Talk:Marcus Garvey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Opening comments The article says "He was elected Emperor of Africa", but then mentions no more about it. More information about this election would no doubt be of interest. Infrogmation 19:08 5 Jul 2003

I have made a few modifications to elaborate upon the election, as well as, the convention where the election took place. Nazikiwe 16:37 6 Jul 2003

For NPOV purposes I'm taking out "travesty of justice" and other loaded phrases.

Very Good, but still too POV

This is mostly well done and fascinating, but things like "could not have possibly been guilty" need to be either qualified or documented. After all, the Rosenburgs, Sacco & Vanzetti, Bruno Hauptmann, and Alger Hiss all at least could have been guilty, their suppporters notwithstanding. On the whole, I'd like to see more about the history of Black Star Lines and related enterprises.

Marcus Garvey was an influential black leader of the early 1900's. He supported the 'Back to Africa' movement. Those who did return to Africa ended up founding the country of Liberia. I gather he also is important to Rastafarians for some reason.

Actually, Liberia was founded by former Black American slaves long before the advent of Garvey. The article is lacking the details of why the UNIA was unable to manifest a self-reliant settlement in Liberia. I am currently researching this topic and hope to contribute a useful article to this aspect of the Garvey movement. --Barutiwa 18:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem that the person who wrote the article is biased in favour of Mr. Garvey?

I've tried to discover how to challenge the neutrality of an article, but I can't find the process on how to do this. Can someone tell me the process of challenging an article's neutrality?

Bibliography section too long?[edit]

I must say I do appreciate the extensive bibliography; however, it seems a bit too much. Pretty much half of the article is bibliography. I rather see more article text and less (but the most important entries) of the biblio. Alister 04:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to discover how to challenge the neutrality of an article, but I can't find the process on how to do this. Can someone tell me the process of challenging an article's neutrality?

the bibliography is not "too long" -- the length is caused by the many reliable sources available on a "hot" topic. for students looking for projects, or for editors looking for new material to add to this article Other folks can ignore it. As for "neutrality" in Wiki "neutrality" means even-handed coverage of the reliable sources. It does NOT mean neutral toward Garvey himself. Rjensen (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Bibliography Section[edit]

I agree with you seems that info previously put in with a biblio reference has been taken out but the biblio left behind...this page has either been vandalised or "hyper" edited. That is certain facts have been removed. It seems that some of this info might belong on the UNIA page. That way some of the biblio refs can go there also.

In defense of neutrality and (Marcus Garvey)[edit]

My intention is not to coerce anyone into believing anything that is not true. I am grateful for the criticism...especially re: the NPOV. It motivates me to focus on the things that I know but don't really pay that much attention to.

Consider the following:

How many newspapers did the Rosenburgs, Sacco & Vanzetti, Bruno Hauptmann, and Alger Hiss publish, edit and distribute throughout the colonial empires of France and Britain that stirred the natives into restlessness?

How many organizations were they the head of ?

Did J. Edgar Hoover decry the fact that they had not committed any crimes that they could be convicted of before they were charged? Very interesting reading regarding the effort to find some crime that Garvey guilty of some crime. You would think that after doing a tax audit on him they would have found not reason to go any further. Its unfortunate that MMGs FBI file has yet to be posted on the FBI website. It was on microfilm, but I can't seem to locate it these days. It would be an excellent source to rebut any suggestion that Garvey was guilty.

Believe it or not, the total evidence used to convict Marcus Garvey was exactly one...empty...envelope. The prosecuting attorney suggested that the envelope contained a circular/flyer from Garvey advertising the stock for sale. Why if such a flyer existed could they find the envelope it contained but not the flyer itself? To this day not one copy of said flyer has ever been found. That in and of itself does not refute the legal principle which states "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". However it does lend credence to "reasonable doubt", because after all unless you have the flyer, how can you determine what it was on the flyer.

The trial judge was a member of the NAACP who refused to recuse himself before the start of the trial.

The jury initially came back without with a not guilty verdict on all counts. The judge told them that the US government had spent too much money on this trial and they were to go back and get another verdict.

--Nazikiwe 20:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what was Garvey alleged to have done? There is nothing in the article that states which law Hoover claims Garvey broke, & the omission of this fact makes it hard for people like me who know nothing about Garvey to judge its validity. -- llywrch 17:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I just noticed that the charges are stated in the section header, so the information is in the article, my mistake -- but could you add more information to this important event? It was too easy for me to skip by the mention of "mail fraud" -- whatever that entailed. -- llywrch 18:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Garvey and Rastafari[edit]

Have expanded this section and put reference at beginning. Rastafari is increasingly popular and well known so this facet of Garvey is likely to become more and not less important to wikipedia.Squiquifox 23:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Garvey and Du Bois[edit]

I hope this wasn't offensive. Although it seems like the feud between the two was kind of significant in the US portion of his story. If it was already well covered feel free to ditch it.--T. Anthony 09:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Garvey and Conversion[edit]

I put in that he converted to Catholicism, then someone else said Greek Orthodoxy. I kept it as I found sources that kind of agreed.[1] Although what that says, I guess, is that he became associated with a church that's now in communion with Greek Orthodoxy. However he did get married in the Catholic Church, other references also pointed that way, so now it's back to Catholicism. Which one is it? Or is it kind of both?--T. Anthony 01:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting link - thank you. It does not, as you suggest ("kind of") explicitly say he joined. Perhaps his funeral would tell us. By the way, the African Orthodox Church is not in communion with Greek Orthodoxy, or at least not from the Greek Orthodox perspective, or that of any of the 'canonical' Churches. It might be with the Old Catholic Church. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to authority and WP:Verifiability[edit]

User:Blockntackle added the following section and reference:

In 1919 according to biographer Harvey Hancock, Garvey was arrested for the crime of sodomizing a twelve year old Harlem youth. New York City Police raided his home where they found a stash of homosexual pornography. However, in June of 1920, the sodomy and forcible rape case was dismissed when the family of the alledged victim settled for an undisclosed sum.

(March 2008) The above statement is outrageous hogwash! If you are going to make up fake 'criminal history' please do some study on it first. Sodomy was a Crime in New York in 1919 NOT a tort. A criminal offense is a crime against the State (i.e. The People, as a society), so no amount of action from a 'victim' can lead to a dismissal of the charges. If an alleged 'victim' refused to testify, then charges would be brought against that person for filing false reports, etc. And worse, if it was known that the victim refused to testify because he was paid ANY ('disclosed' or 'undisclosed' sum of) money by the accused, that itself is another separate criminal offense of witness tampering, and possibly obstruction of Justice. A common error that people make is the assumption that it is up to the 'victim' to 'press charges' or to 'not press charges'. In a criminal offense, the victim has little or nothing to do with 'pressing' charges. The State (through the County, Parish, or District Attorney) is the entity that charges the offense. And once the charges are filed, the 'victim' is no longer any part of the process other than being a witness at trial. --- Joe Hepperle comment added March 2008

  • Hancock, Harvey P. Garvey: Heart of Darkness. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1991

Because this is apparently in some book doesn't make it acceptable in an encyclopedia, see:WP:Verifiability, and Appeal to authority.

From Joe Hepperle, Mar 2008-- Au Contraire! It is acceptable in Wikipedia, if it is in 'some book'. And according to WP:Verifiability, it does NOT have to be true. The term 'Verifiability' as it relates to WP:Verifiability has nothing to do with verifiability of the 'truth' of any statement, but instead it only refers to the verifiability that the claimed statement was published somewhere (else) and therefor, that it is not something made-up-on-the-spot by the WikiPedia contributor. Fortunately for us, and history, this claim by Blockntackle of a book by 'Harvey Hancock', published supposedly by Lippincott in 1991 is false. (Lippincott doesn't publish 'biographies'- they publish textbooks and journals in the medical-related field)- Joe Hepperle comment added in March 2008

I know it's not the acid test, but a search on Google, Yahoo, and excite comes up with absolutely no relevant hits. You'd think that this book would have been quoted ad nauseum on various right wing websites.

Sir! My edit was properly sourced and I therefore don't understand why any editor writing from the NPOV would not want this verifiable item included in the article. It is a subject for speculation whether websites you would characterize as "right wing" would want to allude to this subject.

So I'm going to remove the "reference" until its verifiability can be asserted. Not only that, but also until we find out something about the author - I hardly think we'd accept references from Mein Kampf in the Jewish history page.

(March 2008) Au Contraire! We do accept references to Mein Kampf in the Jewish History page. Of course, Jewish history is such a large subject, the 'page' is subdivided and branched off to separate pages dealing with certain time frames, eras or events. On the Holocaust page of Jewish History, right there for anyone to see, Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf is referenced as a source. [2] --- Joe Hepperle comment added March 2008
Sorry, but this reference is just as valid as the other print sources that have been listed for this article. Did you subject all of them to similar scrutiny?Blockntackle 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

While being wary of ad hominem-style attacks, I think a look at Blockntackles contributions shows that he has arrived at Wikipedia with a clear agenda, see this edit to Malcolm X:

During his prison term, Malcolm was known to exchange sexual favors for illegal narcotics and preferential treatment from his fellow inmates. [3]
My only "agenda" is to share my knowledge of various subjects with my fellow Wikipedians. Is there some reason why you do not want the whole truth to be known about prominent Afro-Americans? Maybe you have anagenda of your own. Blockntackle 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed this and mentioned WP:CITE, though I should have mentioned WP:Verifiabilty too. The editor didn't attempt to replace it, I expect because his "reference" was his imagination.

Also, said editor has a rather bad habit of marking his entries as "minor edits". Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svg (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That, sir is a lie. I have only marked my MINOR edits as such Blockntackle 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No, your edit history says that you marked your addition to the Malcolm X article as a minor edit. You have added contentious data to other articles relating to African-Americans and then followed immediately with a "minor edit" - only the "minor" edit shows up on the history.
My only "agenda" is as stated in WP:Verifiability. You have cited a book where the book title and even the author has not a single entry on various search engines, which is a legitimate reason to question it's verifiability.
Also, I asked you to leave the quote out until it can be discussed. You have added it back in anyway. Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svg (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, this allegation isn't in any bio of Garvey that I've read. Perhaps 'Blockntackle' would be kind enough to give us a full reference so that we can check with the sources that the author bases this claim on. It's an extraordinary claim, and not one I've seen any enemies of Garvey or Garveyism make before. I should add that I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination a Garveyite. fledgist 21:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking that paragraph out until it can be properly verified. fledgist 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect sir, if you don't mind my saying so, you are a Black, and a Jamaican, not unlike Garvey. I can't help but think you may be a bit too emotionally invested in this, and not viewing the subject of this article with an objective POV, despite your protestations. My source is from a legitimate biography, published by Lippincott, a well-known publishing firm. Blockntackle 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That's like saying that a white American is not capable of having a NPOV about George Washington. Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svg (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm biracial, as a matter of fact which puts me in a category that Garvey despised. You might want to explain how my ancestry and origins determine how I think about Garvey. You might also explain why I can't find the book you cite listed on Amazon, Alibris, Melvyl, Catnyp, or the Library of Congress. I also searched the catalogues of the Atlanta University Center, Auburn Avenue, and Schomburg libraries (all focused on black studies) to no avail. fledgist 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed the reference to the book in the bibliography because I have seen no evidence that such a book actually exists. fledgist 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how much I could say, or how I could help: I just wanted stop by to say that any sourceable and verifiable info should be added regarding the first comment. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Final Note: Lippincott, in 1991 and now (2008), was/is a publisher of Medical textbooks and medical-field reference books, not biographies. So that claim of a book by a 'Harvey Hancock' (a snide deformation of 'Herbie Hancock') can not be true. In the 1950's, Lippincott started moving toward specializing in medical-field related books, and by the 1970's had completed that transformation. The information on this can be Googled, or Wikipediaed Lippincott Williams & Wilkins or 'Lippincotted' [[4]]. That is why nobody can find a reference to it anywhere. Special note to Blockntackle- next time you want to make up a fake book reference, at least name a book company that publishes the TYPE of lie you are trying to foist. --- Joe Hepperle

Garvey and the KKK[edit]

As we're discussing allegations this is one I wondered about way back, but I don't know enough to say if it's accurate.

Among the most controversial dealings of Marcus Garvey was his summit conference with the Ku Klux Klan in 1922. "In June 1922, while on the extensive tour of the United States, Garvey stopped in Atlanta for a conference with Edward Young Clarke, Acting Imperial Wizard of the Klan. As a result of the discussions, Clarke expressed sympathy for the aims of the UNIA, while Garvey was reinforced in his suspicion that the Klan represented the invisible government of the United States." Consequently, black and white integrationists were protesting against the UNIA-KKK summit. However, Garvey concluded that "Between the Ku Klux Klan and the NAACP, give me the Klan for their honesty of pupose towards the Negro. They are better friends to my race, for telliing us who they are, and what they mean, thereby giving us a chance to stir for ourselves."[5] Their source being Race First: The Ideological and Organizational Struggles of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association by Tony Martin ISBN 0912469234[6].--T. Anthony 08:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that this is mentioned in Cronon's biography. fledgist 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Garvey was seen as a sell-out by a lot of people due to his business with the Klan, but this certainly did not effect the opinions of the Rastafarians.Mahmud II 00:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Format/Biographical Details[edit]

It seems to me that most other biograhical pages in the Wikipedia start with origins (birth, education, etc.) after a brief capsule summary. This one starts (after the capsule summary) with "Founding of the UNIA-ACL" and "Garvey returned to Jamaica in 1914."

Um...returned from where? This is disorienting and poor narrative.

That section goes on, "Convinced that uniting blacks was the only way to improve their condition, Garvey launched the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA)and African Communities League (ACL) and became its first president."

OK...where did he come by these convictions? He must have had some base of support from which to "launch" the UNIA-ACL, but this goes completely undescribed.

More details about Garvey's early life and formative experiences, please.

Garvey returns to Jamaica[edit]

I agree with the above post. The text says that "Garvey returned to Jamaica in 1914". First of all, from the perspective of just writing a good article, it would probably be useful to say where he returned from--holiday in Belfast? (I believe it was from being a laborer in Costa Rica.)

Second, from the point of view of explaining Garvey's trajectory, it would be useful if somebody could develop a bit about his early experience outside of Jamaica, since this helped, I believe, to see the world in pan-Africanist (or Pan-Caribbean) terms, and see blacks in the Caribbean as exploited. I also believed that he tried to organize a trade-union amongst blacks in Costa Rica. I believe that there is an article by Ron Harpelle on this subject in the Journal of Iberian and Latin American Studies (2000?) but I do not have it with me and it would be useful for somebody to write a more comprehensive paragraph dealing with this.

Early life?[edit]

Why are there no details of his early life?

I guess there aren't many. The reason is nobody has edited any into th article, El Rojo 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also a street after Marcus Garvey in New Haven, Enugu State in Nigeria.

I have added info about his early life leading to the founding of the UNIA...he also was married twice with two sons by his second wife...--Da Stressor 06:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Memorials to Marcus Garvey[edit]

Medals & Awards[edit]

Does anyone know what are all those medals and accoutremount Garvey wears are?

Like in this photo...

What is that medal, who awarded him, and what is that other stuff he has hanging from his shoulder?

I would make an educated guess that the medals and stuff are probably awards from the UNIA that Garvey helped develop. Garvey was very big on that sort of stuff (for instance, many workers in the UNIA received extravagent titles, Garvey included). Making up such awards could be seen as perhaps self-serving, but also perhaps a tool of his design to draw black people to respect Garvey, and thus themselves (ie: seeing a black man worthy of such an award would inspire black onlookers in an age of black people lacking self-confidence). This is just a guess, but I have researched Garvey a lot (wrote my master's thesis on him).Bryandford (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, thats fine, but am still curious as to the actual names of the awards. Did he knight himself? What extravagant titles did he give himself, if any? What is the the name of the fourragere he's wearing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


The references for this page are mostly pro-Garvey resources. They are as follows:

  • A broken link to an article
  • PBS (no objection here)
  • "Pardon Marcus Garvey", probably the title of an editorial, by Judith Stein, who wrote other sympathetic texts about Garvey
  • PBS again
  • UCLA's African Studies Institute
  • An educational website
  • PBS again

I have bolded sources that were, at the very least, believers in Garvey's honesty and character, although all of the sources, except the educational website, were sympathetic to Garvey.

The reason I bring all this up is because my 5th grade teacher taught us that Marcus Garvey took over a million dollars in donations from African Americans, many of them struggling with poverty as it was, to form a new state in Africa with no intention of actually creating that state. That is a pretty wildly different opinion than the ones in this article, and she must have gotten it from somewhere (she was African American herself). -- 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute tag should be removed until you can come up with some reliable sources in regards to this "anti-Garvey" view. Something your 5th grade teacher said does not count as a reliable source. I will not remove the tag myself since I do not like reverting such things until at least some discussion has taken place, but come on... We need sources for these things. If you feel that the text is POV then state where and why, and we can tag those sections and work on them. Cheers - mceder (u t c) 16:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to, but it's very hard to find criticism of Marcus Garvey on the Internet. I was hoping an expert on him would know what to look for. I just know that one random African American lady that taught elementary school thought that he was a liar and a crook; searching those things just turns up pages to the effect of "Some called him a liar. Some called him a crook. But he was a hero." I'm sure his detractors aren't as high-profile as detractors of, say, Malcolm X. -- 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll weigh in on this question--by no means being an "expert"--as I wrote my master's thesis as an historiographical essay on Garvey scholarship as of 2004. Various schools of thought on Garvey were evident in my studies, sliding back and forth from negative, to positive, to indifferent. My analysis noted the various "shades" of positive and negative. For instance, those who chose to see Garvey in a negative light varied from those who saw him as a huckster on this issue to those who saw him having a good heart and a great idea, but not being a skilled enough businessman to make good on his promises to the poor black investors. Your 5th grade teacher was perhaps taught about Garvey by someone who had been, or was connected to someone who was "victimized" by Garvey's "schemes." The Black Star Line (and other various Garvey-led black enterprises) no doubt collected huge sums of money from a variety of black people (rich and poor) during this period. The key interpretive question is then what his intentions were. Some would say Garvey was a huckster and cite that he sometimes dipped into the till to pay his own bills. A balanced view on this, however, would also note that Garvey frequently lived in poverty throughout his life, and spent a tremendous amount of time running a global pan-african organization and did deserve some compensation for his seemingly limitless efforts. Some historians (I don't have a citation off the top of my head) also noted how many investors in the Black Star Line harbored little faith that anything would come of their investment, rather seeing it as a point of pride for the downtrodden people. No doubt some did not share this vision, and felt ripped off as the business was run poorly (though not always due to Garvey's incompetence--many white firms made business hard on this black-run upstart). Garvey also probably gets lumped in with the stock scandals of the 20's and 30's, souring people's attitudes toward his business ethics. Personally, after reading around 50 books/articles/sources on Garvey, I would say that he did not intend to steal investor's money in the Black Star Line stock sales. Garvey was a man with a dream to redeem an entire people and he felt that the Black Star Line was a key piece of that puzzle. He took people's money and promised them an idea of equality and positive identity while also hoping for profits, and I would say he delivered on the changed identity. He was a visionary who tried to do too much.Bryandford (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Solidarity with the Irish Republican Army[edit]

I find it interesting that Marcus Garvey identified with the liberation causes of non-African nations as well as his own. In particular the cause of Zionism (something most modern day Black Nationalists would and do not support) and Irish republicanism/nationalism. I have heard that the struggles of Irish nationalist rebels and agitators actually provided a lot of inspiration to him and that he actually wrote a letter of solidarity to the rebel state of the Irish Republic during the Irish War of Independence. I do not know enough about his personal history and philosophy to make an addition relating to his views of foreign affairs but I think it would be an interesting and relevant addition if anyone who is more of an expert could add it. 2 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


"Sometime around November of 1919 an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under J. Edgar Hoover was begun into the activities of Garvey and the UNIA. " This is patently false. The FBI didn't even exist in 1919, and J. Edgar Hoover wasn't made director until some time in the early thirties, according to articles FBI and J. Edgar Hoover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pygmypony (talkcontribs) 05:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The FBI did exist, just under a different name. I did remove the mention of J. E Hoover however. mceder (u t c) 10:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ridgely memorandum of October 11, 1919 throughly documents the beginnings of Hoover's activities regarding Marcus Garvey. It is well documented that Hoover worked for the (then) Bureau of Investigation, specifically see National Archives Record Group 60 file 198940. --Da Stressor 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture and quotes[edit]

I think we should remove the references in pop culture section. It's incredibly long, but no doubt not at all comprehensive. There's no need for an article on a famous person to list every time they've been mentioned in a song or movie, it's natural to expect that they would be repeatedly. I recommend paring that section down to the very lead paragraph, which basically says that he has been mentioned in pop culture, and perhaps also a list of names of people that have mentioned him in a particularly remarkable way (i.e. received press attention due to the fact of having mentioned him). See Malcom X#Popular culture for my idea of an appropriately-sized pop culture references section.

Also, I'd like to do away with the quotes section. This material isn't really appropriate for Wikipedia; it could be moved to Wikiquote, but none of the quotes are referenced, so we're basically taking the word of whoever added the quotes that he said that. If we don't remove it entirely, I'd recommend paring it down to two or three of his most famous quotes. WP:QUOTE is quite clear on both these points; quotations must be sourced, and you should not have long lists of quotes, which would be more appropriate for Wikiquote.

Anyone object to me hacking away at these sections? I'll go ahead in a few days if not. Thanks, delldot talk 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, would anyone mind if we tightened up the Marcus Garvey#Bibliography Books section? It's quite long, but again, probably not comprehensive. delldot talk 06:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I went ahead. I hope everyone's cool with the edit. If not, we can discuss it and change it. Thanks all! delldot talk 11:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for sneaky vandalism[edit]

In the past couple days, I've noticed a couple incidents of an IP changing a correct number to an incorrect one (june 10 -> June 11, changing the number of siblings). I suggest that if you see a number get changed, remark on it here. Or better yet, do a Google search and confirm or confute the change. Thanks, delldot talk 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that is exactly what happened to the "pop culture references" they were whittled down to just an acknowledgement and "then there were none." --Da Stressor 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

african americans[edit]

Hi, I know little-to-nothing about Marcus Garvey, but I don't understand why he is on the list of famous african americans. Did he change nationality from Jamaican to american? 12:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1) America refers to the continent, by definition people living in Mexico live in America, just not the United States;

2) IF the title of "African American" is assumed to mean "living in the US"- he was obviously in the US in a substantial way, if the US chose to go to great lengths to prosecute and imprison him (for what seems to be a questionable and trivial offense, and later turned out to be wrongful imprisonment.)

He lived in The Americas, travelled and encountered political and legal persecution in the US, and fought for the rights of African Americans. So, it is fair and correct to list him as African American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The article African American says "African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa." I'm not sure if Garvey qualifies, though he did reside in the US for a bit. Also, in other languages, "American" can refer to people from North or South America. In English, it specifically means someone from the US. This is true not only among Americans, but native English speakers from other countries as well. Anglo-Canadians don't call themselves "Americans," even though they live in North America. If a US citizen were to go to the UK and say "I'm an American," the Britons wouldn't ask him "are you from Peru?" And I've never met a Jamaican who called himself "American." I have heard them say Carribean or West Indian, however. As this is ENGLISH language Wikipedia, "American" can be applied in the English language contex. (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey is a significant figure in Black American history because he was the first black man to lead a mass movement of black people in the USA. Yes, he was born in Jamaica; but that does not reduce his importance to contributing to the freedom of Black people in the United States and West Indies. Factually, Marcus Garvey was deported from the United States on the eve to becoming a U.S. citizen; sarcastically speaking, thanks to the efforts of the NAACP under W.E.B. Dubois! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barutiwa (talkcontribs) 01:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

UNIA Membership[edit]

In one paragraph "By August 1920, the UNIA claimed four million members," but then a short time later "At its zenith, the UNIA claimed over a million members." The whole "Founding of the UNIA-ACL" section really needs some decent citations. (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They have to be typos considering that there weren't even four billion people in 1920. --JMV290 (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He was Jamaican, not American[edit]

Why is there a banner entitled "African American topics"? He was not American, he was Jamaican. Black people outside the United States don't normally call themselves Americans. Consider removing the banner or changing its title to represent a world view, not a USA-centric one.--Sonjaaa (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But he lived in the US and affected Aforican-Am,erican cultuire. leave it be. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately however[edit]

These words have been added to the quotation from J. Edgar Hoover taken directly from wikiquote - reference 11 in the article -

Request for semi-protect[edit]

Various IPs are repeatedly blanking entire sections of this article. (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Phyllis or Phillis Wheatley?[edit]

In the section Charges of mail fraud there's a ship mentioned called Phyllis Wheatley. The writer is called Phillis Wheatley. Does anybody know if the proposed name really was Phyllis with a y?--ospalh (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

African Orthodox[edit]

The article says Garvey became a Catholic after converting from Anglicanism, and the infobox says he was "African Orthodox", and the article about "African Orthodox Church" is even more confusing. Can someone explain this - is it not customary to write a person's "latest" religious stance? Also sources will be appreciated. Please answer here and optionally correct/rewrite. --Paxcoder (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Almighty God a living man[edit]

"In the Bob Marley song “Get Up, Stand Up,” Marley proclaims “the mighty God is a living man,” an allusion to Garvey."

That seems like nonsense to me -- Garvey was dead when that song was written, not living, but meanwhile, actually living was Haile Selassie, who Rastafarians did regard as God incarnate. Why in the world should we interpret those lyrics as referring to Garvey rather than to Selassie? GeneCallahan (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead unclear[edit]

The import of the sentence Prior to the twentieth century, leaders such as Prince Hall, Martin Delany, Edward Wilmot Blyden, and Henry Highland Garnet advocated the involvement of the African diaspora in African affairs. in the lead is unclear. It could possibly be an attempt to inflate linkage, but taking a positive view it somehow relates to the next sentence: Garvey was unique in advancing a Pan-African philosophy to inspire a global mass movement focusing on Africa known as Garveyism. What is unclear is how Garveyism is different from the stances of the aforementioned leaders. It is also not usually appropriate to have such a list of tangentially related individuals in the lead. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) If such a list is appropriate, it should be in the body of the article, where subtle differences can be explained. --Bejnar (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken citation[edit]

Cites 18 and 19 link you to a website that appears to contain the trial transcript, but for whatever reason you can't navigate beyond the first few lines (the page selector always takes you to page 1). An archive of the site or another transcript entirely might be appropriate. InB4 (Talk to me!) 18:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Early Years?[edit]

Then WHY does the following quoted section get elevated from its chronologically correct position to THIS paragraph?

"At the National Conference of the Universal Negro Improvement Association in 1921, a Los Angeles delegate named Noah Thompson spoke on the floor complaining on the lack of transparency in the group's financial accounts. When accounts were prepared Thompson highlighted several sections with what he felt were irregularities.[citation needed]"

Only one explanation occurs to me, and I will welcome the viewpoint of others, but slant is obvious, and a citation is still needed. Marketex (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marcus Garvey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marcus Garvey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)