Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 4

Umrah or Hajj?

Was Malcolm's Mecca experience a Hajj or an Umrah? (In other words, did it take place during Dhu Al-Hijjah, or some other time of year?) An anon altered the Umrah reference to Hajj, but I'm not sure which is correct. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well... he returned home w/ the title "El Hajj" so I'm pretty sure it was the Hajj and not the Umrah.

I am asking teh same question did he do the hajj or the umrah this information needs to be checked because hajj is hajj and umrah is umrah and we need accuracy. the title could be symbolic and the title is not a religious one so it has no factual relevance.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt one have to be a muslim to perform hajj in the first place? i dont understand how he made hajj BEFORE he became a muslim. d riffat

From his autobiography (p. 338, in the chapter "Mecca"): "I only knew what I had left in America, and how it had contrasted with what I had found in the Muslim world. About twenty of us Muslims who had finished the Hajj were sitting in a huge tent on Mount Arafat. As a Muslim from America, I was the center of attention. They asked me what about the Hajj had impressed me the most. One of the several who spoke English asked; they translated my answers for the others. My answer to that question was not the one they expected, but it drove home my point." He was a muslim before the hajj, but the experience changed a lot of his ways of thinking about islam (and other things). He describes being interviewed before begin allowed to enter mecca: "I...learned that the Hajj Committee Court had been notified about my case, and that in the morning I should be there. And I was. The Judge was Shiekh Muhammad Harkon. ... He not only recognized me as a true Muslim, but he gave me two books...He recorded my name in the Holy Register of true Muslims." (autobiography, p. 335) Doctormatt 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If he was on Arafat during that time, it must of been Hajj, you don't go there for Umrah. Im pretty sure anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.37.146 (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Islam nor Malcolm X, however: 1) the usage of El-Hajj to his name would denote that he had completed the Hajj. No? I don't think one could add the title to his name if one had not completed the pilgrimage, nor did anything ever indicate that this was an insincere man (even if one disagreed with his politics or religion); 2) If the event was as shown in documentary footage, by the numbers of people, it would appear to me to be the annual event, not Umrah, which can be performed at any time of the year and is known as a "lesser" pilgrimage. I would suspect that the numbers would not be the same as those drawn to the Hajj which even makes the U.S. nightly news when the event takes place.

And that leads to the last point -- 3) It might be simple thing for someone to find the dates of the Hajj pilgrimage for 1964 - was it April? I could not find it, but since it's an annual event, there must be a method or calendar as to when the event occurs. For example, in 2005 it was in January.

Something else -- Malcolm X said somewhere that he had to be interviewed to gain access to Saudi Arabia for the purposes of the Hajj. I don't recall where I saw it. This might be related to his 20 hour detention upon entering Saudi Arabia. Given the sheer numbers, it might be that some people (Westerners particularly) might be interviewed for their sincerity and practice of Islam. I can see the Saudi officials having to keep out the gawkers, tourists and sightseers at this important event. Those with no religious business would be taking up time and space for something that the Islamic religion denotes as extremely important to be satisfied correctly, and is not on the tourist guide package. So, without knowing the Islamic calendar, I would say that it was the Hajj. The evidence (for me) seems to point to it being the Hajj.

Legaleze 74.65.216.249 (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)74.65.216.249 (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality

There's an article in The Guardian website giving a case that Malcolm X may have been gay or bisexual. Check it out. [1]. Should this theory be included in the article? Stancel Spencer 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian piece is based entirely on the writings of Bruce Perry, whose book I have read. He devotes a few pages to the possibility. The best that can be said is that perhaps, when he was a young hustler in Boston and New York, Malcolm got involved with a couple of guys for money. The evidence is terribly weak. I do not incline to mention it at all. Uucp 04:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading a book years ago by an old acquaintance/friend of Malcolm X's--can't recall his name; may have been Berry--in which the author asserts that Malcolm X was involved with transvestites. I can't recall whether it was for money or not, but I do remember that this guy said that Malcolm had told him excitedly "They [perform oral sex]!" Even if this is true, I don't think this necessarily means all that much. Just wanted to throw that out there

Malcolm X is definately not 'gay'. Such a rumor about a strong black leader that spoke of freedom had a wife, didn't he? And children?didn't he have children?And for that article,i will have nothing to do with it. as far as i'm concerned, the author resulted to racism, and tried to attack the black community, based on his ridiculous story. I will leave it at that. --Black and Proud 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You can get married and have kids while being gay. It was common to have closeted homosexuals marry people of the opposite sex before the 1990s, and even have sex, though they probably didn't enjoy it. And you can be strong while being gay, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.161.156 (talk) 01:46, February 28, 2007

1) The last comment is right on all counts. Being married and having children, especially in the past, is/was no indication of one's sexual orientation. And being gay doesn't mean that one can't be a "strong Black leader." Read about Bayard Rustin or Barbara Jordan.

2) I don't think anybody has suggested that Malcolm X was gay. Perry's biography — which was based on hundreds of interviews with people who knew Malcolm during different periods of his life — alleges that Malcolm engaged in sex with other men when he was a young man. According to the Kinsey Report, that was true of 37% of the men in the study.

3) Perry's book has been criticized for its sensationalism. For example, more than one page is spent discussing the color of Malcolm's eyes (!). No biographer beside Perry has written about these alleged sexual encounters. On the other hand, because of his extensive interviews, Perry may have had the best primary sources of any of Malcolm's biographers.

4) Most importantly, Malcolm's sexual activity as a young man has no bearing on why he is notable or why he continues, more than 40 years after his death, to be an important figure in America. He is not known for his sexuality or his views on sexuality, and I think that adding these allegations has no value other than titillation. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely bisexual, on the evidence. Doesn't need wider coverage than it already has in the article but appropriate project coverage is warranted.SupaPlaya —Preceding comment was added at 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Experimentation does not equal bisexuality. 130.88.205.41 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you write that? Are you homofobic? Please, read Dr. Marc Lamont Hill s page, about Bruce Perry’s 1991 biography on Malcolm X. Malcom was bisexual/gay.

http://www.marclamonthill.com/mlhblog/?p=424 Jackblues 02.00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone famous has been questioned about their sexuality...think about it! Even if he was, how does tht nake a difference anyways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.25.14 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcom X was not homosexual by any means and Peter has no evidence. and he is the only biographer out of many who insists this. this is hearsay and not the truth and i think this is very damaging to his image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinelikethesun2000 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You could cut the homophobia in here with a knife. 142.26.118.34 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included. Malcolm X was a wild bisexual as a youth, "servicing" men while also engaging with white female prostitutes. It's important to note that he worked as a butler to a wealthy Bostonian bachelor whom he also serviced sexually, a modern-day throwback to slavery. These issues are significant to fully understanding Malcolm X's character and background, which highlights his behavior as a youth and the huge positive effect, moral reform and growth in character that happened after he discovered the Nation of Islam in which he rejected all his youthful indiscretions as "immoral". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.33.109 (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MALCOM X

IM doing a report on Malcom X —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.66.200.64 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Good for you...--Jayson Virissimo 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also!

Me too! but really who cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.37.146 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Photograph / 'By Any Means Necessary'

The caption by the photograph of Malcolm X with an M1 simply says that he's looking out a window and that this image is often on t-shirts with the quotation "by any means necessary." While both of these are true statements, it is important to note that the photograph was taken when Malcolm was guarding his family following a series of death threats. The juxtaposition of this picture with "by any means necessary" has fueled the myth that Malcolm X advocated violent revolution -- this is simply not the case. The quotation was from a speech in which Malcolm X told listeners we must "liberate our minds by any means necessary." This statement had nothing to do with the image of him holding an M1. The two events have only been joined in the pop culture. Since the page is protected, will an admin please edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.131.88 (talk) 17:47, May 20, 2007

• What specific edits do you recommend? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that Malcolm X did advocate violent revolution if necessary. Because he said "Our objective is complete freedom, justice and equality by any means necessary." That certainly sounds like he advocates using violence to attain those things since he uses the phrase "by any means necessary". He also said in the "Ballot or the Bullet" that there is NO non-violent revolution, that there is no revolution where you love the enemy. If he advocated revolution, which I think everyone would agree he did, then he didn't believe in the idea of non-violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiburns (talk • contribs) 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A perfect example of how the press and others have skewed anything to do with Malcolm X. Yes, the photo with the gun has no relation to the "by any means necessary" speech, but as long as you put them together you had double the man to fear. His words could mean many things. The facts seems to bear out that they meant something more to him. Add a gun and he's coming to your house and take all your stuff away too. Even today there are still those who refuse to allow this man to be understood. I blame the press for this all the way back to 1964 and continuing. They simply could not accurately report on this man so much so that for each person who has ever heard his name, there's probably some new and awful things being attributed to him still. I think he was one of, and still is, the most misunderstood person thanks to inaccurate and false reporting and its progeny -- things like those t-shirts which come out of fear and inaccurate reporting of the facts.

And, no, I disagree that Malcolm advocated violent revolution. Originally, he was a separatist. It was a moment in time. Second, he was not associated with any violence. All the violence was perpetrated upon him and his family. He did, however, advocate to meet violence with violence. A normal human reaction given where he'd been. But, he said he would treat a non-violent racist with non-violence. I'm not even certain of the term "revolution." Separation does not mean revolution. Nor does Black pride mean revolution. Black ownership. Black responsibility. Keeping things within the community. None of this means violence or revolution to me.

One must remember that he was constantly evolving. He was stopped before he could "become." Legaleze74.65.216.249 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Was Malcolm X REALLY a muslim?

I mean would Macolm X have preferred to live in a state ruled by shariah law like Saudi-Arabia or Iran instead of the U.S.? Or was Macolm X's confession to Islam a mere protest against the U.S.-society mainstream? After all, Malcolm X considered himself to be a fighter for human rights, and does the idea of human rights, e.g. freedom of speech, freedom to changen one's religion, etc. really mix with Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.225.19 (talk) 07:35, December 7, 2007

You idiot. He was a Muslim and your stereotype is just mediocre. You don't even know the difference between Islam and extremeism. They are two separate culture's.

He converted to the Muslim faith because he found inner peace. LOOK UP TRUE ISLAM.

I agree he was obviously a Muslim, but was he really Sunni? It says that at the top of the page on the article, but does anyone have a reliable source for that? I didn't think he identified with any particular brach of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiburns (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well i don't know about that, I have never read or heard him say that his a sunni muslim. However that might be the things people think nowadays, just to be able to categorize him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.247.30 (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of people misunderstand Islam...yes, he was a Muslim in my opinion and yes, freedom of speech, human rights, etc. are an integral part of Islam. What most people confuse is the extreme culture of middle eastern areas as the character Islam. Look at American Muslims-many of them are NOT extremists. All that is displayed on TV and in the media are the extremists Muslims because that obviously makes for better "News." All the war and strife that is occurring in the middle east is because of the diluted message of Islam. Please don't confuse the culture of middle eastern countries as Islam.

"You idiot. He was a Muslim and your stereotype is just mediocre. You don't even know the difference between Islam and extremeism. They are two separate culture's."

That kind of negative attitude is hardly helping the situation....It is because of coarse-toned folk like you that people are misinterpreting Islam.

Please calm down. Personal attacks aren't very useful in resolving disputes. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So does anyone have the info to verify if Malcolm was Sunni? I understand he was a Muslim, but I didn't know what branch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.65.166 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall that any branch was mentioned after his break with NOI. This seems to be a post-2001 question being asked of 1964. It's only now where the distinction has taken on newsworthy attentions that all the differences between Sunni and Shi'a (and more) seem more important. There's probably a simple answer out there. Legaleze74.65.216.249 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to add that Muhammad Ali was a Sunni? Does Malcolm X or Muhammad Ali identify(ied) themselves with any of the branches? If yes, then it can be encyclopedic. Many Muslim people don't embrace the idea that they have to be related to a branch. In another note, do you have to add that Averroes was living in an open Muslim society where 'Sunni' and 'Shite' had no much meaning? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm X joined the NOI and at that point was a black supremacist. After making his trip to Mecca, he became a socialist, said he had found 'true Islam', and advocated racial equality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.85.5 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several sites which state after the Hajj, Malcolm was a Sunni. I only recently came across them. I think the question had less public understanding in 1964. It was only the events of this decade that gave new relevance to the divisions within Islam. Legaleze (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Legaleze

He was a Sunni; his incorporation of "Malik" into his name is a reference to one of the four schools of Sunni jurisdiction, Maliki. 144.89.186.134 (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From the article "I was a zombie then — like all [Black] Muslims — I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years." While he definitely was a Muslim while he was a member of the NoI, was he still Muslim when he left it? Could somebody clear up the quote for me? Memeligutsa (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why were there tensions between Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam

I can't find them. 78.144.29.151 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It says in the article

“ Writing after his break from the Nation of Islam, Malcolm said in the Autobiography that one reason for the separation was growing tension between him and Elijah Muhammad that arose from Malcolm's dismay at rumors of Muhammad's extramarital affairs with young secretaries. These rumors troubled Malcolm because the Nation of Islam condemns adultery. At first Malcolm brushed these rumors aside. Later, he spoke with Elijah Muhammad's son and the women making the accusations and he came to believe them. According to the Autobiography, in 1963 Elijah Muhammad confirmed the rumors to Malcolm. Muhammad justified his actions by saying they followed a pattern established by Biblical prophets. ”

Does that answer your question? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

The Further reading section is just too long. Someone who knows better, please, make it shorter. --Tone 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with having a long one if it contributes to the article? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia style disapproves of it What Wikipedia is Not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.31.68 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

X or Shabazz?

Quote: Soon after their meeting (with Elijah Muhammad), he (Malcolm) changed his surname to "X". ... I very much doubt whether he legally changed it to X, so "adopted the monicker" might be more appropriate.
The article then goes on to say that according to a FBI file Malcolm used the alias "Malachi Shabazz". Next it states: They (Malcolm and Betty) had six daughters, all of whom carried the family name of Shabazz.
So it seems that Malcolm at some point started using the monicker "X" and then changed his surname from "Little" to "Shabazz". When did he do so? I'd much appreciate it if someone could clear this up, thanks. Maikel (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When Robert Zimmerman changed his name to Bob Dylan, he didn't legally change it either. Malcolm never "adopted the monicker" X, he changed his name to Malcolm X. He later changed his name to Malik Shabazz; I'm not sure that he filed any legal paperwork for that name change either.

(I'm not a lawyer, but my lawyer friends have told me that in the United States, changing one's name in most cases is simply a matter of using a new name. I've never heard of anybody who's changed his or her name upon marriage or divorce filing court documents to legally change his or her name.)

I don't have my copy of Malcolm X's FBI file handy (no, I'm not being facetious; it was edited by Clayborne Carson and published in book form), so I'm not sure of the date of their first "Malachi Shabazz" letter. (If you're motivated, you can look here.)

Malcolm started using the name Malik Shabazz (not Malachi) in early 1964 after he left the Nation of Islam. While he was an NoI member, he was always known publicly as Malcolm X.

The article is misleading when it says that Malcolm's daughters "all ... carried the family name of Shabazz." While their parents were Malcolm X and Betty X, they were known as Attallah X, Qubilah X, etc. After Malcolm X and Betty X took the names Malik Shabazz and Betty Shabazz, their daughters also took the last name Shabazz. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Break from NOI

Quote: Malcolm publicly announced his break from the Nation of Islam on March 8, 1964.
What reasons did he give at that time? Thanks. Maikel (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

He still supported Black nationalism, but he felt the NoI was too rigid and dogmatic and it would never get its message to most African-Americans. Instead, he was starting his own organization, which would work with other civil rights groups (something the NoI had always opposed). Here's a link to The New York Times article the day after his press conference. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When first interviewed, he said it was the gag that was imposed upon him by NOI after his words about the Kennedy assassination -- the NOI said he could not publicly speak or preach for 90 days. He added that he also felt that it was important to work with other groups and he wanted to be less isolationist. However, at the interview where he had finally satisfied the 90 days, but the NOI had extended it, he reiterated those two reasons and then added the third -- that the Elijah Mohammad had 8 children by 6 women. I've seen the interview. He gave the impression that he had held back but was now ready to disclose this last reason. Legaleze74.65.221.25 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kwangming

Quote: "Kwangming, published in Beijing, bluntly stated that "Malcolm was murdered because he fought for freedom and equal rights.""
Is this a sufficiently notable newspaper? Or is this just a Red Chinese newspaper badmouthing the "decadent capitalist West"? Maikel (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ThreeQuotesThatCanBeAdded

I found two quotes, maybe some one can add them in some where.

1. "Human right are something you were born with. Human rights are your God-given rights. Human rights are the rights that are recognized by all nations of this earth."

2. "Power in defense of freedom is greater than power in behalf of tyranny and oppression, because power, real power, coms from our conviction which produces action, uncompromising action."

3. "When a person places the proper value on freedom, there is nothing under the sun that he will not do to acquire that freedom. Whenever you hear a man saying he wants freedom, but in the next breath he is going to tell you what he won't do to get it, or what he doesn't believe in doing in order to get it, he doesn't believe in freedom. A man who believes in freedom will do anything under the sun to acquire . . . or preserve his freedom."

Heres another one, its very funny, comes from his autobiography. This is written where hes about to marry Betty Shabazz in the book. "All of that Hollywood stuff! Like these women wanting men to pick them up and carry them across thresholds and some of them weigh more than you do. I don’t know how many marriages are caused by these movie and television-addicted women expecting some bouquets and kissing and hugging and being swept out like Cinderella for dinner and dancing – then getting mad when a poor, scraggly husband comes in tired and sweaty from working like a dog all day, looking for some food." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.242.175 (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ocianecanadas (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Quote" sections are generally frowned upon. wikiquote:Malcolm X might be the appropriate place for them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Frowned upon." Sorry but I always laugh when I hear that reply to something; it always indicates a fear of what the snobbish crowd thinks. Anyway, in the case of great men like Malcolm X I think it's a fair idea that at least deserves consideration. I am one of those people who loves and collects hundreds of quotes. I for one would love to see a small section featuring several of Malcolm X's more inspirational/culturally influential quotes. I think it would be fitting because his power was in his words. Neurolanis (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was delisted. Please see the archived discussion for further information.

Question: was it considered whether to simply revert to the GA-approved version rather than delisting? I have not compared them in detail, wondering if the editors who !voted to delist considered this option. -Pete (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK never mind. Almost no inline citations, far less than present version. Clearly not up to present GA standards. Also utterly different from today's versions. -Pete (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"He referred to whites as "devils"[...]"

"He referred to whites as "devils" who had been created in a misguided breeding program by a black scientist, and predicted the inevitable (and imminent) return of blacks to their natural place at the top of the social order."

Shouldn't this be supported by some referrences? I don't dispute the fact that he didn't say those things, I'm just saying that claims like this should have some backup (quotes, speeches, writings). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.12.37 (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an issue with the lack of references. If you can help out, please do! Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there is sources from his autobiograpghy about this subject. However that was during his time with the NOI, later after he went to mecca, he "realized" that blacks, whites and any other race CAN togheter coexist, however only under the right religion > Islam. That is about xacly what he says only in my own words. From the book "Malcolm X autobiography - by Alex Haley"

Malcolm’s views on whites are not as they are described in the -Views Section-. That section should be removed or a note should be placed to show how his extremist views changed in the later and most important part of his life.JusticeBlack (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Read through his FBI files for extensive quotes on him calling white people "devils". He also believed there were Muslim spaceships controlled by Allah that would bomb the white US devils (page 37) http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/malcolmx/malcolmx1.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.139.114 (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Heroin addiction?

There's no mention of his Heroin addiction, even the Addiction article mentions it. 67.5.159.39 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See Malcolm_X#Young_adult_years:

After some time in Harlem, he became involved in drug dealing, gambling, racketeering, robbery and steering prostitutes. During this time, his friends and acquaintances called him "Detroit Red".

I think this is mention enough of his use of drugs. Yahel Guhan 04:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You claim he had a heroin addiction. If you want to include it in the article, please fine a valid and reliable reference to support it please. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; his autobiography makes no mention of regular heroin use. It has a reference or two to smoking opium (when his life was in danger) but the only dependency mentioned in the book was cocaine, a habit he kicked in prison.144.89.186.134 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm lived in Mason, MI not Lansing, MI

I've read this in several places. Malcolm Little lived in Mason, MI which is about 14 miles south of Lansing MI. I realize this is a minor point to those people who do not live in Michigan but it is not the same as living in the City of Lansing. They called him Detroit Red because it is close to Lansing? Detroit is 90 miles from the city of Lansing. Anyway my point is the location where Malcolm Little lived while in Michigan is Mason, MI.

Signed Saskegard 4-11-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskegard (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

At different times in his life, Malcolm lived in different parts of Michigan. According to the Autobiography, the Littles lived "in the country" two miles outside East Lansing and 12 miles from Mason at the time of Malcolm's father's death. When he was 13, Malcolm was sent to a detention home in Mason, where he completed his education. That's basically what the article says:

The 1930 U.S. Census showed him living ... in the low-income Urbandale neighborhood in Lansing Township, between Lansing and East Lansing. Later, when he was in high school, Malcolm Little lived in Mason, an almost all-white small town 12 miles (19 km) to the south.

As a young man, Malcolm lived in Inkster and other towns near Detroit. He was called Detroit Red when he moved to New York because he had come most recently from the Detroit area, not because he grew up in the Lansing area. Hope that helps. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving older messages

In the interest of shortening this very long Talk page, I've archived messages that haven't had any responses since 2007. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

Over the next few weeks, I'll be making some revisions to the article, adding sources, and correcting the factual errors. Please bear with me while the article is under construction.

I'd like to get the article back to Good article status, or maybe even turn it into a featured article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Civil rights leader? How come the opening line has no mention of him being a civil rights leader while it does for Martin Luther King Jr. Is it because Malcolm X was Muslim and MLK Jr. was Christian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbadge (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe there were several reasons. His earlier positions were not as acceptable to the white community, particularly the white media. And Malcolm was a man in progress. Martin Luther King was more acceptable to the white community with his non-violent message, and therefore received better national press. Having lived through the time, I could tell even at a young age that there was something not right about the press Malcolm received in New York. It was tabloid journalism for Malcolm and he was misrepresented even as to the pictures they chose for their front page reporting. Another thing, he was widely known and reported here in New York but I'm not certain how much of him was rightly known in the the rest of America. Given that he was misrepresented and misreported here in New York City, I would have little doubt that he was misrepresented everywhere in this country, if at all. I also think white America did not understand the Marcus Garvey type of thinking under which Malcolm had arisen. I also think that white America does not understand 400 years of oppression as leaving some indelible marks. What was so wrong about Black-Americans wanting to keep business within the community -- to frequent and support Black-owned businesses first. Or the idea that it may be time for Blacks in America to separate from whites, which is what the whites had done all throughout history. I don't support these statements, but I understand how a Black American in the early days of the civil rights movement could believe so. Malcolm was intentionally misrepresented by the press. MLK, Jr. was not. In fact, some of MLK, Jr.'s missteps and other problems were intentionally kept quiet and out of the press. It was only later that Malcolm began to be recognized as a civil rights leader; the press only focused on the schism within NOI. I don't think is was being a Muslim that prevented him from being acknowleged as so more so than the media misrepresentation and the controversy over his leaving NOI. That overshadowed his work at the time. Legaleze (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Legaleze

Please keep in mind that this page is intended for discussion of how to improve the article, not a general discussion of Malcolm X. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Height

How tall was he?? He looks tall. I think it's crucial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.155.32 (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review (pass)

I'm probably going to pass this, since it meets all but one of the criteria beautifully:

1. Well Written - True!
2. Verifiable - Very!
3. Broad - See below! Yes.
4. NPOV - Sure is!
5. Stable - Yup!
6. Illustrated - Mmhmm!

However, there is one thing that kinda irks me: The Philosophy section seems a little terse. While the biography is in perfect condition, the impact section (i.e., philosophy & legacy) seems lacking. The philosophy section is arranged in a rather listy format, and I think a huge improvement could be made if this were turned into prose. Many people come here looking for what Malcolm X represented without reading some of the contextual points in the biography. I give legacy a pass in this respect, since I think they're related (and I'm not a subject-matter expert).

There is the person, and there is their ideas.

However, I also concede that the two are not independent of each other. Nevertheless, I think the structure of the Philosophy section either needs a revamp and some further clarifications or an idea I haven't thought up. My suggestion is to drop the fake ;headers and turn the general list into prose.

Clarifications include "self-defense" ;header under Beliefs of NOI: why did he reject the civil rights movement? To what extent was his views on ;Black nationalism different from his NOI years? In general: what all changed, and how does it contrast to previous views? What new ideas were there, and how did they come about? What impact have they had? What is the chronology of his ideas? Stuff like this. I hope this makes sense :-p

Anyway, thoughts or comments on this review? Xavexgoem (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Philosophy section is the weakest. I'll work on improving it this evening. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the list format and cut the quote farm. I'll try to beef up the section over the next few days. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better :-D

Sorry I haven't replied - been busy with other things. Congrats! Xavexgoem (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Add category American criminals

The category American criminals should be added. He was a convicted felon, and served 7 years in prison. Spite Chuck (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a category for bigots too? This guy was a red-hot one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.152.63 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Names of assassins

The names (in the Death section) contain X's, is this accurate? Looks like vandalism to me, but I see that it has been like this for some time. --KarlFrei (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The names are correct as they are. You could Google them for confirmation. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of prison photo

Why is there a picture of the Wisconsin State Prison in this article? He wasn't even there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.149.18 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The photo is just intended to illustrate a prison, not any particular prison. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cant we get a picture of the prison he was at, either Charleston or Norfolk? Nableezy (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Motif for assassination

The section on the Assassination is lacking an explanation on the motifs of those involved in the murder. Any expansion by knowledgeable people highly appreciated. 78.34.150.180 (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Arabic

Good luck on the FAC but I have to raise a query with regards to the following unverified sentence:

"His status as an authentic Muslim was questioned by Saudi authorities because of his United States passport and his inability to speak Arabic."

There are literally hundreds of millions of Muslims throughout the world that do not speak Arabic outside of reciting passages from their holy book. I seriously doubt that the Saudi authorities would question every pilgrim that does not speak Arabic since that would practically mean mistreating almost every pilgrim from such countries as Indonesia, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. Someone should clarify, elaborate, qualify or eliminate the above sentence. --Bardin (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement is sourced at the end of the paragraph. While I agree that many Muslims don't speak Arabic, I can't explain why Malcolm X was detained. Perhaps it was the combination of the American passport and the inability to speak Arabic that raised concerns. I verified the account in a second biography. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

why has what I put in yesterday been removed - this is not the main page but a discussion page nor could the remark be interpreted as defamatory: (1) cos hes dead; and (2) cos it was anyway true: the man committed major crimes and fomented racial hatred. I will revert this comment if it gets deleted again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.240.98 (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion page about the article, not the subject. If you have suggestions for the article, please state so clearly. Your commentary appears to be about Malcolm X, not the contents of the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC changes

Well done so far on this article. I think there is room for improvement for the article to get to FA. Below are my suggestions:

• On the whole, the article reads like an extended timeline, giving bare facts and not shedding any light on what moved the man. There is much room to address Malcolm X's heart, his lifelong inspiration, and how both white and black Americans reacted to his spellbinding speeches for black power. You may be able to kill two birds here, by making the writing more complex and by addressing the more abstract heart of Malcolm X.
• I'm a big proponent of thematic writing in FAs. That's what I would like to see here. Continue to touch on themes throughout the article by reiterating the following:
  • Malcolm X's views on race relations were seen as both drastic and long overdue.
  • His early experiences colored his later life.
  • Malcolm X saw Islam as the savior for black poverty and the way by which blacks could bootstrap themselves out of ignorance and shame. Simultaneously, he did not see integration as the ideal.
  • He had significant philosophical differences with MLK Jr. Many whites became afraid of his "by any means necessary", and blacks were split on how to achieve equality.
  • These are examples I get from reading what very little I have about Malcolm X. There may be others, or you may reword the above depending on what reliable sources say are the most significant themes of his life.
• The connection to Malcolm X's tenuous upbringing and his memories of pervasive injustice clearly colored his views about the disparate treatment black Americans endured, and affected his social outlook for the rest of his life. I'm looking for an opening sentence to say as much at the beginning of the Early years section. The "themes" I referenced previously should be revisited by sentences that introduce sections, followed by cited examples of his life, and cemented by statements by historians.
• Was Louise Little able to pass? Should that be linked in "she was so light-skinned that she looked like a white woman" to "she was so light-skinned that she was able to pass for white". I would assume she would be able to look like a woman, white or black.
• What was the appeal for Malcolm X from "Bimbi" on self-education? What was the spark that made him want to teach himself when he was previously uninterested in education?
• Malcolm X's introduction to Elijah Muhammed and the Nation of Islam should be more significant, I feel. What is not explained is why Islam resonated so deeply with Malcolm X while he was incarcerated. This was a life change for him, and I think it deserves some more detail. How did he go from jailed bum to proud black man? If you will bear the religious analogy, this was a "Come to Jesus" moment for him, and it affected everything he did for the rest of his life.
• I think you're referencing The Autobiography of Malcolm X too much, almost as if you're saying "Malcolm X said this, not me!" Consider changing these references to something similar to "Malcolm X later remembered," or "Malcolm X stated that..."
• He came to believe that Islam could transcend racial problems. Is this accurate, or would it be more accurate to say that "Islam could be the means by which racial problems could be overcome"?

• Because there is an effort at FAC to get reviewers to either Support or Oppose instead of just give comments or suggestions, I'm going to Oppose right now. But I wanted you to know that I think this is a worthy article for FA. If there's anything I can do to assist you let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I will work on some of the low-hanging fruit now, and I'll take on some of the structural issues as a longer-term project. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Americans of mixed Black African-European ethnicity

{{editsemiprotected}}

I suggest the following category be added to Malcolm X's Wikipedia entry:

Category:Americans of mixed Black African-European ethnicity

The aforementioned category has a meager amount of articles linked to it and X is one of the most well known Americans of mixed Black/African and European ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehhviin (talk • contribs) 12:35, March 5, 2009

Done. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Father's death

I have read in multiple sources that Malcolm's father had not only been run over by a trolley car but that he also had one side of his head beaten in, but the article did not contain anything about part of the head being beaten in.--76.17.227.240 (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The cause of his father's death is disputed. According to one biography, Earl Little's arm and leg were partially severed from being run over by the streetcar, but he was conscious and spoke to police. According to Malcolm X, Earl Little was "bashed in the head". As the article says:

In 1931, Earl Little was run over by a streetcar in Lansing. Authorities ruled his death an accident. The police reported that Earl Little was conscious when they arrived on the scene, and he told them he had slipped and fallen under the streetcar's wheels. Malcolm X later remembered that the black community disputed the cause of death; his family frequently found themselves the target of harassment by the Black Legion, a white supremacist group that his father accused of burning down their home in 1929. Some blacks believed the Black Legion killed Earl Little. They doubted that he could "bash himself in the head, then get down across the streetcar tracks to be run over".

Hope that helps. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reaction to death

This part:

"Guangming Daily, published in Beijing, stated that "Malcolm was murdered because he fought for freedom and equal rights."[163] In Cuba, El Mundo described the assassination as "another racist crime to eradicate by violence the struggle against discrimination".[5]"

I don't get. He was murdered by members of his own race and his old religious organization for speaking his mind and that's a "racist crime" ? What some government controlled mouthpieces have to say isn't relevant and should be removed. What next, add blog post about how Malcoms x death is part of the zionist/alien world domination conspiracy?

These newspaper quotes are nether notable or informative and should be removed. --85.220.69.85 (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC) I agree (for the most part). (Estoniankaiju (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

African American?

Malcolm X would have begun his life as a Colored man, before becoming a Negro. Dying in 1965, he would never have been an African American. --222.155.59.61 (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Malcolm X used the phrase "African Americans" to refer to Black people in his 1964 speech "The Ballot or the Bullet". He had been using the phrase Afro-Americans prior to that. He rejected the word Negro, as did other members of the Nation of Islam.

In any event, this page is intended to be used for comments on improving the article, not as a forum to discuss Malcolm X. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we not just refer to them as Blacks? African-American sounds more like a nationality than a race or ethnicity. I'm speaking from New Zealand here, personally I've always known them as Negroes. That's just another word for Black. --222.155.59.61 (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Black is a more general term that includes people—Australian aborigines, for example—who are not of African descent. African American is a more precise term that is widely used in American English. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

african-american? (2)

why is Mr. Malcolm X primarly described as an african-american, while in other articles white americans are not described as such. nor even others african-americans e.g. jesse jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.202.60.68 (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's style guideline concerning biographies, "ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". In the case of Malcolm X, I think race was one of the key factors that made him notable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X Blvd

This article and the cited NYT article say Lenox Avenue was renamed Malcolm X Blvd. But the Lenox Avenue article states, and the photo here implies, that the new name is in addition to the old, not a replacement of it. Other sources:

• Naming New York, p.156: "In 1987, Lenox Avenue was given an additional, commemorative title"
• Betty Shabazz p.443 'On May 4th, 1987, ... Mayor Koch ... signed into law a bill proclaiming Lenox Avenue from West 111th to West 145th "Malcolm X Boulevard"'
• NYT: WHAT'S IN A STREET RENAME? DISORDER "In Manhattan the sign bearing the new name is added to the original sign rather than replacing it altogether as is done in some of the boroughs."
• site:nyc.gov "Lenox Avenue" "malcolm x" 344
• site:nyc.gov "Lenox Avenue" 2,580
• site:nyc.gov "malcolm x boulevard" 581
• site:nyc.gov "malcolm x blvd" 236

The persistence of use of "Lenox Ave" is not proof of its continued official status, but a definitive source one way or the other would be more convincing that one newspaper citation. It's also just possible that Lenox Ave was originally deprecated in 1987 but later partially rehabilitated to co-official status. jnestorius^(talk) 12:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to look into this further. Many streets in New York have been renamed but are still referred to by their old names. Avenue of the Americas is the best example; no New Yorker would call it anything other than Sixth Avenue, so 20 years after it renamed the street, the city put back "Sixth Avenue" signs alongside the "Avenue of the Americas" signs. (Ironically, Sixth Avenue is named Lenox Avenue/Malcolm X Boulevard north of Central Park.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Not to nit pick, but the pronunciation shown is how to pronounce the letter "X", not the name "Malcolm X". The pronunciation should be of the entire term. Michael.Urban (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Funeral

Article should (very briefly) explain: Why was his funeral in a Christian church? Tempshill (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the church in which his funeral was held is a Negro church and it was large enough to fit alot of people into. --222.153.108.170 (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Black supremacist" in lede

First, the use of the phrase "Black supremacist" in the first sentence is unnecessary because the whole paragraph summarizes the different views people had/have of Malcolm X. Privileging one view by including it in the first sentence violates WP:NPOV.

Second, the "source" doesn't say that Malcolm X was a Black supremacist. It only says that Malcolm X is a Nation of Islam leader and ex-con (written, as it was, in 1959). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny how "black supremacist" shouldn't be used because it is "Privileging one view by including it in the first sentence violates WP:NPOV", but yet "human rights activist" shouldn't. That is hardly a neutral PoV. The cited article clearly ties Malcolm X as a black supremacist and a leader of black supremacist. No secrets being hid there. Rtr10 (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Black supremacist" is a critical description of Malcolm X. Human rights advocate is an accurate description of his life's work. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion for discussion

In my reading, it is not unreasonable to read the TIME article as asserting that Malcolm was (in 1959) a leader of a group of "black supremacists", but this article was overtly opinionated, and if included it should be included as an example of criticism, not objective reporting. As for "human rights activist", Google searches show that this description is used in hundreds of articles and books about Malcolm. (My favorite, although it's not exactly a paradigm of WP:RS: a 1988 ad for the Thurgood Marshall Black Education Fund, funded by Miller Brewing Company, that appeared in magazines such as Ebony and Jet.[2]) For the purposes of the below draft I picked a couple of these sources at random, others could be substituted. Here is a suggested rewording, respectfully submitted for consideration and discussion:

Malcolm X (pronounced /'mæl-kəm ɛks/) (born Malcolm Little; May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965), also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Arabic: الحاجّ مالك الشباز), was an African-American Muslim minister and public speaker. To his admirers, he was a human rights activist,, a courageous advocate for the rights of African Americans, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans. His detractors accused him of preaching black supremacy, racism and violence. He has been described as one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.

--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be perfectly fine with that suggestion Arxiloxos and I think it is a good compromise to the dispute. Obviously both sides contain a certain amount of opinion. I just don't think one should predominate over the other and that is what was occurring, which is against Wiki policy. Rtr10 (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of moving "human rights advocate" into the admirers/detractors portion of the lede bothers me. We don't do that in the case of Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, each of whose status as a civil rights activist has been questioned by their critics. This article was reviewed and promoted to featured article status, and nobody saw a problem with the description of Malcolm X as a human rights advocate. The article was featured on Wikipedia's front page with that in the first sentence. Rtr10 has an agenda: she/he removed the label "white supremacist" from one article and added "Black supremacist" to this article a few minutes later. Creating a false balance to appease Rtr10 isn't NPOV, it's surrendering to harassment. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think, once upon a time, the minister was referred to as a "Pan-Africanist" in the header for this article, as well. If no one objects, it would go far to describe his views in that direction. As far as the comment concerning "Black supremist," well, the views of the philosophy of the Nation of Islam ran in that direction, at least in part, and this is described in the autobiography. Anyways, its late, and this article is on my watchlist and I thought I'd throw in my two cents on one of the people who has most influenced my life. Pretty good article so far, huh! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X's father

In the movie, his dad was murdered by racist men. It has been said that his dad died in a car accident. Which is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.213.74 (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Earl Little was run over by a streetcar. According to police, before he died he told them it was an accident. According to Malcolm X, he was killed by white supremacists and laid on the streetcar tracks. See Malcolm X#Early years for more information. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bland style makes for a bland article

Hi- 1- Bland. none of the power of Malcolm X comes through in this article. Certainly few of his actual quotes.

  For example,
  A) quote regarding the 'good news' that 200 whites were killed in a plane crash. multiple
  B) Malcolm X claimed his mother was raped and he was the product and he hated every drop of white blood in him. Playboy
  C) When asking for a cup of coffee Malcolm X asked for it 'integration style ... by that I mean weak'. WSJ
  (B) and (C) are especially important when read together. The article need not discuss the multiple
  contradictory statements, but I think they should be presented.

2- Limited details. The best example here is the Dr. King Playboy interview

  is sourced, but the Malcolm X interview in Playboy is not mentioned.  Both interviews were
  conducted by Alex Haley were widely read and referenced.
  Second, why no discussion of the verbal attacks on Dr. King’s policies?
  Third, why no mention/discussion of the on-going war of words with white supremacists?  Malcolm X continually tried to explain
  the difference between being armed for self defense and being an advocate for armed rebellion.
  Its interesting to note here that the BPP was originally named the "Black Panther Party for Self Defense".
  Malcolm X's words lead to Newton & Seale and the Black Panther Party's Ten Point plan.
  Fourth, the 'chickens coming home to roost' quote has no context.  Malcolm X had verbally attacked Kennedy for the policy
  regarding the Birmingham deploy of the national guard. (NYT) Malcolm X didn't just attack the dead President.

3- Leaving NOI. Malcolm X didn't leave NOI just because Elijah Muhammad had sexual affairs and out of wedlock

  children (all true). Elijah Muhammad broke his pledge to not drink, gamble, dance, and be sexually
  promiscuous. 

4- Please consider a reference to the Columbia University Malcolm X website and research project.

  http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/mxp/mlk.html

5- Afro/African American. I personally do not recollect him ever using this phrase. (But, who cares, right :) )

  He is rarely quoted using this phrase. For example, in the Alex Haley interview for Playboy, Malcolm X
  did not use the phrase.  He is quoted in NYT & WSJ using "Negro". I could not find an "afro" quote.
  But, this also gets back to (2) and (4) above. Malcolm X used the bully pulpit to great advantage.
  Although he was never elected to public office, he was frequently on TV and in many print articles
  published in the early '60s.  None of his visibility in American '60s life or his impact is discussed.

Anyway, I realize that I lived thru the '60s in America and have a POV that considers this guy as pivotal and important. His words were loud, rude (esp to whites), and vehement. He changed the vocabulary. Let the man speak for himself. Regards, Charlie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.21.167 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question as to usage of the term Afro-American. I lived through the time but I'm not familiar with his speeches. He used the term. After his home was firebombed, he gave a speech in Detroit for the Afro-American Broadcasting Company in which he used the term "Afro-American" 12 times when referring to people (not just referring to the company which sponsored the speech). He used the term "Black" 9 times in the same speech when referring to people, excluding the references to "Black Muslim." I believe there are other examples. Language was evolving, as were his beliefs. 24.193.78.219 (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC) legaleze 10/16/2009.

Malcolm's visit to Saudia Arabia - where Black slavery was allowed only two years before!

In 1964, Malcolm X made a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, and came back proclaiming that "Islam could be the means by which racial problems could be overcome". This is a remarkable statement, given that slavery (of predominantly Black people) was abolished in Saudia Arabia in 1962, only two years earlier, and about a century later than the emancipation of Black people in the USA. Several Moslem countries had at the time not abolished slavery at all. The references are all found in the post. Frankly, Malcolm X must have been speaking against better judgement when he promoted Islam as a cure against racism. Lawrence of Arabia, in his reports to the British Foreign Department, mentions how Black slaves still were abundant in Saudia Arabia in his days. For a single example, please look at the picture of Prince Faisal's party at Versailles (1919), with an unnamed Black slave [[3]]. Black slaves in the company of Moslem kings were also present at the coronation of Queen Elisabeth II in 1947, see earlier references. Sponsianus (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that makes the connection between Malcolm X and slavery in Saudi Arabia? Otherwise it's synthesis, a form of original research, and that's not allowed. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a rather obvious conjecture, that has been pointed out a number of times, but you are right about the reliable source. I am looking for a book where it has been written. Sponsianus (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

press' "reaction" to Malcolm X

I would suggest considering a section about the press' "reaction" to Malcolm X.

I think it would be important, in seeing Malcolm X as he was, to also place him in the context of how the press chose to manipulate what the public was fed at that time. I don't know if I can post a link but this is not a singular opinioon. To understand the events surrounding Malcolm X and the assasination, I think one needs to understand how a large segment of the public could be influenced to close their mind by the press' manipulation of reporting on him. As a result, those misdirections become "fact." To be certain that a reader would know what was coming, the article would say: "[T]he embittered racist Malcolm X ..... anger...." There are dozens of these examples, from the selection of photos to the changing of terms or attributing expressions to him. When Malcolm said self-defense it was reported as "violence." I envision something which corrects the misuse of language.24.193.78.219 (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)legaleze October 15, 2009

That's a very interesting suggestion, but I wonder if it may be beyond the scope of this article. Maybe an article about Malcolm X and the media would be a good idea. It's a complex subject. Despite the distorted way they portrayed him, and despite the hateful things he said about white people, Malcolm enjoyed a cordial relationship with the white press. And whatever their intentions, they made him a star.

The Hate That Hate Produced is a perfect example of media manipulation of Malcolm's image. That article cites modern media analysts concerning that bias; but NoI membership doubled within weeks of the broadcast, so obviously everybody didn't "buy the hype". :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I recall a different New York in 1963-1965. In interviews they seemed to be "baiting" him to say something controversial -- pushing, repeating his words for him. He was front-page news in the tabloid press (and it was tabloid press) and even was front-page in the more traditional newspaper in New York. He was in the papers every Sunday. I felt it that something was wrong with this overexposure and the way he was portrayed. As for making him a star, I don't think that was the stardom that he was looking for because I believe he really did want change and was beyond patient, but had not completely fixed on where he was and where he was going. And then the there was the difficulty with the NOI when they tried to rein him in.

My impression and recollections are that he was an honest man. A man who believed in a religion (of which I am not a member) was a devoted member, and who "outed" those who would present themselves as men of faith when they lived lives of deceit. A man who refused to be punished and told what to do by people who could not even follow the tenants of their faith -- and they stood over him and silenced him? It takes courage to go against your major system of support and take on the whole of NOI. I think he lived as he preached. It was a true vocation. Even after his home was firebombed, he did not stop.

I don't think he ended up hating white people, even with whatever unfortunate things he had said) because I don't think his plans on civil rights were fixed or complete. Afterall, he found Muslim brothers with blue eyes. I think he said some unfortunate things, some of which were offensive to whites and some of which were true and some of which was said to stir things up or said in haste. But in the end I think his views were changing, even if for the fact that he left the NOI to go out on his own. On his own, he could develop his own philosophy and strategy - not necessarily those causes that NOI told him to be involved.

I think the press wanted white people to fear him -- he, at least, sold papers and they kept it going and going and going -- even if it was just to fuel the controversy. And he was unlike MLK, Jr. The civil rights movement was in it's first decade. So, it was an uncertain time for white people who were content with the situation as it had been. Separate but equal. Maybe. As long as it's separate. And here comes Malcolm (who wants to speed things along) and what do we, white people, make of him? It was the press who tried to define him, his words, and the fuel the controversy over NOI. I don't recall him being portrayed as a rightous man who left an organization that was not what it seemed. I could be mistaken. I could have missed the less biased presentations of his career. This may not be the place for this discussion, but I feel strongly about how disingenously he was portrayed and even at the age of 15 I sensed that this would not end well for him. JMHO. Regards, 24.193.78.219 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC) legaleze 10/16/2009.

teaching

Is there another source for the line He taught that Wallace Fard Muhammad, the founder of the Nation, was Allah? I had never come across this before and would like to see more than the single source supplied. The source cited though specifically says that he taught that Wallace Fard Muhammad was "Allah incarnate", a human manifestation of Allah. The distinction is slight but there is a distinction there. nableezy - 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. There is a difference. I've fixed the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think there needs to be more information on his changing views. Malcolm Little was not the same as Detroit Red who was not the same as Malcolm X who was not the same as Malik el-Shabazz. Same holds for the above discussion, to say flatly that Malcolm X was gay on the basis of homosexual acts when he was "Detroit Red" is an oversimplification of a complicated person. I'll look for sources on this but the section on Teachings is severely limited in its current scope. nableezy - 07:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

I'm noticing not inconsiderable IP vandalism of this article. Perhaps it's time for eine kleine semi-protection, yes? Crafty (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For a long time the article was on semi-protection, but I see that it expired in July. Maybe it's time to ask for it again. — Malik Shabazz (talk · stalk) 04:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a request with The Man. Crafty (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

fathers cause of death

Is there a recent source that disputes the cause of death of Earl Little? nableezy - 06:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In his autobiography, Malcolm X wrote that his father was killed by the Black Legions and dumped on the streetcar tracks. He says the official cause of death was suicide, and he says that was impossible because his father's head was bashed in.

Bruce Perry, whose biography is the best-researched, and also the first to seriously challenge the Autobiography, saw the coroners report. It doesn't mention any head injury. He read the police report, and spoke with the surviving police officers. It seems that Earl Little was conscious when police arrived, and he told them he had slipped from the streetcar and fallen under its wheels.

The body of the article tries to present both sides of the story. But it's inappropriate to say in the lede, as the article did, that Earl Little had been murdered. — Malik Shabazz (talk · stalk) 17:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. nableezy - 17:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-semitism allegations

I've been doing some reading and while Malcolm X may or may not be antisemitic, there is definitely a consistent history of him being accused of it.[4][5][6][7]. Surely, it's worth a mention.--Louiedog (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Malcolm X was principally that he preached race hatred, black supremacy, and the use of violence. He was also accused of antisemitism, although that was usually secondary to the other criticisms. I didn't think mentioning it was important, but I'll add it if you think it is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally think it is unquestionably important. Geofferic (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with adding this, it def should not be in the lead, or should we add it to every single person with some mild hint of antisemitism.? I am going to cut it on this bases, it shouldnt be in the lead because it is undue weight. And X is so famous i am sure you can find 10 sources that say he was. but 1000 that say he was a king 2 AA and the African world.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes you say that Malcolm X had only a "mild hint of antisemitism"? Loodog has shown three interviews (the Playboy interview by Alex Haley is a fourth [8]) in which Malcolm X is asked about allegations that he is antisemitic or preaching antisemitism. At its core, your argument seems to me to be IDONTLIKEIT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. This definitely seems to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is ample evidence (as pointed out already in this section) that Mr. X was accused of antisemitism, that he was aware of the accusations, etc. It should be included. Geofferic (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok so what about his opinion on Homosexuals, should we add that there 2, and what about his opinion on Israel should we add anti-Zionist there to? So what weight does it carry to be in the lead, or do we go to Jesse Jackson and add that to the lead just because a few people brought it up. See criteria for lead. Add it to the body of the article not the lead. Black American verse African Americans I dont see the point.where exactly r these "blacks" from if not Africa? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Now i have been looking around other bios by famous people JFK etc now It would be hard to believe that there isn't some negative comments about what they did, yet it doesn't appear in the LEAD.An articles on wikipedia must have some consistency. Now why is negative stuff in the LEAD of a man who history mostly admire? Now if Malcolm is known to not be antisemitic then why is in here, you can do that for Farrakhan but not Malcolm. It is minor and undue weight.And very dangerous because it puts weight on something which is a serious minority concern and distracts from who and what Malcolm was. long time ago there was a fashion on wiki to drop antisemitic tags left right and center, so lets not start it up again.I would like to know how many of the old white racist people (Darwin) etc, (Kant) have the word Racism against blacks in their LEAD. despite being hardcore racist, but Malcolm who got called many things needs 2 be now called antisemitic. joke --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEDE: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." (my emphasis)

Malcolm X was a very divisive man, and the lede should convey that to the reader. If the editors who work on other articles don't follow WP:LEDE, complain to them, not to me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The emphasis of this article is political correctness

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

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

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

Assassins

The last man, Thomas Hagen, still in jail for the assassination was recently paroled.[9] That should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.108.145 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. According to the source used in the article Hayer "gain[ed] his freedom" in 1993,[10] but that seems to be a reference to his work release, not his parole. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FSXTheGreat (talk)FSXTheGreatFSXTheGreat (talk)

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

The Usage of "Black Muslim"

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

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

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

Malcom X was NOT a hero!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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