Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 9

Mention of Malcolm Shabazz and his daughters
I removed this text from the article:
 * MalcolmX's daughter Qubilah had a son, Malcolm Shabazz (b.1984, d. 2013), who was killed in a bar fight in Mexico in 2013. He was Malcolm X's only male descendant. Through Shabazz, Malcolm X has two great granddaughters.

First, Malcolm Shabazz was not Malcolm X's only male descendant—as our article says, he was Malcolm's first male descendant. Second, the source doesn't support the statement. Finally, why are we mentioning only Malcolm Shabazz and his daughters among all of Malcolm X's grandchildren? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that just because Malcolm X's grandson (and great-grandchildren) never met him, means that he (and they) shouldn't be mentioned. The mentioning of Malcolm's twin daughters would have to be removed according to that logic. Malcolm Shabazz is even arguably more connected to the legacy of Malcolm X than some of Malcolm X's daughters given his naming, his involvement in the accidental death of Malcolm's wife/his grandmother Betty Shabazz, and the fact that he has his own page. It should be linked here. We see examples of descendants and their ancestors that are linked on Wikipedia frequently: see pages Aaron Burr which links to his grandfather Jonathan Edwards and vice versa; Terrence Howard which links to his great-grandmother Minnie Gentry and vice versa; and Beyonce which links to her distant ancestor Joseph Broussard and vice versa; these two have never met but still are linked. If you don't want to mention Shabazz's daughters, I can understand (though I would still argue that they remain since they are linked to Shabazz); however, Shabazz is an important enough figure to be linked whereas Malcolm X's presumably many other descendants (don't know of his other descendants) don't have their own Wikipedia pages. Similarly, Joseph Broussard probably has many more descendants than Beyonce, her mother, and sister, but they are mentioned because they are among the more notable ones. Also, we can easily change the mistake from "only male descendant" to "first male descendant." Kinfoll1993 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First, Malcolm Shabazz is linked here. There's a Malcolm X template at the bottom of the page that links to his article. Second, his involvement with Betty Shabazz's death has nothing to do with this article.
 * I can see no reason at all to mention Malcolm Shabazz's daughters, who are no more notable than Malcolm X's other grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
 * In the other articles you mention (except for Jonathan Edwards (theologian)), their modern descendants are included as trivia. This is a Featured article, and has to meet a higher standard. I'd like to hear other editors' opinions, but I'm inclined to leave Malcolm Shabazz out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. If they or their actions were more closely connected with Malcolm X's story, then fine, but we are not writing a book. This excessive detail bloats the article. It isn't valid to refer to things that have happened elsewhere on Wikipedia. See WP:OCE Rumiton (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing problem in the lead
We have that Malcolm X "...repudiated the Nation, 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." Then "In February 1965, shortly after repudiating the Nation of Islam and its teachings, he was assassinated..." There is either a problem with the timeframe which might mean he was actually killed some time after his "repudiation," giving him time to do all that stuff, or perhaps the word "repudiation" is itself problematic. Was there some further denouncement on his part just before his death? Rumiton (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Gordon Parks interview is just before his death. But his disenchantment starts with his knowledge about Elijah M. having affairs I believe. This rocked his world and caused him to reexamine his entire philosophy. It was a gradual disenchantment that ended in full blown rebellion and repudiation. When does disenchantment become repudiation?? Glennconti (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC) It was during his mid-eastern/african travels that he got the idea that racism was bad though and changed his mind about it. Glennconti (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that's pretty much what I thought. It looks like we need a milder word for his earlier disenchantment or a stronger one for what came later. Rumiton (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015
EX-Muslim

78.148.147.226 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2015 (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. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  21:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015
I am a Sunni Muslim, I want to edit this page because there are some simple mistakes that have to be re-edited. Thank you.

Alawadidev (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting delete.svg Not done That is a phenomenally insufficient reason for removing protection. It may, however, be an excellent reason for maintaining it. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  14:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  15:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if you have good, sourced, relevant information, please let us have it here on the talk page. Rumiton (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

NOI attitude to violence
I'm getting a feeling from this article and sources that prior to 1964 the NOI was actually trying to reign in Malcolm's agitation towards mayhem, and that this was a big initial part of their difference. If other sources bear this out, the article should clearly reflect it. Rumiton (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the NOI reining in Malcolm's inclination toward mayhem, but one of Manning Marable's points in Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention is that Malcolm was trying to become more politically active and the NOI was opposed to that. He cites the 1962 death of Ronald Stokes, a Muslim who was killed by the LAPD, as a real turning point in the relationship between Malcolm and Elijah Muhammad. You can read a relevant excerpt from A Life of Reinvention here. One of these days I'll add something about Stokes' killing to this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I might have a go in the next few days. I think it illustrates that Malcolm was not always a moderating influence. Rumiton (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Had a go. Like everything else, totally up for discussion. Rumiton (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Death threats and intimidation from Nation of Islam
What is this REDIRECT stuff that has appeared in this section? Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Rumiton. Could you clarify? I don't see the word "REDIRECT" in the text of that section, nor do any of the Wikilinks there appear to be redirects. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Malik. Today it is not there anymore. One of those Wiki-mysteries. Thanks for your help. Rumiton (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

John Ali
I saw this part of the text : "John Ali (later exposed as an undercover FBI agent)" and the source provided does not prove him to be one, so I was wondering, was he really ?

I read never, ever read anything that proved he was an FBI agent, outside of blog posts and conspiracy theories, just that a lot of people believed him to be one. As anyone got an actual source ? Maybe an FBI FOIA or something ?

Thank you, Jhereem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.129.176 (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jhereem. Our article cites Louis Lomax's To Kill a Black Man: The Shocking Parallel in the Lives of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., p. 198. Unfortunately, my copy is currently in storage and it's not searchable online. A Google search found a number of books that cite Lomax as a source for this information, of which this is one example:
 * I don't know whether anybody has reviewed Ali's FBI file, and I don't know if the FBI would acknowledge whether Ali was an agent in any event. If you're interested, here's a link to start. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to wait for your Lomax, but a half hour search just found only "former FBI agent" and "widely believed to be an informant." It appears the article statement may be too strong. Rumiton (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I changed the statement to remove the previous suggestion that Ali's agitation against MX was an FBI-led incitement to the NOI to murder him. Rumiton (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to wait for your Lomax, but a half hour search just found only "former FBI agent" and "widely believed to be an informant." It appears the article statement may be too strong. Rumiton (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I changed the statement to remove the previous suggestion that Ali's agitation against MX was an FBI-led incitement to the NOI to murder him. Rumiton (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2015
Please take out the part that says that Malcolm engaged in gay sex and there's no need for anything to replace that. There is no proof of these accusations.

Sheba28 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That sentence is sourced to two biographies, which were based on interviews with dozens of people who knew Malcolm X—including some who participated in gay sex alongside Malcolm Little. To say that "there is no proof" is just wrong. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2015
The article in many sections claim that Malcolm X taught the teachings of Nation of Islam. Although he was a devout member at some point, he vocalized his disagreement on many issues. All the sections that claim he taught the teachings of nation of islam are with no references, and making that call is quite inaccurate.

Thejuventino (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This article is extremely well sourced so I am not quite sure what you mean by "All the sections that claim he taught the teachings of nation of islam are with no references." In addition this request is malformed.  Please mention specific changes you want to make in a "Change X to Y" format.  Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Wikilink to larceny please. Thanks. 195.99.58.239 (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Talk! 21:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
I think the term Human right activist in the introduction paragraph is not really appropriate for Malcolm X. He was in favor of using violence to fight injustice. I think saying he was a "fighter for equality between white and black Americans" would be better.

Openay5 (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: He expanded his views when he left the Nation of Islam to include wider issues and achieved recognition beyond his black-white original focus. Seems to me the term is appropriate. Rumiton (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2015
The article Malikah Shabazz was deleted last month, but this article still links to it. Please unlink her name in the infobox and in the "Marriage and family" section. Thank you. 66.87.114.248 (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Ete ethan  (talk)  12:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like you fixed the link (unlinked it) in the infobox, but there's still a link in the "Marriage and family" section. Thank you. 66.87.114.133 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —  Rebbing    talk   05:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Assassination
We really need an article titled Assassination of Malcolm X. After all, we have such articles, and even categories, for Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, etc.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We would need to hive off a new article if the assassination info were crowding out the other sections, but that does not seem to be the case to me. It all seems fairly balanced. Rumiton (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sex with other men -- recent changes
Over the past few days, Mccar408 has made several changes to the article to reflect what they believe Manning Marable's biography says about Malcolm Little's sexual experiences with other men -- while acknowledging they have no idea what Bruce Perry's biography says on the subject.

Sorry, Mccar408, but using one source and ignoring the other is not appropriate. Please use your favorite search engine and search for "Bruce Perry Malcolm" before you change the article again. Also, please read the multiple past discussions on the subject in the talk page archive.

Please discuss proposed changes to the article on this page, especially if you don't have access to the sources. I do have access to the sources, and I'm always happy to share. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * McCar408 speaking: The issue I have is not with the claim that ONE biography says that Malcolm X had sex with multiple men. As I acknowledged, I haven't seen the Perry biography. The issue I have is with the claim that "recent biographies" claim that Malcolm X had sex with multiple men. Recent biographies DO NOT claim that Malcolm X had sex with multiple men. Marable refers to ONLY ONE man. This is my issue. The easiest way to correct this is to say, as I did, that "Recent biographies indicate that he had sex with AT LEAST one man." This is accurate. Another way to correct this is to first cite Marable and then cite Perry, saying that ONE source says he had sex with one man, and ONE OTHER source says he had sex with multiple men. But you can't say that "recent biographies" claim that Malcolm X had sex with multiple men, because the two "recent biographies" cited SAY NO SUCH THING. In sum: I don't care how you correct the statement, but it has to be corrected; recent biographies DO NOT claim that he had sex with multiple men. Don't say that they did. You're being sloppy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccar408 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I assume you have seen the Marable biography? You're misrepresenting that as well. From page 66:
 * 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. More credible, perhaps, is Rodnell Collins's insight about his uncle: "Malcolm basically lived two lives." When he was around Ella, "he enthusiastically participated in family picnics and family dinners. ... He saved some of his money to send to his brothers and sisters in Lansing." But in his Detroit Red life, he participated in prostitution, marijuana sales, cocaine sessions, numbers running, the occasional robbery, and, apparently, paid homosexual encounters.
 * From page 506 (footnote to page 65):
 * Bruce Perry's Malcolm asserts that on several occasions in 1944–45 Malcolm engaged in homosexual acts for payment.... Perry also cites sexual encounters in Boston in 1945 where a wealthy white man named William Paul Lennon paid Malcolm "to disrobe him, place him on his bed, sprinkle him with talcum powder, and massage him until he reached his climax." ... Perry's claims, when published in 1991, generated a firestorm of criticism from those devoted to Malcolm's iconic image, who pointed out that his only credible source for these escapades was "Shorty" Jarvis. ... Since the publication of Perry's book, other evidence has surfaced that supports his general assertions. For example, according to Rodnell Collins, Malcolm revealed details to Ella Collins about "a business deal he and Malcolm Jarvis had with an elderly, wealthy white millionaire, named Paul Lennon, who would pay them to rub powder over his body."
 * Still think Marable says it was "only sex with one man"? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

McCar408 here: Yes! Of course that's what I say!! That's exactly what Marable says! Not only does Marable NOT say that Malcolm had sex with multiple men, but he explicitly says, in the passage you have quoted, that "the experience appears to have been limited" and that there "is no evidence" in the places where someone would expect to find it of there having been other men. In the endnote on page 506—endnote, not a footnote, and not even included in the current citation—Marable acknowledges Perry, and says that "other evidence has surfaced that supports his general assertions." But in the very next sentence, Marable explains what he means by "general assertions": i.e., the general assertion that Malcolm had sex with AT LEAST ONE man, Paul Lennon. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE! I don't care how you fix the problem I've identified, but it's a problem, and it needs to be fixed. Recent biographies DO NOT indicate that Malcolm had sex with men (plural). I'm sorry if this hurts your pride, but you need to look at this rationally and either accept one of the solutions I have proposed or find one of your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccar408 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to have trouble accepting the plain meaning of Marable's words. He says that Perry's assertions have been supported, in general, by evidence that has surfaced since 1991, including the book by Rodnell Collins, son of Ella Little-Collins and nephew of Malcolm X.
 * What the article said before, "according to recent biographies, he also occasionally had sex with other men, usually for money", is true. What you've written, "according to recent biographies, he also had sex with at least one other man, William Paul Lennon, evidently for money", only tells part of the story. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * McCar408: Again, this is not a debate. The "general" aspect of Perry's assertions which Marable says has been supported is that Malcolm X had a relationship with ONE man: William Paul Lennon. Marable cites no source, other than Perry, indicating that Malcolm had sex with more than one man. The Collins book, according to Marable's citation, mentions only ONE man. Can you name one single biography other than the Perry source which indicates that Malcolm had sex with "men" plural? If you can cite a second "recent biography" which says that Malcolm X had sex with multiple "men," then I have no problem with the version of the statement you want here. This is purely a question of citations: you haven't cited sources to back up your claim. I don't doubt the claim; I just know for a certain fact that the sources cited DO NOT substantiate the claim. Marable does NOT say Malcolm had sex with "men." Period. No debate. No question. Only two sources are cited: if only one of them says something, you can't say that recent biographies (plural) say it. This is elementary grammar, not hermeneutics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccar408 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are two more recent biographies, bringing the total (that I know of) to four:
 * — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk
 * Malik, perhaps if you could post some excerpts from these bios that support the plurality thing? Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I am not sure the above excerpts are conclusive. "...apparently, paid homosexual encounters" seems hearsayish and does not necessarily imply (to me) more than one man. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk
 * Malik, perhaps if you could post some excerpts from these bios that support the plurality thing? Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I am not sure the above excerpts are conclusive. "...apparently, paid homosexual encounters" seems hearsayish and does not necessarily imply (to me) more than one man. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Rumiton. I'll post some more excerpts this weekend. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Crowding of images
The way the article is right now, we have two photos taken within minutes of each other crowding each other out in one small section. I would leave the smiling pic in the infobox and decide which of these others to use. I don't find them different enough for both to be included, nor is the meeting with MLK significant enough to warrant two pics. Rumiton (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC) I removed one of the images pending discussion. Rumiton (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it looks better with just the one image there. Two so close in time together is a bit redundant.    Jilllyjo (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ', It's a good photo. It should be included in the article regardless of when it was taken.  When it was taken is not reason to exclude it.  Further, it can be placed elsewhere in the article.  Making a unilateral decision to remove it because you don't care for the placement of it was not the best decision, in my opinion.  Like I said, it's a good photo of the man.  Having another good photo of him in the article hurts nothing, and placing it in another location seems to be the solution.


 * An article as big as this with a big subject (it does refer to him as "one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.") should have a variety of photos well-representative of the article subject. Further, the article is a FA - where one criteria for such is that it be well illustrated.  I really don't think one more image (and a very good one that shows a serious side of the article subject) is going to make the picture count unreasonable.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, why don't you suggest a better place for it? Rumiton (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there credible evidence?
The following message was copied from User talk:Malik Shabazz:

There is no credible evidence that Malcolm X was a homosexual and/or engaged in homosexual activities. This amounts to slandering the deceased. XanaduFilm (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC) XanaduFilm
 * Need I point out that your post itself slanders millions of persons, deceased or not?  E Eng  06:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At least four recent biographies of Malcolm X say that as a young man, Malcolm Little engaged in sex with other men. Wikipedia is reporting this fact (that recent biographies make this assertion) without making a judgment whether the underlying assertion about Malcolm Little is true or false. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * How is this slander? Apparently, Malcolm X did what he had to do as a young man to survive under very adverse circumstances. In my opinion, this is a strength. As has been stated, this statement is well sourced and shouldn't be a problem. Glennconti (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above 2. It is not our job to look for evidence or to decide whether it is credible. We just look for sources and decide whether they are reputable. Rumiton (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Caption
Somehow we now have "Malcolm X guards his family in an iconic Ebony photo." This seems more than a little promotional. This was a posed photo, pics were taken from several angles and some of them still exist. The original caption said he kept a semi-auto in his house to guard against "assassins" and that he had taught his wife to use one and shoot anyone who tried to force their way in. This is the original page. He was mainly guarding himself. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it sounds promotional in the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't we condense the caption to read: "Malcom X guarding his family"? This alternative is less promotional yet still accurately describes the image. Meatsgains (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mentioning a photo taken by and for Ebony 50 years ago is hardly promotional. It is an iconic photo and attribution should be given since it was published and became iconic because Ebony published it.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Which photo is best for the infobox?
Which of these two photo versions is preferable for the infobox? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (slight rewording for clarity -- WV ● ✉ ✓  08:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC))

Choice #1

 * Support as it seems more appropriate for an infobox photo: closeup and allows the reader to see the article subject's facial features more clearly and completely. There's no competing with what's in the foreground or background, just a simple view of the subject's face.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  06:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with the caveat that the choice is not between two photos. They are the same photo. One is just a cropped version of the other. Representing these two images as different photos is misleading. That being said, I prefer the cropped version of that photo. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Representing them as two different photos or misleading anyone was never my intent. It's noted at Commons and in the file name that #1 is a cropped and slightly retouched version of #2.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  06:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you should not have framed the choice as between two different photos, but rather explained from the get-go that one was a cropped version of the other. They are the same photo. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cripes, you make it sound like I was trying to hoodwink editors. Not the case.  In fact, why is this a deal at all?  I mean, it's pretty darn obvious from looking at the two that they are the same photo, so, I guess I'm not getting why you're pointing it out in such a big way and coming off as chastising.  Appreciate your support of the closeup version, but sheesh.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  07:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I pointed it out only because you didn't. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - I prefer the cropped version because it does not include the microphone and is a close up. The background is of little importance here. Meatsgains (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I think that this picture is more acceptable for the infobox as well. I don't think that cropping the photo takes any value away from it.  This option is closer, more clear, and is easier to see for readers.  And, like an above user has already said, these pictures are in fact the same.  This is just a simple view of the subject's face and is without any props like the microphone. Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 01:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support In infoboxes, the key is to provide a sense of what the subject looked like. A closer version means we have a better sense of his face. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Choice #2

 * Support This is a featured picture, which is considered "one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia, adding significantly to its accompanying article." It should not have been removed from the article without a compelling reason; no explanation for its removal was provided. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support A featured picture after all! This is a fine, clear and representative image of Malcolm X. I agree with Malik, it should not have been removed without a compelling reason. Perhaps there should have been a talk page discussion first to keep from causing disruption. It seems to be the spirit of the week or something. deja vu. Jilllyjo (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support No problem in general with cropping, but I feel I get more info from the full pic. The suit tells me something, as does the 1960's tribal-modernism in the background. Rumiton (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This is an iconic photo in my opinion. I have seen cropped versions of it so other people have done it. The other that comes to mind is the sailor kissing the nurse to celebrate WWII victory in Europe. This one has also been cropped, but I think the iconic original Malcolm X image is better. True to the photographer's original intent. It is art, do we crop the Mona Lisa to see her face better?Glennconti (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to compare it to the Mona Lisa -- they really are nowhere near the same. The moment is important because it marked a significant change in his tack and direction and way of thinking, the photo represents that iconic moment.  But it's certainly no Rembrandt.  If you haven't yet, please take a look at my comments and the photo below.  Thanks.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  23:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that the photo is not the Mona Lisa, but my point is that it is art and as such its original creator (photographer in this case) deserves a measure of respect. Who are we to mess with it? Glennconti (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a public domain photo, there are no restrictions on it. I'm sure I'm not the first to crop it to see his face more clearly and I doubt I will be the last.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  00:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and said I have seen others crop it. I just don't prefer to alter the art. There are no restrictions on altering a public domain photo. Air brush it, photoshop it, add a text caption even or whatever, I just wouldn't do it to an iconic photo. Glennconti (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: Even without the featured picture imprimatur the wider image that includes context is the better choice for the info box. The original published format is illustrative, and thus trumps a head shot. I also agree that cropping an iconic image should be avoided, especially when the cropped image contains less information. Less in two ways: the cropped image as displayed in the article is softer and lacks any context. Finally, the full image appears in various Wikipedias 50 times (not counting talk and user pages) and the cropped image appears zero times (not counting this talk page). — Neonorange (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I like a smiling MX as well, and the full context of mike and background. And the closeup is too much of a giant grin with a person behind it. Essentially an intuition. (#3, below, should go in the article as well -- plenty of space.)  E  Eng  04:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Full pic is better it's a perfectly good portrait no need to crop it. The first one looks a bit claustrophobic <span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 11:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support IMO the full image is iconic/recognizable enough that using it in the article adds more value than using the (slightly clearer) cropped image. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
In my opinion, a cropped version of a Featured photo is still an entirely acceptable version of a Featured photo, and cropping it does not diminish its value. In this case, I believe that the cropping enhances the encyclopedic value of this photo in this article. The full uncropped version will always be available with a couple of clicks for those with a deep interest in this image. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC

I agree that a cropped version is not unacceptable for a featured photo. Placed in the infobox, I think it's preferable to have a close-up, more portrait-like version of a photo for the sake of the reader being able to see more closely and distinctly the face of the article subject. And, as stated, the full version is only a click away. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 08:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

,, , : Because I agree the photo is iconic and is great in total and should be in the article, but don't agree it's optimal for an infobox photo (and, apparently, Cullen feels the same), would any of you consider putting the iconic photo in a prominent place in the article, possibly with a quote from the press conference that was held when the photo was taken, and put in the infobox the photo below instead? I think it suits the purpose of an infobox photo but also gives a good view of Malcolm X's serious side during another iconic moment (only meeting with MLK Jr.). Thoughts? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 23:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As a participant in this RFC, I say No. So far four participants have agreed that the original full image should be kept, each listing substanitive reasons. Jilllyjo (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry again. I actually like to see Malcolm X smiling. It makes him more human and approachable. More inviting, and we want to invite the readers to study and discover more about this very complex man. Glennconti (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The formality of the portrait robs it of context and easy recognizability. It is better suited to its current location in the article. — Neonorange (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's have some quote boxes
The recent addition of a quote box, which unbalanced on its own, gives me an idea: it work well to insert 2-4 more such boxes at various points in the article, at section starts, to anchor for the reader the subject's changing life and changing beliefs.  E Eng  17:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought the WP:Featured article criteria discouraged the use of pull quotes, but I just looked and see that isn't the case. I think some pull quotes would be nice, but in keeping with WP:UNDUE, they should be representative of Malcolm X's speeches, based on what reliable secondary sources report, not quotes chosen at random from primary sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, and they should be carefully chosen to help the reader understand his life and thinking at various points -- might even add the year parenthetically to emphasize the time aspect. I think this is a great article for this because his expressed ideas changed so much. What a remarkable person! (A quote from others, especially after death, might make sense too.) Sometimes a good technique is to work a quote into the image of a press conference or speech or something. Both techniques are used at Phineas Gage, and though in some cases the captions are a bit bulky (ellipsis helps with this) I think it works well.


 * I wonder who has the knowledge of the subject to choose such quotes? Hmmm... Let me think... If only there was some editor who could do this... Hmmmm...  E Eng  17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I heartily agree that the quote boxes look like a great idea. I also agree they add emphasis which is good especially for the casual reader. Glennconti (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit
I'd like a clarification on this revert. The connection to black supremacy offered in the article is:


 * Many whites and some blacks were alarmed by MalcolmX and the statements he made during this period. He and the Nation of Islam were described as hatemongers, black supremacists, racists, violence-seekers, segregationists, and a threat to improved race relations. He was accused of being antisemitic. (emphasis added)

The phrase "black supremacy" or "black supremacist" does not appear elsewhere in the article.

The above citation does not appear to be sufficient to include a statement on "black supremacy" in the lead in Wikipedia's voice. Could someone please clarify? Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * since you were the one who made the edit, could you please advise? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article reads: "Nation of Islam believed that black people were superior to white people" and cites this to Lomax, p. 57. DrKay (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Last Sentence of Lead
I am glad some one finally removed that reference to the autobiography being a most influential book. The first paragraph uses the words most influential and it was cumbersome to say those words twice so close together. Also, it was anti-climactic. The story punch line is Malcolm X was killed for his new beliefs. I never ever liked it - that change to the last sentence to add the Time reference. Malcolm X is a martyr and a hero in my book. Gives me chills thinking about why he was killed and what he ultimately stood for. Glennconti (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Relatives "lost" to violence
Maestro2016 added a sentence about Malcolm X losing relatives to violence, including a lynched uncle, sourced to History. (The sentence was, unfortunately, copied and pasted from the source in violation of copyright laws.) EEng reverted, saying the History Channel is not a reliable source.

I happen to disagree about History being a reliable source (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't), but in this case it's not needed. The article already says "Malcolm X later said that white violence killed three of his father's brothers."

History also attributes the sentence to Malcolm X: "Malcolm also lost other relatives to violence, including an uncle he said was lynched by whites." (emphasis added) I mention this by way of saying that I don't think any reliable source can confirm or refute the story Malcolm X told about how how uncles died, including one being lynched. Every biography of Malcolm X I know of attributes this to him. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right that History Channel "sometimes is, sometimes isn't" but I'd contend that, by default, it isn't. For months I've been listening to my elderly neighbor go on about how Hitler escaped to South America -- apparently History Channel said that "some historians" believe this.  E Eng  22:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh. You're right, but I suppose they have to do whatever is necessary to keep the audience's attention. It's a shame to see the crap they run on the National Geographic Channel, which bears the name and logo of a once-reputable magazine. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, how the mighty have fallen!  E Eng  23:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead section
"In February 1965, he was assassinated by three members of the Nation of Islam." Normally death have his own section, and they are not in the introduction, i suggest we move or delete that line from the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Il giovane bello 73 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Il giovane bello 73. There is a separate section of the article about the assassination of Malcolm X (Malcolm X), but I agree with you that a single sentence at the end of the lead section seems out of place. On the one hand, single sentences don't make good paragraphs. On the other hand, other biographies generally say something in the lead section about the subject's death.
 * Any suggestions you—or any other editors—have about the end of the lead section would be welcome. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know. His death/assassination was quite notable and certainly should be in the lede, in my opinion at the end of that section.  How about we keep the sentence on his death in the lede but follow it up with what his death was the catalyst for and something about his legacy following the assassination?  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  23:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions to "Early years" re: sexual history
DynaGirl added a sentence to the "Early years" section that Ilyasah Shabazz believes it was "not at all possible" that Malcolm Little might have had sex with other men, describing her father as an "open book" regarding his past. To what extent can we consider her a reliable source? She was not born (obviously) when he was a young man, and he was assassinated when she was two. How much of an "open book" could he have been with her? She acknowledges in the source interview that she didn't know her father. (She also denies Manning Marable's assertion that Betty Shabazz and Malcolm X were unfaithful to one another in the last months of his life.) I think the interviewer says it best: "I completely credit your perspective on this, but it is also the case that children often don't know the complete details of their parents' lives because it's not really their business." Is she a credible and reliable source about the intimate lives of her parents? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Her stance of this is reported in a reliable source NPR. At Wikipedia we're just suppose to report what reliable sources say. Readers are free to make their own assessment of whether or not a daughter would really know or not if this was actually true. In that source, she also discredits claims made in that recent biography that her mother had an affair, saying her parents were human so indiscretions possible, but this doesn't seem plausible to her because FBI was actively trying to get dirt on her father and didn't pull up anything like this. Add: This source from the Atlantic provides additional perspective on the assertions that Malcolm X had sex with men for money:  http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/the-sexuality-of-malcolm-x/237086/--DynaGirl (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DynaGirl, for your reply and for the link to The Atlantic. I had written above about Marable's assertions of marital infidelities. As a critical reader, I wish he had provided better documentation for that part of his book (i.e., more footnotes). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The source I linked above from The Atlantic written by Ta-Nehisi Coates also seems to address the concerns raised in an earlier talk page discussion on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malcolm_X/Archive_9#Sex_with_other_men_--_recent_changes regarding the passage as written saying both biographies say Malcolm had sex with multiple men, usually for money, when apparently the Marable biography only describes one sex act (massaging a man to climax) for money. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of two more sentences about this issue. The matter of Malcolm Little's sex with other men was overtaking the rest of the paragraph, when by all accounts, it was only one of many means by which he made money. Please see WP:UNDUE. Let's come to some consensus about what to include in the article and maybe what to put in a note. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * These are controversial allegations, so two sentences do not seem undue, but If concerned about length, it would seem to make more sense to reduce text regarding his daughter's stance, in light of your earlier concerns regarding whether or not she would know, instead of removing all the text regarding Ta-Nehisi Coates' stance and also removing the reference from The Atlantic from the article. The commentary from Coats seems to address concerns previously raised by  regarding clarifying differences in what the various biographies actually allege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malcolm_X/Archive_9#Sex_with_other_men_--_recent_changes because Coats specifies the allegation in  Marable's biography (that he was paid to sprinkle talc on a man and massage him to climax).  Leaving just the current text saying according to recent biographies Malcolm "occasionally had sex with other men, usually for money" without clarification that both bio's apparently do not allege this, seems misleading to the reader.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As much as I appreciate Coates and what he writes, he is not a historian. Also, the middle of an encyclopedia article is not the appropriate place to have a discussion of the merit of the article's sources. Finally, three or four sentences is too much to write about whether Malcolm Little did or didn't have sex with other men. It's just not that important to his life story, to what makes Malcolm X important.
 * As I wrote in Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 9, there are at least four recent biographies I know of that make these allegations: Bruce Perry (1991), Rodnell Collins (1998), Malcolm "Shorty" Jarvis (2008), and Manning Marable (2011). This discussion isn't new; please see Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 5. Perry cites people who knew Malcolm Little in Michigan, Boston, and New York who describe incidents of sex with other men for money. Perry's biography, as bad as his conclusions are, is based on the best interviews with those who knew Malcolm X throughout his life, most of whom had died or–for god-know-what-reason–Marable chose not to interview while they were alive. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Allegations" may be a poor choice of word in this day and age.  E Eng  13:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Umm, guys ? Does it really add to the article, or are we just searching for salacious material ? Shall we find his podiatrist in order to add remarks that he had stinky toes ? His barber to add a claim that he had dandruff ? or did not ? How about a reference from the local grocer documenting how many tomatoes he ate per week ? Do these claims add ANYTHING to who he was, what he stood for, what he meant to society ? They should actually be removed, because they bring nothing to the table but sensationalist crap. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Of course it's significant.  E Eng  13:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is significant but it should be presented accurately and neutrally. The current text which says "according to recent biographies, he also occasionally had sex with other men, usually for money" isn't accurate if only one bio (which has been disputed) actually reports it this way. The other bio reports he massaged one man to climax for money. I see Malik Shabazz removed this clarification from the article again. I also see from talk this has been going on for awhile. This isn't really my area of interest, I just found this article via wikilinks, but the current text seems misleading to the reader.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "it should be presented accurately and neutrally" That's the expectation for all content in addition to said content being reliably sourced.  If it's sourced reliably, even if just by one source, it can be added.  If there are reliable sources that dispute that version of events, then that should be noted as well.  It's really all in how it is written/presented and that undue weight is not applied.  All that said, I do not think this content should be watered down or excluded.  Because, as  noted, it is significant.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  15:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "The current text ... isn't accurate if only one bio ... The other bio" Please. I cited four recent biographies, not two. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The current text is only referenced by two biographies . The Perry bio and the Marable bio.--DynaGirl (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OVERCITE. I could probably cite four or five sources for every sentence in the article, but the article already has more than 300 footnotes and I doubt if anybody wants to trudge through even more. I told you about the other two biographies above and linked to their bibliographic data. If you wish to pretend there are only two biographies, you only show that you're not listening.
 * You've ignored my repeated requests to try to come to consensus, instead trying to shoehorn your opinion into the article. Please try to work with me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Malik Shabazz, Please clarify. Are you saying the Collins & Jarvis bios also say that Malcolm X had sex with more than one man and not exclusively for money? --DynaGirl (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll get them in a little while and copy what they say. (Unfortunately, while they both have indices, neither index is particularly helpful.)
 * There have been very few full-length biographies of Malcolm X, which is part of the reason that Marable's book was greeted with such hoopla. (Read the last paragraph of that section, though.) Most of them have been for children or young adults. Almost all of them except Perry and Marable take The Autobiography of Malcolm X as gospel truth. They are the only two, aside from Peter Goldman's The Death and Life of Malcolm X in the early 1970s, who seem to have done any independent research and not relied solely on the Autobiography and the work of others. Look at the books in the "Works cited" and the "Further reading" sections of the article. I used Kofi Natambu's biography as a source for the article because it was fairly recent and it's a solid, traditional, tell-it-by-numbers, based-on-the-Autobiography book that's a good contrast to Perry. There haven't been any biographies that I know of—and I have about 50 or so books about Malcolm X—that have researched his life and refuted Perry's findings, which are based on the eyewitness testimony of a half-dozen people in three states who participated with Malcolm Little. Instead, the people who argue that Perry and Marable are wrong tend to be people who feel they have to "defend Malcolm's honor", not other biographers or historians. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal
As I wrote above, I think very highly of Ta-Nehisi Coates, but he's not a historian. If we want to critique either Perry or Marable, I think good places to start are Malcolm X: In Our Image (bibliographic information in "Works cited" in the article; available for snippet preview on Google Books), A Lie of Reinvention: Correcting Manning Marable's Malcolm X (unfortunately not accessible through Google Books), and this 1000-page, 41MB PDF with reviews and critiques of Marable, assembled by Abdul Alkalimat (if memory serves, Alkalimat's collection includes some of the essays included in A Lie of Reinvention). I think the appropriate place to debate those sources is here, on the talk page, at WP:RS/N if necessary, or maybe in a note to the article (such as this one, in which Attallah Shabazz disputes what her father, mother, and other reliable sources say about the source of her name), but not in the article's text.

I would like to try to reach consensus about this issue here on the talk page instead of edit-warring over it in the article's text. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Assassination
A little while ago Solomonfromfinland recommend the creation of an article about the assassination of Malcolm X. I completely agree. We have an article about the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and the assassination of Malcolm X was just historically important, controversial, and generated just as many conspiracy theories. Charles Essie (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, it's raw size that determines whether an article should be spun off, not the attributes you list (except indirectly, to the extent they contribute to size). While I'm sure there are details that could be added re the assassination, I'm not convinced that section would grow so bit that a separate article would be justified. Let me suggest you beat the bushes for sources and sandbox something to what kind of bulk it might have.  E Eng  04:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At one time I had hoped to write a spin-off article about the assassination of Malcolm X and some of the more obscure, but still notable aspects of the case, such as the Hayer affidavits. But when I actually looked at the sources available at the time, I thought there was relatively little that could be written without wandering into the realm of conspiracy theory. The King assassination is different because of the Jowers lawsuit and because King has always been the focus of the American media. (Our articles don't mention it, but I seem to recall that in the 1970s, the Church Committee looked into the FBI's involvement in the King assassination.) Until the Malcolm X renaissance that began during the late 1980s, the mainstream media—and most African Americans whose voices matter to policy-makers—didn't care about Malcolm X.
 * The publication of Manning Marable's Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention in 2011 may have changed the situation with respect to sources that could be helpful in writing an article about the assassination. Marable's was the first major biography of Malcolm X to name the five men who are widely believed to have taken part in the assassination. (Others, such as Karl Evanzz and Zak Kondo, had named them in print before.) Here are a 2010 blog post by one of Marable's research assistants, a post-publication article from the Star-Ledger, and an article from The New York Times about the possibility of prosecution of the surviving killers in the aftermath of the Marable biography. In the end, nothing happened.
 * One day, if I feel inspired, I still might write that article. I would certainly help another editor who was interested in starting it on her/his own. These days, I'm just not in the mood to write anything so ambitious. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions to article
I just reverted a series of constructive edits made to the article by Natassi. I wanted to explain what the changes were and why I reverted them, and an edit summary is too short for that. I also want to encourage discussion of the changes because other editors may disagree with my thinking and restore some of the changes I undid.

1) In the first paragraph, Natassi added "civil rights leader" to the description of who Malcolm X was. I know he's sometimes described that way in the press, and maybe we should follow suit. On the other hand, sooner or later every black leader is referred to as a civil rights leader, and the expression has become an empty signifier. Malcolm X was pretty clear that he was opposed to the agenda of the civil rights organizations of his time; they wanted equal rights to live in the United States, and he advocated separation from the United States. As an internationalist, he recognized that a claim of "civil rights" violations was a domestic issue that had to be litigated in the United States' courts, but a claim of "human rights" violations could be brought against the United States itself before the United Nations and other international bodies. Anyway, that's why I removed "civil right leader".

2) Natassi added to the last sentence of the lead section that "much controversy still surrounds the particulars of his death." I don't have a real problem with that, although I would probably change "still" to sound less time-bound.

3) In the section on the Hinton Johnson incident, Natassi added a few quotes from Malcolm X's autobiography. In 2008, when this article was de-listed as a Good article and I started improving it to bring it up to Featured article status, one of its problems was an over-reliance on Malcolm X and his autobiography. Maybe as a result, I'm reluctant to quote it except when I think it adds something unique that secondary sources can't provide. Again, other editors' perspectives would be good here.

4) In discussing Malcolm X leaving the Nation of Islam, Natassi added "and began making arrangements to make the sacred pilgrimage" to the end of the paragraph. First, I don't think it's encyclopedic to use a word like "sacred", but I also don't know that the cited sources support the addition.

5) Natassi added two more paragraphs of Ossie Davis's eulogy of Malcolm X. There's no bright line, but I'm afraid that may cross the line from fair use into copyright violation. Maybe we can expand what we're quoting, but probably not by that much.

6) In the opening to the "Philosophy" section, Natassi added a sentence about Malcolm X's daily writing and his philosophical growth. The source cited was The Diary of Malcolm X (no specific page). That's a primary source, which makes the addition original research without a secondary source, such as a book review or a reference to the book's foreword or introduction, that supports it.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * My thoughts on the above:
 * 1. Agree we should omit "civil rights leader".
 * 2. I've changed to read, "though controversy surrounds the circumstances of his death."
 * 3. I think the existing info, that Johnson was badly beaten about the head, is sufficient.
 * 4. The next section says right away the the pilgrimage is expected of those who can make it, so I don't see the need for the new text.
 * 5. In the case of a public oration I think fair use is a bit more flexible, but the amount of text being added her is excessive. I've cherry-picked two new phrases to keep.
 * 6. This is PRIMARY and OR.
 * And thanks to, who I hope won't be discouraged by the reception here of his/her contributions.  E Eng  04:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I put back in "still" please remove if it really offends. Thank you. Glennconti (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Biographies
The Biographies mentioned that talk about multiple things about Malcolms life contain verified information as well and unverifiable research. For example, in the opening of the article, next to his "pimping" etc, they out biographies claim that he was also sleeping with men. This isn't the first time they are used as a source and thrown into a paragraph with no context, making it so reading it out loud it is written as a fact. i think we need to put those biographies in a different section or paragraph, if at all, and make it clear the original items in them are in fact, disputed, and they are claims that have no been verified. 71.178.34.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Biographies and other reliable sources are used for many purposes in this article. When all sources agree, we don't usually mention the source. For example, we don't say that The New York Times reported that Malcolm X was shot at the Audubon Ballroom or that he was pronounced dead at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, even though that's the source we cite. We could have cited dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of other sources that would all say the same thing.


 * When some sources make an assertion that is not supported by dozens of other sources, we weigh its relative importance, its credibility, the credibility of the sources, and similar factors in terms of how we present it. Malcolm Little's sexual experiences with other men during his teenage years were one such assertion, his sexual experiences with other men during his criminal years were another; allegations of marital difficulties or sexual infidelity between Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz were a third. In my opinion, the first and last assertions were least credible, because each appeared only in a single source. Teenage sexual experimentation, if true, seems to me a trivial part of the life of Malcolm Little/Malcolm X.


 * I gave a little more credence to allegations of marital difficulties, which (while they appear in only one source) are supposedly corroborated by a letter from Malcolm X to his mentor, Elijah Muhammad. But what, I wonder, does knowing about Malcolm X's feelings that he was unable to satisfy his wife sexually tell us about his public career as a minister and activist? Nothing, in my view.


 * I don't know whether to trust allegations that in his last year, Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz were unfaithful to one another. These allegations, too, appear in only one source, based on rumors that were current at the time. Malcolm X was away from home for most of the last year of his life, travelling in Africa and in the U.S. He had men whom he trusted who stayed with his wife and family for protection when he was away. Some of the founding members and leaders of the OAAU were women, which was still a novelty in 1964. There was mistrust among the Muslims who followed Malcolm X (some of whom belonged to MMI) and the secular political types in the OAAU, and Malcolm X frequently wasn't in town, and when he was he sometimes had meetings with women other than his wife, and (not surprisingly) rumors arose about sexual affairs between him and one of the OAAU women and between Betty Shabazz and one of her bodyguards. I hope future biographies either put those rumors to rest or offer some proof to support them, but I don't think gossip and rumors are appropriate for an encyclopedia article.


 * Finally, there are the allegations that Malcolm Little engaged in sexual activities with other men during his criminal years. These have been reported by four biographies published over the course of a decade, and no biography published since the allegations were first made has refuted them. (Some have ignored them, but none has refuted them.) To me, these facts require us to consider these allegations more seriously than the others I've mentioned. Still, they're not supported by dozens of sources. I think the approach we've taken, which is to say that "recent biographies" say that Malcolm Little engaged in sex with other men, is the appropriate way to deal with the new information. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation!
Pronunciation in Arabic.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Is the idea this should be added to the article somewhere?  E Eng  15:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2017
Dear Author/Wiki,

My name is Nicholas Patler, and I would like to submit a request for "Further Reading" on the Malcolm X Wiki page: an essay-presentation that I researched and wrote, and shared at a civil rights conference a few years back, and which was just published by The Islamic Monthly. The title is, "From Macca to Selma: Malcolm X, Islam and the Journey Into the American Civil Rights Movement." It can be accessed online at The Islamic Monthly http://theislamicmonthly.com/mecca-to-selma/

Thank you for your consideration.

Truly, Nick 50.242.58.19 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Nick, and thank you for both your message and your thoughtful essay about Malcolm X. I truly wish we could add it to the "Further reading" section of this article, but if you look closely, you'll note that all the entries are books, not articles. As it is, I had a hard time keeping the number of books in the section under 30, and even that's probably too many. If we included links to interesting articles about Malcolm X, we'd be positively overwhelmed!


 * Your essay will be "featured" here on the article's talk page for at least the next two months before the link is moved to the archive by a bot. I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do. Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughtful essay with us. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Assassination
I find it curious that there is no mention at all of Al-Mustafa Shabazz, especially since there is a full section devoted to "conspiracy theories". I'm an ardent defender of WP:BLP, and I'm quick to keep fringe nonsense out of Featured Articles; with that said, there are high-quality sources that discuss his alleged role in the incident. Marable, in fact, directly impeaches Shabazz as Malcolm's assassin. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * He's mentioned in Hayer affidavits, which is linked to in this article. This article was written before Marable's biography was published, and at the time, Hayer's allegations were considered more fringe than they are now. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. My concern is that "Hayer affidavits" is a relatively low-traffic ancillary article. While relegating the information to that article was precisely the correct way of dealing with it at the time, I think there's now enough mainstream coverage in high-quality sources that it rates mention in a comprehensive biography of Malcolm X. What do you think? Joefromrandb (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You're probably right.
 * I had initially hoped to write an article about the assassination of Malcolm X, the reactions to it, and the various theories and allegations concerning who was behind it. There was a lack of reliable sources at the time on the last part, which (as you surmised) is why some of them ended up in another article. Marable had a lot of information about the lead-up to and aftermath of the assassination, much of which I had never read before, stories about bodyguards fleeing into Mexico or James Shabazz moving to a remote hill-top village in Guayana. It's well-known that Gene Roberts, an undercover detective who was a member of the NYPD's Bureau of Special Services, had become part of Malcolm X's security—in fact he was in the Audubon Ballroom when Malcolm X was assassinated. Even if, like me, you reject the conspiracy theories that have the FBI or CIA pulling the puppet-assassins' strings, it certainly seems like something was going on. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"human rights activist"
A big portion of this section was copied from the comments in the edit history

23:20, 7 May 2017‎ Jacob&#39;s Crackers (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)‎. . (114,495 bytes) (+11)‎. . (Made more accurate (see rest of article))
 * 01:26, 8 May 2017‎ Neonorange (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,917 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (revert good faith edit; unnecessary addition)
 * 09:19, 8 May 2017‎ Jacob&#39;s Crackers (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC) . . (114,930 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (Undid good faith reversion; It most certainly is needed, the article itself indicates he was a racist for 14 years and only stopped that for 1 year before his death) (undo)
 * 09:19, 8 May 2017‎ Jacob&#39;s Crackers (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC) . . (114,941 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (Accuracy)
 * 15:09, 8 May 2017‎ EEng (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,919 bytes) (-22)‎ . . (chronology is just one way to measure the arc of a life; the radical nature of his late-life conversion is a key part of what makes him remarkable. This is the summary of reliable sources)
 * Remarkability should not be within Wikipedia's scope nor is it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#SOAP) (although come to think of it, a specially sectioned forum thread attached to each article for opinions on it's subject might be a cool idea). Cited claims, however, are. That for the better portion of his life he was a racist has the support of the citations in the Advocacy and teachings while with Nation section. It gives a racist undue credit to call one a "supporter of human rights". Jacob&#39;s Crackers (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, and mine is different. I would argue that even while preaching the racist teachings of the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X was advocating for the human rights of African Americans. But Wikipedia policy doesn't allow either of us to add our own interpretation or analysis to the article. We are supposed to summarize what reliable sources have written about the subject.

As I asked you on your talk page last night, do any reliable sources describe Malcolm X as a human rights advocate "for a very short time"? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What Malik said.  E Eng  18:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought​ you were making the small observation that I hadn't put any cite marks in the bit of the summery the bit I inserted and instead deferred to the rest of the article. But instead you are saying that my interpretation of 1 year as being a short period of time compared to 16 years (the 16 depending on count) was too original because no established author that you know of has made that precise statement. -- Jacob&#39;s Crackers (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Marriage
According to the New York Post, a letter is up for auction in which Malcolm X makes painfully frank confessions to a friend about the collapse of his marriage — because he wasn’t able to satisfy his wife sexually. In the 1959 typed note, up for sale for $95,000 at MomentsInTime.com, X writes to his mentor, Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad, that his wife, Betty Shabazz, had complained that he had “never given her any real satisfaction” and “said to me that if I didn’t watch out she was going to embarrass me and herself (which under questioning she later said she was going to seek satisfaction elsewhere).” The letter goes into deep detail about the problems between X and Shabazz. “The main source of our troubles was based upon SEX. She placed a great deal more stress upon it than I was physically capable of doing. One day, she told me that we were incompatible sexually because I had never given her any real satisfaction. . . [She] outright told me that I was impotent. . . and I was like an old man (not able to engage in the act long enough to satisfy her). . . Her remarks like this were very heartbreaking to me.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishIona (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When it's more than a rumor about an unseen letter, get back to us.  E Eng  22:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The letter is much more than a rumor. Marable mentions it on pages 194–195 of A Life of Reinvention, where he quotes Malcolm X's aide James 67X about it; you can see the reference by visiting Google Books and searching for the phrase "heartfelt March 1959 letter" (with or without quotation marks). There have also been magazine articles about the letter. I may have read about it in other books, too.
 * The bigger issue is whether the question of whether Malcolm X sexually satisfied his wife is at all meaningful in a general biography, or whether writing about it gives the issue undue weight. See WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION. It isn't at all clear what the original poster intended with her message. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"racist"
17:16, 9 May 2017‎ MShabazz (talk | contribs)‎. . (114,919 bytes) (-12)‎. . (Undid revision 779547225 by Jacob's Crackers (talk) rv good-faith edit -- already in the last sentence of the paragraph, attributed (as it should be) to its sources)
 * In the last sentence of the paragraph it says that his detractors accused him of it. Not that he was one, which his black supremacist views (backed up by sources) indicate by the accepted definition of 'racism' -- Jacob&#39;s Crackers (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where sources agree, we state things flatly; where sources disagree, we point out the disagreement.  E Eng  15:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Describing someone or something as racist or antisemitic is almost always an opinion and should be attributed, not stated as a fact. See, for example, the opening of Ku Klux Klan, which describes the group's Ideology and activities as facts but attributes the description of the Klan as a hate group to the ADL and the SPLC. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Telegrams from near and far
Recently received:
 * From: Wikipedia <wiki@wikimedia.org> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 5:37 PM To: EEng Subject: Wikipedia email


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_X&oldid=prev&diff=784737600 > good try, Cracker
 * What's the matter? Afraid I might crack the whip on you, nigger?


 * -- This email was sent by user "Jacob's Crackers" on the English Wikipedia to user "EEng". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

 E Eng  00:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2017
Please change "no realistic goal for a nigger" to "no realistic goal for a [black person]" because some people may find the original language offensive. Bsmg1 (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED.  E Eng  20:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
Why does the intro to this article talk about how different groups of people view him, as opposed to talking about the major events in his life like most biographical articles do? It isn't very informative to just know how his supporters and detractors view him if I come here to learn about the man himself.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Um, well: father killed... mother in mental hospital... foster homes... prison... became a member... public face... social achievements... embraced Sunni Islam... travel... repudiated the Nation of Islam... founded Muslim Mosque... was assassinated. What major events are missing?  E Eng  15:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Bzweebl, as EEng indicated, the introductory section summarizes all the significant events in Malcolm X's life. However, as you note, unlike many other articles, the first paragraph doesn't focus on Malcolm X's deeds but on what other people thought about him. The reason is that Malcolm X didn't lead a mass movement. He didn't help pass legislation. I think his importance lies in the way he helped change the way African Americans thought of themselves, and the way white and black Americans thought about "race relations". It's hard to convey that without citing the way his admirers and detractors viewed him. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My bad EEng and MShabazz, I was reading it on mobile and must have been confused by the formatting and placement of the infobox because I only saw that first paragraph.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd gotten in touch just a few minutes earlier, because I've already dispatched the autonomous killer drone. I suggest you vacate the premises immediately.  E Eng  04:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Note: Not actual threat to kill fellow editor.