Talk:Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 1

Archive 1

FamousPictures Magazine Source

I did a little digging, and it appears that the story about the switchboard operator dying of a heart attack is a fabrication. According to the cited page (http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_King_Jr_Killed), operator in question was "the motel owner’s wife". But the motel was owned by Ralph Abernathy, and his wife Juanita just gave a speech last month. As far as I can tell FamousPictures Magazine is just another wiki, which suggests it should be trusted like any other Wikipedia editor... in other words, not at all. I'm going to go ahead and remove all the material from that source right now from this and the MLK main page. Epukinsk (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The owner was not Abernathy, but Walter Lane Bailey, and his wife Lorraine -- apparently the namesake of the motel -- "died of a brain hemorrhage several hours after King was shot", according to the National Civil Rights Museum which is housed in the motel building. --Dhartung | Talk 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Room for improvement

Another thought:

• Readers should see date he died at the top of the page. It's immediately pertinent to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.161.42 (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a potted peer review:

• Needs a full introduction per WP:LEAD -- at least a full paragraph, possibly two, summarizing the article.
• Some more background about King's history leading to this point, especially what brought him to Memphis, including attempts to broaden his message to supporting equal pay and maintain an alignment between the civil rights and labor movements.
• Previous threats and pressures, which made his Mountaintop speech viscerally believable to many.
• Tensions in country raised by LBJ quitting Democratic race 4 days earlier.
• Expanded coverage of the riots. One sentence hardly does them justice. There is inconsistent coverage, with D.C. and Baltimore (I think) getting full articles. National Guard troops were called out and there was nationwide fear of a race war.[1]
• The nonviolent civil rights movement was robbed of influence. The Black Panthers became both stronger and an obvious FBI bogeyman.
• Coupled with the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, helped lead to the Days of Rage at the Democratic Convention in Chicago.
• Have we ever had either of the famous Lorraine Motel balcony photos, either the one with everyone pointing, or the one moments before with Jesse Jackson? The first is almost certainly fair use as one of the historic photos of the 20th century (may deserve own article in fact).
• Our article is far too cautious about Ray, only introducing him in the "investigation". Though questions have been raised about his role we need to tell the official story and then discuss the objections to it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

This article has a great deal of overlap with the Martin Luther King Jr article. Going from the main article to this, and seeing only one novel paragraph, brings down the perception of Wikipedia's quality. Vranak (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) article if more detail is desired. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Vranak (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dachannien- this is one of the most historically significant assassinations in recent times. There are tons of sources which talk about it. Having it as its own article seems most reasonable to me. Friday (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dachannien is correct. Looks like it was a half-thought-through split, but there's no reason we can't improve on that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a valid point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.173.149 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Indira Gandhi assassination which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence against Ray

The evidence against Ray is missing and needs to be added: principally that the supposed murder weapon had his fingerprints on it!--Jack Upland (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bullet

Okay, this is something I heard when I was young so I have no source, but didn't they find that the bullet that killed King was a different type than the bullet for Ray's gun? Emperor001 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The bullet and rifle are on display in the museum.Americasroof (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight for riots

The riots section is overly long especially since there are spin off articles. I will probably trim them to a graf each.

As a side note this article is amazingly weak. The museum delves spectacularly into the conspiracies (including the police snipers that were stationed on the buildings). Unfortunately the museum also doesn't allow photographs inside. A lot of time I photograph the text and read it later. The conspiracy section is quite thorough pointing out where they are flat wrong or where they are inconclusive. It's the best handling of that topic I've ever seen.Americasroof (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection

I think it would be good to make this page semi-protected as there is vandalism quite frequently. What does everyone else think? SilverSoul91911 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for three days. Hopefully things will be back to normal then. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Kuo, Vivian. "Newly found documents shed light on MLK's convicted killer." CNN. March 30, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrial absent pertinent details

In the Transcription of the King Family Press Conference, King's wife, Coretta, stated:

The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband.

Particularly as there is no article about that trial yet (if it's there, I couldn't find it) it really ought to go in there, either as a quote, or as reported by her.--86.30.189.230 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I found a NY Times article [2] to support the Jowers civil case, created a separate section, and moved the retrial line (which already had a reference) to the Ray section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Involvement by Authorities is downplayed

Government/authorities involvement in this assassination is probably the most important aspect but sounds "muffled" in this entry. I guess it would be too much to ask from Wikipedia to have such fact properly defended (the proper term, given the amount of people on a payroll to cleanwash government and corporate image). --gatopeich.- (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian's don't work for you. Find a reliable source, and add text that conforms to Wikipedia's policies(particularly neutral point of view) yourself.OakRunner (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting Dates

The section for President Lyndon B Johnson has him as declaring the 9th as a national day of mourning. The section titles Funeral lists the date for the national day of mourning as the 7th. Not sure if the following link is a reliable source but it appears that the correct date is the 7th. http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_kings_assassination_4_april_1968 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.51.157.254 (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this error. It has been fixed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Coretta Scott King v. Loyd Jowers

Suggest merging Coretta Scott King v. Loyd Jowers into the conspiracy section of Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.. There doesn't appear to be enough here to justify a stand alone article. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I mostly concur, as it seems to attract alleged evidence of conspiracies. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So Merged --Zfish118 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, after merging the articles, might it make more sense to have this case in the Loyd Jowers article? --Zfish118 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusing Intro

This whole paragraph from the intro makes no sense:

"The King family and others believe that the assassination was carried out by a conspiracy involving the US government, as alleged by Loyd Jowers in 1993, and that James Earl Ray was a scapegoat. In a 1999 civil trial that did not name the US government as a defendant and sought $100 from Jowers[vague]. With both the family and Jowers cooperating together and the only presenting parties, the jury ruled that Loyd Jowers and others, including unspecified governmental agencies, were all part of the conspiracy to kill Martin Luther King Jr."

The sections further down in the article do nothing to explain the apparently contradicting statements here (which apparently warranted the "vague" tag back in July but has yet to be fixed). It sounds like Jowers alleged the idea of a conspiracy ("alleged by Loyd Jowers in 1993"), but then was somehow found guilty of the conspiracy? ("the jury ruled that Loyd Jowers...were all part of the conspiracy"). Huh? As it's written this makes no sense, and I was going to try and fix it (minimally to get rid of the non-sentence that was tagged), but even after reading the article I have no idea what it's SUPPOSED to say, can someone fix this? I came here because this was in the "on this day" section on the front page, it's too bad the actual article is so poorly written.70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Tim

A whole year later and it still makes no sense. Great job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.35.27 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

fbi suicide letter

how comes the whole article doesn't notice the suicide-or-death threatening letter fbi has sent to marthin luther king? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.124.114 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is the title of this article inconsistent with Martin Luther King Jr.?

The title of this article includes a comma, but Martin Luther King's article does not. Dustin (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's probably better to ask that at the main MLK article since that was the article that was changed more recently. - Location (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071102141835/http://chi.gospelcom.net:80/lives_events/more/mlk.shtml to http://chi.gospelcom.net/lives_events/more/mlk.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Assassination of 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216012709/http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/I've_been_to_the_mountaintop.pdf to http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/I've_been_to_the_mountaintop.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025062559/http://www.joescarborough.com/view.asp?ID=31 to http://www.joescarborough.com/view.asp?ID=31
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114222940/http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/PR/2006/4/20060404b.htm to http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/PR/2006/4/20060404b.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080524142603/http://knoxville.fbi.gov/hist.htm to http://knoxville.fbi.gov/hist.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304024342/http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/other_2death.html to http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/other_2death.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314090817/http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/other_3facts.html to http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/other_3facts.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory section

The conspiracy theory section MUST remain a separate section; it is misleading to place it as part of the James Earl Ray section, as this implies A) the information is factual B) that it is relevant to James Earl Ray. Neither condition here is met; the information is appropriate due to notable coverage, but neutrality dictates it be kept separate! --Zfish118 (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Good work re-structuring the article. - Location (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Conspiracy theories are hot air without evidence. And I'm convinced that only Ray, he and nobody else, killed Martin Luther King. - Zorobabele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.59.3 (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Assassination of 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206211248/http://www.afscme.org/about/1529.cfm to http://www.afscme.org/about/1529.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206211012/http://www.afscme.org/about/1532.cfm to http://www.afscme.org/about/1532.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/I%27ve_been_to_the_mountaintop.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206211308/http://www.afscme.org/about/1533.cfm to http://www.afscme.org/about/1533.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206211158/http://www.afscme.org/about/1548.cfm to http://www.afscme.org/about/1548.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060420151340/http://www.historynewsnetwork.org/articles/10325.html to http://www.historynewsnetwork.org/articles/10325.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F01%2F15%2F1710221&mode=thread&tid=25

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleting articles links

I am deleting repeated article links to Dexter and Coretta King. Once is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.75.219 (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Links with Posner; Kings; and Jackson

The comments made by Posner , Jackson, and Coretta and Dexter King, about their accounts of the crime are pertininent, and WP:NPOV requires that we present various sides of a story, if there are good sources. Posner is an excellent source, and I see no problems with the others cited in these few lines.

The points are pertinent because they put the attention on two major problems with the "conspiracy" theory: 1. Ray killed King, acting alone, likely for the hope of collecting a racist bounty for the murder, and 2. That the civil trial was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis, and that the verdict was concluded aft hearing no evidence from the government, and only testimony and pleadings cooperatively submitted by the plaintiffs and Jowers. That's not even good logic.

I think this needs some discussion, as we have had three opinions on the material: two for inclusion, and one for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.110.181 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right; your behavior needs discussion. Please read WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT) and WP:FRINGE, and let's discuss why you think adding this to the article complies with Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. Please read WP:ONUS as well—just because you can cite a source doesn't mean it belongs in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Last seen, the sources for this section was deleted because "it was nonsense."

I don’t agree. Most of the sources are not even one sided, or conspiracy focus anyway. The sources are realible, and in this case, Posner is.

Now I realize the MLK death case is controversial, and it does seem to me that there will still be other versions of events as to what happened. This article seems to be the same. I feel that the sources are allowed here.

If we delete it, we are ignoring vaalable information arguing for and against conspiracy. It's just this sort of treatment that only serves to feed the conspiracy theories.

I'm not defending other theories on what happened on April 4, 1968. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure that James Earl Ray killed MLK just like the official record said he did. But if we're going to have to disprove other theories it only makes sense that we should upload, what Posner has said about it.

Also, why delete Jackson’s disputed account. There is no claim of conspiracy there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.99.5 (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead section discussing conspiracy.

"The King family and others believe ..." really? When, then or now? The whole King family? Who are the others? Stating what someone believes without a temporal context is misleading and potentially inaccurate. Even if there is a recorded quote of such a belief, that would only apply to the person being quoted at the time they made the statement. I believe this paragraph should be cleaned up to just state the facts of the lawsuit and it's final disposition. I'll wait a bit for feedback from other editors before making any changes. Regards, --Bobsd (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bobsd: I think you can go ahead and make those changes, I came to this talk page to make the same point. No prejudice to whether they were right or wrong but that section just seems entirely WP:UNDUE. Nomader (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Archival of old discussions

Hey so, I'm of the opinion that this talk page has gotten too long, and that it probably needs an automatically archiving bot template at the top. Anyone opposed? Concerns about repeat discussions could be allayed with an FAQ section.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

sourses was failed 10 11 torsdag lenovo thinkvision fake sourses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.83.54 (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

really he killed that man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.194.191.66 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

You info is WAY ouit of date! Read "Act of State": the assassination of MLK, by Wm Pepper, or find the trial transcripts at MLKCenter.org. 209.6.130.25 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2020 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2020

Remove clergyman or add a reference, he was a American Civil Rights Leader but not a clergyman, if he was a clergyman add reference kindly. 149.167.163.164 (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Is this a real request? Declined per WP:SKYBLUE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias towards uncritical acceptance of official claims

I'm not making a judgement about the underlying truth here, but I think this article oversteps in uncritically repeating official claims as if they were undisputed fact, especially considering "J. Edgar Hoover [...] had previously made efforts to undermine King's reputation". Examples:

"The allegations and the finding of the Memphis jury were later rejected by the United States Department of Justice in 2000 because of the lack of evidence." - I think "citing lack of evidence" would be a more neutral way to put this.

"The Department of Justice does not consider Jowers' accusations credible and refers to two of the accused individuals by pseudonym. It has stated that the evidence allegedly supporting the existence of "Raoul" is dubious." - This is a third party claiming to know what the subject [DOJ] actually believes or considers credible (as opposed to what they said). Those beliefs are unknowable, but presented as fact.

"According to the Department of Justice, Jowers had inconsistently identified different people as King's assassin since 1993 [...] The Department of Justice does not consider Jowers' accusations credible and refers to two of the accused individuals by pseudonym.[note 1] It has stated that the evidence allegedly supporting the existence of "Raoul" is dubious." - Same problems, but add the fact that the same entity is making the claims and then "debunking" them. If Jowers really did make inconsistent statements, we should get that from a another source (that isn't actively discrediting him).

"Because [The Department of Justice] does not credit Jowers' inconsistent allegations, we refer to the two assassins he has named as the "Man on South Main Street" and the "Lieutenant", respectively." - Same thing, DOJ is only claimant re: inconsistent statements. T3Hmato (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

27.33.61.37 (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Martin Luther king jr. was a amazing black civil rights speaker he inspired many people all across the world even changing peoples lives while at it. He was especially a big inspiration for black people in America and was a threat to other civil right speaker especially white ones. People loved his speaches and found them incredibly inspirational and true in that matter. What he said made people act against horrible things the government where enforcing especially racism. Martin Luther king was killed on 4th of august 1968 it was a tragic moment for millions of people all across the world he was a amazing active speaker that many people where loved. His death brought great fear and sadness to many people. Later the police found Martin Luther king jar's killer, He was killed by James Early ray A terrible man that got cursed by many people for the people he had killed!!!!

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

“Conspiracy theories”?

Just want to ask - how in the hell is the notion that King was killed by the government a “conspiracy theory”? You can say that it’s unverified if you want the article to be balanced, but it is not a goddamn conspiracy theory. A jury found that that “conspiracy theory” is likely actually true, there are plenty of legitimate sources that back the claim up. The DOJ and a smattering of biographers who dispute the claim does not make it a conspiracy theory. This is honestly so pathetic. Wikipedia has fallen off in a huge way. Unbelievable. Wonderful to know there aren’t any historical disputes anymore; just the establishment narrative and “conspiracy theories” that wrongfully dispute them. Total joke. 2601:643:8681:5440:C93:EA29:3DA7:2CE9 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Four major assassinations?

Should be five. What about the assassination of Medgar Evers, June 12, 1963? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Dragnet episode

There was an episode based on the assassination in the 3rd season of Dragnet 1967. Nate-Dawg921 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References