Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Nature of Malcolm X's burglaries

In regards to the burglaries before his major arrest, I think that if the nature of the burglaries isn't explained, it makes Malcolm X look like a "petty"/"common" criminal. In fact he had four accomplices and a modus operandi.

• Rudy, a half-Italian, half-Black waiter, served as a "finder"
• The two white women attended or crashed parties and cased the houses for value
• Malcolm X and his friend Shorty used the information gathered by the other three members and committed the burglaries themselves
• At a later point they got rid of the planning stages and had the women knock on people's doors. If they didn't answer, the whole group burglarized the house.

The original scheme shows a high level of planning and coordination and that needs to be reflected so it doesn't make Malcolm X look like he committed a "petty" crime. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think sticking the word "planned" in front of "robberies" doesn't add anything, and it seems awkward. The article says Little had four accomplices, and that they engaged in a series of burglaries. That's not petty crime; it's grand larceny. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I added that information to the article, citing a graphical biography source. For that matter,

• In Wolfenstein (E. Victor Wolfenstein, The Victims of Democracy: Malcolm X and the Black Revolution), p. 197 it talks about how "Sophia" and her sister assisted the scheme and it discusses the planning involved. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• In Manning (Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention by Manning Marable) page not stated in preview it identifies "Sophia" as being "Bea" -> Bea Caragulian (the others are identified as Shorty Jarvis, Francis E. "Sonny" Brown, Joyce Caragulian (Bea's sister), and Kora Marderosian (another Armenian woman)

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MS's reversion of WTM's additions. I'm not sure what the point of concern is -- yes, it sounds like MX displayed intelligence in planning these caper, but it's obvious anyway he was highly intelligent); and he certainly committed plenty of petty crime, so not clear what the misunderstanding is that we're trying to avoid. As for the "graphical" biography, I figured you'd confused that word with graphic (as in graphic description, or something) -- it never would have occurred to me that someone would propose sourcing from a comic book. Um... really???? EEng (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC) P.S. And what's all the detailed ethnic breakdown stuff (1/2 Italian, 3/4 Martian, whatever [1]) got to do with anything?

If you just say "he burglarized houses" it doesn't illustrate that he used intelligence or exhibited major planning. Some burglaries happen out of opportunity and don't take a whole lot of wits to pull off, right? As for: "it never would have occurred to me that someone would propose sourcing from a comic book." - That's precisely why people who publish "serious" works in comic format don't like to use the word "comic book" because it makes it sound like something trivial or not serious. When it comes down to it, EEng, it's a descriptive non-fiction work published by a reputable publisher, and so it is as much of a reliable source as a standard book would be. (you read a graphic biography, and you will understand that it's more or less the substance of a book; it just uses a different medium: Hill and Wang should be a reputable publisher of graphic nonfiction) - About "graphical" it does seem that A Graphic Biography is preferred over "graphical". As for "P.S. And what's all the detailed ethnic breakdown stuff (1/2 Italian, 3/4 Martian, whatever" - That's how they're prominently described in the graphic biography, and (using Manning as a source) considering that the legal system punished him probably for becoming involved with a white woman and coerced her into trying to put the blame on him (he got a far longer prison sentence than she did, and she made it sound like he coerced her into a life of crime: see page, number unspecified), it's everything. The next page even said "Malcolm was convinced that his lengthy sentence was due solely to his involvement with Bea and other white women." WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• As stated, we already know MX was intelligent so I don't see the importance of showing that in this particular case he used that intelligence.
• I would use a graphic(al) work as a fact-source only with great caution, for the same reason I would use the film Malcolm X as a fact-source only with great caution: Malcolm X is certainly a serious work, but one somewhat different purposes than that of, say, Manning.
• You didn't include all the complicated ethnic-mix stuff in your edit, only in your edit summary, which is why I was puzzled.

EEng (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would understand that a longtime editor of Malcolm X articles would know he is intelligent; it's important to convey this aspect to the reader, our "customer". A reader may not know anything about him before reading the article.

A documentary film can be a good analogy to a non-fiction graphic biography like Helfer's book - Looking up "Malcolm X" (assuming you are talking about the 1992 film), the article states it was a non-documentary narrative film, and often in them the storyline can be simplified or altered for storytelling or entertainment purposes (such as usage of composite characters, etc.) - The 1972 Malcolm X (1972 film) is a documentary, though, if you were talking about that.

It is true that I didn't mention the racial makeup in the edit, or the effect on race on the sentencing (it could be a good idea in this article or a sub-article). Anyway, race is an important aspect of Malcolm X's upbringing and formation, so that's one reason authors writing about him mention races of people he associated with.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• By "we" I meant the let's-imagine-we're-reading-it-together we (as in "We learn in chapter 2 that..." -- I forget the rhetorical term for this). In any event I think the reader, even coming to the article completely cold, will readily see early on the MX was highly intelligent.
• Yes, I meant the 1992 film.
• I can't tell if there's still something you think should go in the article. If so, what is that, and what's the source?

EEng (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• By "our" I mean us Wikipedia editors together. Malcolm X did become self-educated after entering prison but it may help to show that he had exhibited intelligence before even going into prison.
• Since the # of accomplices stayed in there, I would like to mention the aspect sourced from the Marable sentence "Malcolm was convinced that his lengthy sentence was due solely to his involvement with Bea and other white women." and source it to Marable. I'll see if an alternate version of the Marable book on Google Books mentions the page number

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think describing MX's resentment on this point would be a useful addition, but let me suggest it be added here [2] -- something like,

Little came to the conclusion that every relationship he'd had with whites had been tainted by dishonesty, injustice, greed, and hatred; for example, he felt that he had been given an unjustly long prison sentence because blah blah blah blah.

EEng (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That's also a great idea :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll get my bill. EEng (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wording and sourcing of lead (esp. re "repudiation of Nation")

Section formerly entitled: where are all the cites for the lede?

Extended discussion
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
The lede is rife with issues that need quality sourcing. haven't even bothered to look at the rest of the article, but the lede is atrocious by any standard. How the hell this absolute trash of an article got FA is astonishingWhatzinaname (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC) In general material in the lead need not carry cites there, if it's sourced elsewhere in the article. Can you elaborate on the other deficiencies you see in the article? EEng (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Name, perhaps you should look at WP:LEAD. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Hey, don't go around calling another editor a Name. Don't you know that's not civil? EEng (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Just had another look at the article. I can see where some serious copyediting would be a good thing, and the 4th para of the lead is crying out for some disentangling, but apart from those issues, it looks pretty good to me. And I have always applauded keeping unnecessary cites out of leads. But let's see what else Whatzinaname has found. Rumiton (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Let's just be careful about this though. The current version of the lede has survived an awful lot of scrutiny. Glennconti (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Hope that was careful enough. I still think there is room for improvement, but let's see what others think. Rumiton (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC) I hope I didn't over reach. I substituted "repudiate" for "broke with". I know it is a stronger word, but I think more accurate. I also moved the assassination bit to the end which kind of makes the point that he did repudiate the Nation. If this doesn't work let me know. Glennconti (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC) I have no prob with the lead ending with the assassination, but I thought it needed its own para. This is not ideal, as we now have 5 lead paragraphs, but it looks needed to me. I am not very comfortable with "repudiated", but I am not sure why. Perhaps it is the proximity of "disavowed" in the next phrase. The effect is clumsy, to me. But it isn't a biggie. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC) I added a comma to separate the "disavowed" from "repudiated". This may have been why it appeared clumsy. Series ending with comma being consistent etc.Glennconti (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Don't let silly people who say there should be X sentences in a paragraph and Y paragraphs in a lead bother you. The single standalone final sentence is a great example of good writing instincts calling for something slightly unusual. Recent changes are a distinct improvement. EEng (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC) "Repudiated" seems a little strong to me. See Malcolm X#Leaving the Nation. Eventually, Malcolm X repudiated the NoI and its teachings, but when he left the group in March 1964 he still believed most of what they taught. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC) So you agree that MX repudiated the NOI, it is just the timing in 1964. I think you may be satisfied with a minor tweak and we can still keep the word "repudiated"? Glennconti (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I believe "But in 1964 he repudiated the Nation, became a Sunni Muslim, and disavowed racism" is all true and all occurred in 1964. I was not implying that these occurred in a time sequence. Would you feel more comfortable if we changed the order of this series? Glennconti (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I just Googled "But in 1964 he repudiated the Nation" and found that we are not ground breaking in using the term "repudiate" to characterize Malcolm X's break with the NOI. There is a Stanford encyclopedic article that also does this. And one or two others. FYI if it matters. Glennconti (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "When Malcolm X repudiated narrow nationalism and turned toward a more inclusive version of Islam and more direct political engagement, he was murdered in February 1965" [3] A direct link between the repudiation and MX's death. I believe this concept of repudiation is very important to the MX story. Glennconti (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC) The problem I am still having with "repudiate" is I think it is mostly used in the sense of rejecting ideas, as in the example above. How about something like he "broke with the nation and began to repudiate their ideas (of narrow nationalism)"? Rumiton (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I was so focused on the ultimate paragraph I didn't realize the possibilities of integration with the penultimate (high school students take note -- good SAT words). Take a look at what I've done. Y'all do what you want with repudiate. EEng (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I like the fusion of the two paragraphs. (I did think of it but was daunted by the task of integration. Well done.) Glennconti (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I graciously accept the praise, even if it does come from someone in the early stages of losing his faculty's [4]. EEng (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I think the lede is truly blossoming now. The current emphasis makes you respect MX even more for what he did, what he stood for, and what he died for. MX dumped the NOI and so should we. Glennconti (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC) @EEng. Thank you for your words of praise, I feast on them greedily. Re the silly people, I certainly agree they should not be allowed to bother anyone, but I have found that Wikipedean pettiness can devastate an article and the people sincerely and intelligently involved in it. I have learned to tread very carefully where the letters of the Rules and Guidelines are concerned. That said, On to the next! Rumiton (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Christ, don't I know it. See [5] (that section, and the next one too -- where I got a little hot under the collar). EEng (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Yep. Rumiton (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC) I was especially startled by the randomness of the outburst re the phrase remarkably small: "It's shit writing; it sounds like a teenage girls' diary, not an encyclopedia." I wondered at the time how many teenage girl's diaries he'd read that referred to something as "remarkably small", and then I realized it might have been various girls he'd dated in high school. That might explain his lingering feelings of inadequacy, but it would have been a mean thing to say, of course. EEng (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wording and sourcing re death of father and uncles, criminal charges

Section formerly entitled: So where is the valid cite for this, again?

Extended discussion
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
"Malcolm X's father died—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored—when he was young, and at least one of his uncles was lynched. After his mother was placed in a mental hospital when he was 13, he lived in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age 20, he went to prison for breaking and entering." At wikipedia, the lede is a general summary of the article itself. I don't find this information in the body of the article,and i'm not coming through every cite to find it. gone by tomorrow if not fixed. Article if full of crap like this. FA is some kind of sarcastic wikipedia joke, has to be. Even if you find a cite f0oor it, it is nothing but speculative nonsense "it was rumored"? When? by who? Any other rumors? maybe like the insurance company who claimed he killed himself? Hoe's that for a rumor? it's a joke this article is FA and a bigger joke any editors don't see these issues. Whatzinaname (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC) 1st section, 3rd paragraph: "someone told one of the children their father had been pushed onto the tracks; some blacks suspected the Black Legion" (citing Marable); "the issuer of another, larger policy refused to pay, claiming suicide" (citing Natambu). I don't see the problem re father's death. However, there's a slight inconsistency regarding the uncles -- body says "Malcolm X later said" an uncle was lynched, but lead gives "at least one of his uncles was lynched" as flat fact. Either as fact, or as what MX believed, it belongs in the article, but we need to establish which is the case. Malik -- to the sources, please! EEng (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC) you don't see a problem? The police say accident/suicide, the insurance company says suicide, random unknown person claims a friends friends friends boyfriends cousins sisters brother saw "someone push him" then a bunch more speculation by "the black community" that it was the black legion. What a bunch of complete and utter nonsense to have in a wiki page that is supposed to be based on hsitorical fact, let alone putting this garbage in the ledeWhatzinaname (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC) The best biography we have, namely Marable's, says the following on page 31, after reporting that the coroner recorded that his father's death in a horrifying streetcar accident was accidental: "Yet the memories of Lansing blacks as set down in oral histories tell a different story, one that suggested foul play and the involvement of the Black Legion." The point here is not to determine what actually happened to Earl Little on September 8, 1931. That can never be known with certainty. The point is to explain how the death was interpreted by those closest to him, and how the tragedy affected his son as he interpreted it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Well said. Can you get a handle on the uncle inconsistency I mentioned earlier? EEng (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC) the point is to tell the facts as best we know them. We know that at least the police department, who had, I believe, a witness to the incident, ruled it either an accident or a suicide. An insurance company believed it to be suicide. The coroner found no evidence of foul play. Three sources completely contradict the main, completely made up narrative about it being the black legion or whatever nonense. Now we have non verifiable, non cited "oral histories", better known as "I can just make shit up" passing for encyclopedic? And more weight than the aforementioned sources? Even the completely made up "oral history", per this quote, doesn't even say they had anything to do with killing him, only "they were involved". Involved how, exactly? The audacity of this moron who apparently pens "the best biography" to use words like "oral histories" in country with a written language for hundreds of years is downright astounding, I might add. Drifting a bit. back to the point: If you really want to include this, I would need a minimum of a direct quote from X himself saying "I believe such and such happened" and anything that contradicts his claims will be presented in the very same portion of text, either in the lede or body. The end and good day.Whatzinaname (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Whatsyourname, this is the second round of colloquy (that's a fancy word for "discussion") with you on this matter, and everyone's been most indulgent (fancy way of saying "very patient") in the face of great provocation (fancy way of saying "you're being a dickwad"). If you don't see the value of oral histories in biography of 1920s America, or why what reached MX's ears, true or not, is important in narrating his formative years, then you're not competent to participate in this discussion. I suggest you will be happier working in your more familiar milieu (fancy word for "environment") of arguments about auto racing pole positions and so on. Come back after your medication is refilled. EEng (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC) The book that you so crudely and insultingly describe as being written by a "moron" won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for History and is an impeccable source for this article. Your contemptuous dismissal of the reality of racist violence against black activists of the era, which is well attested in solid historical sources as well as the lynching postcards commonly circulating those days, reflects far more harshly on you than it does on a scholar like Manning Marable. Marable makes clear that the Little family was harassed and hounded by the KKK and the Black Legion for quite a few years, as Malcolm's father was a high profile militant Garveyite. However, I don't think that Marable mentions uncles being lynched. That is cited to the autobiography, which I think should be taken with a grain of salt for factual claims of events of the 1920s and 30s. He was repeating family lore that was then repackaged by Alex Haley for a popular book. So maybe a disclaimer like "Malcolm claimed" might be appropriate. Malik's input would be welcomed here. There seems little doubt that lynching was a very real risk and frequent bitter reality for activists like Malcolm's father, whose family home was probably torched in a racist attack, though it was claimed that it was an insurance scam. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I suspect "MX later claimed/says he was told" or such is where we're going, but it's certainly possible that a lynching is factually established, so yes, let's hear from Malik, who seems to have the sources down cold. EEng (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Whatzinaname, might I suggest you tone down your responses? Collegiality is something we may not always achieve around here, but we never fail to strive for it. Rumiton (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I think it's OK to let Whatshisname vent -- might reduce the chance he'll throttle someone in real life. But we shouldn't continue to engage him -- poking sticks at a dumb animal in a cage isn't going to pacify it, nor transform its grunting and snarling into worthwhile conversation. Fellow editors, I suggest we let Whatshitface get in the last word -- no need to respond unless and until he calms down and emits something intelligible. EEng (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I'm not toning anything down. I might tone it up,though. I would also, at this juncture, like to point out the difference between "breaking and entering" and "burglary". i'm pretty sure he was convicted on burglary charges, not "breaking and entering", a far lesser crime in every state I'm aware of. I'm also pretty sure it was a series of burglaries, not one. Did Malcolm X's publicist write this tripe? Whatzinaname (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC) I won't ask how you came by this grand knowledge of criminal law in so many jurisdictions, but if you'll forgive my presumption in offering advice, I don't think you're ready to dispense with professional counsel the next time you find yourself in the dock. As it happens Massachusetts statute doesn't define an offense of burglary at all -- only breaking and entering [6]. Of course, that's just my own original research (and I can't say what might have changed in the last 50 years) but even original research beats your approach, which appears to be just sitting around and making shit up. But still, let's check the sources: The Cambridge Companion to Malcolm X: "...a letter Malcolm had written while serving his sentence for breaking and entering and larceny in Norfolk Prison Colony." Malcolm X: Force for Change: "The police arrested him for stealing, carrying a gun, and breaking and entering. Malcolm was sentenced to 10 years..." The Portable Malcolm X Reader: "1946 February 27: Convicted of four counts of breaking and entering" African American Lives : "Malcolm was arrested again in 1946 for larceny as well as breaking and entering" As to your complaint that "it was a series of burglaries, not one", well... the article says "committed a series of burglaries" (here using burlary in the layman's vague sense, of course) so I am unable to apprehend the inconsistency you see here. I earlier undertook to answer only if your post was intelligible, but I'm now going to raise the bar to intelligent. Toodles! EEng (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Correction: I was mistaken. Massachusetts does define a crime of burglary [7] (though not defined as Whatthatagain asserts below -- basically it's B&E combined with any of several aggravating factors e.g. nighttime, assault on occupands, etc.). Ironically, the fact that there is a crime of burglary in Massachusetts, yet MX was not so charged (but rather was charged with a lesser crime) makes it even more starkly clear that only breaking and entering (which is what the sources say), not burglary should be used in the article. EEng (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC) I've boldly changed burglaries to breaking-and-enterings per this discussion, but any non-ranting editors who think I've made an error in doing so, please revert and discuss. EEng (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC) I think "burglaries" was better. It's the word used by Natambu (the source) and Marable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Hmmm. In the post immediately below Cullen says that Marable specifically says MX was charged with B&E, so I'm guessing that what you're seeing is some other point where Marable uses burglary in the colloquial sense as already mentioned. I've opened a subsection below to continue this topic. In common parlance, the crimes were burglaries, and Manning Marable makes that clear. Malcolm committed burglaries that he was never arrested for, and the crimes he was arrested for and convicted of can also be called burglaries informally. But he was not formally charged with burglary after his arrest. In addition to EEng's sources, Marable says on page 68, "The next day, at the Quincy court, charges of larceny and breaking and entering were added. The court set a bail of ten thousand dollars". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC) I just want to say for the record I think it's awful that Malik has been quietly spending his time actually improving the article [8] instead of here with us beating up on someone obviously unable to defend himself. Really, Malik, what kind of example are you setting? EEng (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Definitions of burglary etc. As per the commonwealth of Massachusetts, a burglary requires breaking and entering into a home (dwelling) with the intent to commit larceny(or other crime), exactly what is being referred to here. No need to even consider common parlance -- just commonwealth law. nonetheless, even if you wanted to use the term "breaking and entering", it would be ignoring illegal possession of a firearm and larceny. But since we have to quibble over "burglary", we will just include the cornucopia of his misdeeds: breaking and entering, larceny, and illegal possession of a firearm. Whatzinaname (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC) What's your goal here, Whatzinaname? Is it to insert the word "burglary" where the article now says "breaking and entering"? If so, can you please mention high quality reliable sources that say he was charged and convicted of burglary? Is your goal to portray the young Malcolm Little as a really dangerous and nasty bad ass criminal? We already report that he was a key part of a band of organized burglars, and that he engaged in homosexual prostitution. What more do you want, and more importantly, what are the reliable sources for what you want to add? You've been complaining, insinuating, attacking Pulitzer Prize winners and bitching and moaning. But so far, you haven't proposed alternate wording, or brought forth other reliable sources regarding the issues that irk you. So now, it is time to put up, or . . . oh, well, you know what I mean. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC) What he did was not "breaking and entering". Breaking and entering is just ONE ELEMENT of what he did. It's a ridiculously vague term. However, they break up B&E in that state and add a bunch of aggravators to the crime. Like i said, and I tire of repeating myself, usage of B&E would also require larceny be added to the sentence. Burglary is always a serious crime, while B&E isn't. In short, "a series of burglaries" far less cumbersome than " a series of breaking and enterings as well as larcenies".Whatzinaname (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Consensus reached! We too tire of your repeating yourself, so on that point at least we've found consensus. You never quote sources for what you say, and all known sources are 180 degrees against you. Stop wasting our time and yours. EEng (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. Breaking and entering certainly is a serious crime, no matter what this or that prosecutor may have tried to convince you of during plea bargain sessions. lowest charge of breaking and entering has something like a max fine of 200 dollars. Oh boy is that ever a major crime.Whatzinaname (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC) More meaningless uncited vague recollections of something or other, completely irrelevant to the article. Didn't we agree we are all tired of your repeating yourself? EEng (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Wording re possible foul play in father's death My personal opinion is that the current wording is going to continue to be a lightning rod. Can we change it so it is not so caustic to some but still gets the point across? Current wording: "Malcolm X's father died when he was young—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored." How about: "Malcolm X's father died when he was young. The local black community speculation, that young Malcolm X most likely heard, was that his father was killed by white supremacists." Of course I am open to other suggestions. Glennconti (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC) The problem with what I wrote is the "that young Malcolm X most likely heard" part I think. The whole rumor is only important if Malcolm X heard it. Are there any sources that can confirm Malcolm X heard this rumor? Glennconti (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC) I went to the source. Marable's bio says Malcolm X knew of the rumor but was ambivalent about whether it was true or not. Sometimes saying his father's death was accidental and other times saying his father was a martyr for black freedom. Glennconti (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC) I actually think that the original wording, "killed by white supremacists, it was rumored", was find, and better than the current "killed by white supremacists, it was speculated in his family". If we believe (as the article still says) that someone outside the family suggested this to one of the children, then it's clear that this idea as not confined to the family. We might want change the body to read, "someone told one of the children their father had been pushed onto the tracks; some blacks suspected the Black Legion (though it is unclear whether MX himself ultimately believed this)." EEng (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC) If the source specifically implicates the Black Legion (political movement), why is the generic term "white supremacists" usen in our article? Dimadick (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I think white supremecists for lead, Black Legion for body are appropriate -- not sure the reader needs to be distracted with the specific name of these particular group of crazy people in the lead. EEng (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. If you haven't clicked on the link to B.L., it really shouldn't be missed. It's hard to imagine grown men looking more ridiculous than the familiar KKK groupies in their bedsheets, but these guys manage to -- they wore what appear to be commodores' hats with skull-and-crossbones insignia -- kind of Gilbert and Sullivan, Halloween edition. The one on the right seems to have blown up his blunderbuss a la Elmer Fudd after Bugs has put a cork in the muzzle. Takes me back to my 8th birthday party. (We had a pirate theme.) Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Glad you added the parenthetical -- wouldn't want people thinking you had a white supremacy theme. EEng (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC) It is true that other's believed besides just the family that it was a murder. I limited it to the family to make it indisputable. According to Marable's bio MX's bother was told the story. MX's mother was a firm believer that her husband was murdered. And MX said that his father died a martyr to black liberation on at least one occasion. To expand the idea further is a bit problematic but Marable does mention the oral traditions of the Lansing community. If you feel we have enough please change it. I also think "white supremacists" is better than "black legion". PS The question which must be answered is "rumored" or "speculated" by whom? And I think people will continue to blast the word "rumor" (what? Rumor in an encyclopedia????) Glennconti (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Rumors, verily so for unsourced ones, do not belong in an encyclopedia. Even if sourced, the question becomes one of relevancy. If MX said it, it's relevant; pretty much anyone else is irrelevant. Even if MX said it, it still doesn't belong in the lede. if the black legion were the "rumored" party, that belongs in the wiki. Qualifying white supremacist would require you had a time machine, telepathy and saw the supposed people involved in the incident.Whatzinaname (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Wording re possible lynching of uncle Cullen (above) and Malik (in edit summary) have indicated that the only suggestion that MX's uncle was lynched comes from the autobio, which needs to be used with caution on points outside MX's own experience. Since this point adds little to the flavor already added by the issues surrounding the death of MX's father, I suggest we omit the uncle, as Malik's editing has already done. EEng (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Wording re burglary etc. Correct me if I'm wrong: I and Cullen found 5 refs which are definite on the point that MX charges and conviction were for B&E (and some other things) but not burglary. We're also aware, and Malik has specifically mentioned, that various sources say things like "MX carried out burglaries" -- but not that he was so charged and convicted. Therefore I propose we conclude that the facts are (at the risk of overrepetition) that the charge and conviction were for B&E, and any use of burglary is imprecise layman's language (and I don't mean any criticism by that). Then what should the article say? I would be happy with the layman's e.g. carried out burglaries in general (since we're meant to assume our readers are laymen) though in specific phrase such as "charged with", "convicted of", etc. we'd have to use the precisely correct "B&E". However, Whatsitthistime has made a big fuss about the description of the crime needing to be correct, and I think we should oblige him. Therefore I propose that we say only "breaking and entering", and never "burglary", since the former is indeed what the legal system determined he had done. That this appears to be the opposite of what Whatsupdoc intended, when he raised the topid, is a delicious illustration of the law of unintended consequences, as well as that the participation of someone who is 100% mixed up, absolutely all the time, can nonetheless catalyze improvements to the article -- kind of the way a pearl forms around an insignificant speck of worthless nothing. EEng (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Closing? On the above three issues (father's death, uncle, criminal charges) I'm happy with the wordings in the current version. All in favor, say Aye. All opposed, please give reasons and sources? EEng (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Aye. Looks good to me. Glennconti (talk) Still minor lede issues with the charges, missing illegal gun possession. Major issues with the lede's treatment of father's death. "Malcolm X's father died under uncertain circumstances when he was young—killed by white supremacists, it was speculated in his family." Should read more similar to "MX's father died when he was (exact age here). Though his family believed foul play was involved, authorities had ruled it an accident or suicide" . Young is ambiguous, especially in this sentence(who was the "young person"?) Or, better yet, strip all the speculative nonsense out and just say his father died when he was X years old, leaving the other, highly unencyclopedic speculative stuff for the body where it can be properly handled. Whatzinaname (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC) You're right about the ambiguity re who was "young", and I've fixed that. But your other concerns have been unanimously rejected by other editors. EEng (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC : That's too bad because it's not staying the way it is. Pick one or the other. In fact, I may persist all mention of this fantasy of a killing without a shred of proof or notable source being removed as there is still not a single valid source that says MX himself believed or even knew of the rumorsWhatzinaname (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Marable's bio page 29 which is referenced in the body of this article where the death is mentioned states that MX knew of the rumor and sometimes said his father died a martyr to black liberation (ie believed the rumor). Glennconti (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC) It also states "nevertheless, the children were DEEPLY DISTURBED by swirling rumors about their father's death". (caps are mine)Glennconti (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry, that doesn't even qualify as him believing his father was murdered. Though it's nice to hear he actually heard of the rumor, at least, so I won't be overly adamant of its removal in toto. it's not staying in the lede, that's for sure. Not without massive qualifications at least, which detracts from the purpose of the lede to begin with. Whatzinaname (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Much of the discussion to date has been about whether the rumors/speculation was just within the family, or in the community generally. Based on Glennconti's quote from the sources I think it's appropriate that we change the current "in-family" wording, When Malcolm X was six his father died under uncertain circumstances—killed by white supremacists, it was speculated in his family back to the original "general-rumor" wording (slightly modified to eliminate the ambiguous reference "when he was young"): When Malcolm X was six his father died—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored. I'm going to go ahead and do that now. Glennconti, you're the only Aye so far -- can you confirm that still stands after this change? Other editors, can you weigh in, please, on the overall closure question? EEng (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Fine with me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC) You're supposed to say Aye, Malik. Can you please get with the program? EEng (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Yes I support the stronger version as it now stands. There is no pacifying Whatzinaname. We will just have to continue to fend off criticism of the word "rumor" even though its use is completely justified. Glennconti (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC) No fending off of criticism will be required. With two or three more endorsements consensus will be unanimous among rational editors, and no further discussion is in order absent a cognizable rationale for reexamining the issue. Whatchaupto can post here to his heart's content, but he gets only one or two free passes for vandalizing the article against consensus, after which he'll be blocked. EEng (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC) LOL. Nice threats. I'll come back and revert it every damn day if its against wikipedia guidelines, which this perverse mixture of rumor-mongering and cherry picking information clearly is. You can take your fairy tale narrative of MX's life to the internet message boards you haunt. Just keep it out of wikipedia. Whatzinaname (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Not to belabor the point but we will continue to get random readers periodically, like Whatshisname, that take issue with an encyclopedia retelling a "rumor". I believe that these "swirling rumors" made a deep impression on the young MX based on the source and therefore are completely justified in mentioning in the lede. But, I am also guessing, based on my time monitoring this article, that this issue will come up again in six months or so and the battle will have to be re-won? Hopefully we can quickly reference the archived discussion. PS: Whatshisname needs serious help. Glennconti (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC) The problem isn't JUST retelling a rumor. While true, that rumors don't belong in an encyclopedia unless there is some good evidence behind it. There is none here. The rumors are inserted in the lede without an iota of qualification. How is some random rumor that someones brothers sisters mothers uncle supposedly said TRUMP the freaking autopsy report?? Tell me, please do. You can't, this is a purely an attempt to insert a fairy tale narrative, and it is the absolute opposite of encyclopedic, which is why it will be gone from the lede and highly qualified in the body. You are the one who needs serious help in learning what an encyclopedia is supposed to be.Whatzinaname (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC) The issue hadn't been as thoroughly ventilated until now, but we now have (or will have in a bit) unanimity among all participants other than trolls, and it's won't be necessary to engage again unless intelligible new arguments are presented -- history shows that doesn't happen. We can just revert. EEng (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC) When Malcolm X was six his father died—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored. I have no dog in this fight, but the sentence sounds like it is trying a bit too hard. The "white supremacists" thing seems too specific for a "rumor." There should be a less breathless way of describing this death and the suspicion it generated. Rumiton (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Feel free to do the bold thing or suggest something here. Watch out, though, for constructions involvinh "when he was six". Oh wait -- how about When MX was six it was rumored that his father was killed by white supremecitst. That requires the reader to realize that only the "by white supremecists" bit, not the "killed" bit, was the rumor, but I guess that's OK. Or The death of MX;s father (when he was six) was rumored to be at the hands of white supremecists. Darn, that gets us back to the "when who was six?" problem... OK, Rumi, ball's in your court. EEng (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. As I recall the Black Legion is specifically mentioned by sources, so while supremecists seems straightforward if we're going to have this material at all. Where is your cite that somehow knows the political beliefs of the--yet still imaginary-- killers? The black legion was a secretive paramilitary group that was more about fighting communists, and anything else they deemed anti-american in the USA than anything else. I have no doubt there were "white supremacists" among them, but to state the supposed boogeymen were categorically so is also unencyclopedic. You want to draw inferences that do not exist. Same old, same old. Not happening, mon ami. Not happening.Whatzinaname (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC) How about? When Malcolm X was six his father died. The family was deeply disturbed when they heard rumors that Earl Little had been murdered at the hands of white supremacists. The sources support this and it leads well in to Louise's breakdown. Glennconti (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC) PS: The source calls the attack "racist violence" and the Black Legion a "vigilante formation" of "impoverished whites". Instead of "white supremacists" maybe we say "a vigilante group of white racists". Please ignore my suggestions if they are too wordy. Glennconti (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC) We don't need to debate the nature of Black Legion any more than that of the KKK. Love your text, but how about compressing a little? When Malcolm X was six his father died, and the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that Earl Little had been murdered by white supremacists. EEng (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Yes that sounds good; anything I can do to help (unlike some). Glennconti (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Rumiton, are you OK with this? I know you were concerned about the supremecists point, and I'm not sure I understood why. Is there still a problem there? EEng (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC) He/she has a problem with it because he/she knows it's an attempt by the MX fan club to insert fantasies into what is supposed to be a factual encyclopedic entry. There is no "factual" nature behind the notion of the killers being "white supremacists". That's a script the MX fan club cooked up. Sorry, but all the winking and nodding in the world won't save you when impartial editors start showing upWhatzinaname (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC) I am a he, but thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. The sentence just sounds like a "long bow" to me. As I understand the situation: MX was 6 years old. His father was killed by a streetcar. The police found the death to be accidental. An unnamed person said he was pushed onto the track. MX remembered this allegation throughout his life. Using the words "white supremacist" implies that a lot more is known today about the incident than really is. I would suggest something like: When he was 6 years old his father was killed by a streetcar. Though the death was ruled accidental, an allegation made at the time that his father was pushed under the car by a white man affected MX for the rest of his life. Do sources support this wording? Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Hi Rumiton. Make sure not to discount the Black Legion part of the rumors. The rumor/fact that the pusher(s) was racially motivated makes the impact on MX greater. There was also a rumor that Earl was hit by a car then put on the tracks. Glennconti (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC) PS: I think a review of the Marable source which explains the "swirling rumors" would be warranted; it is only about 2 pages of text. But the incident may have had far reaching effects on MX and his philosophies which is why it is important? The book is available on google for free. Glennconti (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Deep breath Though this has been interesting as a demonstration of the resilience of WP's processes against disruption, all of us (or almost all of us) have better things to do, so I'd like to help bring this matter to consensus sufficiently clear that when future controversy arises on these points it will be easy (for anyone, including an admin invited to halt further disruption) to distinguish between (1) rehashes of the same tired timewasting nonarguments (so that they can be simply ignored, or so that the disrupting editor can be blocked) and (2) useful new argument or evidence. First, re uncle(s). I think earlier discussion on this focused on lead and forgot about body. Currently the body says: Malcolm X later said that violence by whites killed three of his father's brothers, including one who was lynched. I think we were agreed to remove the statement that an uncle was lynched, but I don't think we dealt with the more general "violence by whites killed three". Right now that's cited to the autobio with no page given, so until a specific page and quote can be supplied I suggest we remove this entirely. [Later: My mistake -- missed the page numbers at the start of this ref] Now on to the father's death... I'll start with some excerpts from Marable [9]: Police had immediately hypothesized that Earl had somehow slipped and fallen while boarding ... The Lansing coroner ruled Earl's death accidental, and the Lansing newspaper accoung presented the story that way as well. Yet the memories of Lansing blacks as set down in oral histories tell a different story, one that suggested foul plan and the involvement of the Black Legion ... [T]he children were deeply disturbed by swirling rumors about their father's violent death. Philbert, then eight years old, was told that 'somebody had hit my father from behind with a car and knocked him under the streetcar. Then I learned later that somebody had shoved him under that car.' ... Louise harbored no doubts that her husband had been murdered by the Black Legion. Although she identified Earl's body she does not appear to have challenged the police report or otherwise tried to search out the truth. Malcolm remained throughout his life both haunted by his father's trgic end and amibivalen about how it occurred. In 1963 ... he described Earl's death as accidental, yet the following year case his father as a martyr for black liberation. To the above I will add that, while the general nature of the Black Legion is beyond dispute, a definitional problem arises as to whether they were white supremecists -- I therefore endorse Glennconti's phrase white racists. Based on the above I'm proposing the following text as a start: (lead): When Malcolm X was six his father died, and the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that white racists had murdered him. (body): When Little was six his father was killed in what was officially ruled an accident, though Louise believed Earl had been murdered by the Black Legion. (The adult MX expressed conflicting beliefs on the question.) See revisions below. I tried to ensure that all the concerns in previous discussions are comprehended either by the wording above or by the Marable material just quoted, but if I'm wrong please speak up. And fast. I'd like to resolve this before I die. EEng (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Your suggestions seem fine to me, although I would try to keep a reference to the streetcar in the body of the article. With respect to Malcolm's uncles, the footnote cites pages 3–4 of the Autobiography. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC) My mistake re uncles -- I missed the page #s amid the other text in that note. OK, then we have: (lead): When Malcolm X was six his father died, and the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that white racists had murdered him. (body): When Little was six his father was killed in what was officially ruled a streetcar accident, though Louise believed Earl had been murdered by the Black Legion. (The adult MX expressed conflicting beliefs on the question.) See revisions below. EEng (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Of course it has my approval. Everything in the new lead sentence now comes almost verbatim from the source. Even though they were rumors there is no denying that they were told to the family and the family acted on them as if they were true. So the rumors had the same force as truth. In the Little family they were true and had their effect. Earl's murder at the hands of white racists wrecked his family. (italics being the rumor that mirrored truth)No need to debate that rumors were important. This is self-evident.Glennconti (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC) To be clear: this wiki is not about MX's "family". It's about him. So no one cares about the narrative of his family, only that part of his family directly applying to him. What we clearly have is a case of MX stating it was an accident-- why would he say that if he didn't believe it? His later comment about "his father dying as martyr" can be interpreted innumerable ways, including ways that it is fully in agreement with his explicit statement it was an accident. In summation, we have an unequivocal statement that agrees with the FBI, local police, insurance company and medical examiner, versus vague statement. Gee, I wounder where the balance of encyclopedic lies? Even more sadly this "debate" is nothing more than an argument of what color a unicorn actual is. I can't believe it's being had in an FA no less.Whatzinaname (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Please do not feed the trolls. I recommend that other editors simply not respond to Whatsyourdiagnosis. Any further comment on the lead/body text immediately above? EEng (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Do you think the casual reader will understand correctly that the "murdered him" was MX's father? I just don't want the casual grade school reader to miscomprehend that MX was murdered by white racists. Please ignore my question if you don't think it is a problem. Glennconti (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC) No, that's a very good observation. Okey dokey: (lead)- When Malcolm X was six his father died, and the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that white racists had been responsible. (body): When Little was six his father was killed in what was officially ruled a streetcar accident, though Louise believed Earl had been murdered by the Black Legion. (The adult MX expressed conflicting beliefs on the question.) EEng (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you for being so accommodating. However the word "murder" is very powerful. I would prefer if we could use it. Is there a way we could be slightly redundant and specifically say "Earl Little" even though the pronoun "him" is more appropriate (but less clear)? I am happy with what we have but if it can be more perfect that would be great (but not necessary) just saying. Glennconti (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC) You're talking about the lead? I don't see a non-awkward way to do this -- "Earl Little" isn't identified in the lead, for one thing. I think when readers see, "white racists were responsible" they (the readers, not the racists) will understand that to mean murder, not "responsibility" in the sense that some white racists meglected to get their brakes adjusted and were horrified when they rolled into Earl Little in a crosswalk. EEng (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Ok I'm with you. Let's run with what we have. Glennconti (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC) You're so easy. Meanwhile, keep cool. EEng (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC) More neutral now, but still perhaps a bit clumsy. We have the word "his" appearing four times in two lines, referring to different people. I'll have a fiddle myself. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Fiddled a bit more than I intended. Also just noticed I amended Whatname's edit. I may have added fire to the fuel. Ah well, let's watch what happens next. Rumiton (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC) I think you're talking about the text in the article, which none of us except Whatnot has changed in some time -- at least regarding father's death and so on -- while the discussion has been going on here. The current proposal is in bold above -- what do you think? (BTW your edit says "officially ruled accident or suicide" but to my knowledge the official ruling was accident -- only an insurance company said suicide, suicide being an exclusion in the policy.) EEng (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Rumors and speculation are worthy if mention if reliable sources report that they shaped the subject's personality or world view. I support the proposed language in bold. I oppose mocking the editor who disagrees. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Agree with above. The suggested change makes for a very short lead paragraph, but that is how it must be. The death and the suspicions don't relate to the material above or below. I can live with the bold suggestion. Rumiton (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Closing! Closing! Closing! Closing! Closing! Closing! To summarize, we have: On father's death: The bold text seen above. On uncles: Malcolm X later said that violence by whites killed three of his father's brothers. (No mention of possibly-lynched uncle). On criminal charges: ...for larceny and breaking and entering (no firearms, burglary, or any other type of charge) Concurrence of the following editors, in spite of the protests of one other editor, can be seen above (of course, if I've listed you here incorrectly, say so): EEng (me) Rumiton Cullen Glennconti Malik, there have been a few changes since you last weighed in -- can you just add confirmation of you concurrence? --Above summary of consensus by EEng (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Aye. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Enable feedback?

Would it be tempting fate to enable feedback? EEng (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

<bump>

Hearing no objection, I'll enable. EEng (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Deeply disturbed

I am afraid I now have another problem. We now have ...the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that white racists had been responsible. After his mother was placed in a mental hospital when he was 13... I separated these sentences to avoid any suggestion that it is known that the mental health of the "deeply disturbed" mother deteriorated until she was institutionalised. In other words, any implication that the suspicions surrounding the father's violent death caused her to have a breakdown. If sources say there was a connection we should say so also. If not, then the sentences need to be reworded or separated. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The second sentence says that she was not hospitalized until he was 13. This separates the two events by 7 years. This may be enough to show that the connections is not an immediate effect. And in my mind the two sentences are separated. But I am open to suggestions. Glennconti (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Disturbed" is an old-fashioned euphemism for insane, and deeply disturbed makes it more so. To me, if there was no connection between the occurrences they belong in separate paragraphs. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Deeply Disturbed" is verbatim from the Marable source. Glennconti (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC) PS Could it be that that paragraph is about events that shaped MX's childhood so are all associated? Glennconti (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I just read it all again and still cannot agree. His father's death needs its own para. This is something that happened to his father (though it affected him.) The other sentences refer to what happened to MX; being put in foster homes, being put in prison, meeting Nationers. Bundling them together makes implications we should not be making. Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I just want to say. In childhood, MX lost his father, MX lost his mother. These are things that happened to him. But let's see what others have to say. Glennconti (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There is almost certainly a way of phrasing this to get rid of the problem. I'll have another look tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Rumiton, I'm no slave to "paragraphs must have X sentences"-type rules but the lone sentence re dad looked awkward, and I didn't know your original reason for the change. I agree the juxtaposition of father's death and mother's commitment does tend to suggest causality (esp. with deeply disturbed, as already pointed out). Some possibilities:

• the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that white racists --> there were rumors white racists We were hewing closely to the source because of one editor's incessant harangues, but I still feel that "there were rumors" would be fine -- the reader can infer that such rumors reached the family, and this is made clear in the body text
• After his mother was placed in a mental hospital when he was 13, he lived --> After his mother was placed in a mental hospital seven years later, he lived... This makes the time gap explicit to lessen the implication of cause-effect -- but as I read it the "later" almost adds back an implication of causality.
• Leave father in his own short paragraph as Rumiton did.

We can do one, two, or all three of the above. Honestly I think the first one on the list is the best approach. What do others thinkg? EEng (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

All not bad. How about: Malcolm X effectively became orphaned early in his life. His father died when he was six, and there were disturbing rumors that his death was caused by white racists. When he was 13, his mother was committed to a mental hospital. Malcolm X spent his next few years in a series of foster homes. Rumiton (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I like a modification of EEng's second proposition which incorporates ideas from Rumiton. How about instead of After his mother was placed in a mental hospital seven years later, he lived... we say Malcolm X also lost his mother seven years later when she was placed in a mental hospital, he lived... Glennconti (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC) PS: You see I don't want to get away from the bulk of what we have, but want so solve the two problems: 1) purpose of the paragraph. 2) remove implication of causality. By saying "also lost" this implies the purpose of the paragraph. Adding "seven years later" removes most of the causality implication. Glennconti (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC) PPS: In this way, we solve both problems by modifying only one sentence and keep much of what has already received approval. Glennconti (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the "orphaned" lead-in. We must take care not to fall back into the "His father died when he [who?] was six" trap, and that's tough with two males involved. How about:

Malcolm X was effectively orphaned early in life. When he was six his father died, and there were [disturbing?] rumors that white racists had been responsible. Seven years later he lost his mother as well when she was placed in a mental hospital, after which he lived in a series of foster homes.

Honestly, I'd leave out the disturbing -- remember the body makes clear Louise believed them etc., and I think until the they get to that, few readers will assume, "Sure, rumors, but of course the family would have ignored those!" But what do others think?

EEng (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to run with this, without the "disturbing." Sometimes understatements are the best statements. Rumiton (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this is consistent with the extensive discussions in recent past, so hearing no objection I'll implement as above (without disturbing). EEng (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. I'm generally conservative about linking but I linked foster homes because (a) non-US readers may be unfamiliar (?) and (b) it's often confused with adoption, esp. by younger readers, who are a big part of this article's audience.

Died

We have, "When he was 6 his father died." I am now thinking "was killed" might be better. It tells us that the death was violent, and prepares us for the rumor part that follows. Rumiton (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A series of drafting issues

The Pronoun he vs. usage of the name Malcolm X

The usage of his name Malcolm X over and over again in this article is a complete waste of bytes. When it is clear that the subject of the sentence is Malcolm X, then you need to use the word he. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just make the changes you're suggesting so we can see what you're talking about? EEng (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning the subject's name is often useful to be certain which person is being discussed. Commonly, we mention the surname. Many members of the Nation of Islam used "X" as a surname substitute. Accordingly, in this case, frequent use of "Malcolm X" seems appropriate to me. I grant the possibility that it may be over used a few times, and invite Ijustreadbooks to copy edit thoughtfully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This sentence is extremely poorly written:

In Lansing the family was frequently harassed by the Black Legion, a white racist group; when the family home burned in 1929, Earl accused the Black Legion.

Suggest:

In Lansing the family's home was burned to the ground in 1929 and Earl accused a white racist group, the Black Legion, for being responsible.

There is absolutely no need to say "frequently harassed" (If you include frequently harassed you are trying to defend his dad in the article - when no one is attacking his dad - illegal waste of bytes)Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That the family was frequently harassed is established by the sources, and is an evocative fact about MX's childhood having nothing to do with defending his father. EEng (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Do reliable sources say that the house burned "to the ground"? In what sense is describing the harassment of Earl Little a "defense" of him? Is adding "extremely" to "poorly written" an example of good writing? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, the sentence is extremely poorly edited. You are implying that the house was burned by some hate group. You can not put these two distinct sentences into one sentence - it's just wrong:

"In Lansing the family was frequently harassed by a white racist group, the Black Legion."

"When the family home burned in 1929, Earl accused the Black Legion."

The only thing that is important is if his dad told Malcolm X,

"These guys, the Black Legion, are a white racist group and I think they are the ones responsible for 'when the family house burned'". You got a citation for that? ("when the family house burned" - what does that mean, to the ground, one room, or what? - how about "a suspicious fire of indeterminate damage was done to the house")

And it's impossible for me to copy edit that because you have two inline citations. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am sorry, it's ugly.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If you check the sources cited and find that they don't support the text, please let us know. EEng (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I checked Marable, Reinvention, pages 25 to 27, and he confirms that the house burned to the ground. He describes the social context of the violence, including a well-documented description of a white mob attack on the home of a black family that had just moved into a mostly white neighborhood in Detroit in 1925. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then good. Here is the pith of my argument

1. The fish swam
2. The bird flew
3. The radioactive particle decayed
4. The house burned

This really pushes my vocabulary, but I think the term is a non sequitir. Houses do not innately burn. You have to edit the sentence and one out maybe to explain why the "house burned". Houses stand, then can catch fire, or be set afire, but they can not burn. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And you can only include the sentence if Malcolm X found out about his father suspicions - otherwise it's a tree falling in the woods that Malcolm never heard. This is not an article about racism that was contemporaneously prevalent in Malcolm X's life but only something that could affect his views and life. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bert Bell vs. Malcolm X

The newbie wikipedia pages explicitly state to look at FA article to learn from them.

The usage of his name, Malcolm X, over and over again in this article is extremely bad.

A one sentence paragraph: ???

From age 14 to 21 Little lived with a half-sister, Ella Little-Collins, in Roxbury, a largely African-American neighborhood of Boston, where he held a variety of jobs.[17][18]

Yuck! Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who told you that paragraphs are supposed have X sentences at least/most, but whoever that was knew nothing about writing. Nonetheless in this case an improvement was possible, and I made it. Why didn't you just do it yourself? EEng (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, a single sentence that expresses a discrete thought comparable in importance to adjoining paragraphs comprised of several sentences, can stand alone as a paragraph of its own. "Yuck" adds nothing to the discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, a single sentence is exceedingly rare. Pick 10 random featured articles and see how may times you see a 1 paragraph sentence. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right: single-sentence paragraphs are rare. EEng (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rare is not synonymous with forbidden. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Nation of Islam vs NFL Career

I came here because I am trying to fix the NFL being too much of the biography of Bert Bell.

But this article is even worse than the Bell article. I have the NFL being part of Bell's career, you folks just have a major section titled "Nation of Islam". It's just really, really bad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, what in the world does

I have the NFL being part of Bell's career, you folks just have a major section titled "Nation of Islam"

even mean? To be blunt, you lose credibility as a critic when you yourself write stuff like Earl accused a white racist group for being responsible.

BTW, please stop enclosing text examples in <nowiki>, which makes no sense to do at all.

And what's all this talk about "waste of bytes"?

EEng (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no byte shortage, as this talk page proves. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, do something with the title of the section called Nation of Islam. People that are involved with an article can get upset over section title names - I am not involved with the article so I could care less. But you are placing his personality below that of the Nation of Islam - which is fine, except you need a citation that says "Malcolm X thought the success of the Nation of Islam was more important than his own life" - or something to that effect. How could I put a section titled the "National Football League" in the Bell article - that would be ridiculous. Respectfully, it's just silly. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have no idea what your objection is. The section title is completely appropriate. EEng (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am looking at the [Paul Robeson] articles and the section titles I gave to it (with the caveat that most of what I wrote in the Robeson article is a complete disaster) and they follow this article. The Bell article is 100 times simpler than this but the Robeson article is, at the very least, comparable to this in difficulty. I am sorry, abstract out the section title. At least I have this as a section title: "Theatrical ascension and ideological transformation", that ain't that bad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The navbox on the Nation of Islam is kooky from my perspective. I can have a navbox in the Bell article that includes all NFL commissioners, but that's handled by something at the bottom of the Bell article. All that stuff in that navbox I can have for the NFL ("Publications", "Subsidiaries and offshoots", but I would delete it if anyone put it in). Maybe cause this article has alot to do with religion you have to do that stuff(?) - only, literally, 10 people a day visit the Bell article. I am sorry, that stuff is way off topic. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A publication called "How to Eat to Live" is included in this biographical article, is that a joke? Did he write that. I mean really. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A publication by the Nation of Islam entitled "How to Eat to Live" has given me great insight to the life, struggles and personality of Malcolm X. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Abstract out the main section title name - it's better editing, pick a name Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Request deletion of irrelevant materical

total waste of bytes here: In section Mecca;

"With financial help from his half-sister Ella Little-Collins," - way off topic "(the pilgrimage to Mecca required of every Muslim who is able)" - completely redundant. The definition of Hajj is discussed in the Wikipedia article Hajj.

With financial help from his half-sister Ella Little-Collins, in April 1964 Malcolm X flew to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to begin his Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca required of every Muslim who is able).

In April 1964, Malcolm X flew to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to begin his Hajj.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

also completely ridiculously redundant (wow, bad job here) "while living with his half-sister Ella Little-Collins". How many times are you folks going to include the phrase "half-sister" that's a really atrocious job. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the financial assistance provided by a family member is relevant and worth mentioning. If you think that the family relationship is mentioned too many times, please feel free to make revisions. Calling something like this "completely ridiculous" seems excessive to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"I think that the financial assistance provided by a family member is relevant" - was he destitute? did she just like to bolster him financially? Was SHE rich? (off-topic) - I think it's a total waste of bytes. What does that tell me about his life or his struggles? If you think it is relevant, than why is it relevant. I think it's a waste of bytes. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ella Little-Collins was quite influential in Malcolm X's life, though it was an often problematic relationship. She functioned as a foster mother in his teenage years, and her own criminal conduct in those years motivated and rationalized his own crimes. Later, she too converted to the Nation of Islam, and then gravitated to mainstream Sunni Islam before Malcolm himself did. Her willingness to fund his trip to Mecca enabled him to be exposed to influences that changed his world view in a dramatic fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This article has tremendous flaws

I can't write for doink, but this article is really not up to snuff. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mecca section would take me 8 hours to rewrite as it is - and that's one of the good sections. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more productive if you would identify the flaws, or correct them, rather than complaining in a vague way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please -- we wouldn't dream of taking up your valuable time.

Your comments continue to be incomprehensible. And -- sorry to say, but I feel other editors should be on notice -- your edit history, talk page, and recent ANI thread show that this is a chronic problem with you.

I'm going to stop responding, and I suggest that other editors do so as well, unless, of course, they are able to make sense of what you're saying. A great deal of time has been wasted in the last few months responding to nonsense comments, and I don't feel we should continue to do so. EEng (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

High Schools named after Malcolm X

Please, please, do not include high schools named after Malcolm X. Delete those bytes and use them for something important - that is so bad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If you folks consider this guy an important historical figure, than his ideas should outweigh the number of high schools named after him by about 1 billion to 1. Wow. Bad job. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying "you folks"? Aren't you a Wikipedia editor too? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable about Malcolm X. "Please limit discussion to improvement of this article" - part and parcel is I am blasting you guys with what I sincerely think would be improvements in the article, and if you guys say I am right, then it's a rat chance in hell I would ever let anyone include a Paul Robeson High School in the Paul Robeson article. The Bell article is hagiographical (okay, its my first article), this article is an insult to Malcolm X's legacy. If you want to bring in citations that insult Malcolm X, I am cool with that. But if you want to include content that mentions high schools named after him, then you are wasting bytes with meaningless trivial garbage when you should be saying something important. I can not copy edit content. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Waste of bytes

1) you include irrelevant stuff 2) you omit important stuff about his life, personality, or his struggles. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Me editing this article

I would never edit this article without User Malik Shabazz's permission. He has been a godsend for the Robeson article. But that does not mean I will not blast him for what I think are mistakes in this article.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Portrayals in film and on stage

See this section: Portrayals in film and on stage

Fold that into legacy:

SEGWAY, Among the many portrayals of Malcolm X on film and stage(citations here) was the 1990, Denzel Washington reprisal of his role as Malcolm X in the 1981 'Off-Broadway play When the Chickens Came Home to Roost', in Malcolm X[248]—​ which named one of the ten best films of the 1990s.(citation here, go read about the director in the citation, go read about who said it was one of the best films of the 1990s in the citation - and not in the body of the article) etc.

After fixing grammar: Delete 2,000 to 3,000 bytes.

You guys just have lots of junk in this article. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

What's important about Malcolm X

Ideas, High Schools named after him, Which film critics liked his movies, how society responded to his ideas, how his ideas affected society? Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No serious criticism of Malcolm X exists in this article by one of his contemporaries

Do you expect me to believe no contemporary political writer of Malcolm X attacked him? Where is Bill Buckley? Not even one editorialist, criticized Malcolm X but we got high schools named after Malcolm X in the article. C'mon. Please at least attack him intellectually. Show him at least a little respect for his ideas. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Give us some sources for your suggestions and I'm sure they will be well received. Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I just looked over the Works Cited section. Do you believe there is only one book in there that does not have the name Malcolm X in its title. I honestly do not like the over usage of the term "think outside the box". However, this article's sources are all "inside the box". I suggest more research is required in this article. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You cite 27 different authors for this article. In the Bert Bell article I cite 55. (Okay, I have to delete at least 1 because the GA reviewer wisely blasted me for him not being an authoritative source). Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Transcendental figures in history

There was a boxer in the 1960s who transcended his sport to become an admirable pop icon (He is still alive so I can not mention his name). There was an NFL quarterback in the 1960s who transcended his sport to become an (not really admirable, per se) pop icon (He is still alive so I can not mention his name).

The legacy section is not really written appropriately with respect to this because this article writes: "there was a resurgence of interest in Malcolm X among young people". That sentence is way too concrete. I suggest you are not using the best sources available. I do not know (I'm guessing after his death) whether Malcolm X transcended the civil rights movement, or if he transcended a deeply religious conviction . Of all the more interesting things is I have learned on this talk page is that, unequivocally, Paul Robeson did not transcend the arts in pop culture - which is personally advantageous to me as an editor going forward and now I know what specific events to examine in detail. I suggest further research is required and you should abstract out the legacy section in this area. Transcendental figures in history are important; high schools named after Malcolm X are not important.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is a world class historian that writes that Malcolm X was a transcendental historical figure, then you are deprecating his legacy. At this time, I suspect more research is required in this area and I believe you are, due to lack of diligence, deprecating his legacy. If someone says the article becomes hagiography, then make sure you have a world class historian as a ace in your hand.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your 33 posts above mostly display a high level of ignorance as to how Wikipedia operates. No editor writes an article from start to finish; neither does any particular group of editors, so there is no point in suggesting other editors should do "further research." If there is some aspect of this subject's life that you feel has been under- or over-represented, then give us your source(s). Otherwise prepare to be ignored. Rumiton (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I realize I have been away from Wikipedia from 18 months and I am a little rusty. I accept your challenge, and it is most assuredly a chellenge under 2 preconditions:

1. prove that Malcolm X's father told Malcolm X that he suspected the Black Legion for being responsible when this article writes: "In Lansing the family was frequently harassed by the Black Legion, a white racist group; when the family home burned in 1929, Earl accused the Black Legion."

I suspect this article is full of it in this regard. The sentence is written too kooky; there is something wrong with that sentence.

I forget what the second precondition is but your statement "No editor writes an article from start to finish" is almost complete bull. I basically deleted every byte in the Bert Bell article and put in my own content. Other editors have edited my grammar, and other editors have upgraded it to wikipedia standards, but no editor has ever edited my content in the Bert Bell article. (A few hours ago I just asked an editor to review my content in the Bert Bell article, but that's really it).

The fact of the matter is, you have 27 authors that have written biographies with the name Malcolm X in title and the legacy section includes this: "as well as on T-shirts and jackets". The legacy section is screwy. I'll see what I can do, but I am not going to read any books with the name Malcolm X in its title.

27 authors to write books with the name Malcolm X in it's title is mind blowing. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Great new images

Thanks to User:Tobby72 for adding the new images -- they add a lot. EEng (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Tobby72. Thanks to you, too, EEng, for all your work on the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)