Difference between revisions of "Talk:Martin Luther King"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Warning: This page should not be turned into an attack page on King)
(Warning: This page should not be turned into an attack page on King)
Line 83: Line 83:
 
==Warning: This page should not be turned into an attack page on King==
 
==Warning: This page should not be turned into an attack page on King==
 
It's sickening that racists would allow a national hero, whose National Holiday was passed by a Republican Senate and signed into law by a Republican President after two racist Democrat Houses of Congress and a Democrat president refused to even consider the bill, would now allow this page to be taken over by racists intending to impugn the man. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:31, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
 
It's sickening that racists would allow a national hero, whose National Holiday was passed by a Republican Senate and signed into law by a Republican President after two racist Democrat Houses of Congress and a Democrat president refused to even consider the bill, would now allow this page to be taken over by racists intending to impugn the man. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:31, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
:MLK was a brave man who made breakthroughs in race relations and he was a great orator, but unfortunately he was a lecherous bum and a plagiarizer. It's hard truth that some people are part Dr. Jekyll and part Mr. Hyde.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:MLK was a brave man who made breakthroughs in race relations and he was a great orator, but unfortunately he was a lecherous bum and a plagiarizer. It's a hard truth that some people are part Dr. Jekyll and part Mr. Hyde.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (EDT)
 
::Actually, without the proof of the tapes, it is basically the FBI vs. MLK and his supporters, so I will delete the accusations from the article. See: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/fbi-has-tapes-martin-luther-16206294 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:12, 29 May 2019 (EDT)
 
::Actually, without the proof of the tapes, it is basically the FBI vs. MLK and his supporters, so I will delete the accusations from the article. See: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/fbi-has-tapes-martin-luther-16206294 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:12, 29 May 2019 (EDT)
 
:::Agreed, it's better off if we at least wait until 2027, especially when apparently Comey was the one who let slip about the tapes existence (and knowing how Comey's like to Trump, I can't help but think he had an ulterior motive for making that premature claim). Still, if it's true, it's definitely going to leave a large dent in my respect for the guy (though I'll maintain unlike some others that MLK was at least a good anti-Communist warrior). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 06:18, 29 May 2019 (EDT)
 
:::Agreed, it's better off if we at least wait until 2027, especially when apparently Comey was the one who let slip about the tapes existence (and knowing how Comey's like to Trump, I can't help but think he had an ulterior motive for making that premature claim). Still, if it's true, it's definitely going to leave a large dent in my respect for the guy (though I'll maintain unlike some others that MLK was at least a good anti-Communist warrior). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 06:18, 29 May 2019 (EDT)

Revision as of 05:36, 29 May 2019

Too bad this page is protected. There's nothing here about his extramarital affairs, his plagiarism, or his support for socialism. AppliedFaith 04:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh good God in Heaven, are you trying to discredit Martin Luther King Jr.? The man is an American ICON. Thats like trying to discredit JFK or Lincoln. I think every city has a street named after MLK.--Elamdri 04:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
He's an icon for liberals and Negroes, not for all Americans. AppliedFaith 04:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, if you wanna hate the man according to your twisted beliefs, be my guest. Btw, since when is Socialism a vice?--Elamdri 04:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I never said I hated him. There's a big gap between "He's not my icon" and "I hate him". And if you don't know what's bad about socialism, you're at the wrong website. Even liberal Wikipedia allows criticism of MLK in their article, it's pretty ironic that a conservative encyclopedia just tells what a great guy he was and then locks the page. AppliedFaith 04:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I asked since when was socialism a vice? It may not work well, but that doesn't make it bad. I think that if you wanna add that stuff, you have a right to do so. I'm just stating that I don't think that his human errors will affect my feelings about those things that he did positive for this country.--Elamdri 04:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Gee, thanks for giving me your permission. Unfortunately the page is still locked. AppliedFaith 04:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not giving permission. I'm expressing beliefs. If you wanna edit it, you'll have to petition Andy.--Elamdri 05:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Give me a break. MountainDew 04:43, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what scares me about history. A man is subject to be picked apart for every action he takes, despite the fact we are just humans at the end of the day.--Elamdri 04:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Reason for editing

I'm new to CP, but WP also gives a reason why the article is locked. What's the reason here? --Ephilei 11:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

It was linked to the front page (which always makes an article a target) according to the edit history. Further back in the edit history is another reason why pages get protected, but don't look if you're easily offended. Or even not-so easily... :( Totnesmartin 15:07, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Need to add default sort

Please add the following {{DEFAULTSORT:King, Martin Luther}} to the article, right before the categories...it is protected. Thanks. HeartOfGoldtalk 02:29, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Communist ties

Martin Luther King is known to have had ties and funds by the Communists. Thiudareiks 18:23, 25 January 2008 (EST)

This and the below are insane allegations. Do you have any proof?-MexMax 18:27, 25 January 2008 (EST)
There read once of records by the FBI, a picture of him attending a communist conference in Georgia. I'll be looking for some references, will come back soon. Thiudareiks 18:57, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Are you by any chance referring to this? Pokeria1 (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
You might perhaps want to begin with Bayard Rustin. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters
Hmm, considering he's BFFs with Nixon, it would seem extremely unlikely that he was a Communist by that point (bear in mind, at the time MLK was friends with Nixon, the latter had just exposed Alger Hiss as a communist. Had MLK been a communist during that time, he would not have remained friends with Nixon after that.). Pokeria1 (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2019 (EST)
Well, King actually addresses this question over several pages in his 1957 book, The Montgomery Story. He read Marx, agreed with some of it and disagreed with other portions. He does not endorse it. However, he was surrounded by communists, including later UN Rep. Andrew Young. There's no doubt that SNCC was a commie front. I can't say for sure that the SPLC was. But King basically believed change in the US could come about by working within the system, not tearing it down and destroying it, as some of his closest supporters did evidenced by their associations with the Communist party. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:05, 21 February 2019 (EST)

An interesting note: Nixon was audited by the IRS and ordered to pay back-taxes for a charitable deduction he took for donating his Vice -Presidential papers to Stanford University (a deduction he took at the suggestion of Lyndon Johnson, who donated his Senate Majority papers to the University of Texas and took a deduction. By the time the Supreme Court disallowed the deduction, Johnson was dead and couldn't be audited, and Hillary Clinton was on the Watergate Committee arguing that records of elected officials were government property and not the individual's personal property to dispose of as they pleased); in tax year 1968, which was the year King was killed and Nixon took the deduction, the single highest appraised items to establish a monetary value of the deduction was Nixon's letters from Dr. King. He took a $250,000 deduction. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:22, 21 February 2019 (EST)

Plagiarism

I read somewhere on the internet about a study proving that he plagiarized his doctoral thesis and even his I have a dream speech. I advise further investigations. Thiudareiks 18:23, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Five years later, I agree that we should investigate. For academic work that ears a degree, there is a higher standard. It is plagiarism if you fail to cite a source and rather offer someone else's ideas or research as your own. When giving a speech, it is no offense to omit mention of your influences. --Ed Poor Talk 09:29, 22 September 2013 (EDT)

Questionable Line

"This suspicion of Dr. King was ironic, as he was a well-known Republican, who opposed the death tax and rights for homosexuals."

Does that make sense at all to anybody? How is it ironic that he was kept tabs on by the FBI because he was a Republican? Does that imply that Republicans who oppose the death tax and rights for homosexuals automatically cannot be suspected of any crime? Though MLK Jr. was an amazing man and an American hero, at the time he was considered dangerous by the FBI for causing political upset--before his time, equal rights for blacks were virtually unheard of. So how does that line above make sense at all? I see it as a relic of Conservative self-importance, probably written by the kind of person who makes me ashamed of my party. -Ilikecake 20:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Changed to well-known Conservative. I will note that Democrats have nothing to refute that he was Republican. --Jpatt 01:09, 3 January 2009 (EST)
he was neither a Republican nor a conservative.Indeed he is the #1 liberal of the past 50 years, so I changed that. RJJensen 06:34, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Name his liberal attributes. --Jpatt 11:03, 3 January 2009 (EST)
He preached a message of universal equality, one that, according to his wife, included homosexuals. --SirCalibur 15:11, 7 January 2011 (EST)

I'd like to see the entire article rewritten. He is the most famous black Christian in the world. We'd like our readers to understand his religious and social views. Labeling him a "conservative" may do our readers a disservice.

Rev. Moon said that King was the 20th century American he admired most. I'd like to bring out King's admirable qualities, therefore, but we should not shirk our duty to reveal his feet of clay. "All have sinned, all have fallen short ... " (Romans 3:23) Our readers can learn a lot about how to lead their lives by studying the biography of a great man like Martin Luther King: emulate his good qualities, avoid his mistakes. --Ed Poor Talk 06:46, 3 January 2009 (EST)

King after his death became the foremost icon of American liberalism. His name is repeatedly mentioned in liberal Democratic circles (and rarely in conservative Republican circles). The Hamby book (Hamby is a leading conservative historian) explains his roles. RJJensen 05:42, 4 January 2009 (EST)

gun owner

Please announce that Martin Luther King opposed gun control: http://second-amendment-patriots.com/2013/02/22/martin-luther-king-jr-gun-control-enslaves-people-much-watch-documentary/ --JoeyJ 09:03, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Extravagant praise

Cut from intro:

King's life was filled with Jesus from his birth to his death. Everything he did to promote justice was never out of step with Christian beliefs.

Is this a quote? Or is it a summary of something expressed in more detail after the intro? --Ed Poor Talk 12:48, 30 August 2013 (EDT)

It sounds like an opinion. --JohnJustice 22:18, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

Denial of Christian doctrines

Regarding the recent edit, to be fair to King, the founding father Thomas Jefferson also denied several of the same doctrines, and has even infamously referred to the triune god as being "a chimera", yet claims he was Christian despite not holding to any of those doctrines. Personally, I'd argue that King was closer to a Christian, or at least conservative, compared to Jefferson. At least King didn't cheerlead people who utterly butchered Christians and actually used gardening as justification for it (and unlike the other Founding Fathers save for maybe Thomas Paine who at least had the excuse of being separated by the Atlantic Ocean, he actually was there on-site as the events were going on and thus knew EXACTLY what was going on there), or write a bible that removed even more divine aspects of Jesus than Martin Luther did and effectively turned him into someone no different from the Dalai Lama, while Jefferson actually had done those things. Pokeria1 (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2019 (EST)

Republican?

Hi. I apparently got word that you guys got the information of MLK being a republican from Human Events: https://humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D2ahUKEwjS1PPs1b3iAhWpY98KHRiHCtUQFjAAegQIAxAB%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fhumanevents.com%252F2006%252F08%252F16%252Fwhy-martin-luther-king-was-republican%252F%26usg%3DAOvVaw0OBdbEIZTrrDRBYSWoH-m8 Problem is, someone on Freerepublic indicated that was false and discredited since it first appeared on there. I believe his exact words were "I call it notorious because it was infamously in error and has caused no end of embarrassment for those bragging about how “MLK Jr was a Republican” when it was simply false and based on speculation without references and pure wishful thinking. It has been repeatedly debunked on FR from almost the first day it was published. Reporting such egregious points that Asa Philip Randolph was a Republican showed the ignorance of the author. Randolph was not a Republican, but a Socialist activist who had been a standard-bearer for Congress (from New York) as a Socialist Party member, as had been his wife." I think we might need to remove those claims if it is indeed in error, last thing we want is to come across as being in error. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

King was not a Republican: https://www.britannica.com/story/was-martin-luther-king-jr-a-republican-or-a-democrat Conservative (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
According to Wikipedia, he was a Democratic Socialist. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:15, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, considering Conservapedia was created specifically to avoid being Wikipedia regarding leftist bias, I'd need a second opinion regarding whether or not he's a Democratic Socialist. And besides, his sermons made it pretty clear he felt Communism and Socialism were evil ideologies that are anathma to Christian beliefs, up to and including materialism, so him being a Democratic Socialist is extremely unlikely. Heck, he's unlikely to be a Christian Socialist, for that matter. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

London Times story

It has long been rumored that the FBI's surveillance of King uncovered some pretty spicy stuff. The findings have finally been published: "FBI tapes reveal Martin Luther King’s affairs ‘with 40 women’." MLK committed “acts of degeneracy and depravity . . . When one of the women shied away from engaging in an unnatural act, King and several of the men discussed how she was to be taught and initiated in this respect. King told her that to perform such an act would ‘help your soul’," according to the notes. PeterKa (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

Who wrote the FBI reports, McCabe and Strzok? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:26, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
The article is by David Garrow, a socialist historian who wrote a biography of King in 1987. He has been sitting on these revelations for the past thirty odd years while passing along hints and rumors. PeterKa (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

Warning: This page should not be turned into an attack page on King

It's sickening that racists would allow a national hero, whose National Holiday was passed by a Republican Senate and signed into law by a Republican President after two racist Democrat Houses of Congress and a Democrat president refused to even consider the bill, would now allow this page to be taken over by racists intending to impugn the man. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:31, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

MLK was a brave man who made breakthroughs in race relations and he was a great orator, but unfortunately he was a lecherous bum and a plagiarizer. It's a hard truth that some people are part Dr. Jekyll and part Mr. Hyde.Conservative (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (EDT)
Actually, without the proof of the tapes, it is basically the FBI vs. MLK and his supporters, so I will delete the accusations from the article. See: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/fbi-has-tapes-martin-luther-16206294 Conservative (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2019 (EDT)
Agreed, it's better off if we at least wait until 2027, especially when apparently Comey was the one who let slip about the tapes existence (and knowing how Comey's like to Trump, I can't help but think he had an ulterior motive for making that premature claim). Still, if it's true, it's definitely going to leave a large dent in my respect for the guy (though I'll maintain unlike some others that MLK was at least a good anti-Communist warrior). Pokeria1 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2019 (EDT)