Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Misattributed quote

This block of text, in various forms, has been posted by people in response to the death of Osama bin Laden:

I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.

Mentioned in "Out of Osama's Death, a Fake Quotation Is Born" by Megan McArdle, The Atlantic (May 2011), and widely distributed on twitter as a quote of King, after the death of Osama bin Laden, the first sentence is one written by Jessica Dovey on twitter, which became combined with genuine statements of King, whom she quoted, and which occur in Strength to Love (1963), Ch. 5 : Loving your enemies, and in Where Do We Go from Here : Chaos or Community? (1967), p. 62

-kslays (talk • contribs) 13:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Can we edit the page to reflect his professional title? I mean, he did earn the right to be referrred to as Dr., no?Taharqa (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

King's sermon on communism

There was a section about certain claims that Rev. King was connected to communism or communists, and many sources were used about the issue. However, no source said anything about what King himself said about the communist ideology. I added a sermon quote that he said and wrote personally, and that quote cannot be more authentic and incontrovertible as it came straight from his book. A couple editors kept deleting it. I am not going to unilaterally restore it for now, instead I want to get a second opinion here and get the editors who deleted it to explain a little bit more here. I hope a resolution can be accomplished on the matter. Wandering Courier (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If King's views concerning communism are notable, it shouldn't be hard to find a secondary source that emphasizes them. By selecting that quote out of a sermon (a primary source), you may be giving undue weight to something minor in King's life. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with Malik, per WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. Kierzek (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that when the issue is Dr. King's view of Communism, a direct quote from him on the subject should be an acceptable common-sense exception to the policy against primary sources. And since Dr. King's enemies consistently accused him of being a Communist, or a Communist sympathizer, his actual publicly-expressed views on Communism seem to me to be worth noting in the article. Brucehartford (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael?

I was surprised to read in the Italian WP that he was born "Michael". Nonsense, I thought, but googling 'michael luther king' does give results, nobelprize.org, for example. Rothorpe (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes his name wasn't Martin Luther King "Junior", since his father was called born Michael, as was the good Doctor. Neither legally changed their name.Gymnophoria (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Legally changed" is a tough question; I don't know what the laws in Georgia were at the time, but in many places, one changed ones name simply by changing ones name (that is, it doesn't require anyone's permission). At any rate, MLK Sr. said that the name "Michael" on Jr's birth certificate was a mistake by the attending physician, which is a pretty good source. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

There's no section about his personal life and family, although various elements are threaded throughout the text. The allegations of adultery are interesting but the section focuses on the fact that the FBI used it in attempts to discredit him. The implication of this in the test is that it was a lie, but that isn't proven. This article is generally rather laudatory of King, I'd be interested to see a bit more balance. He was a real man with real flaws, after all. Even if it's true that he enjoyed the company of white prostitutes, that doesn't mean he still wasn't a great man.Gymnophoria (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems balanced with no great bias. What do you have in mind?? Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Republican

We ought to add the fact in the info box on the side of the page that he supported the Republican Party. 09:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

he supported liberal Democrats, say his biographers--not Ike, Nixon or Goldwater. Some oddball a few years back put up billboards claiming without evidence he was a Republican. Rjensen (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Talk page archives. Nobody has been able to find any reliable sources that say which political party King belonged to. I believe he probably was a registered Republican, but it's all about the sources (or in this case, the lack thereof). (Also note: Being "registered" with a party does not necessarily mean a person "supported" all, or most, of the party's candidates.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

While I'm usually in agreement with Malik's astute edits and comments, on this one I have to again point out that Dr. King could not have been a registered Republican (or Democrat) because in Alabama and Georgia in that era party-affiliation was not included in the voter-registration process (see Alabama Application Form). Since voters could not register as a member of any particular party, it was entirely up to party officials to determine who was eligible to vote the party primaries. This was one of the extra-legal ploys segregationists used to maintain all-white primaries despite the Supreme Court's ruling that they were unconstitutional. Brucehartford (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I didn't know that about party registration. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see a WP:RS that establishes the lack of documentability of the party affiliation so we could just point to it and put the noise to rest. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've never been entirely clear on the criteria for a WP:RS, but the Civil Rights Movement Veterans web site contains both an explanation of the issue and copies of the actual voter application forms from Alabama and Mississippi on which there is no provision for stating party affiliation:

Mississippi Voter Application and Literacy Test

Alabama Application Form

What's Missing From This Form?

Brucehartford (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! I'd never seen those loathsome things before. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is some directly sourced material I'd been meaning to ad for a while. I mentioned this back in a now archived discussion on this article, but wanted to list it here again for comments. And then hopefully add it to the article with no controversy. My goal would be to generate as much light here on a topic that has often generated just non-sourced heat. Here is what I'd like to add:

Martin Luther King and Public Stance on US Political Parties

As the leader of the SCLC, King had a policy of not publicly endorsing a political party or candidate: "I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both - not the servant or master of either."

Elsewhere he discussed his views that both parties had their own weaknesses, saying, "I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses." and closed with, " And I'm not inextricably bound to either party." And King certainly did critique both parties performance on promoting racial equality: "Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights."

Martin Luther King Jr's Personal Political Advocacy

Although King never publicly supported either US political party or Candidate for President, in a letter he wrote in 1956, he said that although he was unsure of who to vote for in the election between Stevenson and the moderate Eisenhower, that "In the past I always voted the Democratic Ticket."

And he later describes how in 1960, Martin Luther King privately voted for democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one," but then he ads that he would have likely made an exception to his policy of non-endorsement in 1964, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."

Quotation sources:

First quote: books.google.com/..so+that..

Second quote: standford.edu..1

Third quote: books.google.com/..Actually+the..

Fourth Quote: standford.edu..2

Fifth Quote: standford.edu..3 Timothyjchambers (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of Communist connections

The huge, four paragraph section on "Allegations of Communist connections" is a good example of UNDUE smearing and entirely misplaced. King quite explicitly criticized Communism and its flawed philosophy in Strength to Love (1963). Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I just re-read that section and see no smearing of King (by Wikipedia), though some of the wordy reiteration might be called undue. Nothing ties King to communism; rather one can easily read the FBI's persistence in the face of continued failure to find anything incriminating as indications of right-wing, pro–status quo (which at the time included segregation and discrimination) paranoia on the part of its leadership. Based on a reasonable reading of the content, the "FBI and wiretapping" section could be renamed "Harassment by the FBI" – except that such a title would certainly fail NPOV. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hundreds of notable people were falsely accused of being communists during that era. It doesn't merit four huge paragraphs in his biography. The entire incident can be condensed into a paragraph. You seem to forget that for several years on Wikipedia, we had editors trying to paint King and others as communists. This section appears to be a relic from that time. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I re-read the section and have to agree with Fat&Happy. I just tightened it up and took out some redundancy. Levison did have ties to the communist party in the USA but, by 1963 had left it. I wrote the cited middle section as to the wiretaps sometime ago, and can assure you that part is factually correct and meets NPOV. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your assessment. Eight paragraphs of "allegations" in a BLP is unheard of, especially at a higher class level like FA. Please take a moment to review Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. There are virtually no allegations of their personal character at all, even though there are numerous sources on the subject. There appears to be a continuing campaign to paint MLK as a Communist and an adulterer, and to devote eight paragraphs to such allegations is entirely undue. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, first, there is not need for allegations. There is no "continuing campaign" against MLK's personal life. The article, when one reads it is clear and cited. As you asked, I reviewed Nixon's bio. article. I see that Watergate is covered, the impeachment hearings against Nixon are mentioned, the drafting of the articles of impeachment is covered (although, all could include some more detail). The sections on his "Legacy" and "Personality and public image" are covered, warts and all. I will say there is better concision to that article, overall; and I did some concision work on MLK, Jr. yesterday; more of that can be done as long as the factual and historical points of the man and his times are not lost. So, I agree further concision work could be done; I am always in favor of that on articles. I have also asked a main author of this article to look into it. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you looked at other encyclopedia articles on this subject to see how they cover it? Allegations aren't usually given this much space in a biography article and dont accurately represent the life of the man. Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Viriditas's argument. Eight good-sized paragraphs seems like a lot to devote to allegations about King. On further inspection, though, it looks to me like almost half of the section titled "Allegations of Communist connections" is a defense of King or a damning of the FBI. The following section, "Allegations of adultery", has no such balance, perhaps because there is general consensus about King's womanizing.

Can the second section, "Allegations of adultery", be shortened without losing its impact? I think it can.

Viriditas, would that address some of your concerns? If not, could you offer specific suggestions? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of problems to deal with, and I'm just pointing out a few in this thread. There is problematic wording throughout the article. For an example of the kind of problems we are dealing with throughout this article, look at the lead. It says that "King is often presented as a heroic leader in the history of modern American liberalism." This statement is sourced to Krugman, 2007, 85. Looking at the source, we see that the relevant information is actually on p. 84 not 85 (this is due to the 2009 reprint), and we find that the original passage in question does not reflect the material: "Forty years on the freedom riders are regarded as heroes and Martin Luther King has become a national icon, a symbol of the better angels of America's nature." (84) Nothing about the history of modern American liberalism. Where the hell did that come from then? It's certainly not in the source. Further, we see that the use of specific words are problematic. "King is often presented as a heroic leader", implies that King may not be considered a heroic leader. Compare with the lack of ambiguity in Ronald Reagan's lead: "He ranks highly in public opinion polls of U.S. Presidents and is credited for generating an ideological renaissance on the American political right." Notice how he is "credited", not "presented as". Also notice little to no criticism of Reagan's "deregulation of the economy" which has been implicated as the foundation for the Savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. In fact, the word "Reagan" does not appear anywhere in our article on that economic crisis. But eight paragraphs alleging that King was a communist and an adulterer is perfectly acceptable? This is par for the course. We have had a documented case of whitewashing of conservative figures throughout Wikipedia and a constant smearing and undue weight placed on so-called liberal articles. This has been going on for years. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, since you have looked into the lede and cites that were used there, I would suggest you re-write it. There is no need to say, "often presented", I agree. I would suggest, King is considered a heroic leader... or "Martin Luther King has become a national icon", which appears to be the exact quote, and then the cite. As to what other editors have done or not done, on articles such as Ronald Reagan, I don't know; I have a hard enough time keeping up with the ones I follow and edit on; if you feel some articles are lacking then I would encourage you to edit and add to them. Kierzek (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I made the change of that part of the lede sentence. Changed section and sub-section titles to be more NPOV; edits for concision. Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for minor improvement

I have a single suggestion for a minor improvement in the article. In the section "Legacy", I think that the first paragraph should be changed to delete the bolded section: "King's main legacy was to secure progress on civil rights in the United States, which has enabled more Americans to reach their potential. The last part of the sentence seems too airy for an encyclopedia entry (define more Americans? potential for what?) and I think that the sentence is actually stronger by focusing on his concrete achievements. Another alternative would be to keep the second part of the sentence but rewrite it to make the statement more definite, though I am currently having writers block on how to do this.

Jjc16 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ghandi and Rustin section

We would like to replace the first sentence in the Gandhi and Rustin paragraph with the following:

Now:

Gandhi and Rustin With assistance from the Quaker group the American Friends Service Committee, and inspired by Gandhi's success with non-violent activism, King visited Gandhi's birthplace in India in 1959.

Proposed revision:

In 1958 King discussed with his friend, blues singer and long time civil rights activist, Libby Holman, a possible trip to India to explore Gandhi's success with non-violent activism. (Branch ) She had confidence in King and encouraged him, providing the majority of funds necessary for the trip. (King, Coretta) (6 pg. 139-140) The money was allotted by her Christopher Reynolds Foundation to the Quaker group the American Friends Service Committee. (King, Ebony) Additional support for the trip came from the Montgomery Improvement Association and King's own congregation. King visited Gandhi's birthplace in India in 1959. [6]:3

References:

Branch, Taylor (1988). Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954–1963. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671460978. pg 208

King, Coretta Scott (1993) [1969]. My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr. Henry Holth & Co. ISBN 080502445X. pg 173

6^ a b c d e King, Jr., Martin Luther; Carson, Clayborne; Holloran, Peter; Luker, Ralph; Russell, Penny A. (1992). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. University of California Press. ISBN 0520079507. (pg. 139-140)

King, Martin Luther, "My Trip to the Land of Ghandi," Ebony Magazine, 1959 http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/590701_my_trip_to_the_land_of_gandhi

Rationale: It is often reported that the Quakers provided the funds for King's transformational trip to India. It is actually well documented that his friend and civil rights activist, Libby Holman, provided the funds to the Quaker group for tax purposes. The special relationship between Libby Holman, her husband, artist Louis Schanker and the Kings lasted throughout their lives. (http://www.louisschanker.info/photos/SchankerCorettaKingBD.pdf) This modification is proposed to correct this inaccuracy. We were not sure how to document the references because of the large number already on the site. Some are already there.

Thanks for all that you do! Lounflo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lounflo (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Lounflo (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Name is Michael not Martin

Seeing is there is no evidence the man changed his name to Martin, and it well documented he was given the name Michael at birth, why does this page have him listed as Martin Luther King? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebMachiavelli (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed several times before. Please review the Talk page archives at the top of this page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

LGBT and Martin Luther King

CNN posted an interesting article about MLK and views about LGBT issues

• Blake, John. "What did MLK think about gay people?" CNN. January 16, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Color Blind Society innaccurate and misleading

I deleted the term "color-blind" society because this term is not only misleading, but it is a code word for a political philosophy that it seems unlikely that Martin Luther King would have supported. The words "not judged by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character" does not mean the same thing as "color blind" (i.e. unable to see color).

Worse is that the phrase "colorblind society" is almost always used today in a political context in opposition to affirmative action, or hate crime laws. It seems at least questionable that Dr. King would have agreed with the people who are now using this phrase.

This phrase is at best misleading, and at worse an attempt to support a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physteacher (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

In the first paragraph of the 'Legacy' section, the following line:

'...on the basis of race, religion, or national origin (later expnded to include sex, familial status, and disability).'

should be changed to become:

'...on the basis of race, religion, or national origin (later expanded to include sex, familial status, and disability).'

Thank you.

Gravitybender (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it; thanks. (I really need to get that keyboard replaced...) Fat&Happy (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal life: tone

I do find the section about his 'adultery' rather mealy-mouthed and verbose. Can we not assume that given his undoubted significance in the civil rights movement and the fact that he's been dead for many decades, we can now state the facts crisply, plainly and like grown-ups, as befits an encyclopedia entry? Sartoresartus (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for changes

There's a lot we could do to improve this article, and the set of articles surrounding MLK in general. Some ideas, in order of obviousness:

• Modify section on 'adultery' – above commenter is correct, and also there is totally unrelated material in this section!
• Shrink & clarify assassination section in main article; improve assassination article itself!
• Make FBI surveillance its own section (this is not a subset of "personality and public image") — in fact, it probably makes sense to create a new article on "FBI & MLK"
• Tidy up section on opposition to war, make it easier to read, possibly add subsections
• Emphasize (more) in lead section and in appropriate subsections how his philosophy changed from a limited focus on equal rights to a broader opposition to class inequality and warfare

love, groupuscule (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. can we do a section covering King's stance on the relationship between racial inequality and economic inequality? Obviously the article is pretty big already, but this is a huge issue, on the same level at least as King's opposition to the war. Perhaps some mention of this 1961 speech, "If the Negoro Wins, Labor Wins", in addition to coverage of later efforts like the Poor People's Campaign. groupuscule (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is in pretty good shape overall. I do believe the section header which had been present of "Personality and public image" was better for grouping the sub-sections below it together but with that said, can live without it. I did add back in "surveillance and wiretapping", as they are two different things. I do like the overview intro you wrote Groupuscule. I tweaked the "Allegations of adultery" sub-section, to tightened it up; otherwise I don't see how it has "totally unrelated" material. It is all well known and cited. I do think the sub-section should be re-named to "Extra-marital relationships". As far as a section covering King's stance on "the relationship between racial inequality and economic inequality"; that is touched upon but, you can certainly add to it. You may consider a new article on same and link it to this main article, as well. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Unrelated material" was regarding FBI & assassination, now in a different section. This paragraph is still rather sloppy—doesn't actually make anything clear about the FBI's relationship to the event. As far as a new article goes, I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe something like "Martin Luther King's beliefs" or something like that. Anyway, there's other stuff to work on first. You're right about the name of the section, since there's stuff about his personal life independent of the FBI. Maybe a good name would be "The FBI and King's personal life". Thanks for your edits! groupuscule (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking, the section herein on the "Poor People's Campaign" and/or Poor People's Campaign main article would be where to consider your additions/thoughts on "the relationship between racial inequality and economic inequality"; check them out and see what you think. Hmmm, we can go with the section header ("The FBI and King's personal life") you suggest unless you or someone states something better. And I agree, you may want to add (by ce from the main article) a little bit more as to the FBI and the assassination. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and change the section header, per above. Kierzek (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Best known"

King is definitely best known as a civil rights leader. It's not clear whether "non-violence" is also part of what he's best known for. It is probably clear to anyone editing this article that the non-violent "icon of American liberalism" King is a pretty pared-down version of the man himself and his impact while he was alive. (Then again, maybe this version is what's best known, now, within white America?) I'm not suggesting that we hammer this discrepancy home in the lead, but I'm not sure if we need to use this unsupported claim about what he's best known for. (A quick web search for "martin luther king best known" turns up mostly 'civil rights', then 'I had a dream'.) Well, I'm curious to know the thoughts of others, since lord knows I have no idea what's really 'best known'. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

He is definitely best known as a civil rights leader. It is also widely known that he advocated non-violent methods, so I don't see a need to change the wording in the lead (especially since the "civil rights" part is placed before the "non-violence" part).--Green4liberty (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Birth Name

Someone reverted his birth name (but not everywhere in the article) so I thought I'd mention it here.

The King Center itself says quite clearly that MLK Jr.'s birthname was Michael King (http://www.thekingcenter.org/upbringing-studies)

... Martin Luther King, Jr., named Michael King at birth, spent his first twelve years in the Auburn Avenue home that his parents, the Reverend Michael King and Alberta Williams King

After Rev. Williams’ death in 1931, his son-in-law Rev. Martin Luther King, Sr. became Ebenezer Baptist Church’s new pastor and gradually established himself as a major figure in state and national Baptist groups. The elder King began referring to himself (and later to his son) as Martin Luther King.

I looked at the archived discussion of this, and it basically came down to Snopes (who was unsure) vs. the Autobiography of Martin Luther King and Nobel.org and PBS (who all stated his birth name as Michael King).

With the addition of The King Center itself as a source, I think it's pretty clear that this was his birthname. By the way, the reason I started looking into this was because MLK Sr.'s article itself says as much. --Quasipalm (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The tough part is that King Sr. said that the doctor made an error. Seems to me that King Sr.'s recollection of the naming of his child very well might be correct, and trump whatever essentially undocumented data anyone else is asserting to be correct. Anyway, I changed the header to correspond exactly to what the King Center says: not "born Michael King", which is kinda screwy anyway since nobody is born with a name (yes, I know it's a common expression), but "named" Michael King, which is arguably correct if what one is "named" is defined as "what the doctor assumed and recorded". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right that's a better wording. --Quasipalm (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A good editor needed

This article seems rather messy to me. For example, the timeline hops around. In addition, the text is rocky and could benefit from reworking. For example, why is text about King's funeral and the arrest of James Earl Ray included under the "Riots" topic? The different sections have a poor flow and readily exhibit that they were written by various people. I have no experience as a real editor, no more than many WP "editors", and am therefore not qualified. King deserves better. Thanks for your time, Wordreader (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Bringing to Good Article status

This one seems long overdue to be brought to good article status. The main objection in the 2008 review appears to have been that the article was 35kb of readable prose instead of a desired 50kb. Now that the article is 52kb, I think it may be time to take another run. I'll do a copyedit over the next few days, discussing any changes that seem likely to be controversial on this page. Then I'll renominate unless further research seems to be needed. Any help would be welcome! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• One largish change that I made was to break up the three-sentence section "Sermons and speeches" to distribute into the rest of the article. The "Sermons and Speeches of MLK" subarticle is linked in See Also, the Nobel Prize is described in the awards section, and the I Have a Dream (and its audio) is also in the chronological section below, so this section appeared largely redundant, save for this block quotation:

"All I'm saying is simply this, that all life is interrelated, that somehow we're caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality."

I'm not sure this is an essential enough MLK quotation that it has to be in the article, but if anybody feels that it is, maybe we can find another spot to work it back in.-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I removed another block quotation, which appears to have been misidentified as coming from a separate speech (it's also from "Beyond Vietnam"):

"We were taking the young black men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. ... We have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them in the same schools."

It's a great quotation, but we have a lot of article text on "Beyond Vietnam" compared to "How Long, Not Long" or "I Have a Dream" at this point, and it seems to me to be getting a little undue. Incidentally, once I'm done with my first pass of the article, I'm going to go back and add a bit of text on "I Have a Dream"; it deserves at least a few sentences, as probably the most famous moment in MLK's life, and one of the most famous speeches in the history of the country. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I removed the following text from the "recognition" section, since both appear to me a bit trivial compared to the other recognitions of MLK's life (Nobel Prize, Congressional Medal of Honor, etc.):

In 2002, scholar Molefi Kete Asante listed King on his list of 100 Greatest African Americans.

In 2011, comparing the record of the leaderless Occupy movement in creating meaningful change with the civil rights movement, Malcolm Gladwell described King as "one of the foremost tacticians of the 20th century."

• I integrated the two-sentence section "Capital memorial" into the recognition section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I removed a list of actors who have portrayed MLK in films and TV as trivia; it seems to me that the 1kb of readable prose this takes up would be better spent elucidating MLK's life, providing quotations from speeches, etc. If this is a notable topic, perhaps it can be moved to a subarticle along the lines of Abraham Lincoln cultural depictions, but frankly the list seems rather meager, mostly consisting of bit parts; half of the actors on it don't even have Wikipedia articles. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I removed a clarification needed tag from "According to biographer Taylor Branch, King's autopsy revealed that though only 39 years old, he "he had the heart of a 60 year old", which Branch attributed to the stress of 13 years in the civil rights movement." -- the metaphor for a poor-quality heart seems to me pretty straightforward, and in any case, the source gives no further clarification. If this statement can't stand on its own, I suggest we simply remove it. I think it's okay as is, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I reduced the information about Ray's travels through the prison/legal system a bit. The important thing here seems to me the conviction and the allegations of conspiracy, not when he fired a lawyer, escaped for a week, etc. (though of course these belong in his article and the assassination article).[1] -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I removed "inexplicably" from a sentence about shrubbery "which had been inexplicably cut away in the days following the assassination", as it seems editorializing; it's also surely not correct to say that the cutting down of shrubs "cannot possibly be explained". -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I changed a "refuted" to "criticized" to avoid the sense that Pepper definitively disproved the opposing arguments. [2] -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I've taken the brief (4-5 sentence) criticism section and integrated it into appropriate sections of the article. [3] -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I removed this two-sentence paragraph for being unsourced and rather vague. It's surely true, but doesn't mean much:

"King continues to be frequently referenced as a human rights icon. His name and legacy have often been invoked since his death as people have debated his likely position on various modern political issues." [4] -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just as I removed the list of films about MLK, I also removed this mention of two plays about MLK. Since neither even has its own Wikipedia article yet, they don't appear particularly notable; I'm not sure they make the cut as some of the most important details of MLK's life. The text I removed is below:

King's life and assassination inspired many artistic works. A 1976 Broadway production, I Have a Dream, was directed by Robert Greenwald and starred Billy Dee Williams as King. In spring of 2006, a stage play Passages of Martin Luther King about King was produced in Beijing, China with King portrayed by Chinese actor, Cao Li. The play was written by Stanford University professor Clayborne Carson. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I removed the mention of his winning the Pacem in Terris Award of the Catholic Diocese of Davenport, Iowa, as it's a bit trivial for someone winning things like Nobels, Grammys, federal holidays, etc. The only source was a dead link to a Quad Cities, Iowa newspaper.[5] -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I removed some of the more miscellaneous links from the External Links section.[6] -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's it for me for today. Tomorrow I'm going to try to expand a few points, particularly adding a quotation from and 2-sentence summary of the "I Have a Dream" speech. Please let me know if anyone disagrees with my changes above--I'm glad to discuss. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for GA review, and should have my initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in advance--looking forward to working with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • For an article of this length, the lead could be expanded (not more paragraphs, just larger ones). For example, nothing of the controversy surrounding his death is mentioned in the lead, and there is only one sentence on his interactions with the FBI, which are given a significant portion of the body of the article.

   • I've expanded the lead to cover each section of the article now, I think.

   • Early life and education, "An academic inquiry concluded portions" When was this inquiry made?

   • Added.

   • Early life and education, "(See Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues.)" Is there a more elegant way to integrate this link this than leaving in hanging out at the end of the paragraph in parentheses? Perhaps in a sentence about other authorship issues?

   • The problem was that that article covers alleged plagiarism in his speeches as well as dissertation, so other editors objected to it being linked from the dissertation review. For now I've just moved it down to the "See Also" section.

   • Basic income guarantee - this section seems very short and choppy, no where near as filled out as the other paragraphs. If this was an important part of King's philosophy, it should be expanded. If it wasn't, could it be combined with some other section of the article?

   • I've actually just cut it for now. This article was the first time I ran into this information about King, and it didn't show up in the two biographies I just read. If it turns up in some secondary sources, I'll re-add in an appropriate section, but for now this does stick out to me as odd.

   • SCLC, "King was stabbed in the chest..." Is there more information on this? Why did she stab him? What happened to her? How long did it take him to recover?

   • Expanded on this incident with Highbeam sources.

   • SCLC, "His SCLC secretary and personal assistant in this period was Dora McDonald." Why is this important?

   • It doesn't appear to be. Cut.

   • Albany movement, second paragraph, who is Chief Pritchett?

   • added fuller title and first name.

   • Albany movement, "But for the first time, we witnessed being kicked out of jail." Is there a word missing here?

   • Good question. There are sources with that wording [7][8] but also with "persons" added. I'll add persons for now, as it's also supported by sources and seems more likely to be correct.[9]

   • Allegations of adultery - Is there any knowledge of his wife's reaction to these affairs?

   • Good suggestion. Publicly, she never let on that she cared; I added a quotation to this effect.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Five dead links in references and external links, per this tool, and one dead link tag in the article.

   • The dead links flagged there have been addressed, except for the Tikkun, which appears to me to still be live. I removed the two from external links, removed a minor claim one was supporting (an award from the govt. of Jamaica), and replaced another with a live link.

   • I'm not sure what ref #46 (Extract of Pearson) is being used for. It appears to be a Google Books link to the book listed in #45, but why are they both needed to reference the same sentence?

   • Cut.

   • What makes ref #176 (Jones, Nate) a reliable source? The sentence it is referencing is already supported by another source, so I'm unsure of the need for a blog post.

   • Replaced.

   • Is there a title available for ref #182 (Newsweek: p. 62,)?

   • This ref, and the two after it, don't seem to be needed at all. Replaced with one directly to the book.

   • Could refs #183 and 185 (Abernathy, Ralph David) be combined?

   • One was eliminated.

   • Could refs #175 and 191 (Christensen, Jen) be combined?

   • Done.

   • Ref #216 (NAACP Spingarn Medal) needs a publisher and access date.

   • Added fuller citation.

   • I'm unsure of the purpose of ref #229 (The Episcopal and Lutheran Churches...), as it seems to be mostly duplicated in the article text.

   • Good point. Removed.

   • Several of the books in the References section don't seem to be actually used as references. Should these be moved to the further reading section?

   • Done, I think.

   • The book reference and page formatting is all over the board - I see at least three different styles used. While this isn't something that needs to be rectified for GA, it would be nice to have the article standardized, and it is required if you plan to take the article to FAC.

   • Yeah, I started to clean this up the other day, but was discouraged from continuing by the article's incredibly slow save/load time. I think the problem is having not only 200 reference templates, but for many of them a second template to give the page number and a third to list the work in the bibliography. I think I may try to switch these all over to sfn format to see if it helps the load time issue. I'll set aside a chunk of time later this week when I can try to do it most or all of it at once.

   • Cool. Like I said, this isn't necessary for GA status, but would be really nice. I concur re: the load issue - just trying to make a couple of copyediting tweaks took me a while, because the article took so long to load and save. Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

   • I'll work on it on and off today, shouldn't take too long if I put my mind to it. It'd be nice to try to ease the load time issue, and it's a good way to doublecheck all the sources at the same time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall this is a very nice piece of work on an extremely influential man. I found a few prose and referencing issues that need to be addressed, but nothing serious. Overall, the article feels a little heavy on quotes, but so many of them are so powerful that I have a hard time seeing how they could be reworded. Perhaps take a look through and see what you think at a macro level? I'm putting the article on hold for now, Dana boomer (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

   At first glance, I agree with pretty much all your suggestions--thanks for the close read! While I've read a fair amount about MLK, I'm a relative newcomer to this article, so I haven't looked into all these issues in detail myself. I'll start work on the above in the next day or two. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

   The article is looking really nice. I think that as soon as the last few issues are finished (the couple of things in the prose section, the lead and the dead links, from what I can see), we should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

   I think that's everything, but let me know if you see anything I missed. Thanks again for the close look. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry for taking a couple of days to get back to this. After another look at the article, I think it's ready for promotion to GA status. A couple of further comments, not related to GA status:

• Ref #231 ( "Biographical Outline of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.") is a deadlink. This information looks to be backed up by another source, so I'm not all that worried about it.
• The St. Augustine and Selma sections are quite short and choppy, and don't flow like the rest of the article. Perhaps some thought should be given to expanding these or combining them with other sections?
• The ref work you've been doing looks good, and is lowering the size and load time of the article.
• Do you have plans to take the article to FAC in the future? If so, and you'd like more comments, let me know, and I'll look over the article with an eye aimed towards FAC.

Overall, though, we're good to go for GA. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Dana! That's great news. I know this was a big one to take on, but your suggestions have been a big help. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Slow load?

Anyone else notice the real slow load time for the article? I have recently learned that this is probably due to the extensive use of templates (particularly for citations), which every single time they're evaluated require computer processing at the secret Wikimedia bunker. I use them, too... but maybe we should try to decrease our reliance on them. Just a thought. groupuscule (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I think the problem is magnified by this article's use of multiple templates for many of the references--an initial reference, another template for the page number, a "see also" inside some of the references, and a separate listing for the bibliography. I'm going to try to corral these into a more standardized system using only 1 or 2 templates like sfn. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

namesake streets beyond America

From the article:

Hundreds of streets in the U.S. and beyond have been renamed in his honor.

All of the streets listed in the linked article are in the U.S. While the linked article does state, "There are also a number of other countries that have honored King, including no fewer than ten cities in Italy," there is no mention of streets outside the United States, and no source is cited for the "other countries that have honored King" in that article. I think a source is needed for the "and beyond" in this article. Capedia (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This blog suggests that the statement is factually accurate, and the places it lists can be Googled individually to confirm their existence.[10] But since I can't find a reliable secondary source to support the information for now I'll simply remove the offending two words from the article; while accurate, it's perhaps not significant enough to mention. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sentence from CMVets website

I removed a sentence earlier today sourced to www.crmvet.org and was startled to have it promptly restored by the site's webmaster. [11] With respect to the work that obviously goes into maintaining it, it's not clear to me that this website is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Is it possible to find the information you'd like to include in a more traditional Wikipedia source--a biography, a media organization, etc.? -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've again restored the sentence clause you deleted, and I ask you to stop deleting it. The clause reads: "Though the Albany effort was credited as a key lesson in tactics for Dr. King and the national civil rights movement,..." This is not a controversial statement, King himself said it, as have historians.

The real issue here is your assertion that Civil Rights Movement Veterans is not a valid source for reasons you do not explain. Obviously, I consider the site to be a valid Wiki source. The website is widely used by teachers across the country (see, for example this review by TeachingHistory.org). I, and others involved in the site are frequently asked to participate in Civil Rights related panels and projects by major universities and institutions including Stanford, Berkeley, and Smithsonian. Tomorrow I'm speaking at the Museum of the African Diaspora in San Francisco. Brucehartford (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally a website run by an individual, rather than a media organization, doesn't meet Wikipedia standards as a reliable secondary source; it's not a reflection on your scholarship generally. And it does set off alarm bells for me when an editor re-inserts his personal website into an article over the objections of an uninvolved editor. Can this information can be easily verified from a more recognizably reliable source that neither of us run? If so, let's just put that source in and resolve the issue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your website again, the statements about this are reasonably footnoted to sources that are in themselves reliable sources. I still don't think this is an ideal situation, but since this isn't a very controversial claim, I'm okay with it remaining in the article for now. Thanks for your contributions, -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Done my best to process a lot of the feedback, sorry if anything slipped through. Main themes:

• Need to improve pictures
• Emphasis on siblings, family and children
• References in popular culture

I've tried to remove as many duplicate entries as possible from the list. Keep up your excellent work on this well-written article. LT90001 (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Addition of image

I would not be surprised is some readers are disturbed by the mugshot I added to this article today. I see no better way to balance the way the page's use of images fails to appropriately convey the way Rev King was often mistreated (to use a mild phrase) by many of those with formal and informal authority in the US. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism Sentence

So I was reading through the article, and the following sentence caught my eye: "An academic inquiry concluded in October 1991 that portions of his dissertation had been plagiarized and he had acted improperly, but that his dissertation still "makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship"; the committee recommended that his degree not be revoked." When you go to the source that's cited at the end of that sentence, the source makes no mention of "an intelligent contribution to scholarship", but merely states that the committee recommended that the degree not be revoked because revoking the degree would serve no purpose at this time. I suggest that the sentence be edited to properly represent the cited source. I would do it, but I'm guessing that this is a controversial issue, so I wanted to bring it up on the talk page first.

Idag (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Three sources are cited: an article by Charles A. Radin in the Boston Globe dated 11 October, 1991 (the main source); a short anonymous piece in the New York Times dated 11 October, 1991 (which does not include the quote); and a long piece (dated July, 2003) collected via email in snopes.

The relevant part of the snopes piece appears to be a full version of Radin's report (compare it with the two opening paragraphs of Radin's report, being the only ones viewable free at highbeam. In any event, both the teaser in highbeam and the snopes reprint of Radin's article reproduce the quote. At first glance it looks like a comment by BU Provost Jon Westling, but he is clearly represented by Radin as quoting from the committee's statement. OTOH, the treatment of MLK's plagiarism in the article is definitely light-weight. The academic committee was not administering a light rap over the knuckles. According to Radin (via snopes):

The committee found that King "is responsible for knowingly misappropriating the borrowed materials that he failed to cite or to cite adequately." It found a pattern of appropriation of uncited material "that is a straightforward breach of academic norms and that constitutes plagiarism as commonly understood." The letter to be attached to King's dissertation, Cartwright pointed out, "indicates there are serious improprieties and points readers to sources where they can find chapter and verse."

The doctoral studies of Doctor Martin Luther King deserve a separate sub-section. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually there's already an entire article on the issues. Perhaps a {{See also}} to that article in the Early life/education section section would be appropriate, but I don't see it as a major defining factor in the man's life requiring a separate section in his summary overall biography article. It seems that in spite of recognizing the transgression, the BU academic committee felt the same way. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it does not need a separate section. It is a good idea to have a link to the separae article on the doctoral studies and issues therein. Kierzek (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Liturgical commemoration

I just moved up the mention of the annual memorials of King by the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches and created a section 12.2 to balance section 12.1 (civil Martin Luther King Day observances). Yesterday, I had added his feast day to H&O for today, and I've had some feedback after similar additions that my additions of lectionary dates aren't supported by the underlying wikipedia articles. Thus, I added the section 12.2 to this article, only to have it reverted by Fat&Happy on grounds of duplication. Apparently, I had missed the mention in the very long and convoluted Section 13, probably because the mention of Episcopal and Lutheran feast days had been placed in the same paragraph (and after) as naming of a local government building in Harrisburg PA. Frankly, the liturgical and civil memorials don't seem of the same level, particularly given the importance of spirituality in Dr. King's life and career. Since this is a Good Article (and glancing at the reverter's page, he has promoted at least Rahm Emmanuel's article to Good Article status), I don't question his credibility, but I do suggest that this remain as Section 12.2. I also respectfully suggest that Section 13 be cleaned up, since it mixes both lifetime and posthumous achievement awards and recognitions, and I can't make out any internal organization of that section.Jweaver28 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

I've heard he was sexually promiscuous.

What truth if any in this?

See this: http://www.ibtimes.com/martin-luther-king-cheated-his-wife-other-lesser-known-facts-about-civil-rights-leader-mlk-day Fletcherbrian (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That subject is already covered; see the article, section 11. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Fletcherbrian (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

MLK Jr Bio

On Martin Luther King Jr the cointelpro stuff is just speculation that it followed him his whole life. Can it be deleted from his intro summary? Which is: " J. Edgar Hoover considered him a radical and made him an object of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's COINTELPRO for the rest of his life." Thank you Inferno360n (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Cross posted from User talk:Inferno360n as this page is also semi-protected. Nick (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Info seems to be reliably sourced in the relevant section Martin Luther King, Jr.#FBI and King's personal life Cannolis (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is properly cited information/fact per WP:RS in the main article and should remain in the WP:Lead as that is a summary of main article content. Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The name thing is it really Lead material?

IS this Lead material: He was born Michael King but his father, Martin Luther King, Sr., changed his name in honor of German 16th century Protestant reformer Martin Luther. Is this MLK,jr info you must have if you only could read this lead?--Inayity (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, especially since it's crap, at least according to his father, who said he named him Martin from the start, but the recording doctor assumed he was Michael Jr. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(Edit: See my comment just below this one) I think I may have fixed it by editing the sentence, with more clarity (compare the above "before" with: Named "Michael" at birth, in 1934 King's father changed both his and his son's name in honor of the 16th century Protestant reformer, Martin Luther. with a source from his father's page. I don't know enough about the circumstances of the name, what do other major sources say? If Dr. King's birth certificate name was other than 'Martin Luther King', and it wasn't changed until five years after his birth at the same time his father changed his own name, then a mention is not out of order, and hopefully polishing can smooth the sentence language. Randy Kryn 2:37 3 February, 2015 (UTC)

On third thought I just noticed that the name change is covered quickly in the article under 'Early life and education', as well as in the infobox, so I just did the Wikipedia-be-bold thing and took it out of the lead while padding the 'Early life and education' with the new reference and polishing it a bit. Seem okay? Randy Kryn 12:58 3 February, 2015 (UTC)

Length of lede

I'm sure this article has been polished and argued over from day one. I wouldn't presumre to change anything unless it were blatant vandalism. That said, in reading many biographical wiki articles, the lede on this one seems extremely long in comparison. Just sayin'...Rags (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing the life and accomplishments of Dr. King probably takes a little longer than, say, an infielder who played half a season for the Mets. Or the drummer of my mom's favorite boy band. The lead was actually cut down a little recently (see the section above this one). That said, if the Mets infielder actually had an evening gig as the drummer of the boy band, now we're talking lead. Randy Kryn 12:37 26 February, 2015 (UTC)

Orator

That statement that King "he established his reputation as one of the greatest orators in American history" is POV and unreferenced.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Role of Coretta King

This reference which is just an opinion without any evidence is totally insufficient to state what King's opinion about his wife's role was. it should be removed as totally POV. “During their marriage, King limited Coretta's role in the civil rights movement, expecting her to be a housewife and mother.[27 - Civil Rights History from the Ground Up: Local Struggles, a National Movement. University of Georgia Press. p. 410.]”PhilomenaO'M (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What makes you say that the reference is "just an opinion"? It's a book published by a university press (i.e., a high-quality source). While I don't have access to the book, it's available on Google Books.[12] Sadly, page 410 isn't available, but page 409 suggests that it supports the text in our article (search inside the book for Coretta Scott King). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and this article's title are inconsistent.

Why is that? Dustin (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Because the title here was moved without a discussion. I've asked for the comma to be put back (see section a couple above this) but it has not yet been done. There is a discussion going on about the titles on the talk page of Dr. King's father, Martin Luther King, Sr. Randy Kryn 23:12 14 April, 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Sorry for the late response; thank you for notifying me of that discussion. Dustin (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I just filed a request to revert that move at WP:RMT. Calidum T|C 00:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The titles were consistent until 8 April when George Ho put the comma into this one, against the advice of WP:JR. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

They were also previously consistent when they both had the comma.... Dohn joe (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

True, just not with our style guidance, nor with treatment in many early sources such as Ebony and Jet magazines [13]. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Are those two magazines somehow style setters for encyclopedic usage? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by Jpgordon (talk · contribs) Calidum T|C 01:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

---

. Martin Luther King Jr. → Martin Luther King, Jr. – Page was moved with no discussion and should be moved back. Almost all sources include the comma in the name (see for instance references in the article itself). Page was moved because of guidance at MOS:JR, which is being challenged and will likely be changed to allow commas. Several users in that discussion have used MLK as an example where a comma should be used. – Calidum T|C 00:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Most early sources, including all Ebony and Jet magazines from the '60s, omit the comma. And our own MOS still says not to put it: WP:JR; in the current RFC on that, it does not appear likely to change. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Those magazines don't trump dozens of other sources and King's own preference on the matter. Of course, you whitewashed the article to hide this. Calidum T|C 15:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support, and should be moved before this discussion due to wrongly applied noncontroversial-move listing MLK is probably turning over in his grave, a grave, by the way, which includes the comma chiseled into the tombstone. King used the comma on all of his books published during his lifetime, and his full name, including the comma, is the official U.S. government form used to title King's Memorial in Washington, D.C. and the National Holiday named in his honor. Randy Kryn 11:38, 18 April, 2015 (UTC)
  • Well the same admin who moved the page without discussion also declined the technical request to revert it. Calidum T|C 21:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support, amongst others as per Britannica, Inc. Martin Luther King, Jr. (American religious leader and civil-rights activist) GregKaye 13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Timeout. As the nom noted, the guidance on commas is currently being discussed. We should wait on these individual RMs until that discussion has closed. Otherwise, we may very well have to move this page/discuss again in short order. Dohn joe (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  Timeouts are only good in horseshoes (or something like that). The discussion on the commas seems to be going into a consensus to let sources decide, and not to make it a hard and fast rule. So this discussion continuing seems fine, although the page really should be changed back to reflect its state before its controversial "uncontroversial" move. Randy Kryn 19:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  I agree that today, the discussion is moving in favor of commas. Three days ago, it was moving in the the other direction. Three days from now, who knows? The whole point of that discussion was to decide the larger issue. If this discussion winds up being at odds with that one, that would be needlessly messy. Dohn joe (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  This was a standard request to revert an undiscussed move, which was rejected by the admin who made the initial move. Besides, many people in that discussion on VPP who favor dropping commas have argued there should be room for some exceptions. This would definitely be an exception, given both King's use of the comma and the fact that a preponderance of sources use it too. Calidum T|C 21:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  As for the undiscussed move, I compiled a list of moves requested and performed by Dicklyon in the February-March range (and in fact asked the two admins responsible to revert the moves). Both admins who made the moves are aware of the list, and have agreed to revisit the moves at the conclusion of the broader comma discussion. In the meantime, requesting or making moves that might be premature seems unneeded. Dohn joe (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support the move; the other can be a re-direct. With that said, I am sure the outcome of "comma discussion" will impact this one as well. Kierzek (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support for procedural reasons (to undo an undiscussed move) and on the merits, i.e. per WP:UCN illustrated by User:Randy Kryn above. —  AjaxSmack  03:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, both to revert an undiscussed move and based on the sources provided by Randy Kryn. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Since there is an ongoing discussion about comma use (or lack thereof) within suffixes here, I would wait until that concludes before closing this RM. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• And the RFC just closed with consenus that commas are in fact ok [14]. So this should be moved back considering there was never a consenus to move the page to the comma-free title. Calidum T|C 03:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016

Please undo this recent edit, which removed two images from the article without explanation. Thank you. 66.87.114.248 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. As per request. No reason given for removal of two images. And the letter was sent anonymously according to source in article. DavidIvar (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Michael King (redux)

This has come up in the past. Please see:

• Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr./GA1#TonyTheTiger comments
• Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr./Archive 9#Michael?
• Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr./Archive 3#From Michael to Martin Luther
• Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr./Archive 1#• Michael Luther King, Jr.?

I'm not sure it's important enough that it belongs in the opening sentence, as WP:BIRTHNAME generally requires. The top of that page says "Use common sense in applying [this guideline]; it will have occasional exceptions." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It may not be so simple after all; see [15]. If ‘Michael’ really was a mistake, then we would have sufficient grounds not to include it in the lede. Esszet (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It gets worse. The Forbes website cited in this article and King Sr's bio as the source for the name change says its "facts" come from a tourism website! Not a reliable source at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. The best thing to do would be to try to find the New York Post article in which King Sr. states that ‘Michael’ was a mistake; if he really did say that, we should say so as well unless we can find compelling evidence to the contrary. Esszet (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hold on. The King Center itself says that King Sr. did change King Jr.'s name; if we can find that NY Post article, we'd be best off saying something along the lines of: ‘The name listed on his birth certificate is "Michael King"; there are conflicting accounts as to whether his parents really intended to name him Michael or the name on his birth certificate was a mistake by the attending physician.’ Esszet (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

More good news. The New York Post's online archives only go back to 1998; older issues have probably been archived on microfilm, but I certainly wouldn't want to be left with the unenviable task of trying to find the article that way…is Snopes a reliable source? Esszet (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Snopes.com is probably a reliable source, but a well-researched book is probably the best type of source. Footnote 98 on page 31 of the first volume of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. (published by the University of California Press) is a pretty interesting summary of the record. The introduction can also be downloaded in its entirety from here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, then maybe: "The name on King's birth certificate was initially "Michael King" [Papers ref], which his father later stated was a mistake by the attending physician to his birth [Snopes ref], and his birth certificate was altered to list him as "Martin Luther King, Jr." in 1957 [Papers ref]"? Esszet (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

Hi, I've never suggested an edit before... I think it would be historically accurate to add this tribute made by Bernie Sanders in 2013 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of MLK JR's "I Have a Dream" speech. In this video Bernie himself talks about the legacy of Dr. King and about the progress that still needs to be made. Sanders was there for the march on Washington and it is clear that he created this tribute out of respect for the man and a desire to spread his message. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tr8DEQl034&feature=youtu.be 64.53.131.232 (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I personally don't see the import of this, tributes to MLK are routinely made by politicians. If Sanders had managed to have a memorial constructed or something of that nature done, then perhaps it would fit in Martin Luther King, Jr.#Memorials and eponymous places and buildings. I'm just one dissenting editor though, so feel free to discuss further and build consensus for your proposed edit Cannolis (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No matter how much someone loves Bernie, and Dr. King may have ended up endorsing him if he had lived, such personal tributes are a dime a dozen (a buck fifty apiece taking inflation into regard). Cannolis said it well. Randy Kryn 00:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Beloved Community!

No time to do it myself right now at least, but this page really needs a section on Beloved Community. --John_Abbe (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral notification of move discussion

There is a discussion underway to move the article Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (with a single comma) to Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Please share your opinion on the matter at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

MLK was NOT a "Democratic Socialist". The articles linked to are purely opinion, and not fact based. "Democratic Socialism" is a recent invention and did not even exist in MLK's lifetime.

Just because one can link to sources, it does not make them objective. MLK was staunchly anti-Socialist and anti-Communist, and democratic socialism, as a "political belief", did not exist during his lifetime. These references should be removed entirely, since the sources they link to are entirely opinion and the assertion that MLK was a democratic socialist is complete poppycock.

The fact that the sources claiming that MLK was a "Democratic Socialist" are opinion, and not fact based, violates Wikipedia's neutral article guidelines.

Please remove all references linking MLK to "Democratic Socialism". MLK was an independent, and publicly denounced socialism (in all its forms) and Communism on several occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwaldred (talk • contribs) 13:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure he was a Republican, actually. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yup, back when they were the party of Lincoln. --John_Abbe (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There is little or no evidence to support that urban legend, actually; there was no party registration where he lived. For most of his life, the Democratic Party was the only party of any power in his home state; but then, people of his color were discouraged from voting. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with editing the term "democratic socialism". That term is two words combined to make one word seem less atrocious. It was already obvious that he believed in democracy, he fought for the proper implementation of democracy. One can believe in democracy and not believe in socialism, and vice versa, so why are the two words used together? Please change this as requested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arminius Hermann (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Democratic socialism is a distinct ideology. clpo13_(talk) 22:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And one with a long history in the United States. In 1920, for example, Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs, imprisoned because of his opposition to World War I, got over 2000 votes for President in Alabama alone, and almost a million votes (3.41% of the vote) nationwide. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

MLK, Jr. was certainly not a Republican. As Martin Luther King, III said: "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African American votes in Florida and many other states." http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/

Democratic socialism seems to have been his political ideology, as he made this statement and used the words specifically in a speech: "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism." Frogmore, SC, 14 November 1966 https://books.google.com/books?id=PU_DdaFtYAMC&pg=PT296&dq=mlk+jr+move+toward+a+democratic+socialist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPrpLGjuLMAhVJHD4KHcJhA-kQ6AEISzAI#v=onepage&q=mlk%20jr%20move%20toward%20a%20democratic%20socialist&f=false Kinfoll1993 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As for his "leaning" during his lifetime: "In the past I have always voted for the Democratic ticket." 2 Oct. 1956, Letter to Miss Viva Sloan, The papers of Martin Luther King Jr.

And: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964." The autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr.

Kierzek (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)