The lede is rife with issues that need quality sourcing. haven't even bothered to look at the rest of the article, but the lede is atrocious by any standard. How the hell this absolute trash of an article got FA is astonishing Whatzinaname ( talk) 05:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In general material in the lead need not carry cites there, if it's sourced elsewhere in the article. Can you elaborate on the other deficiencies you see in the article? EEng ( talk) 10:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Name, perhaps you should look at WP:LEAD. Niteshift36 ( talk) 12:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't go around calling another editor a Name. Don't you know that's not civil? EEng ( talk) 05:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just had another look at the article. I can see where some serious copyediting would be a good thing, and the 4th para of the lead is crying out for some disentangling, but apart from those issues, it looks pretty good to me. And I have always applauded keeping unnecessary cites out of leads. But let's see what else Whatzinaname has found. Rumiton ( talk) 11:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's just be careful about this though. The current version of the lede has survived an awful lot of scrutiny. Glennconti ( talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hope that was careful enough. I still think there is room for improvement, but let's see what others think. Rumiton ( talk) 04:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope I didn't over reach. I substituted "repudiate" for "broke with". I know it is a stronger word, but I think more accurate. I also moved the assassination bit to the end which kind of makes the point that he did repudiate the Nation. If this doesn't work let me know. Glennconti ( talk) 13:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I added a comma to separate the "disavowed" from "repudiated". This may have been why it appeared clumsy. Series ending with comma being consistent etc. Glennconti ( talk) 14:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't let silly people who say there should be X sentences in a paragraph and Y paragraphs in a lead bother you. The single standalone final sentence is a great example of good writing instincts calling for something slightly unusual. Recent changes are a distinct improvement. EEng ( talk) 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Repudiated" seems a little strong to me. See Malcolm X#Leaving the Nation. Eventually, Malcolm X repudiated the NoI and its teachings, but when he left the group in March 1964 he still believed most of what they taught. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 23:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

So you agree that MX repudiated the NOI, it is just the timing in 1964. I think you may be satisfied with a minor tweak and we can still keep the word "repudiated"? Glennconti ( talk) 00:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe "But in 1964 he repudiated the Nation, became a Sunni Muslim, and disavowed racism" is all true and all occurred in 1964. I was not implying that these occurred in a time sequence. Would you feel more comfortable if we changed the order of this series? Glennconti ( talk) 01:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I just Googled "But in 1964 he repudiated the Nation" and found that we are not ground breaking in using the term "repudiate" to characterize Malcolm X's break with the NOI. There is a Stanford encyclopedic article that also does this. And one or two others. FYI if it matters. Glennconti ( talk) 18:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"When Malcolm X repudiated narrow nationalism and turned toward a more inclusive version of Islam and more direct political engagement, he was murdered in February 1965" [3] A direct link between the repudiation and MX's death. I believe this concept of repudiation is very important to the MX story. Glennconti ( talk) 22:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem I am still having with "repudiate" is I think it is mostly used in the sense of rejecting ideas, as in the example above. How about something like he "broke with the nation and began to repudiate their ideas (of narrow nationalism)"? Rumiton ( talk) 01:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I was so focused on the ultimate paragraph I didn't realize the possibilities of integration with the penultimate (high school students take note -- good SAT words). Take a look at what I've done. Y'all do what you want with repudiate. EEng ( talk) 01:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the fusion of the two paragraphs. (I did think of it but was daunted by the task of integration. Well done.) Glennconti ( talk) 04:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I graciously accept the praise, even if it does come from someone in the early stages of losing his faculty's [4]. EEng ( talk) 05:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the lede is truly blossoming now. The current emphasis makes you respect MX even more for what he did, what he stood for, and what he died for. MX dumped the NOI and so should we. Glennconti ( talk) 12:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ, don't I know it. See [5] (that section, and the next one too -- where I got a little hot under the collar). EEng ( talk) 03:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Rumiton ( talk) 10:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was especially startled by the randomness of the outburst re the phrase remarkably small: "It's shit writing; it sounds like a teenage girls' diary, not an encyclopedia." I wondered at the time how many teenage girl's diaries he'd read that referred to something as "remarkably small", and then I realized it might have been various girls he'd dated in high school. That might explain his lingering feelings of inadequacy, but it would have been a mean thing to say, of course. EEng ( talk) 13:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Malcolm X's father died—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored—when he was young, and at least one of his uncles was lynched. After his mother was placed in a mental hospital when he was 13, he lived in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age 20, he went to prison for breaking and entering."

At wikipedia, the lede is a general summary of the article itself. I don't find this information in the body of the article,and i'm not coming through every cite to find it. gone by tomorrow if not fixed. Article if full of crap like this. FA is some kind of sarcastic wikipedia joke, has to be. Even if you find a cite f0oor it, it is nothing but speculative nonsense "it was rumored"? When? by who? Any other rumors? maybe like the insurance company who claimed he killed himself? Hoe's that for a rumor? it's a joke this article is FA and a bigger joke any editors don't see these issues. Whatzinaname ( talk) 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

1st section, 3rd paragraph: "someone told one of the children their father had been pushed onto the tracks; some blacks suspected the Black Legion" (citing Marable); "the issuer of another, larger policy refused to pay, claiming suicide" (citing Natambu). I don't see the problem re father's death.

However, there's a slight inconsistency regarding the uncles -- body says "Malcolm X later said" an uncle was lynched, but lead gives "at least one of his uncles was lynched" as flat fact. Either as fact, or as what MX believed, it belongs in the article, but we need to establish which is the case. Malik -- to the sources, please! EEng ( talk) 15:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

you don't see a problem? The police say accident/suicide, the insurance company says suicide, random unknown person claims a friends friends friends boyfriends cousins sisters brother saw "someone push him" then a bunch more speculation by "the black community" that it was the black legion. What a bunch of complete and utter nonsense to have in a wiki page that is supposed to be based on hsitorical fact, let alone putting this garbage in the lede Whatzinaname ( talk) 04:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The best biography we have, namely Marable's, says the following on page 31, after reporting that the coroner recorded that his father's death in a horrifying streetcar accident was accidental: "Yet the memories of Lansing blacks as set down in oral histories tell a different story, one that suggested foul play and the involvement of the Black Legion." The point here is not to determine what actually happened to Earl Little on September 8, 1931. That can never be known with certainty. The point is to explain how the death was interpreted by those closest to him, and how the tragedy affected his son as he interpreted it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Can you get a handle on the uncle inconsistency I mentioned earlier? EEng ( talk) 05:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

the point is to tell the facts as best we know them. We know that at least the police department, who had, I believe, a witness to the incident, ruled it either an accident or a suicide. An insurance company believed it to be suicide. The coroner found no evidence of foul play. Three sources completely contradict the main, completely made up narrative about it being the black legion or whatever nonense. Now we have non verifiable, non cited "oral histories", better known as "I can just make shit up" passing for encyclopedic? And more weight than the aforementioned sources? Even the completely made up "oral history", per this quote, doesn't even say they had anything to do with killing him, only "they were involved". Involved how, exactly? The audacity of this moron who apparently pens "the best biography" to use words like "oral histories" in country with a written language for hundreds of years is downright astounding, I might add. Drifting a bit. back to the point: If you really want to include this, I would need a minimum of a direct quote from X himself saying "I believe such and such happened" and anything that contradicts his claims will be presented in the very same portion of text, either in the lede or body. The end and good day. Whatzinaname ( talk) 06:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatsyourname, this is the second round of colloquy (that's a fancy word for "discussion") with you on this matter, and everyone's been most indulgent (fancy way of saying "very patient") in the face of great provocation (fancy way of saying "you're being a dickwad"). If you don't see the value of oral histories in biography of 1920s America, or why what reached MX's ears, true or not, is important in narrating his formative years, then you're not competent to participate in this discussion. I suggest you will be happier working in your more familiar milieu (fancy word for "environment") of arguments about auto racing pole positions and so on. Come back after your medication is refilled. EEng ( talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The book that you so crudely and insultingly describe as being written by a "moron" won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for History and is an impeccable source for this article. Your contemptuous dismissal of the reality of racist violence against black activists of the era, which is well attested in solid historical sources as well as the lynching postcards commonly circulating those days, reflects far more harshly on you than it does on a scholar like Manning Marable.

Marable makes clear that the Little family was harassed and hounded by the KKK and the Black Legion for quite a few years, as Malcolm's father was a high profile militant Garveyite. However, I don't think that Marable mentions uncles being lynched. That is cited to the autobiography, which I think should be taken with a grain of salt for factual claims of events of the 1920s and 30s. He was repeating family lore that was then repackaged by Alex Haley for a popular book. So maybe a disclaimer like "Malcolm claimed" might be appropriate. Malik's input would be welcomed here. There seems little doubt that lynching was a very real risk and frequent bitter reality for activists like Malcolm's father, whose family home was probably torched in a racist attack, though it was claimed that it was an insurance scam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect "MX later claimed/says he was told" or such is where we're going, but it's certainly possible that a lynching is factually established, so yes, let's hear from Malik, who seems to have the sources down cold. EEng ( talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatzinaname, might I suggest you tone down your responses? Collegiality is something we may not always achieve around here, but we never fail to strive for it. Rumiton ( talk) 12:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's OK to let Whatshisname vent -- might reduce the chance he'll throttle someone in real life. But we shouldn't continue to engage him -- poking sticks at a dumb animal in a cage isn't going to pacify it, nor transform its grunting and snarling into worthwhile conversation. Fellow editors, I suggest we let Whatshitface get in the last word -- no need to respond unless and until he calms down and emits something intelligible. EEng ( talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not toning anything down. I might tone it up,though. I would also, at this juncture, like to point out the difference between "breaking and entering" and "burglary". i'm pretty sure he was convicted on burglary charges, not "breaking and entering", a far lesser crime in every state I'm aware of. I'm also pretty sure it was a series of burglaries, not one. Did Malcolm X's publicist write this tripe? Whatzinaname ( talk) 00:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I won't ask how you came by this grand knowledge of criminal law in so many jurisdictions, but if you'll forgive my presumption in offering advice, I don't think you're ready to dispense with professional counsel the next time you find yourself in the dock. As it happens Massachusetts statute doesn't define an offense of burglary at all -- only breaking and entering [6]. Of course, that's just my own original research (and I can't say what might have changed in the last 50 years) but even original research beats your approach, which appears to be just sitting around and making shit up. But still, let's check the sources:

• The Cambridge Companion to Malcolm X: "...a letter Malcolm had written while serving his sentence for breaking and entering and larceny in Norfolk Prison Colony."
• Malcolm X: Force for Change: "The police arrested him for stealing, carrying a gun, and breaking and entering. Malcolm was sentenced to 10 years..."
• The Portable Malcolm X Reader: "1946 February 27: Convicted of four counts of breaking and entering"
• African American Lives : "Malcolm was arrested again in 1946 for larceny as well as breaking and entering"

As to your complaint that "it was a series of burglaries, not one", well... the article says "committed a series of burglaries" (here using burlary in the layman's vague sense, of course) so I am unable to apprehend the inconsistency you see here.

I earlier undertook to answer only if your post was intelligible, but I'm now going to raise the bar to intelligent. Toodles! EEng ( talk) 03:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I was mistaken. Massachusetts does define a crime of burglary [7] (though not defined as Whatthatagain asserts below -- basically it's B&E combined with any of several aggravating factors e.g. nighttime, assault on occupands, etc.). Ironically, the fact that there is a crime of burglary in Massachusetts, yet MX was not so charged (but rather was charged with a lesser crime) makes it even more starkly clear that only breaking and entering (which is what the sources say), not burglary should be used in the article. EEng ( talk) 18:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've boldly changed burglaries to breaking-and-enterings per this discussion, but any non-ranting editors who think I've made an error in doing so, please revert and discuss. EEng ( talk) 02:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think "burglaries" was better. It's the word used by Natambu (the source) and Marable. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 02:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. In the post immediately below Cullen says that Marable specifically says MX was charged with B&E, so I'm guessing that what you're seeing is some other point where Marable uses burglary in the colloquial sense as already mentioned. I've opened a subsection below to continue this topic.

In common parlance, the crimes were burglaries, and Manning Marable makes that clear. Malcolm committed burglaries that he was never arrested for, and the crimes he was arrested for and convicted of can also be called burglaries informally. But he was not formally charged with burglary after his arrest. In addition to EEng's sources, Marable says on page 68, "The next day, at the Quincy court, charges of larceny and breaking and entering were added. The court set a bail of ten thousand dollars". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say for the record I think it's awful that Malik has been quietly spending his time actually improving the article [8] instead of here with us beating up on someone obviously unable to defend himself. Really, Malik, what kind of example are you setting? EEng ( talk) 06:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of burglary etc.

As per the commonwealth of Massachusetts, a burglary requires breaking and entering into a home (dwelling) with the intent to commit larceny(or other crime), exactly what is being referred to here. No need to even consider common parlance -- just commonwealth law. nonetheless, even if you wanted to use the term "breaking and entering", it would be ignoring illegal possession of a firearm and larceny. But since we have to quibble over "burglary", we will just include the cornucopia of his misdeeds: breaking and entering, larceny, and illegal possession of a firearm. Whatzinaname ( talk) 07:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What's your goal here, Whatzinaname? Is it to insert the word "burglary" where the article now says "breaking and entering"? If so, can you please mention high quality reliable sources that say he was charged and convicted of burglary? Is your goal to portray the young Malcolm Little as a really dangerous and nasty bad ass criminal? We already report that he was a key part of a band of organized burglars, and that he engaged in homosexual prostitution. What more do you want, and more importantly, what are the reliable sources for what you want to add? You've been complaining, insinuating, attacking Pulitzer Prize winners and bitching and moaning. But so far, you haven't proposed alternate wording, or brought forth other reliable sources regarding the issues that irk you. So now, it is time to put up, or . . . oh, well, you know what I mean. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What he did was not "breaking and entering". Breaking and entering is just ONE ELEMENT of what he did. It's a ridiculously vague term. However, they break up B&E in that state and add a bunch of aggravators to the crime. Like i said, and I tire of repeating myself, usage of B&E would also require larceny be added to the sentence. Burglary is always a serious crime, while B&E isn't. In short, "a series of burglaries" far less cumbersome than " a series of breaking and enterings as well as larcenies". Whatzinaname ( talk) 19:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus reached! We too tire of your repeating yourself, so on that point at least we've found consensus. You never quote sources for what you say, and all known sources are 180 degrees against you. Stop wasting our time and yours. EEng ( talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. Breaking and entering certainly is a serious crime, no matter what this or that prosecutor may have tried to convince you of during plea bargain sessions.

lowest charge of breaking and entering has something like a max fine of 200 dollars. Oh boy is that ever a major crime. Whatzinaname ( talk) 00:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

More meaningless uncited vague recollections of something or other, completely irrelevant to the article. Didn't we agree we are all tired of your repeating yourself? EEng ( talk) 03:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wording re possible foul play in father's death

My personal opinion is that the current wording is going to continue to be a lightning rod. Can we change it so it is not so caustic to some but still gets the point across?

Current wording: "Malcolm X's father died when he was young—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored."

How about: "Malcolm X's father died when he was young. The local black community speculation, that young Malcolm X most likely heard, was that his father was killed by white supremacists." Of course I am open to other suggestions. Glennconti ( talk) 05:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with what I wrote is the "that young Malcolm X most likely heard" part I think. The whole rumor is only important if Malcolm X heard it. Are there any sources that can confirm Malcolm X heard this rumor? Glennconti ( talk) 06:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I went to the source. Marable's bio says Malcolm X knew of the rumor but was ambivalent about whether it was true or not. Sometimes saying his father's death was accidental and other times saying his father was a martyr for black freedom. Glennconti ( talk) 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually think that the original wording, "killed by white supremacists, it was rumored", was find, and better than the current "killed by white supremacists, it was speculated in his family". If we believe (as the article still says) that someone outside the family suggested this to one of the children, then it's clear that this idea as not confined to the family. We might want change the body to read, "someone told one of the children their father had been pushed onto the tracks; some blacks suspected the Black Legion (though it is unclear whether MX himself ultimately believed this)." EEng ( talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If the source specifically implicates the Black Legion (political movement), why is the generic term "white supremacists" usen in our article? Dimadick ( talk) 07:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think white supremecists for lead, Black Legion for body are appropriate -- not sure the reader needs to be distracted with the specific name of these particular group of crazy people in the lead. EEng ( talk) 12:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. If you haven't clicked on the link to B.L., it really shouldn't be missed. It's hard to imagine grown men looking more ridiculous than the familiar KKK groupies in their bedsheets, but these guys manage to -- they wore what appear to be commodores' hats with skull-and-crossbones insignia -- kind of Gilbert and Sullivan, Halloween edition. The one on the right seems to have blown up his blunderbuss a la Elmer Fudd after Bugs has put a cork in the muzzle.

Takes me back to my 8th birthday party. (We had a pirate theme.) Rumiton ( talk) 14:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad you added the parenthetical -- wouldn't want people thinking you had a white supremacy theme. EEng ( talk) 19:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is true that other's believed besides just the family that it was a murder. I limited it to the family to make it indisputable. According to Marable's bio MX's bother was told the story. MX's mother was a firm believer that her husband was murdered. And MX said that his father died a martyr to black liberation on at least one occasion. To expand the idea further is a bit problematic but Marable does mention the oral traditions of the Lansing community. If you feel we have enough please change it. I also think "white supremacists" is better than "black legion". PS The question which must be answered is "rumored" or "speculated" by whom? And I think people will continue to blast the word "rumor" (what? Rumor in an encyclopedia????) Glennconti ( talk) 14:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Rumors, verily so for unsourced ones, do not belong in an encyclopedia. Even if sourced, the question becomes one of relevancy. If MX said it, it's relevant; pretty much anyone else is irrelevant. Even if MX said it, it still doesn't belong in the lede. if the black legion were the "rumored" party, that belongs in the wiki. Qualifying white supremacist would require you had a time machine, telepathy and saw the supposed people involved in the incident. Whatzinaname ( talk) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wording re possible lynching of uncle

Cullen (above) and Malik (in edit summary) have indicated that the only suggestion that MX's uncle was lynched comes from the autobio, which needs to be used with caution on points outside MX's own experience. Since this point adds little to the flavor already added by the issues surrounding the death of MX's father, I suggest we omit the uncle, as Malik's editing has already done. EEng ( talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wording re burglary etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong:

• I and Cullen found 5 refs which are definite on the point that MX charges and conviction were for B&E (and some other things) but not burglary.
• We're also aware, and Malik has specifically mentioned, that various sources say things like "MX carried out burglaries" -- but not that he was so charged and convicted.
• Therefore I propose we conclude that the facts are (at the risk of overrepetition) that the charge and conviction were for B&E, and any use of burglary is imprecise layman's language (and I don't mean any criticism by that).

Then what should the article say? I would be happy with the layman's e.g. carried out burglaries in general (since we're meant to assume our readers are laymen) though in specific phrase such as "charged with", "convicted of", etc. we'd have to use the precisely correct "B&E".

However, Whatsitthistime has made a big fuss about the description of the crime needing to be correct, and I think we should oblige him. Therefore I propose that we say only "breaking and entering", and never "burglary", since the former is indeed what the legal system determined he had done. That this appears to be the opposite of what Whatsupdoc intended, when he raised the topid, is a delicious illustration of the law of unintended consequences, as well as that the participation of someone who is 100% mixed up, absolutely all the time, can nonetheless catalyze improvements to the article -- kind of the way a pearl forms around an insignificant speck of worthless nothing.

EEng ( talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Closing?

On the above three issues (father's death, uncle, criminal charges) I'm happy with the wordings in the current version. All in favor, say Aye. All opposed, please give reasons and sources? EEng ( talk) 04:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Aye. Looks good to me. Glennconti ( talk)

• Still minor lede issues with the charges, missing illegal gun possession. Major issues with the lede's treatment of father's death. "Malcolm X's father died under uncertain circumstances when he was young—killed by white supremacists, it was speculated in his family." Should read more similar to "MX's father died when he was (exact age here). Though his family believed foul play was involved, authorities had ruled it an accident or suicide" . Young is ambiguous, especially in this sentence(who was the "young person"?) Or, better yet, strip all the speculative nonsense out and just say his father died when he was X years old, leaving the other, highly unencyclopedic speculative stuff for the body where it can be properly handled. Whatzinaname ( talk) 04:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right about the ambiguity re who was "young", and I've fixed that. But your other concerns have been unanimously rejected by other editors. EEng ( talk) 11:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC :

That's too bad because it's not staying the way it is. Pick one or the other. In fact, I may persist all mention of this fantasy of a killing without a shred of proof or notable source being removed as there is still not a single valid source that says MX himself believed or even knew of the rumors Whatzinaname ( talk) 19:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Marable's bio page 29 which is referenced in the body of this article where the death is mentioned states that MX knew of the rumor and sometimes said his father died a martyr to black liberation (ie believed the rumor). Glennconti ( talk) 20:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC) It also states "nevertheless, the children were DEEPLY DISTURBED by swirling rumors about their father's death". (caps are mine) Glennconti ( talk) 21:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't even qualify as him believing his father was murdered. Though it's nice to hear he actually heard of the rumor, at least, so I won't be overly adamant of its removal in toto. it's not staying in the lede, that's for sure. Not without massive qualifications at least, which detracts from the purpose of the lede to begin with. Whatzinaname ( talk) 01:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Much of the discussion to date has been about whether the rumors/speculation was just within the family, or in the community generally. Based on Glennconti's quote from the sources I think it's appropriate that we change the current "in-family" wording,

When Malcolm X was six his father died under uncertain circumstances—killed by white supremacists, it was speculated in his family

back to the original "general-rumor" wording (slightly modified to eliminate the ambiguous reference "when he was young"):

When Malcolm X was six his father died—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored.

I'm going to go ahead and do that now. Glennconti, you're the only Aye so far -- can you confirm that still stands after this change? Other editors, can you weigh in, please, on the overall closure question?

EEng ( talk) 02:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fine with me. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 02:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You're supposed to say Aye, Malik. Can you please get with the program? EEng ( talk) 03:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I support the stronger version as it now stands. There is no pacifying Whatzinaname. We will just have to continue to fend off criticism of the word "rumor" even though its use is completely justified. Glennconti ( talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No fending off of criticism will be required. With two or three more endorsements consensus will be unanimous among rational editors, and no further discussion is in order absent a cognizable rationale for reexamining the issue. Whatchaupto can post here to his heart's content, but he gets only one or two free passes for vandalizing the article against consensus, after which he'll be blocked. EEng ( talk) 04:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Nice threats. I'll come back and revert it every damn day if its against wikipedia guidelines, which this perverse mixture of rumor-mongering and cherry picking information clearly is. You can take your fairy tale narrative of MX's life to the internet message boards you haunt. Just keep it out of wikipedia. Whatzinaname ( talk) 04:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point but we will continue to get random readers periodically, like Whatshisname, that take issue with an encyclopedia retelling a "rumor". I believe that these "swirling rumors" made a deep impression on the young MX based on the source and therefore are completely justified in mentioning in the lede. But, I am also guessing, based on my time monitoring this article, that this issue will come up again in six months or so and the battle will have to be re-won? Hopefully we can quickly reference the archived discussion. PS: Whatshisname needs serious help. Glennconti ( talk) 04:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't JUST retelling a rumor. While true, that rumors don't belong in an encyclopedia unless there is some good evidence behind it. There is none here. The rumors are inserted in the lede without an iota of qualification. How is some random rumor that someones brothers sisters mothers uncle supposedly said TRUMP the freaking autopsy report?? Tell me, please do. You can't, this is a purely an attempt to insert a fairy tale narrative, and it is the absolute opposite of encyclopedic, which is why it will be gone from the lede and highly qualified in the body. You are the one who needs serious help in learning what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Whatzinaname ( talk) 04:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue hadn't been as thoroughly ventilated until now, but we now have (or will have in a bit) unanimity among all participants other than trolls, and it's won't be necessary to engage again unless intelligible new arguments are presented -- history shows that doesn't happen. We can just revert. EEng ( talk) 13:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to do the bold thing or suggest something here. Watch out, though, for constructions involvinh "when he was six". Oh wait -- how about

When MX was six it was rumored that his father was killed by white supremecitst.

That requires the reader to realize that only the "by white supremecists" bit, not the "killed" bit, was the rumor, but I guess that's OK. Or

The death of MX;s father (when he was six) was rumored to be at the hands of white supremecists.

Darn, that gets us back to the "when who was six?" problem... OK, Rumi, ball's in your court. EEng ( talk) 08:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. As I recall the Black Legion is specifically mentioned by sources, so while supremecists seems straightforward if we're going to have this material at all.

Where is your cite that somehow knows the political beliefs of the--yet still imaginary-- killers? The black legion was a secretive paramilitary group that was more about fighting communists, and anything else they deemed anti-american in the USA than anything else. I have no doubt there were "white supremacists" among them, but to state the supposed boogeymen were categorically so is also unencyclopedic. You want to draw inferences that do not exist. Same old, same old. Not happening, mon ami. Not happening. Whatzinaname ( talk) 09:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

How about? When Malcolm X was six his father died. The family was deeply disturbed when they heard rumors that Earl Little had been murdered at the hands of white supremacists. The sources support this and it leads well in to Louise's breakdown. Glennconti ( talk) 13:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC) PS: The source calls the attack "racist violence" and the Black Legion a "vigilante formation" of "impoverished whites". Instead of "white supremacists" maybe we say "a vigilante group of white racists". Please ignore my suggestions if they are too wordy. Glennconti ( talk) 13:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to debate the nature of Black Legion any more than that of the KKK. Love your text, but how about compressing a little? When Malcolm X was six his father died, and the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that Earl Little had been murdered by white supremacists. EEng ( talk) 13:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes that sounds good; anything I can do to help (unlike some). Glennconti ( talk) 14:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Rumiton, are you OK with this? I know you were concerned about the supremecists point, and I'm not sure I understood why. Is there still a problem there? EEng ( talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

He/she has a problem with it because he/she knows it's an attempt by the MX fan club to insert fantasies into what is supposed to be a factual encyclopedic entry. There is no "factual" nature behind the notion of the killers being "white supremacists". That's a script the MX fan club cooked up. Sorry, but all the winking and nodding in the world won't save you when impartial editors start showing up Whatzinaname ( talk) 22:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton. Make sure not to discount the Black Legion part of the rumors. The rumor/fact that the pusher(s) was racially motivated makes the impact on MX greater. There was also a rumor that Earl was hit by a car then put on the tracks. Glennconti ( talk) 12:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC) PS: I think a review of the Marable source which explains the "swirling rumors" would be warranted; it is only about 2 pages of text. But the incident may have had far reaching effects on MX and his philosophies which is why it is important? The book is available on google for free. Glennconti ( talk) 13:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Deep breath

Though this has been interesting as a demonstration of the resilience of WP's processes against disruption, all of us (or almost all of us) have better things to do, so I'd like to help bring this matter to consensus sufficiently clear that when future controversy arises on these points it will be easy (for anyone, including an admin invited to halt further disruption) to distinguish between (1) rehashes of the same tired timewasting nonarguments (so that they can be simply ignored, or so that the disrupting editor can be blocked) and (2) useful new argument or evidence.

First, re uncle(s). I think earlier discussion on this focused on lead and forgot about body. Currently the body says:

Malcolm X later said that violence by whites killed three of his father's brothers, including one who was lynched.

I think we were agreed to remove the statement that an uncle was lynched, but I don't think we dealt with the more general "violence by whites killed three". Right now that's cited to the autobio with no page given, so until a specific page and quote can be supplied I suggest we remove this entirely. [Later: My mistake -- missed the page numbers at the start of this ref]

Now on to the father's death... I'll start with some excerpts from Marable [9]:

Police had immediately hypothesized that Earl had somehow slipped and fallen while boarding ... The Lansing coroner ruled Earl's death accidental, and the Lansing newspaper accoung presented the story that way as well. Yet the memories of Lansing blacks as set down in oral histories tell a different story, one that suggested foul plan and the involvement of the Black Legion ... [T]he children were deeply disturbed by swirling rumors about their father's violent death. Philbert, then eight years old, was told that 'somebody had hit my father from behind with a car and knocked him under the streetcar. Then I learned later that somebody had shoved him under that car.' ... Louise harbored no doubts that her husband had been murdered by the Black Legion. Although she identified Earl's body she does not appear to have challenged the police report or otherwise tried to search out the truth. Malcolm remained throughout his life both haunted by his father's trgic end and amibivalen about how it occurred. In 1963 ... he described Earl's death as accidental, yet the following year case his father as a martyr for black liberation.

To the above I will add that, while the general nature of the Black Legion is beyond dispute, a definitional problem arises as to whether they were white supremecists -- I therefore endorse Glennconti's phrase white racists.

Based on the above I'm proposing the following text as a start:

(lead): When Malcolm X was six his father died, and the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that white racists had murdered him.

(body): When Little was six his father was killed in what was officially ruled an accident, though Louise believed Earl had been murdered by the Black Legion. (The adult MX expressed conflicting beliefs on the question.)

See revisions below.

I tried to ensure that all the concerns in previous discussions are comprehended either by the wording above or by the Marable material just quoted, but if I'm wrong please speak up. And fast. I'd like to resolve this before I die. EEng ( talk) 00:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestions seem fine to me, although I would try to keep a reference to the streetcar in the body of the article.

With respect to Malcolm's uncles, the footnote cites pages 3–4 of the Autobiography. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 00:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

My mistake re uncles -- I missed the page #s amid the other text in that note. OK, then we have:

(lead): When Malcolm X was six his father died, and the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that white racists had murdered him.

(body): When Little was six his father was killed in what was officially ruled a streetcar accident, though Louise believed Earl had been murdered by the Black Legion. (The adult MX expressed conflicting beliefs on the question.)

See revisions below.

EEng ( talk) 00:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course it has my approval. Everything in the new lead sentence now comes almost verbatim from the source. Even though they were rumors there is no denying that they were told to the family and the family acted on them as if they were true. So the rumors had the same force as truth. In the Little family they were true and had their effect. Earl's murder at the hands of white racists wrecked his family. (italics being the rumor that mirrored truth)No need to debate that rumors were important. This is self-evident. Glennconti ( talk) 03:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear: this wiki is not about MX's "family". It's about him. So no one cares about the narrative of his family, only that part of his family directly applying to him. What we clearly have is a case of MX stating it was an accident-- why would he say that if he didn't believe it? His later comment about "his father dying as martyr" can be interpreted innumerable ways, including ways that it is fully in agreement with his explicit statement it was an accident. In summation, we have an unequivocal statement that agrees with the FBI, local police, insurance company and medical examiner, versus vague statement. Gee, I wounder where the balance of encyclopedic lies? Even more sadly this "debate" is nothing more than an argument of what color a unicorn actual is. I can't believe it's being had in an FA no less. Whatzinaname ( talk) 09:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that other editors simply not respond to Whatsyourdiagnosis. Any further comment on the lead/body text immediately above? EEng ( talk) 12:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the casual reader will understand correctly that the "murdered him" was MX's father? I just don't want the casual grade school reader to miscomprehend that MX was murdered by white racists. Please ignore my question if you don't think it is a problem. Glennconti ( talk) 13:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that's a very good observation. Okey dokey:

(lead)- When Malcolm X was six his father died, and the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that white racists had been responsible.

(body): When Little was six his father was killed in what was officially ruled a streetcar accident, though Louise believed Earl had been murdered by the Black Legion. (The adult MX expressed conflicting beliefs on the question.)

EEng ( talk) 13:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being so accommodating. However the word "murder" is very powerful. I would prefer if we could use it. Is there a way we could be slightly redundant and specifically say "Earl Little" even though the pronoun "him" is more appropriate (but less clear)? I am happy with what we have but if it can be more perfect that would be great (but not necessary) just saying. Glennconti ( talk) 13:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You're talking about the lead? I don't see a non-awkward way to do this -- "Earl Little" isn't identified in the lead, for one thing. I think when readers see, "white racists were responsible" they (the readers, not the racists) will understand that to mean murder, not "responsibility" in the sense that some white racists meglected to get their brakes adjusted and were horrified when they rolled into Earl Little in a crosswalk. EEng ( talk) 14:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'm with you. Let's run with what we have. Glennconti ( talk) 14:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You're so easy. Meanwhile, keep cool. EEng ( talk) 14:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

More neutral now, but still perhaps a bit clumsy. We have the word "his" appearing four times in two lines, referring to different people. I'll have a fiddle myself. Rumiton ( talk) 15:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the text in the article, which none of us except Whatnot has changed in some time -- at least regarding father's death and so on -- while the discussion has been going on here. The current proposal is in bold above -- what do you think? (BTW your edit says "officially ruled accident or suicide" but to my knowledge the official ruling was accident -- only an insurance company said suicide, suicide being an exclusion in the policy.) EEng ( talk) 18:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Rumors and speculation are worthy if mention if reliable sources report that they shaped the subject's personality or world view. I support the proposed language in bold. I oppose mocking the editor who disagrees. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with above. The suggested change makes for a very short lead paragraph, but that is how it must be. The death and the suspicions don't relate to the material above or below. I can live with the bold suggestion. Rumiton ( talk) 15:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing! Closing! Closing! Closing! Closing! Closing!

To summarize, we have:

• On father's death: The bold text seen above.
• On uncles: Malcolm X later said that violence by whites killed three of his father's brothers. (No mention of possibly-lynched uncle).
• On criminal charges: ...for larceny and breaking and entering (no firearms, burglary, or any other type of charge)

Concurrence of the following editors, in spite of the protests of one other editor, can be seen above (of course, if I've listed you here incorrectly, say so):

• EEng (me)
• Rumiton
• Cullen
• Glennconti

Malik, there have been a few changes since you last weighed in -- can you just add confirmation of you concurrence?

--Above summary of consensus by EEng ( talk) 03:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Aye. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 17:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)