Talk:Malcolm X

Opening sentence of article

The op-ed in this week's Wikipedia Signpost and some of the talk page discussion made me wonder whether the first sentence of this article would benefit from moving some or all of the material set off in commas or parentheses in the first sentence to explanatory footnotes instead (those are content notes, typically indicated with letters, as opposed to source footnotes, which are commonly marked with numbers).

What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it is kind of sprawling as it is now, but I thought it was just conforming to protocol. If the protocol or form of the first sentence for biographies has changed recently then by all means we should comply. Glennconti (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the protocol or standard concerning the opening sentence has changed, Glennconti, although there's currently an RfC that may lead to a change in the guideline. I think some editors, including me, were reminded that we have to remember to put readers first and try to see what our articles look like from their perspectives. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

These recent discussions have made me realize how inappropriate these bloated parentheticals are. Just three words into the article we throw at the reader a bunch of gobbledygook he almost certainly doesn't care about. I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of readers quit right there.

The parenthetical should set context. That starts with birthyear-deathyear (leaving, I think, precise birth and death dates to the infobox). For most subjects that's all that's needed. In the present case, I'd certainly add the birth name, and possibly the later Malik el-Shabazz. But the pronounciations? Forget it. As someone pointed out, almost no one understands IPA anyway. EEng 18:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Current text

Malcolm X (/ˈmælkəm ˈɛks/; May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965), born Malcolm Little and later also known as el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz (Arabic: الحاجّ مالك الشباز; Arabic pronunciation: [ɛl-hæʤ ˈmælɪk ɛl-ˈʃɑbɑz]), was an African-American Muslim minister and human rights activist. To his admirers he was a courageous advocate for the rights of blacks, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans; detractors accused him of preaching racism and violence. He has been called one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.

Malcolm X was effectively orphaned early in life. His father was killed when he was six and his mother was placed in a mental hospital when he was thirteen, after which he lived in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age twenty, he went to prison for larceny and breaking and entering. While in prison, he became a member of the Nation of Islam (NOI) and after his parole in 1952, quickly rose to become one of the organization's most influential leaders. He served as the public face of the controversial group for a dozen years. In his autobiography, Malcolm X wrote proudly of some of the social achievements the Nation made while he was a member, particularly its free drug rehabilitation program. The Nation promoted black supremacy, advocated the separation of black and white Americans, and rejected the civil rights movement for its emphasis on integration.

By March 1964, Malcolm X had grown disillusioned with the Nation of Islam and its leader Elijah Muhammad. Expressing many regrets about his time with them, which he had come to regard as largely wasted, he embraced Sunni Islam. After a period of travel in Africa and the Middle East, which included completing the Hajj, he repudiated the Nation of Islam, disavowed racism and founded Muslim Mosque, Inc. and the Organization of Afro-American Unity. He continued to emphasize Pan-Africanism, black self-determination, and black self-defense.

In February 1965, he was assassinated by three members of the Nation of Islam.

Draft

Malcolm X (1925 – 1965) was an African-American Muslim minister and human rights activist. To his admirers he was a courageous advocate for the rights of blacks, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans; detractors accused him of preaching racism and violence. He has been called one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.

Born Malcolm Little, Malcolm X was effectively orphaned early in life. His father was killed when he was six and his mother was placed in a mental hospital when he was thirteen, after which he lived in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age twenty, he went to prison for larceny and breaking and entering. While in prison, he became a member of the Nation of Islam (NOI) and after his parole in 1952, quickly rose to become one of the organization's most influential leaders. He served as the public face of the controversial group for a dozen years. In his autobiography, Malcolm X wrote proudly of some of the social achievements the Nation made while he was a member, particularly its free drug rehabilitation program. The Nation promoted black supremacy, advocated the separation of black and white Americans, and rejected the civil rights movement for its emphasis on integration.

By March 1964, Malcolm X had grown disillusioned with the Nation of Islam and its leader Elijah Muhammad. Expressing many regrets about his time with them, which he had come to regard as largely wasted, he embraced Sunni Islam. After a period of travel in Africa and the Middle East, which included completing the Hajj, he also became known as el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz. He repudiated the Nation of Islam, disavowed racism and founded Muslim Mosque, Inc. and the Organization of Afro-American Unity. He continued to emphasize Pan-Africanism, black self-determination, and black self-defense.

In February 1965, he was assassinated by three members of the Nation of Islam.

Above, I've included the current text of the opening section and a draft of a suggestion for its replacement. Except for the month and day of birth and death (which are in both the infobox and the article text) and the IPA for "Malcolm X", I don't believe anything has been lost. Thoughts? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• IMHO, perfect. EEng 03:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I like the proposed draft too. Glennconti (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done EEng 22:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion on birth and death dates in opening parenthetical

For some inexplicable reason the exact dates for his birth and death have been removed from the lead, citing WP:BIRTHDATE. Granted the manual of style does allow for the day and month to be omitted if these are mentioned in the main body, however this is a very exceptional practice (compare with the articles on Martin Luther King Jr. and Betty Shabazz, for example). You will be hard pressed to find many GA or FAs which purposely omit these dates from the first sentence without a good reason. Here there is no good reason for doing so; his date of birth and date of death are not disputed and there is no clarification needed that could cause distraction. In fact, I think most readers will find their omission is very conspicuous. The fact that lengthy and aggressive notes have had to be inserted in invisible text suggests that I'm not alone in being very confused by the omission. Clearly other editors have tried to amend the issue, and it's not going to go away. I hope other editors agree so the issue can be corrected. That is unless there is a good reason I don't know about? --Hazhk (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason for omitting the extraneous information that is stated elsewhere in the article is that it causes information overload. A sprawling first sentence causes the casual reader to become disinterested. There is no need to have English pronunciation and Arabic pronunciation and exact days of death. Why not add Wednesday and the time of death too? It is absurd. While Wikipedia editors are used to see thing a certain way, younger readers are not and we should cater to the reader not the editor. Also, this article has a history of doing thing just a bit differently than every other article. Notice the last sentence of the lead. It is a single sentence paragraph. This was done on purpose I feel for dramatic effect. Please try and get on board and not make this a cookie cutter article. What would you have happen 300 more characters in the first sentence just so it follows the form of other articles. or pad out he last sentence of the lead with a few more hundred characters just because one sentence paragraphs are unusual. My vote is no. Glennconti (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No, an additional two words and four numbers will not make the sentence "sprawling". I'm not proposing that we clutter the lead with pronunciation guides or symbols, so let's not conflate the issues. There is a very good reason why the vast majority of articles (including most Featured biographies) specify birth and death dates: it provides useful information, and yet you want to withhold that information. Taking your weak reasoning to its extreme, we might as well not specify *any* year ranges in the lead!
You are making many (patronising) assumptions about casual and younger readers but you're not considering that a casual reader may arrive at the article wanting to check when this notable figure was born and when they died. There's no better place for that information than the very top of the article; both the lead and the article should summarise the main body. As I said, I find the dates' omission actually very conspicuous and distracting. I'm baffled by this weird preoccupation from a tiny number of editors. You're going to be stuck continually reverting well-meaning corrections from editors until the article is locked. --Hazhk (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If my reasoning was weak why did you use it on me? It is absurd to have too much information and it is absurd to have not enough. I feel having the years but not the dates is a good compromise. Many grade school students come to this article for help on research and to learn about the subject. I am not being patronizing, I am being realistic. The article should be able to satisfy an educationally diverse group of readers. A simple first sentence to invite the reader to further explore is small price to pay. Glennconti (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Also by characterizing my argument as "weak" (reductio ad absurdum is not weak) you are making an ad hominem attack... Poor form! Glennconti (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't using the reasoning against you, I was simply ridiculing your argument by taking it to its logical extreme. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding! As for the premise that a certain reader will be impulsively repelled/surprised or become immediately "disinterested" by the presence of dates at the beginning of a biography, I would suggest that the level of detail and use of grammar in this article might beyond your reader's comprehension. If you're also suggesting that the reason for omitting dates is to tease the information, note that the primary purpose of the lead is not to entice a person to read further but to clearly summarise the article as a whole.
As an additional point, I can't see any clear consensus for this decision. I can see it was proposed within a draft of the lead a month ago but then it was accepted with little discussion. And that is why it needs to be discussed here. Odd editorial preferences should have some good reason behind them. --Hazhk (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I have stated the reasons way we should omit the extraneous information. As far as I can tell all you have done is call names: "weird" and "odd" and "weak". As far as having to keep reverting editors that don't understand that is why we have the comments embedded in the edit screen. But, by all means lets let other chime in on this subject. Glennconti (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not calling names, and I'm not arguing against you personally! I apologise for the use of "weird", but it wasn't aimed at you directly.--Hazhk (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• If I understand you correctly, Hazhk, you're arguing that we should restore the dates of birth and death in the first sentence because other articles include that information. Is that the gist of your argument, or am I missing something? You wrote that the information was removed "[f]or some inexplicable reason"; I recommend you read the discussion above, including both the Signpost op-ed and RfC to which it refers. Both provide ample reason. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• The purpose of the opening sentence is to set context, and when the person lived is perhaps the most important single datum contributing to that. However, that function is fully served by the birth and death years alone – the specific months-days add zero to that. Every word added at any given point of the article dilutes the finite amount of reader attention and interest available for everything else, and in the opening it's particularly important not to squander those resources. It seems that the habit of stuffing a lot of miscellany in the opening parenthetical is just something which, like Topsy, just growed, without anyone thinking about it much. Now we're thinking about it, and it's not just us – it's project-wide whether you've noticed or not. I've made the same change to several other articles I take a special interest in, with little or no pushback.

As far as consistency among articles goes, there is no progress without deviation from the norm. EEng 16:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, that is certainly not the gist of my argument. I have elaborated and argued that the full dates have been removed without good reason. The reason I have given in support of providing readers with the full dates of birth and death is that they provide crucial information that many readers will want to obtain quickly. The full dates are short and unobtrusive and so I do not think they will "clutter" or unreasonably lengthen the lead. It is true that I have invoked other articles, but only to illustrate the point that this is useful information which as included in other articles as a no-brainer; the absence of dates will surely be puzzling for a "casual readers". I'm certainly not arguing that this article should consciously model itself off other articles. We should seek to summarise the article as a whole, and providing the key dates in Malcolm X's life is crucial. If one takes a reductive approach (as other editors seem to be doing) then almost any element of the lead may be subjective for removal, as the content can be found in the main body! --Hazhk (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The full dates are available quickly in the infobox. I suggest at this point that we wait for other editors to weigh in. EEng 16:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)