Talk:Marcus Garvey/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Re: Bibliography Section

I agree with you Alister...it seems that info previously put in with a biblio reference has been taken out but the biblio left behind...this page has either been vandalised or "hyper" edited. That is certain facts have been removed. It seems that some of this info might belong on the UNIA page. That way some of the biblio refs can go there also.

In defense of neutrality and (Marcus Garvey)

My intention is not to coerce anyone into believing anything that is not true. I am grateful for the criticism...especially re: the NPOV. It motivates me to focus on the things that I know but don't really pay that much attention to.

Consider the following:

How many newspapers did the Rosenburgs, Sacco & Vanzetti, Bruno Hauptmann, and Alger Hiss publish, edit and distribute throughout the colonial empires of France and Britain that stirred the natives into restlessness?

How many organizations were they the head of ?

Did J. Edgar Hoover decry the fact that they had not committed any crimes that they could be convicted of before they were charged? Very interesting reading regarding the effort to find some crime that Garvey guilty of some crime. You would think that after doing a tax audit on him they would have found not reason to go any further. Its unfortunate that MMGs FBI file has yet to be posted on the FBI website. It was on microfilm, but I can't seem to locate it these days. It would be an excellent source to rebut any suggestion that Garvey was guilty.

Believe it or not, the total evidence used to convict Marcus Garvey was exactly one...empty...envelope. The prosecuting attorney suggested that the envelope contained a circular/flyer from Garvey advertising the stock for sale. Why if such a flyer existed could they find the envelope it contained but not the flyer itself? To this day not one copy of said flyer has ever been found. That in and of itself does not refute the legal principle which states "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". However it does lend credence to "reasonable doubt", because after all unless you have the flyer, how can you determine what it was on the flyer.

The trial judge was a member of the NAACP who refused to recuse himself before the start of the trial.

The jury initially came back without with a not guilty verdict on all counts. The judge told them that the US government had spent too much money on this trial and they were to go back and get another verdict.

--Nazikiwe 20:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what was Garvey alleged to have done? There is nothing in the article that states which law Hoover claims Garvey broke, & the omission of this fact makes it hard for people like me who know nothing about Garvey to judge its validity. -- llywrch 17:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I just noticed that the charges are stated in the section header, so the information is in the article, my mistake -- but could you add more information to this important event? It was too easy for me to skip by the mention of "mail fraud" -- whatever that entailed. -- llywrch 18:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Garvey and Rastafari

Have expanded this section and put reference at beginning. Rastafari is increasingly popular and well known so this facet of Garvey is likely to become more and not less important to wikipedia.Squiquifox 23:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Format/Biographical Details

It seems to me that most other biograhical pages in the Wikipedia start with origins (birth, education, etc.) after a brief capsule summary. This one starts (after the capsule summary) with "Founding of the UNIA-ACL" and "Garvey returned to Jamaica in 1914."

Um...returned from where? This is disorienting and poor narrative.

That section goes on, "Convinced that uniting blacks was the only way to improve their condition, Garvey launched the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA)and African Communities League (ACL) and became its first president."

OK...where did he come by these convictions? He must have had some base of support from which to "launch" the UNIA-ACL, but this goes completely undescribed.

More details about Garvey's early life and formative experiences, please.

Garvey returns to Jamaica

I agree with the above post. The text says that "Garvey returned to Jamaica in 1914". First of all, from the perspective of just writing a good article, it would probably be useful to say where he returned from--holiday in Belfast? (I believe it was from being a laborer in Costa Rica.)

Second, from the point of view of explaining Garvey's trajectory, it would be useful if somebody could develop a bit about his early experience outside of Jamaica, since this helped, I believe, to see the world in pan-Africanist (or Pan-Caribbean) terms, and see blacks in the Caribbean as exploited. I also believed that he tried to organize a trade-union amongst blacks in Costa Rica. I believe that there is an article by Ron Harpelle on this subject in the Journal of Iberian and Latin American Studies (2000?) but I do not have it with me and it would be useful for somebody to write a more comprehensive paragraph dealing with this.

Memorials to Marcus Garvey

Unfortunately however

These words have been added to the quotation from J. Edgar Hoover taken directly from wikiquote - reference 11 in the article - http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Memorandum_to_Special_Agent_Ridgely&oldid=470428

Garvey and Du Bois

I hope this wasn't offensive. Although it seems like the feud between the two was kind of significant in the US portion of his story. If it was already well covered feel free to ditch it.--T. Anthony 09:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Appeal to authority and WP:Verifiability

User:Blockntackle added the following section and reference:

Arrest
In 1919 according to biographer Harvey Hancock, Garvey was arrested for the crime of sodomizing a twelve year old Harlem youth. New York City Police raided his home where they found a stash of homosexual pornography. However, in June of 1920, the sodomy and forcible rape case was dismissed when the family of the alledged victim settled for an undisclosed sum.

(March 2008) The above statement is outrageous hogwash! If you are going to make up fake 'criminal history' please do some study on it first. Sodomy was a Crime in New York in 1919 NOT a tort. A criminal offense is a crime against the State (i.e. The People, as a society), so no amount of action from a 'victim' can lead to a dismissal of the charges. If an alleged 'victim' refused to testify, then charges would be brought against that person for filing false reports, etc. And worse, if it was known that the victim refused to testify because he was paid ANY ('disclosed' or 'undisclosed' sum of) money by the accused, that itself is another separate criminal offense of witness tampering, and possibly obstruction of Justice. A common error that people make is the assumption that it is up to the 'victim' to 'press charges' or to 'not press charges'. In a criminal offense, the victim has little or nothing to do with 'pressing' charges. The State (through the County, Parish, or District Attorney) is the entity that charges the offense. And once the charges are filed, the 'victim' is no longer any part of the process other than being a witness at trial. --- Joe Hepperle comment added March 2008

  • Hancock, Harvey P. Garvey: Heart of Darkness. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1991

Because this is apparently in some book doesn't make it acceptable in an encyclopedia, see:WP:Verifiability, and Appeal to authority.

From Joe Hepperle, Mar 2008-- Au Contraire! It is acceptable in Wikipedia, if it is in 'some book'. And according to WP:Verifiability, it does NOT have to be true. The term 'Verifiability' as it relates to WP:Verifiability has nothing to do with verifiability of the 'truth' of any statement, but instead it only refers to the verifiability that the claimed statement was published somewhere (else) and therefor, that it is not something made-up-on-the-spot by the WikiPedia contributor. Fortunately for us, and history, this claim by Blockntackle of a book by 'Harvey Hancock', published supposedly by Lippincott in 1991 is false. (Lippincott doesn't publish 'biographies'- they publish textbooks and journals in the medical-related field)- Joe Hepperle comment added in March 2008


I know it's not the acid test, but a search on Google, Yahoo, and excite comes up with absolutely no relevant hits. You'd think that this book would have been quoted ad nauseum on various right wing websites.

Sir! My edit was properly sourced and I therefore don't understand why any editor writing from the NPOV would not want this verifiable item included in the article. It is a subject for speculation whether websites you would characterize as "right wing" would want to allude to this subject.

So I'm going to remove the "reference" until its verifiability can be asserted. Not only that, but also until we find out something about the author - I hardly think we'd accept references from Mein Kampf in the Jewish history page.

(March 2008) Au Contraire! We do accept references to Mein Kampf in the Jewish History page. Of course, Jewish history is such a large subject, the 'page' is subdivided and branched off to separate pages dealing with certain time frames, eras or events. On the Holocaust page of Jewish History, right there for anyone to see, Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf is referenced as a source. [1] --- Joe Hepperle comment added March 2008
Sorry, but this reference is just as valid as the other print sources that have been listed for this article. Did you subject all of them to similar scrutiny?Blockntackle 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

While being wary of ad hominem-style attacks, I think a look at Blockntackles contributions shows that he has arrived at Wikipedia with a clear agenda, see this edit to Malcolm X:

During his prison term, Malcolm was known to exchange sexual favors for illegal narcotics and preferential treatment from his fellow inmates. [2]
My only "agenda" is to share my knowledge of various subjects with my fellow Wikipedians. Is there some reason why you do not want the whole truth to be known about prominent Afro-Americans? Maybe you have anagenda of your own. Blockntackle 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed this and mentioned WP:CITE, though I should have mentioned WP:Verifiabilty too. The editor didn't attempt to replace it, I expect because his "reference" was his imagination.

Also, said editor has a rather bad habit of marking his entries as "minor edits". Camillus (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


That, sir is a lie. I have only marked my MINOR edits as such Blockntackle 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No, your edit history says that you marked your addition to the Malcolm X article as a minor edit. You have added contentious data to other articles relating to African-Americans and then followed immediately with a "minor edit" - only the "minor" edit shows up on the history.
My only "agenda" is as stated in WP:Verifiability. You have cited a book where the book title and even the author has not a single entry on various search engines, which is a legitimate reason to question it's verifiability.
Also, I asked you to leave the quote out until it can be discussed. You have added it back in anyway. Camillus (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Curiously, this allegation isn't in any bio of Garvey that I've read. Perhaps 'Blockntackle' would be kind enough to give us a full reference so that we can check with the sources that the author bases this claim on. It's an extraordinary claim, and not one I've seen any enemies of Garvey or Garveyism make before. I should add that I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination a Garveyite. fledgist 21:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm taking that paragraph out until it can be properly verified. fledgist 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect sir, if you don't mind my saying so, you are a Black, and a Jamaican, not unlike Garvey. I can't help but think you may be a bit too emotionally invested in this, and not viewing the subject of this article with an objective POV, despite your protestations. My source is from a legitimate biography, published by Lippincott, a well-known publishing firm. Blockntackle 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That's like saying that a white American is not capable of having a NPOV about George Washington. Camillus (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm biracial, as a matter of fact which puts me in a category that Garvey despised. You might want to explain how my ancestry and origins determine how I think about Garvey. You might also explain why I can't find the book you cite listed on Amazon, Alibris, Melvyl, Catnyp, or the Library of Congress. I also searched the catalogues of the Atlanta University Center, Auburn Avenue, and Schomburg libraries (all focused on black studies) to no avail. fledgist 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


I've also removed the reference to the book in the bibliography because I have seen no evidence that such a book actually exists. fledgist 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how much I could say, or how I could help: I just wanted stop by to say that any sourceable and verifiable info should be added regarding the first comment. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Final Note: Lippincott, in 1991 and now (2008), was/is a publisher of Medical textbooks and medical-field reference books, not biographies. So that claim of a book by a 'Harvey Hancock' (a snide deformation of 'Herbie Hancock') can not be true. In the 1950's, Lippincott started moving toward specializing in medical-field related books, and by the 1970's had completed that transformation. The information on this can be Googled, or Wikipediaed Lippincott Williams & Wilkins or 'Lippincotted' [[3]]. That is why nobody can find a reference to it anywhere. Special note to Blockntackle- next time you want to make up a fake book reference, at least name a book company that publishes the TYPE of lie you are trying to foist. --- Joe Hepperle

Untitled

Opening comments The article says "He was elected Emperor of Africa", but then mentions no more about it. More information about this election would no doubt be of interest. Infrogmation 19:08 5 Jul 2003

I have made a few modifications to elaborate upon the election, as well as, the convention where the election took place. Nazikiwe 16:37 6 Jul 2003

For NPOV purposes I'm taking out "travesty of justice" and other loaded phrases.

Very Good, but still too POV

This is mostly well done and fascinating, but things like "could not have possibly been guilty" need to be either qualified or documented. After all, the Rosenburgs, Sacco & Vanzetti, Bruno Hauptmann, and Alger Hiss all at least could have been guilty, their suppporters notwithstanding. On the whole, I'd like to see more about the history of Black Star Lines and related enterprises.

Marcus Garvey was an influential black leader of the early 1900's. He supported the 'Back to Africa' movement. Those who did return to Africa ended up founding the country of Liberia. I gather he also is important to Rastafarians for some reason.

Actually, Liberia was founded by former Black American slaves long before the advent of Garvey. The article is lacking the details of why the UNIA was unable to manifest a self-reliant settlement in Liberia. I am currently researching this topic and hope to contribute a useful article to this aspect of the Garvey movement. --Barutiwa 18:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem that the person who wrote the article is biased in favour of Mr. Garvey?

I've tried to discover how to challenge the neutrality of an article, but I can't find the process on how to do this. Can someone tell me the process of challenging an article's neutrality?

Early life?

Why are there no details of his early life?

I guess there aren't many. The reason is nobody has edited any into th article, El Rojo 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also a street after Marcus Garvey in New Haven, Enugu State in Nigeria.

I have added info about his early life leading to the founding of the UNIA...he also was married twice with two sons by his second wife...--Da Stressor 06:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Garvey and the KKK

As we're discussing allegations this is one I wondered about way back, but I don't know enough to say if it's accurate.

Among the most controversial dealings of Marcus Garvey was his summit conference with the Ku Klux Klan in 1922. "In June 1922, while on the extensive tour of the United States, Garvey stopped in Atlanta for a conference with Edward Young Clarke, Acting Imperial Wizard of the Klan. As a result of the discussions, Clarke expressed sympathy for the aims of the UNIA, while Garvey was reinforced in his suspicion that the Klan represented the invisible government of the United States." Consequently, black and white integrationists were protesting against the UNIA-KKK summit. However, Garvey concluded that "Between the Ku Klux Klan and the NAACP, give me the Klan for their honesty of pupose towards the Negro. They are better friends to my race, for telliing us who they are, and what they mean, thereby giving us a chance to stir for ourselves."[4] Their source being Race First: The Ideological and Organizational Struggles of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association by Tony Martin ISBN 0912469234[5].--T. Anthony 08:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that this is mentioned in Cronon's biography. fledgist 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Garvey was seen as a sell-out by a lot of people due to his business with the Klan, but this certainly did not effect the opinions of the Rastafarians.Mahmud II 00:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Solidarity with the Irish Republican Army

I find it interesting that Marcus Garvey identified with the liberation causes of non-African nations as well as his own. In particular the cause of Zionism (something most modern day Black Nationalists would and do not support) and Irish republicanism/nationalism. I have heard that the struggles of Irish nationalist rebels and agitators actually provided a lot of inspiration to him and that he actually wrote a letter of solidarity to the rebel state of the Irish Republic during the Irish War of Independence. I do not know enough about his personal history and philosophy to make an addition relating to his views of foreign affairs but I think it would be an interesting and relevant addition if anyone who is more of an expert could add it. 2 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FBI

"Sometime around November of 1919 an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under J. Edgar Hoover was begun into the activities of Garvey and the UNIA. " This is patently false. The FBI didn't even exist in 1919, and J. Edgar Hoover wasn't made director until some time in the early thirties, according to articles FBI and J. Edgar Hoover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pygmypony (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The FBI did exist, just under a different name. I did remove the mention of J. E Hoover however. mceder (u t c) 10:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ridgely memorandum of October 11, 1919 throughly documents the beginnings of Hoover's activities regarding Marcus Garvey. It is well documented that Hoover worked for the (then) Bureau of Investigation, specifically see National Archives Record Group 60 file 198940. --Da Stressor 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The references for this page are mostly pro-Garvey resources. They are as follows:

  • UNIA-ACL
  • UNIA-ACL
  • UNIA-ACL
  • UNIA-ACL
  • A broken link to an article
  • MarcusGarvey.com
  • MarcusGarvey.com
  • PBS (no objection here)
  • "Pardon Marcus Garvey", probably the title of an editorial, by Judith Stein, who wrote other sympathetic texts about Garvey
  • PBS again
  • UCLA's African Studies Institute
  • An educational website
  • PBS again


I have bolded sources that were, at the very least, believers in Garvey's honesty and character, although all of the sources, except the educational website, were sympathetic to Garvey.


The reason I bring all this up is because my 5th grade teacher taught us that Marcus Garvey took over a million dollars in donations from African Americans, many of them struggling with poverty as it was, to form a new state in Africa with no intention of actually creating that state. That is a pretty wildly different opinion than the ones in this article, and she must have gotten it from somewhere (she was African American herself). --24.131.82.38 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute tag should be removed until you can come up with some reliable sources in regards to this "anti-Garvey" view. Something your 5th grade teacher said does not count as a reliable source. I will not remove the tag myself since I do not like reverting such things until at least some discussion has taken place, but come on... We need sources for these things. If you feel that the text is POV then state where and why, and we can tag those sections and work on them. Cheers - mceder (u t c) 16:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to, but it's very hard to find criticism of Marcus Garvey on the Internet. I was hoping an expert on him would know what to look for. I just know that one random African American lady that taught elementary school thought that he was a liar and a crook; searching those things just turns up pages to the effect of "Some called him a liar. Some called him a crook. But he was a hero." I'm sure his detractors aren't as high-profile as detractors of, say, Malcolm X. --24.131.82.38 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll weigh in on this question--by no means being an "expert"--as I wrote my master's thesis as an historiographical essay on Garvey scholarship as of 2004. Various schools of thought on Garvey were evident in my studies, sliding back and forth from negative, to positive, to indifferent. My analysis noted the various "shades" of positive and negative. For instance, those who chose to see Garvey in a negative light varied from those who saw him as a huckster on this issue to those who saw him having a good heart and a great idea, but not being a skilled enough businessman to make good on his promises to the poor black investors. Your 5th grade teacher was perhaps taught about Garvey by someone who had been, or was connected to someone who was "victimized" by Garvey's "schemes." The Black Star Line (and other various Garvey-led black enterprises) no doubt collected huge sums of money from a variety of black people (rich and poor) during this period. The key interpretive question is then what his intentions were. Some would say Garvey was a huckster and cite that he sometimes dipped into the till to pay his own bills. A balanced view on this, however, would also note that Garvey frequently lived in poverty throughout his life, and spent a tremendous amount of time running a global pan-african organization and did deserve some compensation for his seemingly limitless efforts. Some historians (I don't have a citation off the top of my head) also noted how many investors in the Black Star Line harbored little faith that anything would come of their investment, rather seeing it as a point of pride for the downtrodden people. No doubt some did not share this vision, and felt ripped off as the business was run poorly (though not always due to Garvey's incompetence--many white firms made business hard on this black-run upstart). Garvey also probably gets lumped in with the stock scandals of the 20's and 30's, souring people's attitudes toward his business ethics. Personally, after reading around 50 books/articles/sources on Garvey, I would say that he did not intend to steal investor's money in the Black Star Line stock sales. Garvey was a man with a dream to redeem an entire people and he felt that the Black Star Line was a key piece of that puzzle. He took people's money and promised them an idea of equality and positive identity while also hoping for profits, and I would say he delivered on the changed identity. He was a visionary who tried to do too much.Bryandford (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture and quotes

I think we should remove the references in pop culture section. It's incredibly long, but no doubt not at all comprehensive. There's no need for an article on a famous person to list every time they've been mentioned in a song or movie, it's natural to expect that they would be repeatedly. I recommend paring that section down to the very lead paragraph, which basically says that he has been mentioned in pop culture, and perhaps also a list of names of people that have mentioned him in a particularly remarkable way (i.e. received press attention due to the fact of having mentioned him). See Malcom X#Popular culture for my idea of an appropriately-sized pop culture references section.

Also, I'd like to do away with the quotes section. This material isn't really appropriate for Wikipedia; it could be moved to Wikiquote, but none of the quotes are referenced, so we're basically taking the word of whoever added the quotes that he said that. If we don't remove it entirely, I'd recommend paring it down to two or three of his most famous quotes. WP:QUOTE is quite clear on both these points; quotations must be sourced, and you should not have long lists of quotes, which would be more appropriate for Wikiquote.

Anyone object to me hacking away at these sections? I'll go ahead in a few days if not. Thanks, delldot talk 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, would anyone mind if we tightened up the Marcus Garvey#Bibliography Books section? It's quite long, but again, probably not comprehensive. delldot talk 06:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I went ahead. I hope everyone's cool with the edit. If not, we can discuss it and change it. Thanks all! delldot talk 11:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for sneaky vandalism

In the past couple days, I've noticed a couple incidents of an IP changing a correct number to an incorrect one (june 10 -> June 11, changing the number of siblings). I suggest that if you see a number get changed, remark on it here. Or better yet, do a Google search and confirm or confute the change. Thanks, delldot talk 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that is exactly what happened to the "pop culture references" they were whittled down to just an acknowledgement and "then there were none." --Da Stressor 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

UNIA Membership

In one paragraph "By August 1920, the UNIA claimed four million members," but then a short time later "At its zenith, the UNIA claimed over a million members." The whole "Founding of the UNIA-ACL" section really needs some decent citations. 66.93.12.46 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They have to be typos considering that there weren't even four billion people in 1920. --JMV290 (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He was Jamaican, not American

Why is there a banner entitled "African American topics"? He was not American, he was Jamaican. Black people outside the United States don't normally call themselves Americans. Consider removing the banner or changing its title to represent a world view, not a USA-centric one.--Sonjaaa (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But he lived in the US and affected Aforican-Am,erican cultuire. leave it be. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

african americans

Hi, I know little-to-nothing about Marcus Garvey, but I don't understand why he is on the list of famous african americans. Did he change nationality from Jamaican to american? 12:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1) America refers to the continent, by definition people living in Mexico live in America, just not the United States;

2) IF the title of "African American" is assumed to mean "living in the US"- he was obviously in the US in a substantial way, if the US chose to go to great lengths to prosecute and imprison him (for what seems to be a questionable and trivial offense, and later turned out to be wrongful imprisonment.)

He lived in The Americas, travelled and encountered political and legal persecution in the US, and fought for the rights of African Americans. So, it is fair and correct to list him as African American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.255.111.152 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The article African American says "African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa." I'm not sure if Garvey qualifies, though he did reside in the US for a bit. Also, in other languages, "American" can refer to people from North or South America. In English, it specifically means someone from the US. This is true not only among Americans, but native English speakers from other countries as well. Anglo-Canadians don't call themselves "Americans," even though they live in North America. If a US citizen were to go to the UK and say "I'm an American," the Britons wouldn't ask him "are you from Peru?" And I've never met a Jamaican who called himself "American." I have heard them say Carribean or West Indian, however. As this is ENGLISH language Wikipedia, "American" can be applied in the English language contex. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey is a significant figure in Black American history because he was the first black man to lead a mass movement of black people in the USA. Yes, he was born in Jamaica; but that does not reduce his importance to contributing to the freedom of Black people in the United States and West Indies. Factually, Marcus Garvey was deported from the United States on the eve to becoming a U.S. citizen; sarcastically speaking, thanks to the efforts of the NAACP under W.E.B. Dubois! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barutiwa (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protect

Various IPs are repeatedly blanking entire sections of this article. 68.73.114.58 (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Medals & Awards

Does anyone know what are all those medals and accoutremount Garvey wears are?

Like in this photo...

http://www.thechessdrum.net/newsbriefs/2003/NB_photos/Marcus_Garvey.gif

What is that medal, who awarded him, and what is that other stuff he has hanging from his shoulder?


I would make an educated guess that the medals and stuff are probably awards from the UNIA that Garvey helped develop. Garvey was very big on that sort of stuff (for instance, many workers in the UNIA received extravagent titles, Garvey included). Making up such awards could be seen as perhaps self-serving, but also perhaps a tool of his design to draw black people to respect Garvey, and thus themselves (ie: seeing a black man worthy of such an award would inspire black onlookers in an age of black people lacking self-confidence). This is just a guess, but I have researched Garvey a lot (wrote my master's thesis on him).Bryandford (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, thats fine, but am still curious as to the actual names of the awards. Did he knight himself? What extravagant titles did he give himself, if any? What is the the name of the fourragere he's wearing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.29.178 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Phyllis or Phillis Wheatley?

In the section Charges of mail fraud there's a ship mentioned called Phyllis Wheatley. The writer is called Phillis Wheatley. Does anybody know if the proposed name really was Phyllis with a y?--ospalh (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

African Orthodox

The article says Garvey became a Catholic after converting from Anglicanism, and the infobox says he was "African Orthodox", and the article about "African Orthodox Church" is even more confusing. Can someone explain this - is it not customary to write a person's "latest" religious stance? Also sources will be appreciated. Please answer here and optionally correct/rewrite. --Paxcoder (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Almighty God a living man

"In the Bob Marley song “Get Up, Stand Up,” Marley proclaims “the mighty God is a living man,” an allusion to Garvey."

That seems like nonsense to me -- Garvey was dead when that song was written, not living, but meanwhile, actually living was Haile Selassie, who Rastafarians did regard as God incarnate. Why in the world should we interpret those lyrics as referring to Garvey rather than to Selassie? GeneCallahan (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead unclear

The import of the sentence Prior to the twentieth century, leaders such as Prince Hall, Martin Delany, Edward Wilmot Blyden, and Henry Highland Garnet advocated the involvement of the African diaspora in African affairs. in the lead is unclear. It could possibly be an attempt to inflate linkage, but taking a positive view it somehow relates to the next sentence: Garvey was unique in advancing a Pan-African philosophy to inspire a global mass movement focusing on Africa known as Garveyism. What is unclear is how Garveyism is different from the stances of the aforementioned leaders. It is also not usually appropriate to have such a list of tangentially related individuals in the lead. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) If such a list is appropriate, it should be in the body of the article, where subtle differences can be explained. --Bejnar (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken citation

Cites 18 and 19 link you to a website that appears to contain the trial transcript, but for whatever reason you can't navigate beyond the first few lines (the page selector always takes you to page 1). An archive of the site or another transcript entirely might be appropriate. InB4 (Talk to me!) 18:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Early Years?

Then WHY does the following quoted section get elevated from its chronologically correct position to THIS paragraph?

"At the National Conference of the Universal Negro Improvement Association in 1921, a Los Angeles delegate named Noah Thompson spoke on the floor complaining on the lack of transparency in the group's financial accounts. When accounts were prepared Thompson highlighted several sections with what he felt were irregularities.[citation needed]"

Only one explanation occurs to me, and I will welcome the viewpoint of others, but slant is obvious, and a citation is still needed. Marketex (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Garvey and Conversion

I put in that he converted to Catholicism, then someone else said Greek Orthodoxy. I kept it as I found sources that kind of agreed.[6] Although what that says, I guess, is that he became associated with a church that's now in communion with Greek Orthodoxy. However he did get married in the Catholic Church, other references also pointed that way, so now it's back to Catholicism. Which one is it? Or is it kind of both?--T. Anthony 01:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting link - thank you. It does not, as you suggest ("kind of") explicitly say he joined. Perhaps his funeral would tell us. By the way, the African Orthodox Church is not in communion with Greek Orthodoxy, or at least not from the Greek Orthodox perspective, or that of any of the 'canonical' Churches. It might be with the Old Catholic Church. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography section too long?

I must say I do appreciate the extensive bibliography; however, it seems a bit too much. Pretty much half of the article is bibliography. I rather see more article text and less (but the most important entries) of the biblio. Alister 04:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to discover how to challenge the neutrality of an article, but I can't find the process on how to do this. Can someone tell me the process of challenging an article's neutrality?

the bibliography is not "too long" -- the length is caused by the many reliable sources available on a "hot" topic. for students looking for projects, or for editors looking for new material to add to this article Other folks can ignore it. As for "neutrality" in Wiki "neutrality" means even-handed coverage of the reliable sources. It does NOT mean neutral toward Garvey himself. Rjensen (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marcus Garvey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marcus Garvey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

On the "Black Supremacy" libel

Gizmodo just tipped me off to the effort to make Black Nationalism synonymous with White Nationalism and White Nationalism synonymous with White Supremacy without having to debate the possibility of Black Supremacy. Ingenious, to say the least. Let's stop before we start. The Gizmodo article links this article as evidence for Garvey having been a "separatist." This article cited as source a page from biography.com (I replaced that with the text which previously referred to Garvey's occupations.) Biography has no source for that contention.

The Red, Black and Green is rapidly approaching the beginning of its second century while melanin which puts the "B" in RBG and the "Black" in Red, Black and Green is worth over $350 a gram more than gold. The feedback loop of citing a source [biography.com] which has no source from which to make its claim and then citing wikipedia [gizmodo] is a waste of good energy. Garvey never saw himself as a separatist or supremacist. Black Nationalism, in the words of Dr. E.U. Essien-Udom, is a search for identity. This weak kneed attempt to control the narrative surrounding Marcus Garvey has no future. Let the truth prevail. Marcus Garvey never called himself a separatist nor a supremacist. The very idea he is not capable of defining himself libelous, condescending and patronizing. There is more evidence Abraham Lincoln was a separatist and white supremacist than there is Marcus Garvey was a separatist and black supremacist. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does not claim Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist or separatist.

Stating Marcus Garvey was anything other than his actions demonstrate is an act of libel. Why is there a need to convey the impression a person who last closed his eyes 78 years ago is something other than who he said he was?

Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

See his quotes below. And yes, "Abraham Lincoln was a separatist and white supremacist" as per his public own words. Zezen (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I am missing such a section. See e.g. "What the Negro needs is a Hitler,” https://www.jstor.org/stable/23886316?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Or https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267638/these-racist-black-kkk-and-nazi-statues-must-fall-daniel-greenfield Zezen (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no such section because to my knowledge, no reliable sources have reported that Garvey was antisemitic or said antisemitic things. And because Frontpage isn't even reliable enough to wrap stinking fish. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Revisionist Pan-African nor Black Nationalist

Garvey never referred to himself as Pan-African nor Black Nationalist. His program IS a program of African Redemption. This effort to create a false equivalency between the ideas of Garvey and "White nationalism" lacks evidence.
It seems a man who last closed his eyes nearly eighty years ago still has some looking for him in the whirlwind and not liking what they see.
We have many quotes from Garvey telling us what he thought and what he represents. There is no need to distort the image of someone who gave the idea which Bob Marley immortalized through the words emancipate yourselves from mental slavery other than that his parents prophecy is feared to be at hand.
Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the reliable secondary sources and they do indeed link Garvey: (1) Tamba E. M'bayo, "W. E. B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, and Pan-Africanism in Liberia, 1919–1924" The Historian 66#1 (2004), pp. 19-44 online (2) Rogers, Ben F. "William E. B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, and Pan-Africa." Journal of Negro History 40.2 (1955): 154-165. (3) Fergus, Claudius. "From Prophecy to Policy: Marcus Garvey and the Evolution of Pan-African Citizenship." The Global South 4.2 (2010): 29-48. (4) Van Deburg, William L., ed. Modern Black Nationalism: From Marcus Garvey to Louis Farrakhan (NYU Press, 1997). (5) Lawler, Mary, and John Davenport. Marcus Garvey: black nationalist leader (Infobase 2009). (6) Haugen, Brenda. Marcus Garvey: Black Nationalist Crusader and Entrepreneur (Capstone, 2008). Rjensen (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Right. I know what secondary sources are and have known since high school. I also know secondary sources can be cherry picked to fit an agenda. The lead of this article was savaged to fit a view of Garvey. How does that get us from an article that had secondary sources backing up what was stated to the current article which has four opening paragraphs with NO secondary sources at all? Its difficult to "assume good faith" when so much of the article has been removed to fit a certain viewpoint. African Redemption is about freedom. Why is it important to distract from that simple concept with ideas which were not his?
Marcus Garvey denounced the Second Pan African Congress. Anybody associating him with "Pan Africanism" and not putting his statements in that context is not taking the historical record into consideration, regardless of what secondary sources may or may not say.
The Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers, Vol. IX
Below as the opening for the article until recently. I don't see why it had to be removed. Why no question about the article as it was written? A wholesale rewriting of the article and removal of well sourced content was unnecessary. Did it not cite sources? Why was all this content removed as if it did not introduce the reader to Marcus Garvey? Is the language Garvey used so repulsive that it must be sanitized from Wikipedia? Why is there a need to remove "African Redemption" from the article? There are secondary sources which use that language so there was no need to remove them.
Marcus Mosiah Garvey Jr. ONH (17 August 1887 – 10 June 1940)[1] was a Jamaican-born political leader, publisher, journalist, entrepreneur, and orator.[2] He was first President-General of the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League (UNIA-ACL).[2][3] He also was President and one of the directors of the Black Star Line, a shipping and passenger line incorporated in Delaware. The Black Star Line went bankrupt and Garvey was imprisoned after a trial that was "probably politically motivated" for mail fraud in the selling of its stock.[4] Even though Garvey's conviction was upheld on appeal, his sentence was commuted in 1927.[5] Advocates of African Redemption have openly sought to have him exonerated since 1987, continuing to the present day.[6][7]
Prior to the 20th century, leaders such as Prince Hall, Martin Delany, Edward Wilmot Blyden, and Henry Highland Garnet advocated the involvement of the African diaspora in African affairs. Garvey was unique in advancing a philosophy to inspire a global mass movement and economic empowerment focusing on Africa known as Garveyism.[3] Garveyism would eventually inspire others, ranging from the Nation of Islam to the Rastafari movement (which proclaim Garvey as a prophet) and the Black Power Movement of the 1960s.[8] Garveyism intended persons of African ancestry in the diaspora to "redeem" the continent of Africa and put an end to European colonialism. His essential ideas about Africa are stated in an editorial in the Negro World entitled "African Fundamentalism", where he wrote: "Our union must know no clime, boundary, or nationality ... to let us hold together under all climes and in every country ..."[9]
@Mhotep: Garvey was a pioneering figure and as a result a lot of the terminology that we now use to describe political ideologies like Pan-Africanism and black nationalism might have been unfamiliar to him as they only came into wider use at a later date. However, just because certain terms were not widespread at the time does not mean that he did not actually adhere to said ideologies. Garvey was a Pan-Africanist in that he believed in politically unifying Africa as a single state. Whether he called himself a "Pan-Africanist" specifically (or not) is beside the point. Garvey was a black nationalist in that his political stance revolved around unifying black people of African descent as a single nation. Again, whether he ever used the term "black nationalist" is immaterial. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl:I know who Garvey is. I also know there is a need to push African Redemption to the sidelines and point to things that were not the essence of his mission. You view him as a separatist. He never viewed himself that way. On the other hand Elijah Muhammad presented himself as exactly that from the moment he came on the public stage. Only after Muhammad's death was he referred to in terms he advocated for during his career. Prior to that Muhammad was described as a "Black Supremacist" from the first mention in Time Magazine. Garvey not using the term "black nationalist" is as material as Muhammad not using "Black supremacist." In fact it tends to create the impression Garvey stood for a mirror image of "white nationalism. I reiterate that Garvey was the source for Bob Marley encouraging the world to emancipate itself from mental slavery. The term black nationalist implies Garvey has associations that do not exist. People who are involved in "black nationalism" do not necessarily find interest in Africa. Terms like "black nationalist" serve to limit Garvey's scope to a frame of reference more narrow than is supported by the facts.
Everything in the article that you removed was valid information and well sourced. I could understand you adding on to what was there, but you removed well sourced information in favor of a biased view of Garvey. Do you not want people to know there are still people advocating for his exoneration?
What neither of you nor anyone else seem to know or take into consideration when claiming Garvey as a Pan Africanist is the name Eliezer Cadet. He was the hougan sent to the First Pan African Congress to represent the UNIA. Dubois began his nefarious actions towards Garvey at that event.
The previous lede could be seen as pushing a pro-Garvey POV in its use of wording: "Garvey was unique in advancing a philosophy to inspire a global mass movement" for instance. As well as this, it was messy and failed to really summarise the man's life and thought, instead cherry picking certain things, perhaps so as to glorify and celebrate him. The present lede does a better job of giving broader coverage and stylistically better mirrors the ledes of FA-rated articles like Nelson Mandela or Steve Biko. It's an improvement. As for Garvey's "black nationalism", secondary sources describing him as a black nationalist have been provided above; if there are other secondary sources that constitute WP:Reliable Sources that explicitly reject this categorisation, I'd be interested to see them. But it isn't up to us to create an article that depicts Garvey as he himself might have liked to be portrayed; we have to follow the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
What you state is your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. I happen to see things differently. I also have seen the article evolve over time.
" The Black Star Line went bankrupt and Garvey was imprisoned after a trial that was "probably politically motivated"
Is that "pro-Garvey to you?" You seem to be on a mission to make it anti-Garvey. Maybe if you had taken time to see how the article evolved you will see that the article lede was the result of several editors making contributions. Which is what I did when I saw all the changes. I looked to see what happened and then I posted this inquiry. Which was not necessary, by the way. Obviously you don't like Garvey. Not only did you do that you removed references. When did that start? I have never seen an article where sourced statements were just ripped out because someone did not like them. Some people do, believe it or not. Removal of everything instead of adding or editing what was there? That's very friendly to all those who had edited the article before you. What would you expect the response to be? The least you could do was bring the topic up for discussion here and then we consider modifications.
What your secondary sources describe does not make it necessarily so. Garvey was not a Black Nationalist. Black Nationalists may be Garveyites. All Garveyites are not Black Nationalists. Garveyism is a specific political philosophy with very specific aims and objectives. He influenced Black Nationalists, but they do not share all his ideas. Secondary sources are entitled to their beliefs and opinions but that does not make it so. Why is there a problem with using the words Garvey used for himself? From his ideas anyone reading the article can infer whatever they want. It seems clear you intend guiding the reader to a certain result that is definitely not true.
What you are doing is exactly why he wrote the Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey. Those "reliable sources" are creating a caricature of Garvey. Why?
The same issue with Black Separatist, and antisemitism. He never expressed such beliefs. Does his opinion of himself matter at all?
Ideologically a black nationalist and Pan-Africanist, his ideas came to be known as Garveyism.
That's completely backwards. Garveyism influenced black nationalists and Pan-Africanists. The link I shared yesterday to the Garvey Papers Project shows that completely. The 1920 UNIA Convention brought Garvey to world attention. Dubois wanted to align with Garvey but it did not work. The reason it did not work is so-called Pan-Africanism is opposed to the ideas of Garveyism. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk)
I'm not trying to push an anti-Garvey POV on this article, I'm trying to accurately summarise what the Reliable Sources say about him. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Then why take out statements which had reliable secondary sources and replace them with statements with NO sources in the lede? Why remove mention of African Redemption in the lede? Why mention Edward Young Clarke but no mention of Henrietta Vinton Davis, and Timothy Thomas Fortune? The only mention of Duse Mohammed Ali and John Edward Bruce makes it seem like they and Garvey ended on bad terms. No mention of Bruce being an editor of the Negro World or Garvey being at his funeral. Did you know the funeral for John Edward Bruce was an enormous UNIA affair? Why would something like that happen if they were not on favorable terms? Why are you doing this? Why? Can you defend what you are doing? As it stands now this article is little more than anti-Garvey propaganda and you know it. I don't really expect you to take any of what is presented here into consideration. That would be unbiased. This is just so those who might want to make decisions based on what this article contains can have the opportunity to see what it does not contain if they really conduct their due diligence. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk)
Thanks for that, User talk:Midnightblueowl. Your points are well made. As for not taking into consideration Eliezer Cadet, well, I did start that page and he is categorised as a North American pan-Africanists. Leutha (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Apparently you don't care for my points. Which are that Garvey speaks for himself well enough that no one need rename him a Pan-Africanist. Simply put there is no PAN in African Fundamenalism Eliezer Cadet did not refer to himself as a pan-Africanist either. Why is this such an important need to impose thoughts on people that they did not have?Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk)
Please consult Explanation of the Objects of the Universal Negro Improvement Association. If you wish to focus on what Garvey himself had to say, might I suggest you work on his material on Wikisource. As regards this page, well, I think he makes clear in the passage cited that he wishes for "Negroes" to unify themselves in the same way as European peoples had unified themselves in nations. Leutha (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Leutha: Why shouldn't we focus on what Garvey had to say? Without what Garvey said, this article does not even exist. If we do not focus on what Garvey actually said, secondary sources can say whatever they want without relying on primary sources (which is apparently what they are doing.) For your information the Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World makes two complaints and a clear declaration AGAINST separation. There were 20,000 people in attendance that day in Madison Square Garden on August 13, 1920 when the Declaration of Rights was first presented. Garvey was one of 140 signatories. The Declaration of Rights came into existence after 12 days and nights of deliberation in meetings held three and four times a day. Whatever Garvey did was the will of the people, not an individual.Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk)
Complaint VI. “On the public conveyances and common carriers in the Southern portion of the United States we are jim-crowed and compelled to accept separate and inferior accommodations and made to pay the same fare charged for first-class accommodations, and our families are often humiliated and insulted by drunken white men who habitually pass through the jim-crow cars going to the smoking car.”
Complaint VIII. “Our children are forced to attend inferior separate schools for shorter terms than white children, and the public school funds are unequally divided between the white and colored schools.”
Declaration 20. “We protest against segregated districts, separate public conveyances, industrial discrimination, lynchings and limitations of political privileges of any Negro citizen in any part of the world on account of race, color or creed, and will exert our full influence and power against all such.” Who has ever been opposed to the thing someone else claimed they were for? Claiming Marcus Garvey was a separatist is schizophrenic. Please note: I fully comprehend the agenda here. Just putting up information to refute the argument Garvey was anything other than an advocate for African Redemption. The clearest emphasis of that comes in the form of Bob Marley who alludes to African Redemption in the title of the song where he paraphrases Garvey. The title Redemption Songs itself informs us African Redemption is at hand. The paraphrased quote comes from Garvey's October 31, 1937 speech made in the presence of the Mayor of Sydney, Nova Scotia (why would a separatist do that?) "The Work That Has Been Done." To wit: We are going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery because whilst others might free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind. Its easier to call Garvey a Pan-Africanist or separatist or Black nationalist than to refute his actual words...especially when people all around the world are singing them.:D Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk)
@Leutha: ...and to you "unify" means separate. If this article were from a neutral point of view then there should be information from opposing viewpoints. Separation was a legal tactic employed by the United States government. The court case that started all of what Garvey simply conformed to is Wall v. Oyster. That is where the courts of the United States of America began to define "colored persons" as having "no physical characteristics of a negro" but "one sixteenth negro blood in its veins." Did you notice it said "its" instead of "their." An object as opposed to a human? Garvey was clearly in opposition to U.S. jurisprudence. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk)
@Leutha:Who are you claiming Garvey separated from or wanted to be separate? James Wormley Jones probably had that one sixteenth negro blood in his veins. Yet he became the head of the Universal African Legion...all while being in the employ of the Bureau of Investigation as the infamous agent 800. An uproar occurred in a UNIA meeting because people thought he was "white." How is that possible for a "separatist?" Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk)
That's not Garvey's rhetoric...that's AMERICA'S rhetoric. I refer you to Marginalizing the Self: A Study of Citizenship, Color, and Ethnoracial Identity in American Society From 1870 to 1952 for more details: "naturalization legislation in the United States of America restricted citizenship to “free white persons” and “persons of African nativity” or “African descent.” Individuals categorized as “members of the Mongolian race” or as of neither “free white” nor “African descent or nativity” were excluded from membership in the American political community and designated “aliens ineligible for citizenship in the United States.” Examination of the appellate and Supreme Court adjudications of these matters reveals a juridical rhetoric that functioned to marginalize all those declared ineligible for civic status. Although the reasoning process employed by the courts was not dissimilar from that arising whenever individual disparate aggregates must be classified according to a limited set of categories, in the situations under study, it produced and legitimated an invidious hierarchy of peoples, a race-prejudicial sense of vertical group position, and a fundamental departure from the universalistic and individualistic claims that defended America as a thoroughgoing civil society."Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk)

DNA ancestry test

On January 13, 2011, a report was published detailing that DNA analysis of Marcus Garveys ancestry in The Grio I'd like to request the addition of his ancestry to the 'Early life and education' section as well as the relevant categories i.e. People of Sierra Leonean descent and Mende people. Serenesage (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's worth including mention of this, however, from what I can see the article doesn't claim that Garvey was of Sierra Leonean and Mende descent - rather, it claims this of Coretta Scott King. It specifies instead that Garvey had Spanish and Portuguese ancestry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Childhood

The paragraph says Garvey's father "served as an occasional layman" at a Wesleyan Church. This suggests he was an ordinary person who went to church occasionally-perhaps Christmas, Easter and Whitsun. Was he actually an occasional lay preacher or lay reader? This would mean a person who probably went to church regularly and occasionally preached the sermon, or took the service without being an ordained minister. I don't have the sources to decide but I think it probably means the latter. Can anyone assist? Spinney Hill (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey page:

I actually have very little here to say except this. The photo one sees of Marcus Garvey time and time again is that of GArvey in his Parade costume, looking like a Napoleonic era officer. Garvey was a scholar among many other things and it would be appropriate I think to use a photo of Garvey that did not lend to a false narrative of GArvey as some sort of overblown and pompous figure. There are other photos of Garvey the scholar or author. I think an article like this one would benefit from the use of photos representing Garvey as a real human, and not dressed like a parade marshall.

How about the one used lower down taken in 1924 showing him sitting at a desk. I'd change it myself but I lack the skill to change info boxes.Spinney Hill (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the two round ,which seems more appropriate to me. Nobody has commented on my post of 23rd April above so I assume nobody objects.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey

We're should I go to learn even more about this kind of stuff???I'm a black 18 year old just trying to build my vocabulary.😂 Jobazaki (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow the links.Leutha (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Read something about or something from Professor Tony Martin on Garvey. Professor Martin's scientific works are very helpful to understand the movement Garvey still represents in a certain way... 178.10.66.170 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

First burial place

Although this might have been how it was phrased in the cited reference book, it reads confusingly that he was buried 'in the catacombs of St Mary's Roman Catholic Church in Kensal Green Cemetery'. I have amended it by rephrasing to read 'in the catacombs of the chapel of St Mary's Roman Catholic Cemetery [which has its own wikipedia article] in Kensal Green.' The neighbouring, better known mainstream Kensal Green Cemetery, which was laid out without provision for Catholic burials, should not be confused with it, its formal title being All Soul's Cemetery.Cloptonson (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Grant attribution:

370 of the citations are Grant. The name Grant appears more times in this article than the name Marcus, and the only name that appears as frequently is Garvey. Who is Grant? Why has Grant taken over this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.134.216.41 (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC) This entire article reads as a promotion & transcription of one book by an author not even explicitly named in the article (referred to as "Grant" only); essentially a list of critical commentary from this one point of view. I think about 95% of the Grant quotes can be removed without any real harm to objectivity or information. The footnotes visualize this spectacularly. 107.134.216.41 (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank God for Black separatism

Despite his decline due to some of his extreme views on race. He was correct about W.E.B. Dubois. Blacks, whites,Latinos,etc get along much better apart. It's what God commanded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:1300:5AE0:2D2F:FAB2:6345:2AAE (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place for such speculation.Leutha (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
At least, Garvey clearly stated: "Race matters!" - so why talk about "specualtion"? 178.10.66.170 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"Race first! Race matters!"

Why doesn't the article contain some critical or at least contemplative words about Garvin's strong affection with racism? There should be some discussion on this issue in the article. Please compare what Prof. Tony Martin stated in his literary works of Marcus Garvey. Professor Martin produced one of his most important titles in 1976, which is: "Race First - The Ideological and Organizational Struggles of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association". The disciples of Garvey still put up slogans like "Up Ye Mighty Race!" as documented here http://www.trinicenter.com/tnt/2013/1701.html Okay, that might sound provokative, but this is not to insult anyone, but to propose a more profound analysis and deeper understanding of Garvey's movement which in the very core of its effort is in fact a desperate struggle for embracing heritage, identity and roots. 178.10.66.170 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Recommend Malcolm X addition

While many the two have many differences, Malcolm X was influenced by Garvey, in particular because his father was a follower of his. He and the UNIA are mentioned in the Malcolm autobiography and he also supported a back to Africa philosophy reminiscent of Garvey’s. I thought I’d float the idea here before putting a brief reference, or if someone else had an interest, perhaps someone more adept at Wiki edit might try. Sych (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marcus_Garvey/Archive_1&oldid=1136989268"