Talk:One Night in Miami...

Character names

Malcom X, Betty X, and Cassius Clay are all dead names. However in February of 1964 these were their names and hence the name of the characters in the film. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is silly. These people are notable with their previous names thus the headline should express that. I'm fine with using their preferred names in context of the story but this is not within context of the story.--2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not about preferred names. It's about legal and professional names. Wikipedia has a dead name policy. So outside of the characters (because of the timeline) we use the last legal and professional name. This is about Wikipedia policy. Not what you, or for that matter I or anyone else think is silly. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a dead name, because no one in this is trans. Malcolm X's page still reads Malcolm X so yea. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

They are dead names. His page is wrong. That was not his last legal name. Let alone the name he chose after changing his religious, social, and political identity. The policy applies. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The dead naming policy only applies to trans individuals. Wikipedia's policy gives precedent to their most commonly known name unless there's an exception. There is not a clear exception here. It's also confusing and doesn't follow the guidelines of the sources. All sources for the movie's advertising refer to the character in this movie as Malcolm X. If you can find one that doesn't, let me know. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's his last legal name. That's the important part. It's the name of his wife's and grandson's page. Deadnames applying to gender identity clearly can be extended to religious and social identity. And regardless it's also policy to use the legal name. We don't have control of the press misusing his name. We do have control of applying Wikipedia policy correctly and using the correct, legal, preferred identified name. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sending this to Arbitration but I will be clear that this is a fictionalized version of Malcolm regardless so we should defer to how the movie refers to him2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC).

By that logic we should use Cassius Clay in the tag line rather than Muhammad Ali. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Now that you have changed it in a way I think we both are okay with, it seems this issue is resolved. You should have mentioned it on here first though, for future reference. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind. You're now undoing my edits and making baseless and harmful accusations.Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Another note. You are continually changing it both anonymously and under an account that has very few edits, in spite of the talk page and me messaging you, asking you to discuss it on here. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Facu-el Millo:: @Rusted AutoParts:: @The Grand Delusion:: @Some Dude From North Carolina:, for further input. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Plain and simple, how are they credited? Rusted AutoParts 14:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: As far as character names in the cast section. Yes. But in the intro? We shouldn't use Cassius Clay in the intro, should we? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I’d say go by the poster for that one. X, Ali, Brown, Cooke. Rusted AutoParts 14:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Ok. That makes sense to me. However, because Malcom X was not his last legal name I'd like to wait to see if @Facu-el Millo: has any input. We had a discussion about how names on posters get changed according to Wikipedia policy due to a shift in public gender identity. I came to understand that the same would apply due to legal changes due to other major shifts in one's identity. I could be wrong but I'd like to see if Facu has more clarity on this. If not, what you said sounds fine to me. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's mostly about how reliable sources treat the subject, and whether the "new" name becomes the common name or doesn't. But there are many problems here. First, deadnaming by definition only applies to trans people, that's the term used specifically for misgendering someone, it doesn't apply to any kind of name change. Even if you were using a different name than the one preferred by the person, if they're not trans it's not called deadnaming. Second, there needs to be consensus, and there needs no be consensus on how we refer to the person generally. The same happened with you and DiCaprio in Inception. Changing Malcolm X to his legal name here is a bold change, which can be reverted on the grounds of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. The following step is to obtain consensus, but this should be done at the talk page of the article on the person, not here, otherwise you would have to argue why we should be making an exception in this article, hence all the preferred name and legal name arguments wouldn't be valid. This person should be called Malcolm X here as long as there is consensus for it, which there is. You are free to start a discussion at Talk:Malcolm X and see if the consensus changes. —El Millo (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Ok. Clearly I still misunderstand this. However, this is not like DiCaprio. It is actually the opposite. His name was to remain Leonardo, in spite of no one referring to him that way because it is his legal and professional name according to you. Malik Shabazz was this person's legal and professional name at his time of death in spite of it not being used to name him. This is clearly confusing and has no set rule. However, thanks to both of the recent additions we have consensus. So we'll name Malik Shabazz, Malcolm X in the intro. As far as the character names, the editor making changes is out of control. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Most, if not all, reliable sources refer to DiCaprio as Leonardo, not as Leo. Still, Leo is a hypocorism and nothing even resembling MOS:DEADNAME applies to it. —El Millo (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is all just a bunch of nonsense if you ask me. Also, Samurai Kung fu Cowboy, thank you for wasting my time. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 19:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

On the movie's IMBD page, the character is referred to as Ali. I am fine with having both Cassius Clay and Ali in the character name section but omitting Ali's name entirely is not how the movie is advertised. It is advertised as Ali. The writer of this character refers to them as Ali. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have brought up the name change on Malik Shabazz's page Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia. We go by the film and credits and as it reads now it makes it sound like two characters. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I'm fine with listing both but omitting Ali's name entirely is confusing considering how the movie is advertised and how reliable sources refer to the character. It is not however a dual role as was discussed previously.--2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

When you use "and" instead of "later known as" or "also known as" it implies that the actor played two different character. He did not. This is the same character.--2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are user Naiman2020. I believe it is clear you are attempting to manipulate the page and edits by both editing anonymously and under that name. Because of this and Naiman 2020's abusive, bigoted, language directed towards me I am no longer speaking to you about this and have brought up the language on the Administator's notice board. As far as the character name, you do not have consensus. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not, check the IP. This is a bad faith insult with no evidence. I have summarized why typical usage of the word "and" means that it should not be used in this context. Feel free to report me but you've made changes that are not only without consensus, but also wihout a reliable source. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'm not good with English. I'm fine with your edit. The Muhammad Ali name is explicitly mentioned on the poster in large letters so it deserves to be mentioned. As far as Samurai accusing us both of being the same person, I am flattered being compared to you. :) Names do influence a person? Naiman2020 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I believe we're going down a rabbit hole. I hear you about DiCaprio. That conversation is over with. What I'm saying is that it does not apply to Malik Shabazz. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A similar principle applies regarding how reliable sources deal with the subjects in question. Both "Leonardo DiCaprio" and "Malcolm X" are the common names in each situation. There is a better argument for changing Malcolm X to Malik Shabazz than there is for DiCaprio, but it's yet to be seen if it's convincing enough for the community at large. —El Millo (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

To the anon user. You are clearly editing anonymously for a reason. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the "clear" reason the person is editing anonymously? Is that how you respond to people who disagree with you by insinuating something sinister? You "clearly" love war, editing wars that is, no? Naiman2020 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I said believe. Not that it's a fact but it's certainly based in logic when looking at the history of edits. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am NOT posting anonymously! When someone disagrees with you, suddenly they have two id's? No more than one person can disagree with you otherwise they are all the same one person? You don't even have proof that two are posting as one! The actor played two roles in the movie so BOTH should be kept, no? Why keep CC and not MA especially when the second one is explicitly mentioned on the poster? Naiman2020 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Naiman2020: Regardless of if you are the anonymous user, you directed bigoted comments towards me based on my heritage and ethnicity, assuming my religion. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusing someone of sockpuppetry in bad faith is not an okay thing to do. I am editing anonymously because I don't have a Wikipedia account and don't intent to create one. This was a discrepancy I saw on a movie that I recently watched and I attempted to fix it. end of story. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. There's no need for the person to accuse you of having two accounts. Argumentative person needs to realize that multiple people can disagree with the person. Naiman2020 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Ok. I understand the comparison now. Thank you for your input. I hope you understand my confusion. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

To anon. It wasn't done in bad faith. It was done based on the history of the page and a logical assumption. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And your lack of an edit history and yet an extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, appear to favor my opinion, I believe. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any edit history. There was no reason for you to think we were the same account without completely reckless regard for the truth. It's a serious accusation. Also if we're the same account why did we disagree on whether "dual roles" should be part of the page? You're story isn't adding up. You accused someone without any evidence and that's not okay. Please respect that people are allowed to edit wikiepdia anonymoously without assuming malicious intent. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong. I have ONLY ONE account on WP. Please stop making "logical" assumptions. Multiple disagreements with you does NOT mean all dissenters are the same person. I'm new to this but that doesn't prove anything. Naiman2020 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe you "disagreed" with yourself in an attempt to manipulate and appear as two different editors. However, the disagreements were minor and somehow continued to be changed to how "both" of you wanted. The fact you bring that up on here is more indication in my mind. Also that Naiman somehow appears on here as soon as this is brought up. And still no explanation or even an apology for the bigoted remarks or baseless accusations? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Inferring that I'm inherently racist and xenophobic because I'm Jewish on the edit history is much more harmful, personal, and in bad faith than me stating why I believe you are the same editor. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The "minor" disagreements were quickly resolved because I assume we're both mature enough people to actually listen to the logic within each other's points. Again, you're not being logical in the slightest. You're leaping to unfounded conclusions and making reckless accusations. There are literally millions of people who visit this site daily and some do edit anonymously so you'd need heavy proof to make any accusations of sockpuppetry and you have none other than, "They both disagreed with me and one was editing anonymously." That's not logical. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone please explain to the person that I am NOT the same person as the anon! :) It seems you can't take it that since you didn't get your way in two places, that now you are bringing religion into your edit-wars and you are assuming many things? Please stop it. Multiple people are allowed to disagree with you and you don't need to feel offended if people disagree with you. You don't need to constantly play the "victim card"! Naiman2020 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet I came to fairly easy agreements with both these other editors and you continually edit warred with me and then Rusted AutoParts when he made a change. You just didn't edit war with "each other." So, it clearly didn't have anything to do with maturity. You literally had the same point. It always got changed back to how you originally wanted. Except when Rusted and I made edits. Then the "two of you" managed to change it back. And I don't believe making juvenile, bigoted comments in the description is mature either. If your argument is that Naiman is a separate editor and mature, that doesn't make sense. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who brought up religion based on my heritage and ethnicity. Anyone can read that in the edit history. I never mentioned it. The fact you are lying about it and not taking responsibility is not good. I don't think anyone believes you at this point. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not mention any specific religion. Did I mention any religion anywhere? Multiple times on here, you have incorrectly assumed many things and you continue to do so! Why would a person need to post with two id's? We clearly are not teenagers! You are the one who brought up your religion! If you feel offended, please accept my apologies. I respect all (and none) religions. Naiman2020 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. This needs to stop. @Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: you can try to open a WP:Sockpuppet investigation if you want to, but both these editors seem to be widly different in the way they express themselves. Naiman2020 has attacked you repeatedly, accusing you of racism and hate for being Jewish without any basis whatsoever, and saying that you play the "victim card". The IP on the other hand seems to be quite reasonable and respectful in comparison, both in their comments here and in their edit summaries in the article. Were an SP investigation to be rejected or to be concluded as these two users being different people, you can take Naiman2020 to WP:ANI for their bad-faith attacks towards you. —El Millo (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

After reading WP:SPI more carefully, you should just take Naiman2020 to WP:ANI, as there doesn't seem to be enough basis to warrant an SPI and it will most likely be rejected. —El Millo (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Naiman2020:You clearly inferred I was anti-Muslim because of my religion. You stated I must have a problem with "Muhammad names" because of my religion. Although I do not really practice Judaism, it clearly states that I'm Jewish and it's my heritage on my page. The fact that I was raised by non-Zionist hippies completely throws your theory out of the window. However, it doesn't matter. What matters are your baseless, bigoted statements and the fact that you're now denying them. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow! So, someone disagrees with you and because of that you are accusing them of anti-semitism? I apologized if you felt offended even though there was no mention of any religion anywhere! It's your mind playing with you thinking that just because someone disagrees with you, it must be because of your religion! You were constantly trying to remove the Muhammad name for no valid reason and you were also trying to deny Malcolm X from being mentioned. Have a wonderful weekend. There's more to life than Wikipedia edit-wars. Naiman2020 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless, your religion teaches you to hate others and especially those with Muhammad names? edit summary by Naiman2020, reverting an edit by Samurai. —El Millo (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I have already brought up this editor on the Administrator's noticeboard and notified them about it. I mostly focused on their bigotry but I also brought up the sock puppetry. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Naiman2020: I see you have now edited your last comment with an apology which I appreciate and mostly accept. Will you acknowledge that your statement was because of my Jewish heritage? It was clear it was directed towards me and what my user page says. Will you take responsibility for targeting me based on my assumed religion and my race? You made that comment before I ever brought it up on here. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't suddenly "edit my last comment"! You felt offended based on your assumption so I decided to apologize and write a new comment. I didn't go back and sinisterly "edit my last comment"! As far as my comment of "Your religion", that religion could be any religion and any belief or no religion at all! As far as my religion, what if it ironically turned out that I might be of the same religion as yours? Naiman2020 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz is a Muslim name. Malcolm X is not. And your statement was clearly anti-Jewish. You apologized and then wrote that? That's unfortunate. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This....is why I don't have a Wikipedia account. Good luck! I'm out unless it's directly related to the page. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He changed his name from one he used with an organization that ultimately murdered him and yet that's the name he's commonly referred by. Let alone because he made his Hajj to Mecca, which completely changed his view on himself and the world through Islam and his relationship with it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

While this is beside the point, as the reasons for keeping his name as Malcolm X are in line with Wiki policy for notable names, I will point out that in his own Autiobiography, written after his name change, he still referred to himself as Malcolm X. Television interviews at the time introduced him as Malcolm X still. So at the very least he still used both names, one in public, another in private. His public name should take precedent as is the case with most celebrities who have differing public names from their private ones. (Ie Dove Cameron, Lady Gaga, Lil Bow Wow). Even celebrities who changed their public names typically are still referenced by their most known name, ie Sean Combs aka Diddy Dirty Money aka Puff Daddy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

To anon. I understand. We're leaving it as is. Unless it's changed on his page. We have consensus on that. My response was to the accusation that changing his name to his legal Muslim name was somehow a anti-Muslim, when in fact it was the opposite. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Alex Haley was the author of the autobiography and I believe it was published after his death. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

An autobiography, by it's literal definition, is written by the subject of the book. It was semi ghost written by Alex Haley. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Anon. However, because Shabazz didn't write the words, edit it, publish it, or even ever read it, it's hard to say anything on that definitively. However, what is most definitely crystal clear in the biography is that at the end of his life he goes through a lot of personal growth and change, leading to him changing his name to Malik Shabazz. And in fact, his wife is known by that name because of that, as well as all of his lineage. It also represented his split from the Nation of Islam. Who then murdered him, and yet we commonly refer to him by his NOI name. In my opinion, it is not only incorrect but disrespectful to him and his family and it's certainly not anti-Muslim. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Now that you have seen the comment and the attempt to deny it, I hope you see why I don't believe anything this editor says. Thank you for posting it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

To Anon. Puff Daddy is irrelevant here. He changed his MC monicker. Shabazz legally changed his name based on a complete change in how he saw humanity, race, justice, his religion, and the world, and how he identified himself in it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: An interview of him being interviewed as Malcolm X in 1965. After his legal name change. No evidence of protest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7IJ7npTYrU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion: There was no reason to say that. Just don't say anything. At the time I pinged you we needed a consensus one way or another. I pinged you because I valued your insight. Not to waste time. Clearly there was a disagreement. Now we have a consensus. Don't worry. It won't happen again. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Naiman2020:As I stated I don't practice Judaism. That's an assumption you made based on me being Jewish. However, you most definitely did make that statement and Facu even posted it on here word for word. I also highly doubt you're Jewish. However, if you are, making bigoted comments towards other Jews is still unacceptable. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

To Anon. Thanks for posting that. It was a good interview and I see your point. I still stand by what I said but you're right. My guess is he did that because it's how the masses already knew him which certainly lends weight to keeping his name as X on Wikipedia. The question becomes does Wikipedia prioritize his individual identity now even though it didn't happen in the mid 60's. I don't think a trans person's identity would be widely respected or acknowledged on public TV at that time either. But nowadays it's starting to be different and Wikipedia has a policy acknowledging and respecting this. Him not making a big protest of it does not mean it was still his name. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: Awesome. So issue resolved. Have a good day!--2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Anon. It's been resolved. You had consensus a while ago. If you mean, you convinced me it was the right move, the answer is still no. But that's fine. You have a good one as well! Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Says the person who thinks its their God given right to have the last say in every disagreement! Naiman2020 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This last comment is perfect WP:ANI material, @Samurai Kung fu Cowboy:. —El Millo (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29: Anon unfortunately I can't seem to privately message an anonymous user. However, I appreciate your time and am sorry for accusing you of sockpuppetry. I have no evidence to back that up and after speaking to you, I now don't think it's possible you are the same user. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Half" apology not accepted. Shouldn't you have apologized to TWO people who you accused with illogical arguments? Naiman2020 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That comment was not directed towards you. Please stop harassing me. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a comment, not an edit. After the early use of the full name “Malcolm X,” he is subsequently referred to as “X.” This is absurd! Many male members of the Nation of Islam took “X” as their surname in order to call attention their repudiation of their so-called slave name. So “X” could refer to dozens of men. I am a 68-year old African American who became a magazine editor (Ms. from 1975-78; Essence as a contributing editor from 1978-81), then earned a Ph.D. from Yale, where I eventually held a joint appointment in African American Studies and Art History from 1994-98. Please trust me when I say the preferred way to refer to Malcolm X when you don’t want to use his full name is simply as “Malcolm.”

You are correct about the members of the NOI using X as a surname. Not just male member but female members too. However, as far as this plot synopsis I don't think that's relevant. He's the only character with the name X mentioned in the synopsis. It's clear who's being referred to. It's also consistent with Wikipedia policy and referring to the other characters by their last names. It would only be an issue here if there were other X's referenced in the plot synopsis. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm X should be referred to as Malcolm after the initial reference

Can provide sources but in general this is how Malcolm is referred to. Please see his Wikipedia page for guidance. Agree with the gentleman who pointed this out earlier.