Wikipedia

Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 10

< Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.
Latest comment: 5 years ago by MrClog in topic Lead paragraph starts with "Civil rights leader"?
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Requested move 10 July 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago31 comments15 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


– It's time to adjust the MLK articles per the consensus preference expressed in WP:JR, and to match the rest of the WP articles on famous Jr and Sr people. All recent WP:RM discussions on MLK-related and similar cases have closed with a consensus in favor of following the no-comma preference that's recommended by essentially all modern style and grammar guides and by our own Manual of Style. MLK Jr.'s and Sr.'s names, and the names of these places and topics, are commonly found in reliable sources without the comma, and have been since the 1960s, so there's clearly no need for an exceptional exception in this case. Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as nom – See these recent discussions for precedents:
and also see all the rest of the Jr-comma-related RM discussions since the RFC that amended WP:JR, all of which show consensus for no comma:
Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. & cited precedents.--JayJasper (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, and you can overwhelm with here's and there's and yet the name of this American and world icon is Martin Luther King, Jr., including the comma. Look at your list. Wanting to change the King Memorial, which is well documented by its sources and its internet presence (as well as its physical presence on the D.C. Mall), is not only bad for an encyclopedia, for history, and for accuracy, but it's kind of on the way to head-scratching. Exceptions are allowed. Grandfathering pages was encouraged in the comma close, and this iconic figure is certainly worthy of an exception to keep his real name (does the exceptions-clause on guidelines actually mean anything?). And what do n-grams tell us? A dollar to donuts that the comma, which is carved onto Dr. King's tombstone, is on the cover of all his books, and designates his National Memorial in Washington, has a "winning" showing in the n-gram primary. Randy Kryn 22:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Google n-grams does not do punctuation, so it tells us nothing. The memorial was established by law as "Memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr.", avoiding the mismatched-comma problem that our current title has. Other sources avoid it by using the two-comma or no-comma version; we can make our own choice, and can use the preference expressed in WP:JR to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The name of the Memorial, as deemed by the National Park Service, Congress, the U.S. President and White House, the stone at the site, and the Foundation that built it at their actually quite beautiful website, and just about anyone who knows that a comma in a person's name is just a pause pertaining to the name and not what follows, is Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial or, in the case of Congress, contains the comma. Deal with it, but please deal with it by leaving it alone and not, in an encyclopedia, giving one of the few major monuments on the U.S. National Mall a made-up name that you prefer. Randy Kryn 10:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Style and grammar guides that cover this issue never suggest that it changes a name to include a comma or not. Several specifically use MLK Jr. as an example of this styling choice:
And most manuals consider it a grammatical error to use a comma before but not after, as yes even the NPS does for this memorial; see Talk:Comma#In English: Commas used with "Jr[.]" and "Sr[.]". It honors the man and the memorial better to fix the error than to repeat it. Dicklyon (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
And WP:ISNOT a US government agency; we don't really care what the US govt.'s house style is. WP has its own style manual, based on reliable academic sources, the vast majority of which do not use this comma and recommend against it (as I documented months ago at Talk:Comma#Jr.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I presume this is just because I opposed your RM earlier today? Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You opposed it with the words "We are not trend followers", which may apply to this comma RM as well. This has happened often, that when someone opposes these massive comma moves which are being used to remove the real names of people and things from what is supposed to be an honored encyclopedia, they get personally criticized, and the guidelines/policies that they point to are ignored. WP:OTHERSTUFF, as concerns this RM, is just fine. Randy Kryn 10:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
See WP:GREATWRONGS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, WP:OTHER is never a sufficient argument by itself (never mind that it's an essay). From its nutshell: "Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them." ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support—Thank god someone's done this. Tony (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:JR, common usage, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral because who actually cares about this. clpo13(talk) 18:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:JR, and the RfC that resulted in the no-comma rule. The title of that RfC used this very article (MLK) as the example, with supporting RS documentation. I.e., the RfC already closed with a consensus to move this and similar articles. This RM could technically have been speedied, both on that basis, and because in three months of a two or three individuals' tendentious resistance to MOS:JR's implementation, every RM on this question has concluded to remove the comma when present and to not insert one where absent. The articles listed here are among the last remaining cases of "comma-Jr." style on the whole project, and their continued presence is both a WP:CONSISTENCY problem and a WP:SOAPBOX-against-guidelines problem. Clpo13 is correct that we should not give a damn about such trivia, but the fact that a few people are making it their mission to stonewall on this issue is disruptive and it needs to be put to bed. The punctuation trivia isn't the issue; the anti-consensus campaigning is the issue. No one agrees with every single MoS, AT, and other guideline and policy rule, and no such rule has unanimous agreement. We agree to abide by them as a set (and to seek consensus for changes to them, and live with it when we don't get the the version we want) so we can work productively. If everyone went to war over every naming and style nit-pick they had a pet peeve about, WP could consist of pretty much nothing but 24/7 naming and style bickering. We have these WP:PAG to curtail such battlegrounding; unhappiness with a line item in any of them is never an excuse to engage in more of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Extended threaded discussion
The close of the Rfc which you wrongly say resulted in the "no comma rule" reads as follows: "As fraught with difficulty as it is, the discussion concludes that our MOS should express a preference toward not using commas. Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended, and one should remember that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy. Nyttend's warning against rule creep should be born in mind as well. Moreover, DGG is correct in saying that there is no consensus outside of Wikipedia, and I find the overview of style guides to be less convincing than I had hoped: based on that evidence I would have spoken out against the proposal. But the editors have spoken. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)". So please don't mislead editors, or make this up to be a solid rule when, like a judicial ruling, the close was well thought out and specifically says "Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended". The closer, Drmies, also explained this during the discussion. SMcCandlish's comments about editors who wish to uphold that close are thus over-the-top in terms of trying to influence-by-finger-wagging and by implying that people shouldn't give a f about this. Historians care, the roll-out of history itself cares, and the people who honor the man and his Memorial in Washington care. And by the way, Dr. King used the comma on all of his books, so libraries and publishers care. This is an encyclopedia and should reflect the real world, and in that spirit the only stonewalling I see are the stone that marks his grave and the stone which tells the public the name of his Memorial on the U.S. National Mall in Washington, both of which contain the comma. Randy Kryn 19:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
When it takes more than 25 RMs to achieve what a single one could have taken care of quickly, all because two editors keep trying in vain to filibuster, then some finger-wagging is clearly warranted. Quoting the RfC close is not supporting your case at all. There is nothing, despite the closer's WP:SUPERVOTE hand-wringing, that is unclear about "the discussion concludes that our MOS should express a preference toward not using commas". It does so, and RMs have, one after another, concluded that there aren't any reasons to go against that preference. We've actually been looking hard for a case where someone living and notable unambiguously insists on the comma, or a case where someone historical is consistently given the comma in modern sources, and we can't find either. The closer's desire to see a "grandfathering" approach be taken has already happened; these RMs have been spread out over months. The fact that you keep trying to turn this, at every opportunity, into arguments about "honor" (see again here, and that wasn't the first time) leads both to pointers to WP:GREATWRONGS and argument to emotion, and to an obvious question: Where is your evidence, in any sources, that using a comma or not has anything to do with honoring the subject? I own virtually every English-language style guide ever published in the modern era, and zero of them say anything like "include a comma as an indicator of special respect". This goes hand in hand with hyperbolic claims of yours, also fallacious, that opponents of the comma are "try[ing] to convince editors that Dr. King's name is not his name" [1], restated later as "remov[ing] the real names of people" [2], which are comparable to a claim that reclassification of Pluto as a dwarf planet is an attempt to pretend Pluto does not exist at all, or to erase its name and replace it with 134340, respectively. What was that you said, something like "please don't mislead editors"? Let's just cut to the chase: Cite reliable sources that a spelling once used (not consistently even back-when) for someone's name must be used forever, and then go RM Thomas Malory to Thomas Malleorre, and Julius Caesar to IVLIUS CAESAR and see how that goes. Finally, as has been shown at every venue this has been discussed, and in great detail where I personally disproved your assertions that sources consistently use the comma for MLK in particular, the sources do no such thing (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#mlk). You making the same already-disproved claim here, yet again, is a pattern addressed already in policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – I can always expect to see Dicklyon when and where commas are concerned. Go ahead, we did the same thing with the NASCAR drivers. United States Man (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I do dashes, caps, and other style items, too, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No sources are provided in the nomination to support the moves. A very quick link on the website of one of the entities here clearly shows prominent comma usage. WP:JR does not prohibit comma usage if sources consistently use it. —  AjaxSmack  03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Per the precedents, the onus would be on those wanting an exception to show that sources are consistent. In this case they are very much not, as discussed in the original RFC; e.g. in these books on the MLK Memorial we see no comma in several, two commas in several, and one comma in several. On the individuals, many books go comma-free: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and lots more. There's a nearly unlimited set of sources to choose from, the comma usage is nowhere close to consistent. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. A few examples of "prominent" usage by some sources AjaxSmack and RandyKryn favor is not evidence of consistent usage across reliable sources. There's not even a bare 50.01% majority using the commas; the source research I did, both books and news RS, in the RfC shows clearly that they're in the minority (and 50.01% would not be enough, anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
AjaxSmack, you say "WP:JR does not prohibit comma usage if sources consistently use it." It is shown here beyond any doubt that the sources do not consistently use the comma in the name! Hence moving is the only logical conclusion. After all, it is clearly preferred in our guideline. gidonb (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Absent cherry-picking of sources, none clear the "clearly and consistently preferred" threshold specified in WP:JR. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – per MoS:JR and RfC. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:JR. Without the comma is commonly used (see for example [9]), as is with the comma. Our guideline correctly states that without the comma should be preferred. gidonb (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per house style. — JFG talk 00:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems Britannica lists Dr. King's name with the comma, as well as that of his National Memorial (I didn't know, and am sorry to see, that they have ads on their pages). With that said, and with an editor now withdrawing his opposition to this move, it's obvious that this RM will pass and that the comma-conflict is over. Some of the very few editors who comment or even know about such matters - an extremely small universe of editors whose decisions then catch many others by surprise when they see the resulting changes - have told me, more or less, that I'm 100% wrong and they are 100% right. Maybe that's so, maybe a new world of styling is taking over and things that some of us take for granted are no longer accepted as normal. Wanting to keep this simple comma in one tiny corner of Wikipedia - the Martin Luther King pages - seems to have caused unintended distress. My apologies for contributing to the distress some editors felt over this, my disappointment that Wikipedia has gone down this route, and my hope that we've all learned from what seems to have been an exercise in frustration to some yet certainly a caring for Wikipedia and the world of shared-knowledge by all. Randy Kryn 4:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's much distress or surprise involved, just some frustration over how hard you've fought for your corner. I've tried to make sure that the comma-free style is noticed, everywhere I can. Lots of titles, templates, categories, discussions, etc., have by now brought the modern styling to the attention of everyone who is likely to notice or care. I haven't heard of anyone being surprised recently. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please put the comma back

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd ask an administrator to please put the comma back in the title: Martin Luther King, Jr. The page was moved without discussion, and I opposed that move but didn't do anything about it at the time, knowing that at some point a discussion here would take place. Yet, as with Martin Luther King, Sr., which also had its comma removed, it then was put back because it clearly was a controversial move as a discussion was taking place and continues to take place, the comma on this page probably should be returned for the time being. It was recently decided that either using a comma or not using it is fine on Wikipedia (if I'm reading it right). So in the case of any discussion about comma usage on Martin Luther King, Jr., the standard comma - which he used, for example, on his book titles - should be present, as it had been since the article's inception. Randy Kryn 4:28 26 March, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, it looks totally weird without the comma. Here the King Center's use of the comma.--A21sauce (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi A21sauce, and I agree but the deed is done across all "Jr." and "Sr." names on Wikipedia (and see the name change discussion below which closed after editors gave me the ole "you hold him down and I'll kick him" here and on my talk page). This certainly is not Dr. King's name, and the best alternate is to soon have a new RM asking to change the name to simply 'Martin Luther King' (he's known as MLK, not as MLKJ) which may be a viable move request at some point (probably not now, the dustup is too fresh and emotions seemed to have been stirred). Randy Kryn 17:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Prostitute Scandals & Domestic Violence (Against Sex Workers) Missing

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I did a search for the word "prostitute" and "hooker" in the article - and the Talk page - and there were no results. The closest this article comes to accurately portraying this aspect of MLK's life is mentioning his affairs. I don't think that it is fair to leave this out and I would say the same if someone like David Duke, Trump or other racist whites had pages where such negative stuff was left out/toned down so it's not a case of a white person trying to defame a black leader. The evidence regarding MLK's use of prostitutes - and to a lesser extent his abuse of predominately white prostitutes/sex workers - is well documented by his friends, enemies and unbiased 3rd parties. MLK's hypocrisy should be mentioned. I'm not asking that unsubstantiated rumors like MLK beating white prostitutes and requesting that they call him their "white daddy" be included as that is not verifiable and isn't relevant. I simply think that his dark-side should at least be outlined more clearly, just like his accomplishments are. I don't think that is a racist request and my motivations are not racial in nature. I don't think hypocrisy should be ignored because someone is a hero to many people.

To put this request in contrast, Ted Haggard's Wikipedia page includes info on his alleged use of prostitutes in the very beginning of his page. The page starts with a 2 sentence long intro and then the 3rd sentence is about the prostitution and drug allegations. I would say that is far too prominent as it comes before virtually everything he did in life. Mr Haggard is a white pastor and was the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals for several years so he is similar to MLK in some respects. There is a precedent to including such information. Mr Haggard denies the prostitution allegations and if you compare the evidence between the two cases I doubt anyone can seriously claim that the allegations against MLK are not as substantiated as those made against Mr Haggard. In fact, the evidence of MLK's use and abuse of prostitutes is far stronger and much more documented than the evidence against Mr Haggart. There are only two reasons why someone would not want this information about MLK included in the article: 1. They are unaware of the number and reliability of the reports regarding MLK's use of prostitutes. 2. They are biased imho. If references are needed I can supply a list. Please let me know your thoughts. user: Anon User 4:10 16, August, 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:8300:E073:A054:1D6B:3B81:B2D7 (talk)

On the other hand, see Aspiring agents learn from mistakes of FBI's 'shameful' investigation of Martin Luther King Jr.. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations for unproven rhetorical statement 2nd para last sentence

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Their is a disturbing lack of citation\s at the end of the second paragraphs' last sentence. I am paraphrasing here:"he was one of the greatests orators of the 20th century." what professor\s of oratory rank him as such? this statement uses Rhetoric with no citations. to be one of four or five of an entire century in the u.s.a. would be an accomplishment. this rhetorical statement infers the entire world, not just american english speakers. it panders to political correctness UNLESS citations by trained and WORLD instructed masters of 20th century oratory are included....oration is a political science and must be treated so....the statement should be left AS IS but WITH CITED PROOF.Hortenseescapee (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Hortenseescapee, and welcome to Wikipedia. There's no reason to shout (CITATIONS FOR UNPROVEN RHETORICAL STATEMENT 2ND PARA).
With respect to your comment, you're asking about the opening, or lead section of the article. Its purpose is to summarize the article and consequently, information in the lead is often left without footnotes, because the information is elsewhere in the article with citations. (See WP:LEADCITE for a complete explanation.)
The sentence in the opening section is part of a pair that say "King also helped to organize the 1963 March on Washington, where he delivered his famous 'I Have a Dream' speech. There, he established his reputation as one of the greatest orators in American history." In the section of the article titled "March on Washington, 1963", it says:
"I Have a Dream" came to be regarded as one of the finest speeches in the history of American oratory.[1] The March, and especially King's speech, helped put civil rights at the top of the agenda of reformers in the United States and facilitated passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Moore, Lucinda (August 1, 2003). "Dream Assignment". Smithsonian. Retrieved August 27, 2008.
  2. ^ James T. Patterson, Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945–1974 (Oxford University Press 1996) pp 482–85, 542–46
  3. ^ Harvard Sitkoff, The Struggle for Black Equality (Hill and Wang; 2008) pp 152–53
So the sentence in the opening section does have citations, just not right there. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Name Changes

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the 1930 Census, Martin King, Sr. and Martin King, Jr. were listed as Marvin L. King, not Michael. In the 1940 census, Martin was then Martin L. King, but his father remained Marvin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddaniel37 (talk • contribs) 21:04, January 16, 2016

The US Federal Census is not considered to be a sacrosanct source for the details of an individual's life. The information that the enumerators write down can be very wrong and must always be corroborated whenever possible. If you have indeed found the correct entry (this happens a lot), and not an entry for a similar family in the same area, then you have proved for yourself how erroneous the info can be. Another example: in the 1940 Census, my mother's family, "Frantz" (living at the same exact street address as the 1930 Census), was entered as "French". But she's still my mother who bore the surname of Frantz.
Some ways in which the information could be entered in error:
  • the enumerator and the informant didn't speak the same language;
  • this was before birth certificates and IDs were required for everything - people just didn't remember the dates of events like they must do now;
  • the enumerator had bad handwriting that is hard to transcribe today;
  • the Census sheets sustained damaged that makes them hard to transcribe today;
  • the enumerator may have been older with some hearing loss;
  • the enumerator may not have spoken with the head of a household, but with one of their children or even a neighbor down the street.
Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I think what the other editor may be getting at is the article's assertion that King's father changed their names to Martin following a 1934 trip to Germany is clearly impossible if MLK Jr. is already called "Martin" (or miswritten as Marvin) in the 1930 census, the year after his birth. Libertybison (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Harvard University

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to this King spent two years at Harvard (not sure when). See also Raphael Demos. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

MLK's skipped grades

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Are you sure MLK had skipped 12th grade? I've read that it was 11th grade that he'd skipped, not 12th grade. Here's my source(go to fact number 6). [1] LegoBen201714 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 20 Interesting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. facts, see fact number six.
Hello LegoBen201714, and welcome to Wikipedia. We generally try to use high-quality reliable sources for our articles, and I'm afraid that website doesn't meet the bar. I found dozens of sources at Google Books that say King skipped 9th and 12th grades, but most of them -- like the source used in this article -- are biographies intended for young readers and not high-quality sources. Some of the high-quality sources I did find include The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (which was assembled from his writings years after his death) and the introduction to this volume in The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. that says he skipped 9th grade and (on the following page) that he had the opportunity to go to college right after 11th grade (thus skipping 12th grade). Hope that helps. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jchen9207 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
47.16.167.0 (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

King was a member of the prestigious Fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha. 2605:E000:302E:4000:35B0:9FEF:7A98:EAA5 (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  Not done. No source. El_C 03:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

watch to hear

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article reads, "You may watch the speech, 'Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam,' by Martin Luther King here." However, it is an audio speech, so it should read, "You may hear the speech, 'Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam,' by Martin Luther King here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.187.255.17 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for an obvious but missed correction. Randy Kryn 23:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverend King redirects here

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How important is the redirect Reverend King to this article? I am asking because there is a popular Nigerian pastor that was sentenced to death about a decade ago that is famously referred to as Reverend King. I wanted to move his article to the appropriate name only to discover that the name redirected here. Ps: I know MLK quite well, but still didn't completely expect Reverend King to redirect here. Darreg (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Darreg, I've added a hatnote to the Nigerian figure from MLK's article. As mentioned to you today at RfD, you should create a move request if you want to rename Reverend King Ezeugo. You may contact me on my talk page if you need help doing this. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
BDD Thanks sir. I will do that soon. Darreg (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

'injustice in health care'

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At a Convention of the Medical Committee for Human Rights held in Chicago in March 1966, Martin Luther King Jr declared:

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane” (source)

Imo, it's worth mentioning in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Religious views

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The current sub-heading is incredibly short, and should be expanded. There seems to be a lot of nuance that isn't discussed. I'm doing some reading now, and I'm anything but an expert, but it's raising some questions about what MLK's actual relgious viewpoints are. In this paper written in 1949, he seems to be saying that the Christian beliefs of ressurection, Jesus' divinity, and virgin birth are not literally true, but rather mythology.

This article also discusses how he rejects biblical literalism. According to it:

King didn't believe the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale was true, for example, or that John the Baptist actually met Jesus, according to texts detailed in the King papers book. King once referred to the Bible as "mythological" and also doubted whether Jesus was born to a virgin, Carson said.

If he was not a Biblical literalist as these seem to imply, then it would be pertinent to include them. It may need a full article to get the full nuance of his theological views. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

King was skeptical of many of Christianity's claims. At the age of 13, he denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus during Sunday school. From this point, he stated, "doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly." However, he later concluded that the Bible has "many profound truths which one cannot escape" and decided to enter the seminary.

These sentences are presented right now as if these two pieces of evidence are contradictory. If my reading of the above articles is correct, then it seems that this isn't a contradiction, but rather a very liberal non-literal kind of theology. This theology holds that scripture is not authoritative on facts and science, but rather only authoritative on morality. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

His correct title is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Rmlee7 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  Not done @Rmlee7: Thanks for pointing this out, but Wikipedia's manual of style does not use academic titles. See MOS:CREDENTIAL His doctorate is discussed in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

What crimes were Martin Luther King convicted of?

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

And when did these actions become decriminalized. Relates to a CfD discussion being held here.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

King was convicted of breaking unjust laws, such as leading a bus boycott, and that has not been -- and likely never will be -- "decriminalized". — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
How was leading a bus boycott even breaking the law? Seems like he wasn't really breaking the law, the government decided to just arbitrarily infringe on his first amendment rights to free assembly.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
You could think that, but you would be wrong. Marching without a permit is also a crime, as is refusing to disperse a crowd when ordered by the so-called lawful authorities. I don't think you understand the concept of civil disobedience, the intentional violation of unjust laws, which was King's greatest tool. Most activists are ipso facto criminals, at least in the eyes of the law. (Especially in the U.S., which according to myth has no political prisoners.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of what civil disobedience, thanks. However I wasn't entirely sure that marching without a permit is criminal behavior in most jurisdictions.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Georgia Davis Powers allegations

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

http://www.sfltimes.com/news/civil-rights-leader-politician-and-alleged-mlk-mistress-dies feel free to find a better reference, if someone has read the biographies of the people involved I think the general public would be well served to know the truth about who was with him in his final hours and days, rather than hiding such information. For the record I'm a big fan of MLK but I don't see why we should hide or ignore common failings in historical figures. Oathed (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not our role as editors to ferret out "the truth". We report what reliable sources say about a subject, not unsubstantiated gossip. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with MShabazz. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid for defamatory gossip. Sundayclose (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Adultery Allegations as Part of Nov 3 2017 JFK FBI Files release

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The Adultery section begins with two authors who alleged extramarital affairs which were later called "sensationalized". The recent FBI report indicates a much stronger tendancy and merits updating this section, with a note that the FBI was attempting to discredit King at the time.

Allegations:

  • Used funds from the Ford foundation to host a conference filled "behind-the-scene drinking, fornication and homosexuality" including hiring two prostitutes.
  • Fathered a child out of wedlock, slept with famous singer Joan Baez
  • “When one of the females shied away from engaging in an unnatural [sexual] act, King and other of the males present discussed how she was to be taught and initiated”
  • "Throughout the ensuing years and until this date, King has continued to carry on his sexual aberrations secretly while holding himself out to public view as a moral leader of religious conviction."

See last two pages of the report: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10125-10133.pdf

Additionally, this section could already use additional subheaders and ordering. Should I take a shot at rewriting / incorporating and post here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glasnost86 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the problem with FBI reports is they are just that "reports", that doesn't mean there is substantiated evidence. I think what is presently there is sufficient, but I await other editors thoughts and comments. Kierzek (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The article already has a very long section about the FBI and Kin0g's personal life, and based on the news reports I've read, this seems like more of the same (although the name of a world-famous female folk singer has been mentioned, as well as the possibility of an out-of-wedlock child with a second woman). I have no interest in reading the FBI report itself, and as a primary source of questionable reliability, we shouldn't cite it any way. Is there anything in Friday's release that's truly new? If not, the right way to handle it is to add another phrase and cite a new news report in the FBI section. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
By the way, according to King biographer David Garrow, much of what's in the newly released documents is neither new nor true. "The No. 1 thing I've learned in 40 years of doing this, is just because you see it in a top secret document, just because someone had said it to the FBI, doesn’t mean it's all accurate."[10] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

At Harvard

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There are plenty of sources to say he attended classes at Harvard but that isn't in the article. It's mentioned here too. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Philafrenzy. King may have attended classes at Harvard, but is there something particularly remarkable or unusual about his period there? Did he earn a degree, or did he meet somebody in Cambridge/Boston who influenced him? This is a relatively short biography, and it can't mention everything he did in his life. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
According to the article he attended for two years and got an A for a course on the Philosophy of Plato. We normally mention the educational institutions that people attended in biographies. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
From what I gather, King took two or three philosophy classes at Harvard as a special student in 1952 and 1953, during the time he was working toward his doctorate at Boston University. I really don't see the significance of that, unless sources say that one of the Harvard classes or professors was particularly influential on King's life or views. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

(For greater clarity, I would suggest the following be included)

under the heading:

'Allegations of conspiracy'

The conclusion in the 1979 Report of House Select Committee on Assassinations in its Findings on Martin Luther King, Jr. Assassination states:

"The committee believes on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available to it, that there is a likelihood that James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a result of a conspiracy." (1)

and at the end of their report:

"The committee concluded that there was a likelihood of conspiracy in the assassination of Dr. King. To summarize, several findings were central to the committee's conspiracy conclusion. First, James Earl Ray was the assassin of Dr. King, and Raoul, as described by Ray, did not exist. In reaching these conclusions, the committee rejected the possibility that James Earl Ray was an unwitting "fall guy manipulated by others. The committee found, rather, that Ray acted with full knowledge of what he was doing in the murder of Dr. King.

Second, an analysis of Ray's conduct before the assassination provided compelling indications of conspiracy."

and finally:

"It is unfortunate that this information was not developed in 1968, when it could have been pursued by law enforcement agencies equipped with tools not available to the committee and at a time when the principals were still alive and witness' memories were more precise. It is a matter on which reasonable people may legitimately differ, but the committee believed that the conspiracy that eventuated in Dr. King's death in 1968 could have been brought to justice in 1968." (2)

(1). Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1979. 1 volume, 686 pages, II.B. and Page 371, 7. CONCLUSION. https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-2b.html

(2). ibid Page 374 Escd5 21:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Escd5 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done. The fact that the congressional committee concluded that a conspiracy was likely may belong in Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., but it seems like a very weak "conclusion" to include in this article. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree with MShabazz, that type of information may belong with WP:RS citing on the "Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr" page, but not here. Kierzek (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Luther King Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Although I was previously in favor of adding "Michael King" to the lede, the fact that his birth certificate was altered makes this a "common-sense exception" to WP:BIRTHNAME. Esszet (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In light of all the misinformation concerning both Kings' names and the reason they were "changed", including some that was in this article until yesterday, I would support the addition of an explanatory footnote on the subject. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Esszet (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Does "Michael King" even need to be in the infobox? It seems strange to put it there but not in the lede, and mentioning it in the early life section should be enough. Esszet (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
97.123.1.65 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There is too much detail plus no one uses this any way so just stop

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sakura CarteletTalk 04:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Martin Luther King JR. is an AFRICAN American activist.

Let's change it to African American because he was not American! He was BLACK 198.105.46.198 (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor 11:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

activist

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the first sentence, consider calling him a civil rights activist, not activist. Mary Larry King (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Image proposal

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 
Proposal

I do not like the current lead image. He looks confused and defensive. Here a proposal for a replacement.--Jahobr (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Good faith suggestion. Yet the present image is of King preaching. In the proposed image he looks confused and defensive. Eye of the beholder. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I would not agree that the present image has a look of "confused and defensive", Jahobr and he is at a lectern. The suggested replacement photo is not an improvement. Kierzek (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Recorded deathbed conversation with Ray associate Charles J. Stein

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Charles J. Stein was a known associate of James Earl Ray at the time of the shooting. His historical part in the aftermath is in the court record. He was deposed during the investigation.

His son recorded Stein talking about the time leading up to the shooting, and making observations about Ray's character, etc. He gave me permission to place the recording in the public domain and offer it on archive.org. It is exceedingly interesting: 

https://archive.org/details/DeathbedConversationWithJamesEarlRayAssociateCharlesJ.Stein  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Jim Crow laws

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures in the late 19th century after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued to be enforced until 1965."

The laws codified racial segregation and gave state agents power to enforce it. Please explain why "enforce" is the wrong word in both the opening sentence of Jim Crow laws and in this article. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think your revert was justified. Although one might argue that the police actually enforced those laws. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Identifying African Americans

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am confused as to why Martin Luther King Jr II is identified as American and not African American or Black. I understand using the terms Colored or Negro may seem controversial ,but I feel it disenfranchises the people he identified with and struggled for if you just label him American.

We still have to check black when their collecting statistical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwadwo Amponsah (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kwadwo Amponsah: African-Americans are Americans. He's called both a citizen of the United States and a member of the African-American ethnic group at multiple points in the article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Edit request to move tactics from its current position to before the comma. As it is the current position of "tactics" breaks the sentence up and does not flow properly. Also change "of" to "that" when talking about Gandhi's activism. This makes it flow and sound better. Change from: King is best known for advancing civil rights through nonviolence and civil disobedience, tactics his Christian beliefs and the nonviolent activism of Mahatma Gandhi helped inspire. to: King is best known for advancing civil rights through nonviolence and civil disobedience tactics, his Christian beliefs and the nonviolent activism that Mahatma Gandhi helped inspire. This sounds better and makes more sense. Elliotman234 (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree on both counts. This suggestion doesn't help the sentence flow better, it changes the meaning entirely (and might also be grammatically incorrect, I'm having trouble parsing it out this early in the morning). I'll leave this request open for a second opinion in case I'm wrong, though. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This changes the sentence from containing an appositive phrase to a series. It also changes the meaning of the sentence in that it would now state that MLK is known for his Christian beliefs, as opposed to his tactics being helped to be inspired by his Christian beliefs. It doesn’t seem like you intended to change the sentence’s meaning. --Bsherr (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
James Bevel, the main strategist and tactician of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, said that the strategy was based on two things: the founding documents of the United States and the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon being defined as a Christian belief isn't necessarily accurate, as Bevel called it a scientific lecture on nonviolence. Bevel's role in King's life is quite lacking on this page, but I haven't made his prominence a needed topic to be covered on King and SCLC pages. Although I'm considered a "subject matter expert" on Bevel on Wikipedia, and have had a few large discussions about his role on the Leo Tolstoy and the Civil Rights Movement talk pages, adding that context everywhere is not my role. Yet if phrases which solely credit King with the tactics and strategies of the movement are used (i.e. "his tactics") then I'll at least point those out on the talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I belive doctor king was on the 165.161.17.43 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Birth Name and Name Change

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to an article in The Washington Post, the birthname of Martin Luther King, Jr. was originally Michael King, Jr. MLK's original birth certificate was filed five years after his birth. Martin Luther King, Sr., father of Martin Luther King, Jr. who was born Michael King (information about the father's birth name appears in its own Wikipedia article)., changed both his name and son's name to Martin Luther King after the father traveled to Germany during the Hitler era. The Washington Post article stated that the change to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s name occurred on July 23, 1957. By that time, MLK was 28 years old.

Are there plans to update the article to reflect this new information?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/01/15/story-how-michael-king-jr-became-martin-luther-king-jr/?utm_term=.012b8a520afa

It's already in the article. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the section of "Montgomery bus boycott, 1955" the articles states in the first paragraph that E. D. Nixon and Clifford Durr decided to wait for a better case to pursue because the incident involved a minor, however it was due to the fact that Claudette Colvin was a unwed minor who was pregnant, and could therefore stir some controversy which would attempt to limit the validity of the racial segregation protests. Derekdck (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
p.s. here's a BBC article about Colvin, that might be useful. It does not definitely state there was one single reason, but it's pretty clear it was a factor. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

29 – April 4, 1968) was an American Baptist minister and activist who became the most visible spokesperson and leader in the civil rights movement from 1954 until his assassination in 1968. Born in Atlanta, King is best known for advancing civil rights through nonviolence and civil disobedience, tactics his Christian beliefs and the nonviolent activism of Mahatma Gandhi helped inspire.

King led the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott and in 1957 became the first president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). With the SCLC, he led an unsuccessful 1962 struggle against segregation in Albany, Georgia, and helped organize the nonviolent 1963 protests in Birmingham, Alabama. He also helped organize the 1963 March on Washington, where he delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech.

On October 14, 1964, King won the Nobel Peace Prize for combating racial inequality through nonviolent resistance. In 1965, he helped organize the Selma to Montgomery marches. The following year, he and the SCLC took the movement north to Chicago to work on segregated housing. In his final years, he expanded his focus to include opposition towards poverty and the Vietnam War. He alienated many of his liberal allies with a 1967 speech titled "Beyond Vietnam". J. Edgar Hoover considered him a radical and made him an object of the FBI's COINTELPRO from 1963 on. FBI agents investigated him for possible communist ties, recorded his extramarital liaisons and reported on them to government officials, and on one occasion mailed King a threatening anonymous letter, which he interpreted as an attempt to make him commit suicide.

In 1968, King was planning a national occupation of Washington, D.C., to be called the Poor People's Campaign, when he was assassinated on April 4 in Memphis, Tennessee. His death was followed by riots in many U.S. cities. Allegations that James Earl Ray, the man convicted of killing King, and imprisoned, had been framed or acted in concert with government agents, persisted for decades after the shooting. Sentenced to 99 years in prison for King's murder, effectively a life sentence as Ray was 41 at the time of conviction, Ray served 29 years of his sentence and died from hepatitis in 1998 while in prison. John.duchatelier (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have just copied and pasted a large section of the article. Are you requesting any change? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change "After emergency chest surgery, King died at St. Joseph's Hospital at 7:05 p.m." to "After being taken to St. Joseph's Hospital for surgery, King was suffocated with a pillow by chief of surgery Dr. Breen Bland and his two unidentified associates. King was pronounced dead at 7:05 p.m."

My sources for this are:

Book "The Plot to Kill King: The Truth Behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr." by William F Pepper Esq. (ISBN 1-5107-0217-2) Court case "King family vs. Loyd Jowers and other unknown co-conspirators" in which found in favor King's family and they received a sum of $100.

This is also covered in an article by The Center for Research on Globalization titled "The Plot to Kill Martin Luther King: Survived Shooting, Was Murdered in Hospital" Threadzless (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On January 13, 2011, a report was published detailing that DNA analysis of Dr. King's ancestry in The Grio I'd like to request the addition of his ancestry to the 'Early life and education' section as well as the relevant categories. Serenesage (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning "Dr. King" to first paragraph

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments11 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Strong consensus against the proposal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear friends on this talk page,

I'd like to request for comments whether it's a good idea to add Dr. King to the first paragraph because the subject Martin Luther King, Jr seems to me very often referred as Dr. King. Per MOS:DOCTOR. Xinbenlv (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to revert my edits adding Dr. King in Special:Diff/891702592 and Special:Diff/891700507. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it is vague and ambiguous. Also, where is the RS citing that states he is widely known as just "Dr. King", alone. Kierzek (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I checked Google Ngram here and it showed widespread usage in books. The term "Dr. King" is also a redirect page that directs here. Mitchumch (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) No, that is not appropriate for the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No Are you seriously arguing that "Dr. King" was "a pseudonym or stage name" analogous to "Dr. Ruth"? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No It is ok to be placed elsewhere in the article, but for it to be in the lead is unnecessary Cook907 (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No. WP shouldn't be giving people titles, as that's non-neutral, as it implies they're somehow special or better than others. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Malik Shabazz, it isn't "a pseudonym or stage name" and per Kierzek, it is vague - therefore it would be slightly confusing in the lead. Though there is no reason why it should not be mentioned wherever his doctorate is mentioned. BTW, this use is almost unknown in UK, and, I suspect is US only - very possibly confined to supporters according him simultaneous respect and familiarity. Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose mentioning "Dr." However WP:CREDENTIALS allows us to cover what doctorates King had acquired: "However, verifiable facts about how a person attained his or her title should be included in the article." Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
No, his degrees should of course be mentioned in the education section. Otherwise, he should be referred to simply as "King" after first mention, except when it is necessary to disambiguate him from other King family members. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I accept your consensus as No, thank you for your comments Xinbenlv (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead paragraph starts with "Civil rights leader"?

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After five and a half days without comments there seems to be consensus against the proposal. --MrClog (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear bio friends,

Bear with me for the second question, I am practicing to write wikipedia lead paragraph for bio, and my educational question is: Would it be more appropriate that the lead paragraph start with something like

"Martin Luther King. Jr (year-year) is an American civil right leader, minister of..."(slightly changing order of the current version).

My reason is Civil right leader is what he is mostly known and recognized for. Please educate me why this is better or not than the current version. Thank you!


Xinbenlv (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

· According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section the lead "gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on" and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." With these in mind the only thing that worries me about changing the order is that it would decrease the readability. The current lead sentence follows Dr. King's life in a chronological sense, but if you could re-order it and remain consistent with his life chronologically I believe it could work. I leave this open to other comments. Cook907 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. You seem to think that a new reader will not read more than nine words. That seems very little. I would imagine that anybody who was interested enough to click on the article would at least read the whole of the first sentence; then they will see that he is best known as the leader of the civil rights movement. Also, it would have been better for you to have just started a discussion than to start a Request for comment. This is the second time you've done it in a few days. Please take the time to get used to how Wikipedia processes work before starting up RFCs. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot) whilst it is often the case that a person's main claim to notability is placed first, reasons of 'text flow' and 'narrative flow' also come into play. In this instance, MLK's position as a minister is covered very briefly before the more expanded text of his role in civil rights. Also, his more notable role came about initially because of his standing as a minister, which also deeply influenced his rhetorical style. For these two reasons, this is better treated in the present order. Similiar treatment occurs on many other biog's, where a compromise is affected between chronology, notability and text flow. I also endorse what Scolaire says about not starting RfC's until talk page discussion has been exhausted. Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr./Archive_10&oldid=1133836623"