Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Leaving the Nation of Islam

I am trying to learn why he left, especially why there was apparently such rancor against his leaving. These sentences are not helping me: After he left the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X began to articulate his own views. During the final year of his life, his philosophy was flexible, and it is difficult to categorize his views on some subjects. Some of the themes to which Malcolm X frequently returned in his speeches demonstrate a relative consistency of thought. This strikes me as obfuscation, intentional or otherwise. Do we know what aspects of Nation teachings he rejected? Rumiton (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify the article over the next few days. In short, Malcolm X rejected the idea that the Nation of Islam's teachings were Islam and that Elijah Muhammad was a holy man. He also rejected the view that white people were devils; he said that people should be judged by their actions, not by the color of their skin.

Part of the rancor toward Malcolm X was due to his incessant public criticism of Elijah Muhammad. Leaders of the Nation of Islam described him as a traitor who was worthy of death, and many NOI members agreed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's interesting. If we can express it that succinctly without straying from sources, the article will thank us. Rumiton (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It still reads as confused. I don't know enough about the subject to work on it myself, but I am happy to help. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the Independent views section is causing the most confusion. With other editors' agreement I would like to work on it. As I know little about the subject, my revision will be a test of the article's coherence. Rumiton (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For those Watching this page

I have opened a RSN case on the Bruce Perry Book as it smells funny to me It can be found here Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Meeting King Faisal

The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Chapter 17, apparently tells us that King Faisal lent him a car to do his Hajj with. Did this happen without their meeting? (Just asking.) Rumiton (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2010 This is the link again: (UTC) http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/malcolmx/section8.rhtml Rumiton (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm X met Faisal's son during his hajj (April 1964), but I can't find any source that indicates Malcolm X met Faisal during the UN general assembly meeting in September 1960. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but it seems strange that the king lent him a car for a journey on which he met the prince, but he never met the king himself. Rumiton (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read the relevant portion of the Autobiography. Malcolm X did meet Faisal as well as his son during his hajj. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I added it (perhaps a bit clumsily) to the pilgrimage section. It could use a page number and a tidying up. Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede image

I think the current lede image is not the best image available. The current shot is up his nose, and not a good image for the lede IMHO, though it works well with the gunshot holes image below. I would like to see if anybody else thinks the one with him looking to his right, and seated is better for the lede. — GabeMc (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself. The previous photo was not only better technically and aesthetically, it was also infinitely more recognizable. I would bring it back and move the new photo to somewhere amid the 1964-65 section. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what Malik thinks first. — GabeMc (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care which pictures are used. When the article was promoted to featured status, it had this picture in the infobox, which happens to be from the press conference at which Malcolm X announced his departure from the NOI. But as I wrote, I'm not partial to any particular image. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we get this image reversed so Malcolm is right facing? — GabeMc (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good idea, it's kind of meddling with evidence. Left-right orientation can be important. Rumiton (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Name in Arabic all wrong

Arabic is read from right-to-left. Even so the way the name is written in Arabic does not match how it's been written here in English even if you read the Arabic backwards. The Arabic reads: الشباز الحاجّ مالك ‎(=El-Shabazz El-Hajj Malik) where as the English says it is "El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz" (= الحاجّ مالك الشباز). After meddling with the page a bit I've come to the conclusion it's a problem with the line break that arises depending on the size of the window. Decreasing and Increasing the size of the window I've found that the order of the names are correct at a certain width, but wrong at others. I don't write Arabic script on the computer so I'm not sure how to fix this. Perhaps some other editor knows what to do. Rlinfinity (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Where can I find his speech about the comparison of house-negroes and field-negroes?

I think that this was the most important speech he ever made when speaking about the house-negroes and the field-negroes. Why do we not integrate it in the article or at least link to the speech? --188.46.45.30 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I first heard it on a vinyl record I borrowed from a library, "Malcolm X: message to the grass roots" I believe. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a YouTube link, but we would need a reputable source to tell us about it, especially as his early radicalism was very much tempered later in life. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The speech is important enough that it has its own article. See Message to the Grass Roots. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(malxom x biography ) mistake

Hi. There are a number of things about the House Negro - Field Negro speech that are interesting. Firstly, the great film of it is now no longer on youtube. A shame. You can at least see the reactions of people as he moves them from anger to humour and back again like a master. Secondly, the latest time I've seen the speech (he made it frequently) was 4th Feb 1965.... Can this be true? I'd love to know because by this time he'd had his damascene conversion and in that speech he's extemely nasty about non-violence practitioners.. (CORE, SNCC et al were extremely tough and brave young people - how he could equate MLK and them as traitors is breathtakingly awful...I'd therefore be extremely grateful if anyone could tell me the last time he made the speech..Imagine where he could have led SNCC, Stokely and the Black Panthers if he hadn't been ASSASSINATED...? 1969 with MLK & him alive. Lord. Philthegeordie@hotmail.co.uk for any definitive times for the last FN/HN speech. Much appreciated. {{edit semi-protected}}

Noormubarak (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC) it is mentioned in Malxom X biography that during his youth, he was involved in sex with men for money. this is totally a lie. out of respect for a man who died fighting for morals and human values, remove this disgusting unrelevent and misleading point.

Not done: Please see this and earlier archived discussions. The Wikipedia article simply reports what an apparently reliable source says, and notes that other biographers have not made the same claim. Unless you have a good reason for believing this to be untrue, there's no reason to remove it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

I'm going to trim back the Further reading section a little. For the most part, I'll be removing books that aren't particularly useful: books I wouldn't consider using as sources, books I wouldn't recommend to a friend who wanted to know more about Malcolm X, etc.

If I remove a book that you think shouldn't have been removed, please don't take it personally. Put it back, but please leave a little explanation here why you think it's an important book to include.

I recommend editors read WP:Further reading, which is just a proposal at this stage but which has, in my view, some good ideas about what sorts of books do and don't belong in the "Further reading" section of an article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

edit request

please add this famous photo, File:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif Malcolm X holding an M1 Carbine and pulling back the curtains to peer out of a window. A similar image first appeared in Ebony magazine.

File:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't add that picture because our use of it wouldn't satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The photo is subject to a copyright, we describe it in the article, and adding the photo wouldn't add anything to the reader's understanding that the text doesn't. I wish the copyright rules here were different, but we can't add it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Change in the Lead

I changed the lead to reflect the fact more clearly that Malcolm X disavowed his time with the Nation of Islam. He was a spokesperson for them but when he was free of them he called himself foolish and his time with them 12 years wasted. So who was Time's most influential man? The front man preaching the views of the Nation of Islam or the free man who was traveling the world to find himself. Hopefully anyone trying to get at his philosophy will clearly understand that he himself repudiated his speeches while with the Nation of Islam. Too important not to mention in some way in the lead. Glennconti (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

While this is true we must be careful not to state "wasted years" as this is out of context and undue weight. It gives the reader the impression to dismiss everything he previously said by Mr. X. Now unless we can deal with specifics for example "White man is the devil" I think you will find that not that much changed. Often the detractors do this to take the spike out of Malcolm, "dont take anything he said in the nation, as he disagreed with that and made a complete U-turn" NOT TRUE. A issue with the organizations of NOI doesnt mean "By any means necessary" is now invalid. Undue weight. Wasted years might mean also building the nation, not the ideology of liberation (that never changed) --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added back in the the idea that Malcolm X had regrets about his actions as a member of the Nation of Islam. And I have named one of them: his reform of his ideas about racism. Malcolm X had no love for the NOI after he left. Hell, some of their members killed him. Why glorify his time with them when he himself called himself Elijah Mohammed's puppet? He was trying to say the ideas were not his and he had serious regrets. This is too important not to say.Glennconti (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the sentences you added, while well-intentioned, may convey a meaning you didn't intend. "His detractors accused him of preaching racism, black supremacy, antisemitism, and violence." This criticism didn't stop when Malcolm X left the NOI. You added a sentence that says "However, his philosophy changed after he left the Nation of Islam." This suggests his critics were right and that he abandoned the teachings that led to that criticism after leaving the NOI. (It also suggests the criticism stopped when he left the Nation.) I don't believe his critics were right, and I feel quite strongly that Wikipedia shouldn't be taking a position on the matter.

I also think there's merit to what Halqh wrote: Malcolm X didn't wake up one March morning in 1964, leave the Nation of Islam, and change his philosophy. His philosophy had been evolving while he was an NOI member, especially during 1963, and it continued to evolve until his death.

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I'm going to Revert your Bold additions while we Discuss them. Okay? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

@Malik: Important points nicely made. Rumiton (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be strange to meet any intellectual or revolutionary who didnt evolve. Look at King, look at Dubois. Un Due Weight. I 100% agree with user Shabazz. Look even at Gadaffi. Malcolm had a beef with NOI (the organizational corruption), more so than their ideology. He had a problem building up the NOI and serving a "false prophet". His ideology as it relates to Why he is Malcolm X did not change as implied in that POV sentence. Post Hajj "They can not be any Black White unity unless there is first Black unity" (How has his ideology changed? Did he become MLK and sing "we shall overcome"? Did he stop saying people had a right to defend themselves? No he got heavier and declare USA should be taken before the courts. Human rights issue.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that his philosophy did change and he did disavow racism. People study what Mr. X said to understand what he stood for. And some criticize his stand while at the NOI. But he repudiated the NOI. He said he was a ventriloquists dummy. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS ALLOWING MALCOLM X TO CONTINUE TO BE A SPOKESMAN FOR THE NATION OF ISLAM. This would not be his intent if he were living today. That is, if he had not been murdered by them. He left the NOI and changed his philosophy. What are you afraid of. The truth will not hurt you and it desires to be said in the lead. Glennconti (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Further, my statement that his philosophy changed comes after both what his praisers and his detractors said. The "however" is and injection of truth after both speculations or points of view.Glennconti (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus remains with Malik Shabazz - leaving the article as is...Modernist (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also there is plenty of space for adding SPECIFIC changes he made ideologically, see bottom of the article not the LEDE.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is not consensus. That he changed his philosophy was already in the lead. I just moved it up some. It should stay in the lead and be moved where I had it. I also added some language. Which we should negotiate. But to remove all idea that his philosophy changed from the lead is wrong. Glennconti (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that. The lede says he became a Sunni Muslim, went on a pilgimage and renounced racism. They are quite major changes. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Right and I think that should be said right after he is being accused of being a racist. And specifically that his philosophy changed from the NOI time. Glennconti (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

How about right after he is being accused of being a racist we say: "However, Malcolm X's philosophy changed over his lifetime and he later disavowed racism." In this way we don't even have to mention that he ended up disliking the NOI because this truth makes people here uncomfortable.Glennconti (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Glennconti, please moderate your tone. We can all bring something of value to this debate. Rumiton (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any immoderate tone. That was not my intention. What do you think of the language I have proposed? Glennconti (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed a new and different change to the lead as follows:

"However, Malcolm X's philosophy changed over his lifetime and he later disavowed racism.".

If there are no dissenting comments I will be so bold as to make this change myself after a period of time. Glennconti (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you're missing the point of the first paragraph of the article. It summarizes, in very brief fashion, who Malcolm X was and why he was important. What his admirers saw in him and—since he was (and remains) a very controversial figure—what his detractors said about him. The first paragraph doesn't say anything about what Malcolm X believed or taught (only what his detractors accused him of teaching).

I think there's room to improve the third paragraph. It says that Malcolm X left the NOI, became a Sunni, and disavowed racism. I think there's an opportunity there to say more about other changes in Malcolm X's philosophy after he left the NOI. Do you have any specific suggestions? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the lead is for important summary. I feel that it is very important for people to understand That Malcolm X changed his philosophy so people should be encouraged to study his entire body of work. Especially the later time after he left the influence of the NOI. I feel that you do a disservice to Malcolm X if you just study the speeches while he was at the NOI and think that was all he was about. Dare I say it, he hated them and his daughter wanted to get revenge. There was a blood feud. This counts for something and is very important. What I have proposed is the truth and is very mild. I feel the NOI wanted Malcolm X silenced so he could not alter as he STARTED TO their doctrine. Who knows what Malcolm X would have said had he not been killed. I too feel that the supporters of the doctrines of the NOI want to silence me also. The change to the lead should be allowed. Glennconti (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that what you (or we) feel really counts for nothing, and speculating on what he might have said if not killed, or what his daughter might have wanted to do is futile. We can only report what reputable sources have said, and I believe the article does this quite well. One area where your comments might be relevant is the treatment of NOI in the lede. It does not explain that inter-racial hatred was an integral part of their philosophy, and probably it should. Otherwise the significance of "...and disavowed racism" may not be properly understood. Rumiton (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the article is quite good. But I think we also all agree that it is possible to change the lead to improve it. To get back to my proposed change it has been said of the proposed change that it adds undue weight to his later ideas. Please consider this. Of the three phases of his adult life where should we look to find where he ultimately stood. A) When he was a criminal and drug user? B) When he was with the NOI? C) When he was a Sunni Muslim? We need to say that "Malcolm X's philosophy changed over his lifetime." This is indisputable and invites reflection on all phases of his life. Can we not at least agree on this? Further, that he "disavowed racism" is also an indisputable fact and I think give the appropriate weight to his final ideas. What do you all think? Glennconti (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the lede already says that Malcolm X disavowed racism. Yes, I double-checked: it does say that. I've asked you if there you have any other specific suggestions for that paragraph. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it does. However, I want to move it to a more prominent position in the first paragraph. I think the article will be enhanced if we make a change to the first paragraph. For some reason you will broach no change to the first paragraph. I have shown that this is a very important idea I am trying to convey. Why do you resist this and further will not negotiate the language? And I want to add the idea that his philosophy changed over his life time. Why do you also resist this? Glennconti (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am just trying to get a handle on what you are saying. I agree that the evolution of his ideas could bear greater emphasis in the lede. Do you have a concrete suggestion? Rumiton (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead currently says:

To his admirers, he was a courageous advocate for the rights of African Americans, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans.[6] His detractors accused him of preaching racism, black supremacy, antisemitism, and violence.[7][8][9][10][11] He has been called one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history,[12][13][14]

I would like it to say:

To his admirers, he was a courageous advocate for the rights of African Americans, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans.[6] His detractors accused him of preaching racism, black supremacy, antisemitism, and violence.[7][8][9][10][11] However, Malcolm X's philosophy changed over his life time and he later disavowed racism. He has been called one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history,[12][13][14]

So as not to be redundant in the lead the "and he later disavowed racism" bit is a movement from a subsequent paragraph in the lead. Glennconti (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that change. Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree who said he was ever a racist in the first place? Where is the global source that said he was a racist, you cannot become a non-racist if you already and always were non-racist. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph says this in the second sentence and appears to be well referenced. Do you propose that we also change the second sentence of the first paragraph? It currently reads: His detractors accused him of preaching racism, black supremacy, antisemitism, and violence.[7][8][9][10][11] Glennconti (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Halaqah - The change I have proposed specifically answers the charges that he was a racist by saying he disavowed racism. He was accused of racism and then he disavowed it. I should think that you would want to clear the air. I have checked some sources on the Internet and some say at one point he was a racist. But we don't need to get into that in the lead and I don't think we should. Please see [1] where this one pundit says that Malcolm X was initially a racist. You have strong feelings that Mr. X was never a racist. Will you be able to maintain a NPOV in this discussion? Glennconti (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Glennconti, where in the first paragraph does it discuss any of Malcolm X's beliefs? Why, of all the things he taught, should we single out racism? Why don't we say that he advocated self-determination for African-American communities? self-defense? human rights? freedom?

Also, as I wrote earlier, the conjunction "however" suggests that Malcolm's critics were right. Wikipedia shouldn't take sides on that matter. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please dont worry about my feelings for Mr X. It goes back to the problem of undue weight which makes us think as the above editor notes "HIS critics were correct, he was a racist after all" that is a NPOV? He never was a racist. Show me universal sources from his fans where he is considered a racist? He said he was against racism. He cannot fight racism and be a racist. It give weight and preference to the detractor argument. Did Amiri Baraka say he was a racist? Did Molefi Asante say he was a racist. I never consider X a racist and i dont know anyone that does. Spike Lee, John Clarke, Karenga also doesnt think he ever was. ...--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Halaqah - I have no opinion as to whether or not Mr. X was initially a racist. Nothing in what I have proposed "makes us think" anything. Think what you want. You obviously have a point of view. I am simply stating the truth. Glennconti (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Malik S.--- Then I take it you have a problem with the conjunction and the proximity of the "disavowing of racism" idea (but have no problem with the philosophy changed over his lifetime idea). I am willing to discuss an alternative conjunction - any suggestions? Further, the structure is admirers then detractors. Would you be more comfortable with detractors first then admirers then the change. In this way, we put more distance between the first mention of racism and the second? However I don't understand your need for separation of the two uses of the idea of racism. I think the two references to it (racism) in the lead should be close together because they seem to go together. Glennconti (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't read your mind. If you are critical of the change, please offer an alternative. Or I will be forced to make changes trying to guess what you don't like. Please try and be constructive. Glennconti (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the lede is fine as is...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Others have the opinion it can be improved. Are you trying to block any improvement to the article? Glennconti (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Break

No one wishes to make a counter proposal, so I will propose a new change in hopes that it will achieve consensus. How about: Regardless of his admirers and his critics, the fact remains that Malcolm X's philosophy changed over his lifetime. In this way, we have altered the conjunction and don't even mention the possibility that his position on racism may or may not have changed. This should satisfy both Malik S. and Halaqah. If I get no feedback after a period of time I will assume this change is acceptable by all parties. Glennconti (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that nobody has made a counter-proposal because nobody else sees a need for a change in the lede?

Your latest suggestion is at least as bad as the earlier ones. The language seems completely out of place in the first paragraph, which discusses how others have perceived Malcolm X.

I told you where I thought a mention of Malcolm X's philosophy belongs—in the third paragraph of the lede. You've completely ignored that suggestion. Here's a new suggestion: maybe we should try to summarize Malcolm X#Philosophy and include that as a fourth paragraph in the lede.

Finally, please stop your threats. They're really annoying. There is no deadline. We'll add to the article when we reach consensus, not when you decide. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At least one other person agreed that a change to the lead was warranted and when I say I will make a change after a period of time, it is not a threat it is a courtesy. How do I know if others have lost interest in the discussion or not? As you know any editor has the right to make changes and no one owns an article. Do you have any thoughts to an summary outline on this fourth paragraph? Glennconti (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess that was me, and though I am still learning about this subject, I am surprised that there is resistance to describing his pre-Hajj beliefs as "racist." There are many sources like this [[2]] one that report on his opinion that white people were devils and incapable of any goodness, while blacks were the only true humans. It is to his great credit that he overcame this early stuff, but is there really a problem with calling it racism? Rumiton (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't dispute that Malcolm X's teachings during his years in the NOI were racist. What his beliefs were, on the other hand, we'll probably never know. Please read the first paragraph of Malcolm X#Beliefs of the Nation of Islam.

Still, I don't have any problem saying he disavowed racism. The lede already says that. The article already says that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're coming from. OTOH, if he didn't actually believe the stuff he was saying, what did that make him? A puppet, OK. And the article already says that. I still find something vaguely unsatisfactory in the way the lead currently treats this period of his life. Need to think some more. Rumiton (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What was the issue again because It already says this in the lede (per shabazz comments). But Did Malcolm actually say "I am no longer a racist?" --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Malcolm X ever said that, but he wrote from Mecca that his experiences with fellow Muslims of all colors had "forced [him] to re-arrange much of [his] thought patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of [his] previous conclusions" (emphasis in original). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the resistance to the original idea for the first paragraph of the lead. A) Malcolm X was accused of racism. B) Malcolm X changed his philosophy over his lifetime. C) Malcolm X disavowed racism. All three are verifiable facts. Any conclusions or inferences from the three facts are completely up to the reader. Glennconti (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't been reading my messages. I have no objection, but I don't think it belongs in the first paragraph. There is nothing in the first paragraph that discusses Malcolm X's beliefs or teachings, so why would we say that they changed over his lifetime? I think the proper place for that discussion is in the third paragraph, after we've mentioned some of his beliefs (Black pride and Black self-reliance, which he never abandoned).

I'm very busy right now with a project at work, but I think the lede would benefit even more from a fourth paragraph that summarizes the Malcolm X#Philosophy section of the article. Would you care to start it? Otherwise it will have to wait a little while. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Creating a fourth para wouldn't be a ten minute project. Its content would impact on the first three, and quite a few things would need to be shifted about. Basically, the whole lede would need rewriting and there would inevitably be issues of consensus. Still, I agree it would add value to the article and it should be done. If nobody else does, I'll make a start in the next few days. (Famous last words? I hope not.) Rumiton (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I had a go. There is still a lot of disjointedness in the lede, and too many refs which I think should have stayed in the main body. But it's a start. Rumiton (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I may be out of date with thinking refs should be minimised in the lede. I see the current version of WP:LEAD no longer says so. Rumiton (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting that we are making this change right around the time of a new book out on Malcolm X. The title is "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention" which from its title talks specifically about how Malcolm X's philosophies changed over time. The book is due out April 4th. Glennconti (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Great work, Rumiton. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for improving it. Rumiton (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nation of Islam

This rather clumsy title now appears 60 times in the article. I tried to initialise it (NOI) but that was reverted. Any other ideas how this might be streamlined? Rumiton (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to use an abbreviation that isn't widely known (at least I don't think it's widely known—if I'm mistaken, please let me know). Where the name pops up repeatedly in close proximity, I try to use phrases like "the organization" and "the group" on second and third mentions. If anybody has better ideas, I'm open to suggestions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point re made-up abbrevs, but something needs to be done. It's just too clumsy and tedious to read as it is. I'll have a look tonight. Rumiton (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

skin color and skin tone

Is there a difference between color and tone? Rumiton (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, why? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because we have "skin color and skin tone". There was a previous mention of hair color, so I assumed this should read "hair color and skin tone" or perhaps "skin color and hair tone" but it was reverted back to the above. Rumiton (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you know! It's been like that for at least two years, and you're the first person who's pointed it out.

Looking back, I might have meant was that skin color (white vs. black) and skin tone (light-skinned vs. dark-skinned) were significant to him. I don't think the article really deals with the light/dark issue, so I suppose we could drop either color or tone. Have at it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

With a will! Rumiton (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs amplification re "Shabazz" name

The article states in the first sentence that he was also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz but then never elaborates. When did he take this name? Did he use it in all contexts? Of course, any additional information about its significance and why he used it would be nice, but at a minimum the date should be reported. JamesMLane t c 23:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are all good questions, and (as far as I know) there are no simple answers. I agree the article should say more about the name, however, and I'll try to add some in the next few weeks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hits

According to [[3]] this article is currently averaging 9214 looks per day. Take bows, editors. Rumiton (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Untold Truth Behind Malcolm's Mother

They called her crazy for rejecting free pork because she wants to adhere to Seventh Day Adventist dietary restrictions. So whenever the state sent food commodities to her home she would not serve the pork. The state used that against her said that she was not providing her kids with proper nutritional guidelines. So they removed them out of the home and put her in a psych ward. Until she was released to Malcolm and his siblings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.247.186 (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons why (white) people considered Louise Little crazy is that she was a proud Black woman who refused to take orders from the welfare people, including serving her family the pork that was sent to them. But she also had genuine mental health problems. She was committed after she was found walking barefoot in the snow-filled streets with her baby (Robert) clutched to her chest. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

bisexuality

I think his bisexuality should be added to the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/books/malcolm-x-biographer-dies-on-eve-of-publication-of-redefining-work.html?hp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.187.183 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say Malcolm X was bisexual. It says he engaged in "an early homosexual relationship with a white businessman", and so does our article: "Little occasionally engaged in sex with other men, usually for money." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

However, it adds the line "No other biographers have written about such sexual encounters.[38][39]" The article mentioned above provides a second credible source. That line should now be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.62.134 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

When the book is published and somebody has a chance to read it, that sentence can be removed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• While it most likely will be removed, Malik is right. Waiting until the book is actually published won't hurt anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is controversial, with no concrete evidence, should it not state; "It is thought by some that Little occasionally engaged in sex with other men, usually for money. This is highly debated ." http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/19/manning_marables_controversial_new_biography_refuels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Withoutillusions (talk • contribs) 02:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Democracynow is hardly a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Amiri Baraka and Herb Boyd notwithstanding, the information is supported by two biographies of Malcolm X. Marable writes that there is "circumstantial but strong evidence" about one incident. Perry writes of two or three others. There is no need for a disclaimer in the article that this is highly debated. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The article refers to the claims of bisexual behavior as absolute fact, but 'circumstancial evidence' in two biographies is hardly proof. This is especially true when we consider the fact that the sexual allegations do not appear in any of the other dozens of books and articles written about Malcolm X. More importantly, X's own autobiography contradicts one of the alleged incidents of bisexual behavior, which X attributes to his partner-in-crime Rudy. Think of it this way: multiple books about JFK (and RFK) allege that either or both men had affairs with Marilyn Monroe, but we would (rightly) never state those claims as absolute fact in their biographies. As such, the reference to Malcolm X's alleged bisexuality should, at the least, be qualified by the clause 'according to two biographies.' Thus, "According to two biographies, Little occasionally engaged in sex with other men, usually for money." I plan to make this change shortly, unless anyone has reasonable objections. Dmalveaux (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Of course his own autobiography contradicts it. Anyone surprised by that, please raise your hand. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested, I recommend that you visit a library or a bookstore and read Marable's biography for yourself. On pages 65 and 66, Marable describes Malcolm Little's relationship with William Paul Lennon. "The uncertain particulars of their intimate relationship would generate much controversy and speculation in the years following Malcolm's death." (p. 65) "The Autobiography describes sexual contacts with Lennon, except that Malcolm falsely attributed them to a character named Rudy." (p. 66) "Based on circumstantial but strong evidence, Malcolm was probably describing his own homosexual encounters with Paul Lennon." (p. 66)

In the footnotes, Marable writes: "Bruce Perry's Malcolm asserts that on several occasions in 1944–45 Malcolm engaged in homosexual acts for payment. ... Perry's claims, when published in 1991, generated a firestorm of criticism from those devoted to Malcolm's iconic image, who pointed out that his only credible source for these escapades was "Shorty" Jarvis. ... Since the publication of Perry's book, other evidence has surfaced that supports his general assertions. For example, according to Rodnell Collins, Malcolm revealed details to Ella Collins about "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." See Collins, Seventh Child, p. 76.

Rodnell Collins is (was?) Malcolm X's nephew, the son of his half-sister Ella Collins. Rodnell's book, Seventh Child: A Family Memoir of Malcolm X (1998), says exactly what Marable quotes.

So there are three books, not two, that report the same information. More importantly, there has not been a single post-Perry biography that has challenged the same-sex encounters of Malcolm Little. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No one disputes that Marable's biography alleges bisexual behavior. No one disputes that Perry's book also alleges bisexual behavior. Those are two books. As for what you call the third book: Rodnell Collins' claim about X rubbing powder over an elderly man's body (which, again, X attributes to Rudy) does not support this article's relevant sentence, which says "Little had sex with other men." So we're still only looking at two books that claim X had sex with men; two books that support the article's claim. Two books out of the dozens of books and articles that do not mention such a thing. It's also important to note that Malcolm X revealed a host of embarrassing things about his youth in in his autobiography, yet never mentioned any bisexual behavior. Having said that, my point is not that the claims are absolutely untrue (I personally think that they are, at least in part, true). Rather, my point is that the claims have not been proven true to the point that the article should definitively say "Little had sex with other men" as absolute fact. The article loses nothing by adding the qualifier, "According to two biographers..." or some variation thereof. It's a reasonable act of restraint on our part to include such a qualifier. We would, and do, extend the same courtesy to other leaders, especially those who can no longer speak for themselves. Dmalveaux (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. Rather than say "two biographers", I would rather say "recent biographies", because (as I mentioned) no post-Perry biography has challenged Little's same-sex encounters. What do you think? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Recent biographies" sounds good. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A good and reasonable compromise. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Sounds good. I'll make the change shortly if no one else gets to it. Dmalveaux (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dgamba, 15 May 2011

It was later discovered via The Freedom Of Information Act, former Nation Of Islam National Treasurer John Ali, was, and still may be an F.B.I. Agent during his tenure with The Nation Of Islam. A data base search for this agent years later, after the Malcolm X F.B.I. files were released is non-existent.

Dgamba (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done no source and specific change CTJF83 21:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.102.140.36, 22 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Memorials and tributes

Paragraph four (4) second sentence:

Many cities have renamed streets after Malcolm X; in 1987, New York mayor Ed Koch proclaimed Lenox Avenue in Harlem to be Malcolm X Boulevard.[269] The name of Reid Street in Brooklyn, New York, was changed to Malcolm X Boulevard in 1985.[270]

Please change to “The name of Reid Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, was changed to Malcolm X Boulevard in 1985.[270]"

See Goggle Maps, type in “Reid Avenue, Brooklyn, NY.”

71.102.140.36 (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's original research, not reported in a reliable source

 Not done  Chzz  ►  05:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

While Google Maps is not a reliable source, I think you're right. I will review sources other than Rickford's biography of Betty Shabazz (footnote 270) to see whether they mention the name change and say "Reid Avenue" instead of "Reid Street". Thank you for pointing out this error. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm X project at Columbia U. site

There are now two of them. The one currently in "External links", www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/mxp/index.html, and this one: mxp.manningmarable.com. Which one should be regarded as "correct"? The second one seems to be more recent. Prescottbush (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I stumbled across the second site a few months ago and lost the URL. It's definitely a newer version of the website. Would you like to update the External link in the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. The link was in the acknowledgments section of Marable's book. Prescottbush (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Daughter

The name of the first daughter, Atallah, is not derived from the name Atillah the Hun, who was neither black nor shared the Islamic faith, thus making it unlikely that Malcolm X, who was so careful about names, would name his first daughter thus. The name Atallah , in Arabic, means "gift from God", and is a common name for Muslim/Arab children. Please make the appropriate note of this in your page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.149.170 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Attallah may have that meaning in Arabic, but according to Malcolm X himself (in The Autobiography of Malcolm X), she was named for Attila the Hun. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It might still be good to note the difference. Attallah is a common name in the Middle East and it would be weird if everyone went away accidentally thinking all those people were named after Attilah the Hun.41.199.150.25 (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I found an interview in which Attallah Shabazz says her name was based on the Arabic "gift of God" and not after Atilla. I'll add that to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Other names

"Detroit Red" redirects to this article without explaining what that means or why. This article does not mention his other names used. There should be a place in this article for those other names, which are should be easy to find reference for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.219.32 (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the omission of Detroit Red. I think the article mentions Malcolm X's other names in historical context. If you think of anything else that's missing, please post it. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 6 October 2011

Paragraph two (2) of main article, two (2) typographical errors corrections in bold Two (2) grammatical errors (striking the comma after hospital; instead, place the comma in the same sentence after "thirteen", e.g. When he was thirteen, his mother...). Typographical orrections as follows:

Malcolm X's father died—killed by whites, it was rumored—when he was young, and at least one of his uncles was lynched. When he was thirteen his mother was placed in a mental hospital, and he was placed in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age 21, he went to prison for breaking and entereing (entering).

Therefore, to change X to Y, Here is X:

Malcolm X's father died—killed by whites, it was rumored—when he was young, and at least one of his uncles was lynched. hen he was thirteen his mother was placed in a mental hospital, and he was placed in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age 21, he went to prison for breaking and entereing.

Change it to Y:

Malcolm X's father died—killed by whites, it was rumored—when he was young, and at least one of his uncles was lynched. When he was thirteen, his mother was placed in a mental hospital, and he was placed in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age 21, he went to prison for breaking and entering.

David Jerrard Givens (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the problems. I just fixed them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Either way is that detail necessary in an Article about Malcolm?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

value of life insurance policy

I think the part where the value of the life insurance policy is stated and then given a value in 2010 dollars would qualify as original research. The value either needs to be verified or that sectioned removed. Also as Value of money is ambigious, there are at least ten different ways to determine value in the past compared to present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.193.128 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would be inclined to agree with you, but the source cited, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention by Manning Marable, specifically says $1,000 was "the equivalent of about $15,000 in 2010" (p. 32). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I am confused to do we use that template formatnum or no? I put it in a bunch of articles. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with formatnum, and it isn't clear to me what it has to do with the value of money in the past. If it's working for you, don't change it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Where are his papers?

I do not see if their are any surviving papers of him or where they are. From here, Harlem Center’s Director to Retire in Early 2011 can I edit the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture to say that it has all of his papers? It's unclear to me. If Schomburg does have all his papers, then why is it not in the article, or did I miss it? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm X Papers, Contested Malcolm X papers go to NY Public Library, Malcolm X Trove to Schomburg Center. It looks like the papers are in the Schomburg. If it is true, then I am requesting an edit be placed in the article to indicate that. Thanks 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If this article does not account for where his papers are store, then the only conclusion I can draw is that his papers are not notable and then I have to delete any reference to them in the Schomburg Center article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to be in a rush and you should not hastily conclude that his papers are not notable. Why would you think you need to delete mention of his papers in one article just because they are not yet mentioned in his biography? I have not yet had the time to look into the matter, but you could add the content yourself if you have researched it and can add solid references to reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool; it's on the backburner. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have just taken a look at my copy of Manning Marable's monumental biography Malcolm X: a life of reinvention published last year in 2011. In his bibliography section on page 564, Marable refers to the Malcolm X Collection at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture as one of the sources he used in writing his biography. The other significant academic collection of Malcolm X documents is housed at Emory University in Atlanta. Of course, there are many other archives that contain some documents related to Malcolm X, but these seem to be the two archives devoted to collecting primary documents about Malcolm's life and work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Since Malcolm X is most widely known for his autobiography and his speeches, I didn't think a discussion of his papers was significant for this article. That doesn't mean they're not a significant holding at the Schomburg, or that acquiring them wasn't a coup for Howard Dodson (the library's director).

If other editors feel we should mention his papers in this article, I'm not opposed it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess there need's to be an author that writes the collection, itself, is notable. We already know the part that was initially misappropriated was appraised at $500k. Then his daughters donated more. I got what I want. I'll go look at p. 564 of Maltby's book and now, even better, I know I have to look at biographies of people that donated papers to the Schomburg. Although, I do bring in E. J. Josey who discusses the collection and he is extremely powerful. I probably need to get rid of the NY Times and LA Times as citation; they're too weak. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a confusion here about requirements for an article's topic (which must be notable) and the various bits of information that make up an article's content (content need not be notable -- again, only the article's topic need be notable). See WP:NNC. EEng (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you are saying that if some dude says something is historically important, as editors we can deprecate it and then omit that fact from the article. Although, if "Malcolm X found a cure for cancer", then we would have to include that cause it's absurd not to. Right? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't say whether what you're saying is what I'm saying, because I can't understand what you're saying, dude. But I do know what I'm saying. I'm saying that the link I supplied discusses the common misconception that article content (as opposed to topic) must be notable. EEng (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. If this article does not mention his papers, then that gives me prima facia evidence his papers are worthless. As far as "content need not be notable", as you point out, that's fine. As an editor, I just do not think it makes sense to include not "notable", worthless, garbage information in the Schomburg article. I think a full and fair evaluation of his papers, which is part of his legacy, is important. I am very sorry, but sometimes the WP: pages are difficult to comprehend. I don't have a law degree. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this article mentions Malcolm X's papers, they may be notable to an article about the Schomburg Center. An analogy: A forward pass may not be important enough to mention in a quarterback's biography, but it would be very important to discuss it in an article about the football game. In any event, we seem to be in agreement (see below) that Malcolm X's papers should be mentioned in this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what Josey says about the notability of the other archives mentioned here. If he does not mention them or deprecates them, then that's a problem. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only things in that archive might be a set of postcards signed Happy Birthday, so...66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not attached to this article and I am sure that a popular view of Malcolm is extremely important. But Josey is world-class. I don't know if he had a chance to review the archives because they are so hot off the press, but I really feel no love for any of the authors used in this article, as compared to Josey. I am prejudiced to believe that Josey knocks the socks off every author used in this article. Sorry, but he's only been involved in librarianship for 50 years. The dude is a certifiable powerhouse. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a relative newcomer to this article, but I will say that I favor a brief description of the institutions holding his papers in this article which is his biography. More lengthy descriptions of the Malcolm X holdings in the articles about those academic institutions would be appropriate, I think. I do not understand why we should deprecate a certain source (Manning Marable or whoever]] because one editor feels "no love" for that source as opposed to lots of love for Josey, unless that lack of love is based on something really solid in more reliable sources. I also don't see the need to "get rid of" the New York Times source that describes the unusual provenance of this trove of papers in fair detail - I think that is a wonderful source for understanding the unique history of this particular archive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 2:15 am, Today (UTC−5)

I drafted a short discussion of the papers here. Please feel free to edit as you'd like or comment here. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys might get mad at me, but the Schomburg Center is really extremely important. Whomever did the Infobox on libraries, they did it wrong. I really only have, prolly, 4 things to include in the collection. Phillis Wheatley is immortal. Ralph Bunche won the Nobel Peace Prize. So that only leaves 2 spots. I have a problem with even finding out who was the first director of Schomburg, so I hope that you guys can figure out the historical significance of his papers. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Recording found" section

A new section, "Recording found", was added to the article this week. While the new recording has been in the news recently, I'm not sure it merits mention in the article. It seems like an instance of WP:Recentism and undue weight. What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

White foster parents

Sorry guys, I know I'm doing this wrong, but I noticed that in the first section (Early Life), that it says Malcolm lived with a series of white foster parents. He lived in a detention home in Mason, Michigan, which did have white people in charge, but later was taken in by an African-American family before moving to Roxbury with Ella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.192.26 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize; you did it exactly right. With respect to the race of the foster parents, I'll double-check the sources to see what they say. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right—the last family Malcolm Little stayed with, the Lyonses, were African-American. I'll fix the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Betty Sanders/X/Shabazz

The article states, "Malcolm X met Betty Sanders", then refers to her in the next paragraph as "Betty X". While most of the details belong at the Betty Shabazz article, I think we should mention, for continuity purposes, that Sanders changed her name to "Betty X" after joining the Nation of Islam. Otherwise it's confusing for the reader. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Would you like to make the necessary changes? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I added it in. Feel free to tweak it if you have something better in mind. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"he disavowed racism"

This is mentioned in the fourth paragraph. I would like to see a citation for this. I don't think he ever himself avowed racism and then disavowed it.It is true he preached white hatred. However, I don't think there is any evidence that he changed his position regarding this after his trip to Mecca.

What I think he changed was his view on whether blacks and whites could integrate and live together as equals. He believed initially integration between blacks and whites was impossible. However, after his journey to mecca he changed his mind and now believed it was possible, though probably very difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.100.125 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

He changed his opinion about whites after seeing white Muslims making Haaj. This is discussed and cited later in the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is taken from a recent AP news article: Malcolm X's letter, written after a pilgrimage to Mecca, addresses the recent time he spent with Muslims "whose skin was the whitest of white." "In fact, what I have seen and experienced on this pilgrimage has forced me to 're arrange' much of my thought patterns, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions," he wrote. The letter was sent to publisher Grove Press for inclusion in the autobiography, which was first published in 1965. Grove included the letter in files it gave to Syracuse University in 1969. [4] Glennconti (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me where to get the complete text to this "lost" letter? [5] Glennconti (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. It seems the Alex Haley estate is claiming the letter belongs to them, not the university. [6] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You can make out parts of the letter in the photo in this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Widow's allowance

Are you sure about the insurance being received as the $18/mo widow's allowance? [7] The earlier text implied they were two different things -- this just doesn't sound right for a lot of reasons. Can you check the sources? EEng (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is on Google Books:

Earl held a one-thousand-dollar life insurance policy, which was now paid to Louise, but she was not allowed to keep the money for long. The news of her husband's death brought a host of irate petitioners to the probate court, demanding payment for past services. ... Almost none of the petitioners received anything because the estate was worth only a thousand dollars—the equivalent of about $15,000 in 2010. Louise had petitioned the court for a "widow's allowance," requesting eighteen dollars per month "for the maintenance of myself and the family." Nearly $750 from the insurance payment went to cover the widow's allowance. After paying the court fees and the probate administrator, the policy's payout was almost exhausted.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful. I'll conform the text to this. EEng (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Names of Malcolm X's daughters

Odd as it may seem, Malcolm X named his daughters after Attila the Hun, Kublai Khan, and Elijah Muhammad. Here is Rickford on Attallah, Qubilah, and Ilyasah. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a small concern about Atallah, as we seem to have conflicting references in the article. Perhaps the quote from Atallah should be reformatted as a footnote? I'm fairly sure Rickford is correct, as I seem to recall these names being discussed in the Autobiography as well. I just don't think it's ideal to source a statement with contradicting references. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We could combine the footnotes. It would read: "Rickford, pp. 109–110. In a 1992 interview, Attallah Shabazz said she was not named for Attila, rather her name was Arabic for "the gift of God"." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone check either Rickford's notes (which are supressed in the online preview) or the Autobio,\ to get something closer to a statement from the parents themselves? Kublai Khan and Elijah Muhammad are understandable namesakes, but Attila the Hun is harder to make sense of; meanwhile all of these names (I gather, though I really don't know my way around this material) are natural in Islamic tradition just one their own. So something definitive is much to be desired. EEng (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Rickford doesn't list a source for Attallah's name. In his autobiography, Malcolm X wrote, "Attallah, our oldest daughter, was born in November 1958. She's named for Attilah the Hun (he sacked Rome)." (p. 267) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

the hate that hate produced anti-semitism claim

Under this section it is claimed Malcolm X was antisemitic, this is repeated in the lead. This should either be removed from the lead per WP:WEIGHT or expanded upon largely. It also needs to be explained more, was he personally antisemitic or did he teach antisemitic views? I can't access the ref but if the ref just has one sentence saying he was antismeitic without explanation or justification then it should eb removed from the article. Adam4267 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a single sentence in the book, from an interview with Malcolm X: "This is strong gospel, Minister Malcolm; many people, Negro and white, say what you teach amounts to hate, that your theology is actually anti-Semitic."

Finding contemporary newspaper articles is difficult, but I can find recent articles that describe Malcolm X as antisemitic. I'm sure none of them go into any degree of detail.

Perhaps it should go. What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It currently just says he was accused of being anti-semitic. It could at least say who accused him. But to have it in the lead as one of the things he preached is definitely not substantiable with the evidence available. Also - while I'm here - in the lead it says he preached racism and black supremacy. Surely if Black supremacy is a form of racism then (unless he taught another form of racism) it is redundant to say he taught black supremacy and racism. Adam4267 (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As some of you may have noticed I'm making a top-to-bottom copyedit pass (mostly just tightening the exposition, no added material -- I have no sources -- though occasionally dropping minor overdetail). When doing this I leave the lead for last because I hae the best sense of the subject after going over the main article. So I'll stay out of the lead question for now. I would appreciate any comments on what I've done so far (down through about Marriage & Family). I'm guessing Malik has the most responsibility for the way the article is, and I want to say I really admire it -- comprehensive, balanced, well organized, well sourced. EEng (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just reading it and felt that anti-semitism mention in the lead wasn't right. I agree with you though, Malik and any other editors have done a really good job on this article. I'm going to remove the anti-semitism bit from the lead because, as I said, I feel it is undue. But obviously anyone can feel free to revert if they disagree. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

rehash of malcolm x archives

i went over the Wikipedia featured article criteria. I invite you folks to look at item (b) which is before item (c) and item (d) et. al. Where Malcolm's archive's are located are historically significant and furthermore they are extremely, extremely useful to historians. By failing to include where they are located, you are handicapping professional historians. I invite you to include where his archives are located. And I know this is a rehash of archive 6, but you folks have to include this. You folks are not the be all and end all of historical research, you are just the beginning point for professional historians. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The earlier discussion [8] (search Where are his papers?) was about the papers at NYPL's Schomburg Center, and the article already mentions them. EEng (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the "Memorials and tributes" section, we say that Malcolm X's papers are deposited at the Schomburg and at Atlanta University (Woodruff Library). I haven't seen much more written about them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Plaque in Smethwick

I removed the following from the "Memorials and tributes" section of the article:

On 21 February 2012, the anniversary of his death, a blue plaque in honour of Malcolm X was unveiled in the British town of Smethwick, in the West Midlands of England, which he visited during a time of heightened racial tension there in 1965, nine days before his assassination.

References

I think it gives undue weight to a single plaque in Malcolm X's honor, when there are hundreds—perhaps thousands—and I wonder whether they're noteworthy. What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, unless there's something that makes this particular plaque stand out. Otherwise we'd be listing a zillion run-of-the-mill gestures of honor. Contrast:

...the Nigerian Muslim Students Association bestowed on him the honorary Yoruba name Omowale ("the son who has come home"); he later called this his most treasured honor.

That's worth the article mentioning, because MX himself thought it worth mentioning. EEng (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

influenced by jean-paul sartre?

wasn't malcolm x also influenced by jean-paul sartre? i say this because of malcolm x's famous quote "by any means necessary". Doncan94 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting congruence, (see By any means necessary) but has anyone suggested that X read Sartre, or was influenced by him? Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It would not be surprising for a radical intellectual then to read Sartre, and the play "Dirty Hands" would be a likely start. But I find no published evidence that Malcolm X did this. Sartre seems not to be named in the Autobiography. Colin McLarty (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"killed by white supremecists, it was rumored"

I question whether this belongs in the lede. While it's certainly possible, it's far from proven. The death of Earl Little is discussed in the body of the article; it seems to be undue weight to mention only the rumor of murder in the lede. What do others think? Joefromrandb (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the rumors themselves played a significant part in X's development. Whether they were correct or not is almost irrelevant: they certainly impacted his formative years and, I think, deserve mention in the lede. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely with S.S. The lead's wording makes it clear that this was an unproven suspicion which, the reader will easily infer, had a profound effect on the young Malcolm Little. It belongs in the lead. Full disclosure: I did a lot of copyediting here sometime over the last year and the wording is probably mine. EEng (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly impacted his formative years, and that should certainly be discussed in the article. But putting it in the lede almost seems like WP:FRINGE to me. I don't know that the casual reader will make the (accurate) connection that the two of you are making. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources are clear that there was a rumor about the father's death which reached the children, so FRINGE is 1000 miles away from this (if you don't see that instantly you'd better reread FRINGE). Anyway, FRINGE warns about conclusions which should not be stated or implied in the article, whereas you seem to be worried about the opposite -- that readers might not draw the conclusion (i.e. that ML's attitude toward whites was shaped by his father's death, among many other things). Personally I can't see how that's possible given the passage that includes Little came to the conclusion that every relationship he'd had with whites had been tainted by dishonesty, injustice, greed, and hatred. So now the only question is whether this belongs in the lead. Again, it does. Malcolm X's anger toward whites -- and it's not our place to discuss whether that anger was justified or right or constructive or... -- had many causes, but this is one every reader will grasp. 108.49.2.167 (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Malcom X was angry with all whites because some white supremacists may have killed his father. If Malcolm X thought this, this is flawed logic. It is good that the lede also says Malcolm X changed his beliefs over time (disavowed racism); a change which cost him his life. I say keep the white supremacist language. People who just read the lede need to know this about him (he was wrong but in the end got it right). Glennconti (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A Lot Of Manning but where is Abdul Alkalimat?

Where is Abdul Alkalimat? Who destroys Manning's whitewashed distrotions?Alkalimat For balance we need more authentic sources than those praised in NY times.--Inayity (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read Alkalimat's article and the two books that critique Marable's biography (see Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention#Further reading for details). I don't believe the use we are making of Marable's book should be considered controversial, nor do I think this is the appropriate article in which to litigate Alkalimat's complaints against Marable.

Do you have specific concerns about how we're using Marable's book? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual affair?

Is there any truth in the rumour that Malcom X had homosexual affairs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.9.226 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "affairs" but the article mentions this topic briefly under "early years". EEng (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

he disavowed racism ?

Malcolm X fought against racism his entire life, so how did he "disavowed racism" when he was only a racist in the eyes of his detractors? Also the issue of this change post-Hajj seems to be used to soften up or negate some of his early popular statements. It therefore does not clarify what Malcolm personally had issue with, it certainly does not mean he had issues with EVERYTHING he said prior to Hajj. So I am sure 90% stayed the same. He also said, Whites cannot join us, there must be Black-Black unity, we must learn to love ourselves ... so a refinement is not some drastic revisionist change as parts of the lede are trying to suggest. --Inayity (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How did malcom x become racist. Malcom X is the greatest non racist fighter against the ones WHO WERE RACIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remorph (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed here quite a lot. The consensus was that the belief he expressed in his Nation of Islam days that white people were "a wicked race of devils", could fairly be described as racist, and has been. After seeing white people helping blacks internationally and meeting white Muslims he renounced his former views. Search the archives for "devils." The discussions are quite convincing. Rumiton (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the lede should have been changed. Especially, since the research was not done. Malcolm X's views did change substantially. Glennconti (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

stepped outside stationhouse

Currently: Malcolm X stepped outside stationhouse;

Corrected: Malcolm X stepped outside the stationhouse; 98.28.166.53 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. EEng (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Racism

I'm sure there is plenty of debate on the archived talk pages about this, but as it read right now there is a bit of a logical conflict. If Malcolm X is to be credited (IMO, rightly) for renouncing his previously racist views, then we have to be explicit/clear in stating his early views were racist. This shouldn't be controversial if there is self-admission on his part. As the article reads currently, his position (racist or not) is left ambiguous in the lead. It's like having your cake and eating it too. - E.G. He wasn't really a racist, but in the end he denounced his early racist views. - Doesn't really make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs) 08:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe everything in the lede can be sourced. The reader can always investigate further and read more in the article if they have any logical conflicts. Glennconti (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Article quality: Citations needed, who, what, and NPOV (very last few paragraphs) NEEDS ATTENTION!

I am an Aussie, and thus this article has absolutely no relevance to me. Reading it objectively I encountered a lot of qualms with the way it is written, phrased, and most importantly sourced. Or the lack thereof. Initially I came here to state that whilst the policy on the matter is black and white, ie:

If someone tagged your contributions with and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's discussion page. Controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately.

That I ought to delete a HEAP of stuff especially controversial poorly sourced claims in biographies. Too much stuff that it's kind of daunting as I dislike removing anything and prefer just tagging up with citation needed, etc, because someone with a vested interest (which is probably a bad thing from a NPOV angle) spent a lot of time and effort putting this together.

Then I read like a hundred years of people saying the same thing. The article quality is poor, unsourced, but they're scared to edit it because they know fucking around with a black (or white, or ANY) supremacists wiki page is prroooobbably a bad move. But fuck. How many times can we call it out as bad quality but "we'll just ignore it this time, please, someone help fix it?" and leave never to check back because we don't want to kick a hornets nest?

So, as an Aussie (American's like us, right? Doesn't matter what color, right? Right? :/) I figure if anyone could wield the editing axe hopefully I could. That said, I am NOT going to remove things, however I will throw up tags, clear tags. Please do not remove those tags unless you are adding citations, or the appropriate who/what/when tag that is used with the appropriate name, thing, or date. If you do, I will set a pack of rabid fucking koalas on you, and those guys are mean. And smell really fucking bad. I mean it. You'll burn whatever pants you're wearing if those pricks climb your leg, that's for sure. That stink never washes off.

One tricky point that has been raised many times is 'black supremacy' and racist views. Having only just read this article, but having extensively examined it's sourcing and quite a few third party articles (I'm stuck in the wiki worm hole of learning about stuff I will never have any use for and it's 6am the morning after I started originally looking up gum boots ... don't ask) I can honestly say from a neutral perspective that the dude was extremely racist, and held some extremist views at some points in his life at least. Whether he recanted these views or not cannot be held to a different standard than other races, all white supremacists on wikipedia have that pretty much within the first ten words of their bio. And whether they are self professed or not is irrelevant.

This is something that HAS to be dealt with with this article. Sources and citations are the second concern here, factual accuracy and NPOV is clearly in breach. I assume that it is merely the error of an editor or two who crafted the lede of the article, but it's nothing that can't be fixed up. I will leave that to the editors who regularly lurk here to fix, but in the interim I will be also tagging this page up as NPOV until that is addressed. Please, again, do not remove a tag unless you are replacing it or fixing the problem in question to the same expectations and standards that are reflected on similar articles of similar figures in American history.

As this is arguably a very important article on a very important figure in American history I feel the fact these points keep getting raised then swiftly die in obscurity as the talk pages keep getting archived is doing it damage. I will touch base every now and then to see if we can kick off some discussion, or to see if any wonderful wiki fairies fix things, but I am still very reluctant to touch this article myself given that I am not even from the US so my understanding is limited to just the facts maam kinda stuff. Which can be a good thing at times insofar as calling problems out, but horrible in allowing me to apply myself for positive change. I hope my tags will help guide you in bettering this page, please do speak freely if you have any ideas of how to fix this article up further!

BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is worse than I expected. I'm going to take my time marking up problem claims and statements and do this over a longer time frame to prevent the article being littered with blue everywhere. Please do feel free to fix with citations or more information anything NOT marked up you think may be a problem. There are quite a few things that could very well be ref'd from currently known and existing IN ARTICLE references that are being used too! So anyone who owns said ref material and can review it please give it a try!

BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello BaSH PROMPT. Let me start by saying that I have done very little if any editing of this article. I keep it on my watchlist because I find the topic interesting and it is sometimes vandalized. I say that to let you know that I have no vested interest in the state of the article when you found it. This is an article that contains 284 references, and relies on 21 books other than those written by Malcolm X himself. One of the books, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, by Manning Marable, won the Pulitzer Prize for History last year. This widely praised biography is used as a reference dozens of times in the article.

It seems that you have focused on the lead of the article, and the lack of references there. The manual of style says that "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." In the case of a lengthy article with hundreds of high quality references, my editorial preference is to leave the references out of the lead, as long as the statements in question are well-referenced in the body of the article.

You make the claim that "The article quality is poor, unsourced" but the article has many sources and is a featured article which has gone through a rigorous review by many editors. Manning Marable's recent biography is 592 pages long and discusses pretty much every claim in the lead of this article in great detail. You also quote "Controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately." Malcolm X has been dead for 48 years. How does this apply?

What is controversial about the statements in the lead? Nothing that I see. Of course, Malcolm X himself was controversial when he was a living public figure, and perhaps his role in history is somewhat controversial. But his life story has received so much academic study over the decades that I don't see how the the basic facts of his life story can be considered controversial. I think that all the "who" and "why" and "citation needed" tags are not necessary, when all of this information is cited in the body of the article, and especially when describing well-known facts of his life as described by every one of his biographers. And we have a "Further reading" section listing 23 books that aren't even cited in the article.

Both the lead and the body of the article describe Malcolm X's teaching about black superiority and separation of the races while he was associated with the Nation of Islam, and do so accurately, I believe. You claim that there is some problem with how the article deals with these issues. The article is supposed to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic. So, my challenge to you is to be specific: How does this article fail to accurately summarize the sources? I would have trouble analyzing that myself, because I have only read a few of the sources. But I have read Marable's recent book and have a copy of it sitting next to me now. It seems to me that the article does an excellent job summarizing that source. And as a Pulitzer Prize winner, that book is, in my opinion, the very best source available on the topic. So, I await your specifics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

BaSH PROMPT, you need to read articles more carefully before you go stomping through them like a bull in a china shop. Next time, pay attention to WP:LEAD, examine the talkpage for similar discussions, and really try to answer your own questions before you start thrashing around. You're embarrassing yourself and wasting a lot of people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.227 (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the sentence that needed clarification (I hadn't noticed the tag before) and the request for a source in the "Nation of Islam" section. With respect to sources in the opening section, I believe the requirements of WP:LEADCITE are satisfied—all the material in the lead section is sourced later in the article—but if anybody disagrees, I'd be happy to provide sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And now I see why it stops at one suggestion and no recourse, what an underwhelming and quite frustrating utterly counter-productive response of edits. The tags inserted were specifically at statement points that lacked citation, not just in the lede, but no further clarification within the body of the article. These were removed arbitrarily by User:Jojalozzo, and as much as I love absolutely wasting my time I am reverting it back to the form I left it in pending edits moving forwards not backwards. The way forwards being improving the article, not claiming if it ain't broke and going backwards.

User:Malik Shabazz, you may have perhaps missed the specific element in the tag you removed stating clearly 'Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2013)' Please do not remove tags until disputes are resolved, and as indicated. I have gone into far more length than even warranted to try and explain myself on the talk page here and asked one thing; that there be discussion rather than arbitrary reversal.

Wiki pages don't happen overnight, they are a constantly evolving thing, evolving hopefully for the better and I cannot possibly see how stronger citations could damage this article in any way, shape, or form. Especially when it is an article that has a vast history of derps coming through and defacing stuff which is very often subdued with accurate sourcing and citing of sources. Again, that can't possibly be a bad thing. There is also no rush to do anything. Don't think "Oh there's too much blue text, people will think the article is wrong." as most people are aware that everything here is a work in progress. I have however only tagged up the first few sections so we can improve this a bite sized piece at a time.

I'm not interested in getting into revert wars and thus am going to request a third opinion Template:3O immediately given I'm quite clearly outnumbered as the only critic of the quality present. I am sure that editors of the article feel that this article is fine, however it is nowhere near as thorough or concise as say the article for MLK, et al. It isn't a case of 'It's good enough.' because no, it isn't, there are improvements that can be made. Do they need to be made? Eh, probably not, I usually trust wiki articles without sources. But is that what Wikipedia is about? Fuck no. It can be improved, and thus will be improved. If this were some random actor or B-celebrity I would probably have resigned seeing this response. But given the importance this figure had in American history, even as an Australian I can see it warrants far better articulation, citation, and development. I am at a loss as to how this could be perceived as a bad thing.

User:Cullen328, it is fantastic you have a copy handy, because I specifically raised a few issues above that could be resolved if you have the time to assist in expanding the citations required for the more controversial statements. Further could you please, please help with the 'black supremacy' issue? Supremacists are labelled so within the opening paragraph in all other cases I have seen online, including ones who have reverted their opinions through life experience, or re-evaluation of their stance on issues. The article does clearly state he is a 'black supremacist,' (something I feel needs more than one source as evidence as it is a very strong statement) and it is implied that for a lot of his life this was a key element he was noted for, and yet it's resigned to the end of the lede and postulated in a submissive way, if it's such a key thing as it implies why is it shoved up the back? I could really use any assistance you could offer given you have access to the sources that would best serve this article. That said, we can't just rely on the bio.

BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In addendum, I am more than happy to go through the article and deal with things one by one if you find a tag that may be ill-placed. When I commit to dragging an article kicking and screaming up to par with other articles of a similar nature I commit for the long haul. So please, if you feel any specific one tag is questionable, raise it, I am not infallible, although I am doing my best to keep it to specific statements of import that extend the understanding of the subject matter. I will however not stand for a blanket reverse with "LOL U SUX" or "EXPLAIN ALL THE CITATION REQUESTS" as a next step in article improvement. This is not productive, in fact it's the contrary.

Also, I feel I ought to state for transparency re my 3O'ing--not that my editing history isn't available and I always excuse myself from discussions where it may be stated I have any vested interest--that I have been asked to assist with several complex 3O matters in the past few months given my background, but primarily volunteer my time on the dispute resolution team and feel that my odd assistance with 3O and complete lack of knowledge of who deals with 3O requests at this time mitigates any possibility of influence or what not.

BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'm at an impasse. Third opinion request doesn't really apply. What am I meant to say? "There is a disagreement needing a third opinion, I would like to improve the article quality and feel that adding sources where unsourced strong statements are made will help this, others disagree and want to leave the article in it's old state indefinitely?" That's kind of the whole point of Wikipedia, improving things with our spare time. So, what I'll do instead is give it a day or two and hope we get some discussion going on. If it just turns to a lame edit war I'll hit up DRN and see whether I can as a volunteer there still ask for DRN assistance without breaking any policies of neutrality (I've never had to 3O an article before, and I've definitely never had to DRN, so even though I'm involved with the process I'm not really up to speed on how -I- can request assistance from them. I'll also discuss this with the organiser of the dispute resolution team for clarity on how to proceed.

Please resist temptations for blanket reverts during this time if at all possible. Because if it can't be dealt with at DRN it'll have to go through the admin board and they tend to not take too kindly to douchebaggery and I sure as fuck don't want someone getting banned over something I've inadvertently caused and I've seen folks banned from editing articles or even the entire site for less and that doesn't help -anyone- IMO. :/

BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

BaSH PR0MPT, I have reverted to the version before you started editing the article. You are the only one currently claiming serious problems with the article. Malik Shabazz clearly agrees with my point about citations in the lead, and EEng was also attempting to revert your changes. I see the need for only one citation in the lead as now written - the quote needs a reference. Can you provide one, Malik?

BaSH PR0MPT, I asked you to be specific about how the article fails to accurately summarize what the reliable sources say. You have not yet provided any specific example. Every sentence does not need a source. If a three or four sentence section describes an incident in his life, with a reference or two at the end of the section, then reasonable people will conclude that source or sources back up that entire description. This is especially true of a featured article that has been gone over with a fine tooth comb by many editors thoroughly familiar with the source material. You have admitted that you are unfamiliar with the source material. That is well and good. You can still participate in collaborative editing. But I don't see how you are justified in making sweeping claims about fundamental problems with a featured article if you are completely unfamiliar with the source material. Please consider reading a recent biography. Marable's is excellent. Then we'll talk. Until you can be very specific about how the article fails to accurately summarize what reliable sources say about the topic, I don't think your tagging is justified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation requests are not an attack on you, other editors, or the article in question. Whilst I concur you have a few current editors with an ongoing history with this article agreeing with you, it is not because using citation templates in an article can be or has been done improperly but I am aware that some articles with editors who are closely related to the topic (and let's face it, if you name yourself after the person the bio is after on Wikipedia, you MIGHT just be a teensy weensy bit too attached to be objective or neutral!) can often see it this way. As I've stated ab initio, every attempt to improve this article has been met with hostility and heel dragging when nothing but good can come from challenging the material ourselves before it is challenged by someone with less honorable intentions. If you feel that this is an insult, or even if I've just said something in a way that rubbed you up the wrong way, please say so. Just don't pretend policy enforces heel dragging, or that I need to explain every challenge of an unsourced statement when trying to get more sourcing going on, or that unless I intrinsically am familiar with his biography my ability to understand application of policy is moot, as that's just nonsense.

I am going to have to retract my prior offer to go over every point, and beg to differ on your statement that 'until you can be very specific about how the article fails,' etc, I do not need to be specific at all. I do not need to explain why I am placing citation requests, at all. The citation request template explains itself quite thoroughly and is being used exactly as it is intended. It is a point that is challenged, or challengeable that has no citation or in the case of a lede; no further explanation. These are the only points I have tagged thus far. If we took the attitude that anyone wanting to challenge a statement has to defend every single request, this entire project would fail. And frankly it is a waste of my time, and your time, which could be spent improving the article.

I have contacted the DRN and am awaiting their reply as to whether they can assist or if it has to be through the ANB. I will update them on the escalation of this dispute to date. I have merged your comments with the appropriate talk page heading as too many headings will make things confusing (as the archives show). I've quite often said in all my years with this project; if you are intrinsically involved in a subject you are probably the least able to judge the quality of a page. This is the entire purpose of 3O and it really is a shame I can't apply it to this because too many editors jumped in. 3O can only be applied editor to editor re a dispute, and blanket reverts should be kept for vandalism not merely because you don't like the citation requests or feel they are somehow 'wrong' or incorrectly applied.

BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I have reapplied the NPOV tag. I have explained (as has the template itself, which everyone viewing the page can see) that NPOV tags are not to be removed until a dispute is resolved. I thus ask once more that you refrain from removing this tag, not only does it detract from any relevant point Cullen may be raising by making it appear as though there is just general enforcement of prior versioning going on (ie: people offended by blue text or tags thinking it somehow invalidates content (?)) but it is a patent breach of Wikipedia policy. You can't get more black and white than when the template itself instructs you not to remove it, especially if something is now in formal dispute. Further removal will be passed immediately to arbitration, as that is a blatant breach.

BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you please explain how the article is other than neutral? I can't seem to find it in this wall of text. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Concise statement regarding perceived problem needed

Again, we are presented with a wall of text that utterly fails to identify any specific problems with the article. Instead, we have an accusation that a highly respected editor here is to be mistrusted because that editor chose to adopt "Malik Shabazz" as a user name. You can search this article's history and will see that I have made few edits if any to this article. You can search my edit history, and Malik's, and you will see only a handful of brief interactions between us over the years. We are completely independent. Malik is an editor who is highly respected by many other editors and is not by any means a "Malcolm X" SPA. Your comments are unfounded, and I encourage you to withdraw them. As for taking this matter to any formal dispute resolution, please feel free to do so. I am confident of the outcome. Beware the boomerang, though. Australians know that term, don't they? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 1:22 am, Today (UTC−4)

B.P.:

• See Template:NPOV (emphasis added):

Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. ... The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

...

Remove this template whenever ... it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

In light of your repeated and pointed refusal, above, to give specifics I have removed the template.

• It is perfectly obvious that you have added cite-needed and similar tags with no idea whatsoever whether the cites already present support the material. It looks like every statement in the article (other than the lead -- and that's already been explained to you) carries an inline cite at least at the paragraph level. You are welcome to check the sources cited and identify any article content not supported by them. In the meantime, other editors need not scurry about flipping through sources to add refs satisfying your whims about citation specificity.
• The fact that your opening post began by quoting BLP (which you will agree does not apply here) bodes poorly for you application of policy.
• Passages such as...

Please do not remove those tags unless you are adding citations, or the appropriate who/what/when tag that is used with the appropriate name, thing, or date. If you do, I will set a pack of rabid fucking koalas on you, and those guys are mean. And smell really fucking bad. I mean it. You'll burn whatever pants you're wearing if those pricks climb your leg, that's for sure. That stink never washes off.

...make people not want to read further.

• Lawyerlike bloviation such as "third and final warning before immediate referral to arbitration" [9] show that, despite your throwaway references to your extensive Wikipedia dispute-resolution experience, you have very little idea of how WP works, and (again) severely reduce the likelihood anyone will make the, um, substantial time investment required to plow through your prolix obfuscatory verbosity.
• Editor 208.54.90.227's advice was well thought of, and I commend it to your attention

BaSH PROMPT, you need to read articles more carefully before you go stomping through them like a bull in a china shop. Next time, pay attention to WP:LEAD, examine the talkpage for similar discussions, and really try to answer your own questions before you start thrashing around. You're embarrassing yourself and wasting a lot of people's time.

So cut the crap. EEng (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Pan-Africanism Discussion

I don't want to open up a can of worms so quickly after the disruptions here of late. However, the lede states that Malcolm X persisted in his views about Pan-Africanism even after his time in Mecca. If this cannot be substantiated, it should be removed. The article on Black Supremacy says the following "Two trends [in Black Supremacist Theory] have acquired a veneer of respectability in many places of Black Academia and Black Studies departments; the Melanin Theory, and Afrocentrism/Global Pan Africanism." And further in the Pan-Africanism article; at it's core Pan-Africanism is “a belief that African peoples, both on the continent and in the Diaspora, share not merely a common history, but a common destiny”. If that "destiny" is equality with other races, I have no problem with it. However, if that "destiny" is Black Supremacy, I believe Malcolm X would have renounced this too after the Hajj. I am certainly no expert in Pan-Africanism, but do believe that section of the lede needs a critical eye focused on it. It may just be safer to remove it (the reference to Pan-Africanism in the lede) if it cannot be substantiated. I will do it after a period of time if no one responds or has any interest. Glennconti (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I would note that the statement from Black supremacy#Black supremacist theories is unsourced and unsupported by anything else in that article. With respect to the "common destiny", I understand that to mean that the future well-being of Africans in the diaspora and those in Africa are interconnected, not that Pan-Africanists are working toward black supremacy.

According to Manning Marable, "Malcolm envisioned a modern version of Pan-Africanism, based on a global antiracism." (p. 485, part of the last chapter summing up the book) To me, that indicates that (a) Pan-Africanism is not inconsistent with antiracism and (b) Malcolm X had not abandoned Pan-Africanism when he renounced racism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I will leave the lede alone. Glennconti (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

To add to Malik Shabazz's point, Malcolm X's trip to Mecca was in April of 1964. (Marable, pages 308-312). In an interview with a liberal South African newspaper called the Sunday Express in February, 1965, about ten months after his hajj, he said, "We believe ... that it is one struggle in South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, and Alabama. They are all the same." Marable wrote that he was then making the case for Pan-Africanism, "that blacks regardless of nationality and language had a common destiny", in Marable's words. (Marable, page 415)Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)