User talk:Jacob's Crackers

Malcolm X
Wikipedia's method is consensus, a policy. If you make an edit, and it remains unchanged, it can be assumed to have consensus. If it is reverted, it does not have consensus, and should be discussed on the talk page. Rather than reinstating your reverted edit, the next step is to discuss the edit on the talk page. Please self-revert—I will be glad to discuss my reasons for removing the edit, and other editors can join the conversation. In this way agreement can be reached. — Neonorange (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I see a second editor has reverted your edit. The next step for you is to make a case for your version on the talk page. — Neonorange (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I gave my reasoning in the edit summery and expected others to either accept my judgement or revert my edit with their reasoning. In that way we would have a discussion on the article. The policy article which thou referenced backs me up on that: "When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion."
 * If anyone wants to switch the discussion to the talk page is free to quote what was previously said and do so.

Hello, Jacob's Crackers. Please review WP:No original research. When editing Wikipedia articles, we are supposed to rely on what reliable sources say about a subject, not introduce our own interpretations or conclusions.

I believe the lead section of Malcolm X summarizes the rest of the article, and like the article, is based on what the majority of reliable sources say about him. I don't think I've come across any reliable sources that describe Malcolm X as "a human rights activist for a very short time". If you'd like to change the article, especially the opening paragraph, to describe Malcolm X that way, you will need to produce reliable sources that say that of him. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In the lead section I saw no citations like in the rest of the article. I inferred that that was because, like you said, it was a summery and therefore deferred citations to the rest of the article as does my addition.
 * (BTW are you OK about the (fairly trivial but one should ask) meta-editing of your post?) Jacob&#39;s Crackers (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In general, an article's lead section doesn't need citations because it's a summary of the sourced material cited elsewhere in the article. See WP:LEADCITE. (And no, I don't mind your fixing the formatting of my comments.) I replied to your comment at Talk:Malcolm X. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the ref?
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)