don't let us detain you |
|||
Line 372: | Line 372: | ||
: The Mecca section would take me 8 hours to rewrite as it is - and that's one of the good sections. [[User:Ijustreadbooks|Ijustreadbooks]] ([[User talk:Ijustreadbooks|talk]]) 04:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
: The Mecca section would take me 8 hours to rewrite as it is - and that's one of the good sections. [[User:Ijustreadbooks|Ijustreadbooks]] ([[User talk:Ijustreadbooks|talk]]) 04:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Perhaps it would be more productive if you would identify the flaws, or correct them, rather than complaining in a vague way. [[User:Cullen328|'''<font color="green">Cullen</font>'''<sup><font color="purple">328</font></sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<font color="blue">''Let's discuss it''</font>]] 04:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
::Perhaps it would be more productive if you would identify the flaws, or correct them, rather than complaining in a vague way. [[User:Cullen328|'''<font color="green">Cullen</font>'''<sup><font color="purple">328</font></sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<font color="blue">''Let's discuss it''</font>]] 04:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::Please -- we wouldn't dream of taking up your valuable time. |
|||
:::Your comments continue to be incomprehensible. And -- sorry to say, but I feel other editors should be on notice -- your edit history, talk page, and recent ANI thread show that this is a chronic problem with you. |
|||
:::'''I'm going to stop responding, and I suggest that other editors do so as well, ''unless, of course, they are able to make sense of what you're saying.''''' A great deal of time has been wasted in the last few months responding to nonsense comments, and I don't feel we should continue to do so. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 04:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== High Schools named after Malcolm X == |
== High Schools named after Malcolm X == |
Revision as of 04:28, 20 October 2013
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Malcolm X is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 19, 2009. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wording and sourcing re death of father and uncles, criminal charges
Section formerly entitled: So where is the valid cite for this, again?
Extended discussion
|
---|
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it. |
"Malcolm X's father died—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored—when he was young, and at least one of his uncles was lynched. After his mother was placed in a mental hospital when he was 13, he lived in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age 20, he went to prison for breaking and entering." At wikipedia, the lede is a general summary of the article itself. I don't find this information in the body of the article,and i'm not coming through every cite to find it. gone by tomorrow if not fixed. Article if full of crap like this. FA is some kind of sarcastic wikipedia joke, has to be. Even if you find a cite f0oor it, it is nothing but speculative nonsense "it was rumored"? When? by who? Any other rumors? maybe like the insurance company who claimed he killed himself? Hoe's that for a rumor? it's a joke this article is FA and a bigger joke any editors don't see these issues. Whatzinaname (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Whatzinaname, might I suggest you tone down your responses? Collegiality is something we may not always achieve around here, but we never fail to strive for it. Rumiton (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Definitions of burglary etc.As per the commonwealth of Massachusetts, a burglary requires breaking and entering into a home (dwelling) with the intent to commit larceny(or other crime), exactly what is being referred to here. No need to even consider common parlance -- just commonwealth law. nonetheless, even if you wanted to use the term "breaking and entering", it would be ignoring illegal possession of a firearm and larceny. But since we have to quibble over "burglary", we will just include the cornucopia of his misdeeds: breaking and entering, larceny, and illegal possession of a firearm. Whatzinaname (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Wording re possible foul play in father's deathMy personal opinion is that the current wording is going to continue to be a lightning rod. Can we change it so it is not so caustic to some but still gets the point across? Current wording: "Malcolm X's father died when he was young—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored." How about: "Malcolm X's father died when he was young. The local black community speculation, that young Malcolm X most likely heard, was that his father was killed by white supremacists." Of course I am open to other suggestions. Glennconti (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Wording re possible lynching of uncleCullen (above) and Malik (in edit summary) have indicated that the only suggestion that MX's uncle was lynched comes from the autobio, which needs to be used with caution on points outside MX's own experience. Since this point adds little to the flavor already added by the issues surrounding the death of MX's father, I suggest we omit the uncle, as Malik's editing has already done. EEng (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Wording re burglary etc.Correct me if I'm wrong:
Then what should the article say? I would be happy with the layman's e.g. carried out burglaries in general (since we're meant to assume our readers are laymen) though in specific phrase such as "charged with", "convicted of", etc. we'd have to use the precisely correct "B&E". However, Whatsitthistime has made a big fuss about the description of the crime needing to be correct, and I think we should oblige him. Therefore I propose that we say only "breaking and entering", and never "burglary", since the former is indeed what the legal system determined he had done. That this appears to be the opposite of what Whatsupdoc intended, when he raised the topid, is a delicious illustration of the law of unintended consequences, as well as that the participation of someone who is 100% mixed up, absolutely all the time, can nonetheless catalyze improvements to the article -- kind of the way a pearl forms around an insignificant speck of worthless nothing. EEng (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Closing?On the above three issues (father's death, uncle, criminal charges) I'm happy with the wordings in the current version. All in favor, say Aye. All opposed, please give reasons and sources? EEng (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
When Malcolm X was six his father died—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored. I have no dog in this fight, but the sentence sounds like it is trying a bit too hard. The "white supremacists" thing seems too specific for a "rumor." There should be a less breathless way of describing this death and the suspicion it generated. Rumiton (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I am a he, but thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. The sentence just sounds like a "long bow" to me. As I understand the situation: MX was 6 years old. His father was killed by a streetcar. The police found the death to be accidental. An unnamed person said he was pushed onto the track. MX remembered this allegation throughout his life. Using the words "white supremacist" implies that a lot more is known today about the incident than really is. I would suggest something like: When he was 6 years old his father was killed by a streetcar. Though the death was ruled accidental, an allegation made at the time that his father was pushed under the car by a white man affected MX for the rest of his life. Do sources support this wording? Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Deep breathThough this has been interesting as a demonstration of the resilience of WP's processes against disruption, all of us (or almost all of us) have better things to do, so I'd like to help bring this matter to consensus sufficiently clear that when future controversy arises on these points it will be easy (for anyone, including an admin invited to halt further disruption) to distinguish between (1) rehashes of the same tired timewasting nonarguments (so that they can be simply ignored, or so that the disrupting editor can be blocked) and (2) useful new argument or evidence.
I think we were agreed to remove the statement that an uncle was lynched, but I don't think we dealt with the more general "violence by whites killed three". Right now that's cited to the autobio with no page given, so until a specific page and quote can be supplied I suggest we remove this entirely. [Later: My mistake -- missed the page numbers at the start of this ref] Now on to the father's death... I'll start with some excerpts from Marable [4]:
To the above I will add that, while the general nature of the Black Legion is beyond dispute, a definitional problem arises as to whether they were white supremecists -- I therefore endorse Glennconti's phrase white racists. Based on the above I'm proposing the following text as a start:
I tried to ensure that all the concerns in previous discussions are comprehended either by the wording above or by the Marable material just quoted, but if I'm wrong please speak up. And fast. I'd like to resolve this before I die. EEng (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
My mistake re uncles -- I missed the page #s amid the other text in that note. OK, then we have:
EEng (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I recommend that other editors simply not respond to Whatsyourdiagnosis. Any further comment on the lead/body text immediately above? EEng (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Fiddled a bit more than I intended. Also just noticed I amended Whatname's edit. I may have added fire to the fuel. Ah well, let's watch what happens next. Rumiton (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Closing! Closing! Closing! Closing! Closing! Closing!To summarize, we have:
Concurrence of the following editors, in spite of the protests of one other editor, can be seen above (of course, if I've listed you here incorrectly, say so):
Malik, there have been a few changes since you last weighed in -- can you just add confirmation of you concurrence?
|
Enable feedback?
Would it be tempting fate to enable feedback? EEng (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deeply disturbed
I am afraid I now have another problem. We now have ...the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that white racists had been responsible. After his mother was placed in a mental hospital when he was 13... I separated these sentences to avoid any suggestion that it is known that the mental health of the "deeply disturbed" mother deteriorated until she was institutionalised. In other words, any implication that the suspicions surrounding the father's violent death caused her to have a breakdown. If sources say there was a connection we should say so also. If not, then the sentences need to be reworded or separated. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- The second sentence says that she was not hospitalized until he was 13. This separates the two events by 7 years. This may be enough to show that the connections is not an immediate effect. And in my mind the two sentences are separated. But I am open to suggestions. Glennconti (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Disturbed" is an old-fashioned euphemism for insane, and deeply disturbed makes it more so. To me, if there was no connection between the occurrences they belong in separate paragraphs. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Deeply Disturbed" is verbatim from the Marable source. Glennconti (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC) PS Could it be that that paragraph is about events that shaped MX's childhood so are all associated? Glennconti (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just read it all again and still cannot agree. His father's death needs its own para. This is something that happened to his father (though it affected him.) The other sentences refer to what happened to MX; being put in foster homes, being put in prison, meeting Nationers. Bundling them together makes implications we should not be making. Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying. I just want to say. In childhood, MX lost his father, MX lost his mother. These are things that happened to him. But let's see what others have to say. Glennconti (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just read it all again and still cannot agree. His father's death needs its own para. This is something that happened to his father (though it affected him.) The other sentences refer to what happened to MX; being put in foster homes, being put in prison, meeting Nationers. Bundling them together makes implications we should not be making. Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Deeply Disturbed" is verbatim from the Marable source. Glennconti (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC) PS Could it be that that paragraph is about events that shaped MX's childhood so are all associated? Glennconti (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Disturbed" is an old-fashioned euphemism for insane, and deeply disturbed makes it more so. To me, if there was no connection between the occurrences they belong in separate paragraphs. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Rumiton, I'm no slave to "paragraphs must have X sentences"-type rules but the lone sentence re dad looked awkward, and I didn't know your original reason for the change. I agree the juxtaposition of father's death and mother's commitment does tend to suggest causality (esp. with deeply disturbed, as already pointed out). Some possibilities:
- the family was deeply disturbed by rumors that white racists --> there were rumors white racists We were hewing closely to the source because of one editor's incessant harangues, but I still feel that "there were rumors" would be fine -- the reader can infer that such rumors reached the family, and this is made clear in the body text
- After his mother was placed in a mental hospital when he was 13, he lived --> After his mother was placed in a mental hospital seven years later, he lived... This makes the time gap explicit to lessen the implication of cause-effect -- but as I read it the "later" almost adds back an implication of causality.
- Leave father in his own short paragraph as Rumiton did.
We can do one, two, or all three of the above. Honestly I think the first one on the list is the best approach. What do others thinkg? EEng (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- All not bad. How about: Malcolm X effectively became orphaned early in his life. His father died when he was six, and there were disturbing rumors that his death was caused by white racists. When he was 13, his mother was committed to a mental hospital. Malcolm X spent his next few years in a series of foster homes. Rumiton (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I like a modification of EEng's second proposition which incorporates ideas from Rumiton. How about instead of After his mother was placed in a mental hospital seven years later, he lived... we say Malcolm X also lost his mother seven years later when she was placed in a mental hospital, he lived... Glennconti (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC) PS: You see I don't want to get away from the bulk of what we have, but want so solve the two problems: 1) purpose of the paragraph. 2) remove implication of causality. By saying "also lost" this implies the purpose of the paragraph. Adding "seven years later" removes most of the causality implication. Glennconti (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC) PPS: In this way, we solve both problems by modifying only one sentence and keep much of what has already received approval. Glennconti (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the "orphaned" lead-in. We must take care not to fall back into the "His father died when he [who?] was six" trap, and that's tough with two males involved. How about:
- Malcolm X was effectively orphaned early in life. When he was six his father died, and there were [disturbing?] rumors that white racists had been responsible. Seven years later he lost his mother as well when she was placed in a mental hospital, after which he lived in a series of foster homes.
Honestly, I'd leave out the disturbing -- remember the body makes clear Louise believed them etc., and I think until the they get to that, few readers will assume, "Sure, rumors, but of course the family would have ignored those!" But what do others think?
EEng (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to run with this, without the "disturbing." Sometimes understatements are the best statements. Rumiton (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is consistent with the extensive discussions in recent past, so hearing no objection I'll implement as above (without disturbing). EEng (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. I'm generally conservative about linking but I linked foster homes because (a) non-US readers may be unfamiliar (?) and (b) it's often confused with adoption, esp. by younger readers, who are a big part of this article's audience.
- I'd be happy to run with this, without the "disturbing." Sometimes understatements are the best statements. Rumiton (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
A series of drafting issues
The Pronoun he vs. usage of the name Malcolm X
The usage of his name Malcolm X over and over again in this article is a complete waste of bytes. When it is clear that the subject of the sentence is Malcolm X, then you need to use the word he. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why don't you just make the changes you're suggesting so we can see what you're talking about? EEng (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mentioning the subject's name is often useful to be certain which person is being discussed. Commonly, we mention the surname. Many members of the Nation of Islam used "X" as a surname substitute. Accordingly, in this case, frequent use of "Malcolm X" seems appropriate to me. I grant the possibility that it may be over used a few times, and invite Ijustreadbooks to copy edit thoughtfully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is extremely poorly written:
- In Lansing the family was frequently harassed by the Black Legion, a white racist group; when the family home burned in 1929, Earl accused the Black Legion.[1]
Suggest:
- In Lansing the family's home was burned to the ground in 1929 and Earl accused a white racist group, the Black Legion, for being responsible.[2]
There is absolutely no need to say "frequently harassed" (If you include frequently harassed you are trying to defend his dad in the article - when no one is attacking his dad - illegal waste of bytes)Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- That the family was frequently harassed is established by the sources, and is an evocative fact about MX's childhood having nothing to do with defending his father. EEng (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do reliable sources say that the house burned "to the ground"? In what sense is describing the harassment of Earl Little a "defense" of him? Is adding "extremely" to "poorly written" an example of good writing? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry, the sentence is extremely poorly edited. You are implying that the house was burned by some hate group. You can not put these two distinct sentences into one sentence - it's just wrong:
- "In Lansing the family was frequently harassed by a white racist group, the Black Legion."
- "When the family home burned in 1929, Earl accused the Black Legion."
- The only thing that is important is if his dad told Malcolm X,
- "These guys, the Black Legion, are a white racist group and I think they are the ones responsible for 'when the family house burned'". You got a citation for that? ("when the family house burned" - what does that mean, to the ground, one room, or what? - how about "a suspicious fire of indeterminate damage was done to the house")
- And it's impossible for me to copy edit that because you have two inline citations. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I am sorry, it's ugly.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry, the sentence is extremely poorly edited. You are implying that the house was burned by some hate group. You can not put these two distinct sentences into one sentence - it's just wrong:
- Do reliable sources say that the house burned "to the ground"? In what sense is describing the harassment of Earl Little a "defense" of him? Is adding "extremely" to "poorly written" an example of good writing? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- That the family was frequently harassed is established by the sources, and is an evocative fact about MX's childhood having nothing to do with defending his father. EEng (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
If you check the sources cited and find that they don't support the text, please let us know. EEng (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Bert Bell vs. Malcolm X
The newbie wikipedia pages explicitly state to look at FA article to learn from them.
The usage of his name, Malcolm X, over and over again in this article is extremely bad.
A one sentence paragraph: ???
- From age 14 to 21 Little lived with a half-sister, Ella Little-Collins, in Roxbury, a largely African-American neighborhood of Boston, where he held a variety of jobs.[17][18]
Yuck! Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know who told you that paragraphs are supposed have X sentences at least/most, but whoever that was knew nothing about writing. Nonetheless in this case an improvement was possible, and I made it. Why didn't you just do it yourself? EEng (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, a single sentence that expresses a discrete thought comparable in importance to adjoining paragraphs comprised of several sentences, can stand alone as a paragraph of its own. "Yuck" adds nothing to the discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, a single sentence is exceedingly rare. Pick 10 random featured articles and see how may times you see a 1 paragraph sentence. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're right: single-sentence paragraphs are rare. EEng (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Rare is not synonymous with forbidden. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're right: single-sentence paragraphs are rare. EEng (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, a single sentence is exceedingly rare. Pick 10 random featured articles and see how may times you see a 1 paragraph sentence. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, a single sentence that expresses a discrete thought comparable in importance to adjoining paragraphs comprised of several sentences, can stand alone as a paragraph of its own. "Yuck" adds nothing to the discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Nation of Islam vs NFL Career
I came here because I am trying to fix the NFL being too much of the biography of Bert Bell.
But this article is even worse than the Bell article. I have the NFL being part of Bell's career, you folks just have a major section titled "Nation of Islam". It's just really, really bad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Um, what in the world does
- I have the NFL being part of Bell's career, you folks just have a major section titled "Nation of Islam"
- even mean? To be blunt, you lose credibility as a critic when you yourself write stuff like Earl accused a white racist group for being responsible.
- BTW, please stop enclosing text examples in <nowiki>, which makes no sense to do at all.
- And what's all this talk about "waste of bytes"?
- EEng (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is no byte shortage, as this talk page proves. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, do something with the title of the section called Nation of Islam. People that are involved with an article can get upset over section title names - I am not involved with the article so I could care less. But you are placing his personality below that of the Nation of Islam - which is fine, except you need a citation that says "Malcolm X thought the success of the Nation of Islam was more important than his own life" - or something to that effect. How could I put a section titled the "National Football League" in the Bell article - that would be ridiculous. Respectfully, it's just silly. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I have no idea what your objection is. The section title is completely appropriate. EEng (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am looking at the [Paul Robeson] articles and the section titles I gave to it (with the caveat that most of what I wrote in the Robeson article is a complete disaster) and they follow this article. The Bell article is 100 times simpler than this but the Robeson article is, at the very least, comparable to this in difficulty. I am sorry, abstract out the section title. At least I have this as a section title: "Theatrical ascension and ideological transformation", that ain't that bad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- The navbox on the Nation of Islam is kooky from my perspective. I can have a navbox in the Bell article that includes all NFL commissioners, but that's handled by something at the bottom of the Bell article. All that stuff in that navbox I can have for the NFL ("Publications", "Subsidiaries and offshoots", but I would delete it if anyone put it in). Maybe cause this article has alot to do with religion you have to do that stuff(?) - only, literally, 10 people a day visit the Bell article. I am sorry, that stuff is way off topic. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- A publication called "How to Eat to Live" is included in this biographical article, is that a joke? Did he write that. I mean really. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- A publication by the Nation of Islam entitled "How to Eat to Live" has given me great insight to the life, struggles and personality of Malcolm X. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- A publication called "How to Eat to Live" is included in this biographical article, is that a joke? Did he write that. I mean really. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- The navbox on the Nation of Islam is kooky from my perspective. I can have a navbox in the Bell article that includes all NFL commissioners, but that's handled by something at the bottom of the Bell article. All that stuff in that navbox I can have for the NFL ("Publications", "Subsidiaries and offshoots", but I would delete it if anyone put it in). Maybe cause this article has alot to do with religion you have to do that stuff(?) - only, literally, 10 people a day visit the Bell article. I am sorry, that stuff is way off topic. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am looking at the [Paul Robeson] articles and the section titles I gave to it (with the caveat that most of what I wrote in the Robeson article is a complete disaster) and they follow this article. The Bell article is 100 times simpler than this but the Robeson article is, at the very least, comparable to this in difficulty. I am sorry, abstract out the section title. At least I have this as a section title: "Theatrical ascension and ideological transformation", that ain't that bad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I have no idea what your objection is. The section title is completely appropriate. EEng (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, do something with the title of the section called Nation of Islam. People that are involved with an article can get upset over section title names - I am not involved with the article so I could care less. But you are placing his personality below that of the Nation of Islam - which is fine, except you need a citation that says "Malcolm X thought the success of the Nation of Islam was more important than his own life" - or something to that effect. How could I put a section titled the "National Football League" in the Bell article - that would be ridiculous. Respectfully, it's just silly. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is no byte shortage, as this talk page proves. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Abstract out the main section title name - it's better editing, pick a name Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Died
We have, "When he was 6 his father died." I am now thinking "was killed" might be better. It tells us that the death was violent, and prepares us for the rumor part that follows. Rumiton (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Request deletion of irrelevant materical
total waste of bytes here: In section Mecca;
"With financial help from his half-sister Ella Little-Collins," - way off topic "(the pilgrimage to Mecca required of every Muslim who is able)" - completely redundant. The definition of Hajj is discussed in the Wikipedia article Hajj.
With financial help from his half-sister Ella Little-Collins, in April 1964 Malcolm X flew to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to begin his Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca required of every Muslim who is able).
In April 1964, Malcolm X flew to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to begin his Hajj.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- also completely ridiculously redundant (wow, bad job here) "while living with his half-sister Ella Little-Collins". How many times are you folks going to include the phrase "half-sister" that's a really atrocious job. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the financial assistance provided by a family member is relevant and worth mentioning. If you think that the family relationship is mentioned too many times, please feel free to make revisions. Calling something like this "completely ridiculous" seems excessive to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- also completely ridiculously redundant (wow, bad job here) "while living with his half-sister Ella Little-Collins". How many times are you folks going to include the phrase "half-sister" that's a really atrocious job. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This article has tremendous flaws
I can't write for doink, but this article is really not up to snuff. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Mecca section would take me 8 hours to rewrite as it is - and that's one of the good sections. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be more productive if you would identify the flaws, or correct them, rather than complaining in a vague way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please -- we wouldn't dream of taking up your valuable time.
- Your comments continue to be incomprehensible. And -- sorry to say, but I feel other editors should be on notice -- your edit history, talk page, and recent ANI thread show that this is a chronic problem with you.
- I'm going to stop responding, and I suggest that other editors do so as well, unless, of course, they are able to make sense of what you're saying. A great deal of time has been wasted in the last few months responding to nonsense comments, and I don't feel we should continue to do so. EEng (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
High Schools named after Malcolm X
Please, please, do not include high schools named after Malcolm X. Delete those bytes and use them for something important - that is so bad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you folks consider this guy an important historical figure, than his ideas should outweigh the number of high schools named after him by about 1 billion to 1. Wow. Bad job. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)