous editing?
Has it ever been tried? If so, does it make an elephant?
--JimWae 06:59, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
----
MLK: The Red Reverend
Here's my webpage talking about Dr. King's socialist beliefs.
Was the U2 song about the US Bloody Sunday or the UK one? -- The Anome   
-------------  
Remembering
Bloody Sunday 
January 30, 1972
* On January 30, 1972, soldiers from the British Army's 1st Parachute Regiment opened fire on unarmed and peaceful civilian demonstrators in the Bogside, Derry, Ireland, near the Rossville flats, killing 13 and wounding a number of others. One wounded man later died from illness attributed to that shooting. 
The march, which was called to protest internment, was "illegal" according to British government authorities. Internment without trial was introduced by the British government on August 9, 1971. 
The British-government-appointed Widgery Tribunal found soldiers were not guilty of shooting dead the 13 civilians in cold blood. 
30 January, 1997 marked the 25th anniversary of the killing of thirteen people and the wounding of a further fourteen (one of whom was to die shortly afterwards) in Derry in 1972 by the British Army. The passage of those years has not lessened the meaning of what happened on that day, summed up by the term synonymous with it, "Bloody Sunday", the trauma of which sent shock waves of anger, grief and indignation that were felt throughout the island of Ireland, the wider Irish community abroad and the international community. 
The passage of twenty five years has not dimmed the memories of that day for those who were present and particularly for those who lost loved ones. Memories are vividly recalled with deeply felt emotion about lost fathers, sons and brothers. The Government is acutely aware that time has not diminished this sense of pain and loss. It is also aware that their grief has been deepened by their belief, widely shared, that the events of Bloody Sunday have yet to be set out in a truthful and credible official account. The Bloody Sunday relatives believe that the Report of Lord Widgery was a deliberately incomplete and wilfully misleading official version of events designed for the sole purpose of exculpating the actions of the British Army. 
  
------
The Northern Ireland / Free Derry one...
------
Looking at the lyrics, it could be about either, but I have a feeling that with U2's Irish background it is likely to be the latter. -- The Anome
Plus there are numerous interviews (and some onstage hectoring) by Bono which make it perfectly clear which one they're talking about...(e.g. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/devolvedpolitics/story/0,9137,582283,00.html)
----
There might be some confusion stemming from the fact that their song Pride in the Name of Love was about the assassination of MLK.
----
Anyone know if Dr. King was named after Martin Luther?  Or is it just a coincidence?
:he was named after his father (known popularly in Atlanta and the Civil Rights community as "Daddy King"), who was named after Martin Luther.  They're a dynasty of preachers. A minor point - I know that he is usually called 'Dr. King' in Civil Rights discourse, but in encyclopedia articles one usually drops titles after the first occurrence.--MichaelTinkler
Daddy King was actually born Michael King and his son was named after him. In 1934 Daddy King changed both his name, and that of his son, to Martin Luther after a trip to Europe
----
Does anyone know about his supposed plagiarism on several of his graduate papers?  I have heard about this but I do not know if it's true.  Either way, it would be a good thing to mention if anyone has some info on this.
Probably some more stuff on his assassination too...
--alan d
:King used chunks of other people's writings in virtually all his written work (including many of his speeches). He also frequently signed his own name to things other people wrote (for him and with their consent - things like statements and minor speeches, while acting for the civil rights movement), and reused material in different times and places (lots of the stuff from I Have A Dream he had been using for yonks). It's hard to categorise all this as "plagiarism" exactly, for he tended to rewrite and mix it with original material. He just wasn't overly concerned with original authorship. I'll re-read the books i've read on this at some point and write about it in detail. That is, unless I forget. --AW
-----
I moved MLK's opinions on anti-Zionism to here from the antisemitism page. Justification:
*MLK is not an expert on the topics of Antisemitism or Zionism or whatever, and his quote is basically just rhetoric and the expression of his own opinions
*MLK was an important figure in the US Civil Rights movement, yes, but that doesn't make him an "expert" -- what he said might be important because it encapsulates the opinion of a large number of people, and defines a social movement -- but MLK's opinions in themselves are no more likely to be correct than some guy next door 
*the putting of the quote on that page seemed to me to be mainly an appeal to authority (kind of like quoting a physicist about the existence of God, or a movie star about the morality of abortion or something like that)
*if someone wants to strip out the rhetoric, and give the gem of MLKs argument on the antisemitism page, go ahead -- which would probably be "Many people, especially but not only Jews, consider anti-Zionism to be a cover for antisemitism. [Then add brief response of those who disagree]" (if thats not said there already).
-- SJK
----
There should be more about this man, other than his views on Jews. What about civil rights? --Uncle Ed
:There is. 68.6.102.52 deleted most of it though. Now restored. --mav
----
for the record, a google search of "Baboon mouth" retrieved twelve citations. Of the twelve, the only ones that contextualize MLK refer to a single song. So, on the entire internet, there is only one reference to "Baboon mouth" and King. Therefore, "Baboon mouth" has no place in this article. Kingturtle 17:30 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
----
Rather than remove all the "anti-King" links -- including to extreme right-wing groups, including one to the John Birch Society -- I added small quotes from each to clarify what they are about -- which was not necessarily clear from the shorter titles. Bcorr 03:36, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've moved it here. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен  19:44, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff with no headings

message: These seem like reputable sources to confirm what I have stated about Martin Luther King's birthname.
http://www.pbs.org/empires/martinluther/who_said.html
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/king_martin_luther.shtml
:Hi Darrien -- the Snopes page you listed has the following quote from MLK's father:
::I had been known as Michael Luther King or "Mike" up until I was 22 . . . when one day my father, James Albert King, told me: 'You aren't named Mike or Michael either. Your name is Martin Luther King. Your mother just called you Mike for short.' I was elated to know that I had really been named for the great leader of the Protestant Reformation, but there was no way of knowing if papa had made a mistake after all. Neither of my parents could read or write and they kept no record of Negro births in our backwoods county . . . I gladly accepted Martin Luther King as my real name and when M.L. was born, I proudly named him Martin Luther King, Jr. But it was not until 1934, when I was seeking my first passport . . . that I found out that Dr. Johnson, who delivered M.L., had listed him in the city records as Michael Luther King, Jr., because he thought that was my real name.
:To me, this is not enough to say that he was born Michael King. Snopes is usually quite definitive in its statements, and in this case they basically say that they don't know. And the BBC article clearly confuses MLK with his father. So for me this still falls into the "urban legend" category. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 04:11, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
:RE: Name change not being an urban myth: As far as reputable sources for King's original name being Michael King Jr. see the Autobiography of Martin Luther King edited by Carson Clayborne (who edits the King papers so he should have some idea what he's talking about!), http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/King_Sr_Martin_Luther_King.htm also by Carson and http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1009 written by John Kirk, a British Civil Rights historian--138.251.122.58 17:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added a note explaining the situation. Also, I don't appreciate being accused of bias (and I'm not even sure what the bias would be -- an ideological slant against my own first name?). My intention in removing the claim was to improve the article's accuracy and uphold a previously-established consensus that the information was incorrect. Moreover, I'm not the only one to have done so (, ). RadicalSubversiv E 08:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: &bull; Michael Luther King, Jr.? 

message: I removed the following quote and its citation from the article:
:King also was a strong supporter of the State of Israel, voicing his support nearing its 20th birthday. Congressman John Lewis recalled "On March 25, 1968, less than two weeks before his tragic death, he spoke out with calrity and directness, stating, 'peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and security must be a reality.' During the UN Conference of Racism held in Durban, South Africa, we were all shocked by the attacks on Jews, Israel and Zionism. The USA stood up against these vicious attacks. Once again, the words of King ran through my memory, 'I solemly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews - because bigorty in any form is an affront to us all.'"
Here's why. This long quote, while accurate, would belong in the article on Rep. Lewis. And more importantly, the short qoutes-within-the-quote are of very questionable authenticity. Congressman Lewis stated that King made this comment "shortly before his death" during "an appearance at Harvard." According to the Harvard Crimson, "The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago--April 23, 1967" ("While You Were Away" 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by Stanford University's Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge or Boston. , . Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other stuff

message: One of the most publicly “hidden” facts is that Martin Luther King plagiarized his doctoral thesis from the Crozer Theological Seminary.  
Here is the story as reported in The New Republic, Jan 28, 1991 v204 n4 p9(3) Embargoed. (Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarism story cover-up) Charles Babington. 
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1991 The New Republic, Inc. 
On November 9 The Wall Street journal published what was widely seen as a solid, page-one scoop: Martin Luther King had plagiarized parts of his doctoral dissertation. The next day the rest of the press followed with front-page stories, crediting the journal for the news. What they didn't reveal was that many of them had had the story themselves-a story that had been widely rumored, and easily available, for a year-and not printed it. The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Atlanta journal/ Constitution, and THE NEW REPUBLIC had all failed to run articles even though at least one editor at each journal knew of the King story last spring, and three right-wing journals had already published it. 
       
:The story begins on December 3, 1989-eleven months before The Wall Street Journals coup. The Sunday Telegraph of London carried an article headlined: "Martin Luther King-was he a plagiarist?" The column, by Frank Johnson under the pen name Mandrake, said, "Researchers in his native Georgia must soon decide whether to reveal that the late Dr. King ... was, in addition to his other human failings, a plagiarist." The column even identified the smoking gun-the dissertation of fellow Boston University student jack Boozer, from whom King lifted large passages verbatim. Mandrake quoted Ralph Luker of Atlanta, top assistant to Clay-borne Carson, the Stanford historian chosen by Coretta Scott King to direct the King Papers Project. Luker virtually confirmed the allegations with his painstaking efforts to sidestep all questions about plagiarism. As a final goad, Mandrake wrote, "The story has not yet been published in the United States." Johnson says he got the King plagiarism story from a British professor who had visited the United States, and that he's not surprised the U.S. press ignored his article. American reporters' powers of perception tend to fail them on questions of race, gender, gays," he told me. 
I first heard this story in elementary school and used it as a way of refusing to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr Day.  I was removed from class and sent home for causing a disturbance.  The media still can’t get things right.
* I find the mention of Dr. MLK jr's supposed plaigarism to be tasteless and demeaning to the cause he fought for and the people that fought for it.  I would like to have it removed so that racists and bigots can't add their trash to wikipedia. --Iconoclast 19:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is, strictly speaking, accurate, but it was presented in a POV and insulting way. I've attempted to improve it. Comments welcome. RadicalSubversiv E 03:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The presentation of King's wanton plagiarism is extremely POV.  We are told that his ripping off virtually his entire doctoral thesis and much of his most famous public speechs is somehow a wonderful expression of an African tradition.  BIAS. Sixpackshakur 02:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The tone of the plagiarism discussion in the article is, again, extremely POV.  Makes it sound as though he has been accused, but may or may not be guilty.  I am reintroducing my edit and will continue to do so.  70.19.110.64 18:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Luther King Jr. Plagiarist 

message: What were his degrees in?
----------------
I added some detail on Martin Luther King Jr's death. Juicyboy 325. 11/16/04
I'd like to add that "MLK: The Red Reverend" link and change the "Democratic Socialist?" heading to "Democratic socialist?" if possible.
gaidheal 19:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  School 

message: What ever you do please do not allow the following link to ever be listed on this page: http://www.Martinlutherking.org It has very politically incorrect points of view and documents about Martin Luther King that commits the crime of defaming the dead. Please ensure this link never is included in the article, all of the information on this site was written by ultra radical right wing extremist neo-nazis.Dariodario 14:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit I find this posting very suspicious. The link wasn't listed in the first place, and terms like "censorship" and "politically incorrect" are not typically self-descriptive terms. I've got my eye on you. --Fastfission 14:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The site might be linked to the Stormfront movement, but none of the fact presented in the articles are presented as simple assumptions but are presented as facts supported by references. And as such should be considered an additional source of texts on the case of Martin Luther King.
I'm no fan of Stormfront or other so called white nationalist groups, but you really give your motivations away calling it 'politically incorrect'. Should we then remove all mention of criticism of abortion, pornography, feminism, affirmative action, neurodiversity and all support of the death penalty? 
To quote Voltaire:
'I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it'
Lord Patrick 04:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship of Links

message: For now I'm reverting Molloy's switch from the Oval Office picture to a front page apparently from a 1963 article in Roy V. Harris's segregationist tabloid newspaper, the Augusta Courier, which bore a picture and a headline.  Molloy, please support your characterization of the picture as "Martin Luther King at a Communist training camp." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now removed the picture twice. First, because it replaced one that was already there with no explanation. Second, because such an obvious piece of segregationist propaganda must be contextualized as such. Describing the Highlander Folk School as a "Communist training camp" is not NPOV. RadicalSubversiv E 05:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Molloy and the "Communist training camp"

message: This section was not encyclopedic so I removed it.  It belongs in wikiquote.  Maybe there should be a subheading for Martin Luther King's beliefs?
:It is decidedly encyclopedic and merits expansion. In his later years, King spoke about democratic socialism fairly frequently, and there are even some biographers who speculate that he was operating from a fundamentally socialist approach since he first read Marx in college. Regardless, the existence of Wikiquote does not mean that secondary sources should not be quoted in Wikipedia articles. RadicalSubversiv E 08:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please sign your comments on talk pages. (by typing ~~~~). RadicalSubversiv E 08:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratic socialist?

message: "This statement is remarkable since King rarely allowed his positive response to democratic socialism to be recorded. His usual practice, according to one of his aides, was to demand that they "turn off the tape recorder" while he expounded on the virtues of "what he called democratic socialism, and he said, 'I can't say this publicly, and if you say I said it I'm not gonna admit to it." King "didn't believe that capitalism as it was constructed could meet the needs of poor people," the aide said, "and that we might need to look at what was a kind of socialism, but a democratic form of socialism." Even in the speech that contains the passage cited above, King said he wasn't "going to allow anybody to put [him] in the bind of making me say everytime" that he wasn't a communist or a Marxist. Still, as democratic socialist Michael Harrington said, King was highly reluctant to name his radical position in public. King didn't want to arouse suspicion and thus compromise the achievement of economic and racial equality. "Dr. King had a genius for this," Harrington said. "How do you phrase the message so that you don't betray the message but you put it in terms which are understandable and accessible to people on the street?" Harrington claims that King "certainly wouldn't use radical phraseology in many cases for that reason." The great Marxist historian C.L.R. James recalls that King told him that while he believed in radical ideas, he couldn't "say such things from the pulpit." James say that King "wanted me to know that he understood and accepted, and in fact agreed with, the ideas that I was putting forward--ideas which were fundamentally Marxist-Leninist." James concluded that King was "a man whose ideas were as advanced as any of us on the Left.""
From the page linked at the bottom "The Red Reverend". That's why I think we should have a sentence referring to his refusal to come out and say that he was or was not a socialist. gaidheal 20:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with labeling King is the problem with labeling King.  The African-American community has a long tradtion of communal/socialist economics.  But once one labels someone a "socialist," that puts them in the ambit of white socialism, socialism as a construct of Marxism, socialism as a construct of the white left -- when such is not the case, certainly, with King and with most African-Americans.  In the African-American community there is a common saying, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his need."  This, in a kernel, is African-Amercan/African communal socialist tradition -- without all the bilateral "commie-Yankee" connotations.  That's why it is best to let King's words speak for themselves -- without the label.  IMO, the reader is intelligent enough to draw his or her own conclusions from the quote already provided.  deeceevoice 20:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point, one that I agree with for the most part, but I would say that we need something to point out the fact that while King identified in some way with demoractic socialism, it was always in private - it's a part of who he is, and why he is not perceived as a socialist in modern culture. (Unlike another African (albeit from the continent of Africa) communitarian, Julius Nyerere, for example.) Maybe we can work out some sort of compromise wording? gaidheal 20:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've rewritten is acceptable to me! gaidheal 20:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Not for me -- sorry. It's nicely written, but wildly inaccurate. King's radicalism had little to do with LBJ's Great Society, which was emphatically not a "brand of democratic socialism". And while King was very concerned about the cost of the war in Vietnam relative to domestic needs, it's very misleading to connect that to his growing commitment to democratic socialism. If you read his statements about socialism (even the public ones about "social democracy"), his point was that government social spending on its own was an inadequate solution to the structural injustices of capitalism: i.e., even if the U.S. were to withdraw from Vietnam and spending the money saved on jobs, housing, etc., it still wouldn't be enough. 
I just read your characterization of my edit as "wildly inaccurate."  Not so.  The statements about his concerns about critical economic resources being usurped by the Vietnam was indeed correct and completely valid.  King --for whatever reason -- did not go on the record against capitalism, per se, instead focusing on economic justice and peace.  The march on Washington following his death with the mule-drawn cart and the establishment of "Resurrection City" on the Mall was a continuation of King's call for a reprioritization of U.S. government spending to focus on problems of the poor and marginalized and a guaranteed income, which he started to enunciate in "Where Do We Go from Here:  Chaos or Community?"  deeceevoice 17:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: One matter which should be addressed here is King's notion of the "beloved community", a term he used frequently and pubicly and which clearly incorporated socialist ideals. RadicalSubversiv E 21:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  King and the climate of the times 

message: Might as well strike a discussion before dismissing MLK as a philospher.
Doing a simple search finds that some people do indeed think he's a philospher.  Such as , though not exactly what I would call a prime source for philosophy, but nonetheless they picked him as a philosopher of the week.
MW defines philosopher as:
:1 a : a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : SCHOLAR, THINKER
:1 b : a student of philosophy
can you (Knucmo2 specifically) prove both of these wrong?  Did he not see the wisdom in Ghandi's ways of non-violence?
I wouldn't rank him with Descartes, Socrates, or any of the other great philosopher, but he still was a philosopher.  You (Knucmo2) say in your summary that wikipedians general equate "thinkers" to "philosophers", but that's just it: one who thinks to seek wisdom or enlightenment is a philosopher. Heck, MW even links to "thinker" as a similar word. Cburnett 19:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosopher? 

message: King is certainly not universally admired, and the soft handling he gets in this article is absurd.
An honest examination of the man cannot disregard the well-established issues of his philandering, his drinking and his abuse of women in addition to the reams of borrowings from other writers and speakers.
A very biased article reflective of a PC mindset.  No different and probably less honest than martinlutherking.org.
You racist? Wikipedia is NPOV if you haven't noticed. Of course he is imperfect. racists are too demanding of minorities and other racial groups. Not saying you are a racist though. - Some dude
:Funny how the minute someone has something negative to say about someone who happens to black, they are accused of being racist. I'm not the guy accused of being racist, I just had to say my piece. No doubt I'll be branded as a racist as well, though. - 216.78.45.128 08:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *NOTE: Rest of unrelated debate on Thomas Jefferson & Sally Hemings moved to Talk:Sally Hemings - Liontamer 12:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  King gets a free pass in this article 

message: "Authorship issues" would seem to be an appropriate subtitle in an article about a text whose authorship is being questioned. It does not seem appropriate in an article about a man, since the authorship of the man's life is not in question, but rather his own originality or lack thereof in his writings. It also seems like a way to skirt the issue. Almost all of the most respected figures in history have been human beings and subject to the limitations of that inescapable fact; it seems wrong to pussyfoot around whatever mistakes MLK might have made. "Accusations of Plagiarism" more directly addresses the issue, in my opinion, and is still NPOV (it does not imply truth or falsehood to those accusations).--67.123.232.156 18:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, while what King did in his academic work can definitely be labeled plagiarism, it's not at all clear that the same can be said of his speeches, which fall within a strong tradition of language-borrowing in folk preaching (see the Keith Miller work referenced in the article). RadicalSubversiv E 19:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship Issues to Accusations of Plagiarism 

message: The author of the below articles has emailed asking for these links to be included; since this isn't an area of my interest or knowledge I am leaving it to active editors to decide whether to include them:
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The appropriate topic for a branch article would be the charges of plagiarism. I can predict pretty surely that if we do that, the charges against him will start to use much stronger language than so far in main article & "voice merging" will likely be attacked as a kind of Newspeak. Btw, Coggy, have you contributed anything to this section or to the article yet? Do you think I have nothing to do but do research for you? I would rather let article sit for a bit & see if we can condense that section - you do realize it was expanded mostly because you insisted on more & more evidence, right? Btw, it did not sit well with me when I first read it either, but I think I did recall the 1990 reports anyway. You likely were too young then --JimWae 06:24, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
:Let's discuss the branch first. Perhaps there could be a separate article on the study releasing those findings, but an article on the dissertation on Tillich and Wieman and is nevertheless a better fit than the biographical entry. Cognition 06:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's tons of info for just about anything on King. But in proportion to the amount of info on King overall, this issue is a very minor footnote. Hence it isn't even mentioned in Britannica and Encarta. They do not even mention what I have added in the compromise version. Cognition 06:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: We do not have to debate contending POVs. This is a matter of proper placement of information, and I am making the argument that the Wikipedia King article should not include random tidbits that interest the editors personally, but instead weigh the significance of the information, as do Britannica and Encarta. Cognition 06:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not at all censorship, but rather just improving the hierarchy and organization of the encyclopedia. That's why there are so many cases in which someone very notable has articles on his/her books separate from the biographical entry. Cognition 07:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It's merely incomplete. I will get around to adding a section summarizing its main arguments. Cognition 07:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's stay focused on the edits and not the personalities. Attacking me, after all, says nothing, since I am not alone. My stance seems to be the one taken by Britannica and Encarta. Cognition 07:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Not for length reasons, but for relevance and organizational reasons. Just because the article is short, doesn't mean that we can or should make up for it by focusing on random topics that other encyclopedias don't even mention. By your reasoning, since there are so many biographies on King, someone could come along and write a section on what kind of socks he liked, or what he liked to eat for breakfast. Cognition 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: A few sentences can go in the main biographical article (Britannica and Encarta don't even have one), but additional detail longs under the rubic of whether certain works, mainly his dissertation, contained uncited material. Cognition 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The fact that no one has sided with you in any way... An argument ad populum is a logical fallacy. Cognition 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way the basis of your argument is factually incorrect. User:Iconoclast seemed to see it my way earlier this year. See his comment up toward the top of the talk page.
Cognition 08:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Iconoclast's comment was not about the current text, but about something blatantly POV added by a racist troll, which was subsequently heavily revised by me and others. RadicalSubversiv E 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, there absolutely is. There are scholarly works, which have been cited here, demonstrating both points conclusively -- you have yet to point to anyone besides yourself who questions their conclusions. RadicalSubversiv E 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: This controversy can be mentioned, but it doesn't deserve its own section in the main biographical article for the same reason that this topic isn't even mentioned in the Britannica and Encarta articles on King. Cognition 08:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Branch article

message: I'd like to see the bias and writers opinion removed from this page.
He is one of the most significant leaders in U.S. history and in the modern history of non-violence, and is considered a hero, peacemaker and martyr by many people around the world.
, especially its director, J. Edgar Hoover, who had deeply detested the civil rights leader.
Since his death, King's reputation has grown to become one of the most revered names in American history to the point where he is compared with Abraham Lincoln.''
It's really not needed, an encyclopedia needs to be informative, not subtly persuasive. If you like the guy, write a book about him, don't sacrafice neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Fashbinder (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 August 2005  (UTC)
*It's not an opinion that he's considered a hero etc by many people around the world. It's not an opinion that he's one of the most significant leaders in US history. It's not an opinion that Hoover detested King. It's not an opinion that that his reputation has grown as said. This is reporting on opinions, not expressing opinions -- which is exactly what an encyclopedia should do.  --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias! 

message: Please don’t remove the ‘Star Trek fans Category’ link from this page and describe it as ‘vandalism’ as King was a fan of Star Trek, and according to this history website  he met with Nichelle Nichols, who played Lt. Uhura, and convinced her to stay on when she told King that she was considering leaving the show.  Star Trek may not be a great work of literature, but it does present King’s vision of a future where anybody, whether they be White, Black or Vulcan, can live and work together peacefully and productively. In short I do not feel that putting King in this category is inappropriate or disrespectful and I certainly do not think its vandalism.
Philip Stevens  11:47, 23 October 2005
*Um, the site you cite is a Wikipedia mirror; Wikipedia can't use itself as a source. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Fan of Star Trek 

message: Hope this does not sound crass, but for a page on a significant figure there seems little detail about how his political thinking developed. Shame we have no material about how King may have been influenced by Mahatma Gandhi.  freedom</small>
: I am having a look at this. As nobody else will.  freedom Annawright 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think that he actually met with Ghandi and Ghandi influenced him. Tcpekin 03:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail on what formed King's thinking ... 

message: I am embarassed to report that there was a link to the Stormfront site "martinlutherking.org" in this article since November 27th. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  martinlutherking.org 

message: I am curious, they mention his FBI files were sealed, but why? What is it they want to hide from the public? Volksgeist 10:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were his files sealed? 

message: Should MLK be in the Humanist Category? Checking the article on Humanism, it mentions that although most Humanists are secular, not all are...OK so far...but then says that Humanists deny the supernatural - I don't think MLK would deny the supernatural, so is he a Humanist? Camillustalk|contribs 20:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanist? 

message: Black Consciousness Movement has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved, vote for it here! --Fenice 11:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: ...a recent time magazine taked about how towards the end MLK started trying to help not just black but other minorities and whites as well.  When asked why he wanted to help whites from the Appalachians (sp) his answer was "are they poor?".
grazon 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would LOVE to see that sourced and added! :-) - CobaltBlueTony 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from hateful speach on wikipedia. There are more appropriate venues for your opinions [stormfront.org]. Jasongetsdown 14:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My memory is that... 

message: I have added the dream part to King's page.
That page should be deleted
220.247.252.252 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dream 

message: I feel that explaining the legitimate allegations of Kings infidelity should be included in the article. Normally I would refrain from discussing ones personal life however King was a preacher so I feel that it's important. It is contradictory towards his message however this may help humanize him in the eyes of the people. Even yahoo news and several credible left wing news stations acknowledge it. The article should be as accurate as possible and non bias. I want to do a write up but I want everyone to agree. Any thoughts?
JJstroker 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The allegations are mentioned in the section on King and the FBI. I don't think we are here to "humanize him in the eyes of the people." Jasongetsdown 14:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MLK's sexual liasons?