Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr./Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →

Contents

Plagiarism issue cannot be played down

He was found guilty of plagiarism by the university where he got is doctorate. His plagiarism is not disputed and should not be referred to as "language-borrowing." Sorry but you can't have a double standard here.


-- I agree, I believe the plagarism should not be played down at all. He shouldn't even be called Dr. Martin Luther King. Just Martin Luther King because he didn't earn his title.

Neutrality Issues (EnglishEfternamn)

Hello, how is everybody doing today? I would just like to let people here know that I put the dispute mark in the "Legacy" section of this page. I did so because the claims made against his true honesty is something that is not only largely disputed (in non-mainstream circles, anyway), but a subject that has carries little observation. And so, I start this discussion not to provoke any personal attacks, but in the spirit of free debate.

I am requesting that I, or another can implement a "Criticism Of King" page or section, just to ensure that all perspectives of this story are available to the general readers of this website. I am asking that this section (at least) be made a permanent entity of the MLK article, and I am willing to discuss the issues at hand if any oppose. Readers, please give me your feedback on this. I am prepared to open a Criticism page with the references necessary.

Have a wonderful day!

-EnglishEfternamn

Marital Infedelities

I have heard somewhere that Dr. King had affairs outside his marriage. Is there any truth at all to this? What about love children? Certainly this does not define the person, but it would be encyclopedic to note this if any of those rumors have been confirmed. Does anyone have any information on this?

My father (who is still alive) owned a charter fishing boat when he lived in Bimini, Bahamas in the 60's. On several occasions, Dr. King would make use of my father's services and would be escorted by white women. (Very little actual fishing was done.) His affairs were known to many people on the island at the time. 68.187.192.107 01:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No original research on Wikipedia please, can we have a credible source for this pleaseTjb891 02:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also heard rumours that King had numerous affairs, if i find links will it be put up? Ghingo 18:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre...but true

I noticed some guy blanking large chunks of this article with summaries accusing it of being "leftist propaganda". Most of it was vandalism, although I noticed this strange comment about Luther King Jr. and Charles Xavier that I thought he might have had a point on. Turns out he didn't - a quick look here [1] shows that Xavier is actually apparently based on the character. The strangest things, eh? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was almost ready to delete that, then I came to the talk page first. IMHO the phrase "the basis" is still a little extreme. And frankly, it might belong on the Professor X page, but it doesn't seem to warrant mention on MLK's page. Jordoh 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wave of vandalism and POV

To be expected on MLK day, I suppose. I just posted a blog entry mentioning the attacks on this page--and the defenders against them. If you are interested, it is at: [2]. I have tried to fix several instances of vandalism or POV attack, but so far today, another editor has carried out the task ahead of me. Congratulations folks!--Cberlet 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Propose Freezing this Page Around the Holiday

Given that there is vandalism occuring here, it might be a good idea to freeze this page around MLK Day every year.

Highlander folk school

It's fascinating when a 50-year-old calumny is revived for the benefit of tarring King's reputation. This one in particular is nastier than most. See Highlander Research and Education Center; the "communist" accusation is verbatim from the segregationist Georgia Commission on Education. If you want to include it in a section entitled "unquestionable lies about King", please do so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the freeze

When I first viewed this page, one of the headings was "Leroy the Big-Lipped Nigger", which at first confused me, until I realized that it was vandalism. Fortunately, it's been fixed.

It's quite heartening to know that we have to lockdown pages like this to protect against wonderful comments like this. And here I thought we had made progress in the world.


Lots of petty vandalism happening today -- must be that everyone's back to work and has net access. Can we consider getting {{sprotect}} again? bikeable (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow

This man is one to remember in our hearts and minds. He was a very good person. And I lovehim for what he did... I admire him...

Futher challenges section - rips off FAIR?

This section seems to, shall we say, closely follow this article dating from Jan 1995, which was recently dusted off from FAIR's archives and linked on their main page. Some parts are verbatim. Someone care to recraft the section so there's not obvious copyvio? 222.166.160.74 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr.

Im doing a 1000 word essay on him. He's an amazing person!

I'm guessing you won't do so well on that "essEy" judging by your English skills ;) Weatherman90 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

28th august, 1963

thought the final march with M.L. Kings final speech was on Wednesday, 28th august, 1963..... in the article there's somehow not this date named.....

There are some major problems with the dates in the section on the March on Washington. The march took place on August 28, 1963. Bloody Sunday took place later, on March 7, 1965. I'm not familiar enough with MLK to definitively say whether ot not the other events described in this section are correct. Could someone with more knowledge about this clean this section up? - Maximusveritas 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

King, communism, and smear campaigns

King clearly worked with some communists, but to claim that "many" of his "advisors were avowed communists" is a stretch. The claim was made by some who sought to smear King as part of organized campaigns. I think it is unfair. Even if the Communist Party USA, claimed credit for "starting the civil rights movement," the claim is obviously false, and so why is it in this article other than to perpetuate a false smear?--Cberlet 12:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

where avowed communists linked to the Communist Party USA, which credit themselves with starting the civil rights movement.[citation needed]

The Communist Parties website says they started the civil rights movement. Secondly many of Kings closest advisors were in fact communists such as Baynard Rustin, Stanley Levision, and about 1-2 more people. I find it odd that he would chose to associate himself with committed communists dont you? His own biographer said King privately described himself as a marxist. I think the line should be reinstated. FYI its not a smear if its accurate. That shouldnt be a reason to censor information.

71.131.205.182 07:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling King a communist was not just an attempt to "discredit" and "slander": even if he did not have direct ties to the party, he at the very least suffered from the same delusions as the International Communists if he even believed half of what he propagated. King's incompetent idealism deserves some attention; tell us, Mr. King, just how you plan to achieve your goal of racial equality in a free market capitalist system with inherent inequalities? This article is ripe with liberal nonsense, which is hardly a surprise for Wikipedia. I notice there are no comments about King's disgraceful personal life, or the more controversial details about his final hours. Meanwhile, other figures with less popular views in this day and age are slammed and railroaded at every turn. Although it is solely my opinion, I am not a great fan of someone who propagates the merits of his "dream" without outlining the means to get there. The only two methods that are remotely feasible are establishing socialism or eliminating the concept of race, or at least white culture, altogether...its clear which path the United States has chosen. --155.247.166.28 19:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

I deleted the post about Reagan calling King a "near-Communist" since the lone source, from FAIR.Org's Paul Rockwell, isn't sourced and I assume based on opinion. I am unable to locate an independent source about Reagan calling King a Communist. The line should not be reinstated until an independent source is located

King did outline plans to reach hs dream and followed non-violent methods which made some big differences. He was mainly responsible for the abolishment of Jim Crow Laws so although he may share the same ideals as communists so the second paragraph above this is mainly slur.

"Rustin's support of democratic socialism and close ties with the Communist Party USA"- isn't that a contradiction in terms? Besides, Rustin had severed his ties with the communists after Stalin's orders to CPUSA to focus on the war effort, rather than civil rights, long before his association with the moderate King.

'All 50 states' date?

Martin Luther King Day says 1999, but here it says 1993. So, anybody know which is correct? 24.17.48.241 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The date was actually 2000, with New Hampshire passing the legislation to make the holiday in 1999. The date has been updated on both pages and a reference has been included. --Allen3 talk 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Married the late...

I dunno about everyone else, but reading "King married the late Coretta Scott" sounds to me like he married a dead person. Is this really proper English? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Maybe it should read the late M.L. King married the late Coretta Scott.

Motown

King released recordings of several of his speeches as Motown LPs. Does he count to be placed in Category:Motown performers? --FuriousFreddy 06:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I kinda don't think so; are there any other documentary-style Motown LPs? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • There were. There were a lot of spoken-word artists on the label, as well. You're probably right about not pla cing him in the category. --FuriousFreddy 23:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Video on Martin Luther King Jr. by national vanguard

I would like to add this video, but the chabal will not allow it, so how do I bring it to arbitration?

according to solargeneral.net they say:

Most Popular Video: http://www.solargeneral.com/library/MartinLutherKing.rm 18,000x this video has been downloaded in Jan.

How do I get this video through arbitration to be added to the article?--Lokison 08:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration is not for discussing specific content. National Vanguard is a marginal race hate group. A link to their video is not appropriate for this page. In any case, there are usually a number of steps that need to be tried before arbitration is granted. For your information, in English the spelling is "cabal." The spelling "chabal" is primarily used by antisemites to suggest secret Jewish control.--Cberlet 14:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What's the relationship between Stormfront (who hosts the site) and National Vanguard? (The site is amusing; its rhetoric is quite similar to that of Julius Streicher.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As Long as the video is accurate factual information it should be added regardless of who hosts it as long as it has education value. Wikipedia is walking the lines of censorship.

71.131.205.182 07:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Chicago and De Facto Segregation

I recently added on to the section about MLK's 1966 Chicago Freedom March. Less than five minutes later, it was edited out. I mentioned his objective was to challenge de-facto segregation, only to be defeated by Northern hypocrisy. I can understand how those who defend MLK's legacy don't like to talk about Chicago as much as other parts of his public life since even his closest advisors have admitted that it was a defeat for his cause. But what I thought should be added to the section was that MLK was not only strongly opposed by American Nazi leader, George Lincoln Rockwell, but also by many influential local whites who had supported his cause down south. One reason could be that the Chicago Freedom March brought back memories of the 1919 race riots, which city residents did not wish to repeat. With that said, I strongly urge more additions on what was the biggest episode in Chicago history, prior to the 1968 Democratic convention.

  • Sure. Provide us some sources providing this information -- in particular, the importance of Rockwell. WP:CITE. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Bold textImportance of GLR and MLK

According to Frederick Simonelli's "American Fuhrer" and William Smaltz's "Hate", George Lincoln Rockwell led numerous confrontations against Martin Luther King. In 1961, he countered the Freedom Riders by driving a Hate Bus into the Deep South. In 1963, he led a counter demonstration to MLK's March on Washington. In 1965, he was in Alabama to oppose King's Selma-Montgomery March, where he was able to get himself into a memorable photo confronting King*. In addition, GLR's followers would attend King rallies, where they would constantly heckle the speakers. Finally, in 1966 Chicago, after seeing how King had police protection in marching through a white neighborhood, Rockwell challenged the Chicago police to do the same for him if he were to march through a black neighborhood. This time, people who would never have associated themselves with a Nazi, agreed with him, because he was the only one to stand up for preserving the status quo by opposing forced integration of neighborhoods.

There must be more sources about the episode especially with the upcoming 40th anniversary of the Chicago Freedom March, which historians and people who witnessed it will probably get together and talk about. In the meantime, the two books I have just mentioned, are the main sources about George Lincoln Rockwell, both considered balanced. The reason I consider GLR important to this article is because by the time of his assasination, he was becoming quite an annoying thorn in MLK's cause. Bold textWKR85

  • If found, the picture would be well worth adding to this article.

King biographer comments on the article

"An e-mail request to a variety of scholars to look at articles in their fields turned up some complaints. David Garrow, author of a Pulitzer-winning book about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., replied: I called up their MLK entry, and right in the second sentence there's an obvious error: that King was awarded both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom before he was assassinated. Wrong. He was awarded that presidential medal in 1977, by Jimmy Carter."" link

Lotsofissues 09:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Last night on Earth

This article contends that King spent his last night on Earth in a liason with prostitutes and credits this to Ralph Abernathy while his book says nothing of the sort. This must be changed.

authorship issues

"While some political opponents have used these findings to criticize King, most of the scholars in question have sought to put them into broader context; for example, Keith Miller, probably the foremost expert on language-borrowing in King's oratory, has argued that the practice falls within the tradition of African-American folk preaching, and should not necessarily be labeled plagiarism."

This is misleading and a cover up. Plagiarism is wrong and if you are caught doing it you should be denied your degree. It is not ok under any circumstances but this article is saying that its ok for blacks and common. Why should they be held to another standard? King clearly didnt earn his PHD and there is a clear POV violation. Who is Keith Miller and why does his cleverly placed remark deserve to be in the article?

71.131.205.182 07:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


If you just Google -"Keith Miller" Martin Luther King- you'll find out who he is.--Bite the Wax Tadpole 01:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I added how the information gathering has changed since the 1960s. I also added some examples of plagiarism from prominent people. I need time to recall my sources that stated Biden's plagiarism was sub-conscious.Dabomb 9:22, 21 March 2006 (EST)

How can an encyclopedia state that something is subconcious or not? 156.63.14.90 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Name issue...again

I've restored the older (and consensus) version of the info on his name and removed the following:

Birth records for Martin Luther King Jr. list his first name as Michael which was his father's birth name as well. Even though there are no records of the name change, Michael King Sr. changed his and his son's name in honor of the sixteenth-century German church reformer Martin Luther. The New Georgia Encylopedia (2004). King's family background was multiracial of African-American, Native American, and Irish (his paternal grandmother was Irish-American) mixture.[citations needed]

While some is this is cited from the online ref "New Georgia Encyc." this is one of many varying versions on the Internet, and I could find no corroborating info to back it up.

Please see the Snopes.com page on this controversy BCorr|Брайен 18:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The National Archives has an image of his Selective Service Registration Card. On it he lists his hame as Michael and signs it thus. This would seem to refute any official name change by his father as he was age 18 when this card was filled out. 68.187.192.107 01:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess I'm a bit confused; that National Archive image is for Michael King; that is, Martn Luther King Sr. So what could that refute? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

White and Black are ethnicities

The anonymous user was right; they should be capitalized. I just don't know how to do a global search and replace in my browser.--Bite the Wax Tadpole 01:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back to his version, but I unfortunately assumed that it would automatically insert the "Reverted to" thing, so there's no comment. Oops.--Bite the Wax Tadpole 01:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It looks simply terrible. Does Wikipedia have a standard for "Black" vs "black" and "White" vs "white"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the only thing I could find was this from the Manual of Style: "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." [3] Also, Bartleby points out that while either is ok, lower case is usually used.[4] I tend to agree. - Maximusveritas 02:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, I concede the point.--Bite the Wax Tadpole 13:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Snopes over an Encyclopedia?

The continual reverting of my addition is unjustified and racially motivated. You need to check your race at the door and stop trying to use a website like Snopes to justify your denial of the truth as presented by The New Georgia Encyclopedia.

  • Please discuss this here rather than repeatedly putting in a change that's already been discussed and rejected. There is conflicting evidence here, most of which contradicts the New Georgia Encyclopedia. Snopes isn't a primary or secondary source, but it makes good use of them, and is particularly good at researching confusions like this. As far as "racially motivated" is concerned: what the heck are you talking about? Why should it make any difference (racially speaking) what name is on his birth certificate? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rampant Vandalism

Considering the sheer amount of vandalism this article suffers, I would suggest we ask the administrators to block anonymous and new users from editing this article.--Vercalos 21:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It was semi-protected at my request shortly after Corretta Scott King's funeral as it seemed to be drawing a lot of attention since that was in the news. Right now, the vandalism isn't quite as bad as it was at that point. If it gets worse, request the semi-protect again. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 05:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


The vandalism upon this article right now is pretty horrible, to say the least. Bold lettering appears at the top of it in full view of any child researching King for a school project; has it really come to such low and cowardly acts? The people who killed King run free and maintain control, the vandalism proves it. I tried to erase the vandalism but since I'm a new user I couldn't, so my point is: it works both ways.

I also tried to erase the vandalism, but couldn't. Now it's the word "n-gger" on the disambiguation link. I'm not sure how this person did it, but they have done, and it doesn't even show up on the preview, but when I hit "save" I did see it. Could someone please clean this up? Nullifidian 01:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Hm. Whatever it is seems to have gone away. Wonder what happened? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Might I suggest some level of protection, given the number of times the article has been vandalized today?Dlohcierekim 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther king jr

by KosmiK

Bias is Unbelievable!

He was a COMMI....not a "Social Demorcrat"... what the hell is difference! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.40.6 (talk • contribs).

The difference is that America doesn't celebrate Commie Day... --Chodorkovskiy 10:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


What is commie day? Is this a reference to International Workers Day which commemorates the state murder of 4 Anarchist Labor Organizers due to the events of May 1st and 4th, 1886 in Haymarket Square, Chicago, USA?

See below: In 1886, on the first day of May, over 340,000 workers in 12,000 factories across the United States lay down their tools. Chicago, with its strong labor movement, had the nation’s largest demonstration, according to reports, with 80,000 people marching up Michigan Avenue arm-in-arm, singing and carrying the banners of their unions. The unions most strongly represented were the building trades. This solidarity shocked some employers, who feared a workers’ revolution, while others quickly signed agreements for shorter hours at the same pay.

Two of the organizers of these demonstrations were Lucy and Albert Parsons. The beautiful and talented Lucy had been born a slave in Texas about 1853. Her heritage was African American, Native American and Mexican. She worked for the Freedmen’s Bureau after the Civil War. After her marriage to Albert, they moved to Chicago where she turned her attention to writing and organizing women sewing workers. Albert was a printer, a member of the Knights of Labor, editor of the labor paper The Alarm, and one of the founders of the Chicago Trades and Labor Assembly.

On Sunday, May 2, Albert went to Ohio to organize rallies there, while Lucy and others staged another peaceful march of 35,000.

But on May 3, the peaceful scene turned violent when the Chicago police attacked and killed picketing workers at the McCormick Reaper Plant at Western and Blue Island Avenues. This attack by police sparked a protest meeting, planned for Haymarket Square on the evening of May 4.

While the May 1 events had been well planned, the events of the evening of May 4 were not. Most of the speakers failed to appear.

Instead of starting at 7:30, the meeting was delayed for about an hour. Instead of the expected 20,000 people, fewer than 2,500 attended.

Two substitute speakers ran over to Haymarket Square at the last minute. They had been attending a meeting of sewing workers organized by Lucy Parsons and her fellow organizer, Lizzie Holmes. The last-minute speakers were Albert Parsons, just returned from Ohio, and an English-born Methodist preacher who worked with the labor movement, Samuel Fielden.

The Haymarket meeting was almost over and only about 200 people remained when 176 policemen carrying Winchester repeater rifles attacked. Even Lucy and Albert Parsons had left because it was beginning to rain.

Fielden was speaking when someone, unknown to this day, threw the first dynamite bomb ever used in peacetime in the history of the United States. The police officers panicked, and, in the darkness, many shot at their own men. Eventually, seven policemen died, only one directly accountable to the bomb. Four workers were also killed, but few textbooks bother to mention this fact.

The next day the federal government declared martial law throughout the nation. Anti-labor governments around the world used the Chicago incident to crush local union movements.

In Chicago, police without warrants rounded up labor leaders, searched houses and closed down union newspapers.

Eventually eight men, representing a cross-section of the labor movement, were selected to be tried. Among them were Fielden, Parsons and a young carpenter named Louis Lingg, who was accused of throwing the bomb, although he had witnesses proving he was over a mile away at the time.

The two-month trial ranks as one of the most notorious in American history. The Chicago Tribune even offered to pay money to the jury if it found the eight men guilty.

During the trial, Albert Parsons was asked about his philosophy of government and he said the following: “I am an anarchist. … What is socialism, or anarchism? Briefly stated, it is the right of the toilers to the free and equal use of the tools of production and the right of the producers to their product. That is socialism.”

On Aug. 20, 1886, the jury reported its verdict of guilty, applying the death penalty by hanging for seven of the Haymarket Eight, and 15 years of hard labor for the final defendant.

On Nov. 10, the day before the executions, AFL President Samuel Gompers came from Washington to appeal to Illinois Gov. Richard Oglesby for the last time. The national and worldwide pressures did finally force the governor to change the sentences of Fielden and Michael Schwab to life imprisonment.

On the morning of Nov. 10, Lingg was found in his cell, his head half blown away by a dynamite cap. Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Albert Parsons and August Spies were hanged on Nov. 11, 1887.

In June 1893, Gov. John P. Altgeld pardoned the three men still alive and condemned the entire judicial system that had allowed this travesty.

The real issues of the Haymarket affair were freedom of speech and the press, the rights to free assembly and a fair trial by a jury of peers, as well as the right of workers to organize and fight for reforms.

Many of those who were tried were not even at the Haymarket meeting, but were arrested simply because they were union organizers.

In 1889, the International Labor Congress, meeting in Paris, adopted May Day as International Labor Day in memory of the Haymarket martyrs of Chicago, Illinois, USA. Today, in almost every major industrial country in the world, the first day of the month of May, or May Day, is used to commemorate the struggles and victories of the working-class people -- but not in the United States.

Assassination, conspiracy, James Earl Ray etc

Would all this information as to whether or not James Earl Ray pulled the trigger be more appropriate on James Earl Ray? Elvrum 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure but this statement below should be at least linked if not cited in the article.

KING FAMILY STATEMENT ON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT "LIMITED INVESTIGATION" OF THE MLK ASSASSINATION

ATLANTA . . . On behalf of The family of Martin Luther King, Jr, Martin Luther King III today issued the following statement on the U.S. Justice Department's release of its report on their "limited investigation" of recent evidence regarding the assassination of Dr. King


"We learned only hours before the Justice Department press conference that they were releasing the report of their results of their "limited investigation," which covered only two areas of new evidence concerning the assassination of Dr. King. We had requested that we be given a copy of the report a few days in advance so that we might have had the opportunity to review it in detail. Since that courtesy was not extended to us, we are only able at this time to state the following:

1. We initially requested that a comprehensive investigation be conducted by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, independent of the government, because we do not believe that, in such a politically-sensitive matter, the government is capable of investigating itself.

2. The type of independent investigation we sought was denied by the federal government. But in our view, it was carried out, in a Memphis courtroom, during a month-long trial by a jury of 12 American citizens who had no interest other than ascertaining the truth. (Kings v. Jowers)

3. After hearing and reviewing the extensive testimony and evidence, which had never before been tested under oath in a court of law, it took the Memphis jury only 1½ hours to find that a conspiracy to kill Dr. King did exist. Most significantly, this conspiracy involved agents of the governments of the City of Memphis, the state of Tennessee and the United States of America. The overwhelming weight of the evidence also indicated that James Earl Ray was not the triggerman and, in fact, was an unknowing patsy.

4. We stand by that verdict and have no doubt that the truth about this terrible event has finally been revealed.

5. We urge all interested Americans to read the transcript of the trial on the King Center website and consider the evidence, so they can form their own unbiased conclusions.

Although we cooperated fully with this limited investigation, we never really expected that the government report would be any more objective than that which has resulted from any previous official investigation. In a reasonable period of time, when we have had an opportunity to study the report, we will provide a detailed analysis of it to the media and on the aforementioned website."

For more information, please contact communications@thekingcenter.org.

Picture / Caption

There is a picture and a caption saying the same thing:

King is perhaps most famous for his "I Have a Dream" speech, given in front of the Lincoln Memorial during the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

Surely we could get rid of one of these.

I removed the sentence that Martin Luther King, Jr. is the youngest person won the Nobel Prize. Ont the following Nobel Prize website, <http://nobelprize.org/help/faq/#laureates>, you can see the list of youngest prize winners list.

Marital Infedelities

Recently I watched a documentary on King. What is here only a few lines, was about 10 mins of a 2 hour doco. Dr King had many affairs with many women. Often (if memory serves) more than one woman at a time. This is a significant point, as it is is often used to discredit King, and it deserves more than the few lines that it gets here.

Riff—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riff Johnson (talk • contribs) .

My father (who is still alive) owned a charter fishing boat when he lived in Bimini, Bahamas in the 60's. On several occasions, Dr. King would make use of my father's services and would be escorted by white women. (Very little actual fishing was done.) His affairs were known to many people on the island at the time.

My father (who is still alive) owned a charter fishing boat when he lived in Bimini, Bahamas in the 60's. On several occasions, Dr. King would make use of my father's services and would be escorted by white women. (Very little actual fishing was done.) His affairs were known to many people on the island at the time. 68.187.192.107 01:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The first three sections of this document are missing. I will revert it to a previous edit. 13:25, 24 April 2006

Quote

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Isn't this quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi? - Mike Rosoft 13:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

WE NEED TO SAY MORE ABOUT HOW GREAT HE IS

IF IT WASNT FOR DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. RAP AND HIP HOP WOULDNT EVEN EXIST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 (talk • contribs) 02:06, May 20, 2006 (UTC)

Communism is better than marital infidelity

Why is communism in one tune with marital infidelity and plagiarism? --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Why does the porridge-bird lay his eggs in the air? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Answering the Communist Questions

"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both." Quote is from wikiquote [5] This would reveal he supported socialism. What is so different about this, almost half of our coutnry now seems to elect leaders that agree to this statement to some extent.Tjb891 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/Talk%7EMartin_Luther_King%2C_Jr._Archive_2_c771.html"