Talk:Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention

Image of A Lie of Reinvention: Correcting Manning Marable's Malcolm X

File:Correcting Manning Marable's Malcolm X.jpg Can we add the image of A Lie of Reinvention: Correcting Manning Marable's Malcolm X to this article?--Inayity (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. It fails WP:NFCC #8.

Also, its use on this page violates Wikipedia policy (fair use media can only be used in articles, not Talk pages). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Morrow

About Morrow, p. 221:

While is mostly critical of the book, he says its "few valuable contributions made by Marable" include:

he "debunks" Bruce Perry's accusation of Earl and Malcolm firebombing their houses, discussions on Malcolm's travels in the Muslim world, his contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, Egypt, and Lebanon, his contacts with the PLO. Also confirmation that on August 15, 1965, Shaykh Akbar Hasan gave Malcolm X an ijazah.

Al-Azkhar gave him a certificate of credentials of Malcolm X being an orthodox Muslim on September 16, 1965 (369). He says "The most intriguing aspect" was Malcolm X trying to emulate Imam Husayn WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

LGBT Tag

I think there is no strong rationale for this. The Gay aspect of the book are not dominant while it might have caused controversy. And there is no surprise there!That is a key feature of everything LGBT do. So just because it touches on it I think it is a weight issue to put this as the most notable aspect of the book (which it is not). Many other themes were also very controversial. --Inayity (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• While it's not all of the book or maybe not even the most significant element, I argue the LGBT one is one of the significant aspects of the book. If it causes controversy, it needs to be documented and people of the LGBT studies task force would be interested. That's pretty much why I added the tags WhisperToMe (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

But what about all the other significant issues? Why does LGBT have such a high priority in a world where 99% of the people have no interest in it? Must excuse my politics, but that to me is very odd. There are duplicate cat in film for gays, and then one for lesbians, and then another for trans something. While cat which represent vast interest groups are under or not even represented. So what I am arguing this is clearly politics. And on Wikipedia we need to deal with weight.

Per Amazon the book is notable here: -6 in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > People, A-Z > ( M ) > Malcolm X

1. 13 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Ideologies & Doctrines > Radicalism
2. 86 in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Ethnic & National > African-American & Black Therefore those areas get priority. This is my long explanation. --Inayity (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want, I can get third opinions from all the agreed-upon relevant Wikiprojects and the LGBT project to see if other Wikipedians think this article belongs WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I just went ahead and notified all the projects. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw this at the talk page of the LGBT Wikiproject and it does seem notable to the project.

• "But what about all the other significant issues? Why does LGBT have such a high priority in a world where 99% of the people have no interest in it?" - Because the book is about sexuality, specifically the gays, and so personal opinions or ideas of how many gays there are in the world are all irrelevant.

An article can be of interest to multiple projects Inayity, there are not priorities for certain topics last i checked. If the article is of interest to a topic, tag it. Simple as. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any problems here. WikiProjects can decide that subjects are within their remit. That doesn't pose an issue with WP:UNDUE so long as the resulting article doesn't end up with issues of undue weight. I don't see that it does here. If Marable's book had alleged that Malcolm X had an extra-marital affair with a woman rather than a man, there would be no issue of undue weight here: it'd be a fair summary of one of the points of the book. I don't see how the gender of the person he allegedly had an affair with changes that. I don't see how Inayity's concerns around the appropriateness or not of the existence of sexuality-specific categories affect this article given that it is not tagged with any such categories. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The book is not about gays, it is not a gay book. It is not notable in the book. It fails weight. Because then anything with 2 lines of supposed homosexuality will be labelled as such. Why not put an Antisemitism cat/project on it? The point being if that argument fits, this one would be just as valid. 100s of things can be said about this book. The priority is to those in terms of weight, not in terms of how many editors from the gay section want to include it. This is how we get WP:OVERCAT and a distortion of the work. It has to be proven to be a notable. --Inayity (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

An LGBT portal tag has no relevance to WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE, and notability is a complete red herring here. Frankly, this sounds like a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You've made clear you don't like the LGBT tag and that you disapprove of the alleged "high priority" you think the tag assigns to an LGBT-related aspect of the subject. Fair enough; you're entitled to your opinion. But three editors have given valid reasons for disagreeing with you, and their points are in keeping with consensus and policy. Here's another reason: these tags are navigational aids that help our readers find things. Whatever percentage of readers are interested in LGBT-related topics (however peripheral the relationship may be), is their convenience unimportant? Rivertorch (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The point, Inayity, is that you are conflating undue weight, overcategorisation and WikiProject tagging. WikiProject tagging doesn't have anything to do with undue weight or overcategorisation. Imagine you had someone who, when they were at college, was on a football team for a year, but then went on to become a successful businessman. It's perfectly legitimate for WikiProject College Football to consider that article within their remit, even though playing college football might be only a very small part of that person's life compared to their business career.

That this book alleges that Malcolm X had a gay affair means that WikiProject LGBT Studies has a plausible basis to consider this article within their bailiwick even if it is only a trivially small part of the overall book.

As I said, undue weight is about the article content rather than the presence of a WikiProject tag on the talk page. If the article had seven paragraphs about Malcom X's alleged gay affair and nothing else, then there might be an undue weight issue. But it doesn't and there isn't. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also I read Morrow's paper which has a rebuttal to the "homosexual sex" statements made in this work. I think the fact that other works elaborate and give their own opinions on the "homosexual sex" aspect should make this worthy of being covered by the LGBT project. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

“Homosexual”

Changing “homosexual” to “same sex” relationship in body paragraph. 68.84.7.81 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review; it will be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

• The GA nominator has only 10% authorship, and has not edited the page in eight years. I see no evidence that the page's primary authors (editors Malik Shabazz and WhisperToMe) have been consulted on this GA nomination, which makes it a borderline drive-by nomination. Obtaining their consent, or making an effort to, would be ideal.
• There should at least be a "Summary" section; as it is, the books contents are only discussed in the last two lines of the lead, in contravention of WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD.
• The "Reception" section, which is the majority of the article, is very poorly organised. See WP:RECEPTION for how to write a better reception section, but it should be structured by theme, not by the "[Person] said "[lengthy quote]"-type paragraphs that currently constitute the section, and which mean that any discussion of wider historiographic or literary themes have been sidelined (look at the Washington Post article, for example).
• Has the television series been developed or cancelled?
• Why are the sources in "Further reading" not used?
  • If GA requires integration of Further reading content, I withdraw this nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    • No, I asked why are they not used? It looks like they are all accessible, even the first which is accessible on archive.org. That one is a 300+ page collection of essays about this book, so I doubt I could certify the article as meeting GA criterion 3a) without them being discussed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
      • By integrated, I mean use the content from multihundred page sources online. If it is going to pass, it would be because User:Malik Shabazz and User:WhisperToMe want to work in the further expand that type of content. They are being pinged by their mention on this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
        • Yes, the GA criteria does expect the main aspects of the subject to be addressed: I would certainly expect a 300+ page rebuttal with its own Wikipedia page to be addressed with more detail than a superficial interview quote. Just for clarification, are you saying that if Malik Shabazz (who appears to have retired) and WhisperToMe don't intend to incorporate these sources, you would prefer that this review be failed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• You can shut down this review.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Spotchecks

To follow once the above issues have been resolved. Putting this review on hold. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.