This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

There are numerous grammatical errors throughout the article, but the article is locked from editing. (?) Who decides when an article should be locked, how does one contact these persons, and what is the redress procedure for correcting these errors?

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.92.67 ( talk) 21:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected because of persistent vandalism. One way to make your proposed changes is to register as an editor, become autoconfirmed, and make them yourself.

As an alternative, you may make an "edit request". See WP:Edit requests for details. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 23:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Spurred by the above I just made a bunch of edits, mainly grammatical. They don't look controversial to me, but if they are...let's talk. Rumiton ( talk) 11:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rumiton. Nothing seems controversial to me. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 03:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

But now look what has happened. EEng has gone through my edits and made big changes and improved everything! I am seriously nonplussed. Rumiton ( talk) 15:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's see... is there a Mutual Admiration Barnstar? EEng ( talk) 17:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, thanks for your indulgence over the last few days. I have a problem. The above quote was in the Nation section, but it seems to be from his speech when inaugurating the Organization of Afro-American Unity, about mid-64, and perhaps before his broadening travels. Can anyone confirm from sources whether he stopped this kind of hard talk? Rumiton ( talk) 14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I can see he was still talking like that a week before his death. I still feel a bit OR-ish about this though, and would prefer a source to tell us about it, rather than reading his speeches. Guess I'll just wait and see if anyone objects. Rumiton ( talk) 13:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the process of moving and my books are all boxed up, so I can't help right now. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 16:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rumiton, your instinct is right re OR. The speeches are primary and cannot be interpreted on their face. One can imagine, for example (though I'm totally making this up) that a secondary source might tell us, "Though his diaries show he was convinced his prior advocacy of Belief B was mistaken, he continued to make ambiguous public remarks apparently supporting Belief B, fearing that too-rapid a change in his position would anger his supporters." Of course, once we deicide, based on secondary sources, what to say about his later beliefs/advocacy, it's fine to go to the primary speeches to find illustrative quotes and so on. EEng ( talk) 17:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds spot-on. I'll leave it to you whether to delete the sentence I added or wait until Malik gets set up in his new house. Rumiton ( talk) 23:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm X was born to a Grenadian mother and Black American father. This does not make him African American. I think references to him being African American should be removed.

192.64.4.6 ( talk) 22:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Saryah M., December 24, 2013 @ 5:04 PM

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about a subject. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Malcolm X as African American, so we do too. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 22:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Grenada is an island nation located just off the coast of Venezuela in South America and 82% of its population is of primarily 'African ancestry. They are called Black Grenadians. Those are the facts, but Malik Shabazz is entirely correct on what the sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a big deal, would not imply a culturally different upbringing, etc. People born in America are Americans. If they are of African descent they are African Americans. This objection could sound a bit birtherish. Rumiton ( talk) 01:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone clarify what this is/was? The article calls it a "political group" but other references show it just as the name for a series of monthly public meetings, presumably held by a different group. If it was a distinct group, then what do we know about it? Rumiton ( talk) 13:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a series of meetings held by the Socialist Workers Party in New York. I don't know whether Malcolm X was a regular speaker at their meetings, but he addressed them more than a few times. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 13:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Rumiton ( talk) 15:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Their weekly party newspaper is The Militant, which has been published continuously since 1941. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The article states "Malcolm Little was born May 19, 1925, in Omaha, Nebraska, the fourth of seven children of Grenada-born Louise Little (née Norton) and Georgia-born Earl Little." However a large number of autobiographies and reports say eight, including congress'. Where is this seven coming from? My attempt at changing it was reverted within seconds.

(The appropriate line was quoted)

• Congressional Record, Volume 151, Part 8, May 19, 2005 to June 6, 2005, US Congress, Page 50 - "He was one of eight children born to Earl and Louise Little"
• Autobiography of Malcolm X as Told to Alex Haley, Anita Aboulafia, Page 1 - "As one of eight children of the Reverend Earl and Louise Little, ..."
• The Concise Oxford Companion to African American Literature, Various, Page 270 - "... on 19 May 1925, Malcolm X was the fourth of eight children of the Reverend Earl Little and his wise, Louse."
• Malcolm X and the Fight for African American Unity, Gary Jeffrey, Page 5 - "Young Malcolm Born May 19, 1925, the middle of eight children, ..."
• Malcolm X: Militant Black Leader, Various, Page 7 - "Malcom X was born on May 19, 1925, in Omaha, Nebraska. The fourth of Earl and Louise Little's eight children, Malcom Little (as he was then called) ..."
• There are a few 1000s other such sources

I guess I am confused why all these reputable sources say eight? yet my edit was reverted so fast as though it was absolutely wrong. -- CyberXRef ^talk 17:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Earl and Louise Little had seven children, and Louise had an eighth child after Earl's death. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't a typo, Malik, it's one of two equally valid ways of spelling the word. [1] But publicly might be more common in the US, so I am happy to leave it. Rumiton ( talk) 13:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for mislabeling the edit. It's a spelling I've never seen before. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 13:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No prob. Rumiton ( talk) 13:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems to imply a cultural side to Nation teachings. Or did he undertake these guided tours independently? Rumiton ( talk) 13:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the trips was to show how science (at the natural history museum, for example) supported the Nation's teachings. I'm not sure whether they were a standard part of life in the NOI or whether they were a particular innovation of Malcolm X's. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 23:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess we need to leave it then. Maybe a new source will come up that tells us more about them. Rumiton ( talk) 12:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am starting to think the contents of this section should be merged with "Advocacy and teachings while with Nation" and "Organizations founded and views expressed," which might require a new name for the latter. Thoughts? Rumiton ( talk) 15:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit [2] is a superb example of the importance of fresh eyes. I'd be surprised if the others who have worked on this article a great deal -- Rumiton, Malik, Cullen -- don't share my astonishment that none of us thought to add this (retrospectively) obvious point to the lead. EEng ( talk) 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC) (I will now tinker with the precise wording, of course.)

I think it is something that would have occurred to us in time...perhaps 4 or 5 years from now. Rumiton ( talk) 14:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

would like to add on to occupation he was also a black millitant leader ⟨⟨⟨⟨⟨⟨⟨⟨⟨₢₢₡₦−${\displaystyle {math|{math|}}}$⟩⟩⟩⟩⟩⟩⟩⟩⟩ 50.104.196.49 ( talk) 19:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( t • e • c)} 20:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK so Wikipedia is making a point that a person should be able to choose their own name, and calls its article on Bradley Manning " Chelsea Manning" despite what the rest of the world does. Shouldn't Malcolm X's article therefore be entitled "El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz"? Certainly nobody will know what Wikipedia is talking about, but either way, there should be consistency. DavidFarmbrough ( talk) 10:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP applies. Rumiton ( talk) 11:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is now no mention of the rumors the swirled around at the time of MXs fathers death. I believe these were very traumatic to MX when he was young and impressionable. They may go a long way in explaining his early racist attitudes towards whites. If this connection can be worked back in somehow I think it is important by way of explanation. Glennconti ( talk) 12:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Being bold I just made an edit. Please modify as necessary. Glennconti ( talk) 12:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The article points out that two affidavits were not considered sufficient to reopen the case, but apparently this is not unusal. "In American jurisprudence, under the rules for hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit as evidence is unusual..." Perhaps this article should refer to this to remove any suggestion of judicial prejudice? Or might that be seen as original research? Rumiton ( talk) 01:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone in the other direction and removed the not-reopened point. Including it implies faintly that it's a surprise or aberration that there was no new investigation (a vague concept anyway) and that's what you're trying to fix; if we just leave it out the reader will discern that the investigation was not reopened by the fact that nothing more is said about the matter.

I've also removed the detail that "affidavits" were involved -- most readers don't understand their technical significance anyway, and while in principle the solemnity of an affidavit adds to their reliability, in practice someone under life sentence has little to fear from a perjury charge.

EEng ( talk) 04:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we're talking about some or all of this: "To his admirers he was a courageous advocate for the rights of blacks, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans; detractors accused him of preaching racism and violence. He has been called one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history." -- EEng ( talk)

Sorry I reverted without an edit summary, I pressed the wrong button. The sentence is not apprpriate because even if the main article supports it, it doesn't have to be in the lead. Konveyor Belt 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing HAS to be in the lead. I would say that sentence is a pretty good summation of MX's reputation at his death, and the way it has evolved over the years. Rumiton ( talk) 01:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Incidentally, WP:BRD stands for Bold (edit), Revert (the bold edit), Discuss. It is not Bold, Revert, Revert again, Discuss. Rumiton ( talk) 01:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Konveyor Belt Can you point to anything in WP:LEAD that supports your ... unusual idea that the sentences are not appropriate? —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 01:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The material is absolutely appropriate for the lead, though I'd prefer to see attribution instead of the weasely "has been called". (It could be improved further by giving a greater sense of "arc" e.g. "During his life his admirers blah blah; while his detractors blah blah. Since his death, however, blah blah, so that today blah blah.")

I have a hunch, BTW, that strong sources can be found tracing the consolidation of his image as positive to publication of the autobio. If so (paging Dr. Malik... Dr. Malik to the sources, please!) then this definitely belongs in the article, possibly even the lead -- "During his life ... admirers, detractors ... However, his posthumous autobiography, which revealed blah blah, began a reevaluation blah blah which rapidly blah, so that today blah."

There -- I've done all the hard work. You guys just need to fill in the blanks. EEng ( talk) 04:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, let the minor task of blank-filling-in begin forthwith. One point, though...I think this is one occasion when "he has been called" is not weasely. We are discussing his reputation, not inviting readers to accept that he IS one of the greatest and most influential of African Americans. That sentence is a fair summation of the Legacy section, which is well sourced. Rumiton ( talk) 04:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "has been called" makes it sound like that's the best characterization among others more lukewarm; if that were the case then an explicit in-text attribution (X has called him...) should be given, at least in the article body and maybe in the lead. Now, actually, I think it's a more widely held view rising to the level of "generally" or "widely considered" (perhaps "among historians of the period") and it's much stronger if the article can say that; however, for that we'll need a kind of super-source which convincingly surveys other authoratative sources. Here once again I've done all the hard work and someone just needs to fill in the blanks.

In the meantime, as it stands the lead has two "has been called"s -- for the man and for his book, and that really sounds awful even though they're paragraphs apart. Sorry the spirit doesn't move me to attack these myself, though as seen I'm whiling away part of Sunday wordsmithing elsewhere (and feel free to revert or otherwise do with it what you will, of course). EEng ( talk) 18:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I found this on a website, no sources given: In 1958, New York detectives shot up Malcolm X’s office, for which the city settled with Malcolm in a $24 million lawsuit.

Malcolm X believed that U.S. Intelligence further set up his near-fatal poisoning in Cairo, Egypt in late July of 1964. Are these incidents verifiable? Rumiton ( talk) 14:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of references for the 1958 incident, including The Portable Malcolm X Reader. Someone with Lexis access might find more. --jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 15:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's difficult to get any hard facts though. One source says he was awarded a "small settlement" out of court, another that he got $24 Million. That seems hard to accept, given that his widow was dependent on charity. Clarity, anyone? Rumiton ( talk) 02:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

While Malcolm X had grown up in a Baptist family, as you indicate, his experience with other Christians was wider. His mother had come from an Anglican (Episcopalian) background while he himself had been placed with a Seventh-Day Adventist family for awhile. Hence he had a broader experience of Protestant Christian variations than the article would indicate.

This issue is of PRIME importance when considering his conversion from NOI to 'standard' Islam (Sunni by default). Saudi and other Moslem leaders were falling over themselves to honor him when he traveled abroad, sparing no effort to retain him in the orthodox Moslem fold. After he was assassinated it became standard to claim that he had merely "converted to Islam" without any greater realization that, had he lived longer, he would soon have uncovered orthodox Islamic hypocrisies. After all, he was pretty good at uncovering those of the NOI and the Christianity he had grown up in and so can hardly be recruited as some yes-man mouthpiece for Saudi Arabian policies or even Islam generally! Such a position on Malcolm X, treating him as "just another Islamic convert", is merely one taken to trivialize and gloss over his understanding of deeper issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.49.220 ( talk) 05:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, sounds good, and you know what comes next, don't you?...gimme the sources. Rumiton ( talk) 11:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As a demonstration, and subject to the approval of my valued fellow editors, I've taken any footnotes that had more than just the usual page-cite information, and moved them to a new Notes section of the article. The usual way of doing this would be to use < ref group=upper-alpha>note text</ref>. However, instead I've used the {{ efn-ua}} template, which does the same thing, but allows < ref> to be nested within it. (You can't nest < ref> within < ref>.)

• This diff [3] shows the transfer of notes to their own section
• This diff [4] shows how a < ref> is inserted inside one of the notes.

Notice that the notes are called out in the article text with superscript letters e.g. ^[A] etc. instead of the usual ^[1][2] etc. I think this is a nice touch -- when the reader sees a letter instead of a number, he's signaled that this note doesn't have just the usual dreary page-number citations -- the letter means, "If you want to know more, read this note -- it has additional information."

Thoughts? EEng ( talk) 18:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had been thinking about moving them myself. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 19:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I stand in bemused wonder at your virtuosity. Rumiton ( talk) 12:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

To avoid injuries, admirers are traditionally advised to kneel in my presence: my brilliant intellect and scintillating personality can be dizzying, and falls have resulted. EEng ( talk) 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The power of your compassion, while to be expected of such a soul, is also profoundly edifying. Rumiton ( talk) 17:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Enlightened self-interest and nothing more. My insurance carriers insisted. EEng ( talk) 17:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And they definitely should not be found in the lede. it's astonishing that no admin on this site gives a damn enough to do anything about this joke of a "featured article". There is no evidence his father was killed, nor any evidence the killers were "white racists". Even if it were the black legion and that rumor were true, he may have been killed for political reasons, in fact more likely than racial ones given the black legions target were almost all white and almost all due to political ideology. MX never said his father was killed by white racists, either. Period, full stop. Whatzinaname ( talk) 10:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of sources (others do) but I can find several instances of Malcolm X saying exactly that. Here's one. [5] And incidentally, a little more respect for an article that a number of people continue to work hard on would seem in order. Rumiton ( talk) 10:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatzi's just lashing out -- he's at ANI right now for the kind of antics he pulled here a few months ago. [6] These issues were settled (see [7] and the section immediately following that one) -- no need to respond unless Whatzi offers an intelligible new argument. EEng ( talk) 17:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your youtube video does not say anything about "racist whites", sorry, do you have a hearing problem? a reading problem? Or is it a logic problem? black legion=/= the KKK =/= "racist whites". there is zero evidence that anyone killed MX's father, let along it was "racist whites". It's all pure fiction cooked up when MX was trying to change/create his image. Now wikipedia is nothing more than a propaganda site written by an MX publicist, or those who want to lionize him for whatever reasons. There is nothing respectable about fictitious propaganda Whatzinaname ( talk) 22:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As seen in the links I gave earlier, and here, Whatzinaname is unable or unwilling to engage in fruitful discussion. As also mentioned, his problems in this regard are not confined to his activities on this article. I recommend that other editors simply ignore his posts, unless they miraculously become intelligible and offer something new beyond his claims at the discussion I previously linked. EEng ( talk) 23:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems he does tend to lapse into hysteria, but his underlying point, which I would paraphrase as "Malcolm X never turned into Mother Teresa", is a worthy one. IMO the article right now is fairly balanced in that respect. Rumiton ( talk) 00:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm X never turned into Mother Therasa: Well thank goodness for that! Just imagine WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute with the Nation of Islam and the Catholic Church added to the mix! EEng ( talk) 03:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC) BTW Rumiton, I've been meaning to say... this article remains on my watchlist so I see you beavering away day after day, but haven't had time to actually look. I see that Malik's on the case too, so between the two of you the article's in fine hands. Of course if you need my help (e.g. some troll shows up) just shout. EEng ( talk) 03:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Later: Looks like I said almost exactly the same thing a month ago [8] -- first the memory goes. Some advice: When trolls visit my talk I leave their comments in place. Especially when they write in sentence fragments. EEng ( talk)

why don't you two take it to your talk page(s) and engage in your usual intellectually bankrupt collusion. Whatzinaname ( talk) 00:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait! Rumiton! There it is again! Did you hear it? Like... hot air escaping... EEng ( talk) 03:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If you do not think this should be a featured article then here are the steps to take. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 02:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a very major assertion and there is no source that says he did in the intro. Are there any serious sources that support this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.68.138 ( talk) 05:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

He was an outspoken representative of the Nation of Islam, whose teachings were undeniably black supremacist. This seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me. Rumiton ( talk) 13:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinions of users on the topic are irrelevant, are there serious sources that support the statement?-- 184.145.68.138 ( talk) 20:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read the article, particularly the section titled Beliefs of the Nation of Islam. There are plenty of "serious sources" that support it. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 22:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this is entirely worth clarifying, but when I used the term "a perfectly reasonable statement" I meant that the current wording was a reasonable paraphrasing of what the sources said. I did not mean that he "supported black supremacy" was in itself a truthful description of his beliefs. (I knew I would regret this.) Rumiton ( talk) 14:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

He is listed in the Multiracial American article and categories here on this page describe him as having white ancestors but I can't find any mention in the text of this heritage? Is it his mother who was white or multiracial? Or his father? Rmhermen ( talk) 15:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"He was called 'Detroit Red' because of the reddish hair he inherited from his Scottish maternal grandfather." —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 15:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I expected to see something near the lines about his parents. Not when he was 21 and already in jail. Rmhermen ( talk) 03:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

His mother was the product of rape, and did not have Scottish family per se. Probably the only heritage worth mentioning about Malcolm in regards to his parentage is already listed.-- Chimino ( talk) 18:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I recently edited this page, and I want to apologize for putting up Youtube citations here. I was not aware of the Wikipedia policy regarding Youtube citations. However, I have several secondary sources now which I think will improve the article even further. The first source is a link to a book which mentions Baldwin's reaction to the assassination. Since we have Elijah Muhammad and MLK Jr.'s reaction to the assassination, I thought that James Baldwin(who was a friend of Malcolm X, and wrote about him, Muhammad, and the NOI in his book The Fire Next Time)'s reaction would fit in with the other quotes. The second source is straight from the autobiography (which I have read, but unfortunately do not have on me)---but the autobiography is posted on this website, and several others. This source mentions that Malcolm X thought of Muhammad as saying the same thing as John Milton. I can reword this without the quotes that I had last time. The third source mentions Malcolm X's reaction to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I understand that I had too much quotes (the Baldwin reaction to the assassination would necessarily have quotes, however, as the rest of the reactions also feature quotes and it would match the format). I wish to edit the page with these sources, hoping that it would give new information to readers and improve it. I also found a source, Manning Marable's book, which mentions Malcolm X's own brothers reaction to the assassination and Muhammad Ali's reaction.

Here are the urls to all the sources. Of course (for the book sources) if I can, I will quote it in book form, with title and author.

http://books.google.com/books?id=k58TUrou6mMC&pg=PT410&lpg=PT410&dq=james+baldwin+malcolm+x+assassination+reaction&source=bl&ots=BCYLnHQt7Y&sig=iEOdD4ngh2X-qnIpa1ORhigoIvI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yXqzU82FEYmUqAb-7YH4Aw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=james%20baldwin%20malcolm%20x%20assassination%20reaction&f=false

http://news.rapgenius.com/Malcolm-x-chapter-11-saved-annotated

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-civil-rights-quotes-20140629-story.html#page=1

http://books.google.com/books?id=RGgtryAwy7oC&pg=PT580&lpg=PT580&dq=james+baldwin+reaction+malcolm+x+assassination&source=bl&ots=17MSKd-g3w&sig=QUc1r_nadJP-Noczfh60EbB-438&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xnizU5aKOMq2yASW4IGgCA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=james%20baldwin%20reaction%20malcolm%20x%20assassination&f=false

Sorry about the urls just hanging there, I know they look tacky. I'm still getting used to the citations, but when I put the citations in this talk page they just came up as #s with no links to the sources, so I had to use urls.

Thanks, Kinfoll77 ( talk) 03:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care much about Baldwin's reaction to Malcolm X's assassination. If you can work it into decent prose (not just a quotation) and find a good place to put it, go ahead.

Malcolm X's view of the 1964 Civil Rights Act probably belongs in that article, not here. It's a matter of giving things due weight. (We already have an article about the speech those lines come from.)

Finally, I disagree vehemently about cherry-picking from Malcolm X's autobiography unless a secondary source has highlighted that section as being particularly significant. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 02:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll definitely work the Baldwin quote into the article with good prose, not just quotations.

Yeah, you're right about the 1964 Civil Rights Act reaction. I'll put the reaction there later.Now that I think about it, why waste space with that in this article when it has its own article? I wasn't thinking about the 1964 Civil Rights Act article beforehand, so thanks for pointing it out.

I didn't mean to "cherry-pick", but only to point out a specific part that was significant. The reason that this part was significant is because out of all of the white authors that Malcolm X read, the only one that he admired was John Milton. He read Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, etc. Every white author that that he read, he thought said nothing of importance. Then, he read Milton, and he suddenly found a connection between that and the NOI's beliefs. He then interpreted Milton's Paradise Lost as an allegory for race relations between whites and blacks worldwide. There were also some secondary sources that mention Milton's influence on Malcolm, but you're right that it is not of the utmost importance. The article can definitely exist without it.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it. I know that you and other editors have worked assiduously on this page. Before I edited it, I didn't realize that this was a Featured Article. From this point on (after I add the Baldwin response), before I make edits here, I'll go to the talk page. Peace, and enjoy your holiday. Kinfoll77 ( talk) 17:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Under the "Assassination" section, there's a line "these dudes I know identified the others as Nation members Norman 3X Butler and Thomas 15X Johnson.", the citation [160] reads "Kondo, p. 97". The only source I could find which matches this is a book of conspiracy theories. The same source is cited later in the same paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:3400:60b:3e15:c2ff:feca:3ac6 ( talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Zak Kondo's book isn't a "book of conspiracy theories", it's a book about the conspiracy to assassinate Malcolm X. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 02:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't parse "He contacted Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam, whose book The Eternal Message of Muhammad he had received with his visa approval.". -- 80.114.178.7 ( talk) 22:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I changed it, but it reads somewhat passively now, which is not a great thing. Do you accept this version or would you like to suggest something else? Rumiton ( talk) 00:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Your change helped, I now can parse the original sentence. I am not used to receive a book with a visa (visum?) approval or to recieve a visa approval with a book. The original wording is shorter, which is good. I couldn't parse it, which doesn't mean a lot, but might indicate a problem. Could "he had received" be replaced by "was sent"? Or "he had received with" by "accompanied", or something? -- 80.114.178.7 ( talk) 05:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take another look. Rumiton ( talk) 04:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There are several ideas trying to fit into one sentence, but none of them are worth starting a new sentence. I think the current wording describes the situation quite OK. Rumiton ( talk) 04:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Malcolm X has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

was an X*African-American*X Muslim minister, need's to simply be changed to Muslim Minister Fuhgawz102 ( talk) 20:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done To me X's race is certainly an important part of his notability as a major person in the black civil rights movement. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm X is Malcolm Little's name. In the article, the text varies from calling him "Malcolm Little" to "Malcolm X" depending on the chronological order. However, after introducing his full name, it is unnecessary to call him "Malcolm Little" or "Malcolm X" from that point forward. Instead of "Malcolm X flew to the United Kingdom", the text should read "X flew to the United Kingdom". By including his first name with his last name, the authors of this article are disrespecting the very reason he changed his name in the first place: to commemorate his lost African heritage. The authors of the article, by including his first name with his last name, are implying that X is not enough a last name at all, because otherwise the addition of "Malcolm" would be unnecessary. If the article on Albert Einstein were to be rewritten so that every occurrence of "Einstein" in the text is replaced with "Albert Einstein", it would sound terrible and be totally unacceptable.

In conclusion, we must apply Wikipedia's naming conventions to this article and respect X's wishes regarding his last name. StainlessSteelScorpion ( talk) 23:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi StainlessSteelScorpion. Can you cite examples of reliable sources that refer to Malcolm X as simply "X"? I don't think it's something I've seen before. Thank you. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

To me also, it would be a new and startling development. Rumiton ( talk) 05:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. I am trying to add a statement that the online petition for release of records did not attract enough signatories for validation, but the only source I can find is the White House petition service itself, and WP won't allow it. Does anyone know why? This is the url with some spaces inserted. url=https:// petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/publish-fully- unredacted-and-unaltered-fbi-cia-and-nypd-files-21st- february-1965-assassination/ 3Jg1C16j Rumiton ( talk) 02:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the White House has removed the petition from the site.

Unfortunately, the material in our article is sourced to primary sources and a newspaper editorial. That's not sufficient for WP:V. I'll try to find better material over the next week or so, but without better sources it'll have to be removed. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 04:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it with you. I find the subject of a failed petition quite interesting as a statement of current interest levels, but if it can't be verified, then so be it. Rumiton ( talk) 16:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source for the petition. http://baltimoretimes-online.com/news/2014/dec/26/petition-launched-open-federal-files-malcolm-x/ But not that the petition was taken down. Glennconti ( talk) 19:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The White House itself is the source for its failure. I don't know if it's reasonable to expect any media source to report that? Rumiton ( talk) 02:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says that he "was an African-American Muslim minister and a human rights activist". There are two big problems with this. First, he was many things, though as an advocate of violence he was not a human rights activist. Second, even if you want to describe him this way to some extent, there are many things that define him more than a human rights activist. He was a political activist, a black nationalist/separatist, a leader of the NOI, a religious leader, an icon, etc etc. Even if you want to claim that he was a human rights activist, this doesn't belong in the first sentence of the article, as several other roles of his were much more germane. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Human rights activist seems to be an appropriate description "Human rights defenders or Human rights activists are people who, individually or with others, act to promote or protect some variation of human rights." wiki

"Human rights are moral principles or norms[1] that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in national and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status." wiki

At the time Malcolm lived black people were not even counted as fully human, human enough to be taxed but not to vote and where not afforded the full protection of the law. While Malcolm did have fiery rhetoric, I do not recall him engaging in any violence. Further even if your statement is true, I see nothing in the definitions of human rights activist or human rights that precludes someone from making fiery rhetoric or "Advocating violence" as you call it.

I think his role as a human rights activist is the best word to describe all the roles he played. He never ran for political office as far as I know, so how can he be a political activist? He was indeed a black nationalist, but he was a nationalist because his view was that black Americans could never be treated fairly within white America. The root of this is human rights not actual nationalism. If white Americans treated blacks like white people, I doubt he'd be calling for separation. He was not a leader of NOI, he left the NOI. I don't see how Malcolm was an icon

icon:

noun 1. a picture, image, or other representation. 2. Eastern Church. a representation of some sacred personage, as Christ or a saint or angel, painted usually on a wood surface and venerated itself as sacred. 3. a sign or representation that stands for its object by virtue of a resemblance or analogy to it. 4. Computers. a picture or symbol that appears on a monitor and is used to represent a command, as a file drawer to represent filing. 5. Semiotics. a sign or representation that stands for its object by virtue of a resemblance or analogy to it.

I don't see how a human can fit into any of these, unless you are trying to suggest he is a saint or angel?

Malcolm was a human rights activist who advocated for the fair treatment of american blacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernanday ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems a very one-sided article about a controversial figure. Can't we express more than a single, sanitized viewpoint? ^{[1] [2]} 68.58.178.32 ( talk) 03:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read his essay "Learning to Read", X specifically mentions the UN referendum on human rights. He then comments on this, saying that blacks in America are focused on civil rights, and should instead be focused globally on human rights. Therefore, calling him a human rights activist is a logical conclusion backed by evidence. Full disclosure, not that it should matter: I am a white male. StainlessSteelScorpion ( talk) 23:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a white male, too, not that it ought to matter. And I don't think Malcolm X's advocacy of armed self-defense for African-Americans disqualifies him as an African-American minister and a human rights activist. I personally advocate that every American be allowed the right of armed self-defense. It happens to be one of every American's enumerated Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Objection to Malcolm X being listed as an African-American minister and a human rights activist solely on his statement that African Americans exercise the same civil rights available to every other American is just not supported by Wikipedia. There's no way to justify that objection either by logic or under WP:SYNTH (which forbids us from writing things in our articles supported only by "common sense" or drawing conclusions from existing facts that seem to forbid us from what is reported in reliable sources).

Now, that doesn't mean I buy into everything that's been said, written or filmed about Malcolm X. The film "Malcolm X" in which he was portrayed by Denzel Washington is pretty one-sided and portrays him in a manner not supported even by the facts as they're reported in our article. It's an emotional attempt to portray him as a saint.

But the facts in reliable sources support the statements in this article. If you can show otherwise, go ahead. loupgarous ( talk) 05:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence:

However this view has been challenged by authors such as Jared Ball.

First, it is sourced to an interview with Jared Ball (no source for "authors such as"). Second, it makes no sense. The sentence it's supposed to rebut reads:

Then after a short time in Flint, Michigan he moved to Harlem, New York in 1943, where he engaged in drug dealing, gambling, racketeering, robbery, and pimping; according to recent biographies, he also occasionally had sex with other men, usually for money.

Does Jared Ball (or User:Inayity) really challenge the fact that recent biographies say that Malcolm Little engaged in sex with other men? If so, he has a reading comprehension problem, because we cite two of them as sources.

Please discuss. Thank you. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 17:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

THat was a mistake on my part, I think we know what I was targetting? So I have no idea what the remark about READING is all about. The controversial claim of Malcolm having sex with men needs to represent as a controversial claim. I do not have to go into it too much we know already. The claim caused outraged in the African American community. Jared book details why the statement was bogus. Most were disappointed with Manning and even Asante wrote a piece on it wondering what went wrong. So in a nut shell, let us not violate balance and leave it as if it is a fact, it is heavily disputed and that dispute needs to be represented.I was dealing with this but lost track since. the debate]-- Inayity ( talk) 20:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to a 1000-page PDF file; is there a specific page you have in mind that supports your argument? I read Ball's book when it came out, but I don't remember anything specific that I thought would be helpful for this article. I asked you at the time for your help and you never replied. (See Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 6#A Lot Of Manning but where is Abdul Alkalimat?) The fact that a claim may have caused outrage is not a reason not to include it; do you have actual reliable sources that challenge it? (Also note that the statement is not made in Wikipedia's voice as a statement of fact. We say only that recent biographies report it, which is a fact.) —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 22:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick reply, as stated even here, I actually got side tracked and when that happens your head space goes other places and I am at a disadvantage trying to remember the full scope of the issue. I know not a statement in Wiki voice, I am not challenging that statement, I am saying if we know how controversial it is, it is customary to represent the balance by acknowledging how heavily it has been challenged.-- Inayity ( talk) 04:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm X was effectively orphaned early in life. His father was killed when he was six and his mother was placed in a mental hospital when he was thirteen, after which he lived in a series of foster homes. Is this really needed in the lead, as well as the sentence below it? It is not life and death but I think it throws the punch of the introduction off.

I have removed the selective quote used to prove his disavows racism. It is problematic because for someone who is so widely quoted this one is non-notable. Its also is disputable how it is being used, having issues with NOI has nothing to do with running from racism. I could go on. Also in the lead if any quote are to be used it should be the most notable, if any. Why use that one? b/c it attacks NOI? Why not use the one about By any means necessary or House Negroes, or non-violent with those who are non-violent with us? ANd what is funny DESPITE discussing it someone puts it back saying his attitude to NOI. Am.. If there are 100 things that can be said about Malcolm X, his attitude to NOI is minor in the context of a WP:LEAD, also we have no need for any quotation in a lead, unless it is a very notable quote, that is not WP:LEAD material. And it is biased and undue weight on some obscure quote. -- Inayity ( talk) 04:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

After reading this lead one would come away with the only thing (after the first paragraph) was a conflict with NOI. repudiating the Nation of Islam, is mentioned TWICE in one lead. Black supremacy seems to be important, but is this a summation of Malcolm X? Conflict with NOI and Black Supremacy? And then on top of it all the famous quotes are ignored and one weak obscure reference to Zombies gets into the Lead? How is that?-- Inayity ( talk) 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel that the quote was important because it proved he felt his years at NOI were a waste. And that what Malcolm X stood for needs to be studied in light of the fact he repudiated much of what he said. Are you some sort of apologist for the NOI? Glennconti ( talk) 23:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That last question is way out of line, Glennconti. Categorize content by all means, not contributors. Rumiton ( talk) 07:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the last bit. But I feel the lead was carefully crafted by years of thoughtful work by very intelligent non-biased people. So I am suspicious when so many wholesale changes are made so quickly. I definitely prefer slow changes and consensus building. Glennconti ( talk) 15:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No argument there. Rumiton ( talk) 12:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure I am being heard too gud. Under no circumstances has an argument be provided for weight WP:WEIGHT for one odd quote to dominates the lead. Glennconti =keeps talking about Buttressing his regrets (that is a weight issue). You do not need to reinforce the statement? Why, unless this article is targeted at NOI? He trashed everything he ever said that means something to Black people (that is how it looks to me). Here is a statement to reinforce. ""We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary." (cringe factor 10) go and reinforce that. And we see this on Wikipedia a lot, esp where some editors are concern they remind us how hateful Malik Zulu Shabazz is. My position is NO QUOTES should be in the lead. You failed to explain the rationale supporting a quote in the lead (a weak one at that). But look at what quote you did use. And from all the chatter above I have not seen this thing addressed. Per every book on Malcolm X certain quotes are very popular. Malcolm X on quotes, film by Spike, Book by Alex, I do not see anyone but one or two revisionist focusing on how much he rejected EVERYTHING. He didnt. Malcolm reformed his life (true), he moved away from NOI (true) is that all? no, This myth of a reformed man is white wash because it aims to give us the impression that Malcolm X and everything he did as Malcolm X he threw in the trash. So the focus is now on this MLK type Malcolm, soft like Nelson Mandela (how cute) and I guess we should not put too much on the harder side of X (which he never surrendered). All of this nonsense about I did stupid things under NOI is clearly for the body of the article. It does not sum up Malcolm X. It is a violation of WEIGHT. It is The lens of the revisionist and attempt to show how rubbish NOI was,but nothing on all his work against racism, and White supremacy (oh no, dont talk about that). -- Inayity ( talk) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

We are attempting to remove the quote from the lead if we are able to accurately paraphrase it. The Gordon Parks interview is very important as it was Malcolm X's last interview. In my opinion it cannot be ignored as you keep seeming to want to do. Glennconti ( talk) 19:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I tried reading that twice and all I kept seeing was anger and conspiracy allegations. What I didn't see was anything that looks like you actually intend to discuss the issue. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of time and space, let's try and focus the disussion in one area. I suggest moving this thread to the section above, where the matter is already touched on. Middayexpress ( talk) 19:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Malik Shabazz [9]you are suppose to be an admin. And I have never discounted the role of admins, someone must admin. But in other departments let others who know more than you take the lead (literally in this case). The reason I do not edit here and contribute to making this article better is because you have WP:OWN issues. Now I do not want to break wikipedia policy but it is crystal clear the person directing this article is coming from the world a million miles away from the Malcolm X of my community. Yes. You ask me to make suggestions I DID, then you reverted them, despite me being correct. You may ill remarks about my knowing about Leads-- But just trust me, I know about LEADS.-- Inayity ( talk) 11:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And what sources do I need to prove Why I am taking a non-notable quote out of the lead of a man KNOWN for making quotes? What sources do you need to write a good balanced lead and avoid an article which talks about NOI (in the negative) as many times as it possible. Which is clearly a revisionist piece with that intent. Its just a shame my time on Wiki is so limited, I swear. That is the only issue.-- Inayity ( talk) 12:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If I might jump in here? Have you read the above section where a discussion is ongoing? I agree with you that our treatment of his rejection of NOI appears heavy-handed, and I have never been comfortable with the word "scoffed", which seems rather loaded to me. If you have time, why not continue this discussion above? Rumiton ( talk) 12:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Rumiton, to be honest I have issues with one editor here and what i see as PURE revisionism under the guise of (i don't know what) I cannot WP:AGF. When I read this lead it personally pains me, that I do not want to watch what is going on here. It is REVISIONIST WORK. It is what they do with all African icons. Fanon, Biko, Garvey. The core of Malcolm X is not represented in this lead, (only one line) and to a lesser extent in this article. Google Malcolm X right now, you go on YouTube, Facebook, Black Forums, the community discussions and see who Malcolm X was (it is important). And here all the focus is on the most diluted White washed POV you can not believe this is the same Malcolm X that said By Any Means Necessary, A man who stands for nothing falls for everything, Only a fool lets his oppressor educate his children, Until we get some Black unity we cant bother with white unity, We must do for self. On and on. Hardcore Man, but where is that. Let me apologize as I am pressed and writing in haste. And some wants me, who lives Malcolm X (same ancestry, same religion, same politics) to go away, I wonder why? And Because of who I am, my insight into this article is relevant! -- Inayity ( talk) 12:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I find these recent edits an improvement, making for a more balanced and encyclopedic article. Rumiton ( talk) 13:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Inayity, MX revised himself and became less radical. We are not being revisionist, we are just stating the facts. This is not a white wash. Are you sure that the fact that you live Malcolm X hasn't clouded your POV. Glennconti ( talk) 15:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

When you put so much weight on his "reform" you become a revisionist.-- Inayity ( talk) 18:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Inayity, thank you for citing reliable sources to explain your changes to the article. Oh wait, you didn't cite any sources. Sorry, nice try. If you continue your disruptive editing at this featured article, I will bring your behavior to WP:AN/I. Thank you. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 19:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz you useless and empty threats only bring attention to my claim. Please PLease and Please try and ANI me, I have one for you also. U must think your threats work on me. Joke.-- Inayity ( talk) 18:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

While Malcolm X changed his views about race relations towards the end of his life, I don't think this short phase of his life is representative of Malcolm X's work. He might have walked away from NOI but he was an important community organizer and spokesperson for years. I don't think his views towards the end of his life should outweigh the time and effort he put into organizing African-American urban communities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And also we have Up until one week before his death, Malcolm X continued to publicly advocate that black people should achieve advancement "by any means necessary". Rumiton ( talk) 01:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"While continuing to emphasize Pan-Africanism, black self-determination, and black self-defense, he disavowed racism" It seems to me we are bending over backwards to emphasize and say what stayed the same about Malcolm X's philosophy to counterbalance "disavowed racism". Do you want to add "community organizer" too? (How about "loving Father"; I'm sure he still remained committed to his children?) Glennconti ( talk) 01:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Further you say "He might have walked away from NOI". No he DID walk away from NOI there is no "might" about it. Glennconti ( talk) 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I undid the following addition by User:Professmoravec to the "Africa" section:

During a visit to Ghana in 1964, hosted by expatriates like Maya Angelou, that Malcolm X reconnected to his African root and as a result shifted from using the term " Negro" to " Afro-American." ^[1]

I reverted it, despite the fact that it accurately summarizes the source, because (1) Malcolm X didn't use the term "Negro" (he referred to "so-called Negroes") and (2) he already used the term "Afro-American" (the preceding sentence refers to his organization, the Organization of Afro-American Unity). —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 01:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I also have an issue with this sentence: and scoffed at the civil rights movement's emphasis on integration.Because the issue of integration is already covered. I do not think Malcolm spent 90% or even 30% of his time scoffing at King. I have other serious issues with this lead and maybe the article as I feel it fails to capture Malcolm X. Next to nothing in the lead points to his main work dealing with White oppression of Africans but an excessive focus on the internal strife within the NOI. -- Inayity ( talk) 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We must be reading different articles, because the one I just looked at had this as its second sentence: To his admirers he was a courageous advocate for the rights of blacks, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans;

With respect to the issue of integration already being covered, maybe you're not familiar with lead sections. Everything in the lead is repetitive to the body of the article; that's the point.

If you think the lead, or the article, gives too much attention or too little to some points, please make specific suggestions for improvement. Thank you. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a very very interesting statement. I am one of the people on Wikipedia that specialize in Fixing leads. So if this lead represents the body, then the body not too good is it. So I am part of the Lead clean up team, I come in and fix Leads, see Sun, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lead section cleanup, Global warming, So in short I think that means I have an eye for Leads. And if the emphasis of this lead has Scoffing at Civil rights movement --as a priority it means it is possible the issue we have is which version of Malcolm is represented here. I would say I am deeply influenced by him. Apart from the first line, which you accurately stated as good, I think the emphasis and weight is not very representative of this African icon as I think most people of African ancestry know him, in contrast the Dubois article is better. I will try to make further suggestions, but I already stated the emphasis on NOI is problematic, at the expense on his statements about educational reforms, House Negroes, profound statements which shape Pan-Africanism and the African struggle all around the world, none of this I am getting. I have already removed one or two issues which I will boldly tell you (from my POV) are revisionist POV. (excuse mistakes I am writing in haste.) -- Inayity ( talk) 04:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

One other thing that just came into my mind, based upon Malcolm in the living African Diaspora (which I am part of), is his profound influence in Islam in the African American community. That is so profound it is beyond belief. I dont get that from this lead. In addition his image as an Islamic icon. But Scoffing at the Civil rights movement? and Black supremacy? Turning away from Racism? a quick Google search and reading Black forums shows ZERO representation of this emphasis at all. -- Inayity ( talk) 04:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please learn to read more carefully, Inayity. The statement doesn't say "scoffing at the civil rights movement". It says scoffing at integration.

Also, please start citing sources. Frankly, I don't want to engage in a pissing match over whose interpretation of Malcolm X is right. We use reliable sources on Wikipedia. I couldn't care less what a quick Google search and reading Black forums shows. I want this article to reflect what quality scholarship shows. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 22:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I know what it said We can read you know. Makes no difference No one who knows Malcolm X defines him (if they had 3 paragraphs at scoffing at integration). That point still stands. -- Inayity ( talk) 11:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

needs to be checked for grammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amplifiedderp ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking again at the lead, the sentences: "I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now... I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years." do look a little excessive, rather bludgeoning the point. I think they could constructively be left out. Rumiton ( talk) 15:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I wanted to eliminate the "Zombie" portion that issue had been taken with. And completely show MX calls himself a fool and that he lost 12 years of his life (his time at NOI). I did it so of course I think it is alright. It is definitely a powerful quote, as it is, to those that haven't seen it. Glennconti ( talk) 23:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Further, I think the ideas pre-repudiation and post-repudiation are important to stress. The casual reader may see a black supremacist/racist quote from Malcolm X and come away thinking that was all he was about. The way it is now, the reader will most certainly have to dig deeper in their study of what Malcolm X stood for to resolve the idea conflict we set up (making the way it stands as beneficial to the student). Glennconti ( talk) 23:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC) And finally an emotional argument to keeping the quote: Malcolm X was assassinated for saying those words. Therefore, we should keep them in their prominent position. Glennconti ( talk) 23:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I find all your arguments persuasive, but there is a question of weight. Right now the fact that he became disenchanted with the Nation is repeated four times in the lead, which seems excessive. The lead should point to the text, where the explanation will be fuller (and it is.) Rumiton ( talk) 02:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course you are a more senior editor and I will bow to your knowledge on this matter. However, as far as weight is concerned Malcolm X could be considered a philosopher (of sorts) and his later ideas should take precedence over his earlier ideas (be given more weight) as supposedly we become wiser with age and experience. (Also, hopefully someone else will chime in??) Glennconti ( talk) 02:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Further, in the lead, there is one paragraph about NOI times and one paragraph about post-NOI times. Equal weight. Glennconti ( talk) 02:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, seniority doesn't come into it, but we should look at the weight. We have as you say, a paragraph that partially refers to his involvement, but then we have By March 1964, Malcolm X had grown disillusioned (with the Nation)... He ultimately repudiated the Nation and its teachings... he disavowed racism saying "I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now... I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years" and then shortly after repudiating the Nation of Islam. To me it reads like we don't want the reader to think he didn't thoroughly redudiate them and we will repeat it so often that they can't miss it. Rumiton ( talk) 03:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I would really like to keep the quote. Is there a synonym for repudiate that we can use that doesn't sound like we are repeating the same thing over and over (which we aren't really). The last paragraph in the lead could lose the word repudiate too. But I still want people to know he was martyred for his new beliefs. Glennconti ( talk) 03:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Malik might know of a source that makes that point in a concise way? Malik? Rumiton ( talk) 07:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

PLease spare me the nonsense about an emotional argument, since none was made unless you are building a straw man. 1. no quotes in the lead are needed, it is not common. And IF you want to quote Malcolm then quote per WEIGHT, and what he is known for, that quote after Google brings me back to Revisionist Wikipedia. So when we want to give priority then we give priority to what represents Malcolm X. By any means necessary, the issue of education by the slave master. You know all the stuff that makes Whites cringe, but funny the quote we are using here is the one that does not do that. But i said all of this before, HE DISAVOWED RACISM, is enough for the WP:LEAD There is No bases for a quote in the lead to add force to that last sentence. None. -- Inayity ( talk) 12:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not unilaterally edit when we are having a discussion about this. You don't like the quote because it doesn't make white people cringe. I see your point. Please let other people make theirs. On the weight issue I have already said we give equal weight to his views while at the NOI. However if you wish to beef up what MX said while with the NOI please propose a change here. Glennconti ( talk) 14:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC) By the way we have had the quote from MX saying he was sorry for what he said for YEARS! And it wasn't a weight issue then. But when I add the part about him calling him self a fool and it cost him, then it becomes too hot to handle. Let's tell it like it is and not muzzle MX. Why bury this very important quote 90% of the way into the article unless the quote makes you uncomfortable (i.e WEIGHT has nothing to do with it and is a pretext). Glennconti ( talk) 14:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)I find it hard to believe that we are being revisionist if we quote MX but are not revisionist if we don't. Revisionism has nothing to do with it in my opinion. Glennconti ( talk) 15:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC) I have read wp:lead and wp:weight and find no reason why we can't include this important quote in the lead. If you wish to quote rules, please give the specific sentence that using this quote would violate. Thank you. Glennconti ( talk) 15:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I'm not really familiar with the topic, but Inayity asked me to take a look. What seems to be the issue? Is it the phrase that Malcolm X scoffed at the civil rights movement's emphasis on integration? Middayexpress ( talk) 16:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No it is the quote that Malcolm X says he was sorry for his racist views. The quote basically buttresses his repudiation of the Nation of Islam. It is this: While continuing to emphasize Pan-Africanism, black self-determination, and black self-defense, he disavowed racism saying "I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now... I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years." Glennconti ( talk) 16:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. I think that perhaps may be a bit too minutiae for the lede, which is typically phrased in general prose per WP:LEDE. That he was apparently martyred for his new beliefs is certainly important, though. How does this alternate phrasing sound?: "While continuing to emphasize Pan-Africanism, black self-determination, and black self-defense, he disavowed racism and expressed regret at many of his own past actions as a Nation of Islam member." Middayexpress ( talk) 17:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I would really like to use the quote as it is irrefutable proof of Malcolm X's repudiation of the Nation of Islam that he calls it 12 wasted years. And we have had a version of it in the lead for years until Inayity objected. However I don't want to be the only one standing in the way of progress. Could you do me a favor and point me to where in WP:LEDE it say we must use prose? I'm missing that. Like I say I really really really would like to keep the quote. Glennconti ( talk) 23:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC) If we can't look past this minor infraction of wp:lede if it is indeed one, I would like to more completely paraphrase the quote even though it is not as good as the real thing. For example: "While continuing to emphasize Pan-Africanism, black self-determination, and black self-defense, he disavowed racism expressing regret at many of his own past actions and lamenting his many years wasted as a Nation of Islam member to the point of calling himself a fool." Glennconti ( talk) 04:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Still rather labored, IMO, force-feeding the reader to a particular conclusion, rather than just telling him/her what happened. If they want more elaboration, it is there in the body of the article. And I actually objected to this clumsy repetition in mid 2013, but I let it go for a quiet life, and because nobody else felt strongly about it. Seems like now, some do. I am happy with Middayexpress's suggestion. Rumiton ( talk) 12:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Rumiton I am unhappy with certain things too but let them go for the sake of compromise and consensus. I agree that my last suggestion is rather labored. Middayexpress's suggestion misses two points. That MX considered his 12 years at NOI wasted and that he considered himself foolish because of it. How about we drop the foolish part for the sake of flow and abbreviate the wasted years part? And try this: "While continuing to emphasize Pan-Africanism, black self-determination, and black self-defense, he disavowed racism expressing regret at many of his own past actions and his many years wasted as a Nation of Islam member." In this way I am very close to Middayexpress's suggestion adding only four words but including an important concept from the quote. Glennconti ( talk) 13:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC) The quote has 3 main points: (1) MX was sorry and regretful. (2) MX considered them 12 years wasted (his time at NOI). (3) He considered himself a fool because of it. Middayexpress's version covers point (1). I would like to cover point (2) also. If my way of doing it you consider clumsy, please wordsmith the point (2) to your satisfaction. Glennconti ( talk) 13:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to copyedit. It's a bit late where I am, but tomorrow I will try to produce something that keeps all happy, or at least accepting. It will probably end up somewhere between, "He continued to hate whites all his life" and "He came to accept that white people had been correct all along." (Taking a risk here. Please assume good humor.) Rumiton ( talk) 15:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not bad, Glennconti. I would suggest perhaps slightly modifying the end part to "he disavowed racism and expressed regret at many of his own past actions during his twelve years as a Nation of Islam member." "Wasted" may be too strong a word here since Malcolm indicates that he regreted many of his actions while an NOI member, but not necessarily all of them. In the first half of his autobiography, he actually mentions a number of charitable, non-political programs that he carried out on behalf of the NOI and for which he was proud. Rumiton, does that work for you too? Also, the phrase "shortly after repudiating the Nation of Islam" seems superfluous since it's already noted a few sentences earlier that "he ultimately repudiated the Nation and its teachings and embraced Sunni Islam." Middayexpress ( talk) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That all looks pretty good to me. I don't think it leaves any doubt that his departure would have mightily annoyed the Nation, but it is softly and neutrally expressed. If someone adds it, we can see how it flows with the rest of the text. Rumiton ( talk) 10:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I am still less than delighted with the word "scoffed", though. It's a loaded kind of a word that taints both the scoffer and the scoffee. I'll try to come up with something better. Rumiton ( talk) 10:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I came up with "rejected". More encyclopedic, I think. Rumiton ( talk) 13:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"he disavowed racism and expressed regret at many of his own past actions during his twelve years as a Nation of Islam member." Can we make it a little stronger to the following: "he disavowed racism and expressed regret at many of his own past actions during his substantially misspent twelve years as a Nation of Islam member." The word misspent introduces the "cost" element which is missing. And the word substantially characterizes the cost as significant. Glennconti ( talk) 14:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Just no. Rumiton ( talk) 14:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

MX did say it cost him 12 years. Is there no way to say that in a temperate manner? Glennconti ( talk) 14:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC) FWIW, I think "misspent" perfectly characterizes what MX said and felt. We just need to find it in ourselves to tell it like it is and not muzzle MX. Glennconti ( talk) 14:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Glennconti: "misspent", like "wasted" and other similar qualifiers, also seems too strong. While "misspent" would perhaps be consistent with that one line, it would not be with a good portion of the first half of his autobiography. Malcolm therein recounts with pride a number of social programs that he carried out while an NOI member, and which he also indicates were quite successful. Rumiton: per WP:LABEL, "rejected" is indeed better than "scoffed", as it is less value-laden. Middayexpress ( talk) 17:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That is why I attempted to further refine "misspent" to say "substantially misspent". Could we find an additional qualifier to reduce the strength of "misspent" to everyone's satisfaction (to take into account the charitable works done by the NOI). Glennconti ( talk) 17:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Further, I think if we are going to replace the quote we should draw heavily from it. You are bringing in all sorts of other sources not related to the quote (which maybe out of context as concerns disavowing racism). Which is fine but I think the word "misspent" very accurately paraphrases what the quote says but we can further refine that to "partially misspent" or something else that weakens misspent based on your other sources. What do you think?? Glennconti ( talk) 18:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I don't think any qualifier is necessary, though, for the aforementioned reasons. Here is an abridged version of Malcolm's autobiography [10]. It touches on some of the non-political, charitable/social programs I alluded to above (e.g. page 165 on the NOI's free rehabilitation program), which are at odds with that one line on his substantially "wasted" or "misspent" years within the NOI. Middayexpress ( talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your considered response. I hope we are not at an impasse. Your sources say one thing and the Gordon Parks interview says: "I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then—​like all [Black] Muslims—​I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years. That was a bad scene, brother. The sickness and madness of those days—​I'm glad to be free of them." It is not just one line. Clearly, in the quote under consideration, Malcolm X is saying in no uncertain terms that the 12 years was misspent. Hopefully we have the wordsmithing/copy editing skills to correctly paraphrase the Gordon Parks quote in light of your other sources. I agree the "substantially misspent" is imperfect, but still wish to strongly lobby for use of the word "misspent" in some way. Glennconti ( talk) 18:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Further the Gordon Parks quote says MX did "Many Things" he was sorry for. Not "All Things". This corresponds with what you are saying as to "some" of the good he did while with the NOI. So I do not find an inconsistency in the Gordon Parks interview quote (i.e The quote under scrutiny is NOT at odds with your sources). Glennconti ( talk) 19:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I hesitate to offer up a suggestion to get past this impasse for it seems I can't even get one word approved lone less an entire sentence. But I am trying. How about: "Even though Malcolm X spoke glowingly of some of his accomplishments while with the Nation of Islam he regretted many things he did while with them to the point where he felt his time with them was misspent." If we can't get past the impasse on how to paraphrase the Gordon Parks interview, my suggestion is we just leave the quote as is to speak for itself. Glennconti ( talk) 20:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You make solid points, Glennconti. From the above, it seems like Malcolm especially resented being bossed around; perhaps not too surprising given his leadership acumen. I'm not sure what would be the best phrasing here, but that suggested phrase, though it still contains "misspent", does seem better than your suggested previous wording. Inayity, Rumiton and Malik Shabazz, any ideas? Middayexpress ( talk) 18:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

How about "In his autobiography, Malcolm X wrote proudly of some of the social achievements the Nation of Islam made while he was a member but he had many regrets, and regarded his time with them as largely wasted." Rumiton ( talk) 13:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I can live with something like this. Glennconti ( talk) 15:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Rumiton can you point me to the text in the article that backs up MX's pride in some of the social achievements of the NOI. We need to be clear that we have the backup in the article. We already have the Gordon Parks interview for the other source. Thanks so much. Glennconti ( talk) 15:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Glennconti, Malcolm expresses pride in the NOI's various social programs in parts of his autobiography linked above; he describes one such free rehabilitation program as having a "phenomenal record". Rumiton, that phrase works better. I also think the NOI's social work that Malcolm was involved in should be noted among the organization's key principles. Middayexpress ( talk) 17:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Rumiton ( talk) 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Great; Rumiton, would you do the honours? Middayexpress ( talk) 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Off I go. Rumiton ( talk) 05:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, this turned out to be unsimple. The sentence that was agreed didn't fit exactly where the quote had been, so I had to rearrange things a bit. Now I have a concern for the sequence. It reads:

1) he got ticked off with the Nation. 2) he became a Sunni 3) he traveled overseas, repudiated the Nation and established some US Islamic organisations. Rumiton ( talk) 05:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Rumiton, I believe the sequence was: 1) Malcolm was a proud NOI member, 2) he had a falling out with the NOI, 3) he became a Sunni, and 4) he traveled overseas, repudiated the Nation and established some US Islamic organisations. The NOI programs bit should therefore perhaps go in the preceding paragraph on his work within the organization. Middayexpress ( talk) 15:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just did that, thanks. How does it look to everyone now? Rumiton ( talk) 00:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not bad. I think "had come to regard as largely wasted" is perhaps more accurate tense-wise. Inayity, Glennconti, Malik Shabazz how's the phrasing now? Okay? Middayexpress ( talk) 17:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is looking good now. Glennconti ( talk) 00:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Made the minor change suggested above. Rumiton ( talk) 12:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)