Talk:Malcolm X

Though capitalization may seem innocuous, several Black scholars have noted that capitalizing white is linked to white supremacist organizations and is discriminatory. Especially in this article, this should be observed. https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/announcements/why-we-will-lowercase-white/. ~2025-31497-51 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

both white and black should be capitalized since they're racial classifications of different ethnic groups. Not all White people are racist. Kpop777 (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. No good reason to capitalize it. ~2025-35503-28 (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense, per MOS:RACECAPS it should be capitalized if Black is also capitalized. Otherwise it can be lowercase. But no double standard pleaseTKhamburg (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC) ( Confirmed sockpuppet of Urgal, see investigation)

I think there used to be some information in this article about Malcolm X's antisemitic tendencies. Was it removed? ~2025-35102-12 (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Malcom X wasn't antisemitic when he died. He frequently called Jews "Bloodsuckers" in Black communities and accused Jewish merchants and landlords of exploiting Black people, and claimed Jews secretly controlled the civil rights movement for their own benefit. This was because he was in the Nation of Islam, a black nationalist anti-semitic religious organization that's still spreading anti-semitism to this day with it's leader Louis Farrakhan, after he left the nation and became Sunni Muslim he dropped those anti-semitic beliefs, he was still critical of Zionism though but he didn't hate all Jews. I don't think that should be added back on this page since it wasn't a big part of who Malcolm was and he dropped those beliefs Kpop777 (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: TKhamburg (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_X&diff=prev&oldid=1326834146 This should be reverted per MOS:RACECAPS. Either both uppercase or both lowercase. The article uses a mix of the two TKhamburg (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done jolielover♥talk 14:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The article states:

"The September 1964 issue of Ebony dramatized Malcolm X's defiance of these threats by publishing a photograph of him holding an M1 carbine while peering out of a window."

however, File:Malcolmxm1carbine3gr.gif states quite literally:

"It was *not* published in the September 1964 issue of Ebony"

This Internet Archive file shows the September 1964 issue, and there is a section dedicated to Malcom X, "The Mystery of Malcom X", but the machine gun image is not in there. Miabou (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the article with a citation that reflects the claim (the two citations included did not talk about the photo) and removed the date (diff: ). — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: TKhamburg (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_X&diff=prev&oldid=1326624054 This content removal is nonsensical and should be reverted. None of the sources used are tabloid. The sources are actually high quality. TKhamburg (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Ryuudou. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 19:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The sources are dubious (petertatchellfoundation.org) and to the extent that reliable sources do talk about it, they comment on the controversy only because the daughter disputes it, and not the claim itself. It's tabloid and certainly not due for a section. Ryuudou (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The leading source for this is Manning Marable's Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, which won the Pulitzer Prize for History. It's about as far from dubious or "tabloid" sourcing as I can imagine. I have to agree with TKHamburg: I don't understand why this content was removed. Day Creature (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Marable has been harshly critiqued over many parts of that work (including but not limited to various unverified conspiracy theories, such as insinuations toward individuals to suggest they were involved in his assassination) by others who studied Malcom X, and I haven't seen secondary source coverage of that claim in particular to the extent that would justify a dedicated section. Ryuudou (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to claim that Marable was harshly critiqued, you'll have to provide evidence of it, and specify whether those critiques had anything to do with the specific claim about Malcolm X that we're discussing. Even if other scholars raised criticisms of Marable, that would not be grounds for removing the material entirely from the article; at most the article would need to be rephrased along the lines of "Marable claimed that Malcolm X engaged in same-sex relationships, but Scholar Y and Scholar Z disputed this, arguing instead that etc." As for the secondary sources covering Marable's claim, they were right there in the article before you removed them, so it's quite surprising to learn that you haven't seen them. There were citations to NPR and the Journal of American Studies. It was one of the most noteworthy claims made in the book and received extensive coverage. I do hope that you have some sincere justification grounded in policy for the deletion that you made, but I'm beginning to suspect that this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Day Creature (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Marable has been harshly critiqued by many but an example is Ph.D Jared Ball, a graduate of Cornell Africana Studies and Research Center and a current professor of Africana / Black Studies at MSU who disputes it entirely (quote directly from the work: a worthless read full of conjecture, errors, and without any new factual content, direct quote given to the San Francisco BayView Poor scholarship: Marable fails to properly cite or offer evidence to support his many wild claims, which range from accusations of infidelity, to entirely unsubstantiated claims of homosexuality.

Ph.D John Andrew Morrow also disputes it in print work: is most outlandish allegations revolve around assertions that the African American activist was a homosexual ... However, as this following critical review shall demonstrate, Marable’s case against Malcolm is based more on fantasy than on fact.

Ph.D William L. Strickland also disputes it in print work.

The NPR citation does not give weight to the claim, it is more focused on the controversy (calling it provocative), and The Journal of American Studies citation is from Christopher Phelps, who is a partisan who co-authored "Radicals in America: The US Left Since the Second World War".

Essentially it's a disputed speculation that has no clear academic consensus. A fringe theory about Malcom X's life might be okay for a mention somewhere, but is certainly not due for a dedicated section per WP:NPOV. Ryuudou (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Just write that it's disputed then TKhamburg (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

So a book that won the Pulitzer Prize is a fringe theory now? You learn something new every day. If Marable was criticized by other scholars, then the proper thing to do is to add those criticisms to the article rather than deleting everything. When there is "no clear academic consensus", Wikipedia articles present all points of view represented in mainstream scholarship. And regardless of your animus towards Marable, he is part of the mainstream scholarly tradition and his work cannot be compared to the conspiracy theories and pseudoscience that WP:FALSEBALANCE was designed to address. Day Creature (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That isn't how fringe is decided. President Barack Obama could very well put forward a fringe theory about something. Fringe is based on if the view has achieved mainstream academic consensus and not only has this not (far from it, it's a minority view in the mainstream scholarship), the view itself has been actively criticized and refuted by multiple scholars as being wrong or speculation. Hence, this should not be presented as a WP:FALSEBALANCE with undue weight in a dedicated section. Ryuudou (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before creating an edit request. This does not preclude further discussion of the issue. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)