File talk:Malcolmxm1carbine3gr.gif

Movie?

• "I think this was a scene from the movie." Roxanne Edits 02:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yh it was. Maddy. But it was real aswell.

Removal from M1 carbine

I've removed the image from M1 carbine. There is no discussion of the image in the article (and the caption does not count as discussion). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Malcolm X photo used in this article seems to be a continued target by one or more users who keep deleting its fair use rationale and then putting up deletion tags. As much as I hate to do it, I have to agree with Asams on this issue. Those editors need to leave the rationales alone and submit the issue for deletion review if they think the rationals are BS. Sf46 (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't nominate this image for deletion, because it seems to fit the non-free content criteria for use in the Malcolm X article. However, its use in the M1 carbine and New school hip hop articles do not seem to fit the criteria. In neither article is the importance of this image discussed in the text, outside the small blurb which is the caption; New school hip hop only mentions Malcolm X very briefly in passing. This image does not seem to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" as required by the eighth non-free content criterion. The fair-use rationales need to explain, for each article, why this image is essential to an understanding of the topic of that article, and why its omission "would be detrimental to that understanding." I see no reason why this particular photo is essential to an understanding of the M1 carbine or new-school hip hop. —Bkell (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, are you saying that to keep it the article should have a clearer context or are you saying that you just don't think that the context, no matter how spelled out, would meet the criteria. The 'keepers' of this article don't seem to want the picture removed. This is a famous picture and is well-known enough that I sought it out, not knowing if it was in the Malcolm X article or not. Why, if it's not appropriate to have a picture of a famous person holding a famous gun, is it not appropriate to also question its use in the Malcolm X article? I'm not certain you are aware of the significance of this photo as it relates to the M1 Carbine. While not an obscure gun, this photo and that of Patty Hearst were well-known and significant. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If some good justifications can be given for its inclusion in the M1 carbine and New school hip hop articles, then it can be included. It's certainly fine in the Malcolm X article, because that article has an extensive section about Malcolm as an assassination target, and even specifically discusses the importance of this photograph. But it seems that the only purpose of this photo in the M1 carbine article is to say "Malcolm X held an M1 once", which certainly does not "significantly increase readers' understanding" of the M1 carbine. Its purpose in the New school hip hop article seems even less important: as far as I can tell, it is included only because the article mentions in passing that the title and cover of an album alluded to Malcolm X. The eighth non-free content criterion says that non-free images may be used in articles only when "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If this photo is going to be used in the M1 carbine and New school hip hop articles, then justification needs to be given explaining why the inclusion of this image in each article is essential to readers' understanding of the topic. —Bkell (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed Image:BDPByAllMeans.jpg in the New school hip hop article. Using this photo of Malcolm X suddenly makes a lot more sense. If someone writes a rationale explaining that this Malcolm X photo is being used to show the direct inspiration for the cover art of this album, and the comparison is made more explicitly in the article (I missed it completely until now), then I think it's OK. —Bkell (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the two images were originally side by side, but were moved apart by an experienced editor and in truth the page is much more readable now, and the logical connection only slightly loosened. I would add that the political concerns of artists of this period is one of its defining characteristics, as the article explains, progressing from social commentary to radicalism, and these images illustrate this perfectly. I apologize for the rather perfunctory rationale, born perhaps out of the mentality of satisfying bot operations rather than being useful to editors. 86.44.30.16 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As for discussing the comparison in more detail in the article, I had hoped the images themselves would go towards this in lieu of a good source. I am loathe to further extrapolate from primary sources when I feel sure this has been discussed in places that I have yet to come across. 86.44.30.16 (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh again. If I read down a little further in the M1 carbine article, to the section called "Hunting and civilian use", I see that the text mentions the Malcolm X and Patty Hearst photos. Sorry about missing that before. I think that some more needs to be said in the article beyond simply "Malcolm X and Patty Hearst were both featured in famous photographs carrying the M1 Carbine" in order to justify the inclusion of two non-free photographs, but if there is some discussion about the importance of these photographs (for example, did they significantly affect the public's perception of Malcolm X or the M1 carbine?), then everything will probably be OK. The rationale could be more explicit about exactly where in the article this photograph is discussed, and what the article says about it. Phrases such as "The image's inclusion in the article is important because it illustrates content discussed in the text" and "The image's inclusion in the article is important because it illustrates the subject of the article , M1 Carbine, being utilized by Malcolm X" are pretty vague. That's part of the reason I thought the only purpose of the image was to say "Malcolm X held an M1 once"; I didn't realize the text actually discussed this particular photograph. —Bkell (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Source?

The Wikipedia info on this photo AND the wikipedia page on Malcolm X both say it's from the Spetember, 1964 issue of Ebony Magazine. Other sources on the web say it's from the March, 20th issue of Life Magazine... both are incorrect as I happen to have a copy of both magazines in front of me right now. The Ebony issue does have a similar pic of him from the back, obviously taken by the same photograher... but there's no information listed as to who the photographer is or where this particular image was first published. The photographers listed for that entire issue are Maurice Sorrell, G. Marshall Wilson, Moneta Sleet Jr and Isaac Sutton. Any answers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.226.6 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The image appears to be from Ebony's photo archives and was printed in Ebony April 1985. I found it via Google Books 131.202.80.44 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)