User talk:Malik Shabazz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User page Talk page Contributions Articles Shiny things WikiProjects

First time writing

Hello I'm working on a school assignment where we write on a civil rights activist, I'm currently trying to write on Helen Singleton who is a well known and documented civil rights activist. I'm trying to get the page worked out, but I see the problems and I'm unsure of how to fix them honestly I'm trying to link the page in the freedom riders page in which she is mentioned in the article, but then wasn't in the list of notable freedom riders, my link was taken. I understand my page is't perfect so what do you recommend for making it better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronicQueen (talkcontribs) 16:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi IronicQueen. I'd be happy to help you with Helen Singleton. I'll take a look at the article later this week. You added her to Freedom Riders#Notable Freedom Riders; I just moved her down into alphabetical order. If you have any specific questions, you can ask them here or by putting the {{helpme}} template on your page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi Malik. I need an honest party to vet a few things with regard to official communiques pertaining to the Operation Linda Nchi. Can you please confirm whether the bulleted links here indeed indicate what is italicized? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Middayexpress. Who are you calling honest? Face-smile.svg I'm afraid I don't have time right now, but I'll take a look at the links some time this week. Take care, — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello your majesty :) Al-Malik... King of the Shabazz... Just trying to be funny. You have as aggressive a style as I do, so I'm tiptoeing here a bit.
Ridiculous? Depends on who reads it. When I first read about this episode some 15+ years ago, it surely did catch my eye, proof is that I still remembered it and only needed to look up sources. Why? Are you kidding me? Give me another example of Jews fighting against a proper army, or even leading one, anytime between Bar Kochba / Dhu Nuwas / 614, and that rather tragi-comic story from the immediate neighbourhood, of the Farhi brothers besieging Acre in 1821-22 at the head of a Turkish/Syrian army. It's quite boring to always discover yet another pogrom, including by the Crusaders. This is finally something else. A first (and only?) during at least 1200 years of history, and you call it ridiculously over-quoted? Before putting in the original quote by Albert of Aachen, smb. edited down the story because allegedly the source wouldn't support the claim. My foot. So yes, when other editors don't accept a decently concise and perfectly clear quote, maybe a long one will do the trick. WP is a nasty place. Ma'assalama my friend, Arminden (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Hi Arminden. The name is Malik, not Melech (although they may come from the same root). I appreciate your feelings about the story of Jews defending Haifa, but I wonder whether its proper place is in articles such as History of the Jews and the Crusades#Defending in the Holy Land, History of Israel#Crusader and Ayyubid rule 1099–1291, and History of Palestine#Kingdom of Jerusalem (Crusaders) period. (In fact, it appears in two of those three articles.) The real question is whether general books about Israel mention the incident. If not, it probably doesn't belong in our general article about Israel. In any event, the best place to discuss this is probably Talk:Israel#Reason for removing one sentence, where other editors can contribute to the discussion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Malik. King is king, if Arab malik or Hebrew melech, same respect is due :) Nobody expects Malcolm X to give himself a Hebrew name; Arabic, yes. Anyway, if a (huge) article about Israel doesn't find space for a couple of lines on the only medieval mention of Jews putting up a fight in Palestine/the Holy Land/the Land of Israel, then I don't know what to say. It borders on the humourous. The long bit is a footnote, not part of the article, and was objectively needed (I explained why, the episode was taken out, I put it back in with one good Moshe Gil quotation, which Onceawhile immediately contested with... Resnick, who did nothing but actually support the story, so I added the actual text to the footnotes; most people nowadays don't read, other than diagonally.) I just had an exchange with Zero: bringing in Prawer is nice and possibly a gain (although THAT is arguably what makes the episode take a lot more space), but the good old professor is considered slightly outdated, his doubts ate notable, but there is little in terms of plausibility why a canon of the royal church at Aachen/Aix would all of the sudden start praising the fighting prowess of the Jews of Haifa based on fantasy, or a literary/political/educational agenda.
I don't want to go too far, but this whole discussion doesn't look constructive to me. If one takes out from the historical narrative, say, the revolt of the notable families in Palestine (not so much of the peasants' though, to be realistic; they were the foot soldiers) against Ibrahim Pasha, I presume ideological reasons; if Albert's Haifa 1100 episode is contested, I presume the same. It's not about reliability of sources (this is not math anyway), it's about significance. Continuity and the formation of national identity are major issues; granted, projecting into the past is always a big danger, but mentioning relevant episodes is a must for balanced historiography. If everything needs "discussing", then we can leave WP editing to the pensioners, life annuity receivers and government employees right away. WP is meant for regular readers who look up what's out there, so even considering to take out events found relevant enough as to give rise to so many theories and comments (we didn't invent this :)), is plain wrong and goes against the purpose of the WP as a work of reference; and, unfortunately, keeping something very brief and concise is taken by editors with certain agendas as an invitation for removing it altogether. And that's a more general WP dilemma. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden


Hi. I've had a brief look at the 'Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement', a page I've never read closely before, and there are many many items which have nothing to do with the movement. There are movies, incidents, books, etc. having no movement connection. Has there been wide discussion of item inclusion on the list (I've not looked at the talk page, and will at some point soon, but wanted to get your feeling about this). Thanks. Randy Kryn 2:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Randy. I agree that Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement is more like a Timeline of African-American History than anything else. I believe my edits to the page before today have only been anti-vandalism. Today I did a little housekeeping, with an eye toward preserving what was already there. What really got my goat was that in two consecutive edits, an editor added the first African-American Disney Princess twice![1][2]
Looking at the article's Talk page, it doesn't look like there's been a discussion of the article's scope in many years. It would probably be a good idea to have such a discussion. Take care. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a name change request to 'Timeline of A.A.H.' would be better than trimming the page of all non-movement items. Then the Disney Princess (?) and other mentions could stay, and the page can be expanded. The movement items can still be included, but within the overall history and not as a stand alone title (unless another specific page just on movement topics is created). What do you think? Randy Kryn 11:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
So requested: Talk:Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement#Requested move 20 May 2015. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Should be an interesting discussion. In anticipation of it passing I've created a user page from an edit of the article which can be used for a page solely about the events of the 1954-1968 Movement. Even those years had to be heavily edited to pull out just the movement data. Randy Kryn 9:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Porn Bio issue with...

User User:Holanthony, this editor is adding unsourced or VERY poorly sourced information to various BLP articles about porn performers. The most recent has been the additions of LinkedIn profiles along with supposed real names of performers using anonymous blogs as the source. Their edit history shows where. Help, please... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I'm sorry!! I thought those external links were ok to add since in some cases they were no official websites belonging to that particular person. If they're not ok, I'll stop adding them, I thought I was improving the article. As for "unreliable sources", I try to quote sites that seem legit. What are the rules here? The wiki guide lines are very vague on this point and seem very subjective.--Holanthony (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Holanthony, the issue with Linked in profiles is that anyone can take a photo from the internet and use it to create a profile. Unless the subject happens to run across it and then wants to prove who they are or that the fake profile is not them, there's no way to tell if its legit or not.
As for real names, you'd better have an iron clad reliable source that states an obvious connection. The only ones I've seen that work are interviews where the performer admits it or in mainstress press where there is oversight and fact checking that meets WP:RS. If you're not sure, ask at the WP:PORNPROJECT. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but here's where I don't get it. I have sometimes quoted interviews with the actor in question, but that has too been thrown out as "unreliable". Why is that?

As for your comment about LinkedIn, why is that assessed differently from other social media like Twitter or Instagram? Isn't it "dubious" as to whether or not those sites also belong to the actual performer?--Holanthony (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Holanthony, any use of social media must be from a verified account. See WP:TWITTER for details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd need to see a specific dif for the interviews. Just remember, not everything that's labeled a "biography" came from the person its about. That one site,, is just an advertising driven Wordpress blog, it's referred to as Clickbait.
Twitter is higher profile in the adult industry and used by more porn performers than LinkedIn. LinkedIn is for business to business networking even with its social media aspects. Performers usually go to significant lengths to insure that a Twitter account is their's unless it operated by their PR agency. Some things are a judgement call, others are more obvious, but we still need to be diligent about this stuff. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so Twitter, Myspace Facebook and Instagram are by and large fair game to publish if it seems ostensibly like the performers own account whereas LinkedIn would need a third party confirmation by the performer in order to be validated, is that correctly understood? If so, which other social media forums are "safe" and which other need "validation"?

Also, why is it that it seems ok to sometimes publish performers social media details (Twitter etc.) when they have an official website listed, but not other times? Also, sometimes some performers who lack official websites but have social media, but still such information insertion is discarded. Why is that? --Holanthony (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Basically External Links covers this. There's been a lot of mis-interpretation of this, so there are plenty of articles where its done incorrectly. Generally, if a subject has a verifiable main website, such [porn star name].com (, etc.), then no other Social Media links are allowed. External links like IAFD and IMDB are OK because they lead to additional detail about a subject. ONLY if a performer does NOT have a main website is it OK to post an External Link to a Social Media site. At that point, its a bit of a judgement call as to which one if they have several. Personally I would post the one that is the best source of information versus things like photos. Malik, did I cover the main points correctly? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, but the thing that gets me is that since Wiki has adopted templates for most types of social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc.), doesn't that indicate that Wiki has worked out a system for posting these on people's websites? Also, how is it that the "official" site is the preferable? Say if Tanya Tate (taking her as an example as you mentioned her) has a Facebook, Instagram etc. that is operated by her, whereas her "official" site does not belong to her, but is operated by a third party, her studio, or someone else other than her (again, just an example, I don't know if she is in control of her official site or not). How is linking to that site more "reliable" than linking to a platform that is hers? Ought there not be some leeway here?Holanthony (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that drives us nuts too. I've inquired about it, but the existence of any template is not justification its use anywhere unfortunately. As for the official site, its just how the policy is written. If I had to guess, I'd say that things like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc. are more like a fad and an official website in considered something more lasting. Plus, the websites usually list ALL of their Social Media, so it gets found/discovered regardless. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. An official site is always preferred. It doesn't matter what it's called: if it's the official site, it's preferred. And if [performer's name].com is not the official site, then it's not the official site, and is not preferred.
  2. Beyond that, the WP:BLP policy is always in play. But consider how much difficulty you could get someone into if you link to, say, a spammed social-media site belonging to someone who is not a porn performer. This area is one where even the normal very-strict rules we have on BLP issues have to be taken even more strictly. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, but the situation becomes even trickier when a person has more than one official website. Take Dani Daniels for isntance. She has one "official" site for her pron stuff. Beyond that, she is also an artist performing under the pen name "Pen15". Depending on what your interest is, she could have two official sites. What is the rule her.

And if a performer does NOT have an official site and we are to go with social media, does that mean its a go-ahead for all the popular ones belonging to that performer or does one become representative above the others? A problem is that such sites recurrently become hacked, closed or whatever (such as in the infamous case of Jenna Jameson). In this case, it would be good to have a backup to go to as the performer in question will announce what's happened and what the new address is.Holanthony (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, another question, if a performer makes an announcement on their official Twitter, and it is not linked in the External Links section, may it be sourced as a reference?Holanthony (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If someone makes an announcement that is otherwise reasonable to use as a reference, it can be used as a reference. Cite it there.
I really have to ask you something, though. Why are you pushing so hard on this? This is an encyclopedia, not a news site or a fan site. What do you need to link to that you feel so strongly about linking to? For the most part, Wikipedia discourages External Links that are not used as specific citations. We want citations from reliable sources only, and we are looking to verify encyclopedic information. We are not here to report the performer's latest news, self-generated or otherwise. So I strongly encourage you to back off here. Think hard about whether you need to create links like this at all. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I am asking because the issue is not perfectly clear to me and there seems to be some ambiguity as to what is permissible and what is not. So just to clarify, if someone who has an official site makes an important statement on say, Twitter, or any other social media source, and one makes a reference to it, should this channel then be listed under "External Links"?Holanthony (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No. If someone makes a statement on a social media source, and if that statement can legitimately be incorporated as a reference in the article, then you can cite that statement as a regular reference in the article, using <ref></ref> tags, just as you would add any other legitimate reference from any other reliable source. But that's it. Include the source in that citation, but don't also add the channel to "External Links." It's not necessary and not appropriate. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, but here's the thing. I keep on hearing that interviews, videos etc. with the subjects in question are ok, but I have sometimes referenced interviews on Youtube (in the way you are suggesting) only to have someone remove them, saying the source isn't "reliable" even though it is blatantly obvious it is the actual person talking. Just to name one example this happened with a Nikki Tyler interview.Holanthony (talk) 4:35 pm, Today (UTC−7)


Seems the comma has gone back into Martin Luther King's name, and the world of comma-fans rejoice. There is one page which is still comma challenged from not being able to move the title, can you have a go at it? Tis Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site to Martin Luther King, Jr. Historic Site. Thanks. Randy Kryn 10:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site. (I assumed your omission of "National" in the target name was unintentional. If not, let me know and I can move it again.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Totally unintentional, and thank you for catching such a stupid error. My apologies. This was an interesting one, it seems like it was up to Wikipedia to decide once and for all (until next time), given the evidence before it, if Dr. King's name was going to escape the drive toward a commaless world (to coin a phase). Luckily it has, and the name that's inscribed on his tombstone will be the name that Wikipedia will call him. At least until next time. Thanks for the page move, with all its words included. Randy Kryn 21:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) What do I know? I would have put a comma after the "Jr.," too. (I also put commas inside quotation marks.) StevenJ81 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Grigorij Richters

Hi. I see that you previously deleted the page Grigorij Richters, and I was just asked by a non-Wikipedian friend about the article Grigorij richters. I wasn't sure what to make of it, and posted a comment: Talk:Grigorij_richters#Previously_deleted. I wonder if you can determine whether this article needs to be deleted, or moved, or something else? I hardly edit here anymore, so I feel pretty out-of-the-loop on these questions. Thanks in advance for any help. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi GTBacchus. I replied at Talk:Grigorij_richters#Previously_deleted and moved the page to Grigorij Richters. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I thank you. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 00:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

A twofer

Hello M. No doubt you've already seen it but on the off chance you haven't (talk · contribs) opened threads at both AN and ANI. MarnetteD|Talk 01:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned you

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_admins --NeilN talk to me 00:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Neil. Our "friend" was particularly prolix tonight, but my Talk page is now protected for a week. My sincere thanks to everybody who helped with reversions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)