Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 10

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malcolm X. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150623072529/http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/02/cnn_special_hopes_to_answer_what_really_happened_the_night_malcolm_x_was.html to http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/02/cnn_special_hopes_to_answer_what_really_happened_the_night_malcolm_x_was.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to congratulate for becoming the first and only editor to actually respond to one of these notices. The limousine will pick you up at seven, the reception is at eight, and the fireworks being at 10. White tie and tails.  E  Eng  21:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Wording change
"While in prison, he became a member of the Nation of Islam (NOI), changing his birth name Malcolm Little to MalcolmX because, he later wrote, Little was the name that 'the white slavemaster... had imposed upon my paternal forebears.'"

The use of first person in the quote is incorrect, since the preceeding statement doesn't make the change in person clear. It would be correct if "he later wrote" was followed immediately by the quote. A sentence in the Assassination section is a good example of that:

"On February21, 1965, he was preparing to address the Organization of Afro-American Unity in Manhattan's Audubon Ballroom when someone in the 400-person audience yelled, 'Nigger! Get your hand outta my pocket!'"

As I brought it up in the edit summary, the Independent views section features a sentence with a similar buildup to the first, and here, the wording in the quote was changed from first person to third thusly:

"In a famous letter from Mecca, he wrote that his experiences with white people during his pilgrimage convinced him to 'rearrange' his thinking about race and 'toss aside some of [his] previous conclusions'."

--maczkopeti (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no preference between leaving the quote as it is and changing "my" to "[his]". Having said that, I would like to point out that one usage is not more correct than the other, or more confusing. Just as you cite an example from the "Independent views" section of the article in which we removed the first person from a quote ("what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to re-arrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions") to a paraphrase with a third person substitution ("his experiences with white people during his pilgrimage convinced him to 'rearrange' his thinking about race and 'toss aside some of [his] previous conclusions'."), I can cite a counter-example from the "Prison" section: "When Little was in prison, he met fellow convict John Bembry, a self-educated man he would later describe as 'the first man I had ever seen command total respect ... with words'."
 * As I wrote, neither approach is more correct or easier to understand. In context, I think a first-person quote ("the first man I had ever seen") is much more effective than either a paraphrase or the substitution of the third person ("a self-educated man he would later describe as 'the first man [he] had ever seen command total respect ... with words'"). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The OP is under the spell of WP:MISSSNODGRASS, mistaking a stylistic question for one of correctness. All passages quoted in this thread are correct but some are more effective than others, and those are the ones used in the article.  E Eng  03:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To me it seems much better to leave quotations in the original wording when possible. Every [word] in brackets interrupts the flow of the text and may cause the reader to wonder what's the original and whether it's being taken out of context. Do the pronouns in the example given cause ambiguity or difficulty for the reader? And if they do is it possible to rearrange the sentence to preserve as much of the quotation as possible? groupuscule (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Current paragraph on Clay/Ali needs trimming
A new editor,, has expanded the paragraph on Clay/Ali, which merited expanding, but it's too long now and needs trimming. I'm posting it below as it currently stands. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * He inspired the boxer Cassius Clay (later known as Muhammad Ali) to join the Nation, after meeting in 1962 they soon formed a relationship which Clay's cornerman Ferdie Pacheco later described as "like very close brothers". Malcolm was present for boxing's World Heavyweight title fight when Cassius Clay defeated Sonny Liston on February 25, 1964. On March 5, 1964 Malcolm arranged for Clay (then Cassius X) to meet with diplomats from Africa and Asia at the United Nations. Sports writer Murray Robinson noted in the New York Journal American that Malcolm intended to “make the heavyweight champion an international political figure.” Malcolm and Ali made plans to tour Africa together. Days later on March 8, Elijah Muhammad gave Cassius the name Muhammad Ali and forbade all members to communicate with Malcolm after he was ostracized from the Nation of Islam. Yet, he wasn’t ready to completely sever his relationship with Malcolm. About two weeks later, after promising Elijah Muhammad that he would no longer associate with Malcolm, he had a private meeting with him at the Hotel Theresa. When Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam and converted to Sunni Islam, he tried to convince Ali to join him, but he declined. Ali said, “Malcolm now questioned the path the Nation of Islam was taking in the United States, and the leadership of Elijah Muhammad. True Islam didn’t teach many of the things Elijah had been teaching. Malcolm was going to separate from Elijah Muhammad and wanted me to come with him. He said it was important that I take his side so that I could become a messenger myself and tell other young Black people in America what's going on. Malcolm and I were so close and had been through so much, but there were many things for me to consider. Elijah Muhammad had given me my name, Muhammad Ali. I felt he had set me free. I was proud of my name and dedicated to the Nation of Islam as Elijah Muhammad presented it. At that point in my journey I just wasn't ready to question his teachings.” After Elijah Muhammad died in 1975, Ali left the Nation of Islam and became a Sunni Muslim. In his 2004 autobiography The Soul of a Butterfly, Ali said, “Turning my back on Malcolm was one of the mistakes that I regret most in my life. I wish I’d been able to tell Malcolm I was sorry, that he was right about so many things. But he was killed before I got the chance… Malcolm was the first to discover the truth, that color doesn’t make you a devil. It is the heart, soul, and mind that define a person. Malcolm was a great thinker and an even greater friend. I might never have become a Muslim if it hadn’t been for Malcolm. If I could go back and do it over again, I would never have turned my back on him.”


 * , this massive paragraph needs to be trimmed, as it is excessive as it now stands. Please use your sandbox to trim it by at least 30%, and then post your suggested replacement below. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It needs far more than 30% cut. Honestly, I don't see what in it is useful beyond the statement that MX wanted to use MA as a political figure, and maybe (elsewhere in the article) maybe "Malcolm was a great thinker and an even greater friend." The rest is really about MA, not MX.  E Eng  09:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you want to write about the effect of their relationship on Malcolm X, you could right about the fact that Ali paid for him and his family to come to Miami for the Liston fight, the only vacation that Malcolm X had ever taken. If you want to quote Ali wallowing in self-regret for the rest of his life, that was the right paragraph. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 09:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: The "Undefeated" article (mis)cited repeatedly above is an excerpt from Randy Roberts' and Johnny Smith's 2016 book, Blood Brothers: The Fatal Friendship Between Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X (full bibliographic information under "Further reading). If we keep any portion of the paragraph above, I'll provide appropriate cites to the book instead of the excerpt if nobody else has access to it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 09:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I don't know how to communicate with other editors yet. I trimmed the paragraph and posted the following below:

He inspired the boxer Cassius Clay (later known as Muhammad Ali) to join the Nation, and they soon formed a relationship which Clay's cornerman Ferdie Pacheco later described as "like very close brothers". Clay paid for him and his family to come to Miami for the Liston fight. Malcolm intended to make him an international political figure. When Malcolm left the Nation of Islam and converted to Sunni Islam, he tried to convince Clay to join him, but he declined saying wasn't ready to question the teachings of Elijah Muhammad. After Elijah Muhammad died in 1975, Ali left the group and became a Sunni Muslim. He wrote in his 2004 autobiography The Soul of a Butterfly, "Turning my back on Malcolm was one of the mistakes that I regret most in my life. I wish I’d been able to tell Malcolm I was sorry, that he was right about so many things. But he was killed before I got the chance… Malcolm was the first to discover the truth, that color doesn’t make you a devil. It is the heart, soul, and mind that define a person. Malcolm was a great thinker and an even greater friend. I might never have become a Muslim if it hadn’t been for Malcolm."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twixister (talk • contribs) 10:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , don't substantially alter your posts long after after people have read and responded to them, as you did here (and here). Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Random comment
The autobiography of Malcolm X is my all time favourite book. It is very hard to read about his "life " when I know that there is a great amount missing. Majeste99 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Muhammad Ali
Obviously a lot can be said about the relationship between Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali. They knew one another for only about two years, but they were very eventful years for both men. Last year, Randy Roberts and Johnny Smith wrote a 300-page book about their relationship, Blood Brothers: The Fatal Friendship Between Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X.

But as editors of an encyclopedia article, we have to be selective in what we include (and where we include it). How much material about their relationship is appropriate? We need to keep in mind due and undue weight: was Malcolm X's relationship with Muhammad Ali more important than his relationships with Wallace Muhammad, Elijah's son, or with Louis X, later known as Louis Farrakhan? His relationships with each of those men lasted a decade or longer. Should we give more weight to Ali because he's better known than Wallace Muhammad and more popular with white Americans than Louis Farrakhan?

I think placement is important too. In a narrative account of Malcolm X's life, a short section about his effect on the membership in the Nation of Islam would grow unwieldy if we were to pump it up because we build up the material we have about his relationships with Ali, Farrakhan, and Wallace Muhammad. Maybe we should consider a longer section toward the end of the article, the way we have a section about Malcolm X's philosophy, about Malcolm X's relationships with these three men, and just a brief mention in the earlier narrative.

What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In the Effect on Nation membership, it's important to add Malcolm's Effect on Ali, and that he said he may not have become a Muslim if it wasn't for Malcolm. Also, the Liston fight which Ali invited Malcolm to is a big event and is info most people probably don't know. What do you think about these 2 points?


 * As a sixth wedding anniversary gift, Clay invited him and his family to Miami as he trained for the Liston fight.


 * He added, "Malcolm was the first to discover the truth, that color doesn’t make you a devil. It is the heart, soul, and mind that define a person. Malcolm was a great thinker and an even greater friend. I might never have become a Muslim if it hadn’t been for Malcolm."

Twixister (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the point about bringing Malcolm X's family to Miami is important; I raised it myself 19 hours ago in the preceding section. I don't know if the second point is so important. Was Malcolm X really the first person to "discover" that the color of a person's skin doesn't make her or him a devil? He may have been the first in Ali's circle to realize it, but that's a different story. And in either case, why do they belong in the section about Malcolm X's effect on NOI membership? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it belongs in that section because it is a part of the original quote of it being Ali's regret. The point of the quote is Ali may not have became a Muslim if it wasn't for Malcolm which ties back into Malcolm's effect. Of course Malcolm was not the 'first person" to "discover," this is the perspective of Ali and his assessment of Malcolm hence why it's a quote. Another suggestion is to move the entire quote into the reactions section. “Turning my back on Malcolm was one of the mistakes that I regret most in my life. I wish I’d been able to tell Malcolm I was sorry, that he was right about so many things. But he was killed before I got the chance… Malcolm was the first to discover the truth, that color doesn’t make you a devil. It is the heart, soul, and mind that define a person. Malcolm was a great thinker and an even greater friend. I might never have become a Muslim if it hadn’t been for Malcolm. If I could go back and do it over again, I would never have turned my back on him.”Twixister (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If the section is called "Effect on Nation membership", I don't think there is a great necessity to include the material about "Malcolm was the first to discover the truth, that color doesn’t make you a devil. It is the heart, soul, and mind that define a person. Malcolm was a great thinker and an even greater friend." If we are trying to be concise and focused, that seems tangential to the subject of the section. It's a question of how thorough and in-depth about individual personal relationships we want to be, and where, versus sticking to his recruitment of members in the section called "Effect on Nation membership". I think a section on relationships or accolades at the end of the article might be a good idea if it's not deemed too unwieldy. Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed and compressed, but actually I think everything other than the bare fact that MX recruited MA belongs somewhere else, as Softy says in keeping with what MS says . I just don't know where that would be, so I left it. As mentioned in my edit summary, I've removed the bit about "intended to make him an international political figure", because that's apparently just the opinion of a sportswriter. Can we see the source's text on this? If this is really true, then it should be possible to trace it to a scholarly source.  E Eng  05:05, 12 November 2017


 * I never said or implied everything other than the bare fact that MX recruited MA belongs somewhere else, I said "I don't think there is a great necessity to include the material about 'Malcolm was the first to discover the truth, that color doesn’t make you a devil. It is the heart, soul, and mind that define a person. Malcolm was a great thinker and an even greater friend'" in that section. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The source is from the book Blood Brothers. The book details their relationship and mentions how Malcolm had arranged for Ali to meet with foreign diplomats at the United Nations. There is also footage on Youtube of them being interviewed at the United Nations to support this assessment.Twixister (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to quote the source. I'm a little concerned that it's only Sportswriter X's surmise that MX intended to make MA an international political figure (whatever that means, exactly).  E Eng  10:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like my previous response was deleted. E  Eng  has revised the section again and removed the quote. As I suggested we can just post the entire quote into the Reactions section. How about the following in the Reactions section? Muhammad Ali reflected, “Turning my back on Malcolm was one of the mistakes that I regret most in my life. I wish I’d been able to tell Malcolm I was sorry, that he was right about so many things.  But he was killed before I got the chance… Malcolm was the first to discover the truth, that color doesn’t make you a devil. It is the heart, soul, and mind that define a person. Malcolm was a great thinker and an even greater friend. I might never have become a Muslim if it hadn’t been for Malcolm. If I could go back and do it over again, I would never have turned my back on him.”  Twixister (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's too long, prosaic, and repetitive, as is. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not meant to sound poetic, it's a reflective quote. How would you edit the quote without losing the meaning? Is the following trim more acceptable? "Turning my back on Malcolm was one of the mistakes that I regret most in my life. I wish I’d been able to tell Malcolm I was sorry, that he was right about so many things. Malcolm was a great thinker and an even greater friend. I might never have become a Muslim if it hadn’t been for Malcolm."Twixister (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Prosaic means ordinary, everyday, commonplace, routine, run-of-the-mill. If the bulk of it is him saying 'I miss Malcolm and I'm sorry he's dead', that has little more meaning than any other comment from any other person who misses someone who died or who regrets not making peace with someone who died, although it does point up their closeness. I'm not sure what to do with the quote; if a section is made for those things or for remembrances it might fit well. I suggest waiting for Malik to opine. I think that more info on their relationship would definitely benefit the article, but I'm not sure precisely how or where. A Featured Article is supposed to be comprehensive and should neglect no major facts or details nor leave the reader wanting, and there's not much at all in the article on this significant relationship. At present there seems to be little or no compromise between what you have researched and the details you added, and the way the article was before you started editing it. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's what Blood Brothers says:
 * The next afternoon, March 5, around one p.m., Cassius, Rudy [Clay, Cassius's brother], Archie [Robinson, Clay's business manager], and Malcolm arrived at the United Nations, where they met with delegates from Africa and Asia. As the group entered the delegates' lounge, African dignitaries greeted Cassius and Malcolm with invitations to visit their countries. "We're proud of you. Come whenever you can," a Liberian ambassador said. "Thank you, sir," Cassius replied. "I have longed to go back home to Liberia." Cassius floated in a room of important men, all paying homage to him. Esteemed political figures from around the world knew his name; they knew that he was champion—the first Muslim champion of the world—and they treated him with respect. He recognized that he was becoming a global figure, "champion of the whole world," he emphasized. "The people are really shook up and they look at me as if I was a messenger or prophet or something." [footnote: New York Times, March 5, 1964; "Prizefighting Cassius Clay", Time, March 13, 1964, p. 78; "Cassius X", Newsweek, March 16, 1964, p. 74.]
 * During their conversations with African leaders, Clay deferred to Malcolm. He was uncomfortable speaking, and uneducated, about the issues concerning African nations. Watching Malcolm interact with ambassadors, Cassius recognized that Malcolm's relationships with African leaders could help elevate his own standing in the world. It was "obvious," journalist Murray Robinson concluded, that Malcolm had "set out to make the heavyweight champion an international political figure." [footnote: New York Journal-American, March 6, 1964.]

So the bit about Malcolm making Clay into an international political figure was from a sports writer's column that ran the following day. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I don't think it belongs in the article. This book is specifically about the two men's relationship, and its authors do not themselves seem to endorse the conclusion "that MX had set out to make..." etc. – they simply pass it on.  E Eng  05:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence of article
The op-ed in this week's Wikipedia Signpost and some of the talk page discussion made me wonder whether the first sentence of this article would benefit from moving some or all of the material set off in commas or parentheses in the first sentence to explanatory footnotes instead (those are content notes, typically indicated with letters, as opposed to source footnotes, which are commonly marked with numbers).

What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it is kind of sprawling as it is now, but I thought it was just conforming to protocol. If the protocol or form of the first sentence for biographies has changed recently then by all means we should comply. Glennconti (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that the protocol or standard concerning the opening sentence has changed, Glennconti, although there's currently an RfC that may lead to a change in the guideline. I think some editors, including me, were reminded that we have to remember to put readers first and try to see what our articles look like from their perspectives. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These recent discussions have made me realize how inappropriate these bloated parentheticals are. Just three words into the article we throw at the reader a bunch of gobbledygook he almost certainly doesn't care about. I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of readers quit right there.
 * The parenthetical should set context. That starts with birthyear-deathyear (leaving, I think, precise birth and death dates to the infobox). For most subjects that's all that's needed. In the present case, I'd certainly add the birth name, and possibly the later Malik el-Shabazz. But the pronounciations? Forget it. As someone pointed out, almost no one understands IPA anyway.  E Eng  18:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Above, I've included the current text of the opening section and a draft of a suggestion for its replacement. Except for the month and day of birth and death (which are in both the infobox and the article text) and the IPA for "Malcolm X", I don't believe anything has been lost. Thoughts? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * IMHO, perfect.  E Eng  03:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like the proposed draft too. Glennconti (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

✅  E Eng  22:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Phew. That looks much better. Complete dates of births and death in the opening sentence are an impediment to reading. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion on birth and death dates in opening parenthetical
For some inexplicable reason the exact dates for his birth and death have been removed from the lead, citing WP:BIRTHDATE. Granted the manual of style does allow for the day and month to be omitted if these are mentioned in the main body, however this is a very exceptional practice (compare with the articles on Martin Luther King Jr. and Betty Shabazz, for example). You will be hard pressed to find many GA or FAs which purposely omit these dates from the first sentence without a good reason. Here there is no good reason for doing so; his date of birth and date of death are not disputed and there is no clarification needed that could cause distraction. In fact, I think most readers will find their omission is very conspicuous. The fact that lengthy and aggressive notes have had to be inserted in invisible text suggests that I'm not alone in being very confused by the omission. Clearly other editors have tried to amend the issue, and it's not going to go away. I hope other editors agree so the issue can be corrected. That is unless there is a good reason I don't know about? --Hazhk (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason for omitting the extraneous information that is stated elsewhere in the article is that it causes information overload. A sprawling first sentence causes the casual reader to become disinterested. There is no need to have English pronunciation and Arabic pronunciation and exact days of death. Why not add Wednesday and the time of death too? It is absurd. While Wikipedia editors are used to see thing a certain way, younger readers are not and we should cater to the reader not the editor. Also, this article has a history of doing thing just a bit differently than every other article. Notice the last sentence of the lead. It is a single sentence paragraph. This was done on purpose I feel for dramatic effect. Please try and get on board and not make this a cookie cutter article. What would you have happen 300 more characters in the first sentence just so it follows the form of other articles. or pad out he last sentence of the lead with a few more hundred characters just because one sentence paragraphs are unusual. My vote is no. Glennconti (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, an additional two words and four numbers will not make the sentence "sprawling". I'm not proposing that we clutter the lead with pronunciation guides or symbols, so let's not conflate the issues. There is a very good reason why the vast majority of articles (including most Featured biographies) specify birth and death dates: it provides useful information, and yet you want to withhold that information. Taking your weak reasoning to its extreme, we might as well not specify *any* year ranges in the lead! You are making many (patronising) assumptions about casual and younger readers but you're not considering that a casual reader may arrive at the article wanting to check when this notable figure was born and when they died. There's no better place for that information than the very top of the article; both the lead and the article should summarise the main body. As I said, I find the dates' omission actually very conspicuous and distracting. I'm baffled by this weird preoccupation from a tiny number of editors. You're going to be stuck continually reverting well-meaning corrections from editors until the article is locked. --Hazhk (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If my reasoning was weak why did you use it on me? It is absurd to have too much information and it is absurd to have not enough. I feel having the years but not the dates is a good compromise. Many grade school students come to this article for help on research and to learn about the subject. I am not being patronizing, I am being realistic. The article should be able to satisfy an educationally diverse group of readers. A simple first sentence to invite the reader to further explore is small price to pay. Glennconti (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Also by characterizing my argument as "weak" (reductio ad absurdum is not weak) you are making an ad hominem attack... Poor form! Glennconti (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I wasn't using the reasoning against you, I was simply ridiculing your argument by taking it to its logical extreme. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding! As for the premise that a certain reader will be impulsively repelled/surprised or become immediately "disinterested" by the presence of dates at the beginning of a biography, I would suggest that the level of detail and use of grammar in this article might beyond your reader's comprehension. If you're also suggesting that the reason for omitting dates is to tease the information, note that the primary purpose of the lead is not to entice a person to read further but to clearly summarise the article as a whole. As an additional point, I can't see any clear consensus for this decision. I can see it was proposed within a draft of the lead a month ago but then it was accepted with little discussion. And that is why it needs to be discussed here. Odd editorial preferences should have some good reason behind them. --Hazhk (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have stated the reasons way we should omit the extraneous information. As far as I can tell all you have done is call names: "weird" and "odd" and "weak". As far as having to keep reverting editors that don't understand that is why we have the comments embedded in the edit screen. But, by all means lets let other chime in on this subject. Glennconti (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not calling names, and I'm not arguing against you personally! I apologise for the use of "weird", but it wasn't aimed at you directly.--Hazhk (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, Hazhk, you're arguing that we should restore the dates of birth and death in the first sentence because other articles include that information. Is that the gist of your argument, or am I missing something? You wrote that the information was removed "[f]or some inexplicable reason"; I recommend you read the discussion above, including both the Signpost op-ed and RfC to which it refers. Both provide ample reason. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the opening sentence is to set context, and when the person lived is perhaps the most important single datum contributing to that. However, that function is fully served by the birth and death years alone – the specific months-days add zero to that. Every word added at any given point of the article dilutes the finite amount of reader attention and interest available for everything else, and in the opening it's particularly important not to squander those resources. It seems that the habit of stuffing a lot of miscellany in the opening parenthetical is just something which, like Topsy, just growed, without anyone thinking about it much. Now we're thinking about it, and it's not just us – it's project-wide whether you've noticed or not. I've made the same change to several other articles I take a special interest in, with little or no pushback.
 * As far as consistency among articles goes, there is no progress without deviation from the norm.  E Eng  16:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Malik Shabazz, that is certainly not the gist of my argument. I have elaborated and argued that the full dates have been removed without good reason. The reason I have given in support of providing readers with the full dates of birth and death is that they provide crucial information that many readers will want to obtain quickly. The full dates are short and unobtrusive and so I do not think they will "clutter" or unreasonably lengthen the lead. It is true that I have invoked other articles, but only to illustrate the point that this is useful information which as included in other articles as a no-brainer; the absence of dates will surely be puzzling for a "casual readers". I'm certainly not arguing that this article should consciously model itself off other articles. We should seek to summarise the article as a whole, and providing the key dates in Malcolm X's life is crucial. If one takes a reductive approach (as other editors seem to be doing) then almost any element of the lead may be subjective for removal, as the content can be found in the main body! --Hazhk (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The full dates are available quickly in the infobox. I suggest at this point that we wait for other editors to weigh in.  E Eng  16:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You've been given good reasons, Hazhk, so this appears to be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. To paraphrase, "My arguments are good, and yours aren't." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Except I have engaged with and responded to the other arguments. Instead I am being talked past: I'm neither proposing that this article copies the style other biographies, nor there should be a whole host of intricate details (pronunciation guides, symbols, tites, etc.) littering the parentheses in the first sentence. Regarding EEng's point, if the parentheses get out of hand then simply revert, as you currently are doing. I appear to be on the back foot in this argument simply because it's difficult to defend the value of providing useful information in a biography when the opposing argument appears to be that crucial information will make the sentence longer and the factual information will overload the readers. Again, if we take that reductive approach then virtually any piece of information can be removed because it's apparently surplus to requirements.--Hazhk (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't hear me when I said that I agree - too much in either direction is absurd. But I said the compromise is to have the years but not the dates.Glennconti (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't hear me when I said that I agree - too much in either direction is absurd. But I said the compromise is to have the years but not the dates.Glennconti (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

H, you're on the back foot of the argument because this is a subjective question, and no one agrees with your judgment on it.  E Eng  17:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We should wait for more respondents. --Hazhk (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do recall some wise editor saying that .  E Eng  19:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes more further discussion
Why deviate from the conventional state on Wikipedia by removing DOB and DOD? The argument is that it causes the casual reader to not become interested, which is conjecture. Secondly, this is not Simple English Wikipedia, and thus the people reading this article should be able to understand the first paragraph and remain interested. I say that the exact DOB should be in the opening paragraph. PalmerTheGolfer (talk)PalmerTheGolfer PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all ideas about what the reader perceives are conjecture, so we're just going to have to live with that. While you've given a (conjectural) argument for why full dates in the lead isn't a bad thing, you haven't explained why they're a good thing''.  E Eng  02:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Why deviate, indeed? This was a very fine, featured article, with a lede that was stable for years and years. This dumbing-down is quite bizarre. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Simple. If a reader needs the month and days, finding that information is a simple task (infobox). But who needs the days and months? I can think of only two circumstances for needs—a reader writing a school paper or a reader faced with supplying factoids for the worst kind of tests of knowledge: fill-in-the-blanks/multiple choice questions. When we consider Malcolm X, where does the month and day of birth and death rank among the meaningful facts and evaluations in the article?
 * Compare two versions of the lede graf:
 * Malcolm X (1925–1965) was an African-American Muslim minister and human rights activist. 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.
 * and


 * Malcolm X (/ˈmælkəm ˈɛks/; May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965), born Malcolm Little and later also known as el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz[A] (Arabic: الحاجّ مالك الشباز‎‎; Arabic pronunciation: [ɛl-hæʤ ˈmælɪk ɛl-ˈʃɑbɑz]), was an African-American Muslim minister and human rights activist. 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.


 * The first is an example of wising up, not dumbing down. — Neonorange (Phil) 03:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So there!  E Eng  03:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, then do forgive me. I missed the memo that we had merged with the Simple English Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest. Good articles are not built by filling in blanks on a form.  E Eng  19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Rather, they're systematically destroyed by those who so diligently observe Hans' admonition that "we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Any actual arguments about why what you want makes the article better?  E Eng  20:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and feel free to continue sticking your fingers in your ears while shouting that you can't hear them. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How could I hear my fingers? That doesn't make any sense. Anyway, thanks for smartening up . But please don't go away mad; just going away will be sufficient. You'll be welcome back when you can accept that mere uniformity is the weakest of all arguments.  E Eng  20:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll go wherever the fuck I please, whenever the fuck I please, and I goddamn well don't need, nor am I interested in, your "welcome" anywhere I may or may not choose to go. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Even so we love you anyway, and hope you'll be able to find a way to contribute constructively.  E Eng  21:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. We have 5 million other articles that have yet to be hijacked by pretentious simpletons. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Need I say it? Then you'd better get to it. And we still love you. Just remember that.  E Eng  22:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fuck off. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Eloquent. We still ❤️ you.  E Eng  01:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What wit! On the other hand, you're obviously full of contempt for our readers, which you've shown by deliberately and willfully turning this former-featured article into a giant pile of faeces. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's nothing! Here's a real pile of faeces: 🤡😘👨‍⚕️🤢😀🤹‍♂️☠️👺💂‍♀️☹️😐😦😤☹️😕😐😧😱😭😪😭😺😸🤖💀👽🤒 and, of course, 💩.  E Eng  18:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Bingo! That sums up the quality of the article in its current state quite well! Enjoy it while it lasts. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I also think that the full DOBS and DODS shall be included. That's how it works on all the other articles and that's how it shall work in this one. You shall not need to read through the whole article just to find his full date of birth and death. The pronounciation and the arabic name however I think is superfluous info. DrKilleMoff (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading through the whole article isn't necessary. The dates are in the infobox. EEng 15:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Some lead points
I just wanted to mention a couple of things: Thanks, Bawb131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "indicted" throws me off a little bit. I know it's technically correct usage, and maybe it's just me, but having it in the first couple of sentences before a broader context has been established makes it a little ambiguous.
 * Is it possible to somehow jam the Arabic pronunciation and IPA link into the infobox (or restore it in the lede)? I know the Romanisation is meant to be indicative of the pronunciation, but I find it's rarely clear without being familiar with the system of Romanisation used.
 * I see what you're saying about indicted but I'm having trouble coming up with a replacement. Any ideas?
 * Personally I thing that IPA is useful to such a tiny minority that a footnote is where it belongs.
 * EEng 01:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe "rebuked"? Also a legal term, but a slightly more obscure one :) -- Bawb131 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rebuke sounds like your sister's mad that you gave the cold shoulder to her new fiance. Maybe condemned? Other editors may have better ideas. Let's wait. EEng 02:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When I used "indicted", I may or may not have been thinking of The Hate That Hate Produced, and the trial at the beginning of that program (see The Hate That Hate Produced). Beside "condemned", other alternatives include "criticized" and "excoriated" (although that may be need a link to Wiktionary). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, criticized is anemic. Excoriated is a bit dramatic. Honestly the more I think about it the more I like indicted, but I could live with condemned. EEng 03:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indicted is a fine, apt, and expressive word for use here. It may be a term of art for the legal system—but it comes from Latin to proclaim and has a general meaning broader than that. The word indict is especially apt in the phrase indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans;. Further, later in the article is this sentence: The movement could then bring its complaints before the United Nations, where Malcolm X said the emerging nations of the world would add their support. Indict is a theme in the article and in Malcolm X's political development. I see the choice as between concision and awkward circumloqution. Neonorange (Phil) 04:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Strange aside at the end of "Philosophy" section
Up until one week before his death, Malcolm X continued to publicly advocate that black people should achieve advancement "by any means necessary".

where does this come from? It sounds like someone added this after the fact to try to make Malcolm X seem more of an extremist. There's no citation, despite the fact that there's a quote. It doesn't at all fit with the tone or content of the rest of the section, or even the formatting.

Thoughts? I can't add a "citation needed" tag.

EccentricOwl (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi EccentricOwl, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not 100% positive, but I think the sentence was left over from a dispute several years ago over the extent to which Malcolm X's views changed during the last year of his life. One editor argued very strongly that his views on fighting for the rights of African Americans didn't change at all, a viewpoint with which I largely agree, but I think that sentence may have been added for emphasis. I removed it because it was out of place, and I think the case is made earlier in that section that some of Malcolm X's views changed and some didn't. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Early years - factual error
The section "Early years" currently contains the following statement: "Malcolm X later said that white violence killed three of his father's brothers." However, the source for this statement - the Autobiography - has the following: "...he had seen four of his six brothers die by violence, three of them killed by white men (...) Northern white police were later to shoot my uncle Oscar." - This makes four, not three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:185:302:177A:41D6:ED55:FF0E:B8B4 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You're right, and I'll change the article accordingly. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2018
Malcolm X (1925 – 1965), born Malcolm Little and later also known as Al-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz, was an African-American Muslim minister and human rights activist. 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.

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. In 1946, at age twenty, he went to prison for larceny and breaking and entering. While in prison, he became a member of the Nation of Islam (NOI) and after his parole in 1952, quickly rose to become one of the organization's most influential leaders. He served as the public face of the controversial group for a dozen years. In his autobiography, Malcolm X wrote proudly of some of the social achievements the Nation made while he was a member, particularly its free drug rehabilitation program. The Nation promoted black supremacy, advocated the separation of black and white Americans, and rejected the civil rights movement for its emphasis on integration.

By March 1964, Malcolm X had grown disillusioned with the Nation of Islam and its leader Elijah Muhammad. Expressing many regrets about his time with them, which he had come to regard as largely wasted, he embraced Sunni Islam. After a period of travel in Africa and the Middle East, which included completing the Hajj, he repudiated the Nation of Islam, disavowed racism and founded Muslim Mosque, Inc. and the Organization of Afro-American Unity. He continued to emphasize Pan-Africanism, black self-determination, and black self-defense.

In February 1965, he was assassinated by three members of the Nation of Islam. Jawadjee7 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a specific change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2018
Why is his birth at the head of the article just 1925-1965? We know when he was born. 138.229.156.69 (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The first is his birth date and the last is is death date. It's not meant to imply that Wikipedia is unsure of when he was born. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 02:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Memorials and tributes, Malcolm X Elementary School
Berkeley, California has a Malcolm X Elementary School — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4000:A241:C033:5961:9CED:986E (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018
The Birthdate at the top of the page should be edited to include the specific dates of birth and death. e.g. it is currently "Malcolm X (1925–1965)" when it should instead be "Malcolm X (May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965)", as in the general form of nearly all Wikipedia biographies PerhapsXarb (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ WP:BIRTHDATE says that we should not add the specific dates in the text as it is already stated in the infobox and elsewhere. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 02:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a nosense, biographies of important people in Wikipedia have put specific dates of birth and death in top of the page, infobox and elsewhere. User:AlejandroR1990 (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia abolished slavery two years before Malcolm X came there
In the section 'Activity after leaving NOI', under 'Pilgrimage to Mecca' I think it would give a more balanced view if someone added the fact that Saudi Arabia had only abolished slavery officially 2 years prior to his visit. Slavery of Africans must have existed there during his stay, since slavery always takes a long time to be eradicated after the abolishment. Source for the historical fact that Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1962: Martin A. Klein (2002), Historical Dictionary of Slavery and Abolition, Page xxii, ISBN 0810841029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abolitionist1980 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Assuming you are right, if reliable sources connect the abolition of slavery in Saudi Arabia to Malcolm X, we should include it. Otherwise, it's impermissible original research. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Malcom X childhood in foster care
There seems to be conflict over if Malcom X's mother had a breakdown before or after her children were taken away. An AP News report (https://apnews.com/375da2b8b1554418a8edad1dd383d707) today claims, "His mother, without her children, had a breakdown and was sent to a mental institution." In this Wikipedia article it states his mother had a breakdown and he was then put in foster care. Which is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.29.87 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is based on high-quality sources (full-length biographies and so on) so pending checking they're properly reflected, I'd leave things as they are. Malik, you're our got-the-sources guy... <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not cut and dry. In his autobiography, Malcolm X says he was put into a foster home with a couple he knew from church before his mother's breakdown. He says he visited "fairly often", but she talked to herself nearly all the time. "Eventually my mother suffered a complete breakdown, and the court orders were finally signed. They took her to the State Mental Hospital at Kalamazoo." A judge was given authority over the Little children.
 * Other biographers report the same sequence of events: Malcolm was the first of the children to be put into foster care, probably as a result of being caught stealing. Louise was found walking down a snow-covered road barefoot a few days before Christmas in 1938, carrying her new infant. Weeks later she was committed and the rest of the family separated. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Assassination
Is there a reason why the other alleged assailants have their release/parole dates mentioned, but you're insisting on not including the "work release" detail of Hagan? Furthermore, the gunman being 22 years old is clearly included in the preexisting NYT citation. It is an important detail knowing the age of the gunman. I see no reason to not include it in the article. DA1 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * After mentioning their conviction and the 1970s affidavits, the article has one sentence about Butler and two each about Johnson and Hayer. It has no more or less detail about any release than the others. Why should Hayer get details about his work release and his parole? He was deemed sufficiently notable for his own article; put those details there, but they have nothing to do with Malcolm X. And why would we include Hayer's age and not also the ages of his fellow convicted assassins?
 * There are hundreds of books about Malcolm X. Instead of taking your approach ("I see no reason to not include it in the article"), I think we have to take the opposite approach concerning an article that's 42K in prose size: "we shouldn't include it in the article unless there's a good reason to". One can argue that every speech Malcolm X gave, especially during the last 11 months of his life, was an important speech; perhaps we should include a summary of each of them. At a certain point, one has to stop adding "important details" that don't add meaningful information to a general encyclopedia article about Malcolm X. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's go over this point by point because my edits are being blanket reverted as opposed to being selectively retained or reverted:
 * 1. The article already states Halim "was paroled in 2010." Why leave out that same detail (parole) for Aziz and Islam? I had added a citation that specifically stated the detail of "parole" which has been twice reverted by who of course is not here to add to the discussion for why s/he reverted that sourced detail along with the rest. This is blatantly inconsistent editing.
 * 2. Why leave out the fact the gunman was 22 years old? It is important context that directly pertains to the topic. A detail which gives context to the reader (his age). The age is indeed meaningful because it alludes to the shooters psychological state and possible rank in the NOI (that is, a 22 year old being half the age of Malcolm). Regardless of inference, the age of the gunman is indeed notable and relevant detail (on its own) in the section about Malcolm's assassination. The idea that Halim's age (at the time of assassination) should go on his article but not in Malcolm's own assassination section is baffling to me. DA1 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. The article says Butler "was paroled in 1985", Johnson was "[r]eleased in 1987", and Hayer "was paroled in 2010". If you're implying that we focus on one of the convicted assassins and not the others, you're just wrong. If you think we should emphasize the almost insignificant distinctions between parole and release, you're in the wrong place.
 * 2. Was Hayer left-handed? How tall was he? How old were his fellow assassins? How tall were they? If Hayer's age is notable, write about it in his biography. It has nothing to do with Malcolm X's assassination.
 * If you think any of this is significant to the story of Malcolm X, please cite a reliable biography of Malcolm X that dwells on the details of the parole and release of the men convicted of killing him, or on the age of one of those killers. Ultimately, what you and I think is relevant is much less important than what biographers and historians think is relevant. See WP:PROPORTION and WP:WEIGHT. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree completely, and I'll go further: we could do with less about the killers. I'm not sure we need their new names and what they're doing today; I'd cut it to pretty much their release years and that two of them converted. That two maintained their innocence, for example, tells the reader what he would naturally assume unless told otherwise. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a good point about removing "what they're doing today"...but that detail remains included. However, I disagree about removing their name-change. The news reports reporting on their paroles all note their name-change. This is notable in identifying the identity of the persons since they now go by a different name. Remember that their early NOI names were different from their birth-names too. DA1 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe you may be confused about what "notable" means on Wikipedia. I can state with certainty that the name changes of the men convicted of killing Malcolm X are not notable (i.e., their name changes have not been the subject of sufficient independent coverage or analysis to merit encyclopedia articles of their own). They may be sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in Malcolm X's biography, but that's a separate matter from their "notability".
 * As far as their birth names and NOI names go, the article tries to provide the names by which they were and are best known. It wouldn't serve any purpose (except possibly to stroke an editor's ego and sense of superiority) to write "Norman X, who was born Norman Butler but changed his name when he joined the Nation of Islam, where he was the third member of his mosque named Norman, so he was sometimes referred to as Norman 3X." Instead, like 99% of the rest of the world, we simply call him Norman 3X Butler.
 * You seem to be going off on a tangent, though. Can you provide a specific proposal for changing the article and a rationale for making the change? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, what you wrote here is going on a tangent, just as when you brought up being left-handed and height. I am using "notable" as used in common English vernacular, I am not in any way suggesting notability as it is used to justify creating a Wikipedia page, as stated in WP:N which you cited: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."
 * All that you wrote above to elaborate name-change chronology I never suggested it. Matter of fact, it's only an issue after I dared say I didn't support the suggestion from EEng. I don't see you having changed that beforehand. If you feel EEng is correct, then please change it. If you don't plan to change it, then please don't argue with me about that because that's arguing over a non-issue until it becomes one. -DA1 (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. You haven't addressed EEng's statement about possibly removing "what they're doing today". That's something both him and I have agreed on. So perhaps you have something to add about that? DA1 (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Can you provide a specific proposal for changing the article and a rationale for making the change?" I proposed it once before, but let me propose it again. The article already details "parole" to describe two convict's release. I am asking the same detail be included (edited) for Butler's 1987 release. In no way does a change from [released] to [paroled] violate WP:PROPORTION and WP:WEIGHT (which you brought up in your earlier response) [Source: ; second-to-last paragraph]
 * You responded with "If you think we should emphasize the almost insignificant distinctions between parole and release, you're in the wrong place." If it's insignificant then why oppose it, what violation is changing "released" to "paroled" if I have the source? I can edit it in myself, but it was reverted the last time I did and then was specifically objected to it in Talk. DA1 (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do try to respond without a wall of text. What is the specific change you would like to make? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think somewhere you said, DA1, that there was something we seemed to agree on. Let's start with that. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Homosexuality claims
Okay, so the following claim in the article may need to be rephrased:

According to recent biographies, Little also occasionally had sex with other men, usually for money.[21][22]

The source is Manning Marable's book Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention.

However, the exact phrasing of the statement above is misleading, as it implies penetration or oral sex. Marable, rather, claims Malcolm X had 'homosexual encounters' or 'homosexual contacts'. I agree these words are misleading too, because there is no evidence of oral sex or penetration between Malcolm X and another man given by the author. Rather, Marable describes a highly sexual episode involving Malcolm X and another man.

Marable writes:

"The Autobiography [of Malcolm x] describes sexual contacts with Lennon, except that Malcolm falsely attributed them to a character named Rudy:

Rudy had a side deal going, a hustle that took me right back to the old steering days in Harlem. Once a week, Rudy went to the home of this old, rich Boston blueblood, pillar-of-society aristocrat. He paid Rudy to undress them both, then pick up the old man like a baby, lay him on his bed, then stand over him and sprinkle him all over with talcum powder. Rudy said the old man would actually reach his climax from that [excerpt from Autobiography cited in Marable]

"Based on circumstantial but strong evidence, Malcolm was probably describing his own homosexual encounters with Paul Lennon. The revelation of his involvement with Lennon produced much speculation about Malcolm’s sexual orientation, but the experience appears to have been limited. There is no evidence from his prison record in Massachusetts or from his personal life after 1952 that he was actively homosexual" (Marable)

Okay, so based on the description above, Malcolm X, (if Rudy was him) merely stood on top of another man and sprinkled talcum powder on him until the latter climaxed. This seems to be the 'homosexual contact' or 'encounter' that Marable was referring to.

Furthermore, the footnote [C] which follows footnote 21 and 22 reads as follows:

The accuracy of these accounts has been questioned by some people who met Malcolm X later in life or never knew him, including Ta-Nehisi Coates,[23] Maulana Karenga,[24] Ilyasah Shabazz,[25] and Raymond Winbush.[26]

Perhaps this foot note should be in the main text, and should follow the claim made by Marable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.65.246 (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not.
 * First, as you indicated above, there are two sources cited at the end of the sentence. You only quoted Marable, not Perry. What makes you think you have all the relevant facts?
 * Second, I encourage you to review the archives of this discussion page. This matter has come up several times in the past.
 * Finally, a discussion of sources doesn't belong in the text of the article, especially when the "sources" that question Malcolm Little's sexual experiences with other men are not historians and have performed no research on the subject. The people who knew Malcolm Little have told their stories, some of which involve themselves. Who do you think is more credible on the subject: somebody who was there and took part alongside Little or saw it or heard about it from Little, or somebody who met Malcolm X 20 years after the fact (or never met him at all) and has no first-hand knowledge but says "the Malcolm I knew could never have done something like that"? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 03:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018
Paroled in 1952, he went to live with his brother Wilfred in Inkster, Michigan, where he worked as a furniture salesman. That same year he was assigned his "X" to replace the name that had been taken from his slave ancestors and became an active member in the Nation of Islam. Inkster is by Detroit. The house in Inkster where Malcoil lived from 1952 to 1964 is still standing although in need of repair. 4336 Williams Street Inkster, MI 48141 was the home of Wilfred Little, who is the older brother of Malcolm Little (Malcolm X). 69.14.225.57 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Lynching of Earl Little
The lede on the Malcolm X page omits the information regarding Earl Little's death by lynching. As detailed in Malcolm X's autobiography, Little's beating then his being thrown, while still alive, under a moving trolly car by the Black Legion is described as fact. Manning's biography on Malcolm X also supports the lynching facts as described in the autobiography. Additionally, Manning writes of a visit to the hospital by Malcolm's mother when his father was still alive, which further corresponds to the lynching facts.

Talk archives from 2012 inaccurately refer to the lynching facts as "rumors". If the expectation that a white supremacist police department in 1931 would file criminal charges against Ku Klux Klan members for a lynching prevents the wiki community from believing Malcolm X, Haley, and Manning, then I would suggest spending a year in today's Mississippi, Alabama, or Georgia in order to understand that facts surrounding lynchings are often whispered, and rarely written. And, almost never investigated by police.

Also, the current page refers to Earl Little as "Earl" (a racist author?), and not as "Little" which is the standard way to abbreviate full formal names.

I tried to edit these mistakes, but the editing options have been removed from the page. Thanks for the attention.Felice.177.246.115.118 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussions re the father's death are at Talk:Malcolm_X/Archive_6 and Talk:Malcolm_X/Archive_7, and I'm proud of the careful work several editors (myself included) did in those threads.
 * MOS:SAMESURNAME explains that first names are used when two people with the same surname are being discussed. Let me gently suggest you find out what the fuck you're talking about before calling editors racist. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Whoa, stop. "Additionally, Manning writes of a visit to the hospital by Malcolm's mother when his father was still alive, which further corresponds to the lynching facts." On what planet?
 * Here's what Marable wrote:
 * Earl suffered terrible pain for several hours after being taken to the hospital. His left arm had been crushed, his left leg nearly severed from his torso. By the time Louise reached him, he was dead. (emphasis added)
 * How can we discuss things when you make up your own "facts"?
 * The facts are (a) none of us—including Louise Little, Malcolm Little, Alex Haley, and Manning Marable—were there, (b) the police report says it was a streetcar accident, and (c) black people in Lansing thought he had been lynched. This article reports both (b) and (c) without taking a position on what caused Earl Little's death. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)