Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.

Republican

Why isn't MLK listed as a republican when we was indeed one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says King was a Republican, add it to the article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never given this any thought before, but the question made me curious. According to this, this, and this, he was a registed Republican. This article should be read before making any decisions, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely likely King was Republican that year -- Democrats in the South were a pretty nasty lot -- but those citations are assertions, not evidence of anything. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not an assertion. Are you censoring?? It is a fact and it needs to be added that he is a Republican. That is significant! Unless your purpose is to keep people ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.52.36 (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I just provided the links that I found; based on what I could see, I wouldn't add that to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If Dr King voted, he must have done so as a Republican. (Whether he necessarily voted for Republican candidates in specific elections is not the issue, and whether he would prefer to be a Republican today if he were still alive is not the issue.) For most of Dr King's life African-Americans were effectively barred by the Georgia Legislature and the Georgia Democratic Party from participating in the voting process as Democrats. After the Reconstruction era Georgia's Democratic Party establishment adopted a number of Jim Crow measures, including a 1980 amendment to the state constitution that political parties were private entities which could make their own rules about membership, turning the Georgia Democratic Party into a White club if it wasn't already. Even after Smith v. Allwright which in 1944 declared the Democratic White primary in Texas unconstitutional, Georgia's White Democrats continued to keep Blacks out of the Party—by a variety of ruses which finally ended en toto with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Thus, if Dr King was voting in Georgia, until a few years before his death he could have been on the voting roll only in some way other than as a Democrat. For many Black citizens, in Georgia as well as elsewhere, the only alternative was to be at least nominal Republicans. For the background, in that one needs to consider what Georgia was like during Dr King's life, see Disfranchisement_after_Reconstruction_era_(United_States)#White_Primary, Georgia_(U.S._state)#Politics, and African Americans in the United States Congress. Rammer (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In all likelihood King was a registered Republican, but we haven't found any WP:RS that say so. But a person's voting record doesn't make him or her a Republican or a Democrat. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another book that says King was a registered Republican. It's not exactly a reliable source; the author is a professor of language and leadership at the University of Southern Colorado.

"The King Center in Atlanta says there is no proof that King was ever a Republican", but the rest of their statement (in the final paragraph of the article) suggests they're not talking about his party registration. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that one side is thinking of the Republican Party prior to the 1960s--before Goldwater, before Nixon's "Southern strategy" etc.--while the other side is thinking of the Republican Party since. Unquestionably Dr King supported Republican President Eisenhower's sending troops to Little Rock to oblige the school desegregation which Democratic Governor Faubus was trying to block, supported the Eisenhower-backed Civil Rights Bill of 1957 against which Southern Democrats in the Senate waged a filibuster. It was only as late as 1960 and the kindler gentler treatment accorded by the Kennedy campaign that Dr King began thinking more highly of the Democrats, but the segregationist stands of Democrats George Wallace and Lester Maddox were still in the future. The confusion of one phase of either party's history needs to be set aside or someone will be redefining Abraham Lincoln as a Democrat. What needs to be ascertained was whether, at the time and in the place where Dr King lived, was he registered to vote and, if so, with which party--again, with which party in that time and in that place. Rammer (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If King was a registered Republican, it was likely simply because his father was a registered and outspoken Republican for the first 30 years of King's life, as were many well-to-do Southern African-American preachers at the time. It was only during the 1960 election, when JFK made a personal phone call to voice his sympathy and support to Coretta Scott King during MLK, Jr's first stint in prison, that MLK Sr. publicly switched his allegiance, as did a significant number of African Americans due to a pamphlet handed out at black churches advertising the phone call, thus winning the narrow election for Kennedy. MLK, Jr. offered no formal endorsement so as not to offend Nixon and stall his own agenda, should Nixon be elected, but he ultimately voted for JFK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.162.249 (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good info. Got a source we can include? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have page numbers off the top of my head but this information is largely drawn from Taylor Branch's all-encompassing "Parting The Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63", as well as what I can recall from my African-American History 1865-Present undergraduate class. The Branch book would supply you with the majority of the information in the chapters concerned with the 1960 Presidential Election.70.21.162.249 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(Steven (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)) You don't register by party in Georgia - so King could not be a Reigstered Republican. See http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/voting_information.htm for the factoid that that is still the current policy. He could be a possible Republican Party member - how did the Republicans count membership back pre-1960 and would where would the Party store that information?

We'd need information on pre-1960 practices, not current ones. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(Steven (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC))True, and of course the memory of folks from Georgia who voted pre-1960 isn't proof either, but at least this give folks who care a chance to do some real research. As a start for them, I did find in J. Morgan Kousser "Colorblind Injustice" (1999, UNC Press) that in 1957 State Senator James S. Peters proposed that party registration be instituted (p207). Someone want to find out if it was between 1957 to 1960?

At the very least, a section should be included that mentions his party status but also includes extenuating circumstances, personal beliefs, and what not. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the odd nature of party affiliations in the South in that era (as witnessed by some of this discussion, I fear that mentioning it at all would require such a lengthy explanation as to constitute undue emphasis on a matter of minor importance. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable sources yet demonstrating (as opposed to speculating) that he was a Republican? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we do not. I've checked up on the issue here and there, and the internet is vacant of any solid evidence that he was ever really a Republican. It just simply is not a fact. It won't be, either... I'm also not sure of the relevance, other than to further an agenda, if it were put on with so little to back it up. We know he wasn't socially conservative. And we also know that he was heavily critical of capitalism. It is *pure* speculation to align him with any party. I think it's just a stretch to put him in with any party loyal at all.98.168.204.179 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not a lot of relevance, and it would only be a detail that might pique the reader's curiosity like it's piqued ours enough to research it. (Which is sometimes good enough grounds for inclusion of a minor detail.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama included in his legacy

Shouldn't the 44th and first African-American President be included in the Legacy section? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) He is president-elect, not president. (2) How is that King's legacy? (3) King wanted people to be recognized and judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is his legacy because had it not been for King's tireless work for civil rights, there's no way Obama would be where he is now, and second, people did exactly that, they voted for Obama's qualifications and not against him for his skin color. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at the legacy section. It's not about people inspired by King, or implicit or explicit results of his work. We'd need to list pretty much every successful African American in a formerly white sphere as being part of his legacy if we open that door. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't. The election of the first African American president is a step and a symbol; including him in the Legacy section stands for the many changes that resulted from Dr. King's work.--Parkwells (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Obama should not be mentioned in this article, but maybe the two could be linked in another article. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegations in the Early Life section

Landerman56 has repeatedly removed references to the plagiarism charges in the Early Life section. I do not understand why he thinks it is inappropriate to mention charges regarding the dissertation when the dissertation is first discussed, and so perhaps he can explain himself here. Phiwum (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The information about plagiarism is quite appropriate in the section that discusses his doctorate. In fact, there is no other logical place to put it in the article. For readers who want more detail, there is a separate article on authorship issues that is linked in one of the citations. Ward3001 (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the separate article on authorship issues be listed in the "See also" section? This seems more appropriate than as a citation--unless I'm mistaken, encyclopedias generally do not cite themselves as sources.208.199.244.2 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In the montgomery bus boycott wasnt it rosa parkes not clodette who had to give up her seat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.149.217 (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Party

How come MLK's party is not listed? He was a lifelong card carrying Republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.189.99 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up to the top of this page. Ward3001 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

dr. mlk jr

what was he a doctor of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.202.136 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Theology, as the article says. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar question

In the article, this sentence "On June 10, 1977, shortly after Ray had testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he did not shoot King, he and six other convicts escaped from Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary in Petros, Tennessee." seems very confusing. I'm not sure what is trying to be said. In addition, I believe that it is a comma splice. 70.178.185.201 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC) M. Morley 1-19-2009 $Insertformulahere$

where was his funeral???

where was he buried???? not in article and i think people would like to know.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.254.97 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

His funeral was at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. And the article not only states where he and Mrs King are buried but has a photo of their grave.Masalai (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"We've Got A Long Way To Go" by Gwen Stefani

Shouldn't the following song be added to the media section? "We've Got A Long Way To Go", a song by Gwen Stefani from her first solo album Love, Angel, Music, Baby samples parts of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech.Chicagorunner85 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to give a lot more to justify how a song that extracts some words from King's speech is notable enough to include. How does it improve the article on King? What does it tell us about MLK beyond his own words that are used and discussed elsewhere? And give us more than your opinion. Give us other evidence that it is important to include. Ward3001 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Chicagorunner85 is referring to the template at the bottom of the page, which includes songs about King. I don't know anything about "We've Got A Long Way To Go", but the other songs are songs specifically about King, not merely those that refer to him or sample his speeches.

In any case, the appropriate place for the discussion is Template talk:Martin Luther King. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

hi, i think that the grammar in this article could use a little work. one place is under influences... it should be "in" his life, not "on"... thank you,

Aftonjylare (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You can fix it. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag'n what not

The following paragraph has several issues:

King had a mutually antagonistic relationship with the FBI, especially its director, J. Edgar Hoover. The FBI began tracking King and the SCLC in 1957; its investigations were largely superficial until 1962, when it learned that one of King's most trusted advisers was New York City lawyer Stanley Levison. The FBI found Levison had been involved with the Communist Party USA, though the FBI considered him an inactive party member.

The description that the FBI found out that Levinson was “involved” with the CPUSA leaves much to be desire. My prior version is mores specific proving Levinson’s function in the CPUSA.

Secondly, the FBI never considered Levinson an inactive part member. His frequent contacts with Lessiovski was the primary reason that he was a person of interest. The source is very clear on this and since Christopher Andrew’s area of expertise is intelligence matters, he is far more authorative on the subject than the Stanford library biographical piece on him. CENSEI (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, your original research does not. You don't just tag an article because your content is against conensus, you know. I support removal of this tag. Will wait for another editor to happen along to see what happens.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not OR, the Andrew citation is the source and as is the article is factually incorrect. CENSEI (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is about King, not Levison, so I don't think it needs to go into detail about his involvement with the Communist Party — if what you wrote is true. I question whether a tell-all book by a former KGB agent is a reliable source.

More importantly, how is the article's neutrality compromised by whether your sentence about Levison is allowed to stay? Again, this is an article about King, not Levison. Please explain how the article is not neutral in its description of King's life and achievements. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To say that Levison was simply "involved with the CPUSA at one point in time" is a gross understatement and POV. Adding the adjective "key financer" is a neutral way to describe what his function in the CPUSA was and why the FBI would have been so interested in him. Secondly he was under surveillance because he was meeting with a KGB agent, and that seems very notable, and has, in fact been noted by noteworthy scholars.

And what is with the if snip? I would advise you to AGF and keep this discussion on the level. CENSEI (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Do you have a source that says Levison was a key financier? Christopher Andrew certainly doesn't say it.

2) You still haven't explained how the description of Levison turns the article into a non-neutral biography of Martin Luther King.

3) Despite the fact that you misrepresented what one source says and made a citation to a non-existent page in another source, I'm continuing to assume good faith concerning your motives. But I don't have to assume that what you're writing about Levison is true. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course:

Over time the FBI determined that Levison and his brothers had been connected to 26 businesses since the second world war. These business interest were often founded with CPUSA funds. Their successful ventures funneled sizeable profits to the Communist Party’s coffers; in 1954 the Levisons busy Ford dealership alone was said to generate approximately $15,000 for the CPUSA. - Judgment Days, Kotz, pg 71

Well, it certianly only applies to one section at this point not the whole article, but are you now in agreeance that the material is not correctly represented? Is that why yo modified it with your las tedit because you knew you were defending an indefensible position? CENSEI (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I never misrepresented any sources and if you werent so lazy you could have verified what I said just as easily as I did. CENSEI (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I don't see "key financier" there. That's original research. What I do see, three pages later in Kotz, is this:

[I]n November 1963 the FBI asked Jack Childs to analyze the relationship between Levison and the CPUSA. The portrait Childs painted was hardly one of Communist zealotry. He believed that the Levison brothers had "used" the party and its funds to build their own business empire and line their pockets.

2) Can you explain, in English, how the description of Levison turns the article into a non-neutral biography of Martin Luther King.

3) I was being kind when I said "misrepresented". You lied about the source in this edit. The author didn't write the opposite two pages later — in fact, Levison isn't mentioned two pages later — and if you looked at the source you'd know that. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I support removal of the tag. Even if the edit were a reasonable proposal (which it seems not to be), consensus rejection does not merit a POV tag. Given that this is a tangential biographical detail about someone else's life, conceiving it as a POV issue having to do with King is in itself suggestive of a POV agenda. I strongly urge editors to remain civil. Wikidemon (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... you support removal of the tag even though you have not weighed in on the issue I brought up. How typical of you. CENSEI (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support removal of the tag. A claim that an entire article is biased because a dubious intepretation of a minor event is rejected by editorial consensus strains reasonableness.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A dubious interpretation supported by all available sources .... sounds mor like your opinion than a reasoned arguement supported by some citations. Imagine that. CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I, too, support removing the tag. I have yet to hear an explanation why an edit dispute over a minor figure in King's biography calls into question the neutrality of the whole article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A sectional tag would be fine then. CENSEI (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't been to this page before, so not gonna !vote, but I don't think you're seeing the consensus forming here. You're the only editor who wants the tag. Might I suggest going to Levison's article and making appropriate additions there instead? --GoodDamon 14:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag gone. It's just not an appropriate usage of the POV tag. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

On that night, Indianapolis was the only city which did not burn.

What is this quote in the article supposed to mean?

On that night, Indianapolis was the only city which did not burn.

It seems like it was taken, out of context from somewhere. I've removed it, but feel free to put it back rewritten to make sense in this context. Sligocki (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't quite get that wording either, but it is a pretty well known fact. Because of Robert Kennedy's speech in Indianapolis that night, that was the only American city with a significant black population that had no real rioting or violence that night. -- Otto 17:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox: Influences and Influenced

What should be the criteria for including a person among King's influences or those influenced by him?

Today I removed Theodor Herzl and Emmett Till, who were both included as influences. Abraham Lincoln is still there; what influence did Lincoln have on King's thinking?

Albert Lutuli is listed among those influenced by King; his biography doesn't mention King, although this article mentions Lutuli. Al Sharpton isn't mentioned here, but in Sharpton's bio he cites King as an influence (in an indirect way). Somebody added Barack Obama, who isn't mentioned here, nor is King cited as an influence in Obama's biography.

Any thoughts?

• Yeah, remove the entire influenced by section; rare would be the African American leader nowadays to not say they were influenced by King. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. 's Zodiac Animal and Zadiac Sign

I am here today to told what is MLK's zodiac animal and what his zodiac sign, too... I add this because I believe his traits relate zodiac which bring to dream that he talking about.... MLK is snake and aquarius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroxhikaro (talk • contribs) 06:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Influenced by Jesus Christ

Shouldn't only actual people (to everyone) be listed in "Influences" in the Infobox? --afarnen ^talk 06:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing "Jesus Christ" until someone gives a good reason to keep it. --afarnen ^talk 21:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't people get influenced by movies, television and games? probably many other non-people as well. Whether or not he (Jesus) was real doesn't make much difference. He was a diehard christian after all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.46.216 (talk • contribs)

This is an an obnoxiously and deliberately offensive edit. The only reason I'm not reverting it is that virtually any Christian's infobox would list Jesus as an influence, and thus it's rather superfluous to leave Him in there (particularly in the case of a Christian clergyman). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You would, indeed, think it's a "given"!! --leahtwosaints (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Drum Major Instinct" speech misquoted at the end of "Legacy" section of Martin Luther King, Jr.

I recently heard the speech on the radio and then noticed the misquotes in the end part of the speech that was quoted at the end of the 'Legacy' section. Here are sources with the correct version:

1) http://www.theharwoodinstitute.org/ht/redisplay/1/printerfriendly/1

2)

3) Martin Luther King, Jr By Peter John Ling Published by Routledge, 2002 ISBN 0415216648, 9780415216647 page 303 (can been seen on books.google.ca link below)

4) http://governmentchangeagents.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/martin-luther-king-the-change-agent-lives-on/

Here is the end of the speech that is found in all those sources, with the correct phrases that need to be corrected in the wikipedia entry in bold:

I’d like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. (Yes)

I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. (Amen)

I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. (Yes)

And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked. (Yes)

I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. (Lord)

I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. (Yes)

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. (Amen) Say that I was a drum major for peace. (Yes) I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. (Yes) I won’t have any money to leave behind. I won’t have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. (Amen) And that’s all I want to say.

Here is the wikipedia entry version, I inserted the correct text and crossed out the erroneous phrase beside the corrected text.

==

King spoke earlier about what people should remember him for if they are around for his funeral. He said rather than his awards and where he went to school, people should talk about how he fought peacefully for justice.:

“ I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I've tried to be right on the war question [on the walk with them]. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were [ all to a] naked. I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. And I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major. Say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter."1968 Year In Review, UPI.com"

”

Minor changes here

I changed the words I'm fucking for God to I'm F***ing for God. Children use this too.--Jjohnston90 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia isn't censored. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a stretched definition of censorship. I suppose the abbreviation is unambigous. --Jonund (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Suppose as you like, but Wikipedia does not change direct quotes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm inclined to remove the entire quote; it's purely salacious and adds nothing to the understanding of MLK. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion?

Would it be opening a huge Pandora's box to mention songs that have been written in his honor? I'm thinking specifically of Patty Griffin's "Up to the Mountain (MLK Song)", and especially, Stevie Wonder's tribute which helped win his birthday as a National holiday.--leahtwosaints (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The infobox at the bottom of the article has links to "Media" (including songs) about King. I've added the Patti Griffin song. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

martin

you shoulds talk about what he bwas fighting for like the bus story and more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.166.234 (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Socialism

I couldn't help but notice that the role King's Socialist outlook had on his life is practically ignored in this article. Is this delibrate or the result of a simple lack of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.222.95 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

King was never a Socialist, although the Socialist Party would undoubtedly have welcomed him. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, he was, espescially towards the end of his life. It's cited in the article itself.--Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Adultery

There is good reason to believe the FBI claim about the recording is right. They used it to blackmail him, which would not make sense if the recording was ambigous. Classifying it for a long time also awakens suspicions about trying to avoid a scandal and shielding a national icon. In any case, the claim by his associates is duly reported, and readers are free to draw their own conclusions. --Jonund (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to give undue weight to an alleged incident whose only purpose is to satisfy some editors' prurient interests. The FBI was known to fabricate evidence. Do you have any reliable sources that indicate King was blackmailed with this recording? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not insult me. I am writing about a serious issue.

It is hard to fabricate a tape that sounds like MLK:s voice. The source is the Final report of the Senate Committe to study governmental operations. By the way, the authors of The Lawless State: The Crimes of the U.S. Inteligence Agencies - certainly no friends of the FBI - believe the tape is accurate. --Jonund (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a serious issue. It doesn't really say anything about MLK that isn't said in the rest of the section. Already, we've got more about his alleged adultery than about his opposition to the Vietnam War (for example). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a serious issue? Are you joking? Faithfulness is a prime virtue. Charachter is the measure of a man. Note that the guy is regarded as a saint by some Christian churches, and, apparently, by secular society as well.

King spoke out clearly in public about the Vietnam war, so there is not the same challenge to establish what his position in fact was. --Jonund (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The one particular quote is not a "serious issue", is what I meant. We've already got a large section discussing the entire issue; the prurient quote doesn't add any understanding of the man. ("Oh, he may or may not have spoken dirty in bed." Big deal.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding you. I disagree, however. The exclamation is blasphemy. A minister who says so, in addition to betraying his wife, is seriously astray. An other reason to report the incident is that it played an important role, as it was used to blackmail King. --Jonund (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Then we'll need to expand and discuss the "blasphemy", since "fucking for God" is a sacrament rather than a blasphemy in some religions, and we don't get to assume the reader knows there's something particularly special about the allegations that King used the expression; and we'll need to add material demonstrating that this particular quote was a significant part of the blackmail operation. And besides, if he was committing adultery, what he exclaimed doing it isn't really very important either, is it? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We can add that it was this tape they used for blackmailing King. Nobody believes hieros gamos (or whatever you refer to) is a Christian sacrament. The blasphemous nature of his exclamation is evident to any one with a superficial knowledge of Christianity. --Jonund (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can get consensus to include the lengthy discussion it will entail -- including full details of the blackmail -- it will go back in. It's not just for the two of us to determine. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue of King's extra-marital activities already has more "real estate" than it deserves. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jonund would be well advised to stop his daily insertion of material that lacks onsensus, lest he gain the attention of an uninvolved administrator, who will simply look at the history of the page and conclude slow-motion edit warring is happening. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be clear on the current controversy. As I understand it, Jonund says that there was a recording of King uttering a particular phrase while committing adultery. He would like to include mention of this fact in the article. Why do others object?

• Because there is not a reliable source verifying the existence of this recording.
• Because there are reliable sources disputing the existence of this recording.
• Although the existence of this recording is well-documented, the material should not be included in this article for some other reason. (What reason?)

What is the primary reason folks don't want to include this material? (For my part, I have no strong opinion, but the material seems to be primarily salacious and irrelevant to the subject and so I tend to agree that it should be omitted.) Phiwum (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As you say: it's primarily salacious. It adds little to the understanding of King. WP:UNDUE. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and think it should be omitted.--Parkwells (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While I think Jpgordon and I largely agree, I don't think that this is a matter of WP:UNDUE. That policy is about not giving minority viewpoints too much space in an article. This isn't about minority viewpoints, as I see it, but about trivial, salacious details that distract from the topic at hand. Thus, we may think that Jonund is giving this topic undue weight in the usual sense of the term, but not in the sense of the policy WP:UNDUE. Phiwum (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're probably correct. (Though the viewpoint of the FBI in this case is the fringe minority opinion by now!) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A Christian saint who commits blasphemy - that's certainly no "trivial detail". It adds a lot to the understanding of the man.

Then there is the role the tape played in the FBI blackmailing. I think a reference to the Senate report after the passage about the letter which King interpreted as an encouragement to commit suicide is enough to demonstrate the significance of the tape in this regard. But jpgordon demands consensus to "include the lengthy discussion it will entail -- including full details of the blackmail". It seems like he won't tolerate a reasonable indication of this aspect.

I suspect the reason why people want to cover up this information is that they feel I have myself committed blasphemy by disclosing true but embarassing sides of King. You are not supposed to tell about the darker sides of saints, religious or secular. --Jonund (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We have an entire long section devoted to the allegations of adultery; nobody is suggesting we remove it; therefore, your suspicions are valueless. What I "tolerate" is pretty much irrelevant; if the consensus of the editors here disagrees with my position, I, like anyone else, get to move on and find another topic of interest. Or I can keep promoting my point of view on the talk page, if I want. What I can't do is repeatedly make the article the way I want it; that's just edit warring against consensus, and is something we try to avoid around here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, it appears quite staggering that an aspect with such a bearing on King's sainthood should go unmentioned. This is quite a detailed article (as it should be) and this topic should be treated with necessary depth, just as the rest of the article. --Årvasbåo (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The topic of King's adultery is treated with appropriate depth; in fact, one could argue that more attention is paid to it than it deserves in the context of his life. The issue is whether a specific tape recording belongs in the article, and it isn't at all clear to me what that recording has to do with King's sainthood in two Christian denominations not particularly known for beatifying and canonizing saints. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The blasphemy is an aspect in its own right. It's one thing to reluctantly yield to sexual temptations; to express contempt for God and his commandments by wanton exclamations shows that the reverend is not merely a sinner struggling with his carnal appetite, but an exceptionally unsaintly man.

I'm astonished to hear Malik Shabazz having diffculties understanding the connection between King's orgy in the Willard hotel and his sainthood. Jpgordon mistook wanton fornication for a sacrament. This attempt to exclude the incident really looks crazy.

King is not only recognized as a Christian saint by two churches, but in a sanctification-like manner, he is payed tribute by the U.S. government by the observation of public holidays. Such pious commemoration might suggest a blameless character. --Jonund (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• There is not such a thing as "blameless character", be it secular or religious. Even Jesus is recorded to have said "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7). And nobody did. Let's stop playing it prude here. He was a man and as a man he acted. That is not to say he was just the adulter man next door. What bothers me is if Mr Jonund here would be so demanding to his neighbor (who has done nothing for the advance of America as a nation.) as he tries to be here, to a man who not only dedicated his life to the improvement of all American's (not only the black) life (even though, perhaps, he had some issues on his own) to the extend as to be killed in the line of duty. It is too easy to point fingers.--Agcala (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• In no part of the proclamation of the Martin Luther King Jr's Day as a holiday it says anything about Mr King being a blameless character. As a matter of fact no such a qualification is requiered at all. The honor is given for whatever the man did, not because whatever he did not. Thus such assumption lacks any grounds.--Agcala (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that such a sinner and unholy (according to your assessment) man is recognized as a Saint for two Christian churches should give you Mr Jonund some ground to reconsider. Things are never black and white Mr Jonund. Or maybe you think your proposal of modification of the article would make those churches to recant their decision? I am sure you do. --Agcala (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to find reliable sources supporting your point of view. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. My edits have been supported with reliable sources. If you mean that I should provide sources proving that saints are expected to have a good character and that wanton fornication is not a Christian sacrament, I think your sarcasm is misplaced. --Jonund (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Jpgordon's point is: If, as you say, (a) King is widely revered in the U.S. as a saint, (b) the commemoration of his birthday with a public holiday suggests he had a blameless character, and (c) the specific allegation that he said he was "fucking for God" is so illuminating as to his character beyond general allegations concerning his adultery, you shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources that say so. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. There are several credible sources that tell about the exclamation. That a minister says so is illuminating as to his character is, however, so obvious so I cannot imagine any reason why the sources should explain the implications. Explaining the obvious sometimes makes you seem less than smart. --Jonund (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Article: "The Unknown Martin Luther King, Jr."

This link Article: "The Unknown Martin Luther King, Jr." has twice been removed by one particular editor, first with a remark in including the words "What's next? a link to Stormfront?" which I do not understand, and later to dismissing the link as "racist", which like many convenience-words ending in "ist" can be defined to mean whatever the user intends it to mean (often a derogatory and empowering substitute for lack of intellingent reasoned discussion). I do not think the link is one to be treated as vandalism, which I am sorry must be common in any article about a well-known leader. The subject matter of the linked article does not seem to be concerned with expression of a particular point of view on race (if this is what "racist" means): if it did it would not be relevant to the MLK page. But it does seem to be biographical, has some nice photographs, and is well-written and reasonable, and therefore of interest. As an experienced (non-American, with no point of view on the subject of the article) contributor to wikipedia, I believe a variety of appropriate links to a subject is of interest, and contributes to understanding. And a variety of independent views expressed of a subject enriches, and is the way to approach the truth, like any scientific research: it is not for editors to filter links because they contain matter showing the subject to be less than perfect - we are all human - and I can understand that this might be the reason.

Enough. Please can there be viewpoints on the relevance of the link to MLK ? And consensus. Welcome from the editor mentioned above and others. Thanks. P0mbal (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't link to fringe sites such as AmRen without a very good reason, and there isn't one here; the article in question is an opinion piece by a non-notable grad student, and is of no particular value to the article. Sorry you don't like the term "racist", but it's an appropriate description for Amren. This article gets a vast amount of racist vandalism -- that's why it's semi-protected -- and non-vandalism pointing to racist sources is immediately and properly suspect. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And to answer your implicit question: Stormfront is a racist hate site, but less subtle than AmRen. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jpgordon and Orangemike, I'll accept that, interesting, good reasons, one learns all the time. P0mbal (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I cherish and recommend the handmade buttons you can find at some science fiction conventions which proclaim, "Oh, no! Not another learning experience!" --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes by Malik Shabazz

I don’t know what is meant by saying that the statement “King seldom made a major decision without consulting with Levison” (Nick Koetz) is out of historical context.

I’m no less puzzled by a reference to original research regarding the report from a CPUSA official who said King, according to Levison, was a wholehearted Marxist – a report that was adduced as support for Hoovers suspicion.

Insinuations about Hoover’s motives are out of place. (“The attempt to prove that King was a Communist was in keeping with the feeling of many segregationists that blacks in the South were happy with their lot but had been stirred up by ‘communists’ and ‘outside agitators’.”) Hoover tried to prove that MLK was a communist because he believed that was the case.

It is misleading to say that Levison had “ties” with the Communist Party in “various business dealings”. He was a high–ranking member and a key manager of the party’s finances.

King’s Communist connections and his adultery were definitely more than mere allegations and should not be called that in the subheadings. --Jonund (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're selectively reading the source. Read more than just the single page that has the quotes you're cherry-picking and you'll see that Hoover refused to believe his own FBI reports that Levison had severed all ties with the Party by 1963. In fact, the FBI wondered if Levison and his brother had used the Party to finance their business ventures.

The issue with historical context is that you've placed a quote that refers to the 1950s in a section that describes a 1965 interview.

Please read more of the source, and please read the context in which you're placing your additions. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 18:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that my version of Levison's role essentially contains the information you give, and gives additional important information, as well.

I'm not sure that Levison had severed all ties to the Party, as his formal membership seems to have been intact (in september 1963, Gus Hall was frustrated with Levison's rebuffing Party orders. He should have no expectations of an ex-party member).

Levison was a high-ranking Communist for many years. It seems unlikely that he would have maintained this position for so long time if his sole interest was personal financial gain. Apart from fundraising and financial management he also had more ideologically oriented tasks. Double-agent Jack Childs, who certianly understood what trouble FBI could make for the people under surveillance, may have wanted to protect a friend as Levison or King, whom he, as a leftist, probably had sympathies for. A disenchanted Communist who is recruited as a double-agent and reactivated may be trustworthy in some respects, but not in others. Considerations like these may have laid behind Hoover's conclusion that the reports about Levison's severing himself from Party discipline were not trustworthy. Also, he may have thought Levison was smart enough to fake his estrangement in order to avoid being revealed. FBI:s attempts to approach Levison had proved futile. That may also have influenced Hoover's impression. What this comes down to is that we should not take the value of Child's last report for granted. But I change Levison's position to past tense.

At least at one time, King seldom made a major decision without consulting with Levison. What indicates that their relationship changed dramatically after that? On the contrary, Kotz, describes Levison as one of King's strategic advisers in New York in 1965 (p. 361). Both the Kennedies pressured King to dissociate himself from Levison and O'Dell, and King was deeply worried about the damage their exposure could cause the Civil Rights movement. Yet, he fired O'Dell only after public charges and could not bring himself to end his relationship with Levison. --Jonund (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy concerning original research. You're speculating on Levison's role, Childs' rationale, and other matters. You're using phrases such as "may have wanted", "may have laid", "may have thought", and "may have influenced", which indicates speculation—original research—on your part. If the source is reliable, we have to take it at its word. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

PS - Levison isn't mentioned by Kotz on page 361. Misrepresenting what a source says is a serious no-no. It makes other editors wonder which of your other edits are unreliable. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you give a distorted picture of Levison's role by saying that he had "ties" with the Communist Party in "various business dealings". It sounds like he happened to have some business contacts with it in a normal financial career. What I tried to say is, that the Childs's version - which you seem to take for granted - is by no means a self-evident interpretation. So much for my "original research".

Kotz' reference to Levison as King's strategic adviser is on p. 351, not 361. I apologize for the misspelling - and presume that most readers will excuse an occasional mistake even in rendering a page number. --Jonund (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article protected for 3 days. Use the TALK space to resolve these disputes

I am not taking sides here. It is important that these issues get resolved through dialog in the talk space rather than in edit wars on the article. Please use the space below to iron out an agreement. Kingturtle (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that a dispute was going on here. Three days had gone since I completed my countering of the arguments in the version i restored last time, and nobody had taken up that discussion. Since that, the editors have been active in an other section of this talk page, but not regarding the revert in question. If somebody in the future disputes it, nothing prevents us from taking up the discussion again.

Anyway, I appreciate your honest motives. --Jonund (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have extended the block on this article. Dialog needs to take place to resolve the edit war. Kingturtle (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The individual who is editing against consensus "can't see that a dispute was going on here", and her/his response to other editors is WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I'm not sure what there is to discuss. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 16:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is NO CONSENSUS against my latest revert, where I was careful not to touch the adultery-section. In fact, I have countered all arguments bearing on this edit and NOBODY HAS DISPUTED THAT VERSION.

Ramdrake, of course, in an edit summary, has said "this isn't about whether the arguments have been countered, but whethere they have gained consensus. I don't see that they have". If somebody still objects to my version, I expect him/her to give arguments for an alternative position, not to assume that a dispute goes on until every one has explicitly renounced his/her former position.

Can you explain how WP:IDONTHEARTHAT bears upon my responses to other editors? --Jonund (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the redirect was broken. It's been fixed.

There is consensus against your edits to the "Adultery" section of the article, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. You've been edit-warring over it since April 22.

With respect to the FBI information, three different editors have reverted your changes. That should clue you in that you're going against consensus. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation that I refuse to get the point is unfair. I have been elaborating the arguments in the normal fashion of a discussion. The position that blasphemy by a minister and saint is of no particular importance is amazing, and I'm waiting for good arguments for that.

Consensus is not about counting editors.

The number of editors who have reverted my changes about the FBI information is irrelevant, since they have not taken the whole discussion into account. If not even one can come up with arguments, it seems like you are yourself guilty of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I expect dissenters to counter my refutations; otherwise we have to conclude that the matter has been settled in favor of my edits. --Jonund (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The editors who have reverted you are relevant. Also your argument seems to be that since MLK doesn't seem to meet up with your expectation of a saint, that large amounts of space should be devoted to exposing what you perceive as his faults. Well, some space is already devoted to the subject, and I don't know what increasing the amount of discussion of his faults would do, except disparage the character. Rather, I suggest you go through the regular discussion process and if you still can't manage to get consensus around your views, you could either accept consensus as it is, or try to generate a wider consensus through an RFC (WP:RFC). In either case, unliaterally reverting to your changes will only get you blocked, eventually.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jorund, dissenters do not have to "counter your refutations". They can simply disagree with you. There's a fairly good discussion above with you arguing with Malik, and just because you have the last word in it doesn't make you right. You have to actually promote what you're saying and convince people and obtain consensus to add non-trivial things like this. An argument that ends without resolution is not "consensus". And yes, obtaining consensus may take more than 3 days. It might take several months to get enough people to come around to your point of view. That's simply how it is.

Furthermore, so far, all you seem to be wanting to do is add some fairly biased material using some seemingly biased sources to back it up. I can't support that without some really good arguments from your side of the fence. So unless you come up with a better argument or take a vote or do *something* else to assert that your material should be in the article, and can come up with consensus on it, my vote is to leave your changes out entirely. I do not see them as contributing to the article in any serious way. They're simply biased and useless bits of info that should not be in an encyclopedic entry. -- Otto 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverts without arguments are of no value. Allowing people to ignore arguments and have their ways simply because they don't like certain information subverts the entire Wikipedia project.

Otto's remarks look like a thinly vailed example of arrogant obstinacy and only serves to expose his own difficulties with overcoming his bias. I hope other editors will show more respect and openness.

Please, note that we have two different topics: King's communist connections and his adultery. The discussion about the first issue seems to have petered out, and there should be no hesitation about reinserting the information. Discussion about the second issue has continued longer, but objections to the passage seem to boil down to (a) the position that lewdness and blasphemy are immaterial qualities in a Christian saint, and (b) a feeling that King's character should not be debased by exposure.

(a) is so excentric that I think it's rather pointless to argue against it. (b) raises the question why King's character would be above discussion. If moral character is a primary quality of a man, as most philosophers have concluded, and as King recognized, his character should be closely elucidated. I can understand that people for whom King has meant a lot don't like to be reminded about this issue, but that should not interfere with the article.

The tape adds not merely quantitatively, but qualitatively, to the section, as I have demonstrated.

I have been more hasty to revert than I should while the discussion is going on, and I regret that. Several responses have not encouraged a high view of this discussion, but I should have had more patience. --Jonund (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion concerning the first point hasn't "petered out". It's being discussed in this section. Your preferred version has been reverted by three editors. There's no such thing as a consensus of one.

With respect to the adultery issue, you've been asked to find a reliable source that supports your position. Instead, you're repeating the same tired arguments and now you're attacking other editors' motives. Please stop. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jonund, in either case, I don't see that you have consensus to restore the disputed material. That, 'in and of itself' (lack of consensus) is a sufficient reason to revert whether you like it or not. I simply do not accept your contention that since MLK has been sainted by some Christian churches, that any perceived flaws to his character should be discussed at length. These "flaws" are already mentioned, and many historical aspects of the character are far more worthy of discussion than an alleged story of infidelity, or of possible ommunist connections, IMHO. And for the record, I'm still unsure as to how having ties to communists can be considered a flaw of character...--Ramdrake (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jorund, I can't see how you can consider my remarks to be "arrogant obstinacy". Read what I said again, as basically it boils down to a) you want to add biased material and b) you want to use biased sources to back that up. I don't really care whether MLK was a saint or a sinner or anything else. You clearly do, but I absolutely do not. I'm looking at the article as an *encyclopedia article*. The actual content of it is irrelevant to me beyond that. This is Wikipedia, and we require reliable sources and a neutral point of view. Your proposed additions fit neither of these. -- Otto 15:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder how much of our friend Jonund's info is in fact derived from this site?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about MLK:s communist connections has petered out. In this section you have claimed that there is no need to discuss it; that is something different from actually discussing the issue. I find the claim absurd. The discussion ended with Malik leaving a lot of questions unanswered:

• At one point, King seldom made a major decision without consulting with Levison. What indicates that their relationship changed dramatically after that? Isn't Kotz's statement that Levison in 1965 was one of King's strategic advisers in New York an indication that King still had trust in him?
• What's wrong with citing the report from a CPUSA official who said King, according to Levison, was a wholehearted Marxist?
• Why should we make insinuations about Hoover's motives?
• Why should we exclude the information that Levison was a high–ranking member of the Communist party and a key manager of the party’s finances and that his party activities involved ideological tasks, and instead claim that he had merely "ties" to CPUSA in "various business dealings"? Isn't that a distortion of his role?
• Why should we take Jack Child's interpretation of Levison's motives for granted, despite the possibility that Hoover had valid reasons for doubting it?

In case somebody wants to dispute my version he or she has to answer such questions. Ignoring them is arrogant and obstinate. How can I trust the motives of people who behave like that?

As to the adultery section, I also miss refutations of my arguments.

• Why is an FBI tape useless, although it has been used to blackmail King and deemed too sensitive to be made public for many decades? Why isn't it enough to let King's followers give their opinion, along with the FBI?
• Are lewdness and blasphemy really immaterial qualities in a Christian saint?
• Is it really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important?

But instead of answering these questions, Malik says they are tiresome and leave it at that!

Other credible sources have given testimony to the authenticity of FBI:s version.[1] It has been reported in serious sources (who mention FBI as the primary source and do not attach enough importance to the disclaimer of King's coworkers to mention it).[2][3][4]

It's not that "any perceived flaws to his character should be discussed at length". Blasphemy is something different from giving in to sexual temptations, and this incident aggravates the nature of King's affairs. And his adultery is by no means discussed at length. Right now, it is one paragraph (1390 characters, including blanks). The rest is about FBI:s blackmailing and other things. My version would add 428 characters. Other aspects of his character are also covered, and may get more coverage, if considered eligible.

My intention was not to describe King's communist connections as a character flaw.

None of my information is from this site. Why don't you check my sources, instead of speculating? In this posting, I refer to a site that has taken its info from the site in question, but the point is that they quote Newsweek. I suppose we can trust that their quote is correct. --Jonund (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep repeating yourself, Jonund. It's easier than finding a reliable source that supports your point.

PS: Your selective reading and cherry-picking of the sources is unacceptable. I don't need to refute your point because the source does it already. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 23:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Jonund has failed to address the central issue covering all of his "points": would the inclusion of these points add to the encyclopaedicity and subject of the article, or are they simply minor points that would detract from reading MLK's bio? I'm strongly of the opinion that none of these points really add anything worthwhile to the article. Also, the fact that some of the sources Jonund cites display large "White Pride" banners leave some doubt as to the reliability of those sources.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on Jonund's comments above, he still hasn't addressed whether that material is necessarily relevant for this particular article, as per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Regarding the misconduct of a Christian saint being relevant to an article, frankly, no, that is not a valid or even relevant point at all. He is not a Christian saint, in the way that term is generally used. The phrasing of the article is misleading there. Neither the Anglican Communion nor the Luthern Church have anything like the process for having someone added to their calendars as the Catholics do. And even the Roman Catholics have a woman who was apparently an active prostitute only a few days before her death canonized, even if as a martyr. You will also note that even a confirmed atheist and racist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, is commemorated in the Anglican calendar. I would suggest that the phrasing be altered to indicate this. Perhaps something along the lines of "He is commemorated in the Calendar of saints of the Episcopal church and ELCA." John Carter (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have given a summary of the questions Malik have left open in order to make it easier for newcomers to get an overview of the discussion, and to help certain users to see their neglects. Malik talks condescendingly about repeating myself, although the repetition is due to his refusal to answer my questions. I have provided reliable sources for my points.

I don't cherry pick or read the sources selectively. I have taken the whole story into account and explained why the parts of Kotz's story Malik refers to do not invalidate the parts I have taken as my starting point. Note that my rendering of Levison's relationship to the CPUSA essentially contains the information contained in his, but adds detail and nuance.

I have addressed the encyclopaedicity and subject of the article rather thoroughly (repeating myself). None of the issues are "minor points". The details about his communist connections are, in fact, the issue of the FBI section. No article that deals with King's relationship to FBI can be honest and objective without mentioning these. The claim that they detract from King's (rather detailed) bio once again remind us of the need by his fans to whitewash him.

Ramdrake thinks some (in fact, there were only one) source that doesn't share our views about race should be suspected of falsifying quotes from Newsweek. That seems far-fetched. Fortunately, I found the original source online, so he can check the accuracy.[5]

John, I have said more about the relevance of the adultery issue (I suppose it's only that you refer to) than in the comment above, see 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC), 12:42, 3 May 2009. You use WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the wrong sense, as Phiwum suggested, 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

If the Roman church has canonized an active prostitute, that is not an argument in this case but a strong argument that her prostitution should be mentioned in her article (who is she?). I'm not sure about your description of Cady Stanton. She was theologically unorthodox, as the Epicopalian Church is today, but who says she was an atheist? (I have only read the WP article hastily). To call her a racist seems to require a wide definition of the word. Anyway, these traits are covered in her article, although I would prefer more detail so that I could form a sure opinion. The Anglicans and Lutherans lack the process of adding saints to their calendars that the Roman Catholics have, but the important point is the same: saints are supposed to be good Christian moral examples. That's what King is widely recognized as in the secular world. Encyclopaedia Britannica regards King's misconduct as relevant to their article on him. The section is shorter (as is the article), but they note that his character was "more complex than biographers initially realized or portrayed". --Jonund (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, Jonund, you seem unable to get the point. The article already deals with King's misconduct, and it already mentions King's possible connections to the communists. What you are asking for is for more space to be devoted to these topics in a general biography about King's life. So far, you have failed to convince me, or for that matter most other editors on this article (from what I can see) that these issues deserve more space than is already devoted to them. And I really don't think you'll convince us any better by trying to tell us we interpret Wikipedia policy wrongly.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Phiwum's suggestion was that your additions do constitute undue weight in the common sense of the word, but not in the sense of the Wikipedia policy on minority viewpoints (WP:UNDUE). So yes, there seems to be a consensus that your additions are indeed inappropriate for this article.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that at 119kB, the article is already possibly too long. To propose adding more to it doesn't seem like a particularly inspired idea. Like I said, this doesn't mean that the material might not be well qualified for inclusion elsewhere, but on an article that already measures a bit too long adding more material than the article already has about comparatively minor matters seems like a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I find it difficult to believe that you mean it. The problem is hardly a paragraph more or less, nor that the material would be insufficiently important. Rather, it seems to be important for you to suppress information that is a significant treath to King's secular sainthood. The studious avoidance of engaging in discussion about the issues makes me smell a rat. Answering my questions would probably have led to a shorter discussion than all the subterfuges did.

The article already deals with King's "possible" connections to the communists - but it distorts what was going on. Levison's role is concealed and Hoover's motives are perverted by innuendo. --Jonund (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

By the above statements, I regret to say, that you have made it rather clear that your own motivations are not so much driven by the quality of the article, but rather by your own prejudices. Articles are not supposed to be adjusted to fit the individual opinions of individual editors. I could argue with you that the article makes very little reference to MLK's "secular sainthood", as you term it, and that your use of the term clearly indicates that you are operating from a POV position, and that as per WP:POV we are not supposed to reflect such POVs to any great lenght. In effect, considering that you are the one trying to add the content, it is incumbent on you to produce sufficiently reliable and numerous sources to verify that what you seek to add meets wikipedia requirements. You have been, basically, told several times that in the eyes of virtually everybody else you haven't done that yet. Until and unless you can produce better evidence, I would not expect that situation to change, although you might be held to be engaging in tendetious editing as per that page if you should continue in this way. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is that reliable source about King's "secular sainthood" that you were asked about nearly a week ago? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF is wrong with you people?!? Get a life! Do not understand how pathetic it is that you are here arguing about this? If the information is relevant to the section it is being placed in, and it is accurate, I do not see any reason that it should not be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.164.112 (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy demands this. If the IP above does not understand how policy, including WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, is not relevant, than may I suggest the IP refrain from commenting, maybe create an account to ensure that it isn't simply another editor seeking to make a second statement under another name, and certainly review policies and guidelines before making such comments. I would also urge the IP to refrain from perjorative language as they have used in both of their edits here. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is disagreement whether to include a reference to an FBI recording of a sexual encounter allegedly involving King and a controversial exclamation. In addition, editors disagree about how the article should discuss FBI allegations concerning Communist connections of one of King's advisors, as well as the legitimacy of deleting material without refuting the arguments in favor of it.

1. [6] An FBI recording of a sexual tryst allegedly includes King saying he was "fucking for God". Is it necessary or appropriate to include specific reference to the tape in the article?
2. [7] One of King's advisers was an important member of the Communist Party. During the period in question, FBI investigations were inconsistent concerning whether those ties were on-going and how deep his commitment had been. How should the article describe those allegations?

A few more details regarding the material in question would be very useful. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that helps a little. I can't see how the inclusion of the details of the material regarding the tape is necessary for the article, considering that the text already deals with the extramarital sex in some detail. Having said that, a mention of the tape in the article probably makes sense, considering that it does seem to have gotten enough attention to be noteworthy. The apparently dubious nature of the alleged quotation makes the inclusion of the alleged quotation particularly questionable. Regarding the ties with the Communists, I regret to say that I myself am far from an expert on the details here. Personally, I would think that it would make sense to say that his aide had ties to the Communists in business, and that the FBI may have overreacted to that. Reference to the alleged social ties of blacks to communism probably would not belong in this article, as it isn't that directly relevant to the subject. How much space that material gets would be dependent on how much attention it has gotten in the world. I regret to say that I am not that familiar with the subject that I can say anything about that one way or another. My gut impression, for what it is worth, is that the aide, at this point, probably qualifies as notable and could have a separate article, and that article might go into greater detail about the subject. For this article, though, I personally would probably mention only that the FBI had serious concerns about King's ties to the Communists. The accuracy or inaccuracy of those concerns isn't that relevant to this article though, and probably shouldn't get much attention, particularly as it is really only peripheral to the subject himself. Just a few opinions, anyway. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The description you had access to left out one issue, the legitimicay of deleting material without refuting the arguments in favor of it.

The discussion has given important viewpoints that you may find useful. I understand that you don't want to read the entire discussion. Perhaps my recent, lengthy, response gives some clue. Others may add what they find helpful. --Jonund (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF is wrong with you people?!? Get a life! Do not understand how pathetic it is that you are here arguing about this? If the information is relevant to the section it is being placed in, and it is accurate, I do not see any reason that it should not be there.65.100.164.112 (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)