Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Contents

[edit] Apparently neither taught to King nor demanded of his acedemic work

All I see is character assassination based on claimed inadequate referencing by a student according to standards apparently neither taught to King nor demanded of his acedemic work. King wanted a doctorate. The proffessors wanted a paying student. Neither were trying to turn King into some kind of expert in documentation creation. They helped educate a man who has had a positive influence on America greater than all the nobodies critisizing his referencing style all put together. 4.250.138.208 07:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Cognition 08:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not character assassination - all involved agree that King lifted whole sections from another paper. It is not character assassination to uphold standards. The article states that King "might" have believed it was OK, but that does not make it OK. Other students who had the same teachers have said it was quite clear to them that lifting entire passages was not allowed - anybody who has even the slightest idea what plagiarism means knows you are not allowed to lift paragraph after paragraph changing only a few words here & there - and not even acknowledging your source in your bibliography
  • The world is not filled only with angels & beasts. It gave me no pleasure to work on this article --JimWae 07:55, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
    • The article should not accept your position as the correct one, just as it should not accept mine as the correct one. So the proper thing is to report the conclusions of both King's defenders and critics without making judgments of its own, as opposed to basing the article on your POV. Cognition 08:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You are way, way, way out of line Coggy -- I found the material supporting King - you did nothing but complain--JimWae 08:11, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

And I thanked you for it. Look, this isn't a competion. The content is now more neutral, so we are ready to deal with the issue of proper placement. BTW, I like the redirect. Cognition 08:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The effect is character assassination. Discrediting an important figure is a known propaganda technique. People remember things without remembering where they got them. King wrote as taught and rewarded (by grades). Redefining "standards" different than that applied by the teacher who gave and graded the "assignment" after the man is dead and can't defend himself is pathetic manipulation of public opinion by known and documented propaganda techniques. Even the chief of the FBI engaged in character assisination against King and you are going to argue no one took up the cause of battling the King legacy or that this isn't exactly the sort of smear campaign one would expect? Don't be naive. 4.250.168.91 07:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Sure there were attempts at character assassination. However, this allegation seems clearly to be true - and some of the others likely had some basis too - the womanizing, perhaps. Lots of prominent men have been womanizers - that does not mean they did not do great & good things. Look, he did it & it was wrong - anyone who has the slightest understanding of what "plagiarism" means knows you're not allowed to present paragraph after paragraph without attribution. If he did NOT know it was wrong, that raises all kinds of other questions about his academic skills & his value-system. He comes off better if he knew it was wrong, but was weak & thought it a "small" offense. Sweeping this under the rug will just provide more ammunition for the King-haters. Confront it & move on. It does strengthen the grounds for removing him from the philosopher category, though. (He was known for his oratory - not for being philosophical - anyway) --JimWae 07:11, 2005 July 11 (UTC)--

1: Good addition to see also. 2: There is enough truth in what you say for me to only add to the see also and let the reader judge for themself. 3: Does the bible adequately reference Gilgamesh? or whoever they stole the flood myth from? Religion is so very different from science and King's path as a leader rather than an academic together make me think it irrelevant (in addition to the fact HIS TEACHERS DIDN'T CARE ENOUGH TO NOTICE ANY OF ALL THE ALLEGED TIMES HE DID THIS - SUPOSEDLY NUMEROUS). I doubt he thought it mattered either. He wasn't a wonk and didn't want to be one. I'm sure you and I have any number of different values, but being wrong according to you doesn't make me wrong anymore than you are wrong because your value heirarchy differs from mine. He's a philosopher???? Surely you jest. He was a Christian following Christian values. What pray tell did he add to what could already be found in Christianity? 4.250.168.91 07:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Argument based on similarity of effect is like arguing killing in self-defense is the same as murder, because in both cases the guy is dead. There's a logical fallacy called Affirming the consequent (If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P.) Since your argument is more causal than logical, it does not quite apply the same way. Your argument also touches on guilt by association - one of the very tactics used against MLK. --JimWae 07:45, 2005 July 11 (UTC) --JimWae 07:33, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

Yes motive matters. I fail to see how motive of King or his detractors helps your position unless you are saying King's referencing style is a matter of fact. Yes it is. It is the labeling of that style that is in question. Your last two comments are distractions or misconceptions of my point. I hope I have clarified I'm not questioning the facts; only their labeling and emphasis. 4.250.168.91 07:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding a "See also" link to "discrediting tactic" - insinuating this article is a discrediting tactic without a citation is original research. If you want to cite someone who says the plagiarism allegations were attempts to discredit King, go ahead, but don't try to insinuate it with a "See also". Gdwq 11:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

When people call water wet they don't need to cite a source. When someone questions whether water is wet, then finding a source is useful. 4.250.168.51 23:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A discrediting tactic is an attack against a public figure as a person rather than an attack on their policies or contributions (in other words, irrelevant to the logic of the cause itself) intended to discourage people from believing or supporting their cause. The fact that King's documentation style is found wanting by unbiased people is neither in doubt nor a discrediting tactic. The are labels and emphasis placed on it that easily qualify as a discrediting tactic. Which labels and how much emphasis qualifies must remain a matter of opinion, for which a wide range of quotes could be mustered if that were in doubt. 4.250.168.51 00:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What no one seems to think of

is that Martin Luther King, Jr., was an exceptionally well-educated and erudite man. Is it not reasonable to suppose that he might assume others would be aware of whom he was quoting? Not remembering to account for the ignorance of others is a common flaw in the well-educated. For instance, when a person quotes something so famous that every idiot knows it by heart, do we make a big fuss about "plagiarism" if they fail to go out of their way to say who they're quoting? How is this a difference in kind rather than degree? -Kasreyn 15:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In the speeches, perhaps, but I don't think anyone would assume others would be aware of some obscure Boston University dissertation from just three years prior. --Delirium 05:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text by FWBOarticle

"Some point out that defences of pragiailism or King's frequent infedelity including allegation of sex with prostitutes are an example of personality worship. The rightness of the cause is use to whitewash any faults of an important civil right advocate. Anyone who criticise King is implicitly blanded as anti civil right, i.e. a racist."

Where to begin. First off, "Some point out" is weasel wording. "frequent infidelity" is unsourced and possible character attack. So is the sly "allegations of sex with prostitutes". Cite please. "The rightness of the cause is used to whitewash..." is original research. If you can find someone else who has published saying that there is a whitewash, then feel free to quote that person. We are not here to pass judgement on the world. Same with "Anyone who criticise (sic) King is implicitly blanded (sic)" etc. Original research unless you can replace it with a quote by a non-wikipedian saying it. I really shouldn't even have to point this out. Your additions were really the sort of ramble that belongs on the talk page, not as part of an encyclopedia. -Kasreyn 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Let start by pointing out that my edit is in response to "Some people claim that discussion of these matters is just a character assassination in the form of an discrediting tactic (to civili right movement)". Is this a weasel wording or mere summary of prevailing opinion in defence of King. Trying to summarise prevailing or commonly found general opinion is not an original research because such opinion is not original or new. Secondly, souce of "frequently infidelity" and "allegation" of sex with prostitute can be found everywhere including here. We will get more complete picutre in 20years time. Lastly, one side of edit clearly describe the tactic as attempt to discourage people from supporting civil right movement thorugh character assasination. How could it not be countered in general opinion that such accusation of indirect attack on civil-right-movement/anti-racism-movement is unfair. Selectively deleting only one side of edit is a blatant attempt at censorship. You might see lot of opinion you might not want to read in wikipedia. That is not enough excuse to delete if such opinion is clearly attributed. FWBOarticle 12:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, if you want, we can remove "Some people claim that discussion..." etc as equally weaselish; no complaints here. As for your "source" of the infidelity allegation, wikipedia can't claim itself as a source! Think!
In any case, you're right that we should remove all POV speculation from the article. I'll get to work on that right away. But Wikipedia would become the laughingstock of the entire world if it started citing itself as a reference. -Kasreyn 23:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Try googling with terms such as "King" "Infidelity". There are tons of references many from reputable published sources. FBI wiretrap is a public record. King's infidelity is such a well establishe fact that many article including wikipedia don't even bother to reference it. Allegation of sex with prostitute is made by one of his confidant and this is also well published. If you really want to know more, read Taylor Branch's trilogy of King's biography. It is probably the most authoritative work. Lastly, read the wikipedia policy. General/Prevailing/NonOriginal/Public opinion is not an original research. One does not need to source, say, "WWI started in 1914" edit. Plus, if you have problem with my Engrish, feel free to "correct" it. Please do not use it as a pretext to delete opinion/view/fact which you don't want to read. FWBOarticle 01:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here. Hope this article put the thing in perspective. Another comment I pulled somewhere else. "Was he a great American? No argument here. Was he a fraud and a hypocrite? He was that, too." FWBOarticle

Wrong. If you want the section back in, add the sources with it. I'm perfectly within wikipedia policy removing the entire section as original research, and I will continue to do so. I did not delete your section because it was poorly spelled and written, I deleted it because it was not supported by sources. -Kasreyn 02:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
O.K. I don't really know what you want. I can give sourced reference which tend to be more critical. Feel free to find opinion supporting King's plagiarism. FWBOarticle
I'm sorry if I seem harsh to you, it's not my intention to be unkind to you. But if you want the information on "reactions" to be on wikipedia, it has to be encyclopedic, which means you need to provide sources. If you have sources which can support the allegations which were made in that section, then by all means restore the section with links to the sources supporting it. What's important here is we must make it clear to our readers that it is not wikipedia which is making allegations of plagiarism and buying prostitutes, but that we are reporting on other people's allegations, nothing more. -Kasreyn 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact and Opinion

Plagiarism section contain opinion explaing or defending why King did what he did. I believe it is better to separate fact from opinion. FWBOarticle

[edit] Something wrong? Compare Snopes

I do get the feeling something is wrong here, but would prefer someone else to check.

I don't see the statement

Boston University, where King got his ThD in systematic theology, conducted an investigation that found he plagiarized approximately a third of his doctoral thesis from a paper written three years earlier by another graduate student. This consisted of about 45% of the first half and 21% of the second half. [1] [2]

properly referenced.

Firstly, there's PhD and DD, but Doctor of Theology as ThD is new to me, and the main article says 'Ph.D.'. More importantly, I don't see supporting evidence from the two web links as to the proportions that were supposedly plagiarised, whether a third or 45%, just that in general he sometimes failed to provide adequate citations.

The word 'plagiary' my dictionary lists as "noun (archaic) someone who steals the thoughts or writings of others and presents them as his or her own; the crime of plagiarism" - yet it is used with a different meaning both in the Carson quote and in the 'HNN' sources. It would seem we are relying on only one source here, Ralph Luker.

I've moderated the section on speeches, since it seems from the text on Snopes that the 'borrowing' (a rather imprecise word) was overstated. --Cedderstk 03:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He took a course on plagiarism

Surely it's worth noting that King took a course on scholarly standards while at BU. This undermines the argument that he was somehow unaware of what he was doing, or that different standards were applied to them. This fact is noted in Thomas Pappas' book Plagiarism and the Culture War, though I don't have the page number. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.241.26 (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/Talk%7EMartin_Luther_King%2C_Jr._authorship_issues_d93d.html"