Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 4

message: King cheated on his Ph.D. Why sugarcoat it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made it clear that you only consider negative things about King integral to the study of him. Indeed, it seems to be almost the only thing you "contribute" about, other than Blink-182. Why do you have such a hate-on for this man? --Orange Mike 19:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can find no evidence that Prof. Anthony Badger (a genuine and respected scholar in American studies) ever gave such a lecture. What is the basis for your claim? --Orange Mike 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to Olir: "I heard somebody say it once" by no means meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cheating on Ph.D 

message: please could you add la.wiki Martinus Lutherius King Jr., thank you--85.0.83.133 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: la:Martinus Lutherius King Jr., done.EricR 13:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please could you add la.wiki Martinus Lutherius King Jr., thank you 

message: The Montgomery Bus Boycott, according to our article lasted from December 5, 1955 to December 21, 1956. This is one leap year, 16 days: 366 + 16 = 382. Am I missing something? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of the boycott 

message: Those last weeks I have been troubled with many things said about many Martin Luther King notably many that said that he was a communist, raped and slept with many with womens, that he was a plagiarist etc. Not only these things are write in Don Black's martinlutherking.org but they are corroborate by the wikipedia article. I have many questions:
* Does King was a communist
* Did he had raped/extramarital affairs with women ?
* Does all his speeches are plagiarism.
Answer hurry to these questions please, this is important for me. Don Black and David J. Garrow must laugh they put many doubts in my head. Roger_Smith
*Reading stuff on a Nazi site about MLK will likely give you false impressions. Was he a Communist? No (though he certainly had allies who were Communists; for whatever reason, American Communists were strongly pro civil rights). The rape allegations are at best unsubstantiated; yes, he seems to have had sexual relations with women outside of marriage; and his speeches were a mix of original work and the work of others -- whether this constitutes "plagiarism" is somewhat complicated, because it's entirely within ministerial tradition to draw strongly upon the work of other ministers when creating sermons, etc. (As opposed to his plagiarism on his college work, which was simply wrong.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those not familiar with the source cited above as to Highlander School's history, wnnnews.com is the White Network News, http://www.wnnnews.com/main.html "speaking out for... all of our white brothers and sisters that have been victims of diversity"! In addition to the "HIGHLANDER COMMUNIST REPORT" the main page offers a "List of anti-Christ Jews in power" for those of you worrying about such things. --Orange Mike 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The partial information presented here is hopefully not deliberately deceitful. For example,  Carl Braden was convicted of criminal sedition in 1954. He and his wife purchased a home for blacks in a white neighborhood to incite racial violence.  Later they were charged with bombing the same house to win sympathy for their cause and to raise money. Those very sedition laws were deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court while that conviction was being appealed; the allegation that they purchased a home to incite racial violence is just false; and the actual bombers were never found. Anne Braden speaks of this. It is a good example of the willingness of hatred to lie to further its own ends, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troubling questions 

message: There seems to be some objection to the use of the phrase "most famous leader" or "most prominent leader" in describing MLK. I've been accused of "vandalism", and informed that it's "unsourced OR". It's not exactly hard to find hundreds of references on the Web that describe him as "most" famous or prominent leader (even when one subtracts the Wiki mirrors and cut-and-pastes); for example,  from the Oxford African American Studies Center; this lecture under the auspices of the US State Department; this from the New Georgia Encyclopedia. I'm curious also just who else could conceivably be more famous or more prominent in the American civil rights movement. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most famous" 

message: I was just wondering...does anyone know MLK's favorite song? Just curious... James chen0 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question... 

message: Why did Boston University let him get the Dr. degree in the first place? If MLK lifted paragraphs from some obsecure and aged papers, people may never find out his plagiarism. He was stealing from a student graduated from the same school just 3 years before. This is not a problem with "Dr." King. This is a problem with the Boston University. -- Toytoy 03:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BU 

message: With 20/20 hindsight:
If I were to ask an audience today whether or not you think the Jim Crow laws were morally right, most people would answer no. However, if I posed this question 50 years ago, they would say yes. Once upon a time, Martin Luther was a common criminal. The police were enforcing the law they swore to uphold. So, do you side with a common criminal or law enforcement? The Germans said they were just following orders. To this day, people say the same thing although publicly acknowledging that the Jim Crow laws were morally wrong. What gives? Are people just trying to save face? Brad C. January 13, 2007
The only persons who might respond that "Jim low Laws are morally right" would, in my humble opinion, be those who were morally wrong.
Marketex 00:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindsight

message: His title before he died was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.! Kids who learn about him all over America and the world know him as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
:Yes, but standard practice is not to use honorifics. -Amarkov blahedits 15:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He was a Dr.! 

message: Is Easter the Jesus Day mentioned in the article?  Because that's a very odd edit.
*It is. I just removed the entire clause; it's not particularly helpful. I imagine Christmas is what's meant by "jesus day". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus day? 

message: Near the end of the article, it states "This the only federal holiday dedicated to an individual American." However, earlier in the article it is stated that MLK Day is "the fourth Federal holiday to honor an individual (the other three being in honor of Jesus of Nazareth, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus)." Certainly George Washington would be considered an American, which would make MLK Day one of only TWO federal holidays dedicated to an individual American.Laurauden 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal holiday issue 

message: This section states the King was supporting "garbage workers" when he was assassinated. This should be changed to "Sanitation workers". The workers were not, as the article states 'protesting for higher pay and better treatment. They were protesting for the right to strike which while being legally entitled to they were denied by city officials.
*I'll replace "garbage workers" with "sanitary public works employees", as they were described by the AFSCME notice. But I'm not sure you're right about the nature of the strike. The AFSCME notices (of course, they're hardly an unbiased source) refer to their demanding "union recognition, dues deduction, a meaningful grievance procedure and wage improvements." Do you have another source we could use? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where the anonymous poster is getting his/her "facts"; contemporary newspaper accounts, books about King, etc., are all in line with the AFSCME notices. The issues were recognition of the union, and the disparate pay/treatment of the black workers which the union represented, compared to their white counterparts. --Orange Mike 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope the new version of that sentence makes more sense. 1) LBJ was advised not to come, for fear of protests that would detract from MLK's funeral; 2) the city settled quickly after King sacrificed his life for the workers. (Yep, that phrasing is not neutral; I'm a Christian and AFSCME and a Tennessean. It also doesn't appear in the article.) --Orange Mike 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Assassination" Section cleanup 

message: My father, who recently passed away, was born in 1929, the same year as Martin Luther King.  He went through US Army Basic Training at Fort Jackson, SC in the Spring of 1951.  He told me that he lived in the same barracks as King and that King was his squad leader.  All of the bios I have seen online show that King studied for a divinity degree at Crozer Theological Seminary in Upland, Pennsylvania, graduating in May 1951, and the following September King enrolled at Boston University in the Ph.D. program.  However, no mention of what King did in between graduating Crozer and entering BU.  I believe that as an ordained minister, King was granted an exemption from military service.  However, if King was drafted as was my father, then he may have been obligated to go through Basic Training while waiting for his exemption to be approved.  Can someone confirm this by requesting King's service record from Fort Jackson?  My father was certain that he was one of the first to march with Martin Luther King.
 he my have who every you areLone Fox the last of the foxes 23:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did MLK Serve in the U.S. Army in Spring 1951? 

message: I don't like the fact that the photo at the top of the article shows Martin Luther King with another person, Lyndon Johnson. The top photo should show King, or King with other civil rights leaders, or King with his wife, but not King and President Johnson. King opposed Johnson's Vietnam War. --Revolución hablar ver 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top photo 

message: Hi! I dropped by to review the article. It is well on its way to GA status, but could use some work. The lead is a bit short and disorganized (See WP:LEAD for suggestions on how to compose a lead). The article could use more documentation, especially to remove the  tags. I look for about one note per paragraph. Finally, I think that the pending possible colaboration will help the article a great deal. I'll put the nom on hold to give time for folk to work on it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also nitpick that the references are in two different formats and should be made into one uniform style. I personally like Harvard Referencing but whatever as long as they are all in the same format. Quadzilla99 08:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nom Comments 

message: Surely the articles main title should be changed to "Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr." to reflect his full title and simply make redirect pages for any other titles one may choose to give him? Does anybody agree? Donaldhenderson 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't he be referred to as "Dr. King" in the title? 

message: Are the guys in the white hats in the background Nation of Islam "Fruits of Islam"? If not, who were they? I've always wondered...
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/Martin%20Luther%20King.bmp 12.17.141.39 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the Nation's attitude towards King, I am skeptical of your hypothesis. There's no way to tell from this tiny photo. They may be union butchers or pressmen or something, for all I can tell. --Orange Mike 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I wondered if that might be the case. My wife's a union steward, and can fold you one of those hats in less than a minute out of a sheet of newspaper.--Orange Mike 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOI? 

message: The naming seems to be an issue in the article and elsewhere. Should it be Dr. King, Rev. King, Dr. Rev. King, Rev. Dr. King, The Rev. Dr. King, or something else? Je ne sais pas. └Jared┘┌talk┐  23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard practice on Wikipedia is to omit the titles. --Orange Mike 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that only refer to the name of the article?  The full name with the title and style is "the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."  Most people omit the prefices for brevity.  "Rev." is traditionally put first; I assume it's because it is an adjective and not a noun.  He is not "a reverend" - there are no such things as "reverends".  Dr. King is described as reverend.  MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The honorifics are normally omitted from the lead sentence as well. --Orange Mike 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I  just went through the article removing all the overtitling per WP:MOS.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overtitling 

message: *  dr.king why would someone kill the one & only dr.king because he had a " i have a dream " speech & he even come to washington d.c but i never get to see him because he was somebody killed him but i do hear some good stories about martin luther king so can u please find out who killed martin luther king thank u please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.211.235 (talk) 
:* It was James Earl Ray. --Dystopos 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James Earl Ray was convicted so, but there are other theories. Aran|heru|nar 08:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:    dr.king  

message: RE;
In 1986, Martin Luther King Day was established as a United States holiday. Martin Luther King is one of only three persons to receive this distinction (including Abraham Lincoln and George Washington), and of these persons the only one not a U.S. president, indicating his extraordinary position in American history
please see article on Federal holiday
Third Monday in February Washington's Birthday Honors George Washington. Often popularly observed as "Presidents Day" in recognition of other American presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln, born February 12 
Second Monday in October Columbus Day Honors Christopher Columbus, traditional discoverer of the Americas. In some areas it is also a celebration of Italian culture and heritage. (traditionally October 12)(Motegole 13:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham Lincoln or Christopher Columbus 

message: I would like to add his catchphrase of "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind", as it really shows off what he was trying to solve.
:It was not original to him (I usually see it credited to Gandhi), and he did not claim that it was. --Orange Mike 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a catchphrase by Martin Luther King Jr 

message: I have contributed the farsi version of this article please place the فارسی link 
http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%86_%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B1_%DA%A9%DB%8C%D9%86%DA%AF_%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%88%D8%B1
*:fa:مارتین لوتر کینگ جونیور added; let me know if it's not OK. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  farsi link 

message: someone had removed all the worthwhile text, i think i reversed it back
dang spammers i was using that for assignment.
just kidding
Sabre07 07:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixed up 

message: I just noticed at the bottom of the article on assassination it has a subsection the uses the term irrefutable a number of times on one of the conspiracy theories. It seems pretty POV.
*Thanks. I've zapped it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Irrefutable Evidence" 

message: the article has a lot of redunt stuff about after his death
Lone Fox the last of the foxes 23:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: to short article on his life?

message: what is this doing in the martin luther king Jr article it should be in the Bayard Rustin article (Lone Fox the last of the foxes 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: King's relationship with Rustin is relevant to King's life and career. --Orange Mike 13:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bayard Rustin

message: It is no secret that Dr. King was not a perfect man. However, I am tired of people using his flaws as a way to smear his leagacy instead of using it to accurately portray this man's life. Does Thomas Jeffersons ownership of slaves, Andrew Jackson sins against Native Americans, Kennedy's affairs, J. Edgar Hoover's "secret lifestyles and multiple male sex partners," and etc disqualify these men's public service to America? I think not!!! If we are going to dig up bones, lets not be selective. Let's dig up everybodies bones.
Martin Luther King was a man who constantly traveled the country, especially the south to dramatize the moral sins and hypocracy of a nation that prides itself to be the beacon of freedom, democracy and justice. As a result of his public service, America began to change it's attitude and it's laws concerning segregation. This is more important than how many women he had affairs with in the different cities he traveled. 
There are a lot of rumors about multiple illicit affairs of Billy Graham. I wonder after he dies will his contribution to American Evangelicalism be SUNK because of a few moral lapses. (Remember what is good for the goose is good for the gander).
Lastly, I have heard for years that Martin Luther King cheated on his disertation. I am not sure what you are qualifying as cheating. Did he inaccurately reference is sources or did he copy someone elses work? Regardless, he is still one of the most brilliant minds of the 21 century. I am sure if he were living, EVERY SO-CALLED WHITE CHRITIAN CONSERVATIVE WOULD TRY TO STRIP HIS TITLE. However, in the fashion of King, I am sure he would graciously apologize to the nation (Not that we need it) and get his PH.D. from Harvard instead of Boston. HE WAS CERTAINLY SMART ENOUGH TO DO IT. 
If that was the only "break" that he got as a Blk man in that era, than give it to him. He more than PAID IT ALL BACK 100 FOLD through his public "voluntary service" to America. How many breaks has G.W. Bush been granted and he is a "C" student that graduated with an MBA from Yale? (C student and Yale doesn't even sound right in the same sentence. You know he had A WHOLE LOT OF BREAKS!))lol It seems that we selectively pick-apart our historical figures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.68.51 (talk) 19:40, July 9, 2007
: That's very interesting. But it has nothing to do with this Wikipedia article. Why don't you start a blog, join a bulletin board, write a paper, or find some other means of sharing your views. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A WISE APPROACH TO AN HISTORICAL FIGURES LIFE

message: Please add the link to the Occitan wikipedia. Thank you, :oc:User:Joao Xavier
*Done. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add oc:Martin Luther King

message: The article says:
:Though not widely known during his lifetime, most of his published writings during his civil rights career were ghostwritten, or at least heavily adapted from his speeches.
I added a sentence that the use of ghostwriters by public figures was common practice. The sentence as written suggests that (a) King was alone in using ghostwriters and (b) he was unique in misleading the public about his use of them. The truth is that most public figures use ghostwriters and the general public didn't know about the practice until ghostwriters started getting credit in the late 70s/early 80s.
In addition, putting this statement under the heading of plagiarism, and not permitting any explanation that this was wide-spread practice, is malicious. It suggests that King's use of ghostwriters was a form of plagiarism — which it was not.
I'm going to delete the sentence, since it is parenthetical, unsourced, and adds nothing of value to the discussion of plagiarism. If anybody feels that it belongs, I think it needs an explanation that the use of ghostwriters was wide-spread. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghostwriting / Plagiarism 

message: The attempt to prove that King was a Communist was in keeping with the feeling of many segregationists that blacks in the South were happy with their lot, but had been stirred up by "communists" and "outside agitators."
''
It seems to me that not only is this attaching things to the subject which need not be attached, but I also think it's just a bad and confusing sentence. In addition, it doesn't make much sense as a whole.
Connecting his potentially Communist beliefs with the general segregationalist public seems to be trying to make it look as if he were NOT a Communist, whereas the YCLUSA (Young Communist's League USA) claims him as a famous american communist, so I would assume he was. It also makes it appear as if Caucasians made him Communist, something which is vulgarly false.
I make a motion that the sentence be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.209.133 (talk) 21:59, August 2, 2007
:I don't know who the YCLUSA is (there are so many splinter groups), but it sounds like they're trying to bask in his halo with this claim (or else they don't exist, and you've been lied to by a third party). The sentence reflects the reality of the time: the more naive Southerners were genuinely convinced that blacks were happy until "agitators" stirred them up; so of course, the "agitators" and "troublemakers" had to be Commies (it was the 1950s, after all). --Orange Mike 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, the easier answer regarding the sentence is, "says who"? We need a source making this connection. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Sentence and perhaps should be rewritten? 

message: Is it possible to move the article of "Early Life" closer to the title, so there's not a big gap? In my opinion that would make the article look better.  If it's not possible, that's okay! In God's Love Kitty2008 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Early Life"