Talk:Malcolm X

Malcolm X's Sexuality

I assume it would be instantly deleted... but would it be allowed to include his bisexuality in the page? It seems to be an important part of who he was - but probably not fondly remembered by his followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.70.122.132 (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I second this and would appreciate some information on his sexuality. This is information on his character and important to our impression of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.113.196 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is based off of this page? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/20/malcolm-x-bisexual-black-history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.52.151 (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed before. (See the archives on the top right of this page.) Malcolm X's sexuality has nothing to do with what makes him notable. It wasn't "an important part of who he was". This is an encyclopedia article, not a tabloid newspaper, and I don't see any reason to add information that doesn't provide insight into Malcolm X's character or career. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This goes far to explain his personality, much more than the excessive statements used to portray him as a "badass" do. The truth will also help the image of gays in the black community, something the Nation of Islam is against. You are advocating censoring the facts for your own religious purposes. Repressed homosexuality has more to do with someones character than a giant box with links to unrelated Nation of Islam pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.143.22 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This should be removed from the article until more than a single source exists. The article's purpose is not to advocate for homosexuals, blacks, or Islam. The article's purpose is to inform the public of actual facts which can be verified. The Guardian's articles (there are now 2) both reference the same book by an author who himself is not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, one Bruce Perry. The book, Malcolm: The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America, was widely panned upon release and has only been picked up due to the hint that Malcolm X was bisexual or gay. Since the book is not notable, its author is not notable, and the many other Malcolm X biographies (need I point out the man's life has been combed over a few times...) do not indicate the veracity of this claim, this should be removed from the article immediately until a better source is found. Geofferic (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

However if people find some reliable sources, they can add it without fear of removal as they would be against policy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Shabazz is not making sense, especially by deleting this again. A person's sexuality has a great deal to do with who they are and what they do; the fact that a number of black people refer to homosexuality as "the white man's disease" makes a mockery of deleting Malcolm X's sexuality from this page. --Boldautomatic (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia features plenty of facts and factoids based on a single source. As long as the discussion on MX's sexuality cites that source, it should be there, and it wouldn't be "tabloid newspaper" talk.Prolagus (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Guardian piece, by Peter Tatchell who is rather well-known for researching subjects on all human rights issues, cites Bruce Perry's "acclaimed biography", Malcolm – The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America which is extensively cited in the article already. Tatchell writes:

“ Perry is a great admirer and defender of Malcolm X, but not an uncritical one. He wrote the facts, based on interviews with over 420 people who knew Malcolm personally at various stages in his life, from childhood to his tragic assassination in 1965. His book is not a hatchet job, as some black critics claim, it is the exact opposite. Perry presents an honest, rounded story of Malcolm's life and achievements which, in my opinion, is far more moving and humane than the better known but somewhat hagiographic The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told To Alex Haley.

Based on interviews with Malcolm's closest boyhood and adult friends, Perry suggests the US black liberation leader was not as solidly heterosexual as his Nation of Islam colleagues and black nationalist acolytes have always claimed. While Perry did not make Malcolm's sexuality a big part of his biography – in fact, it is a very minor aspect – he did not shy away from writing about what he heard in his many interviews.

He documents Malcolm's many same-sex relations and his activities as a male sex worker, which spanned at least a 10-year period, from his mid-teens to his 20s, as I described in some detail in a previous article for the Guardian. Although Malcolm later married and, as far as we know, abandoned sex with men, his earlier same-sex relations suggest that he was bisexual rather than heterosexual.

”

Presently we note he solicited prostitutes among other criminal activity and that is the sum total. There seems to be nothing of these non-heteroseual experiences even hinted at. In his 2005 piece Tatchell notes that even Spike Lee's movie hinted there was more to it and that "As for his sporadic gay hustling, as Perry notes, "there were other ways he could have earned money". Dope-dealing, thieving and pimping were sources of income he had pursued with success. There was no imperative to sell his body. Why, then, did he prostitute himself? Misogyny and repressed homosexuality might be the answer. According to Perry: "His male-to-male encounters, which rendered it unnecessary for him to compete for women, afforded him an opportunity for sexual release without the attendant risk of dependence on women." I think there may be room for adding a few sentences and at least exploring the issue rather than dismiss someone's ten-year span of sexual activity out-of-hand. Did someone else re-interview all the people Perry did and they all insisted they were misunderstood and misquoted? At this point we could lean on what Perry researched and use that analysis to explain the relevance and tack on that Tatchell noted the longstanding cultural taboo in Black communities to acknowledge LGBT history may explain the omissions. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X Was Gay? Gives a reasonable overview of the issue. -- Banjeboi 11:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:

1) Nothing has been "removed" or "deleted" from the article. We're discussing whether to add it. I see now that something was added and deleted. I had nothing to do with removing it. I recommend hashing out the issue here before it is added again.

2) I haven't "censored" anything. I simply expressed my opinion that a discussion of Malcolm X's youthful sexual activities doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Anybody is free to agree or disagree.

3) Perry's biography is a reliable source. Perry interviewed more people who knew Malcolm X than any previous biographer. However, Perry often seems determined to paint Malcolm X as a psychological basket case. (This isn't just my opinion; reliable sources, including Michael Eric Dyson, say that. [1] [2]) In general, I rely on Perry for facts, but not for analysis. I wouldn't consider Peter Tatchell's newspaper opinion columns reliable sources, and Marc Lamont Hill's blog also isn't a reliable source.

4) I have no vested interest in hiding Malcolm X's youthful sexual activities. Contrary to 165.124.143.22's suggestion, there are no "religious purposes" in my viewpoint. I'm not a Muslim or an NoI member, and I don't really care what either of those religions have to say about homosexuality.

5) Finally, as Geofferic suggested, the purpose of an encyclopedia article isn't to "help" anybody's image. We're not here to build people's self-esteem.

Just my opinion. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your opinion is completely valid and I'm not convinced anyone was purposely censoring but culturally this has been a practice certainly. I think Hill's blog may be a reliable source but that issue can perhaps be shelved until a more thoughtful way of how to address this. My point with the Hill link was to show how such heteronormative writing is a disservice to all involved. I don't think anyone thinks Malcolm was a gay icon but if, like so many historical figures, his non-heterosexual history has been sanitized we don't have to abide by that as we aren't here to make or break a legacy nor sell anything. So let's simply find a NPOV and Undue way to present - according to Perry's interviewing many close childhood friends and associates he had same-sex relationships, etc etc including male hustling. I'm in no rush and would like to read Perry's words and we likely should quote him directly so it's more apparent what is being said and that we aren't saying it. If Perry further makes analysis we can see if and how to address it and if it's disputed, etc. I think context for all of it would make sense. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems very odd that this is missing - also by citing it, he can be added to the LGBT categories which will aid the navigation of readers. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that this belongs in the article. I'll draft a few sentences and post them here for other editors to comment. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I re-read the relevant portions of Perry's biography, and here's what I've got:

According to one of his biographers, Little occasionally engaged in sex with other men, usually though not always for money. In a Michigan boarding house, he raised rent money by sleeping with a gay transvestite. Later, in New York, Little and some friends raised funds by being fellated by men at the YMCA where he lived. In Boston, a man paid Little to undress him, sprinkle him with talcum powder, and bring him to orgasm. The biographer notes that Little's motive in these liaisons appears to have been financial, but he could have earned money in other ways.

I chose to leave out the schoolboy incident; I don't think childhood sexual incidents have any relevance. I'm open to any copy-editing suggestions.

I'd also like to hear any suggestions on where in the article this belongs. I'm thinking that it probably should go in the top portion of the "Young adult years" section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the Guardian article and the parts of the biography that were quoted, I think it's clear that some mention of Malcolm's sexual orientation belongs in this article, so long as it references these reliable sources. Phil Spectre (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Having heard no comments, I'm going to add the paragraph as shown above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I've tweaked it a bit; thanks for pulling it together! -- Banjeboi 23:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X's sexuality is not what's important here. It's what he did when he was on this Earth. And apparently his sexuality is clear since he DID have a wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thriller95 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to discredit someone by alleging possible homosexuality beg the question of whether the allegation's author is a homophobe, or attempting to pander to homophobes, who believe there is something "wrong" with being gay, and thus something "wrong" with the person who is the subject of the article. It makes it difficult to assume "good faith" on the part of those who seem so intent on injecting such allegations into an otherwise balanced article. - Mark Dixon 05:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmarco (talk • contribs)

Please try to assume good faith. Many of the editors who advocated for the addition of information about Malcolm's sexual experiences with other men seem to me to be motivated by an interest in claiming Malcolm X as a gay hero, not in tearing him down. I don't think the article is any less balanced now that it includes that information than it was before. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Note: Much of this section no longer makes sense since an editor decided to delete all of his responses. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The part saying Malcolm X is bisexual and that he did gay things needs to be taken out! There is no proof of this. This "Bruce Perry" could have lied! This is simply a rumor! Malcolm X was not a gay hero! There was never a mention or suspect of Malcolm X being gay until this man came along, which shows that this Bruce Perry is lying and that whole paragraph about Malcolm X being gay needs to be TAKEN OUT! Did this man even know Malcolm X? Than how could he know about Malcolm X's personal life? Malcolm X's family has not come out and said he was gay so how could this lying stranger come out and try to ruin Malcolm X's image? THE PARAGRAPH CLAIMING MALCOLM X WAS GAY NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajkeojaeje (talk • contribs) 19:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to shout. Please read the preceding discussion. Bruce Perry interviewed Malcolm X's surviving friends, who had no reason to lie about him. And in any event, the article doesn't say that Malcolm was gay, only that he had some early sexual experiences with other men. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the entire discussion above to see the varying viewpoints concerning whether the article should include information about Malcolm X's sexual experiences with other men, and why. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus was that the article should include that information. As far as Bruce Perry is concerned, his biography is also discussed above. Although it is controversial, it is probably the best-researched book available about Malcolm X. Finally, the article doesn't say that Malcolm was gay, only that he had some early sexual experiences with other men. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is another view-- Take it out. By the same standard that is applied to other articles. Funny the weight given to this. Seems like Bruce Perry had a lot to say and is given undue voice by i guess people who really want to destroy malcolm X as a hero. Who did he interview or should we just take it on faith? I guess U could sneak in anything under that "I interviewed his friends" Undue weight, Not reliable source, anything else?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source? By what standard? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record I again Agree with the above editor: Take It out. Perry is being scandalous. Where is the list of friends so we can cross check this. And u can pay a poor man 2 say anything. Lets no pretend we are all old enough to know what this is really about so why play the game?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of people Perry interviewed is in the back of the book, on pages 521–529. You can view it at amazon.com. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Halaqah, Like the other editor, you're perfectly willing to accept the idea of "u can pay a poor man 2 say anything", while at the same time refusing to entertain the idea that a poor Malcolm did these things for money. Either you're right, and people will do anything for money (like prostituting themselves to strange men) or you're wrong (and people can't be induced to do things they view as wrong just over money). Which is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a lie. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus was that the article should include that information. While it's true that consensus can change, I'd like to see more discussion of this matter before we remove anything from the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is clearly because you don't like it being in here. Funny you should say that "some people will do anything for money"... that's exactly part of the allegation, that Malcolm engaged in homosexual acts for money. While you are willing to believe that these people claimed it for money, you refuse to believe that he was prostituting himself to men for money. Nor does it matter whether his image is hurt by it or not. The truth isn't always flattering. We have reliable, third party claim that it happened. If you can find a reliable, third party claim that it didn't, you can present it as balance. But you've made NO reasonable argument about why it should be removed aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thinks don't get settled by what people would "like". It is settled by policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• You have said you don't like it. You have talked about how it hurts his image etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG would seem to apply here. These are surprising claims and has any other reliable sources independently verified these claims or is everything just based on one book? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is a FA. Don't you suppose that has been hashed out? The answer is yes, it has been, extensively. Little late to try the Redflag argument. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentences in question were added after the article became a FA. This section is where we discussed adding them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the discussion that analyzed this under REDFLAG. There isn't a statute of limitations on policy if it wasn't previously considered, Nightshift, despite the blustering and misleading rhetoric. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, the statements are based on Bruce Perry's biography. Despite its problems, Perry's biography is the best-researched book about Malcolm X to date. (Manning Marable's forthcoming biography of Malcolm X may supplant Perry's as the best-researched.) Perry interviewed more than 400 people who knew Malcolm X, and his is the first biography to question the veracity of Malcolm X's Autobiography. I don't have the book handy, but I seem to recall that Perry put his resources, including the interviews, in a library to allow other scholars access.

FWIW, I think I'm the only editor who has commented here who has read the Perry biography. Based on their comments, some of the other editors seem not to know anything about it at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Goldgreen, you don't know what you're talking about. There was no research involved in writing The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Alex Haley edited what Malcolm X told him and helped put it into book form. Above I linked to Perry's book at amazon.com; look at pages 521–529 for more information about the interviews.

As far as the problems with Perry's book, I discussed them above in this discussion. Which you claim to have read. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was out of line to say that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Autobiographys are not well-researched. They are whatever the subject says they are. Malcolm says it, Haley wrote it. The "auto" in autobiography means that it is done by the subject himself. He didn't go research himself. BTW, Perry doesn't claim Malcolm was gay. He said that he performed homosexual acts for money. There is a difference. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Perry's sources for Malcolm's sexual experiences with other men include (a) Malcolm Jarvis (referred to as "Shorty" in The Autobiography of Malcolm X), (b) Johnny Davis, Jr., and (c) at least three confidential sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• The current content is pretty much what was added after some deliberation of what would be NPOV and Undue. A possible solution would be to have other FA writers/reviewers take a look to see if there is a better way to word or present this. Frankly the discussion up top was pretty civil and I didn't get the impression he was or is a gay icon but likely, like many young people, willing to do things he likely wouldn't want anyone to know about especially when it comes to non-culturally sanctioned sexuality/activities. Does this make him gay, bi or anything else? Probably not but it does show him as a risk-taker and opportunist. We have kept the research to a minimum and omitting any mention of the details actually does become a problem. We dispassionately present the subject and let the reader decide what to think. We don't sensationalize it but neither do we censor anything away. I commend Malik Shabazz again for working to find something that accomplishes all of this. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article is balanced, well-written, and deserving of praise. So what if Malcolm had sexual experiences with other men. He was brilliant and ground-breaking. Homosexual experiences should not "tarnish" one's image. And that seems to be the issue concerning those begging for the removal of well-researched information. Personally, I don't care whether the paragraph is kept in or taken out; it's the fact that some editors find homosexual experiences to be shameful that annoys me. ExistentialBliss (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But "According to biographer Bruce Perry" has preceded that paragraph since November of last year. ExistentialBliss (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe if it is said enough times, you'll actually realize what is being said. Nobody is calling him gay. What is said it that he performed homosexual acts for money. That doesn't mean he was gay. You could correctly say that the articles says that he was a prostitute, gigalo, hooker or even whore, but the inference that he was homosexual can't be inferred from merely performing the acts for money. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Try being correct before you correct me. I didn't comment on that. I commented on your repeated assertion that the article is calling him gay. Get it right. And learn to sign your responses. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Calling it an insult doesn't make it one. You sometimes forget? * out of the 9 posts you made before I pointed it out were unsigned. 88% isn't "sometimes", it's damn near every time. So if you're going to make excuses, please try to make them believable ones. Apparently you're not capable of understanding the difference between performing sex acts with a same sex partner because you're a hooker and being a homosexual. Sorry for trying to educate you and get you out of your narrow frame of mind. I won't make that error again. (Then you responded to this and "forgot" to sign it. Then just erased your response. LOL.) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The proper thing to do is remove the section Until this is resolved here. It is funny the process of agreement, who is keeping count? I say rmv this weak content. Can we find another source to back up these "interviews". REMV the content, another character assassination. Undue weight and in any event what does this info have 2 do with Malcolm. Does Oprah sex habits get thrown into her bio? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Halaqah, you likely mean well but you may not realize that one of the key editors here helped bring this article to featured article status using the best sourcing available including biographer Bruce Perry. In fact Perry, I believe, is considered one of the better sources and that's why the content was given consideration. You have a point that we might not need to preface it as coming from Perry but there is no need to remove the information. If you have a specific proposed wording change that abides by our policies on NPOV, Undue and RS then please suggest it as we are always looking to improve content. -- Banjeboi 19:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, you're back? Maybe we should restore your previous posts as well. What does this have to do with his life? HHe was performing homosexual acts for money, a major sin in Islam, then converted to Islam. It shows the amount of change it made in his life. If anything, it could be construed as complimentary by showing how he went from getting paid to put his penis in another mans mouth to being a religious leader. That's a pretty big accomplishment. He could have easily stayed being a petty criminal and prostitute his whole life, but he chose to make something of himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

First, Mr. Shabazz, thank you for your work on this article! I only wonder whether it is neutral to include Mr. Perry's opinion that "... he could have earned money in other ways." Anyone could earn money in a different way than they are now, so that sentence has no factual content. Thus, it could only be there for political reasons! If the point is that he was MSM by choice, then "...usually though not always for money" does a fine job of indicating that, while also providing information. Nology (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. You raise a very good point. I'd like to hear a few other editors' opinions, but I'm inclined to take the phrase out. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above comment after reading the article. It seems even handed in its portrayal which is impressive, but the statement about "he could have earned money in other ways" is seemingly an author interjecting his opinion on a matter to influence the readers interpretation. Obviously the issue is sensitive and I haven't read Perry's account so I won't comment on it, but for this statement at least, there is a clear interpretation (dare i say judgement) that the author has come to and he is trying to sway the reader. I think such judgements ought to be left to the reader.

• Don't we usually consider the opinions of reliable sources to hold weight? Nobody complains if we publish the opinion of a movie critic as long as it's in a reliable source. Pick the bio of any political figure and you'll probably find the opinion of an author, historian or whatever, documented in a reliable source. Why is this different? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of a reliable source are certainly warranted and necessary when discussing an inherently subjective matter such as the quality of a movie. On sensitive, factual issues such as this, its's not clear to me why an opinion is needed at all. For example, I just read the George Bush wikipedia page, nowhere does it state that while he was heavily abusing alcohol, "he could have been doing more productive things to help society," although that is certainly true. Also, that wikipedia page states that Bush has repeatedly refused to answer whether he used drugs because he doesn't want to set a bad example for kids. There is no comment thereafter stating that, "this is a virtual admission of drug use," although many people and certainly multiple journalists have made this comment. The point is, any of those comments could be made, but on sensitive issues, the appropriate default is to report the facts and allow individuals to form their own conclusions from there. As another example, on the Bill Clinton wikipedia page (and the Monica Lewinsky scandal page) it doesn't say that Bill Clinton had other important presidential duties he could have been completing in the oval office or in the WH instead of cheating on his wife. Although, this statement would of course be correct, it is pejorative and judgmental in nature and hence it is appropriately not made. So, in the case of Malcolm X, why not use the same standard? Why not report the facts and leave the judgments to the reader? I don't understand what Mr. Perry's comment "he could have earned money in other ways" is adding (as nology said). That is true for everyone doing anything for money. To my reading, it makes an implicit judgmental statement and is pejorative. If I'm a nurse, I could clearly earn money in other ways but it doesn't make sense to make that type of comment unless you are trying to disparage being a nurse. In this case, the reader should be more than equipped to decide what they think of such acts without some third person passing judgment. Mr. Perry may be a reliable biographer, however I doubt he is a moral ethicist who is suited to make implicit statements about the morality of an individual's actions. The moral judgments on sexual moral issues between consenting adults including affairs, prostitution, etc ought to be left to the reader because it differs greatly from society to society and individual to individual. Hence the appropriate way of dealing with it, is to be factual and leave the opinions to the reader. Implicit judgments are not the standard on other wikipedia pages of prominent officials who have had what might be viewed as "moral failings". [[[Special:Contributions/68.162.180.93|68.162.180.93]] (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)](UTC)

• Your reasoning, which sounds a lot like other crap doesn't exist, misses a very important point. Is there a reliable source that says Bush "could have been doing more productive things to help society" while abusing alcohol? Same for the others. If you had an actual reliable source that said that, then you might have something to debate on that point. But absent one, the fact that a non-existant source isn't being used to say something is really kind of an empty defense. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, I don't frequent wikipedia... so if the gold standard of the appropriateness of a comment on the page is whether a citable source has said it... then i guess Mr. Perry is citable, so that suffices. However, that seems like a least common denominator argument to me. Further, what does Mr. Perry cite as his source to such a statement. I would be interested in knowing whether he has cited a specific source for that particular statement or whether that is his own "insight". Since inclusion of a reliable source is the only criteria you are trying to stand on, then please let me know the source he bases that particular statement on. Until someone does, it appears that statement does not even meet the weak defense criteria you are positing in support of it.

Additionally, smart people can often make subjective and stupid comments. If the only basis for inclusion in wikipedia is that it was said by a citable source, then every off color or ignorant comment made by an otherwise reliable, intelligent source should be included as legitimate. That is an absurd position. A citable source ought to only be one of multiple criteria for information on a topic. I have not heard anyone argue against the position that Mr. Perry is passing an implicit moral judgment by making such a statement, and it remains very unclear to me what moral legitimacy he has to make such a statement. If you can prove he is a moral ethicist or a Pope for all peoples of all religions (including those with none), then i stand corrected. But if not, then he is not a reliable source for making moral judgments (please note that while Einstein may have been a reliable source on physics, that doesn't mean his statements on football ought to be regarded as accurate and worthy of citation if he does not have established expertise in that area). Similarly, Mr. Perry's research on Malcolm X through secondary sources does not provide him with carte blanche or justifcation to make moral statements about Malcolm Little. To know the facts of a man through secondary sources is not the same as to have the moral authority and legitimacy to make moral statements about him, especially when you never interviewed the man himself. Please address these arguments above as they were mentioned in my prior comment but ignored by you.

Finally, as far as the only argument you actually did respond to... do i really need a source to state the factually obvious? That the vast majority of people who kill, could have done otherwise. That people who cheat, could have done otherwise. That people who eat McDonalds could choose to do otherwise. I hardly think it is a scholarly statement to make any of those above statements. Our legal justice system makes those statements implicitly whenever it justly punishes someone for cheating. For if he/she truly had no other choice, then it wouldn't be just to hold them accountable. Every person who is put into prison, the judge and jury are implicity saying that the given individual could have done otherwise but chose to undertake the crime in question. They had a choice and ultimately chose to perform the actions that they are being punished for. Do i need to have a source to say that every person alive today had a mother? Again thats absurd. You are trying to force your position by pigeon holing wikipedia into following simplistic criteria of "citability" rather than actual criteria of objectivity, fairness, scholarly pursuit, and common sense. It's common sense that rather than drinking heavily as he has admitted to and has said that he regrets (as cited in the Bush wikipedia page), that Bush could have been doing something else more beneficial for himself or society. If that wasn't the case, then why does he regret it? Or that Clinton could have been doing something more presidential than having sexual relations with an intern in the WH. Or do i need an actual source to make that statement as well? (68.162.180.93 (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

• To be honest, your response is too long to address at length, but I will address the last part of it, since it is relevant to the majority of the rest of your response. You asked "Or that Clinton could have been doing something more presidential than having sexual relations with an intern in the WH. Or do i need an actual source to make that statement as well?" The short answer is yes, do do need a source. While it may be "common sense", it is still opinion. Until you or I are published in a reliable source about the topic, our "common sense" is meaningless. Inserting that, without the source, is original research and probably WP:SYNTH too. That's our opinion, our take on it. If the reliable source says it, then we are simply quoting or presenting the source. One interesting (and sometimes frustrating) essay you might want to read is WP:TRUTH. To use a very obvious example, if I witness a bridge collapse and 5 cars fall into Tampa Bay, I can't put it in the article. It IS true. It DID happen. But I'm not a reliable source on the topic. Until I can show that some reporter, who probably wasn't even there to witness it like I did, says it and I can cite it, the info can (and probably will be) removed from the article. Similarly, if I call the collapse "horrifying", it will probably get removed. If the reporter calls it "horrifying", it might stay in. His opinion is given more weight, more legitimacy if you will, than mine is, even though he didn't witness it and may not be any smarter or less biased. I see this all the time in political articles. Someone calls a group "liberal" or "right wing", then the battle is on about whether they are or not. Ultimately, there ends up being a couple of reliable sources shown that called the group "liberal" or "right wing" and the word(s) stay(s) in, or gets removed if there is no source saying it. This is actually a pretty minor issue, but indicative of a bigger one. We don't know why he said that. Maybe he knew Little had turned down a job flipping burgers or delivering papers. Or maybe not. Who knows? But he DID say it and it IS reliably sourced, so now the question is about WP:WEIGHT. I don't see where this is a weight issue. The fact that he put his penis in other mens' mouths is far more shocking to people than this relatively innoccuous observation that he could have done other things to make money. The inclusion of the observation really doesn't alter the perception that much. Niteshift36 (talk)

Regarding Bush's regrets, the affects of alcohol on his relationships and the ability to change when he decided to as per his Christian faith... from the washington post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072599.htm

So based on the statements below, I should add to his wikipedia page, that while he was abusing alcohol, "he could have been less selfish and done more for his relationships (including his wife), career, and health."

"A charismatic partier since his school days, Bush liked to drink what he called the four Bs – beer, bourbon and B&B; But he had begun to realize that his drinking was jeopardizing his relationships, his career and his health. Although friends say Bush did not drink daily or during daylight hours, even those closest to him acknowledge privately that if not clinically an alcoholic, Bush sometimes came close to the line. Sometimes he would embarrass himself; more often, he didn't know how to stop."

"Bush himself acknowledged in a recent interview: "I realized that alcohol was beginning to crowd out my energies and could crowd, eventually, my affections for other people. . . . When you're drinking, it can be an incredibly selfish act."

"That July day, Bush officially swore off alcohol. But his decision was about more than getting sober. Stirred in part by what he describes as an intense, reawakening Christian faith, Bush sought to seize control of his life. By doing so he would finally begin to close the gap between what was expected of him and what he had achieved."

from an ABC news interview with Martha Raditz "Bush said in his case, he made the decision to quit when his drinking began to interfere with his family. “Alcohol can compete with your affections. It sure did in my case,” Bush said.

So i guess his wikipedia page should say "he was abusing alcohol, while he could have been putting effort towards being a better family man and husband," etc. Again, i think the GWB page is fair. I think a similar standard of fairness should extend here. (68.162.180.93 (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

• Do whatever you want with the Bush article. I don't think I've ever edited it and I have no interest in doing so. Take that up with people there. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

First, being able to verify a source is only one criteria for wikipedia (as the page you previously referenced actually says). Being verifiable does not end the discussion. Jimmy the Greek was a well known sportscaster who made verifiable statements about how African-Americans were good athletes due to characteristics coming from African heritage and genetics. Please show me where this is included in a general wikipedia page about athletes. Yet, jimmy the Greek is a verifiable source and was considered a knowledgeable sportsman. Yet, wikipedia doesn't present his comments in an article about athletics. None of my major arguments are addressed. First, what is the source of this Mr. Perry comment? Is it merely his "insight" or opinion in which case it has the same standing as any editorial or op-ed piece... and there are plenty of those on Malcolm X if we are going to use that standard for inclusion. Since someone is quoting him, the onus is on them to prove this is not a mere conjecture/opinion based statement.

Second, you have yet to defend the other points at all. While I'm sorry that my argument is too long for you to respond to, I believe if you or someone else isn't going to offer a valid, convincing argument against them, then they should carry the day. Copied from above since it was apparently too long...I have not heard anyone argue against the position that Mr. Perry is passing an implicit moral judgment by making such a statement, and it remains very unclear to me what moral legitimacy he has to make such a statement. If you can prove that he is a moral ethicist or a Pope for all peoples of all religions (including those with none), then i stand corrected. But if not, then he is not a reliable source for making moral judgments (please note that while Einstein may have been a reliable source on physics, that doesn't mean his statements on football ought to be regarded as accurate and worthy of citation if he does not have established expertise in that area). Similarly, Mr. Perry's research on Malcolm X through primary sources does not provide him with carte blanche or justifcation to make moral statements about Malcolm Little. To report the facts of a man through primary sources is not the same as to have the moral authority and legitimacy to make moral statements about him (ignoring the fact that he never even interviewed the man himself that he is passing moral judgments on).

Finally, here's a question I don't need a response to. Why does the article on Bill Clinton, the former president of the US who engaged in sexual acts while in the highest office (and he was literally on the job talking to a congressman on the phone while this occurred) not include the salacious details about cigars and being fellated although these are easily verified facts and cited in multiple published accounts (the NYT, the national news, CNN)? Yet the page here does include such details rather than summing it up as being a man who was partaking in sexual actions with other men without giving the extra details. Do we seemingly take off the gloves when it comes to certain historical figures and leave them on for others?? One basis for any book of learning including a virtual encyclopedia is fairness and objectivity. Treating people's stories differently based on their background or some societal members' opinions of them is patently unfair treatment. And if you need a source on that, look at "Lies my teacher told me" written by a scholarly historian and its full of other opinions I should start adding to this article about the biases of how historical figures are unfairly presented (for better and for worse) depending on who they were. (128.147.39.26 (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

• Since you've pretty much used up todays allotment of words with that response, I'll be brief. I don't care what is or is not in some other article. It really has no bearing here. All your blather about moral judgements (which that comment is not) etc obscures the basic point. The comment is reliably sourced. If you have a reliably sourced comment to show the opposite (like maybe he didn't have any other choice), feel free to bring it to the party. As far as I can see, the details are here because they show that he may have engaged in homosexual acts, but more as the recipient, which does have bearing on his sexual orientation. So just saying "homosexual acts" or "prostituting himself to me" might give the wrong impression that he was sucking some guy off for money, rather than allowing men to suck him off for money. Aside from that.......try making your very long arguments about policy rather that what is or is not in some other article. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

niteshift, stop focusing on the arguments about the other wikipedia pages and focus on my other arguments as i've posted multiple times now. I'm not clear how you have the ability to read books to cite them but can't read 3 paragraphs to respond to them. Unless you don't have a response to the arguments so you seem to repeat you're only mantra... verifiability. However, as I have said multiple times, verifiability is only ONE criteria of being included in an article and the imminently verifiable statements of many people (see Jimmy the Greek) are often not appropriate for inclusion on general wikipedia pages. Hence, you cannot name verifiability as your only criteria because that is not enough (its a requirement, a prerequisite, but it is not sufficient). Further, you have yet to prove that the Mr. Perry statement is actually a referenced statement as opposed to just his opinion. If it's just Mr. Perry's opinion, then I can quickly dig up many opinion based statements from historians and others than i will be happy to reference and will make this page an example of sheer adulation to prove my point. But it will be verifiable adulation (from reputable historians) so it shouldn't be a problem, right??

At this point, it seems clear that niteshift and I are not going to agree and I can't refute the lack of an argument, with the exception of verifiability which niteshift can't even establish in this case to the degree that it ought to be required (i.e., is this an opinion made by an author vs. a referenced statement attributed to primary sources) and which isn't enough even if it is established. So please feel free to weigh in. (68.162.180.93 (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

• If you want me to stop focusing on the argument about other pages, stop making the argument. You've made that argument incessantly! I don't care about other pages and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't an argument that works anyway. Even in your plea to stop using it, you continue to use it (ie your repeated use of Jimmy the Greek). You apparently do not understand WP:V. I don;t have to verify that Perry's opinion is based on facts he gathered. I have to verify that he said it. He IS a reliable source, therefore his quote needs no futher verification. What I've said all along is that you aren't making the proper argument. If you want to argue about WP:UNDUE weight, then argue it.

Your utterly ridiculous counter that you can flood the page with glowing statements shows that you don't understand WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Your basic problem here is that you keep asking me to prove a negative. You want me to prove why something isn't said in other articles when a) I don't even know that they were even said and b) don't give two shits about the other article. Which one of those confuses you so much? The fact of the matter is, I don't have a real issue with removing that line or modifying how it is presented. I have an issue with people removing it for the wrong reason. You, my repetitious friend, have made the wrong argument ad naseum. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The "...could have earned money in other ways" sentence jumped out at me when I read the section. We already have "usually, but not always for money" which may suggest bisexuality. I suggest the first sentence be omitted as irrelevant and a bit catty. Rumiton (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift, you my friend have some difficulty grasping my arguments and you keep missing the point... let me break it down for you. First, I understand the wikipedia criteria; however, I don't need to use the "vocabulary" wikipedia uses. You state that Perry is a reliable source and is verifiable so that is all that is needed. I say, reliable sources can make off color comments that are not appropriate even if they are verifiable (see Jimmy the Greek, again verifiable and reliable sportsman). I use my examples to illustrate that being a verifiable source is not enough. And that being reliable on ONE topic is not the same as being reliable on another topic. Adding to this argument, I explicitly say that an expert in one area does not automatically carry that expertise into another area (see einstein and football). Again, i use this to illustrate that expertise is topical and does not necessarily transfer across topics. I also say that there is a difference between reports from primary sources that Mr. Perry chronicles (and is an agreed expert on that topic) and moralistic opinions that Mr. Perry offers, which are wholly different. Those opinions are no different than the adulatory or critical opinions offered in an op-ed piece in any major periodical (hence my rhetorical threat in my previous posting... again to illustrate the point that opinion pieces wouldn't be accepted just because they are from reliable, verifiable sources). To sum it up, a book that is largely a biographical accounting may also contain moral opinions from the author at times. Those opinions are subject to the same scrutiny that an op-ed piece would be and the author is not considered de facto an expert in such moralistic reasoning. Re-read my posts and you'll see these are the arguments I've been repeatedly making and you are not grasping. Its not a question of crap exists or doesn't exist elsewhere (thats the only argument you've responded to... and I only mention those other pages to ask others to consider why we treat some figures with such deference and others without... and is that historically fair and objective. As i stated the first time, that is a rhetorical question as people will think differently. In terms of making the "NPV" or "undue" arguments, i think i have made those valid arguments regarding opinion vs objective reporting and dubious standing regarding expertise to give moral opinions... whether I use the proper wiki vocabulary is not germane. "What's in a name, that which we call a rose..."

So far it appears there are 3 independent opinions (Rumiton, nology, and myself) that found the statement in question rather questionable and there has been little offered in the way of strong dissenting arguments. (128.147.39.26 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

• You completely ignored what I said and instead have misrepresented it and engaged in another excessively long response in which you invoke your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument again, after asking me to quit adressing it. Bacially, since you refuse to actually even read my responses and respond to what I said, instead choosing to just repeat yourself, there is no point in discussing it further with you. If you don't have the intellectually honesty to read and respond to what I said, then you're not worth my time. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift, my arguments are geared at illustrating wikipedia's own standard that "verifiability" is only ONE criterion of inclusion and that the other criteria, objectivity and expertise (i.e., reputable source) in the area, are not met by Perry for this statement. My examples are not referencing other pages... they are illustrating why wikipedia's criteria would clearly oppose the inclusion of analogous comments and why Perry's comments fail the same wikipedia criteria (these criteria are defined by wikipedia, which i presume apply to this wikipedia page). My analogies are an illustrative method, not an actual argument. Ignore the analogies and the main arguments stands: lack of objectivity and lack expertise in the area or moral judgments by Perry regarding this specific statement. Your antics of not addressing any of the valid arguments and saying that I ignore your arguments are ludicrous. Sorry that i don't use your wikipedia buzzwords. I think the clause in question should be deleted and there hardly seems to be resistance against such action. Any objections?(128.147.39.26 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Malcom X was NOT a hero!

I'm really tired of people saying that Malcom X is a hero! For God's sake, he's just as racist as any white person. He called whites "Devils" for God's sake! I don't call that fighting racism, I call it an excellent example of it! 99.233.54.173 (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you just said that :o. Malcolm X may not hav been a hero 2 you but he was to a whole lot of other people. He gav hope to ppl who had none and made black ppl feel important and NOT inferior. HE was only "racist" because for over 400 years white ppl had been RACIST to blacks. But this isn't a forum so...--I*S*T 00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to discuss Malcolm X. Do you have specific suggestions to help improve the Wikipedia article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do suggest that the intro sentence indicate that he was a black supremacist. Although the article discusses his racist ideology, the intro completely ignores it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph already says: "His detractors accused him of preaching racism, black supremacy, antisemitism, and violence." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be expecting people to actually read something before they criticize it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that his development of character is an interesting story - a role model for all. Remember he admits he said stupid thing when he was a puppet of Nation of Islam - AND HE LEFT. Its a story of cult-member becomes sensible leader - and he knew his life was in danger, he had bodyguards ready to shoot back - therefore he is hero, isn't it ? Someone who fought for good in the face of danger ?

202.92.40.202 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The emphasis of this article is political correctness

Would it be possible to have two versions of this page, one showing his ideas and beliefs, and tendencies. The other more of a basic biography. Malikk Shabizz has been very controlling on all issues brought up, I would like to remind him Wikipedia Is open to the general worldwide public. (Baronvonbob (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Many biographical articles on major figures have sup-pages for beliefs. For instance, Adolf Hitler and Adolf Hitler's political views. If you would like to write a separate article on the Thought of Malcolm X I imagine there would be plenty of reliably sourced coverage to base it off. For the guideline, see Wikipedia:Summary style. The reason that comparatively fewer of new contributions to this article are retained is because it is a top-quality article on a controversial topic that tends to inspire attention that is partisan rather than scholarly in spirit.  Skomorokh  22:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about. In recent months we added information about Malcolm X's sexual experiences with other men and his antisemitism. (Look higher up on this page.) If you have specific suggestions, please make them. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Assassins

The last man, Thomas Hagen, still in jail for the assassination was recently paroled.[3] That should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.108.145 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. According to the source used in the article Hayer "gain[ed] his freedom" in 1993,[4] but that seems to be a reference to his work release, not his parole. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is there not an article about Talmadge Hayer...?

77.40.175.1 (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Because there isn't very much to say about him. He's known only for his participation in the assassination of Malcolm X. Please see WP:BIO1E. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• However, if there was enough info to do a reasonable article, he could be notable under WP:PERP. "The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. A good test for this (but not a necessary prerequisite) would be if the victim has an uncontested Wikipedia article that predates the alleged crime or death." Niteshift36 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just as there are articles about Mark David Chapman and Leon Czolgosz.

We used to have a stub about Hayer but it had no meaningful content, which is why it was turned into a redirect to this article's "Assassination" section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's why I prefaced it by saying "reasonable" article. I detest the who idea of doing an article just for the sake of having one. I think there should be a time limit on stubs. If you can't come up with something in 6 months, say goodbye. That's not exactly a short amount of time. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Swear words need to be bleeped out. We don't want kids look at these bad words.

At the assassin section, someone says "N***er", Get outta my pocket. And for no reason, why would someone ever unbleeped swear words, and also kids are going on Wikipedia. So whatever if there's swear words. Bleep them, we don't want to learn about it. EVER!!!

FSXTheGreat (talk)FSXTheGreatFSXTheGreat (talk)

• I find it hard to believe that many kids can navigate the internet to the article and not have heard it before. Regardless, Wikipedia has an entire article devoted to the word nigger that is rather educational. Considering all the other crap on WP that has no educational value to it, this issue doesn't seem to an issue at all. Besides, have you read WP:NOTCENSORED? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Usage of "Black Muslim"

I noticed that throughout this article you use the term "Black Muslim" to describe some of the Nation of Islam followers and, more specifically, to describe one of Malcolm X's assassins. I believe it is important for the term "Back Muslim" to be changed to something along the lines of: muslim, a Nation of Islam member, etc. My reasoning behind this isn't one based upon race but upon accuracy for if you read Malcolm's autobiography or listen to many of his interviews you will find he detests the phrase "Black Muslim" due to the fact that it is inaccurate. Who is more qualified to determine the accuracy of a page on Malcolm X than the man himself.Tehapprentis (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The phrase was used in five places, and I changed it in two. Two other instances are direct quotations and I can't change the author's words. The last usage is The Black Muslims in America, the book whose title saddled the movement with the name. As Malcolm X said, the Nation of Islam didn't like the name, but "it stuck". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you. It really comforts me to know that someone would take the time out of their day to change something that seems to be a minor change however actually means and acts as much in regards to making sure the legacy left my Malcolm was one he could smile upon.Tehapprentis (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration with Alex Haley

This topic starts the Leaving the Nation of Islam section, where it doesn't seem to belong. It is an important sentence, yet I can't see anywhere else for it. The lead seems nicely rounded as it is. Any suggestions? Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is there mainly for chronological flow, but it is awkward there. The only alternative I can think of is to move it to the end of the "Nation of Islam" section. Other suggestions would be welcomed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it isn't perfect there either, but I shifted it. Also thought the "If I am alive..." quote was worth taking out of the ref and into the main body. Rumiton (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction

{{editsemiprotected}}

Section: In the United States

Sentence: On March 20, 1964, Life published a photograph of Malcolm X holding an M1 Carbine and peering out a window. The photo was intended to illustrate his determination to defend himself and his family against the death threats he was receiving.[140]

Correction: This sentence needs to be deleted. The citation is incorrect and the picture was not published in this issue of life Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psbrush (talk • contribs)

Hmm. The citation refers to a real article about Malcolm X in Life magazine, but you're right: the photo in question doesn't appear there. I'll have to do a little more research to find the source of the photo. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The photo was taken by Ebony. Here is the original issue. Note that the photo shown isn't the iconic pose. Here's a 1993 reprint of the story that includes the more famous image. The footnote here confirms that the photo was taken for Ebony. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ebony photograph - M2 not an M1?

In the Ebony photograph, I think it is a carbine M2 not an M1. The M1 could only hold seven round clips, that rifle looks like it has two 15-round clips taped together. See this page for info on the differences:

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm

70.27.27.131 (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I admit to complete ignorance on the subject of guns. According to the caption here, it's an M1 with "two 30-round magazines 'jungle-clipped' together". I've posted a message at WikiProject Firearms asking for assistance. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but in the meantime, wouldn't it be OR to debate the make of the gun based on a picture, which may or may not be sufficiently accurate to depict the particular firearm that Malcolm X favored at that point in time, assuming that's relevant? Steveozone (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know either, but I just looked at a dozen images and, while there are some differences in barrels and foresights, it does appear to be an M2. Theoretically, we should repeat what the sources have said, but IMO Bold empowers us to state what is clearly the truth. Assuming it does become that clear. Rumiton (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

M1's and M2's use the same magazines. That is what happens when you use that Russian site put together by Airsoft Fans as a source, you get bad information. If you could see the selector in that photograph with a full-automatic position, you would be on to something. However, I doubt Malcolm X would have used an illegal weapon and I doubt he would have paid the $300 tax to own at the time what was a $40 rifle.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Are M2s fully automatic? Rumiton (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So I suggest we leave it captioned as an M1. Rumiton (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Release from Prison

The admitted killer of Malcolm X, Thomas Hagan (69), was released from prison today. [5]. This link [6] contains interesting and related information...Modernist (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)