Talk:Alveda King

Alveda's father

Alveda King's father was not definitely assassinated. This is a disputed claim so I qualified it as such. was up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.20.213 (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed "slain" before A.D. King's name. He drowned in a pool, cause listed as suicide. -Bindingtheory (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

in fact A. D. King drowned at home after a long bout with alcohol and depression.

— Taylor Branch,author of the Pulitzer prize-winning biography of Martin Luther King

Also, Dr. Martin L King's widow would certainly have spoken up if King's brother had been a victim of foul play.

Here is the change:

In 1969, Alveda's father, A.D. King, was found dead in the pool at his home after a long bout with alcohol and depression. The cause of his death was listed as an accidental drowning.

I will keep the other footnoted references.

I'm going to give folks a chance to talk about it before adding the change to the article. Javaweb (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

There have been 5 days for discussion. This clarifies the circumstances of his death so it is being added it to the article. --Javaweb (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

An anonymous person added, " The AD King Foundation reveals that the death was mysterious... ". Ms. King controls the AD King Foundation. This is just Alveda King expressing her opinion. It does not "reveal" anything but Alveda King's opinion. Her father had chronic depression, was an active alcoholic and then his brother was murdered. A year later he is found dead in his pool with no evidence of foul play. There is nothing mysterious about his death other than deciding if it was a suicide or an accident. Also, in the intervening 40 years, Dr. Martin L King's widow would certainly have spoken up if King's brother had been a victim of foul play, as would Martin L King's children, as would have MLK's lieutenants.Javaweb 21:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Javaweb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs)

Bias

I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that half of the woman's life comes down to what proposition she voted for in Florida. Shouldn't some of her exceptional quotes on the pro-life movement be included if so much time is going to be spent "outting" her for supporting traditional marriage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.154.217 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was shocked when reading this and seeing how biased it was, yet it did not have the normal flag on it warning the reader that the article does not have a neutral tone. If I knew how to do it, I'd try to add that warning or edit the tone to a neutral tone (without changing the content like the person above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.94.219 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Dr."

Under no circumstances should a person with an honorary Ph.D use the "Dr." honorific. It is gratuitous and pretentious. Indeed, even when earned, its use should be limited. The reminds me of Creflo Dollar. Slowly boiled frog (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me help you out. Your comment above are not relevant to the article in any way so your comment should be eliminated. However, since you spouted off let me attempt to educate you. An "honorary" degree holds all of the rights and privileges of a degree earned in the classroom as opposed to being earned with life experience. Almost every college or university states that during the ceremony conferring the degree. Mr. Bill Cosby uses the honorific of "Dr." all the time because he has a right to and no amount of hogwash from you changes that fact. Usually folks that express the opinion that you expressed above are folks that are so how jealous of the person who has earned the right--either through life experience or classroom work--to use the title "Dr." So in summation, Dr. Alveda King has the right to use the title and your comments are just hogwash. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me be less condescending than you, oh Holy One. She has never earned a graduate degree from a real university. An honorary "doctorate" is not earned. If Alveda King has earned a doctorate, please point me to her dissertation. If you can't, please forgive me for not being overwhelmed by her intellect-as-granted-by-religious-activists. Grow up and get a library card. SOME of us think a Ph.D. should still mean something. Thanks. Inoculatedcities (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the right or wrong of this, regarding someone with an honorary Ph.D. using the title Doctor, Bill Cosby has nothing to do with it. He earned his doctorate (I believe it's a Doctor of Education) in the classroom. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

WP says: he is a 1976 Doctor of Education, University of Massachusetts with an earned degree. --Javaweb (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Name

If she is (or was) married, it should be mentioned in the article what her true last name is. "King" would be her MAIDEN name, not her true last name. Native94080 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Many married women keep the names they had before marriage. Jonathunder (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. She's clearly capitalizing on the MLK legacy, but there's nothing wrong with that from a Wikipedia perspective. The only reason to list her name differently is if her actual legal last name is something other than "King." -Bindingtheory (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it period. Do you think that half of the actors in Hollywood would have careers if they did not have the same last name of a famous parent or grandparent? Of course not. It is the same in politics, art, books, etc. The Wikipedia rule is very clear. We name the article by what the person is well-known by not what we think they should be known by. Besides I don't see anyone pointing out what the other name might be--if there even is one.--InaMaka (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

InaMaka, you are correct. She should be listed as the name she is known by. -Bindingtheory (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, the article should be titled with the name she is commonly known by, but the first sentence should contain her full name in bold. Jonathunder (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, many woman take the husband's last name after marriage but remove it after a divorce. It seems that is what happened here, but we do not have a definitive answer to that. Also, many woman just add the husband's name after their maiden name and do not drop the maiden at all. Once again, it appears that is what Alveda King did, but once again there is no definitive source on this. We just know that she is known on the Internet in two ways: (1) Alveda King and (2) Alveda King Beal. But we don't know the circumstances of these two.--InaMaka (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Married name Beal - Lawsuit against Paramount Pictures

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/20/454/522985/

I was curious about her book "The Arab Heart" and came across a lawsuit she filed as "Alveda King Beal" claiming the makers of the Eddie Murphy movie "Coming to America" took the idea from her book. I'll let the experts incorporate this into the main page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to incorporate. We don't know if that is her name today. All we know is that at one time in the past she added the name "Beal" to her name. She doesn't use it today and the fact that she once used it is not particularly notable.--InaMaka (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Abortion

I also looked at several online videos of her claiming that ML King was her "granddaddy" and that her mother was going to abort her but he saved her and that she was going to have an abortion but he talked her out of that too. Is there a DOB for her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as "granddaddy" goes, she must have been talking about Martin Luther King Sr., not Jr. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Arab Heart?

What is the theme of that book? Is it anti-Arab? There should be more detail about it (and the other books). Stonemason89 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow!! Talk about tipping your hand! Do you want it to be "anti-Arab"? You don't even know a single thing about it, but you obviously are interested in whether it is and your initial instinct tells alot about you.--InaMaka (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I only asked if it was or wasn't. It was an innocent question, and I don't "want it" to be either way. You need to AGF. The reason I asked was because anti-Arab sentiment is rather common in certain segments of the American right right now (see Pamela Geller, Debbie Schlussel, etc, as well as the article anti-Arabism). I wanted to know whether Alveda King held such views or not, because I was curious. Again, it's an innocent question. AGF. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Professor" is poorly sourced

The reference is Ms. King's speaker bureau, which often use biographies supplied by the person herself. What was

• the name of the College,
• when,
• how long,
• what she taught, and
• her actual title

It is not impossible that someone with a B.A. in business could be a full professor but we need some more information. Generally an advanced degree in the field you are teaching is required. I have found references to her speaking to someone else's class but not to her having one of her own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Correction to above: I see she has a MA from Central Michigan University. We still need to flesh out the professor role to see if the word "lecturer" or "speaker" or some other choice would be most accurate. Javaweb (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Javaweb

So glad someone else brought this up. It is highly unlikely that she was an actual "professor," given that that title nearly always requires some form of doctorate. Several pages say that she was a "professor," but with no additional information. Given that the same source that lists her as a "professor" also refers to her as "Dr.," I'm removing it until better sources can be found. -Bindingtheory (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Siblings

Sibling names have been added and removed at least a couple times now, so we should discuss it. I don't have strong feelings on this one way or the other. There's nothing wrong with listing the names of the siblings, but it also doesn't really add anything to our understanding of Alveda King herself. The George W. Bush article doesn't name his siblings except where specifically relevant to George's life. Michael Jackson's article, on the other hand, lists all siblings, but most of them are notable in and of themselves. (Vernon and Derek King created the A.D. King foundation along with Alveda, for example) Thoughts?

Also, if you're going to revert a change, please list the reason why you did so. -Bindingtheory (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Listing the siblings does add to the article in that it makes it clear that Alveda has four other siblings (a large family) and most of those siblings were also ministers and Alveda worked with the other siblings not only with the A.D. King Foundation but also at the MLK Center.--InaMaka (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well would it be acceptable to just say that, then? Leave it as "first of five children" but when we talk about the foundation, just state that she started the foundation with her brothers Vernon and Derek, etc.? We don't need to list their names to make it clear that she has 4 siblings--the article already states as much. I'm genuinely not sure how relevant it is that most of her siblings are also ministers. Also, we need citations for all of this, of course. -Bindingtheory (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Term used for Abortion views

Wikipedia requires the use of non-biased language. Both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are biased terms. Anti-abortion is the non-biased term, which was originally in the article before it was replaced recently by an anonymous contributor. Discussion? Javaweb (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

No, "Pro-Life" is not a biased term. There are no "forbidden words or expressions" in Wikipedia. Please see the MOS Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch). Generally, we describe the subject of an article as that person self-describes. Alveda King refers to herself as "pro-life" not "anti-abortion." There are literally hundreds of individuals who have articles about themselves in Wikipedia where the term "pro-life" is used as the term to describe. The term that should be used is "pro-life." The act of calling a pro-life person by the term anti-abortion is bias in and of itself.--InaMaka (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

From the the MOS Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch), "This page in a nutshell: Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language." "Anti-Abortion" is a neutral term. Google "Wall Street Journal" anti-abortion" to see examples of the WSJ using it. The biased term would be "Anti-Choice". You made a change. Why was it an improvement? "pro-life" is less precise and more biased than "anti-abortion." The subject does not choose the choice of terms. "Generally, we describe the subject of an article as that person self-describes" is true for ethic and racial terms but hot, political terms must be free of bias and precise. Biased terms include "pro-choice", "anti-choice", "pro-life". Non-Biased: "abortion-rights, "anti-abortion". Both "Anti-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are biased and lack precision. We try to avoid adding in words that introduce bias or lack precision. 98.234.67.22 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Changes should be vetted before applied --Javaweb (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

We all are striving for an unbiased, clear, well-documented article. Because this is a controversial subject, I recommend that non-trivial or controversial changes be made only after the potential change is explained on this talk page and 4 days have elapsed to give time for discussion. Changes should only be made if they are well-documented, unbiased, clear and not misleading, and the logic behind changes to the article is documented. Also, all changes should be made while logged in so we have a contributor to attach it to. We all forget to login (me, too) but this is necessary for both readers and contributors. Plus, we all are putting in work and should be recognized for it. Discussion?. --Javaweb (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

What was her role at 10/16/11 MLK memorial Dedication?

I didn't see her mentioned. --Javaweb (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

"However, evidence suggests that King was never formally affiliated with any political party."

Is this a noteworthy statement? It's known from his personal writings that he said he had always supported the Democratic presidential candidate. It's certainly not a formal affiliation, but it seems an incongruous statement at best, and unsourced. He very well could have affiliated himself with it, but maybe it should be stated that he was private about his views of the parties. Seems more consistent with the truth. 68.227.167.123 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"evidence suggests that King was never formally affiliated with any political party" There is not evidence of lack of activity; that is constradictory. Again poor wording, and inaccurate. 68.227.167.123 (talk)