Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr./Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

cheating on Ph.D

King cheated on his Ph.D. Why sugarcoat it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Aren't you the guy who wants "serial womanizer" included in the intro? You might consider a POV check on yourself. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If King cheated on his Ph. D, which is a dubious claim, then it would have been caught by his advisory committee and he would not have received it. That's on his committee, not him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.181.246 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

"Concerns about his doctoral dissertation at Boston University led to a formal inquiry by university officials, which concluded that approximately a third of it had been plagiarized from a paper written by an earlier graduate student.".

The above is from Wikipedia. Is it inaccurate? If not, then past and current approval of his PhD is intellectually bankrupt. How many PhD students have graduated from BU when over 30 percent of their thesis was plagiarized? Or any stuident at any level? This all sounds very P.C. to me.

Regards, Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.88.190 (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


    • Hmm? What's dubious about it? It's pretty much proven that he plagiarized on his PhD dissertation. Advisory committees sometimes do miss stuff; they're not exactly perfect (and they sure didn't have the internets fifty years ago to help find such plagiarisms.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • i think we shud put him ass a serial womanizer as well...and more emphasis on how most of his work wasn't actually his
  • aren't you one of the guys who doesnt want to include that King was a womanizer? Consider a POV check on YOURself! Olir 16:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't want to include your "serial womanizer" language, as you could provide no reliable source for the terminology (and the only instances of it we could find were from sites that were quoting Stormfront, basically.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (1) It isn't "sugarcoating it" to say, as the current text does, that "questions have been raised" -- that's a serious accusation in writing. (2) "Cheating" is a vague term; describing the specifics -- as the current paragraph does -- is much better. Plagiarism, failure to properly cite, "stealing" ideas, copying answers, buying a paper -- all of these things could be classed under "cheating", or not, depending on the circumstance. (3) And especially where, as here, the facts and significance of the facts have been and are disputed by scholars, then it's best to stay away from definitive, judgmental terms like "cheating" that may have the ring of a POV. --LQ 16:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I moved to define cheating by specifically noting that he lifted work from other authors without citation, which is what he did, and what i wrote. And it is sugarcoating it to say "questions have been raised". Questions have not only been raised but they've been answered, he DID. You leave it open as if you think he might not have cheated by saying "questions have been raised" which is disgustinglu from POV (and incorrect) and not what should be on wikipedia. Unfortnatly this seems to be the nature of this article. I can think of a huge list of negative aspects of his life which are intrigal to the study of king, which are simply not mentioned. Olir 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
  • Well you've named two out of three of my biggest interests, mike. Blink 182, The Taiping Rebellion and Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Ive done a lot of discussion about the former two on wikipedia. But as i read King's wiki, i only see positive things, like this article is trying to make out that he was a great perfect man, it skims over some of the darker parts of his life which are central to the study of him. it ignores any negative interpretation of him for the "facts" that the people on the discussion page scream about (the facts being GOOD facts, not bad facts). And i do not hate this man. Although I do know he made a lot of mistakes in his approach to the civil rights movement and i know he was a generally hypocritical and immoral man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you think those "darker parts" are central? Can you provide us with a reliable source asserting the same? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In a lecture by probably the greatest historian on King tony badger highlights:
    Copied vast amounts of Ph.D thesis
    Womanizer - politically stupid, gave FBI power over him
    Strictly Christin movement could not reach to non christians
    King was southern based and useless in the north e.g. his speach in chicago 1957, northerns looked upon him as just a southerner/northern blacks couldnt understand him, he was too parochical
    Everything in his movement depended on him, he was indespensible for example abernathy in his takeover was useless
    King hiijacked civil rights movements, movements didnt seem serious without him. He was very much disliked by the SNLC
    Nation of islam - hated christian movement
    King was acceptable to whites because of his class, he was a 'white persons black man'
    King was a compromiser, disliked by revolutionary groups
    Only untill 68' did he begin to break parochialism, e.g. his attackon vietnam war
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a lecture by Tony Badger at cambridge university entitled "Martin Luther King Jr. Who Needs Him?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
    • Because i went to the lecture. I think he has it on tape now. Anyway, do you disagree with the facts? Olir 13:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Note to Olir: "I heard somebody say it once" by no means meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A public lecture, unfortunately, can't be verified, unless the recording was published -- in other words, it has to be on the Internet or in a library or available for purchase so that people can verify, at will. Did Badger or Cambridge publish this, or is this a personal recording? --lquilter 13:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As to "disagree[ing] with the facts" -- the points listed above are a mix of facts, interpretation, opinion, and sentence fragments whose meaning is unclear. It's also unclear if Badger was saying they were his views, or if he was repeating them as, say, allegations that have been made about King. That's why WP:V is important. With respect to King, who has had volumes of scholarship, my own standard would be something like the standard for science in a courtroom: The current majority accepted view is included, and significant dissident or minority views also included. The thesis point is made in the article, as are some of the other issues you raise (e.g., King's influence in the north, the tensions between various wings of the CRM, King's opinion about Vietnam War, etc.). So I'm not even sure what the point is of listing all these very disparate points here.--lquilter 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you idiots are actually arguing over this crap.... Martin Luther King Jr. should be revered as a man who stood for all people, regardless of race or creed or gender or nationality or etc. He stood for one concept and one concept alone.... the freedom of ALL people. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for even thinking that you have the right to question his motives or his purpose. Next time, use your heart of hearts when researching and coming to a conclusion about a man or woman so great as he was in deeds and in heart. You look like asses, due to the fact that you use your sheepish minds to create some sort of gossip topic so you can argue about a man who wanted all the arguing and fighting and bickering to stop. Who the hell cares anyway, if he cheated it's a little late to say anything about it. Whether he cheated or not it does not change the fact that the man was fighting for the most important cause of all and it definitely does not change the fact that he was and is still one of the most influential orators, not to mention leaders, of the oppressed peoples of the world. Get your heads out of your asses!

  • Well. Nobody is arguing that MLK didn't make an important contribution in the Civil Rights area. But, to answer your question, I (for one) care a great deal if someone uses the work of others without attribution, and gains academic advantage (i.e., the granting of a degree) from it. It's reflective of poor judgment, at the least, and many would argue flawed character. Furhermore, this is supposed to be about TRUTH. Since it is TRUE that this plagiarism happened, the article must address it in order to present a fair picture. I really can't imagine how anyone with gravitas could make a statement like "who the hell cares anyway if he cheated." How jejune. 71.233.82.153 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well said, 71.233.82.153. Everyone is biased to some extent, but someone with as negative a view of MLK as Olir is largely incapable of presenting a truthful description of him, and any attempt to do so would be, I daresay, libel. This is not an insult to Olir. I would have a hard time writing a fair article about George W. Bush, even if I tried to make it unbiased. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]
  • Isn't the Articles by the Staff of the King Papers Project a good resource for a citation? His cheating just makes him human and fallible. JoyceD
    • Nobody's trying to cover it up; we just had a guy who for a while was making questions of plagiarism and "womanizing" the central focus of his edits and the article. --Orange Mike 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

please could you add la.wiki Martinus Lutherius King Jr., thank you

please could you add la.wiki Martinus Lutherius King Jr., thank you--85.0.83.133 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

la:Martinus Lutherius King Jr., done.EricR 13:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Length of the boycott

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)

Troubling questions

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)
    • The "sleeping with white men" is untrue, according to Ralph Abernathy (who substantiated King's extracurricular sex life). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And according to Tony Badger, Abernathy was "The stupidest man I ever met" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 23:28, December 27, 2006
      • (a) Please sign your posts. (b) So? That someone remembers someone else saying someone else is stupid isn't helpful information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Olir makes these claims about what Prof. Badger says about various things, but cannot provide any cites for them. --Orange Mike 23:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


And do you think the work is David Garrow is unfounded ? Roger_Smith

The people at martin luther king .org are discrmanting against king no he did not sleep with women no did he rape women no did he plgism is speches peopl e need to now what fiction and what nota speech byLone Fox the last of the foxes 23:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


There is a claim:* He wasnt a communist, although Hoover certainly thought he was. Hoover, instead of uncovering King being a communist= found out that he was a womanizer when he bugged Kings home, hotel rooms and phones. He also found out that he liked to sleep with white women. Thus he sent messages to king informing that he should kill himself, king never did and hoover never uncovered him. His speechs may have not all been written by him, but i dont see the problem with this, do you need to cite authors when you make a speach? But he did cheat on his Ph.D by lifting uncited work, this was wrong and illegal.

If King wasn't a communist, why did he train at the Highlander School and was pictured with know communists? http://www.wnnnews.com/highlanderreport.html

Martin Luther King, Peter Seeger, Charis Horton, Rosa Parks, and Ralph Abernathy at Highlander's 25th anniversary celebration; Monteagle, TN; 1957

Why did King take this check? He wasnt a communist, although The of King is extremely important as it identifies King with Carl and Ann Branden. They are lifelong Communist Party activists out of Louisville, Kentucky. Both were leaders in SCEF, Carl Branden 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. Ann Braden today is a founder of the Atlanta based "Center for Democratic Renewal" which smears Conservative patriots.


As to the issue of merging: It seems to me that taking these issues to a side page is clearly biased by Wiki in their presentation of King. Why allow only happy talk on the main page, when there are clearly tons of evidence from his own library and researchers besides governmnt files and public documents, http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html


Here is a Photostat of an SCEF (Southern Conference Education Fund) check to King signed by Dombrowski and Benjamin Smith, who was a registered Foreign Agent for Fidel Castro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.119.51 (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

"Most famous"

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, [1] 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)

Question...

I was just wondering...does anyone know MLK's favorite song? Just curious... James chen0 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ...(I know, there is slim chance, but someone might know...=] )


Just before he was shot and standing on the same balcony, Dr. King asked Ben Branch, standing in the parking lot of the Lorraine Motel to make sure to play "Precious Lord -- Take My Hand" a hymn written by Thomas Dorsey that hallmarked the career of "The Father of Gospel Music" Marketex 00:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

BU

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)

"Dr" king cheated on his Ph.D by lifting uncited work. I dont see how the university is to blame, if they knew im sure they wouldnt have let him.

King's name

OK, someone keeps putting in stuff like, Martin Luther King, Jr. was born as Michael King on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. He was the son of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Sr. and Alberta Williams King. He began using the name "Martin Luther", in honor of Martin Luther, after he became a minister, though he never legally changed his name. To this day, he lived and died as Michael King. Could we have some evidence of that? The "to this day" language is lifted directly from a highly questionable piece of email, dealt with in full here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is well-known in scholarly-circles. http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/King_Sr_Martin_Luther_King.htm. I don't agree with the usage of "lived and died as", but most of the rest is correct, and I will continue to add it back. Sequestering of the truth is something communists do, not wikipedians. Yeah, right. Who am I kidding. Deleting of valid factual information as this can be described as vandalism, btw. Ernham 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This says the name change from Michael to Martin was in 1934:

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1009
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/additional_resources/articles/encyclo.htm.

-- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. It's also just one guys opinion, versus stanford.edu. Take note of the by-lines. It's also incorrect. The names were never even actually changed, they just started using different ones. Needless to say, they warrant little encyclopedic merit.Ernham 07:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait a second. Your own source doesn't back up the statement I'm questioning: He began using the name "Martin Luther", in honor of Martin Luther, after he became a minister, though he never legally changed his name. Another point: "legally changing ones name" wasn't the same in the '30s as it is today, and even today it varies dramatically from state to state. Many places, your legal name was exactly what you said it was as long as there was no intent to deceive -- and not that long ago. So there's no reason one would find documentation of a name change, in many places. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Facts (this is an ecyclopedia, by the way):
1. Neither of them ever legally changed their names.
2. Both of their LEGAL names were Michael, not Martin Luther.
3. Martin Luther senior began using "martin luther" later in life.
4. When Martin Luther Junior was born, Martin Luther senior told the doctor that the name he wanted was "his own name", which at the time was Michael.
5. Michael senior used the rationality that he told the doctor that his son should be given "his own name" that it should retroactively make his sons name Martin Luther as well.(Michael Luther senior wasn't too bright), and this was his argument for why Michael junior should begin to use Marting Luther instead of Michael. He did just that -- when he was 24, not a day before. Ernham 07:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:CITE your sources. So far, the only source you've cited says nothing of the sort -- other than spotting King Sr's name change date as 1934, when King Jr. was 5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've already done so to satisfactorily substantiate what I have placed in the wiki. I don't care what you think about the rest, though I supplied it since you may come across information that confuses you.Ernham 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the source for "not a day before 24"? The Stanford source I listed above said 1934; this source says "when he was about 6":

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/mlk/king/biography.html

This site refers to a 1957 NY Post article which also gives the 1934 date:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp

Strangely enough, this official bio doesn't even mention that he was born with the name "Michael": http://www.thekingcenter.org/mlk/bio.html

-- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


the other "stanford source" is not from stanford, it's a reference they apparently have listed on their cite, however. Like I said, by-lines. Repeating lies doesn't make them any less true. The only controversy comes from Michael Seniors sole claims of what was what. The facts are he was known by others as Michael King until his twenties and then began using the name Martin Luther and his legal name was always Michael.Ernham 08:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conf.) I endorse Jpgordon and Jim on this one - your source doesn't state what you claim. Other sources specifically state things that counter your claim. In my opinion, that makes their opinion > yours on a foundation policy level. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Good. Then it should be utterly simple for you to provide a verifiable reliable source that he was known by others as Michael King until his twenties, and that his legal name was always Michael. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Meh. I don't care. Such trivial crap, really. Ernham 08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


It is ludicrous to argue a point and then say, "I don't care. Such trivial crap, really." What this discussion needs is not unsubstantiated claims, denouncement of opposing evidence as "lies", and a bitter, ignorant, dishonest insult to anyone who cares about the truth of the matter. Now allow me to proceed:
Two articles from TIME state that the names of both Jr. and Sr. were changed by Sr. when Jr. was young. One article (published in 1957) says he was six years old. The other (1968) says five. The date of 1934 would be consistent with the second article - Jr. was four for two weeks and five for the rest of the year. Neither article mentions a calendar year.
Will someone please edit the article to say that MLK Jr.'s father changed both their names from Michael to Martin (in 1934) when young MLK was five. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]
According to this genealogical service his birth name was Michael Louis King and his father their names changed in 1934 when King Jr. was five. http://www.wargs.com/other/kingml.html As you can see the service uses Social Security number records. Whether it was a "mistake" as King Sr. said I think is the mystery. Both the doctor that delivered him and his son made the same mistake? MrBlondNYC 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not heard from a reliable source that it was a mistake. The current version of the article is incorrect. The website you posted says at the top, "The following material on the immediate ancestry of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft." I think we should trust Time magazine over a source that disclaims any authoritativeness (and certainly over an old forwarded email). 170.215.198.67 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
How can there be a more reliable source than his father's attesting to it, other than the doctor himself saying so? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Where is the source that has his father's "attesting to it"? I don't disbelieve it, but the way it was written in the article and sourced was not reliable. Is it really all that important to include in the article? I've removed it for now. - Jeeny Talk 01:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether "Mike: is correct or not, the entry for Billy Graham says: "King and Graham became friends, with Graham becoming one of the few whites to call King by his birth name Mike." This needs to be resolved; either list his birth name as Mike; or remove the reference from Billy Graham. I have no emotional stake in what you do, and don't have an opinion of which is correct, just want to see the Wikipedia articles correct and consistent. Mmathu 07:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the pointer. I've put a note there asking for more sourcing on that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hindsight

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)

MLK addressed the point of the morality of Jim Crow laws in his Letter From The Birmingham Jail. It is a well established principle in Christian morality, dating back at least as far as Augustine of Hippo (circa 400) that an unjust law is no law. 24.15.135.55 17:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He was a Dr.!

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)

Jesus day?

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)


Bloody sunday was very deadly

There's no sources that indicate anyone was actually killed. See the article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches

The text should be revised or eliminated. Thanks for the clean up.

Federal holiday issue

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)

  • You are correct. I removed the earlier statement; I've removed this one too, since "This is one of only two federal holidays..." is pretty pointless. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Assassination" Section cleanup

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)
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)


There are several sentences in the Assassination section that seem out of place or simply do not make sense, such as in the paragraph

...Five days later, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a national day of mourning for the lost civil rights leader. A crowd of 300,000 attended his funeral that same day. Vice-President Hubert Humphrey attended on behalf of Lyndon B. Johnson, who was meeting with several advisors and cabinet officers on the Vietnam War in Camp David. Also, there were fears he might be hit with protests and abuses over the war. The city quickly settled the strike, on favorable terms, after the assassination.[18][19]

No idea where the last two sentences came from, or what the author was attempting to say. Also, right after this paragraph it tells us how James Earl Ray was captured before we are told that he was involved, or even that he was a suspect. I would fix it myself if I knew about it, hopefully someone who knows more than me will know what it is supposed to say here. Robogymnast 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Did MLK Serve in the U.S. Army in Spring 1951?

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)

Top photo

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)

  • On the other hand, Johnson did huge things for King's cause. You're right, though -- we need a good solo pic of King for there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Nom Comments

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 {{fact}} 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)

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)

Shouldn't he be referred to as "Dr. King" in the title?

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)

and if it was, it would be Rev. Dr in standard usage, not Dr Rev. 142.68.41.248 22:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

FOI?

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)

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)

That picture shows Dr. King delivering his "I have a dream" speech during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, with union marshals wearing white hats. --Ezeu 03:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

American Pacifists

Could someone please add him to the Category American pacifists? Thanks in advance.

hi

Naming

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)

Standard practice on Wikipedia is to omit the titles. --Orange Mike 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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) [signed retroactively]
Nope. The honorifics are normally omitted from the lead sentence as well. --Orange Mike 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Overtitling

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

dr.king

  • 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)
James Earl Ray was convicted so, but there are other theories. Aran|heru|nar 08:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln or Christopher Columbus

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))

  • I've removed the entire clause, again. If someone wants to keep it in the article, please discuss it here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree strongly with you, it belongs out. Like Columbus' holiday, it reflects public respect and the lobbying clout of those who respect him (like myself) at one period in U.S. history. --Orange Mike 17:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, a little discussion of it in the article is fine; we just don't need to say anything other than that the holiday exists in the lead. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding a catchphrase by Martin Luther King Jr

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)

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.

-- Martin Luther King

heck yes

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves everyone blind and toothless" can be found in Sholom Aleichem's Tevye and His Daughters, first published in the 1890s. jhobson1 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

farsi link

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

Thank you. the link works properly

fixed up

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)

"Irrefutable Evidence"

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.

Legacy

'Even posthumous accusations of marital infidelity and academic plagiarism have not seriously damaged his public reputation "but merely reinforced the image of a very human hero and leader."' - That contentious cliché ought to be removed.

I would like to add that some of the plaagarism accusations included are totally out of context. Please follow the first citaton (47), to get the entire story.

to short article on his life?

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)

Bayard Rustin

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)) Ps any bode arge with me? PSS can so one re move this from the article and start one on him

King's relationship with Rustin is relevant to King's life and career. --Orange Mike 13:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A WISE APPROACH TO AN HISTORICAL FIGURES LIFE

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)

Please add oc:Martin Luther King

Please add the link to the Occitan wikipedia. Thank you, oc:User:Joao Xavier

ok

Ghostwriting / Plagiarism

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)

  • I'd actually like to see more on the ghostwriting; quite a few sources such as this refer to Bayard Rustin as his ghostwriter, proofreader, etc., but something more definitive (when? what works? and so on) would be helpful and interesting. You're right that ghostwriting doesn't belong in the same breath as plagiarism - in fact, that a Great Man had a ghostwriter is barely interesting enough to mention except in a specific discussion of the development of his works -- other than that the quite fascinating Bayard Rustin was his ghost. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased Sentence and perhaps should be rewritten?

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)
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)

"Early Life"

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)

  • Well, it's as high up as it can be without being the introduction, no? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant the early life article being moved closer to the title "Early Life." Am I making sense? Kitty2008 21:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, are you perhaps browsing with either a great big font or a tiny narrow screen? That can make the box starting "African American Topics" come between the Early Life title and the text. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just that I see a big blank gap in between the title "Early Life" and the first sentence of that section. Just didn't know how to fix it. --Kitty2008 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It's so hard to make things look good on every combination of browser and computer! I don't think it's really fixable without a lot of reorganization by someone who (a) knows what they are doing, and (b) is seeing the same problem you are. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's okay! Didn't mean to make a big deal out of it! Thanks. Kitty2008 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized it only did that when I hid the "contents" box!! Silly of me. Kitty2008 14:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Doctoral Dissertation

I am not sure why mentioning the plagiarism of his dissertation in the same paragraph in which it is mentioned that he "earned" his degree is so hard to insert. A candid acknowledgment of this when the degree is first mentioned does nothing to diminish his contributions to social justice, while it does keep the article factually accurate. I know many of you here are like me, either have or are working on postgraduate degrees. IMHO it is disingenuous to bury the corroborated fact of his plagiarism so far down in the article.Can anyone give me good reason why it should not be mentioned at the same time as the awarding of the degree is mentioned, and then amplified in a subsequent section?Die4Dixie 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read Undue weight: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
The article has a section concerning King's plagiarism, and it links to an article about it. It is shown in the Table of Contents directly above the paragraph in which you wish to add it. Gratuitous mention of it is unnecessary and adds undue weight. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue by not including it in the same place as the awarding of the degree diminishes the weight that it is due. Are there any other contributers to this page who would like to offer an opinion? I think the mention of this so far down in the article is an attempt to bury the information.Die4Dixie 03:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Malik is exactly correct. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


JP, am I to understand that you believe that a plagiarized dissertation is not significant to the awarding of a degree on which it and its defense is based, or is it only in this very special case? If it weren't significant, then no dissertation would be necessary to be awarded a doctorate.Die4Dixie 17:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Understand whatever you want; it's not what I said, however. What I said is that Malik is correct about undue weight. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Which statement of Mailk is correct, the statement that such a thing as undue weight exists, and its definition, or that mentioning of the plagiarism and the degree awarded at the same time is undue weight? Perhaps even both statements? Could you please clarify the ambiguity , as i am trying to build a consensus?Die4Dixie 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What ambiguity? Malik is exactly correct. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the the only two who have made any real contributions recently are of the same opinion, and i will acknowledge a consensus. I propose to separate the plagiarism from the ghost writing, as most public speakers employ them. I would like to incorporate a quote from the NY times attributed to the Boston University investigative committee that said that the reason for not stripping the degree posthumously from King was because it," ... would serve no purpose..." to do so. I would like to see the original source for the Snopes contention that the degree was not stripped because the dissertation made an intelligent contribution to scholarship and am trying to track it down. As soon as I get back home, and I figure out how to properly attribute the Times' article, I hope to incorporate it into the article. I'll run the changes past you both here first.Die4Dixie 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd have to agree with Die4Dixie here. The fact that plagiarism was found in his dissertation is relevant and can be mentioned in passing as soon as the degree is mentions. Something like:
In September 1951, King began doctoral studies in Systematic Theology at Boston University and received his Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) on June 5, 1955 (but see #Plagiarism for controversy regarding this degree).
Such a parenthetical remark would not, in my opinion, violate the undue weight principle. Phiwum 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. Malik and Josh?Die4Dixie 21:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • No. It's not sufficiently important (in my opinion, of course) that it needs yet another mention in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Phiwum, you wouldn't happen to be an academician who has either defended a dissertation or been a major professor for a doctoral candidate, would you? If so, is plagiarism an important issue at your institution? Is plagiarism considered in the awarding of a postgraduate degree? As Malik so succinctly points out:

...but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

I guess the fundamental question is if plagiarizing a doctoral dissertation is significant to the degree for which it was awarded.Die4Dixie 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am an academic and of course plagiarism in one's dissertation is a serious charge. Nonetheless, I tend to agree that in this context, it's not of fundamental importance to understanding King's life and contributions. But, when we say that he received a PhD, it is perfectly natural to acknowledge controversy and direct the interested reader to the appropriate section. Kent Hovind's article mentions that his PhD is from an unaccredited school as soon as it mentions the PhD. I imagine that no one wants the allegations of plagiarism to be unduly stressed, but we seem to disagree on how much attention is too much. Partly this is a matter of taste, but I really don't see how my suggestion is all that controversial. Phiwum 01:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Die4Dixie, the fundamental question is giving plagiarism "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." But this isn't an article about a doctoral dissertation, it's a biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. Is plagiarism so significant to his life that it deserves more weight than his Nobel Peace Prize? It already gets more attention in this article than the Nobel Prize. It gets more weight than the dissertation itself. How much more weight would you like to give it? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would venture that the plagiarism is just as important as the degree, as the two subjects cannot be severed from each other. It only seems, IMHO, that you cannot mention one with out immediately mentioning the other. The subsection that i want to insert this into is his "Early Life", the time in which he was awarded the degree. When it appears under that heading, it seems to deserve more weight. The subsection is not entitled "HIS Whole Life". The Nobel prize red herring is a straw man argument, since the subsection doesn't deal with his whole life.Die4Dixie 23:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, the degree isn't important at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Then why does the majority of the world know him as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? I would think that if the culmination of four years of graduate studies was a plagiarized dissertation, then, as a significant portion of his adult life, it is important.Die4Dixie 23:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. If "the plagiarism is just as important as the degree", what would you like to do? Cut back the section on plagiarism so that it gets the same weight as the degree, or beef up the section on the degree so it has the same weight as the plagiarism?
  2. The Nobel Prize isn't a red herring. The whole point of WP:Undue weight is that an article is supposed to try to include the different aspects of the subject in rough proportion to their importance to the subject of the article. This is an article about King, so the question is the importance of an issues to King. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I myself would be happy for the original insertion that you removed to be reinserted. Again, your arguments are straw man arguments. I say you let it be inserted and you worry about the rest of the balancing since it seems like you have the ideas. I , as I have said above, believe that the culmination of 4 years of his life in graduate school, (where likely much of was spent preparing the dissertation) was the plagiarized paper. Using your fuzzy logic, I suppose we could divide the amount of years (4) by his total adult life, and devote the resulting percentage to his plagiarism. Seems like a balance since the article IS about his life.Die4Dixie 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I clarified some of the weaslely worded section on his plagiarism. i'm still not finished , as i haven't been back home to lay my hands on the article. the content was not significantly altered.Die4Dixie 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

actually, i think ill just wait until i have the article in front of me.Die4Dixie 22:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Assaination Question

Isn't there a famous photo of him with an unknown man standing next to him right after he was assasinated? I didn't see anything about it (or the picture), maybe someone could shed light and maybe add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReignMan (talk • contribs) 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson claims to have been by his side when he died.... Maybe it was he12.214.23.80 Die4Dixie 06:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, the two famous photos associated with the assassination are this, with people pointing in the direction from which the shot came, and this, taken on April 3, the day before the assassination. If there is a picture of King after he was killed, the other person was most likely Ralph David Abernathy, who was King's closest associate and the first person on the scene after King was shot.
I think Jackson's claim has been shown to be wishful thinking:
Wishful thinking might be the kindest interpretation;) Perhaps you could edit the Jesse Jackson article to reflect this since it claims that he was. After the controversy generated by my plagiarism insertion on the MLK page, I dare not touch that article with a ten foot pole. Die4Dixie 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to be gentle :-) The Jackson article simply says that he "was present with King in Memphis when he was assassinated on April 4, 1968", which is true. "Present" is vague enough that Jackson could have been in his own room down the hall and he would have been "present with King in Memphis", since he had come to Memphis as part of King's leadership circle. Thankfully the article doesn't repeat Jackson's claim that he held King, or that he had King's blood on his shirt. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)