Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Collaboration with Alex Haley

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

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

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

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

Correction

{{editsemiprotected}}

Section: In the United States

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

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

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

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

Ebony photograph - M2 not an M1?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Release from Prison

The admitted killer of Malcolm X, Thomas Hagan (69), was released from prison today. [1]. This link [2] contains interesting and related information...Modernist (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

His childhood...played a significant role

This sentence from the lead sounds a little weasely. Everyone's childhood plays a significant role in their life. Maybe there is a better way to speak about his formative experiences. Rumiton (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In the absense of comment I switched some sentences around to give a better flow. Still think it could use a bit more work. Rumiton (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey I was wondering if we could add some info on Malcom X's debate with non violence from India then here then here

Hey I was wondering if we could add some info on Malcom X's debate with non violence from India then here then here . I found a video on youtube and he addersesses it. . Here is the link on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1a_79xuz0E&NR=171.105.87.54 (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia biographies, but if you can find a published study that talks about this, then go ahead. Rumiton (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

While youtube is not a good source if the man in the video is Malcolm X and he is saying something the fact that the video is on youtube does not discredit it. Makes no sense to me. If I put an interview with JFK on youtube it is still a video of JFK.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It does make sense when you think about it. A scholar will look at that video as part of a larger study of the man and his philosophy, and decide whether what is shown there truly represents him and his life's work. Otherwise we have trial by sound bite--things that might be of little relevance get blown out of proportion just because they made it onto Youtube. Even though this is not a biography of a living person, many living people get affected by what we write. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A scholar will also take things out of context for their own agenda, e.g. "By Any means necessary." Just take a look at President of Iran's speeches verse what is written, or Farrakhan's speeches verses what is written. Another example is Henry Louis Gate talking about Afrocentricity, clearly he has probably never read a book on the topic, so he is a dangerous 2nd source. Big difference. While i understand the problem with primary sources I do not agree with your argument. Secondarly source introduce the question of Who and Why. Best solution use "quotation"--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia's policy says we should use secondary sources (scholars), not primary sources (quotations). See WP:PRIMARY. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dont dispute wiki rules just dont think it always works, esp when Africans have a disadvantaged in the area of reliable sources and publication to successful contribute to content on Malcolm X, hence the conclusions on X are from the very people Malcolm fought against.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your assumptions are faulty. Africans and African-Americans have written books about Malcolm X, and some very insightful books about him have been written by European-Americans. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The article says that Malcolm X rejected the civil rights movement's strategy of nonviolence. I can expand that a little bit.

With respect to the YouTube video, it is a primary source, and we generally use secondary sources in writing Wikipedia articles. That is to say, instead of citing Malcolm X himself, we try to cite another author who has written about Malcolm X. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Halaqah, if we allow quotes and primary sources you will REALLY start to see a problem with bias. Every human alive has said things they later regretted, or which they would not want to have in a biography. Scholarly sources are not perfect, as you say, but opinionated Wikipedia editors can be diabolical. Rumiton (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Article length

Today an editor added the {{long}} template to the article.

The article currently is 42KB (7238 words) in "readable prose size". According to WP:SIZERULE, 40KB is the size when editors should consider splitting articles into smaller pieces.

When the article was promoted to Featured Article status, it was 39 KB (6725 words). In my opinion, the article hasn't grown unwieldy since its promotion and isn't long enough yet to warrant splitting (although when I have the time, I'd like to expand and split off "The Philosophy of Malcolm X"). Consequently, I'm removing the banner. I welcome other editors' opinions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Leave it as it is now! And, thanks for removing the template. I was doing the same, but you were faster than me. If you would like to create a page for The Philosophy of Malcolm X, please, do not remove contents from this article. I really do not like those {{See also}}, {{Further}} ... templates when there is nothing on the article itself. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rumiton (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Also agree. WP:SIZERULE is a guideline, not a policy and the 42K is simply a suggestion. It's fine as it is.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am the editor who added the {{long}} banner to the page. I did so because I believe that some of the sections (yes, "The Philosophy of Malcolm X" is one of them) would be better split into sub-articles, and, yes, the Article is slightly too long. Please discuss. I would also be happy to help with the splitting into sub-articles eventually. Jpatros 17:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Um, we are dicussing it already and just don't see the need. It's not that far over in its current form and the size rule is a suggestion. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that maybe the {{long}} was not needed, as the article was so close to the splitting size. However, I do think there is a need for some sub-articles to be made. Agreed? Jpatros 16:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm X's Sexuality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

A few comments:

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

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

3) Perry's biography is a reliable source. Perry interviewed more people who knew Malcolm X than any previous biographer. However, Perry often seems determined to paint Malcolm X as a psychological basket case. (This isn't just my opinion; reliable sources, including Michael Eric Dyson, say that. [3] [4]) In general, I rely on Perry for facts, but not for analysis. I wouldn't consider Peter Tatchell's newspaper opinion columns reliable sources, and Marc Lamont Hill's blog also isn't a reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What policy requires that a source be objective? Or that the source be completely neutral? NPOV is about providing balance in the article, not only using sources that are neutral. That's why I keep saying you clearly don't understand the NPOV policy. This is simple: As long as the opinion is attributed to the author (Perry), there is no policy issue for neutrality. The direct quote from the NPOV policy that you either won't read or don't understand: "Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice." As I stated above, no objection at all to modifying how it is presented. I challenge you to show me the policy that requires a source to be neutral. If you find one it will radically alter the face of hundreds (thousands) of biographies, especially political ones. But I'm not worried because I know that there is no policy that requires a source to be objective. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a wikipedia guru, but to quote from their own page you've sent me to multiple times now, "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." That is objectivity (thats my vocabulary). The statement in question, as i have said multiple times now, is disparaging (at least that what a few other people and I think). If parents were talking to their friends and said, "my child is a lawyer... but he could have made a living through other work," that would insinuate to most people that they were displeased with the choice their child made. That is disparaging. Notice, if you go to my first or second response on this issue, you'll see i spontaneously used the word disparaging to describe the debated comment. It is a disparaging, judgmental comment. People don't say, he was president of the USA, but he could've found a different job.

When people say truisms like, "even he had a mother", they are trying to make an implicit point, such as, even this terrible person had someone who loved and cared for them and is sad if something negative happens to them (even though they're a monster). Of course, we all know that everyone has a mother, thats a truism. But the true meaning of such a statement is the implicit meaning, its the only reason in the english language to make such an obvious statement... and analogous to the one perry makes. In this case, Perry uses it to emphasize and disparage. Finally, i don't see the point of arguing this if you don't care if the statement is removed? We're just both wasting our time... (128.147.39.26 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

• Well, we've narrowed it down. You did read it, you just don't understand it. There is NO requirement that a source be objective or neutral. What that means is that the article can't be written to promote one side and exclude the other. In other words, 50 reviews that say a movie sucked and only 1 that says it was good if there are other ones saying it was good. You provide a couple that say good, a couple that say bad and go from there. Wikipedia routinely uses biased sources as sources. Since you like looking at other articles as examples: The article on the Klan uses the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL as a sources. Do you think they are neutral in regard to the Klan? Artilces about political types like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh etc routinely cite sources that have a clear bias. Wikipedia also allows for uses of primary sources. A primary source, by definition, won't be neutral. Editorials from the NY Times are used routinely. If they publish an editorial oppossing or supporting any policy, law or cause, they have ceased to be neutral. Yet they are used without question. You are misreading the policy to suit your POV. Neutrality is not a requirement. What the goal is balance. That's where WP:UNDUE comes into play. (Which I've been telling you) Is something being given undue weight to the point that it makes the article unbalanced, providing only one side of a view and not the counter? There is a quote here from Perry that for some reason pisses you off. If you have a counter-source that shows Little's options were non-existent, then by all means, share it. If there is a source that says he had no other opportunity to make money than to allow other men to put their mouth on his penis, then it certainly belongs here. Do you have such a source? Or is your sole objection here really nothing more than the fact that you don't like the conclusion that the author arrived at? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift, first i'd like to point out the irony, double standard, and lack of intellectual honesty of 1) refusing to fully respond to a single 20 line paragraph I posted yesterday that broke things down and summed up all my arguments because it was too long, but then posting a 16 line paragraph now that you think you have an argument (you can't have it both ways) 2)You repeatedly refuse to make comparisons to other wikipedia pages... until it illustrates a point you think you have. Again, intellectual honesty? Don't whine about something incessantly and then do it yourself. 3) Please don't assume because someone interprets things differently than you that they "don't understand it". I am quite capable of reading the article on NPOV and understanding it.

Before I get to my arguments, let me ask another rhetorical question to everyone else... Go read the KKK wikipedia page. Isn't it interesting that salacious details about Malcolm Little's MSM experiences are spelled out here but the horrific details of the tortuous murders committed by the KKK are not described? People are just shot, or lynched, or killed but details about how they were burned alive, suffered bodily mutilation, genital mutilation, sodomy are not mentioned though these crimes have been described in multiple historical accounts (interesting which details are deemed worthy of being reported in an article).

As for the actual arguments, and if i reference other wikipedia pages along the way, you re-opened that door. First, you neither accuse me of taking the quote about the NPOV out of context nor do you tell me what is intended by the wikipedia authors who deemed this statement worthy of being included in their page on this crucial issue: "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. Unbiased writing is the disinterested description of all significant sides of a debate found in reliable sources." They seem like pretty easy sentences to me...if they don't really mean them, then why are they on their page? You talk about other issues that are necessary for NPOV such as balance, but none of those points negate the above statement. NPOV is more than just balance. These statements show that NPOV is a complex issue and that it requires multiple criteria be met, not simply that the article show balance between minority and majority views.

Second, I fully understand the other points on the wikipedia page about NPOV. That is why i don't have any concerns about the statement saying that Malcolm X has been accused of being or encouraging racial hatred, antisemitism, etc. I also wouldn't have any problems with a statement that Malcolm engaged in sexual acts with men sometimes, but not always for money according to Mr. Perry. Those are objective presentations of a view presented in a non-disparaging way (i.e., non-disparaging and presented in a disinterested manner). Saying that "Malcolm X was a coward who spouted hate and deserved whatever he got" is disparaging and not presented in a disinterested manner. This violated NPOV even if this is stated by an otherwise reliable source in any textbook, op-ed, etc. This is where i keep trying to explain that reliable sources can make disparaging statements that are verifiable but still don't meet the NPOV criteria cause they are personal opinions that are disparaging in either tone or intent or are not presented in a disinterested manner. After reading the KKK article, I did not see any statements that were presented in a manner that was not consistent with a disinterested description or that were disparaging in tone/intent. The page never says that the KKK are morally corrupt, evil, cowardly men who hide behind sheets. Yet, such statements have been made by journalists in verifiable op-ed pieces, but citing them would be inappropriate cause that isn't NPOV due to its disparaging tone/intent and non- disinterested description. Similarly, when i quoted the washington post GWB statements regarding how he hadn't done everything he should have for his family, health, and career cause of his alcohol abuse... adding a statement to the GWB article that says "he could have done more for his family, health, and career had he not been drinking" is factually correct and verifiable but it is stated in a disparaging tone with disparaging intent (and not in a disinterested manner). That is very different that chronicling that "Malcolm X/Anne Coulter/Martian Z has made statements that some/many regard as racist". Although being a racist carries a negative connotation for most, the tone and presumably intent of that statement was merely to document a point in an objective/scholarly tone. My problem with the perry statement is that is has a disparaging tone and is not written in a disinterested tone. I have explained this multiple times and at least 3 other people agree. Perhaps you don't see the disparaging intent and tone, perhaps you think that authors are allowed to make judgmental statements that are disparaging in tone and intent and still somehow meet the disinterested description NPOV criterion. However, it seems multiple people disagree with you. I believe there are many points needed to meet the NPOV, perry's statement doesn't meet all of those criteria. This is already too long, but shorter than the KKK article I read... so maybe you can go back and respond to my prior arguments as well with your extra free time.

Any objections to removing the perry statement... if not, i will go ahead...though i sort of enjoy the debate. (68.162.180.93 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

• How do you expect me to take you seriously when you start out with a blatant lie? You claim "1) refusing to read a single 20 line paragraph I posted yesterday that broke things down and summed up all my arguments because it was too long". I never said I didn't READ it, I said "your response is too long to address at length, but I will address the last part of it, since it is relevant to the majority of the rest of your response.". How does that confuse you? Nowhere in that does it say I didn't read it. I clearly got to the end because I identified and addressed the last point because, as I stated, I felt it was relevant to the REST of the response. How the hell would I know that if I didn't read it? When you can't even read a simple statement like that and comprehend it, you have zero room to lecture me about understanding anything. Going to retract your false statement? Correct it? Or pretend that you didn't do it? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you both stop the nastiness. Several editors have expressed their opinions that the sentence in question ("Perry notes that Little's motives appear to have been financial, but he could have earned money in other ways.") is redundant and judgmental. I think they make a good point so unless you object, Niteshift36, I'm going to take it out. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I said a long time ago that I didn't particularly care if the line was removed or modified. My concern, from the start (read my first response), was the wrongheaded notion that we can't use a reliable source that expresses an opinion. That's absurd and no policy supports that notion. It's done on an hourly basis on Wikipedia and will continue to be done because it is within policies. As for the nastiness, I tend to take a dim view of people that hide behind a keyboard and blatantly lie about me, but I have damn little left to debate with someone who has to resort to fabrication. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

my apologies niteshift, you read my post, i rescind that statement and have corrected it above. It was not a blatant lie, it was an inaccurate paraphrase. It appears that's the only argument you wish to refute. You can hurl personal insults as you wish instead of trying to address the arguments. Opinions are allowed, both this article and the KKK article express opinions, they due so in an objective tone without an interest in disparaging. The statement in question does not, thats why it's not objectively presented or NPOV. My apologies to everyone if I was perceived as nasty, i generally try to remain civil but apologize for my shortcomings. (128.147.39.26 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

May 2010

Today an editor added the following comment after the sentences about Malcolm Little's sexual experiences with other men:

It should be noted however that much of Perry's work regarding Little's apparent sexual encounters are unsubstantiated and does not match information from other, more widely regarded biographical accounts of his life.

The sentence was sourced to Malcolm X's autobiography (no page number).

While I'm not opposed to a sentence that points out that other biographers disagree with Perry, it needs to be based on a reliable source that actually says that other biographers disagree with Perry, assuming we can find such a source. Over the next few days I'll try to find one. If anybody else finds something helpful, please share it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be a smallish point, but as I understand the rules, it is enough for us to find discordant opinions and present them here. We should not be required to find sources that tell us that the opinions are different. No? Rumiton (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be sufficient to reference biographies (or a biography) which refutes the above points? I have only read one biography which makes the claims that Perry has made (his own), no other biography on Malcolm X I've read (for example, by Andrew Helfer) nor his Autobiography (by Alex Haley) mention anything of the sort due the difficulty in verifying the authenticity of such claims. Though Perry listed who he interviewed (which may or may not be completely accurate, I'm sceptical), it's still only one view on the man and, arguably, one that is not the most widely accepted view of Malcolm X. I feel that having mentioned it in the article places disproportionate emphasis on Perry's view over others. Sscloud21 (talk 16:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• That addition is pure original reasearch. Disagreement needs to be sourced. His autobiography would not be sufficient in this case (it would be a primary source), particularly if it doesn't specifically deny it. Merely the absence of the events isn't a denial of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are the best things I've found:

(1) Bruce Perry's 1992 biography of Malcolm X was controversial due to a variety of claims, with the most provocative of them being that the young Malcolm engaged in same-sex relations with a white boy as a teenager—and later on as an unemployed young adult in New York—to earn income and to decrease his dependency on women for money. [5]

(2) This is by no means the only curious silence in the Autobiography, or the only potent revelation in Perry's Malcolm. Perry's revelation of homosexual involvements on Malcolm's part must be counted among the more remarkable of the latter. [Arnold Rampersad, "The Color of His Eyes", in Malcolm X: In Our Own Image, p. 131.]

I think they establish clearly that Perry is the first biographer to report these same-sex experiences. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit difficult. Bruce Perry is an academic with a reputation as a researcher and a solid record of publishing. It would be hard to characterise his claims as "extraordinary" or including them as "undue weight." Yet if they are included, and no other researcher provides supporting information, they would need to be flagged as not supported by other biographers. Personally, I don't think, as I said above, that we would need a source specifically to tell us that. It's just intelligent editing. But I could be wrong. Rumiton (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• It seems as though the only robust way to reinforce (or indeed to disprove) the claims that Perry has made would be with Manning Marable's upcoming biography on Malcolm X. I concede that my earlier points may not have been concrete enough, however I agree with Rumiton on the matter, would it not, by definition, be true that Perry's views are not supported by other researchers (at least not in an official sense) and hence it should be flagged as such? Albeit, i've found it difficult to find academics that have publicly stated their opposition to this information, one person's research, however 'well' done it is, cannot really be used in such an absolute manner as the wiki article uses Perry's works. Just my opinion. Sscloud21 (talk 20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.165.228 (talk)

With respect to Perry: According to WP:NOR we shouldn't state, based on our own reading experience, "most biographers say X, but one biographer says Y". That's considered synthesis. As I wrote above, I found two sources that say Perry's biography included information not in previous biographies. That means that a sentence that "Perry says Y, which had never been in previous biographies" is okay because it can be referenced to a reliable source. Assuming, of course, that there's a consensus to include such a sentence.

With respect to Marable: Like many others, I'm eagerly awaiting his book, which is due late in the year. I hope it lives up to the hype it's generated. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, I get that now. Thanks. Marable would certainly be a reputable source, but even if he ignores Perry's information, it seems that Perry can be included here with the above qualification. Rumiton (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions Malcolm's sexual interaction with another man, in the form of diapering, and I suppose what would be considered infantalism. It then says that "no other biographer of Malcolm X mentions this". This is mentioned in The Autobiography of Malcolm X. So, either biographer Alex Haley mentions it, or if we're still playing the game that Malcolm wrote the book, then biographer Malcolm X mentions it. Either way, the article is wrong.Mk5384 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a page number? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

On pages 161–162, Malcolm X describes a friend of Shorty's named Rudy who would sprinkle an old man with powder. He doesn't say anything about participating himself. So, as the article says, no other biographer says that Malcolm X engaged in this behavior. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, Malik. Are you sure that you didn't write The Autobiography of Malcolm X?Mk5384 (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

FACT: J. Edgar Hoover had a multi-million dollar budget to fund COINTELPRO (a program with the very mission to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize political dissidents) and unlimited government resources at his disposal, which included, not only a cadre FBI spies, but paid informants/double agents, who infiltrated every civil-rights organization, yet he never found such information. This is the man who brought down

This is remarkable, especially when one takes into account that Malcolm X was considered public enemy #1 in the 1960s, this would have been invaluable information to “neutralize” this leader and any person who willing to go on record could have named his/her price, yet Hoover himself (the man whose modus operandi was to amass secret files on political leaders), found nothing on such behavior!!!

We are to believe this unknown writer with a measly budget of $500 and the accounts of people 50-60 years after-the-fact? By virtue of the fact that they knew Malcolm X during his hustler years means they probably part of that scene and likely scoundrels themselves.

Need I also mention how valuable this information would've been to the Nation of Islam during when Malcolm X went to the national press about Elijah Muhammad's alleged extramarital affairs?

So you have two well-funded and motivated organizations that desperately needed to discredit Malcolm X, yet no one could find witnesses to come forward with such accusations of events that occurred only 10-years or so prior at the latest.

FACT: Malcolm X spent 10-years in jail with an all male population (and no conjugal visits in a decade) and entered prison as a drug-addicted junkie in need of a fix, I am sure that there were plenty of opportunities for such behavior but we never heard of any such incidents.

Remember the Malcolm X was murdered for his socio-political beliefs by people who were so desperate to silence him that they did so in a public setting, in front of an audience of his followers, with no regard for their own personal safety; certainly some 70-year old drunk wouldn’t mind telling a falsehood or two, especially if they were offered compensation.

Should I post the rumors about George Washington and his purported indiscretions with his slaves; perhaps I should write a book as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.125.141 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it's long, but please read the discussion above and in the archives. Malcolm Jarvis (referred to as "Shorty" in The Autobiography of Malcolm X) is one of the sources who told Bruce Perry about Malcolm Little's sexual experiences with other men. There were other sources, some of whom participated as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be duly noted that Malcolm Jarvis was equally a scoundrel who could have questionable motivations (he was abandoned by his friend later in life and never enjoyed the notoriety that Malcolm X did). In fact, Jarvis wrote a book and admitted to harboring feelings of resentment. Malcolm X did admit carrying out a "caper" that involved pampering a rich elderly man but it was only to gain access to the guy's house which he went on to rob (this was originally Rudy's hustle that Malcolm X usurped at gunpoint). He admitted this incident not to hint to having a sexual tendencies but to demonstrate how evil he was as a young man; so evil that he would do anything to rob someone, even play on the homo-erotic fantasy of an elderly man in order to rob him. NOTE: To even say that this was a homosexual relationship is ridiculous because the gentleman had a fantasy of being pampered like a baby and put to bed.

Again the main issue is the fact that there is NO firsthand evidence, it is only "claims" of what someone "said" that Malcolm X "said". Again, given the inflammatory nature of the accusations, I don't think that it belongs on wikipedia. I can get dozen's of people who claim to be descendants of George Washington through a liaison that he had with one of his slaves but I probably could not convince you enough to have you post in on his wikipedia page as you would argue (and rightly so) that it is hearsay.

One thing that I should note is that people like Julius Caesar were known homosexuals yet there is only a brief mention of this fact on his wikipedia page. From a historical standpoint, Julius Caesar's homosexuality is more important because he chose his heir based on having a homosexual liaison (Octavia, I believe). It is a fact that a roman emperor can to power because of his homosexual relationship with Julius Ceasar yet there is only a glance mention of this very important fact.

NOTE: In the black community when one wants to utterly destroy the reputation of another the preferred method has always been to accuse one of being a closet homosexual. This is in large part due to the unyielding homophobia that exists in the black community; something that I am sure that Malcolm Jarvis and the other sources are aware of (again where is the firsthand evidence?). Please stop using this important tool to spread unfounded rumors about historical figures! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.125.141 (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me reiterate how this matter defies basic logic, especially when you consider the efforts of the FBI, CIA, and the NOI to discredit Malcolm X. It cannot be disputed that J. Edgar Hoover had specifically focused his efforts on Malcolm X and had a network that consisted of thousands of spies, snitches, and informants but somehow he “overlooked” interviewing the sidekick ex-con named, "Shorty".

I am sure that ex-con and then parolee, Malcolm "Shorty" Jarvis, could have been easily enticed/manipulated into revealing this incident for far less than it took to organize/fund Malcolm X's poisoning overseas and ultimate assassination. Considering the outlandishly lewd-nature of this information, deploying a national media “smear campaign” would have been a more effective tactic, as it would have ultimately prevented Malcolm X from martyrdom and guaranteed that he was discredited/humiliated and not only be ousted from any militant organization but be outright rejected by his peers. Such would have demoralized the entire pro-violence civil rights movement.

Again we are speaking of Hoover who successfully took on the Mafia, KGB, and had a growing file specifically containing the details of the sexual indiscretions of political leaders, yet he couldn’t get guys who frequented the YMCA for homosexual liaisons to talk (not even with brides/blackmail)? Surely out of the numerous individuals who claimed to have engaged is such lewd acts knew of the value of their "so called" information yet no one came forward to “cash in” the lottery ticket (other than Mr. Perry, that is).

Again an army of resources that ranged from the most sophisticated spies to the lowliest of jail-house thugs could not find such information BUT 50+ years later some guy simply “asks around” and finds the most shocking information?!? LOL!

We are relying of the recollection of an elderly person (75+ years old) to recount childhood events that took place over half a century ago (about what someone “told” him they did)?!? So 55-years later a guy named “Bob” can accurately recall Malcolm’s childhood “boasts” (again, this person did not “witness” this event but was “told” of this incident by Malcolm)?

At that Malcolm would have received the strongest form of ostracism from his childhood peers for such conduct, especially during the 1930s as such behavior was uncommon during that time. He and his family would have certainly earned a reputation from that one incident alone that would have carried on for the rest of his life. BTW, who files such lewd details in their mental rolodex for 50-years (Malcolm X wouldn’t become famous until 30-years later); clearly this was Bruce Perry’s creative writing skills at hand.

The only person that can be realistically traced to Malcolm X is Malcolm “Shorty” Jarvis, who is was no doubt a broken old con-artist when he was interviewed for the book. There is no proof that “Bob Bebee” or anyone of these people cited by Perry actually knew Malcolm X (or that they even existed).

Other than Perry this is no secondary source substantiate that Shorty actually made these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.142.4.32 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond to two of your points:

1. You're the one using the word "homosexual", which appears nowhere in the article or in my response to you.
2. Many of Perry's sources participated in the sexual encounters they described, so they weren't passing along hearsay.

You seem to have made your mind up, so I don't see any point discussing this with you further. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr./Brother Shabazz (whichever applies), I am not sure how we can resolve this matter but I strongly feel that these comments should be removed from the article. Malcolm X was a socio-political figure and had nothing to do with gay rights (I could care less whether he dress up in a chicken outfit and dance the Hully Gully on weekends); it has nothing to do with his legacy. Also his social interactions had already been fully vetted with close examination of his personal behavior by the FBI, CIA, Interpol, NOI, etc., etc. and nothing related to this was ever discovered. To give weight to such claims that were made 50-60 years after-the-fact about such a controversial figure is not only unfair but somewhat ridiculous and definitely mean-spirited.

Just because Mr. Perry found someone to make such ridiculous claims doesn't necessarily make them true; I have demonstrated how the notion that Mr. Perry was somehow able locate these individuals over half a century later, while his staunches enemies like J. Edgar Hoover could not, is utterly ridiculous. I am not interested in reading Mr. Perry's book, especially since his is a White-American and his topic of choice is a person who gave his life fighting against white supremacy.

Please remove the comments and don't re-post (if you have the power to do so) or I will organize a national campaign to consistently monitor and remove such slander from this page. I am confident that such comments will never be posted again. Please do not be a willing participation in the character assassination of Malcolm X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.125.141 (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Today an editor suggested this "compromise" language:

According to a disputed 1991 biography by Bruce Perry, Little occasionally engaged in sex with other men, usually, though not always for money; while in a Michigan boarding house, raised rent money by sleeping with a gay transvestite;and later, in New York, raised funds with friends by being fellated by men at the YMCA where he lived. Perry also wrote that in Boston, a man paid Little to undress him, sprinkle him with talcum powder, and bring him to orgasm, though this is directly contradicted by Alex Haley's autobiography, which attributed that event to another criminal named Rudy and contained no mention of homosexual activity. Neither Haley nor any other biographers have alleged such sexual encounters.

Thoughts? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, this was my suggestion! My problem with the original text is this: several of the sentences are written as if they're fact, without something indicating 'according to Perry.' (See: "In a Michigan boarding house, he raised rent money by sleeping with a gay transvestite.[36] Later, in New York, Little and some friends raised funds by being fellated by men at the YMCA where he lived.[36] In Boston a man paid Little to undress him, sprinkle him with talcum powder, and bring him to orgasm"). Considering that Perry is the only author who has made these allegations and the fact that they've actually been contradicted by Haley's book and denied by family members, we should make it clear that these allegations are NOT yet established facts, but allegations made by, literally, one author. After all, multiple historians have alleged that Abraham Lincoln was homosexual, but those allegations do not appear on his main Wikipedia page, much less as established fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmalveaux (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The more and more I think about it, the worse this passage appears. For example, why do we include such gruesome detail about these alleged sexual activities? This is the Wikipedia page for a major American figure and this stuff reads like soft-core pornography. This level of R-rated detail doesn't even appear on the pages of President Clinton or JFK, ppl actually confirmed to have engaged in some sexual impropriety. Here, the disputed allegations have only come from a single source, a one-time author, yet we include talk of "orgasm" and "fellatio" and we include it as fact. Additionally, Malcolm X actually admitted and detailed many criminal and female-related sexual activities from his youth, yet we don't offer the same amount of embarrassing detail about those actual, confirmed events. Why such detail about these unconfirmed allegations of homosexual activity? The answer to that question is the reason this section should be wholly revamped or removed, short of the arisal of corroborating sources. The answer is that it's embarrassing to this figure. That would be fine, if this information was actually reliable or corroborated...right now, we have only one source. As we take time to figure out what to do, I propose removing the grotesque details of the activity and simply mentioning that:

"According to a 1991 biography, Little occasionally engaged in sex with other men, usually, though not always for money. No other biographers have reported such sexual encounters and the family has rejected the allegations."

And even that is pushing it, considering the unsubstantiated nature of these allegations. And even if they were proven true, there would be no need to become so detailed as to mention "orgasm" and "fellatio." If anyone has complaints with this proposal, speak up! Otherwise I intend to make those changes until someone else comes up with a better idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmalveaux (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to including less detail. Do you have a source that says the family has rejected the allegations? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though all the ones I find are secondhand. Here's an article in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/20/malcolm-x-bisexual-black-history . The pertinent part is: "A good example of this neglect is the denialism surrounding the bisexuality of one of the greatest modern black liberation heroes: Malcolm X. The lack of recognition is perhaps not surprising, given that some of his family and many black activists have made strenuous efforts to deny his same-sex relationships and suppress recognition of the full spectrum of his sexuality."

The problem with that is it's an opinion column, not a WP:RS.

Betty Shabazz's biography says "she was furious when the Perry biography appeared and joined Malcolm's devotees and blood brothers in denouncing the work". "'That man has problems,' she said of Perry. 'I am not going to waste my time dealing with him and his twenty years of research.'" It isn't more specific than that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

True, though the column was first published in The Guardian, which is an established paper that would practice editorial oversight. Op-ed writers would be entitled to make up opinions, but not facts. Taking his statement in tandem with what you found from Shabbazz's biography would seem sufficient to indicate that the family rejected the homosexual allegations. But nonetheless, I see your point. I think using what you found alone would be sufficient to make clear that the family and other friends of X had broad problems with Perry's book. Anyway, so if we remove some of those unnecessary graphic details and just condense the passage to a brief description of what the book alleged (like, for instance, in my earlier, second example) followed by a brief mention of the family's reaction, everyone could live with it for at least awhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmalveaux (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)