Talk:Malcolm X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleMalcolm X is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 19, 2009.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 29, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 18, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 10, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 19, 2004, February 21, 2005, February 21, 2006, February 21, 2009, February 21, 2010, February 21, 2013, February 21, 2015, and February 21, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

Homosexuality claims[edit]

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

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

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

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

Marable writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lead Needs Updating[edit]

The subject is pretty self-explanatory.

I made a pretty bold edit on the lead yesterday, admittedly expecting someone to revert my edit. I did revert back after this first reversion, but I will not continue with this (no edit wars please).

From WP:LEAD: "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first thing most people will read on arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on – though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view."

The lead, in my view, fails these criteria. By stating how he is viewed by his "admirers" and "detractors", the current lead teases the reader into the article, while it could easily state Malcolm X's notable deeds and such in a much simpler and less biased way (saying he has been called "one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history" without cited sources or evidence seems far from balanced, and a bit WP:FORUM). I won't discuss the birthdate here, except to say it is the single least consistent element of any Wikipedia page I have ever seen.

(Personal attack removed)

Pages are not owned. Please stay civil in responses. My edit version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_X&diff=868890067&oldid=868784912

PerhapsXarb (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Instead of carping about my username and WP:OWN—you seem to have missed the bottom half of that essay, WP:Stewardship—why don't you offer a specific proposal and explain why you think it's an improvement over the current lead? (By the way, you may want to read WP:LEADCITE.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
My apologies. I should have indeed read that essay. Thanks for linking it. However, I did notice this line: "[A steward is] no less responsible for adhering to core policies like WP:Neutral point of view". I honestly don't feel like the lead to this page is neutral, or particularly informative. Not an attack, just my opinion.
My specific proposal can be found here: [1]. I would be open to having it changed or revised, though, with all due respect, preferably by users other than ourselves.
My reasoning, adapted here:
The lead, in my view, fails WP:LEAD criteria. By stating how he is viewed by his "admirers" and "detractors", the current lead teases the reader into the article, while it could easily state Malcolm X's notable deeds and such in a much simpler and less biased way, such as in my proposal (saying he has been called "one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history" without cited sources or evidence seems far from balanced, and a bit WP:FORUM). The birthdate is also very inconsistent with general biography practices on Wikipedia, and I don't see any circumstances that should exempt it from these practices.
P.S. I did not tag you due to your username but due to your topics of editing. I won't bring it back for now.
PerhapsXarb (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Please learn to indent your comments to show the flow of the discussion.
  • To the extent the proposed material...
A contemporary of the civil rights movement, he criticized the movement for its emphasis on nonviolence and racial integration. A proponent of resistance "by any means necessary", his ideas helped form the basis of the Black Power movement in the years following his death.
...isn't in the lead already it might usefully be added. But otherwise the current order and presentation is superior. I think we've discussed in the past that something more might be said about the Autobio and its significance.
  • The idea that this article must have full birth/death dates because that's what you see in lots of other articles is a nonstarter.
  • Assassination is not a cause of death.
  • Extensive revisions such as yours should be done in localized individual edits so that the diffs are comprehensible. (This is not an invitation to do them again.)
  • Thrilled indeed to learn you're open to having your edit changed or revised. (Ditto)
EEng 06:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The lead is meant to give vital information and facts, not to offer various people's interpretations of the subject's legacy. It currently feels more like the conclusion paragraph to an essay analyzing said legacy, and frankly feels poorly thought out after the introductory sentence.
Assassination is given as a cause of death on the pages of MLK Jr., Gandhi, and every U.S. president who was ever assassinated, including featured article subject William McKinley. Really, the gunshot wound did not actually kill him; the impeded flow of blood throughout his body, which was most likely caused by this wound, is what killed him. Either way, nobody denies he was assassinated. And the birth date point is not a non-starter; it is a silly debate that some people have gotten worked up on and which should have been decided years ago and never mentioned again by anybody, sort of like infobox fights but with a less valid argument on the other side.
If I make any of my proposed edits, will they be individually removed shortly thereafter by either EEng or MS? If so, I don't know why I am bothering trying to improve Wikipedia. FWIW, It's bias-tinged lines like the ones in this lead that make educators and academics distrust the site, something I've always hated.
PerhapsXarb (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree about the dates in the first sentence. It was decided years ago and should never be mentioned again, unless an editor actually has something new to say about it.
Besides the dates and the cause of death, I'm still not hearing any explanation about why the rest of your proposed change is an improvement. Up top you suggest referring to Malcolm X's "notable deeds". He wasn't elected to office, he didn't help pass any major (or minor) legislation, but he changed the way millions of black people in the United States thought about themselves and their place in the world. Your proposed change does nothing to address this supposed shortcoming.
In what specific ways do you think the lead section falls WP:NPOV?
Finally, I know it's nitpicking, but Malcolm X's father wasn't born in Omaha. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Omaha? Clearly I'm referring to Malcolm X. I think you know that. And I think I have something to say about the dates which only serve to confuse the reader. I'm not here to fight, and I don't know how to proceed in this discussion. I really wish Wikipedians were more open to constructive criticism. The point of Wikipedia is not to bow down and admit complete defeat to a page's "steward". WP:Listen exists. And that's not to say listen means "ok, I listened, NO!" every time anybody else has a slightly different idea.
You may think Malcolm X was one of the "greatest and most influential African Americans of all time", but that is not a fact. That is a non-neutral opinion that you can talk about all you want in your own Malcolm X biography. The lead should have a non-biased explanation of what Malcolm X is known for, not vague conjectures of how his fans and haters feel about him. It's not supposed to be about feeling, it's supposed to be about the actual things he did and why he is remembered. That should be the first paragraph, or at least the second sentence of the article. It's not debated that Malcolm X preached violence; he did exactly that. Resistance by any means necessary. That doesn't need to be emphasized in the lead, but it shouldn't be downplayed.
I know you are extremely passionate about this subject, but please go to extra effort to keep your opinions elsewhere. I know I will always do the same on this site. Please don't stick your fingers in your ears, or you won't hear them! (like if you get this reference) PerhapsXarb (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You may think you were referring to Malcolm X being born in Omaha, but you wrote that his father was born there.
Please explain how the dates in the lead section "confuse the reader".
I know that reading past the introduction isn't your strong suit, but nothing in the lead section is my opinion. The section summarizes the sourced material in the article, including the fact that Malcolm X has been described as one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.
When you're ready to stop the personal attacks and get serious about discussing your proposed changes to the article, I'm all ears. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)