Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

The Lead Needs Updating

The subject is pretty self-explanatory.

I made a pretty bold edit on the lead yesterday, admittedly expecting someone to revert my edit. I did revert back after this first reversion, but I will not continue with this (no edit wars please).

From WP:LEAD: "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first thing most people will read on arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on – though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view."

The lead, in my view, fails these criteria. By stating how he is viewed by his "admirers" and "detractors", the current lead teases the reader into the article, while it could easily state Malcolm X's notable deeds and such in a much simpler and less biased way (saying he has been called "one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history" without cited sources or evidence seems far from balanced, and a bit WP:FORUM). I won't discuss the birthdate here, except to say it is the single least consistent element of any Wikipedia page I have ever seen.

(Personal attack removed)

Pages are not owned. Please stay civil in responses. My edit version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_X&diff=868890067&oldid=868784912

PerhapsXarb (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Instead of carping about my username and WP:OWN—you seem to have missed the bottom half of that essay, WP:Stewardship—why don't you offer a specific proposal and explain why you think it's an improvement over the current lead? (By the way, you may want to read WP:LEADCITE.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have indeed read that essay. Thanks for linking it. However, I did notice this line: "[A steward is] no less responsible for adhering to core policies like WP:Neutral point of view". I honestly don't feel like the lead to this page is neutral, or particularly informative. Not an attack, just my opinion.

My specific proposal can be found here: [1]. I would be open to having it changed or revised, though, with all due respect, preferably by users other than ourselves.

My reasoning, adapted here:

The lead, in my view, fails WP:LEAD criteria. By stating how he is viewed by his "admirers" and "detractors", the current lead teases the reader into the article, while it could easily state Malcolm X's notable deeds and such in a much simpler and less biased way, such as in my proposal (saying he has been called "one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history" without cited sources or evidence seems far from balanced, and a bit WP:FORUM). The birthdate is also very inconsistent with general biography practices on Wikipedia, and I don't see any circumstances that should exempt it from these practices.

P.S. I did not tag you due to your username but due to your topics of editing. I won't bring it back for now.

PerhapsXarb (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Please learn to indent your comments to show the flow of the discussion.
• To the extent the proposed material...

A contemporary of the civil rights movement, he criticized the movement for its emphasis on nonviolence and racial integration. A proponent of resistance "by any means necessary", his ideas helped form the basis of the Black Power movement in the years following his death.

...isn't in the lead already it might usefully be added. But otherwise the current order and presentation is superior. I think we've discussed in the past that something more might be said about the Autobio and its significance.

• The idea that this article must have full birth/death dates because that's what you see in lots of other articles is a nonstarter.
• Assassination is not a cause of death.
• Extensive revisions such as yours should be done in localized individual edits so that the diffs are comprehensible. (This is not an invitation to do them again.)
• Thrilled indeed to learn you're open to having your edit changed or revised. (Ditto)

EEng 06:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead is meant to give vital information and facts, not to offer various people's interpretations of the subject's legacy. It currently feels more like the conclusion paragraph to an essay analyzing said legacy, and frankly feels poorly thought out after the introductory sentence.

Assassination is given as a cause of death on the pages of MLK Jr., Gandhi, and every U.S. president who was ever assassinated, including featured article subject William McKinley. Really, the gunshot wound did not actually kill him; the impeded flow of blood throughout his body, which was most likely caused by this wound, is what killed him. Either way, nobody denies he was assassinated. And the birth date point is not a non-starter; it is a silly debate that some people have gotten worked up on and which should have been decided years ago and never mentioned again by anybody, sort of like infobox fights but with a less valid argument on the other side.

If I make any of my proposed edits, will they be individually removed shortly thereafter by either EEng or MS? If so, I don't know why I am bothering trying to improve Wikipedia. FWIW, It's bias-tinged lines like the ones in this lead that make educators and academics distrust the site, something I've always hated.

PerhapsXarb (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the dates in the first sentence. It was decided years ago and should never be mentioned again, unless an editor actually has something new to say about it.

Besides the dates and the cause of death, I'm still not hearing any explanation about why the rest of your proposed change is an improvement. Up top you suggest referring to Malcolm X's "notable deeds". He wasn't elected to office, he didn't help pass any major (or minor) legislation, but he changed the way millions of black people in the United States thought about themselves and their place in the world. Your proposed change does nothing to address this supposed shortcoming.

In what specific ways do you think the lead section falls WP:NPOV?

Finally, I know it's nitpicking, but Malcolm X's father wasn't born in Omaha. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Omaha? Clearly I'm referring to Malcolm X. I think you know that. And I think I have something to say about the dates which only serve to confuse the reader. I'm not here to fight, and I don't know how to proceed in this discussion. I really wish Wikipedians were more open to constructive criticism. The point of Wikipedia is not to bow down and admit complete defeat to a page's "steward". WP:Listen exists. And that's not to say listen means "ok, I listened, NO!" every time anybody else has a slightly different idea.

You may think Malcolm X was one of the "greatest and most influential African Americans of all time", but that is not a fact. That is a non-neutral opinion that you can talk about all you want in your own Malcolm X biography. The lead should have a non-biased explanation of what Malcolm X is known for, not vague conjectures of how his fans and haters feel about him. It's not supposed to be about feeling, it's supposed to be about the actual things he did and why he is remembered. That should be the first paragraph, or at least the second sentence of the article. It's not debated that Malcolm X preached violence; he did exactly that. Resistance by any means necessary. That doesn't need to be emphasized in the lead, but it shouldn't be downplayed.

I know you are extremely passionate about this subject, but please go to extra effort to keep your opinions elsewhere. I know I will always do the same on this site. Please don't stick your fingers in your ears, or you won't hear them! (like if you get this reference) PerhapsXarb (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You may think you were referring to Malcolm X being born in Omaha, but you wrote that his father was born there.

Please explain how the dates in the lead section "confuse the reader".

I know that reading past the introduction isn't your strong suit, but nothing in the lead section is my opinion. The section summarizes the sourced material in the article, including the fact that Malcolm X has been described as one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.

When you're ready to stop the personal attacks and get serious about discussing your proposed changes to the article, I'm all ears. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Break

• I like the harmony of the leads "admirers" vs "detractors" prose. Just a note though... I have always thought the detractors portion could possibly be improved. It is true the detractors do say Malcolm X was racist and promoted violence. However, reasonable people that are not detractors make the same case I believe. While with the NOI MX's views could be thought of as racist and I believe MX never recanted the use of violence as a means of self defense. Possibly, wonderful prose can be created to replace the admirers vs detractors mechanism (which is true and has passed the test of time and good work) but is more closer to the facts that non-detractors also believe MX was racist for a period of time. Just saying. Glennconti (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  So it looks like my suggestion is not picking up any steam. How about something simple, that solves my concern while keeping 100% of what we have? Something as simple as "detractors and others accused him of preaching racism and violence". But I'm not going to press a point if there is no additional support. Thank you. Glennconti (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  Sometimes steam takes more than 24 hours to build. I'd be happy to see you propose something, though it will probably require significant time with multiple sources. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Haha... well said. I will do some more homework. Was Jackie Robinson considered a "detractor" or an "other" because he was definitely in the Malcolm X was a racist camp? Glennconti (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Manning Marable "What shall we make of a man who went from thoughtless criminal to militant ascetic; from indignant racist to insurgent humanist;" [2] Glennconti (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson "The former Brooklyn Dodger defended himself eloquently in a column a week later in The Chicago Defender(Dec. 14, 1963). Robinson denounced Malcolm X as a racist." [3] Glennconti (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

So, indeed not only "detractors" but "others" have characterized Malcolm X as a racist. I am lobbying for the addition of two words to the second sentence of the first paragraph whereby "detractors accused him of preaching racism and violence" would turn into "detractors and others accused him of preaching racism and violence". Glennconti (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Um, are we saying you can call someone racist, or "accuse" them (of whatever), and not be considered a detractor? EEng 23:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes exactly! Both Marable and Robinson have the same theme. They are matter-of-fact about how Malcolm X was a racist but then evolved his views to become a redeemed humanist... no longer a racist. Which is the objective truth. Is it detracting to tell the truth about someone? I don't think so. Glennconti (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Further, that is what I don't like about the current sentence. It now implies that if you as a person say Malcolm X was a racist you are therefore a detractor. No, that is not the case. That's why that sentence could be considered a lightning rod for criticism. Glennconti (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

For example, if me as a person says "Malcolm X was a criminal." am I a detractor? Emphatically NO! Why because it is the truth. You can't categorize a speaker as a detractor when they are just being objective. Malcolm X was who he was... a reformed criminal and a reformed racist. That does not make me a detractor for saying that. Plus it isn't me saying it it is Marable. Glennconti (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

To paraphrase, the hallmark of being a detractor is unfair or untrue criticism.[4] Glennconti (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If my logic isn't failing me, we are now saying if you say MX was a racist then you are a detractor and if you are a detractor you are also being unfair or untrue. Is that what we really mean to be implying? Glennconti (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

My little addition of "and others" eliminates our current implication that if you say MX was a racist then you are necessarily being unfair because of course you could be an "other". Glennconti (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

And, frankly, we should not be taking the position that to call MX a racist is being unfair or untrue. We should go with the sources which state MX was a racist who reformed to become a humanist. Glennconti (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing the sentence in question, but I question whether Jackie Robinson is a good source to cite. He was an incredible athlete (Major League Baseball was only one of his options), but politically he was very conservative. I don't know to what extent the political speeches he made reflected his own beliefs and to what extent they reflected those of the people who signed his paychecks, but my sense is that his public views were to the right of the black mainstream of his time (1940s through 1960s).

With respect to Malcolm X, however, I think there are sufficient reliable sources with historical perspective (i.e., not commentary by political opponents) that one can probably safely say that he was a racist by most reasonable definitions of the term. (Some people argue that a person needs to have power to be racist, and they question whether any black person in a white supremacist society can be considered racist.) The article is included in the category Category:Racism in the United States, which is about as close as Wikipedia comes to categorizing the subjects of biographies as racists. On the other hand, keep in mind WP:LABEL, which says we should avoid using value-laden terms such as racist "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Are we being coy by attributing the label to "detractors and others", or is that truly different from us saying "Malcolm X was a racist."? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

By using the "and others" mechanism we are simply acknowledging that reliable sources (that are not detractors) are calling MX a racist (at some point). We are not labeling anyone so WP:LABEL does not apply. You are right, we would open up a major can of worms if we were to specifically say MX was a racist... we can not do that. What I have proposed eliminates the problems I have listed with the current sentence while keeping the harmony of the admirers vs detractors idea which has worked well for so long for many people. Is it being coy? Well I am not willing to do a gigantic rewrite of the lead and all of the effort and risks that that would entail. Baby steps to evolve the lead is my suggestion. Glennconti (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh and you are much more expert than I at the sources we should use to back up the "and others" addition. Marable is good I would think. If Robinson is bad and you have other better ones, by all means use your discretion (and massive knowledge of the subject) to select more appropriate reliable sources. Thank you so much sir! Glennconti (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't tell if the lack of additional comments is because of agreement with me, disagreement, complacency or just lack of sufficient time passing. I do have the privileges to make the edit myself. Possibly I make a good faith edit and that will attract more commentary as to the strength of this change? I will leave it alone for more time, but now that I have done more research I feel the change is necessary in that we are undermining our own major source (Marable) by labeling him as a detractor (because he indeed calls MX a reformed racist) and therefore imply Marable is being unfair or untrue. We can't have it both ways... Marable is a reliable source/Marable is being untrue. Glennconti (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

My involvement in the article has primarily been as copyeditor; I leave the research to others. But keep up the good work. EEng 17:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Second break

I've been away from home for the past 10 days, and I appreciate the two of you taking the initiative on this. I think the latest wording is pretty good: "Some saw him as a courageous advocate for the rights of blacks, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans; others accused him of preaching racism and violence." It's true, as Glennconti suggested, that we set up two opposing groups. I'm not too bothered, though, because while some people think of Malcolm X as both a courageous advocate and a racist (or think of him as both a courageous advocate and somebody who used the rhetoric of violence), I wouldn't say that those people "accuse him of preaching racism and violence".

That brings me to the question of sourcing and consistency between the lead and the body of the article. Should we add any sources or text to the article to support the changes in the lead section?

One last question, perhaps related to the preceding one: In April 1962, there was a violent confrontation between LAPD and NOI members that led to the killing of member Ronald Stokes. The NOI's lack of official response was one of the factors that led to Malcolm X's disillusionment with its leadership. That spring, he spoke frequently at the LA mosque. In early June, Air France Flight 007 crashed, killing all but two of the 125 or so (presumably white) people on board. In a speech in LA, Malcolm X said that God "answered our prayers over in France. He dropped an airplane out of the sky with over 120 white people on it because the Muslims believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But thanks to God, or Jehovah, or Allah, we will continue to pray, and we hope that every day another plane falls out of the sky." Of course, LA being (after New York) the second media capital of the world at the time, it created a stir; the mayor denounced Malcolm X, as did Martin Luther King and other "respectable Negroes". Should we mention the speech and the political fallout in this article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

So, I think you are saying we can improve upon what we have some more, is that correct? It is a FA and we may want to shoot for more than "pretty good". Secondly, IMHO since we have eliminated the admirers/detractors mechanism we have less need of more specific source not more. That is, in the past we needed a list of sources considered admirers (that called him a courageous advocate) and a list of sources considered detractors (that called him a racist and advocate of violence). Now that the words admirers and detractors have been eliminated there are less constraints on our sources, not more. I think I would say we do not need additional sources? On the first point above, as far as improving over "pretty good", I like the idea of an evolving Malcolm X. A complex man who adapted over time; going from one-time criminal to racist firebrand and then finally to humanist religious leader and philosopher. In other words, not just "A" to some and "B" to others. If we can capture his evolution over time in the lead's first paragraph that would be "better" than "pretty good". But, lots of work... sorry. Glennconti (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 update

I believe the update to the lead I have made are much more extensive, and creates better overall reading for the article than its current revision. I have included all his accomplishments, notable life events, and posthumous recognition, however, it was oddly reverted.

Please see the beside revision and lets reach a consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_X&oldid=886992846 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogieFreeman (talk • contribs) 10:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Shoeshiner

As a perusal of this article suggests, Malcolm was a shoeshiner at a young age. The article on shoeshiners shows many other prominent people have been shoeshiners. So, why remove the category? It isn't an insult. Hoktiwe (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hoktiwe: Because it is trivia and not a defining characteristic of this subject, nor of other subjects where you have been adding the category. See WP:CATDEF (as I indicated in my edit summary when I reverted your edit). General Ization ^Talk 15:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit request, 21 April 2019

"Conspiracies regarding the assassination, [...] have persisted for decades after the shooting." Are you suggesting there is ongoing criminal activity regarding his assassination? Surely the word "conspiracies" should be "conspiracy theories".

"He explained in his autobiography that the Muslim's "X" symbolized the true African family name that he could never know." Which individual Muslim? Perhaps Muslims' (plural) was meant, although the sentence is still unclear. Was this a pre-existing Muslim tradition? 109.246.123.214 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wait a second... I missed the changes to the lead last month, and I believe others did as well. I think parts have some value, but I'll have to take a better look later. EEng 21:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, a did a copyedit and brought in some lost stuff from the old lead. In future it would be better to make a big change like this in small chunks that can be diffed. EEng 01:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• The second sentence you mention should be made clearer. It was standard practice at the time for new members of the Nation of Islam to drop their family names and take on "X" (often used to represent an unknown in mathematics, and also representing "ex-", as in ex-slave, ex-convict, etc., all the bad things one had done before joining the NoI) until Elijah Muhammad gave them their "true name"; Cassius Clay became Cassius X when he joined (he was renamed Muhammad Ali by Muhammad shortly thereafter, as a token of Muhammad's appreciation for the boxer sticking with him and not leaving the group with Malcolm X). I'll fix the sentence. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Dates

Why are Malcolm X's birth and death dates not given in the lead?

Instead of "Malcolm X (1925–1965) was an American Muslim minister and human rights activist who was a popular figure during the civil rights movement."

it should be "Malcolm X (May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965) was an American Muslim minister and human rights activist who was a popular figure during the civil rights movement."

Almost all Wikipedia articles have the dates in the lead, I mean imagine if on JFK's article introduction it would say "John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy (1917-1963)"

instead of "John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963)". It makes no sense. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-06-09/Op-ed and Talk:Malcolm_X/Archive_10#Opening_sentence_of_article. EEng 21:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case, why not remove the birth and death dates from Martin Luther King? or Adolf Hitler?. 62.109.36.16 (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If I had an interest in those articles I'd propose that. EEng 12:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

So because this is your favorite article, the dates will simply be what you personally prefer? Eykeklos Omnia (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the dates are the way the consensus of editors here has determined they should be. (My favorite article, for the record, is Phineas Gage.) EEng 17:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Malcolm X was NOT for Black Supremacy

Exercising the right to bare arms

-EEng

Malcolm X was all about self determination. He taught blacks to do for self and not to rely on their oppressors. During this time blacks where under constant attack by those who stood for white supremacy. You can not suggest that a group of people who advocated for self determination oppose to being willfully oppressed are advocating for black supremacy. The reason they were against integration is because their kids were attacked, insulted and hit with rocks by mobs of white people when they entered the "white schools". He empowered blacks and promoted standing up for oneself, which is an American value or we would have the right to bare arms. Please fix the negative tone about Malcolm X because it is incorrect, unethical and unjust.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTTBT (talk • contribs) 06:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! Thebearfootaquarius (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If that were true, many, if not most, of the people labeled White Supremacists on this website would have to have their pages rewritten. Jared Taylor, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5402:5900:9C20:C4C3:C8AA:29F5 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Uncited nature of Malcolm's father's death

I changed the definitive statement in the lede that Earl Little was murdered to what can be stated based on credible source citations - this is a basic tenet of Wikipedia. The only factual citations I can find are that he was run over by a street car. I don't even find mentions of witnesses to an alleged murder. Opinion and speculation and a desire to promote a narrative don't constitute a credible source.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I also could not find any reputable sources that stated that Earl Little was killed by white supremacists. Even in his autobiography, Malcolm discussed the issue as if it was speculation. However, I do think that it was important to include the information about the speculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chollo8 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

--Chollo8 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Red hair and conking

I believe that Malcolm's red hair, conking, and lighter complexion should be discussed in the article. During previous wiki talks, other editors concluded that this information was not vital to the page. However, I believe that Malcolm's appearance and "whiteness" contributed to the fact that he was so swayed by the teachings of Nation of Islam. He despised the white blood in him, and joining the Nation of Islam and following its teachings like "White People are the Devil" allowed him to distance himself from his whiteness psychologically.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

change "his father's murder" to "his father's death". 134.50.161.34 (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes to the introduction

Changes made to the introduction of this article over the past few weeks have made it much less neutral than it used to be. It seems like somebody who has a strong dislike for Malcolm X has rewritten it.

For example, why has the first paragraph turned into a denunciation: "staunch and controversial racial advocacy". What incredible value judgments! And what a worthless word "controversial" is: was anybody who has made history not been controversial? What information is the word intended to convey, and what sort of intellectual laziness led to its use?

It's really a shame that this article is being destroyed by its editors. 2607:FCC8:944C:5300:CDF4:4A9C:92CF:8C42 (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No Section Regarding His Bisexuality?

This seems like a very important historical note which has been well verified by people whom he knew. Not including this feels a lot like erasing LGBT-ness from his history. At the very least, it seems well established he had same-sex encounters. A brief section should be added to discuss this, its controversy, and his daughter's response to the news (only one close to X who argues against these claims that I know of.) Looking back on previous Wikipedia edit issues on this the arguments seemed to be that "biographies aren't proof" to which I am concerned as to why someones LGBT (or engaging in same sex activity) status is held at a higher evidentiary level than other parts of his life?

Sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/20/malcolm-x-bisexual-black-history

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/may/19/gayrights.usa

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/peter-tatchell-ignore-the-refuseniks-ndash-malcolm-x-was-bisexual-out-and-proud-1902777.html

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-american-studies/article/sexuality-of-malcolm-x/D087A343B0CA1BA14D54E541367B1639

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/malcolm-x-was-gayforpay_b_845979

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/the-sexuality-of-malcolm-x/237086/

https://newsone.com/337311/writer-claims-malcolm-x-was-bisexual/

Bkdb44 (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think the sexual experiences of a young man who reinvented himself merit an entire section of an encyclopedia article. Do they get their own chapter in any recent biography of Malcolm X? (No.) The reports are described in this article, perhaps a little too delicately, but probably in appropriate proportion to how (in)significant they are to Malcolm X's biography. And the people who complain that "Malcolm could never have done that" -- even though they never knew the man -- are given voice in a note. 2607:FCC8:944C:5300:CDF4:4A9C:92CF:8C42 (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of hearsay. I don't see any compelling evidence to suggest this. I don't think we should lend it any credence. Faissaloo (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is a bit troubling for a couple of reasons. Firstly because it would be perfectly normal if Malcolm indeed engaged in sexual encounters with men for money. Malcolm had a very troubling past and it should be to no one's surprise if prostitution (and not only pimping) was part of what he did prior to his imprisonment. But on the other hand, the actual evidence is really rather thin. I think an assessment of the actual evidence makes this clear (this became apparent after I read Christopher Phelps article from which I have made extensive use here). For almost all of the evidence leads back to a very dubious 1985 psychobiography by Bruce Perry. Bruce Perry wrote in David Horwotiz's (a far-right racist political commentator's) book that Malcolm struggled with his sexual orientation and thus "projected onto whites his own imperfections, real and imagined." Perry's work sought to discredit Malcolm's human rights struggle by steering into a direction where he claimed that Malcolm's passionate politics were actually nothing but internal sexual struggles. His method of interviewing the people he did, the type of questions he used to ask them to steer the narrative into his preferred direction, and the correctness of how he finally presented their accounts, are therefore also highly questionable. Most people therefore recognised the slandering biography for what it actually was: mostly garbage. But the claim of Malcolm's alleged homosexual past resurfaced during the internet age when Peter Tatchell championed the black LGBT movement and claimed that Malcolm X should be made into its symbol. Though the topic became hot again and people recognised that this time Tatchell's call was actually motivated by admiration of Malcolm, Tatchell nonetheless did not provide any new evidence for the claim that Malcolm was gay other than Perry's biography. This changed, however, with professor Manning Marable's critically acclaimed biography of Malcolm X. Marable presented new evidence that supported one actual episode of a wealthy white homosexual man (Paul Lennon) from Boston which Malcolm himself described in the Alex Haley biography. Malcolm claimed that the man would sexually climax when a boy named Rudy rubbed him in with talcum powder. Malcolm Jarvis, his old time partner in crime, however, told Bruce Perry that Malcolm X himself was paid for these powdering sessions. Though this claim was initially regarded as nothing but hearsay, Marable's biography pointed out to corroborating evidence from a letter Malcolm wrote to his half-sister (Ella Collins) from prison. In this letter Malcolm confirms his, and not the imaginary Rudy's acquaintance with Paul Lennon: “The person that you said called me is a very good friend of mine. He’s only worth some fourteen million dollars. If you read the society pages you’d know who he is. He knows where I am now because I’ve written and told him, but I didn’t say what for." Ella Collins son, who first published the letter, then went on to write that Malcolm told Ella that: “a business deal he and Malcolm Jarvis had with an elderly, wealthy white millionaire named Paul Lennon, who would pay them to rub powder over his body.” Marable also unearthed a letter Malcolm wrote to his brother Philbert, in which he confirmed the acquaintance between the two: “A very wealthy man, for whom I once worked, visited me today and is going to try and get me a reconsideration from the parole board (Insha Allah)." That Malcolm, and not Rudy, knew Paul Lennon, is therefore highly likely. It's therefore also possible that Malcolm himself engaged in the sexual powdering sessions. Christopher Phelps concludes in his article that "the density of the evidence" for this episode explains the concentration on it. There is, however, something critical to be said about this new evidence. Malcolm was very widely known as a pimp who provided black sex workers for white customers with wildly ranging sexual preferences. He was, however, not famous for having been a sex worker himself. It could also have been that Malcolm simply facilitated this contact between Paul Lennon and his former friend Malcolm Jarvis, who's identity he concealed as 'this friend of [Jarvis] called Rudy' in his autobiography. Thus when one boils down the claims to what evidence there actually is, the following picture emerges: Malcolm quite certainly knew Paul Lennon. But nowhere is there evidence that Malcolm did the powdering himself other than what Jarvis has claimed to Bruce Perry. Not even the letter he wrote to his half-sister Ella Collins speaks of it. The only additional evidence comes from what Ella Collins' son heard her say, namely: that Malcolm X and Malcolm Jarvis were both paid by Paul Lennon for the powdering sessions. If Malcolm was not the sex worker but the facilitator of the sexual powdering sessions, then indeed in consistency with the narrative, he would have been paid as a facilitator, while others did the powdering. The fact that one also has to take into consideration that Malcolm Jarvis later distanced himself in his own autobiography from many other things Malcolm X had told Alex Haley in his autobiography (like Jarvis doing drugs and having sexual relationships with white women, etc.) point out that in the end it is perhaps little more than Malcolm X's word against that of Jarvis. It is not unthinkable that Jarvis could have wished to clear his own name and to retell the episode in a fashion that would exonerate him from his past as a potential drug addict and an occasional sex worker.

Unfortunately nobody can conclusively tell the truth in these matters and the evidence is far from conclusive and too speculative. It should be reiterated, however, that despite the critical engagement with some of the evidence, it is not unthinkable that Malcolm X engaged in homosexual acts in exchange for money in the years prior to his incarceration and conversion to Islam. But to claim that Malcolm was actually a closeted homosexual seems baseless, especially given the fact how closely he was monitored by the FBI who have claimed nothing of the sort. Marable stated it best when he said: “The revelation of his involvement with Lennon produced much speculation about Malcolm’s sexual orientation, but the experience appears to have been limited. There is no evidence from his prison record in Massachusetts or from his personal life after 1952 that he was actively homosexual."

Featured article criteria

Does this article still meet the Featured article criteria? Recent changes have made the opening section less neutral and added inaccuracies (people who knew Malcolm Little have disputed accounts of his same-sex activities in the 1940s? really? sources please!) and violations of the style guidelines (such as referring to the subject by his first name). I raised some of these issues more than three months ago, before the worst of the changes were made, but nobody responded.

Please don't let this featured article go to seed. A day late and a dollar short (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure we're allowed to call 'subjects' by their first names. We can't call him Malcolm Little every time we refer to him. A first name isn't hurting anyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 13:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You can... but not in a featured article, which is supposed to follow all style guidelines, including not referring to subjects by their given names. A day late and a dollar short (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS is general and a guideline, and is to be applied with common sense, not rigidly without consideration for what best serves the reader. This is an unusual case and the current approach was arrived at after much discussion. EEng 04:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah.. Wrong again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 10:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

yay

I can edit Malcolm X now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing Problems

I own an account but I am still prohibited from editing this page. Could anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 14:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Same here FTIIIOhfive (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Muslim minister

The phrase "Muslim minister" isn't linked. Is that the same thing as an Imam? If not, could you please explain what that role is? Thanks. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe it's more in the way of a Lay Preacher arther than an Imam. But I'll stop there as my understanding is incomplete also. ——Serial ^# 19:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Hello. I've stumbled across a commonly thought mistake. The autobiography of Malcolm X's was not written by Malcolm X. Malcolm dictated his life to Alex Haley. Alex Haley wrote X's "autobiography". In addition, Malcolm did not revise the last draft that Alex submitted as well. By the time Alex finished his final draft, Malcolm was already assassinated.

Quote: "Malcolm had labored to present a tale of moral uplift, to praise the power of the Nation's leader, Elijah Muhammad. After Malcolm's departure from the sect, he used his autobiography to explain his break from black separatism. Haley's purpose was quite different; for him, the autobiography was a cautionary tale about human waste and the tragedies produced by racial segregation. In many ways, the published book is more Haley's than its author's: because Malcolm died in February 1965, he had no opportunity to revise major elements of what would become known as his political statement" (Marable, 9).

Source: Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention

Thus, the the passage found under the philosophy heading for Malcolm X's article is not accurate:"Except for his autobiography, Malcolm X left no published writings"

Malcolm did not write the autobiography. He dictated his autobiography and Alex Haley arranged the writings, chapters, and stories based off his perception. The last draft was submitted without Malcolm's revision as he was unfortunately assassinated by then.

It may seem like a small distinction, but in actuality, it is a large distinction. And it makes sense. Malcolm did not have the time to write an autobiography, especially in the 1960s. He was dealing with death threats from the Nation of Islam, the FBI, depression, continuing his self-education, speaking to world leaders, running two organizations, etc.

But he could spare an hour or two a week to dictate his life to Alex, who wrote for a living, and thus, he let Alex do the writing. I can go into more detail about why Alex was allowed to write his autobiography, but for now, this should suffice. 2605:E000:1301:4641:D911:2912:CF76:1BC1 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Darren-M talk 18:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry and Denomination

Malcolm X is listed as "West Indian American" on that page, and his parents were from Grenada. Shouldn't he be listed as such here, rather than as "African American"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bholleman (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

Pilgrimage to Mecca

The complete citation is as below. I wanted to include the whole citation to emphasis that the people were from all over the world and how Islam joins them. Also to change the "Muslims" to the appropriate word that he actually uses "Pilgrim". The message will be glimpsed and misunderstood if it is not accurate. He is not talking about the Muslims only, he is talking about pilgrims from all over the world united, without their race playing a role.

"There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blonds to black-skinned Africans. (Redacted) Caah1123 (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. Additionally, your source appears to be a blatant copyright infringement, a scanned copy of a book, so I've removed it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Include Daughter's Website

I have found that one of his daughters, Ilyasah, has a blog and website. I have read through the article and can find nowhere in which this was added. We would add this under Legacy or Marriage and Family. This is the link: https://www.ilyasahshabazz.com/blog/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:C000:770:258F:627E:4B0B:CBCF (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

How does including this website help our readers understand the subject of this article, which is the life of Malcolm X? EEng 17:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I thought that it would be relevant since it does talk about his legacy, but it would be better added to a page about the daughter (if there is one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:C000:770:258F:627E:4B0B:CBCF (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely a daughter. EEng 19:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I just checked and it does include a link to her website so all good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:C000:770:21AA:7C12:AB86:1158 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm vs Little

Usually, Wikipedia articles use the surname of a person to refer to the person in the text. However, in sections of this article the first name is used while in others the surname is used. Maybe the usage should be harmonized to use the surname exclusively. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It's tricky because (a) he changed his name, and (b) there are points where the article refers to both him and his father in quick succession, so that Little would be ambiguous. After much discussion I believe it was decided to call him Malcolm at first, then switch to Malcolm X at the appropriate point. EEng 00:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Malcolm X vs. “Malcolm Little”

I think it should say “Malcolm X, (Born Malcolm Little),” because it’s more respectful to who he was and what he stood for, what he believed in, and who every black person knows him as today. That way, it doesn’t take away the other name “Malcolm Little”, but he was Malcolm X, and would want to be known as such. Khafreofgiza (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done EEng 05:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Wombo combo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.215.248 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm X infobox image restored to consensus image

I agree that significant changes to featured articles should have consensus. I have restored the WP:infoboximage of Malcolm X to the consensus image discussed and agreed upon at Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 9 #RfC Which photo is best for the infobox?. — Neonorange (Phil) 05:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

As this was his legal and professional name at the time of his death due to major shifts in political and religious identity it should be respected and hence be the name of the article. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We do not use legal names, but common names. See Use commonly recognizable names:"In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. This includes but is not limited to usage in the sources used as references for the article. Discussions about article titles commonly look at additional off-site sourcing, such as frequency of usage in news publications, books, and journals."

How common is the name Malik Shabazz? Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Malcom X Black Supremacy

On reviewing some of his later speeches (see Malcom X Speaks) , it appears he had a lot of changes in his views, away from black supremacy/separation towards a pan-racial idea of change and social justice. While not a Maoist, his ideas near the very end of his life mirrored that of Fred Hampton/Black Panther Party. To make this more clear to the reader, I think we should mention this ideological change alongside his religious change.

Currently, any lay reader would think his views never matured or even changed, painting a politically biased, subjective and inaccurate perspective on him — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatOregan (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a nod to this at the end of Malcolm_X#Independent_views but I agree it should be more prominent and better integrated with the main flow of the narrative of his life. EEng 14:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Foster homes in Roxbury?

I'm not sure when the dubious "fact" that Malcolm Little lived in foster homes in Roxbury, Massachusetts, was added to the lead section, but I don't believe it's supported by any sources, reliable or otherwise. He lived with his half-sister Ella Collins, not in a foster home. 2603:6010:DC42:D800:B931:C4F7:31AA:2539 (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I actually think living with a non-adopting relative counts as a foster home. EEng 00:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You may be right, but the phrase "foster homes" in that sentence links to an article that starts with:

Foster care is a system in which a minor has been placed into a ward, group home (residential child care community, treatment center, etc.), or private home of a state-certified caregiver, referred to as a "foster parent" or with a family member approved by the state.

I don't know whether state involvement is required to make living with a relative a "foster home", but that article strongly suggests it is, and it distinguishes between "kinship care" (which is often informal) and state-approved foster care. 2603:6010:DC42:D800:B931:C4F7:31AA:2539 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would certainly seem from the Autobiography that Malcolm considered the foster homes to be one thing, provided by the state, and Ella's place quite another. In any case the lede needs to be redone because it has been causing 'reliable media' to report that Malcolm grew up in Nebraska (though it is clear from later in the article his family had moved to Michigan while he was still an infant). The problem is that reporters read only as far as that sentence we have with "adolescence," so we need to fix it. For example, the Times did not see fit to correct: "...Malcolm X recalled his Omaha upbringing by parents who decried racism..." Pretty egregious, imho. - phi (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

So I'd propose undoing this edit but am hesitating lest it prove to be part of ongoing improvement process I don't wanna mess up. C'mon, Michigan and Massachusetts were formative settings for Malcolm. That needs to be clear to the casual reader here. - phi (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Well I have found a source that could be added that does talk about his foster homes. http://projects.leadr.msu.edu/malcolmxinlansing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:C000:770:258F:627E:4B0B:CBCF (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  There's not much there and I'm afraid it's not a WP:Reliable source anyway. Sorry. EEng 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Deathbed confession of Raymond A. Wood, NYPD, exonerating Thomas Johnson

https://twitter.com/harikunzru/status/1363567793245990914 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4C00:DF:21B:FCFF:FE60:91CD (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm X's family seeks to reopen investigation into his murder due to new evidence

Unsure how to include this information

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/02/22/malcolm-x-assassination-letter-nypd-fbi/
• https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20210221-malcolm-x-s-family-seeks-to-reopen-investigation-into-his-murder
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/malcolm-x-murder-investigation-nypd-fbi-b1805436.html
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/21/ex-new-york-policeman-implicates-nypd-and-fbi-in-malcolm-x-murder
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/21/malcolm-x-death-family-letter-nypd-fbi
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56147505

John Cummings (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Innocence Project representing two of the convicted murderers

The Innocence Project is representing two of the men convicted of the murder of Malcolm X: Muhammad A. Aziz (also known as Norman 3X Butler) and the estate of Khalil Islam (also known as Thomas 15X Johnson). The third man convicted, Mujahid Abdul Halim (then known as Talmadge Hayer and Thomas Hagan), has consistently asserted that he was guilty but Aziz and Islam were innocent.

https://innocenceproject.org/malcolm-x-murder-innocent-aziz-butler/ --dlcarraw (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This page should include color photographs of Malcolm X.

But this stuff happened years and years ago its kinda old that's why the photos are black and white and forever BLM Such photos exist, but people hardly ever see them. This makes people think that those photos don't exist and that these events must have taken place much earlier than they did. And since the fight Malcolm X fought is still ongoing, to keep up the appearance that he lived longer ago than he did is to make it seem over and done. 152.10.123.196 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, this is a good idea, but where would one put the color photo in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:C000:770:258F:627E:4B0B:CBCF (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Cart before the horse. Get the photos first. EEng 23:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Split off Assassination of Malcolm X?

With the new news related to his assassination, I came by and came to the belief that the assassination should be split off into its own article, and some of the info can then be trimmed here. I started Draft:Assassination of Malcolm X‎ with the "Death threats" and "Assassination" sections. Please help edit the draft, and/or provide any feedback on why this is a bad idea if you think it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest expanding it in situ for now. Can always split later. EEng 23:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

EEng, the draft is already 11kb. I was proposing splitting now and trimming what is on this page. Clearly not an idea people are that into. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021

Smart boi23876 (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Put his middle name

 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?) 16:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Human rights activist?

The way that Malcolm X is described in the opening section of this article is emblematic of a wider double standard regarding the use of derisive labels on the articles of political figures on this website. Every other Wikipedia article about a right-winger calls them a conspiracy theorist and a white supremacist, while very few articles about left-wingers contain similar labels. It appears that Wikipedians are much more hesitant to point out hate promoted by the left than hate promoted by the right. For example, David Duke is a high-ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that believes that the Holocaust is a hoax created by Jewish elites who are plotting to eradicate the white race by promoting racial integration. The Ku Klux Klan promotes segregation, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, and white supremacy. Malcolm X was a high-ranking member of the Nation of Islam, an organization that believes that white people were created by a mad scientist and that in the future Allah will come to earth in a UFO and wipe out all the white people. The Nation of Islam promotes segregation, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, and black supremacy. Naturally, the first sentence of David Duke's Wikipedia article describes him as a "neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist." So wouldn't it stand to reason that Malcolm X, a man with beliefs just as ridiculous and hateful as Duke's, would be described as an antisemitic, black supremacist conspiracy theorist? Well apparently not, because the first sentence of Malcolm X's article describes him as a "human rights activist." There's no word I can use to describe this other than disgusting. Calling someone as hateful and authoritarian as Malcolm X a "human rights activist" is nothing short of an affront to human rights. You and I both know that the only reason why David Duke's article rightfully describes him as the despicable individual that he is and Malcolm X's article does everything short of patting him on the back and giving him a gold star is that David Duke is on the far-right, and Malcolm X is on the far-left. That is the only meaningful difference between these individuals. They're both racists, they're both antisemites, they're both segregationists, they're both Holocaust deniers, so there is no reason why there should be such a massive disparity between the way these two are portrayed in their articles. If you want people to trust Wikipedia at all, you can't have such blatant and obvious favoritism towards one side of the political aisle. I strongly recommend that the first sentence of the Malcolm X article be changed to "Malcolm X was an American black supremacist, segregationist, and antisemitic conspiracy theorist who was a popular figure during the civil rights movement." Malcolm X was absolutely not a human rights activist and anyone who claims he was is a liar and a racist who is promoting bigotry and hatred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc330162 (talk • contribs) 12:08, October 18, 2021 (UTC)

FA concerns

A notice was placed on this talk page last year with concerns that article does not fulfil the featured article standards. After a quick skim of the article, I am also concerned that it does not meet the standards anymore because of multiple one-sentence and short paragraphs, some sentences that have four citations to verify a point, and a large further reading section that should be used as sources or possibly removed from the article. Is anyone interested in bringing this article back to FA standards? Z1720 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

Add space between "and" and "separation of black and white Americans" in the second paragraph Ethanol0425 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mural Malcolm X - Ella Baker - Martin Luther King - Frederick Douglass.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Assassination of Malcolm X

If there is no well-grounded objection, I intend to promote Draft:Assassination of Malcolm X to mainspace in short order, and reduce the content here to a summary with a link to the new article. BD2412 T 21:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I support it. In fact I had tried to do this in February (Talk:Malcolm_X/Archive_11#Split_off_Assassination_of_Malcolm_X?) but it didn't go any further than me creating the draft. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I am aiming to let this discussion sit another 24 hours. The subject was raised on this talk page before, and was only commented on by User:EEng. I have slightly expanded the draft from that state. BD2412 T 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Aiming" might not be the best choice of words. I agree that there's too much material for it all to go in the main article. EEng 08:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. BD2412 T 17:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note: now that the separate article has been created, the content in this article should be trimmed back to what is absolutely needed here. I will leave it to the editors of this page to decide what is best. BD2412 T 01:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

change Muslim to black muslim. 68.162.109.23 (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

He broke away from the Black Muslims and adopted just plain Islam. EEng 10:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2021

Remove the grotesque and obvious lie regarding bisexuality, which is meant to malign him. Ahsanjafrri (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Subject is covered in reliable sources, is not "grotesque", an "obvious lie", or "meant to malign him". The family's pushback is included for WP:NPOV. This meets all of our standards for inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's also remove all that gay stuff about Michaelengelo and Leonardo and Plato, which I guess is meant to malign them. EEng 22:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chollo8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

An unneeded word is being used

In the Malcom x file there is a word in there that is simply not needed and doesn’t make sense, this said word is “posthumously” which means, from the dictionary, after the death of originator. Now I would edit this myself but I was unable to for whatever circumstances, or perhaps I just couldn’t figure out how to, however I kindly ask those of you who can, to correct it for me. Also because simply I don’t know what I’m doing, and quite frankly when I have edited in the past all the characters that weren’t letters confused me and I had no clue what they were. Simpleguysimplelife (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your concern. The word posthumous appears twice in the article, and is appropriate both times. It simply means "after he's in the dirt". EEng 18:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well my concern is because the word Posthumously (the one I’m talking about) makes no sense where it’s put. Simpleguysimplelife (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

micengination laws or grand larceny

The reasons for incarceration need to be expanded with credible source and review of the railroading if indeed that was the case, citations added. Karening is a social version of railroading that can lead to unjust incarceration...its back story needs illumination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.9.30 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Photo caption clarification

I am not a member, so I can't make the change myself. I think the photo caption "Cassius Clay (in dark suit) watches Elijah Muhammad speak, 1964" would be much more useful as "Cassius Clay (second row in dark suit) watches Elijah Muhammad speak, 1964" 2600:8801:8C0B:4800:455C:1E51:C392:4C5D (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Good point. EEng 00:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

Even though Malcolm X lived in America, he did not consider himself to be American. In a speech he gave on 3rd April 1964, he said "We are African and we happen to be in America. We're not American. We are people who formerly were Africans who were kidnapped and brought to America... Our forefathers weren't the Pilgrims. We didn't land on Plymouth Rock - the rock was landed on us." Additionally, he also stated that he wasn't American many other times in his life: https://medium.com/@kalondamulamba/malcolm-x-speaks-i-am-not-an-american-we-are-nothing-but-africans-a407341dba1d . Therefore, I think his nationality in the article should be described as African - not American. 78.150.129.45 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I also think there should be a section in the article about how he didn't think he was American 78.150.129.45 (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say about his nationality? Regardless, his rhetorical expression does not change that his nationality was American; he never, for example, relinquished his American citizenship. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Those sources I linked were reliable - but I will look for more when I wake up. If there's a section in the article talking about it, there should of course be more sources than just two. And if he said he wasn't American, he wasn't American. Additionally what he said wasn't rhetorical. If a public figure comes out as trans for example, it would be wrong not to update their page saying that they are trans and what gender they actually are - just because they legally have the wrong gender on their passport for example. I'm not saying you're transphobic by the way - I'm just using an example. 78.150.129.45 (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That isnt how any of this works. nableezy - 00:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How? 78.150.129.45 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The quote from Malcolm X is political statement on white supremacy's role in American history. In this article Malcolm X is described as an African American. The quote is famous and would be a fine addition to the article—not just stuck in, but correctly placed and introduced. Needs a better source also (all requirements for a featured article). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 08:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC) ~

I don't understand how the sources I linked aren't good enough sources? This is a good faith question - I'm not trying to be hostile. But also - it's a statement on white supremacy's role in American history - which he was affected by. He said "we" meaning other black people and himself. Therefore he is saying he's not American. And he also said it multiple other times, like was said in the Medium article. I'd like to hear your response first before I link anymore sources - so I know what sources are reliable :) 78.150.129.45 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is a featured article that has been rigorously reviewed and held to very high standards. The English Wikipedia has over six million articles; only 1060 are rated featured article. The list of sources cited at the end of the article are almost entirely biographies, other scholarly sources, and newspapers of record. A biography of Malcolm X will give context and analysis for his speeches and statements. It's fine to find his public statements anywhere, but then take the extra steps of using the best sources available. One of the sources you used emphasizes the stances Malcolm was moving from (a kind of cultural nationalism) at the expense of what he was moving toward (political power for the African American People). [this just previous sentence is my understanding of history, which I have greatly over simplified (which is why I would have to hit the books to to verify I still remember the period correctly (I was 20 when Malcolm X was assassinated))]. Some of the books used as sources for this article are sure to be suitable for you and for me. I am about to read The Sword and the Shield by Peniel Joseph (who has written other books cocering the period. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 21:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC) —

Okay thanks. If you find anything in that biography regarding out question about his identity, please let me know! 78.150.129.45 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Black empowerment?

For msot of his life he was an outright black supremacist 2001:448A:1082:6A51:2187:E708:F5FE:68B0 (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense on stilts

"No consensus has been reached on who was responsible for the assassination."

What garbage. The fact that conspiracy theorists promote counterfactual claims is irrelevant to the question of who murdered him. He was murdered by the nation of islam. That's a simple, recorded fact. If we tolerated conspiracy nonsense, we could never resolve any factual question in history or the present. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:3941:8D0F:F4C6:4F34 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Genuine question

Why do we capitalize the Black in 'Black rights' in X's short description, but not the white in a descriptor like 'white supremacist' on a page like Richard B. Spencer or Mike Enoch? Seems like an odd double standard. Nswix (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Nswix, that's a good question. When I saw it pop up on my watchlist, I didn't know, so I looked it up and found the answer in our WP:Manual of style at MOS:RACECAPS. It says either capital or lowercase are okay, so I guess it might be on a page-by-page preference basis. Anyone more invested in the capitalization might know more. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You may find the AP Stylebook's explanation as to why they support the capitalization of "Black" and "Indigenous" – but not "white" – in referring to race and ethnicity interesting. https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-9105661462 General Ization ^Talk 04:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs"... is a pretty flimsy argument that doesn't really hold up for WP:Manual of style, which is fine for AP, but Wikipedia doesn't have to follow APs rules. Nswix (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that Wikipedia editors needed to follow the AP Stylebook. However, our content is sourced to various published sources, many of which do, and many of our editors are professional (or at least informed) writers who follow this or another stylebook in their own writing. You asked why someone might capitalize one and not the other, and I provided an answer. General Ization ^Talk 16:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Also, it's surprising to see Norwood and Pollack's opinions stated in the editorial voice as statements of fact. If their opinions were widely shared -- which they're not -- you should be able to cite less polemical sources. 2600:1700:8630:C90:B155:6461:6598:F698 (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)ted

The Playboy article that supports Explanatory Note G

It has recently come to light that the famous quote in which MLK Jr. admonishes Malcolm X within said playboy article was a product of journalistic malpractice. I have abstained from simply removing the quote, as I do not think it would be productive to simply scrub it, but I can't quite think of a concise and effective way to explain the illegitimate nature to the quote to readers while also informing them of how well-known the quote is and for how long it was believed to be true. How we approach this historiographic mistake is important, so I would like to field responses from other editors on how best to approach it. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a brief clarification at the end of the quote, but I'm hoping there's a more graceful way of going about this. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

2600:1700:F2F0:CC40:2944:791B:F5D0:166A (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Please indicate clearly what to replace. For example, replace [blank] by [blank], so that editors know exactly what to do. Thanks! Cocobb8 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There was no child rape. The young ladies were personal secretaries of Elijah Muhammad.

 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. Callmemirela 🍁 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest that you take a few minutes to read the article before you dismiss the request? The article says "Malcolm X provided testimony of his investigation, corroboration, and confirmation by Elijah Muhammed himself of multiple counts of child rape." That isn't true. Malcolm X accused Elijah Muhammad of sleeping with his young secretaries, and in accordance with common usage at the time, he referred to the young women as girls. He didn't accuse Muhammad of child rape. Look and see if any reliable sources use the phrase child rape (spoiler alert: they don't). 2600:1700:8630:C90:C987:7B2C:8FF4:21DE (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Malcolm X's Daughter

Please get rid of the conjecture that Malcom X's daughter, Attallah, was "possibly" named after Atilla the Hun. Attallah means granted by God. Her name is divided into 2 parts. Atta means to give/grant. Allah is the Arabic word for God and this word is also used by Arabs that are NOT Muslim. One has to use some common sense. His other children have names that are rooted in the Arabic language which have nothing to do with Atila the Hun; the latter has no Arabic sources. Names should be respected and not mocked and assuming that she was named after Atila the Hun is not only illogical but also disrespectful. Atila and Attallah are DIFFER in spelling, pronunciation, and meaning; they are not related to each other. 67.8.71.105 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, it is not clear what changes you want to be made. Instructions on how to write a proper edit request can be found at WP:ER. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 18:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023

The word "temple" has been used numerous times for "mosques". Why not just write mosque instead of temple? 182.185.4.250 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. -Lemonaka‎ 17:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Errors in "Purported bisexuality" section

The allegations that Malcolm X engaged in sex with other men during his youth didn't originate with Manning Marable's biography (published in 2011) but with Bruce Perry's (published in 1991). Read the "Early years" section of the article, which cites Perry's book. It's a shame when a so-called featured article isn't internally consistent. 2600:1700:8630:C90:B155:6461:6598:F698 (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

"It's a shame" means "someone needs to correct it". Can you help by telling us the page numbers in Perry's book so we can correct the citation? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

"According to biographer Bruce Perry, Malcolm also occasionally had sex with other men, usually for money, though this conjecture has been disputed by those who knew him.[28 Marable 2011, pp. 65–66.][29 Perry 1991, pp. 77, 82–83.][B The accuracy of these accounts has been questioned by some people who met Malcolm X later in life or never knew him, including Ta-Nehisi Coates,[30] Maulana Karenga,[31] Ilyasah Shabazz,[32] and Raymond Winbush.[33] For further information, see Phelps,[34] Polk,[35] and Street et al.[36]]"

Except for sensationalism, it isn't clear to me why these allegations are discussed in two separate sections at opposite ends of his biography. They're really not much more than but trivia, like the color of his eyes (a subject to which Perry devotes about a page and a half). 2600:1700:8630:C90:7968:5907:3177:7E20 (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It's been more than a month. Is anybody going to fix this error? 2600:1700:8630:C90:C987:7B2C:8FF4:21DE (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2023 (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. Xan747 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Close paraphasing.

I'm a bit concerned about the paraphrasing in this article. I looked though the cites for the antisemtism section and they include wording that is very close or identical to the text. See my last couple edits. LittleJerry (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete and generalized sentence

'A controversial figure accused of preaching racism and violence'

This sentence is too blunt, Who accused him? Please give a reference and context? I find this sentence very generalized, incomplete of context. Not objective information but rather an accusation. Who, why, when. I little bit disappointing you missed this. 2001:1C08:783:E100:2F3D:A2C5:1F95:EED6 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)