Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Influences and influenced, redux

OK, someone now wants just two people -- Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama -- listed under "influences". Before that there were a handful of people; before that nothing. I really think "nothing" is the best we can do there, given that pretty much every African-American leader (if not ever African-American) has been influenced by MLK; if we start picking and choosing who we're going to put there (Al Sharpton? Colin Powell?), we're doing original research. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer more, but there's not enough room - none is just as inappropriate, when as you say, so many were influenced - I could add Jim Wallis, the UK Student Christian Movement, Trevor Huddleston, before starting on black politicians and religious leaders here in the UK. I take your point, how does one select? I didn't realise this was what you meant. Fine, remove Jesse Jackson, and leave the most influential African American people know about in there. That is well sourced as somebody he influenced, and gives a better picture of King's influence than a selective list. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, there's no need to create such a list for a man of such universal influence. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jpgordon here. We don't have a list anywhere of being influenced by Jesus, or George Washington, or for that matter Simon Bolivar. With people of this level of importance, broad influential impact is more or less a given. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving?

This page is currently at 193 kB. Does anyone think the time for archiving may have been reached? John Carter (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but most of it seems to be this one argument. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Influence

Under the influences section, I believe that there should be a section detailing the influence of Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible in the work of Dr. King. I don't know why this is neglected, but it is surely a more significant influence than Ghandi. It's probably impossible to find a speech or writing by Martin Luther King, Jr. that does not reference or allude to a biblical passage. I'd argue that the teachings of the Bible are THE most significant influence in the life and work of Dr. King.

(P.S. I'm a new wiki-editor, so I hope I did this right. Please forgive any formatting errors. Thanks!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eracer001 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For an active Christian minister, this falls rather in the "water is wet" category, and is considered unnecessary to mention. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What Political Party Was He??!!

This huge gigantic article and not one mention of whether Martin Luther King Jr. was a republican or democrat? (or did I miss it?) I wanted to learn if MLK voted republican or democrat, so I came to Wiki. I cant find it in here. So I have to go somewhere else. Can someone please include MLK's political affiliations? Did he vote republican or democrat, or neither? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not possible to answer the question "What political party was he?" In the deep South of that era, voter registration rolls often did not record or ask for party affiliation. Not officially registering people by party was a tactic used to prevent blacks from voting in Democratic Party primaries which in the "solid South" were the only elections that really mattered. If there was no official party registration, the all-white Democratic Party could prevent blacks from participating, and preempt Federal suits aimed at opening up the primaries. (See the example Alabama registration form at: http://www.crmvet.org/info/litapp.pdf [a PDF file]). Dr. King steadfastly focused on issues rather than electoral politics. While Dr. King's father identified himself as a Republican, Dr. King never identified himself as a member of any party. He never endorsed any candidate though, of course, he was constantly asked to do so. He also refused all calls to run as a candidate for office himself. Nor did Dr. King ever say who he voted for in any election. The historical record is very clear that Dr. King did not want to be identified as a partisan of any political party. Brucehartford (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reliable evidence that he belonged to either party, which is why the article doesn't mention it (that, plus the fact that it might be considered trivial). King may have voted Republican before the 1960s, because many Democratic politicians in the Southern U.S. were strong supporters of segregation. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Many? Most. A Democrat could hardly get elected otherwise; and a Republican couldn't get elected nohow no way (since Lincoln was one.) Anyway, Malik's right; we just don't have any evidence of party registration at any time. I'd love to see some. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

His niece claims that he was a Republican. However, she's a tad biased. Article here: http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/Alveda%20King%20article.pdf . Read Page 2 (marked as page 17 in the PDF). It's a really good read, but the bias comes more than shining through towards the end. -- Otto 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, though; we've got assertion (from someone who was a child at the time), without any way to back it up. Even if it is true, which it probably is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

i think his daughte would know better htan we would, even if the dems would rather not think about that. Smith-JOnes 20:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course she would. But we're not talking about a daughter, we're talking about a younger brother's daughter. And the "dems" are quite aware that, until 1968, Southern Democrats as a group were segregationists, old-guard Jim Crow-supporting Democrats still resentful of Lincoln. That's until 1968. That's when they finally realized the Republican Party was a more comfortable home, and that's where they all went. Southern Democrats are now a completely new breed, and the Democratic Party is far better off without the old-style ones (even if it did cost the 1968 election.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

fair enough, but as you can imagine any political pary would be eager to align itself with a fiure as popular and wellrespected as Dr King. while democrats and republicans are undoubtedl different as they were hundreds of years ago, it does seem as if there is some level of political corruption in trtying to hijack dr. kings legacy for one party or another, his niece is one of the few trustwrothy sources we have of kings political beliefs at the time that you specified Smith-JOnes 01:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

But that's really too weak a source, by Wikipedia's standards. I could be persuaded otherwise, though. What was her involvement with her uncle, for example? On what basis is she asserting his Republicanism? And at what period? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

i dont not agree with you that the source is curently too weak for inclusion under WP:NOT or i feel that given time the full story might emerge and reveal itself under the proper circumstances if you and we all choose to permit it with out presentful? Smith-JOnes 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I understand -- "permit it with out presentful"? Anyway, it is indeed too weak for inclusion, and given time, if the full story emerges, then we'll have adequate documentation. By the way, please fix your signature; they're supposed to have links in them to your user and talk pages. If you're having trouble, put a {{helpme}} about it on your talk page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

indeed, it does mean what i have indicative forth to mean, with regards to being took weak to be inclorpated into the main article. And my signature appears to be perfectly fine -- my talk page is easy to find, seeing how many people come to visit me and edit things on it nearly everyday LOL! Anywa, thanks for your advice and your help with this thorny issue User:Smith Jones 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"indeed, it does mean what i have indicative forth to mean, with regards to being took weak to be inclorpated into the main article." WHAT??? User Smith-Jones, English is clearly not your first language. And you are being sloppy about it, to boot. Surprised no one else pointed that out to you. In any case, The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was most definitely NOT a Republican, and he sure as hell wouldn't support today's RepubliKKKan Party. BobCubTAC (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems he may not have had any party-affiliation - and as voting is by secret ballot, we may never know what he voted. [1]. Mish (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that article. I like: Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Republican or Democrat,” said Alveda King, who was previously elected to the Georgia House as a Democrat, but later appointed to state and federal commissions by Republicans. “But everybody uses Martin Luther King Jr.’s name for their own benefit.” . --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

i dont feel the need to mentron that. we can just say that it is unclear which party that he wasn't not affiliate with, or that he did not publicaly state his allegiance to one party or a other User:Smith Jones 02:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. In the source I presented, Alveda King states "My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or “Daddy King”, was a Republican and father of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican.". Then, in this article on ajc.com, she says “I have not talked to Kimau-Imani. I don’t even know who he is,” she said. “I have never said Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. I never saw his registration card.”.

So at this point, I can't say that using Alveda King's words can possibly be a reliable source. -- Otto (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

thats interesting, but the ajc.com could easil be fabricated. many sources use partisan politics to jusify their portrayals of instorical figures and Dr King has been the victim of this posturing by ajc.com a lot more often than many other major historical figures who have also been the victimized of this political posturing by leftwing blogs and other biased sources like ajc.com. I dont think that it can be included for this particule issue because of its known history of bias which has been demonstrated in discusions prior to this on other discussions related to this sujet. User:Smith Jones 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So any assertion on this matter would fail verifiability, even if we accept your rather unusual assertion that one of the most respected newspapers in the South is a "biased source." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If it allays any concerns about the Atlanta Journal-Constitution quote possibly being a fabrication for political purposes, one can note in Alveda King's own blog that she acknowledges previously stating that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Republican, but now says that she misspoke with that statement. She says that she should have said that while she never saw his registration card, she believes he probably voted Republican. So we're definitely back to not having any reliable documentation of his party affiliation. Mwelch (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

67.160.60.10 (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Can someone get rid of the text that's about his political affiliation at the moment? It's poorly edited drivel, likely placed by some guerilla political organization.

 Done I thought I had taken care of that earlier. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please fix links to King Institute at Stanford University

!!!!! PLEASE FIX INCORRECT LINK IN EXTERNAL LINKS !!!!!

There is a dead link listed under "external links" for "The Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project". This is the most authoratative and visited web site on the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr., so it would be great if this can be corrected. The correct URL for this link is: http://www.kinginstitute.info.

• Fixed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

!!!! NEW AUDIO RESOURCE AVAILABLE -- PLEASE ADD !!!!!

The "Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Global Freedom Struggle" online encyclopedia, presented by The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, includes streaming audio and transcripts for over 20 of King's major speeches and sermons. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could add this to the "video and audio" external links section of this document. The URL for this resource is: http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/multimedia_contents.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgb700 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done, but I don't like what I titled it; could you suggest an improvement? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Adultery redux

Nobody has answered my post from August 12 (including the link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Refusal to engage arguments). Malik Shabazz has archieved all discussion without further comments. If somebody has objections to my version, I expect them to answer my arguments, otherwise I go ahead and restore the text. --Jonund (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that this was resolved - there was no consensus to go with your proposed insertion of dubious material, people got tired of the circular discussion and wandered off. As I recall, you referred it to ANI, where it was closed as 'unresolved'. I advised you to RfC it to Biographies, but as it stands there is no reason why it should be inserted, given the weight of opposition (and reasons). Just because you cannot accept other people's reasons is not a reason for inserting it. Mish (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jonund, you've had several bites at the apple, and you haven't developed a consensus for the information you want to include in the article. Give it a rest already. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What they both said. It's clear are not going to gain consensus for including the "fucking" exclamation, so you really need to give it up. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

All,

I apologize for not making another comment until now. I was away on vacations.

At any rate, I took the liberty of requesting the paper copy of Branch's book "Pillar of Fire" from my library. The author specifically has a footnote (found at the bottom of page 207 in my version) about the "I'm fucking for God" comment where he says, "The author did not hear the bugging tapes from the Willard. These quotations, together with the one on page 250, are from interviews with three FBI officials of varying rank and outlook who did hear them. The eavesdroppers; shards presented here are the blackmail verson of King, which FBI officials put into historical effect with a host of subsequent reports and oral briefings designed to ruin him [King].

Partly in reaction to the FBI's intrusive, hostile characterization, King's admirers have responded with anguish and outright denial over the subject of his extramarital affairs."

This footnote represents the complete text (at least as far as I could discover) as to the authors statements about the verifiability of the quote above. From the text and the footnote, it is clear (to me at least) that the author disagreed strongly with both the manner in which the information was obtained and later exploited. However, the author does freely admit that he did not personally listen to the tapes and that he received the same account from three different "FBI officials" who did hear the tapes, all from "varying rank and outlook". Also, no mention of the FBI officials referring to fuzziness on the tape or a dissenting opinion as to what the tapes said is mentioned in the text. Considering all of these facts, I think that the verifiability of Kings quote (properly attributed to the FBI as its source) should meet the standards of Wikipedia.

As for the notability of the quote, that one is the more easily argued of the verifiability and notability arguments against the quote's inclusion. I'll try to make a brief, but complete, argument for the notability of the quote below.

First off, we're all still here talking about it. If it were something like "King's cat was named Fuzzy" or "King's wife gave him a pair of green golf pants for Christmas", the information would have been removed without further comment. The fact that we're all still here talking about the quote, with about 193K of arguments for/against and about a dozen or so editors commenting must mean that the information is important to some people.

Second, the information has been particularly well documented by primary, secondary, and tertiary sources (cited previously by Jorund). Again, if the information wasn't notable, it probably would have been cited in a very complete biography of King and never repeated again. The fact that people keep reusing the information over and over for different commentaries and stories about King's life suggests that it really is something that people want to know about.

Third, I would make the argument that (similar to one Jorund has already made), even if these first two facts didn't hold, it would still be important to certain subsets of the population because of the public image of King and his perception in society. Most people would see King as a Christian minister, and the ribaldry expressed in his action in the Willard hotel, particularly his seeming pride in his sexual exploits, fly directly contrary to that image.

Fourth, I think the information presents a very insightful look into King's mind and mentality -- one which can mean lots of different things to a given group of people. For example, Christians might look at King's statement (or alleged statement if you prefer) and see it as evidence of hypocrisy. An atheist might look at it as a sign that King was actually secular in his personal beliefs and as a sign of increasingly widespread secularism in society. Feminists might look at it as a sign of the continued oppression of women in society, despite strides made by women during the last century. Another group of people might look at the quote and have an even more novel interpretation about what that meant to King's inner self. The point of this exercise is that the quote has a lot of information and can mean a lot of things to many different people. This would be in direct contrast to a less significant, less notable piece of information (such as one about King's cat, etc.) that would offer relatively little insight into King as a person.

Finally, Jorund, even though I personally believe that you're right to want the quote included, the other editors might be correct by saying that you'll never see it put into the article. Wikipedia is about consensus after all (not who is right), and a determined group of editors can probably keep out any piece of information they want from a given article, if they're willing to invest the time to do so. Under the standards of Wikipedia, I think the quote should be included. Other editors see things differently. At this point, I am personally willing to concede the battle, if only for the sake of moving my work on to other articles.

Regards,

128.187.0.178 (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

he only reason this has attracted so much comment is because one editor is persistent in pushing for its inclusion, supported by a couple of others when he does so, despite objection by a greater number of editors. If people were not interested, then it would have gone in - the interest that counters it is vigilance. As you say, the source is poor, one hearsay report given a brief mention in a biography (with details limited to a footnote), copied into three other biographies from the original. While that seems fine for a detailed biography, it seems undue for a summary biography here. As you say, there is no consensus for this material to go in, and RfCs, ANIs etc. have not changed that. If Jonund cannot accept this, then he needs to discuss the wording of an RfC to biographies here first, then place the RfC there. However, I would add that the pursuit of this for so long is not a 'battle', it is 'attrition', and this persistence is uncivil (persistently ignoring the lack of consensus), lacks good-faith (failing to accept other editors' genuine reasons), and disruptive (as you say, we all have better things to do). Mish (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would only, once again, state that as an encyclopedia, we have no real encyclopedic reason to include any such information because of alleged "insights" it might provide readers. I have rather clearly stated, I believe more than once, that encyclopedias are not involved in the business of providing at best dubious "insights" into subjects, but rather to present clear and objective information that is clearly and demonstrably relevant to provide a thorough, basic understanding of the subject. We do not have any obligation to provide dubious "insights" into any subject, regardless of how often others go on about the subject. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

John,

I keep calling it an "insight" because I'm not sure what other word to use here. I would argue that most people read an encyclopedia article not only because they want information about the subject of the article, but also because they want something in a more digestible form that might give them more understanding (?), insight(?), etc. into the subject. Otherwise, why not just read a list of facts about King that went 1. "Blah, blah, blah ..." 2. "Blah, blah, blah ..." and so on? 128.187.0.178 (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Insight" seems to serve as a euphemism for The Truth™ About M.L. King. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"A list of facts" is essentially what an encyclopedia article is supposed to be. Except instead of presenting it in a list form, it's in a prose style and organized to be easy to read and, hopefully, understand.

Providing "insight" into some topic is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. The purpose is to provide a) information and b) references for further information. That's it.

"Insight" is therefore both biased and non-encyclopedic, by definition. It's not what is supposed to be here. -- Otto (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's a real good way to express that. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Branch's footnote makes it clear that this alleged quote was part of the party line of the FBI, an agency which confessedly was seeking to befoul his reputation and sought to drive him to suicide. That people are still taking it seriously enough to keep trying to put it into this article as fact shows the Big Lie principle in action. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. Is there some way of stopping this? We had this discussion already - can I refer to the {{Round in circles}} tag at the top of the page. Mish (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

controversy

what about the hotel he was murdered at because he was there to have sex with a woman other than his wife

John Kennedy. he and his father campaigned against jfk because he was a Catholic. A man known for civil rights is a hypocrite if he believes catholics are below becoming politicians.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for either of those allegations? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King wasn't there to commit adultary. He was there in Memphis to help the garbage workers. Besides his friends and supporters were there. Please check your sources. 10:29, 26 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thriller95 (talk • contribs)

Uh... I'm pretty sure Roman Catholics walked in Civil Rights marches as well... 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Riots also occurred in Baltimore after King's assassination

I believe it should be noted that riots occurred in Baltimore as well after Dr. King was assassinated. The riots changed the social and economic landscape of the city to this very day.

for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1968 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuriousk (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Typo on the Martin Luther King, Jr. article

{{editsemiprotected}} I'm not sure how to report or change this typo, hope I'm doing this okay...

In the entry for Martin Luther King, Jr., there is a commonly-made error.

“In 1958, while signing copies of his book Strive Toward Freedom in a Harlem department store, he was stabbed in the chest by Izola Curry, a deranged black woman with a letter opener, and narrowly escaped death.”

The book title is, "Stride Toward Freedom" not 'strive'.

 Done Algebraist 21:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Word clergyman has wrong link

Currently the word clergyman on the first line of the article goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor but it must go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergyman

Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimofpak (talk • contribs) 07:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"African-American" civil rights movement

This wording is misleading. This was not specific to "African-Americans" other races were involved so I changed it to American civil rights movement. Calling it an "African-American" movement marginalizes what MLK actually did. He was not out to help African-Americans he was for all Amnericans.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an accurate description: the movement primarily was intended to secure equal rights for African Americans. They were being denied the right to vote in the American South, they were being denied equal access to public accommodations, etc. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. King said on many occasions the movement was was about eliminating discrimination based on race. Blacks were not the only racial group who were discriminated against. Asians and other ethnicities were also included. If what you are saying is true that would contridict everything he stood for. Sourcechecker419 (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm being precise. There have been American civil rights movements for lesbian and gay civil rights, women's civil rights, migrant workers' civil rights, and so on. The particular civil rights movement with which King was associated was the African American civil rights movement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Whats the point in putting labels on everything? He was prominant in American Civil Rights. There is no point into breaking it down into lifestyle choice, gender, etc. Only fighting for a certain ethnicity undermines the and contridicts everything he stood for.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The "point" is, every article should enhance understanding of its subject, and the lede should bring the topic into clear and primary focus. There can be no serious dispute based on the entirety of the article (and all reliable sources) that the primary focus of MLK's efforts was to bring attention to and greater understanding of discrimination against african-americans in the US, notwithstanding other values that MLK clearly championed or other effects that his campaigns have had on society (all of which can and should be discussed in the article as well). Steveozone (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you seriously believe that MLK's primary focus was not on the black civil rights movement, then you really need to listen to his speeches again. I'll quote the beginning of "I Have a Dream":

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Can you seriously tell me that he was also talking about, say, equal rights for gays in that speech? Yes, his primary message was one of equality. But his focus was on equality between black and white. This is a valid point to make in understanding the subject at hand, and to gloss over it by omission is dishonest to the subject. -- Otto (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I Have a Dream Speech

The "I Have a Dream" speech was given on August 28, 1963, but there is no mention of that date in the "March on Washington 1963" section (it is only mentioned in the wiretapping section). I think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunsparrow (talk • contribs) 04:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

birth date is 18th jan 1929

pls chk out the dob of martin luther king jr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.165.119 (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? Jeremjay24 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Daughter's Name

Rev. Dr. Martn Luther King Jr.'s daughter's name is printed here as "Yolanda King" when it was in fact Yolanda DENISE King. If no-one has any objections (and no-one should), then I will correct that spot in the article. BobCubTAC (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding MLK assassination

MLK, Jr's family and their attourney, William F. Pepper, won a wrongful death civil suit in 1999 against Loyd Jowers for his part in a conspiracy to kill MLK, Jr. that included local police, the FBI, the CIA, and mafia figures.

Jim Douglass was one of the only journalists to sit through the three week trial, and his report on it was published in Probe magazine and here:

http://www.ctka.net/pr500-king.html

When the result of this court case was summarily ignored by the mainstream press, William F. Pepper wrote and published the book "An ACT of State - The Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr." about his research and conclusions.

Blskinner (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE will pretty much keep this out of the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? I'd think a wrongful death suit result would be worth including in the article.

~ender 2010-01-18 17:42:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.19.194 (talk)

Well, regardless, the "developments" section of the article does discuss the various controversies, including this one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

External link to 21 audio files (mp3s) of Dr Martin Luther King speeches

I don't contribute much on wikipedia (in fact I just created this account), but recently I was a bit perplexed by the lack of available audio on the internet of Dr. King's speeches. I took it upon myself to create an archive of 21 of his speeches, available as streaming mp3s, or to download, because I feel it's the sort of thing that the internet, well, needs.

The link is here, for your consideration for this article: http://texarrakis.com/library/mlkspeeches —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genesayssitdown (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the source for these recordings? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I downloaded them off of bittorrent. I do not know their original sources, but it is possible they are not in the public domain, as the I Have A Dream speech is technically not ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Inc._v._CBS,_Inc. ), however I believe that (and without being a legal expert of any kind) was focused largely on improper commercial applications of his speeches, in this case the famous "I Have A Dream" speech.

In any case, the ruling appears to have been decided on the behalf of the King Estate, and NOT CBS. This choice is up for you guys to make. Genesayssitdown (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed a link to the site from Sermons and speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. out of concern that copyrights are being violated. Please see WP:ELNEVER, which seems to require that the website license the speeches. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable, but wouldn't it seem you would probably need to take off the rest of the links to audio/video, and text of king speeches on this article for the same reason? The I Have a Dream speech is pretty specifically mentioned in the ruling I posted above, and these articles are already plastered with external links to what I assume are unlicensed copies of the speech. I just found this mention here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Copyright_dispute , which states some unlicensed use of these speeches in whole may be lawful, in regards to fair use. Genesayssitdown (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that he arranged his death - are there sources supporting it?

I wonder if the alternative hypothesis that the circle of King might be responsible for his death for creating a Martyr is sources supported anywhere. It's weird that he would directly refer to his assassination on his last speech and the last phrase he said was to play really good a song related to funerals. --Leladax (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all like 'Judas, I know you'll betray me and then I'll die' to me. --Leladax (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so weird. Ever hear a Baptist preacher give a sermon that didn't address the dangers that mortals face, the prospect of death, and the promise of everlasting life? Every speech MLK is known for touched on these pertinent themes, and by April 1968 he was no doubt well aware that he had become subject to the sort of threats that all such provocative political figures must bear. There'd have to be some very strong sources to justify the assertion that he planned his impending death, or similar assertions condemning or even implicating those around him. Steveozone (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As a participant in the Freedom Movement and a scholar of the Civil Rights Movement, I've never heard of any shred of evidence or come across any credible source that King or anyone associated with him had anything to do with his assassination. I find the idea preposterous. Looking back on it, many of us who were participants in the civil rights movement believe that Dr. King's prescient remarks about his own death in his last speech were either coincidence, or his response to credible death threats made against him. It is worth remembering that when Dr. King came out in opposition to the Vietnam War in 1967 and then began organizing a multi-racial Poor People's Campaign to unite blacks, whites, latinos, indians, and asians in a fight for economic justice, powerful forces in both the economy and government turned against him with great hostility. Those enemies are a far more likely to have been behind the assassination than Dr. King or his supporters. Brucehartford (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Participant?" Careful, Bruce, as the "Circle of King" remains mysteriously ambiguous and entirely undefined, as all such terms are when used in speculative comments regarding any purported conspiracy, whether involving radicals, rogues, or government ;) Steveozone (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Look I didn't want to offend anyone and I'm well aware this idea may offend, but I thought it might be interesting to research sources about it precisely because the sensitive nature of the question might have hidden it easily from discussion. Now, my own idea came not only because of the last speech and his last phrase on the balcony but those were supported by the general 'vibe' i get from this person that he was extremely (as in deeply) religious. Jesus complex isn't unheard of. I have to stress though, the question is mere speculation and it was only done for aiding research for sources on this article. I do hope it's not like that. --Leladax (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, we don't get to do original research here. If a reliable source has written about such an idea, it might be worthy of inclusion in the article. But speculation isn't helpful on Wikipedia, at least not speculation by Wikipedia editors. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Montgomery Bus Boycott - Wrong length

{{editsemiprotected}} The Montgomery bus boycott lasted for 381 days, not 385. It started December 5. --Skallagrym (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source to verify this?  fetchcomms☛ 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

[2] Second paragraph under the "Career" heading. --Skallagrym (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be a matter of opinion. The Montgomery Bus Boycott article says it started on Dec. 1st, when Rosa Parks was arrested. Dec. 5th is when she was found guilty. In that article, it states "The boycott was triggered by her arrest", which would indicate that the Dec. 1st starting date makes the most sense. Note that the article also says that the flyer calling for the boycott was handed out on the night of Rosa's arrest. -- Otto (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw a documentary on the boycott stating that it lasted 381 days, but I don't know where THEY got that info. Skyintheeye (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi Family

Why does it say "Gandhi Family" in the Gandhi and Rustin section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keecheril (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's who King met on the visit referenced in that section. If the question is whether he met Mahatma Gandhi on this visit, the answer is no, as Gandhi had been dead for some ten years. Steveozone (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Gandhi Family" of India (Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi etc) is not related to Mahatma Gandhi. During the '59 visit Dr.King visited sites where the Mahatma lived. He probably visited Mahatmas sons, I don't know. Saying "Gandhi Family", I think, is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keecheril (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

quote correction

Someone please fix the Harry C. Boyte quote from "assigned to organize" to "assigned me to organize". The reference has the latter and certainly makes more sense. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Keecheril (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Race?

So he was 100% African descent, as far we know? Chrisrus (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking to someone? Sounds like a conversation you've been having, and he seems to me to have been relatively decent (perhaps your opinion may differ). Racial discrimination is several steps removed from any kind of rigorous verification of one's ancestry (assuming such can be done), and based solely on the observer's perception and preconceived ideas. The civil rights that MLK and others fought for were historically denied to persons based on that perception, regardless of whether that discrimination was aimed at 100%, 90%, 50%, or "quadroons" (or just funny looking people). Steveozone (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to having just read the article. I was looking for that information and didn't find it. I was wondering if he was mixed race at all. Chrisrus (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. What would "mixed race" mean here in this article? Steveozone (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see why this question has prompted such a hostile retort. It's true that the question is a bit vague and also likely to be unknowable, but it seems as if Steveozone's response is simply unfriendly. Phiwum (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

One can assume that at least one of his ancestors had non-African ancestry, as rape was part of the legacy of slavery. However, I've never seen any reliable sources (or any sources at all) discussing this aspect of King's ancestry. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I certainly did not intend my comments to be unfriendly, and apologize if that was felt. I did, however, intend to provoke some thought, as to whether it is possible to categorize anyone based on their "race" and whether that would mean anything in any discussion of a person's life and accomplishments. Let's say that MLK had some "white" (whatever that is) "blood" (as the expression goes). Does that tell us anything important about what he said, or did, or accomplished, or what he is remembered for? Would it matter? I think based on personal experience, and based on MLK's statements regarding race, that "mixed" or "some white" or "some black and let's discuss proportions" is not particularly productive. If I offended, let me know how I did. Steveozone (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

The following message was placed in the wrong place, and then the user (not logged in) asked me on my talk page for help. So I'm just re-posting it here for you to consider as requested. Peter 22:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request that the Martin Luther King Jr page has the following added under the section headed," Influences ".

Dr. King was not a stranger to Swedenborg theology. He credited Swedenborg with giving us the “best possible understanding of God’s message.”

The link with Swedenborg was discovered in 2006 when King’s extensive library sold at Sotheby’s to Morehouse College in Atlanta. Some of his handwritten notes, unpublished sermons, and key books were exhibited during the auction. Among display items was a copy of Emerson’s A Modern Anthology (1958). On the opening page, King had written: “Swedenborg enables us to understand why we were created, why we are alive, and what happens to us after our bodies die. Swedenborg enables us to have the best possible understanding of God’s message as it exists in those Bible books which constitutes God’s Word.” At present, the collection is closed while items are being catalogued. Swedenborgian scholars are eager to delve into King’s manuscripts as soon as the collection opens to the public. Rev. Mark Perry of the New Church in San Diego says, “I would love to have the opportunity to study Martin Luther King’s Library for more evidence of Swedenborg’s influence. Given the influence that Swedenborg’s Writings had on people like Helen Keller, Jorge Borges, George Innes, Emerson, Blake and many others, it does not surprise me that Dr. King also read Swedenborg.”

This information can be verified by going to www.newchurch.org/about/articles/martinlutherking-article.html and numerous other respectable sources.

Such an omission from Dr King's influences section is major, bearing in my what he actually said.

I hope that this request will be considered. Perpetualbooks (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any information to this effect that comes from a reliable source which would not also be considered a primary source. Basically, the only places I see this sort of stuff are either New Church or Swedenborg related. Nothing from what I'd consider an uninterested third party.

If you can source the information, then it might be an interesting addition to the article. But realistically, a single quote in a single book that is only given by questionable sources is not enough to justify mention in the article, I think. Not to say that it might not be sourced later and possibly develop into something more interesting. -- Otto (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that under aftermath of his assassination 'Kentucky' should be deleted, as it appears to reference 'louisville' and 'kentucky' as separate sites of riots and the naming of the state is out of context with the other cities not having states specified. Furthermore, without 'kentucky' most readers would know to assume it to be the most prominent louisville.Bjs402 (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.#Education: NPOV?

The last sentence of the paragraph under Martin Luther King, Jr.#Education ends with (at the time of this post) “but that his dissertation still ‘makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship’.” This second half of the sentence seems to suggest that the plagiarism is somehow excused by the ‘scholarshipworthiness’ of the dissertation. (At my own institution, plagiarism would be grounds for severe disciplinary action and/or termination of one’s studies, no matter how ‘scholarshipworthy’ one’s thesis or dissertation might be.) Isn’t this last part of the sentence a violation of NPOV, and would it not be more consistent with NPOV simply to remove the part quoted above? Btw, I didn’t dare modify the article on my own out of fear that I would immediately get flooded with anonymous posts calling me a bigot and a racist (this is the kind of thing that made me quit contributing to Wikipedia); I have absolutely nothing against MLK. It just seems to me that this last half of the sentence sounds overly defensive and non-objectively neutral, as if it were something that non-impartial defenders of MLK would insert into the article. —Technion (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are the words chosen by and quoted from the board of inquiry at the university - and the reason they gave for not rescinding his degree--JimWae (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you rescind a degree post-mortem? Mish (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

Should this article not be at plain "Martin Luther King". PatGallacher (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. That would create ambiguity between him and his dad and his son. He was known as a "Jr." during his lifetime; I live one block off Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive in Milwaukee, for example, a street named in his honor. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Perjury trial

On today's main page, there is mention of "William Robert Ming" defending King against a perjury charge, but there seems to be no mention of such a case here. It seems an interesting topic: what was it all about, was it (yet another) case of harassment against King?

Perhaps someone might be able to add something on this.

Baska436 (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, that case was a politically-motivated attack. My understanding is that Alabama Governor Patterson directed the state's tax bureau to charge Dr. King with tax evasion and perjury in regards to his 1960 state tax form. They alleged that Dr. King personally pocketed donations made to the organization he headed, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and then failed to report that embezzlement on his tax form as income. This was both an attempt to jail Dr. King and prevent him continuing his struggle for racial justice and also to undercut SCLC's funding from black churches and individuals. The charges were so absurd that an all-white jury in Montgomery quickly acquitted Dr. King on all counts. Had he been convicted he could have faced years in prison. Dr. King had so many arrests and trials I don't think it's worthwhile to document every one in this article. In any case, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the case to write about it.

Brucehartford (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If there was a campaign to discredit him, which included politicians bringing false charges against him, and there are WP:RS about this, I'd expect us to mention that. - MishMich - Talk - 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, perhaps? I had a professor who'd been jailed for an unfixed taillight on his car during this era (the real charge was being an NAACP organizer). It's not all that noteworthy in context. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

M.L. King a Progressive or Conservative or should it be mentioned at all?

The legacy is Dr. King is obviously a hot topic right now. Particularly when it comes to him being a "progressive/liberal" or "Conservative". I personally believe his message was starkly conservative. MLK supported American laws based on Judeo Christian values which was mentioned in his letter from Birmigham Jail. He core message was "judging each other by the content of character and not the color of skin"..This is opposed to the liberal/progressive idea of categorizing people into groups (gay, black, white, latino,etc)..I argue that Kings message was a very CONSERVATIVE one. While I believe he is conservative I will not add that in his profile, but I am strongly opposed to him being labeled as a "progressve/liberal" and all mentioning of this should certainly and without question be removed from this article. We should state his message and let readers decide his political ideology.`Therock40756 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who claim Dr. King as a conservative can only do so by ignoring half of his message and the focus of the last years of his life, particularly poverty, jobs/unemployment, the need for massive government investment in social programs, unions, and so on. Dr. King was one of the leaders who insisted that the focus for the 1963 March on Washington include "Jobs" and specifically a massive federal job training program,a national minimum wage, a stronger and broader Fair Labor Standard Act, and a federal Fair Employment Practices Act all of which are ideas/programs strongly opposed by conservatives both then and now (see [March on Washington program). Dr. King's criticism of Johnson's War on Poverty was that it was too small, underfunded, and did not go far enough --- hardly a conservative position. His last two books Why We Can't Wait and Where do we go from here: Chaos or community? increasingly addressed the need for social programs to uplift and empower large groups of people, as opposed to the conservative focus on individuals and individual rights. Dr. King's last great campaign was the Poor Peoples Campaign aimed at expanding social programs that conservatives today and yesterday condemn as the "welfare state." And Dr. King was a strong supporter of trade unions, he was killed while supporting a union strike --- it's hard to imagine a pro-union conservative. And throughout his career, Dr. King urged the federal government to override state laws and customs through federal court cases, executive orders, and Congressional legislation --- a position diametrically opposed to the "sovereign states" and "states rights" positions of conservatives then and now. Brucehartford (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your superficial understanding of the word "progressive" even led you to remove King from the Baptist denomination to which he belonged. Sorry, but the article has sources that link him with progressivism. If you'd like to link him with conservatism, please bring a few reliable sources of your own. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The common sense solution to this is just remove both "progessive" and "conservative" out the lead and perhaps create a section dedicated to the cases to both..I do not believe such a divisive thing belongs in the lead.Therock40756 (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind, there was a third alternative, progressivism's close cousin but not identical twin, liberalism. The term "American liberalism" was rather arbitrarily changed to progressivism only yesterday, here. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I Shabazz, Ive looked 3 times and I see absolutley no sources stating hes important to progressivism or liberalism at all. What are you talking about? Either way I move to have ideologies in general removed from the lead. I highly doubt MLK would be boxed in by any of them anywayTherock40756 (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the latest changes and they should be reverted. I agree with "Fat&Happy". It should read "American liberalism". That is more fitting to the man. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted as copy-and-paste from source. The first sentence after the edit box warns, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

the RS all have MLK as a liberal. For example, Christopher Lasch described King as a true “liberal hero,” perhaps the “last liberal hero,” [see Eric Miller Hope in a Scattering Time: A Life of Christopher Lasch 2010 p 359] Rjensen (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. There seems to be some editing regarding this that actually is discussing the fact that since his death, political groups (perhaps of other persuasions) have adopted or appropriated some of his ideas/statements and claim his legacy as endorsement. That is probably an appropriate addition to the article, but is different from his own political persuasion in life, as is established by reliable sources. Steveozone (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

King is not embraced by conservatives when it comes to the specific details of his economic polices, his economic ideas are obviously not his legacy. Thats akin to saying conservatives cant embrace Lincoln because he "rasied taxes" to fight the civil war. M.L. King was not a elected official he is more of an idea, his legacy is connected to civil rights, racial equality, and his faith. Kings core values are embraced by conservatives. His belief in judeo-Christain values and morality in the public square, a color blind society where people are judge but thier individual character. He also didnt belive in fundementally moving beyond our past, but rather building on it. Liberalism today not the same as in Kings time. "Liberal/progressivism" by its definition changes all the time. Todays liberalism is far more leftist than the days of King. So I guess liberals can claim for his economic beliefs. But I think it would be an insult to relegate his legacy to thatTherock40756 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Therock40756, King was a person, not an idea. And one of that person's core values included a strong emphasis on economic justice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Malik, but I'll pitch in with the next sentence that you probably were thinking of but didn't write: we as editors don't get to rate MLK on a spectrum of political belief based on each of our individual perceptions of his statements and acts, all viewed through the prism of history. Therock, I first wondered whether you had any sources for your statement that liberalism is more leftist now that it was in King's day, but I'm now wondering how that would have anything to do with what reliable sources have to say about how MLK identified himself politically... Steveozone (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

← [edit conflict] Per Rjensen and Malik upstream, many, many reliable sources over time refer to MLK's beliefs, positions, and actions as liberal - not conservative. ("Progressive" is the just current rendering of "liberal".) Let us not distort history or dishonor the subject of this piece, as proud a liberal as ever was. Apologies for my mistaken revert - I misread the edit. Tvoz/talk 03:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But why are my sources totally disregarded. This has nothing to do about anyone distorting history. MLK is a fixture on almost every conservative website and has been for quite sometime. Why not just have both veiwpoints there and let the readers decide. Or remove it all together and but into the body, his ideology doesnt really belong in the lead anyway. I will not remove his realtion to liberalism but its ludicris not to have anything mentioning his popularity amoungst conservatives.Therock40756 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, King has been adopted by conservatives (at least some of his opinions). That does not make King a conservative retroactively. Historically, the 1960s civil rights movement and King were affiliated with liberalism. You may wish all you want that conservatives had been on the right side of that fight, but they weren't. It is good, of course, that most conservatives eschew racism now, but that doesn't change the historical fact that MLK was a liberal in his time.

It is dishonest to pretend that there is any controversy here. Phiwum (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk about revisionism. On what side of the line were Buckley and the like during the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Where is Friedman's support of Selma documented? When did Goldwater oppose the Vietnam War? Kingturtle (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please correct the vandalism by Malik Shabazz/Kingturtle(I believe they are the same people). They continue to remove reputable sources and wording in the lead that King is simply popular with conservatives ALSO. I dont see how this is controversal, hes one of the few Americans liked by everyone and should be noted. Just as many users here agree that he is ALSO a popular figure with American conservatives. If you look at the discussion it is agreed on that MLK is representive of liberalism by most people. Just as many users agree that he is popular with the conservatives (not necessarily representative, but popular). They have removed this information despite the fact that its in just as much of a consensus and the information that they are trying to remove. Shabazz been obsessed with getting me blocked because he trying to promote his black liberation theologist leftist views. While Im simply and independent trying to give a fair and balanced view of Kings legacy. Please correct his vandalism and restore it to my last version or something more balanced..Thank youTherock40756 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that removal as vandalism at all, nor am I seeing "black liberation theologist leftist views" in the article. The statement about MLK's "popularity" today among conservatives, or among other demographic groups, doesn't belong in the lede. Similar material might be proper in the body of the article, if properly sourced, and if the material was a bit less vague (without more, I'm not really sure what "popular" really means in this context, or how that "popularity" helps anyone understand MLK and his legacy). Steveozone (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am not Kingturtle. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite having absolutely no consensus to add this to the lede - which is supposed to be a summary of the most important points in the article, the most important matters in the man's life - Therock40756 has added something again. As Steveozone said, this has no place in the lede. It summarizes nothing, is awkwardly worded, misleading, poorly sourced and inappropriately placed. No one has supported this. There might conceivably be a place for one short sentence, if it were worded differently and sourced better, in the Legacy section, but even then I am not sure I would support it. That some groups who stand for everything Dr King opposed, and whose ideological ancestors bitterly opposed everything that Dr King stood for and did, is a problematic thing to add to the biography of his life and career, especially when sourced so weakly, and is a distortion of the truth. So since there are so many objections, any such addition even to the legacy section would have to be looked at and discussed here on talk, and consensus to add it would be needed before putting it in. But one thing is quite clear: not only is there no consensus for it at present, there is no support for it at all. This is disruptive and tendentious editing, and has to stop. Tvoz/talk 06:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a compromise attempt to try to stop the edit warring herein. The fact is MLK has always been known as a liberal, although for most of his life along the more centralist lines of JFK and RFK by todays standards. However, in recent times conservatives have now started to cite him, etc, as well. That fact doesn't change the man (MLK) only the times. If the consensus is to change it, so be it; just trying to stop the war. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Kierzek, your efforts to reach a compromise are appreciated, and your edit to Therock's addition improves it in one way, but it is still against consensus as it stands now, and should be discussed, not bullied into the article. (I do not mean that you are bullying - I see that you are trying to help.) No one other than one editor has said this belongs in the lede of this biography. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, not a place to introduce discrete thoughts that are not covered in the body of the article, and this matter of present day conservatives is not covered anywhere else and would have to be discussed as well. Even if something were added as a brief sentence in Legacy, it still would not belong in the lede - this is a complex man, with much in his life covered in the article, and the summary intro needs to hit on the most important of those things as best we can, not be used to satisfy the ideological bent of one editor. The consensus so far here is clearly against adding this to the lede, so Therock's ignoring of what that means should not be rewarded by going along with his repeated addition of material that is against the consensus, even with edits that help a bit. Tvoz/talk 14:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all utter nonsense. Present-day conservatives are trying to claim King, by ignoring most of what he stood for and re-interpreting the rest. He must be seen in the context of the times in which he lived, fought and died. He was murdered because he was in Memphis supporting an AFSCME union strike which was bitterly opposed by every conservative and reactionary in the Southern power structure. (Full disclosure: Henry Loeb later came to my home town to raise money for Ray Bodiford, against whom I was running for the Tennessee General Assembly.) Those self-same conservatives have continued to this day to make sure that there are almost no AFSCME union locals in the state of Tennessee. In his last year King was if anything becoming more and more openly progressive, even radical, in his calls for peace and societal restructuring. The conservatives who are trying to highjack his legacy are the cultural and ideological heirs of the same people who roundly denounced him as a Communist, or at best a naive colored preacher duped by Communists. There is no reason to enshrine these lies in the article, least of all in the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree and support the compromise put forward by Kierzek -as of now-, but the idea that King was "leader of the Christian left" is complete and utter political slanted BS and I will work to have that removed once I we can get more independent nonpartisan editors. Why does Christianity have to be split into "left v right". The man was a Christian...period. Also what MLK stood for back then is completely irrelevant. What is the harm in simply stating he is liked by both the left and right TODAY? It's shouldn't even be controversial edit. And how are some going to say this should go into the "legacy section", if it does then his liberal views should go into that section too! If you look at my earlier comments I was fully in support of taking all politically ideological references out of the lede because the topic is just to contoversal right now and it would be silly to stick him with a label. Reality is the man was neither a leftist or conservative, he was a Christian first and foremost. To ignore his views on implementing theocratic laws, his views on the family, and morality is just as misguided as ignoring his belief in social justice through charity on the federal level.Therock40756 (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

NO, actually that is quite incorrect, as all other editors writing here, including Kierzek upstream, have acknowledged. He was unarguably a liberal, despite what recent revisionists are trying to claim - and that is perhaps the problem. This is a biography of martin Luther King, Jr.,- his life and career - not a place to reflect what the idea du jour is (too "controversial right now"). He is, and has been for over 50 years, closely identified with strongly liberal causes, and it is a distortion of his impact on America and the world to insinuate into the introduction a recent "appreciation" by some conservative groups. I suggested the possibility - after discussion and consensus - of a short mention in Legacy of this new-found embrace by some conservatives as an argument could be made that a part of his long legacy is that some groups whose ideological predecessors abhorred King, now claim to respect him. Maybe, and only after agreement is reached here (which I am not saying I would agree to), since it is clearly not what most editors here have so far supported. But adding it to the lede is not the way it is done. And continually doing so, in the face of lengthy discussions here that oppose it and ask you to stop and discuss, is tendentious editing that should be addressed. Get people here to agree with you, and then go ahead - now you do not have consensus. Have you read relevant Wikipedia policies? Tvoz/talk 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Tvoz; at most this new idea merits a brief mention under Legacy, but WP policies don't allow for it's placement in the intro. See WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE, and WP:LEDE for specific details. Also, per BRD, the original "consensus" version of the article should remain in place while details are discussed on the talkpage. Thanks, Doc Tropics 16:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

keep it out of the lede and mention it briefly in "Legacy". Most conservatives are much closer to Goldwater, Helms and Reagan (who all opposed King strongly) than to King. Rjensen (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I agree with Tvoz, above. What is clear, Therock, now is the changes put forth to the lede in any degree are not agreed to per consensus at this time. Kierzek (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the controversal parts in the lede for the same reasons the other parts were removed. I saw nothing in the body that showed he was a "liberal icon" or "leader of the left". These appear to be cliches without much of any hard evidence to back them up. Once these are incorporated into the body with good references. Ill support them in the lead. Same goes for his conservative credientials.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I provided the citations to King's roles in the Christian Left amd modern liberalism.Rjensen (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No comment necessary. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted yet another attempt to circumvent the consensus reached here regarding the lede. (And why does Gandhi get thrown out? They don't even bother to try to justify that.) Tvoz/talk 06:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that, you beat me to reverting that edit, Tvoz. Every statement that was altered or removed by that edit was cited to reliable sources, inline in the lede as well as in the article. That which was added in that properly-reverted edit is still not cited to reliable sources, and is still undue, even if persons other than liberals do admire MLK (which they do, but so what?). This utterly unsourced "way back then he was just like conservatives are now" stuff just doesn't belong in the lede of the article, and certainly not as a replacement for text that identifies MLK as a liberal icon who modeled Gandhi, in an editorial manner consistent with both this article, and virtually every biographical passage one might pull off the shelf. Steveozone (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Progressive National Baptist Convention

Will somebody please fix the two blue-linked "Baptists" in the lede so they point to the Progressive National Baptist Convention, of which King was a founding member. Some editor has such an allergy to the word progressive that he can't abide the Progressive National Baptist Convention. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

King didnt found the "progressive" National Baptist convention. He founded the National Baptist Convention. Adding "progressive" is nothing but a political move on your part.Therock40756 (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but dozens of reliable sources disagree. King was among the founding members of the Progressive Baptist Convention in 1961. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: It would have been quite a feat for King to found the National Baptist Convention in 1895. lol — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Therock, do you know anything about the things you are writing about or are you editing out of thin air? As Malik says, the National Baptist Convention was founded 30-40 years before Dr. King's birth - we can make the leap that he didn't found it. "Progressive" isn't being added as an adjective, it's their name; they separated from the National Baptist Convention in 1961, with MLK among the founders. Try reading the links rather than imagining what they say. Tvoz/talk 05:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

After further review I mustve misread this here. Therock40756 (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

TOC

Was there a discussion about limiting the TOC to one level? I can't find anything in archives on a quick search and think that the table of contents is a lot less useful this way. Does anyone know or feel strongly about leaving it the way it is? I'd remove the limit. Tvoz/talk 17:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, for a long complex article like this one I find a two-level TOC to be useful. By two-level I mean ordinal numbers plus one decimal place (1 and 1.1). Brucehartford (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. The article has only 2 levels, so the way I changed the TOC is getting the result of 1 and 1.1 heads. I find it much more useful this way too. Tvoz/talk 07:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

critique of King and attack from black anti-seperatists

I'm surprised to see here no critique of Dr. King. Nothing is here that I can see on the great split in the black political establishment during the 60s - separatist black movements versus non-violent integrationist approaches. King was pretty depressed in the years before his death, by the division and attacks he was receiving from black church and black political leadership. Apart from the Malcolm X quote on the 'Farce to Washington', there is no mention. I will try and find some solid sources. Please add these aspects of political context, if editors have biogs that give details. Thanks. Spanglej (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Heart Condition

The article states that the 39-year old King had the heart of a 60-year old man and that "perhaps" it was due to the stress of the civil rights movement. The cited source merely repeats the statement, but it does not provide any details as to the alleged medical condition. A diseased heart could also be due to high cholesterol and hardening of the arterties, caused by poor eating habits, or other less glamorous causes. In keeping with the verifiability that is one of the hallmarks of Wikipedia, a reference to the autopsy report itself should be provided, along with an explanation of what, if anything, the report might say about the condition of King's heart at the time of his death.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Name

I've also read that after MLK's father changed his name he objected to his son doing likewise. This article states that the elder King had the change made himself. Can anybody clear this up?PurpleChez (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the 1930 Census of Fulton County, Georgia on Ancestry.com. The family is listed as follows:

1. Marvin L. King, head, 31
2. Elberta (King), wife, 30
3. Millie E. (King), daughter, 3
4. Marvin L. (King) Jr., son, 1
5. Ida Worthen, sister-in-law, 49
6. Joel King, nephew, 14

I think it's obvious that "Marvin" should be "Martin", and "Elberta" "Alberta." Those are typical mistakes to find in the census. But there's no credible way to argue that it should have read "Michael." The story that Martin Luther King, Sr. changed his name and his son's name from "Michael" to "Martin Luther" following a trip to Germany in 1934 is evidently wrong. That doesn't mean there's no truth in the story; maybe the elder King changed his name to honor Martin Luther at some earlier time. P Aculeius (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: Martin Luther King, Sr. is listed as "Mike" in the 1900 Census, "Michael" in 1910, and I cannot locate him in 1920. His World War I Draft Registration Card gives his name as "Michael" in 1918. So it looks as if he became known as "Martin Luther King" between 1918 and 1930. P Aculeius (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the entire "Michael" comment, given that the elder King (who might well be a reliable source regarding his son) said that the Michael (for MLK Jr.) was a mistake by the attending physician, who always knew MLK Sr. as "Mike"; Sr. said Jr. was never named Michael or called Michael. See the talk page archives for more discussion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin Luther King's Political Party.

It should be noted Martin Luther King supported the Republican Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.38.149 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this many times in the past. Nobody has presented any reliable sources that state King was a Republican. As far as which party he "supported", I'm not sure if that's known, because I don't think King ever publicly campaigned on behalf of, or otherwise supported, either party or its candidates. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I also put this up in the "What Party is HE?" section:

Actually I have very directly sourced in a letter MLK wrote in 1956, he wrote 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." http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/papers/vol3/561001.004-Letter_to_Viva_O._Sloan.htm

Also there is a sourced quote that in 1960, although MLK was not public in his support that "privately he supported Kennedy." http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/enc_JFK.htm

I'd like to add these to the main article, but realize this has been a hot topic and would like to add it in the proper way to generate light, not heat. Any suggestions?

Timothyjchambers (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I've always assumed King voted Republican, because the Democrats were associated with the status quo in the South. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems you've found the documentation we were looking for; we can't say he was a registered Democrat or anything like that, at least from the "in the past" quote. Could you check that second link again, please? It doesn't lead to anything useful. --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

Sure, here in fact is a better direct quote about MLK's private support of JFK's Presidency in the 1960 election, and his thoughts that he would have likely would have publicly supported Kennedy in his next election had there been one. This is from the book "The Autobiography of Martin Luther King" and this has a working URL:

"I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one. I took this position in order to maintain a nonpartisan posture, which I have followed all along in order to be able to look objectively at both parties at all times....Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964." http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/home/pages?page=http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/autobiography/chp_15.htm

Thanks. I'd love advice on how to add these direct sourced quotes to the main body of the article in the best way to generate light not heat on a touchy subject. Timothyjchambers (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Two cents here. There is a running theme (even from my grade-school education in the 1960's/1970's) that MLK was non-partisan by intent. I have no sources, but the quote above certainly rings true as an indication that he consciously avoided any political party affiliation (which would certainly answer the question as "none" or "independent"). I think that this idea could be inserted into the "Influences" section as a principle that apparently guided his work. Steveozone (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

How about lanaguage similiar to this, in which I would add references and sources for all quotations:

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. "I feel someone must remain in the position of non-allignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the consience of both - not the servant or master of either."

Elsewhere he discussed his views that both parties had thier own issues, "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 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 made an exception to his policy of non-endorsement in 1964, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."

Timothyjchambers (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been a long time and no response to this, so can I assume the above text including it's direct sourcing is an approprate addition to the MLK article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjchambers (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see the sources first; it's a pretty good summary. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

White Supremacist Websites

I feel like we should make some sort of note about the KKK owned MartinLutherKing(dot)org. Discuss? Temporarily posting this huffpost article, until a better one can be found explaining the issue http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/white-supremacist-site-ma_b_809755.html 04:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why bother sending traffic that way? It's hard enough to keep the dot org site out of the article in the first place. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

recognize that there people who say negative things, and also so kids who go online looking for MLK stuff know to recognize it as what it is. Jademushroom (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm. How would you phrase this? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"As with most figures of great change, there have been attempts to vilify Martin Luther King in order to degrade his work and the Civil Rights Movement in general. The Klu Klux Klan has attempted to do this when they purchased MartinLutherKing(dot)org in XXXX year. They've also blah blah blah"

I dunno. Take it and run with it, English is not my first language :P Jademushroom (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You might also note that some states did not immediately recognize King's birthday as a holiday, some not until 2000! There's a section called "Reluctance to observe" at Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, we have an entire article about the holiday. Regarding the dot org, that language wouldn't be appropriate. "As with most figures of great change" -- according to who? Be careful about original research; we can't say why the Klan did something unless a reliable source says why; we can't even say the Klan did it, since they didn't (rather, an individual formerly a leader in one of the organizations calling itself the Klan did.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

yea i figured that when I typed it. I'm still holding the "English is my Second Language" flag, I dont feel comfortable writing it. Jademushroom (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a section called "Criticism" or "Opponents"? Even though there is an MLK Day article, I think it bears pointing out that some states really dragged their feet recognizing the holiday. Regarding the anti-King web site, you could say "Opponents of Dr. King have set up innocuous sounding websites to spread false information and rumors about him." with a reference to an article about this. I can probably find an article about the holiday, too. We can also dig up some quotes from famous politicians who opposed or criticized King. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

actually, that sounds amazing. It keeps us very neutral, and opens ppl's minds to other minds. Also, it "inoculates" ppl against false websites such as that Jademushroom (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The last thing this article needs to do is add the troll-bait of a separate "Criticism" section. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Criticism sections in general make for bad articles, and in this one, they'd be pure fool bait. Our job is not to "inoculate" purple, and our job is not to "open pimple's minds." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a common misperception that King was a venerated figure and a recognized moral conscience in his own time. In fact, he was considered a trouble-maker and a serious threat to political stability and to the Vietnam War effort, and Hoover (FBI) was constantly trying to compromise him politically by revealing embarrassing material about him. It doesn't serve our readers well to cover up opposition to King's efforts, but it does help whitewash (so to speak) the racism that disparages his efforts and tries to block his recognition. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you said, except the last line. Mainly because I couldn't understand it (English not my first language). but any ideas? Jademushroom (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Ghostofnemo's characterization is flawed. King was indeed venerated in his own time; and as far as "recognized moral conscience" is concerned, I'd venture his Nobel Peace Prize is evidence of that. Yes, he was also hated and feared. We have a large section about Hoover's efforts to discredit King, and discussion about contemporary opposition to King fits well into the biographical narrative. Opposition to him today is the sole domain of extreme fringe groups, and a section dedicated to them would be undue weight. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jpgordon. Given the fact there is a separate article on MLK Day, there is no need to cover the facts and events as to it in redundancy herein. Further, opposition is discussed as to his positions (back in his lifetime) as to Viet Nam, etc. Also, as pointed out, the efforts of Hoover and the FBI are noted in detail. Adding more, especially by way of a "Criticism" section would be placing undue weight on said matters and bring in POV problems. Kierzek (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support for Israel

Is this really among King's more notable positions? Plus, the quotes are half made up. King's support of labor unions was more significant. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the part about Zionism - which was synthesis. Refusing to be speak about Zionism does not equate to supporting Zionism--JimWae (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It was notable, if you check the source he repeated this stance on repeated and several occasions during his whole career and as late as two weeks before his death. I dont see how removing the part about Zionism would be legitimate since he clearly supported the project that was and is the State of Israel (which means he supported Zionism at least implicitly in any case) and he also defended Zionism publicly explicitly by saying for example that those that criticized it were being anti-semitic. So Im changing it back to the original (I didnt add the quote, but when it was added I changed it to something more appropriate for the topic of the heading. The heading was and is about Israel and Zionism, not anti-semitism as the first quote someone else added was about). Just because his views on this might be controversial to some doesnt mean we shouldnt be including them if they are correct (and they have been confirmed). /BobbyRipper 2011-03-24

The quote about anti-Zionism and antisemitism is bogus. Please don't add it back or I'll remove it. King didn't appear in Boston or Cambridge in the months before his death. Please read our article about the Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend for more information about the facts of the case. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you would bother to check the source it is NOT quoting the, indeed debunked, "Letter to an Anti-Zionist friend", it is quoting a speech at Harvard University 1968 and it has been confirmed by multiple reliable sources. Im changing it back and please dont change it again without proper research! /BobbyRipper, 2011-03-24

If you would take a moment to read our article, you would see that it also debunks the myth of the 1968 speech at Harvard. As I wrote above, King didn't appear in Boston or Cambridge in the months before his death. No such speech. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

According to http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_article=369 , the original source of the quote (which is in no way equal to an endorsement of Zionism) is the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chronicle article does not give a date - just "shortly before". But it does not matter - King refused to talk about Zionism because in his estimation the questioner betrayed anti-Semitism in his question. The Chronicle article does not say MLK supported Zionism & it is WP:SYNTH to read the quote as if it does --JimWae (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the partly guilty party here. After I reverted his section full of quotes from the same website, BobbyRipper came back with a de minimis section on the subject, consisting of a one-liner. Attempting to clean up a bit, and maybe add just a tiny bit of meat, I picked the quote about how an attack on Jews as an ethnic group is an attack on all. Subsequently, I decided the quote in the article about Israel's need for security would be more pertinent, but by then we were off on a pro-Zionism tangent, so I decided to let it go to it's logical conclusion. Which is where we are now. Is it a major position? Probably not, but support for Israel and opposition to antisemitism, taken together, seem worth a short (five or six lines) section. If the site used is not considered RS, support for some of the quotes and positions mentioned there should be able to be found elsewhere, and might actually become an article improvement. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2356.shtml has King in Cambridge 1967-APR-23, but the quote is still not well-established - not that it endorses Zionism anyway--JimWae (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Malik asked above: "Is this really among King's more notable positions?" In my opinion, Dr. King's stance regarding Israel is very peripheral to any article on King and his achievements. And a discussion of King's views on Israel-Palestine would be complex and lengthy (as is any discussion of that issue). That said, based on both my personal memory and research, King stood strong and clear for justice, peace, nonviolence, and equally strong against racism and anti-semitism. His public statements regarding the Israel-Arab conflicts were influenced by all of those factors plus how they impinged on the Vietnam War and his opposition to that war. In those statements he tried to be nuanced and even-handed and conciliatory to both sides, recognizing the needs of both. In At Canaan's Edge, Taylor Branch describes King's appearance on Issues and Answers in 1967 as follows:

On the Middle East, King thought a complex peace required security for Israel and development for the Arab nations. "The whole world and all people of good will must respect the territorial integrity of Israel," he said. He proposed also a 'Marshal Plan' to relieve desperate poverty among the mass of Arab citizens and refugees. "So long as they find themselves on the outskirts of hope they are going to keep the war psychosis alive."

In a later passage, Branch quotes a King letter to Morris Abram: "Israel's right to exist as a state in security is incontestable. At the same time the great powers have the obligation to recognize that the Arab world is in a state of imposed poverty and backwardness that must threaten peace and harmony." Brucehartford (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is important because the black radicals and the Black Muslims, who strongly opposed King, were taking an anti-Israel position, and this was driving away much of the Jewish support for the civil rights movement. Therefore, King was trying to thread his way through a very difficult domestic political crisis.Rjensen (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) there's a section titled "American Jewish community and the Civil Rights movement" and that might be a better place for some analysis of how Middle East issues affected the Civil Rights Movement. My recollection is that SNCC's position on Israel affected Jewish support for SNCC but had little effect on Jewish support for Dr. King's organization SCLC. White support for the Civil Rights Movement did broadly begin to decline in the late '60s, and to a degree Jews were part of that. But my memory is that Israel played only a minor role in that compared to the urban uprisings, violent/revolutionary rhetoric from some Black leaders (not Dr. King), and most importantly the shift of Movement activity from southern segregation to issues of job discrimination, open housing, community control of schools, slums and slumlords, and white businesses exploiting black communities (issues that many northern whites saw as threats to what we might call the "northern way of life"). Brucehartford (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Numerous RS have identified the issue of Israel and the PLO as critical in worsening relations between the Jews and the blacks. See for example, Taylor Branch, At Canaan's Edge (vol 3) pp 617-21 (on p 621 he notes that King was deep into the anti-war movement in 1967 and his attacks on LBJ angered supporters of Israel who depended on US support). The standard history is Broken alliance: the turbulent times between Blacks and Jews in America (1995) by Jonathan Kaufman, with over 80 pages that refer to Israel. Furthermore, Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States (2000) by Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey refers to Israel or the PLO in over 150 of its pages. That's a lot of attention indeed. Rjensen (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering the facts that the sole source is currently an opinion article by a politician, MLK Jr. was not an expert on Middle East foreign policy and rarely spoke about Palestine-Israel conflict - to the extent where there are only one or two contested quotes about it even after a public career spanning fifteen years, and in terms of relevancy to the biography and views of MLK Jr. this section is extremely unimportant, I'd suggest that the section remain deleted. The current section as written, derived from just one or two contested quotes, merely seems to be a form of NPOV in order to make a political appeal to authority for a contemporary conflict. Two things should be proven before it's re-added: a source that is more verifiable and legitimate than an op-ed article quoting a person who claimed to hear a quote during a dinner, and a source that shows its relevance to the career and views of King. As it stands, this would be like adding a section about the views on Israel for every civil rights activist, like Gandhi, regardless of whether those views consist of just one or two murky and largely unverified quotes. Viewing the guidelines of NPOV about undue weight, and the guidelines concerning verifiability, would suggest that this section should remain removed until better sources that prove its relevance are posted. Aerdil (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

the key point: MLK was deeply involved in the peace movement and the Six Day War dramatically changed the context, with Jews especially moving to support LBJ. King felt the Mideast war had an "immobilizing effect" on anti-Vietnam protest work, says Taylor Branch 3:621 Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A few issues with that point: Those assertions in Branch's book still do not collaborate any explicit and important support for Israel; the statement in the original edit, as written, was somewhat misleading in that respect. The fact remains that, as far as I can tell, MLK Jr. only rarely spoke about the mid-east situation publicly. The difficulty of finding any explicit and recorded statements or quotes about it seems to speak to that. The RS that have been posted imply that the only time he did was when he mentioned that the controversy surrounding Israel interfered with his anti-Vietnam protest work. And he qualified it with a mention of the "imposed poverty" of the Palestinians (which the original edit did not mention/left out).

Going back to an earlier point you made, Jewish and African-American relations certainly have a long and important history of conflict and animosity in the U.S., but that's peripheral to Dr. King's work - he does not seem to comment on those relations in any frequent or notable way. The attention paid to this in the RS you posted would belong in African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), but it seems stretching it to say it justifies a section on King's page concerning supposed support for Israel.

In any case, a short notation from a 3,000 page comprehensive biography doesn't warrant a section in his wikipedia page, in my opinion. However, if there are reputable sources that show MLK Jr. gave numerous speeches or wrote often about Israel and Mideast conflicts, then certainly a section could be written to reflect that. As it stands however with the current source on the table, it'd be giving this subject undue weight to include it in its own section.

Perhaps a mention over his worry about an "immobilizing effect", accounting for his apparent support for both Israel and situation of the Palestinians, would be justified in the context of his anti-Vietnam War peace efforts (within Section 10: Opposition to the Vietnam War). But it still seems unnecessary to me. Aerdil (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's one more reliable source for King on Israel: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/kingsecurity.html It supports his supporting Israel's right to exist; I will look for more sources--JimWae (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'd dispute that as being a reliable source. It's from a website expressly supporting Israel-U.S. relations, with connections to AIPAC. The book it quotes directly concerns Israel rather than Martin Luther King Jr.; it is certainly not a neutral source. According to the guidelines for WP:RS, "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." I'd encourage finding a source for that quote from somewhere that doesn't endorse a partisan pro-Israeli-government viewpoint, such as a more neutral biography that is mainly about Dr. King rather than Israel. Remember who this page is suppose to be about. Aerdil (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Only other mention I can find of that speech is this USA Today op-ed by one of the rabbis in attendance. In it, he does not mention the quote at all. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2007-01-14-king-edit_x.htm Are there any non-partisan RS's that have the text of the original speech? A legitimate source would at least have the quote, if it is even accurate, in context. Regardless, this still doesn't quite speak to whether it's even a notable perspective of King's in the first place. Aerdil (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)