Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request for Comments: Authorship

Extended content

How should the authorship of The Autobiography of Malcolm X be described? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Every bibliographic citation I have seen cites the authorship of the Autobiography as "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley". Two other editors disagree. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Here are 50 examples of bibliographic citations that do not use the phrase "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley" [1] [2] [3] [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Muslim-Religion-Nation-1960-1975/dp/0807857718/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277702345&sr=1-5#reader_0807857718] [http://www.amazon.com/Name-Elijah-Muhammad-Farrakhan-Experience/dp/0822318458/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277702345&sr=1-6#reader_0822318458] [http://www.amazon.com/African-American-Century-Americans-Shaped-Country/dp/0684864150/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277702819&sr=1-8#reader_0684864150] [http://www.amazon.com/African-American-Religious-History-Documentary/dp/0822324490/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277702819&sr=1-12#reader_0822324490] [4] [http://www.amazon.com/Sisters-Struggle-African-American-Rights-Black-Movement/dp/0814716032/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277703228&sr=1-7#reader_0814716032] [http://www.amazon.com/Malcolm-Graphic-Biography-Andrew-Helfer/dp/0809095041/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277703762&sr=1-11#reader_0809095041] [http://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Malcolm-Blacks-World/dp/0252007743/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277704920&sr=1-28#reader_0252007743] [http://www.amazon.com/They-Had-Dream-Frederick-Douglass-Malcolm/dp/0140349545/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277704920&sr=1-31#reader_0140349545] [http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Malcolm-Radicalism-Remaking-American/dp/0415951232/ref=sr_1_76?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277705673&sr=1-76#reader_0415951232] [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Pilgrimage-Islam-Robert-Dannin/dp/0195300246/ref=sr_1_29?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277706214&sr=1-29#reader_0195300246] [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Malcolm-Companions-American/dp/0521515904/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277706391&sr=1-19#reader_0521515904] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] GabeMc (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC) UCLA, Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, and The University of Chicago all give Alex Haley an author credit on the Autobiography. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] GabeMc (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC) This has just gotten ridiculous. Despite the overwhelming abundance of WP:RS, Malik continues to shoot each one down, claiming for whatever reason that each one doesn't count. In all honesty, Malik is the one who needs to drop the stick, and back slowly away from the horse carcass. His arrogance on the issue almost defies belief.Mk5384 (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC) And here are 1,110 examples where the authorship is attributed to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley": http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&q="autobiography+of+malcolm+x"+"assistance+of+alex+haley" Three bibliographic examples, where the book's authorship is so attributed in footnotes: [47] [48] [49] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Gabe has provided specific sources, whilst you continue to talk about how many google hits you got. It is impossible to know which of your purported sources meet WP:RS unless you give specific examples. And what makes your 3 sources better than Gabe's 50 +? Seems to me, his sources include the libraries of several Ivy League schools. You haven't a leg on which to stand. Now drop the stick, and back slowly away from the horse carcass.Mk5384 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC) This doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. I'm not sure how long the RfC is scheduled to run, and the article still has a few more days of full protection. The article correctly stated for 6 years, that Alex Haley wrote the book. Malik Shabazz has provided WP:RS that attribute authorship to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley". GabeMc has provided WP:RS that attribute the book to "Malcolm X, co-authored by Alex Haley", as well as WP:RS that attribute authorship to Alex Haley. Of course, my opinion, is since Alex Haley is the author, it is misleading to state anything else. I realise that that's probably not going to happen. It seems the only reasonable thing to do at this point is to state in the article that sources differ as to the book's authorship, whilst giving specific examples.Mk5384 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I would propose opening the article with something along the lines of, "The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a 1965 book about the life of human rights activist Malcolm X." It could then explain the differing opinions of authorship, and give examples.Mk5384 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC) That would seem to be a sensible thing to do, however, the RFC tag lasts 30 days, I suggest we let it run it's course in order to gain the best consensus we can. --GabeMc (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) The RfC can stay open as long as we'd like, up to 30 days. With respect to the opening paragraph, I don't have a problem (a) taking the authorship out of the first sentence and (b) adding this second sentence: "Haley wrote the book based on more than 50 in-depth interviews he conducted with Malcolm X between 1963 and the activist's February 1965 assassination." (from the section "Writing the Autobiography"). I'd like to leave the infobox as is ("Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley"). We can word-smith the sentences if we reach general agreement on the structure of the lede. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not thrilled about leaving the info box that way, but in the interest of compromise, I'm OK with that idea.Mk5384 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC) “ In any event, this is a sideshow because you still haven't shown a single source that attributes the book to "Malcolm X, co-authored by Alex Haley". Find a single WP:RS that makes reference to the Autobiography and uses that phrase as its attribution (as opposed to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley"). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC) ” Here are 100 WP:RS that refer to the autobiography as either "co-authored by Alex Haley", "by Alex Haley and Malcolm X", or "by Alex Haley" without using the phrase "with the assistance of". [50][51][52][53][http://www.amazon.com/Alex-Haley-Traced-Americas-Roots/dp/0762109165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277934562&sr=8-1#reader_0762109165][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141][http://www.amazon.com/Voices-Freedom-History-Movement-Through/dp/0553352326/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277587900&sr=1-10#reader_0553352326][http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Movement-Perspectives-American/dp/1598840371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277586459&sr=1-1#reader_1598840371][142][143][144][145][146][147][148] GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC) “ No, this is a case where every bibliographic citation of the book attributes authorship to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley" but you and your buddy are making a "controversy" where none exists.— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC) ” “ Hello? They are bibliographic citations, showing author and title. Authorship is attributed to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley". Look, I admire your persistence, but you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. Look at the discussion at WP:RSN. This is a closed issue. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) ” Here are 25 bibliographic citations, all WP:RSs that attribute authorship soley to "by Alex Haley". [149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163] [164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173] GabeMc (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Malik, based on all of that, any chance you'd be willing to reconsider your position on the info box?Mk5384 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC) As far as the infobox is concerned, I think it should follow the same attribution as the book, which is "with the assistance of Alex Haley". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Fair enough.Mk5384 (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC) If the infobox should follow the same attribution as the book, then wouldn't "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley." be the most accurate? --GabeMc (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC) If it were an infobox about the introduction or the epilogue, sure. But since it's an infobox about the Autobiography, it should follow the authorship of the book itself. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC) At this point, since the Rfc tag went up, it seems that you Malik are the only editor who is insisting on the "assistance of" phrase. The only two other editors who have devoted any time to this discussion both argued for authorship. --GabeMc (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC) If case you missed it, above are 100 WP:RS that use the phrases: "co-authored by Alex Haley", "by Alex Haley and Malcolm X", or "by Alex Haley" without using the phrase "with the assistance of". --GabeMc (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC) In case you missed it, here are 1,110 examples where the authorship is attributed to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley": http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&q="autobiography+of+malcolm+x"+"assistance+of+alex+haley" And most importantly, here is how it's attributed in the book itself: "with the assistance of Alex Haley". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC) For the record, I am totally against the info box using Malik's proposed version, especially in light of the myriad sources that Gabe has presented. Based on those sources, I asked Malik to reconsider. I had already gone on record as saying whilst I didn't approve of that version, I would go along with it as a matter of compromise. When I said, "fair enough", this was only as I feel compelled to honour my word, and in no way because I agree with it.Mk5384 (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC) And again, I am quite troubled by the fact that Gabe has given over 100 specific examples, whilst Malik continues to refer to 1,100 generic Google hits.Mk5384 (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC) “ Are you for real? Books that are reliable sources are no less reliable because they are accessed through Google Books. And yes, The New York Times is considered a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC) ” On September 20th 1970 the New York Times called Haley the co-author of the Autobiography. "At a luncheon yesterday afternoon, Alex Haley, co-author of "The Autobiography of Malcolm X," related how he traced This own family lineage from his native..." [174] GabeMc (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Weighing in as an independent, non-involved party but an experienced book editor and writer, with both co-author experience and primary author experience. The above discussions are quite amazing to read; the lengths people will go to to defend a position never fails to surprise. Bottom line, it comes down to the quality of the evidence IMHO. Malik's Google hits do not outweigh Gabe's individual specific citations. Panera3769 (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC) The secondary sources are clear. Malcolm X and Alex Haley collaborated on the book, and that's how Wikipedia, a tertiary source, should describe it. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I suggest the phrases "Alex Haley wrote the book" and "the assistance of Alex Haley" minimize his role, and imply a position lower than that of author, or co-author, and credit him as nothing more than a ghostwriter, which IMHO is not in keeping with the vast majority of the most reliable sources available to an average researcher. I propose the Wiki link to Ghostwriter be removed from the lede, and the phrase "the assistance of Alex Haley" be removed from the infobox author attribution leaving, "Malcolm X with Alex Haley". --GabeMc (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Haley was a ghost-writer. I propose the infobox remain the way it is, as it matches the exact attribution in the book. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I have 125 WP:RSs that say he was an author. Since the RfC tag went up on June 28th you have failed to gain any support whatsoever. The only one arguing against authorship since June 28th is you. Please explain to us why editor consensus and 125 WP:RSs are not enough to attribute co-authorship to Haley. --GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC) As far as having reached consensus, not one single editor has supported your view since the RfC tag went up nearly 30 days ago. And here is an excert from the biography of Ilyasah Shabazz, Malcolm X' daughter; "The Autobiography of Malcolm X", written by my father, with Alex Haley." [175] --GabeMc (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Here are 100 WP:RS that refer to the autobiography as either "co-authored by Alex Haley", "by Alex Haley and Malcolm X", or "by Alex Haley" without using the phrase "with the assistance of". [176][177][178][179][http://www.amazon.com/Alex-Haley-Traced-Americas-Roots/dp/0762109165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277934562&sr=8-1#reader_0762109165][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243][244][245][246][247][248][249][250][251][252][253][254][255][256][257][258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] [267][http://www.amazon.com/Voices-Freedom-History-Movement-Through/dp/0553352326/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277587900&sr=1-10#reader_0553352326][http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Movement-Perspectives-American/dp/1598840371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277586459&sr=1-1#reader_1598840371][268][269][270][271][272][273][274] Here are 50 bibliographic citations that do not use the phrase "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley" [275] [276] [277] [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Muslim-Religion-Nation-1960-1975/dp/0807857718/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277702345&sr=1-5#reader_0807857718] [http://www.amazon.com/Name-Elijah-Muhammad-Farrakhan-Experience/dp/0822318458/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277702345&sr=1-6#reader_0822318458] [http://www.amazon.com/African-American-Century-Americans-Shaped-Country/dp/0684864150/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277702819&sr=1-8#reader_0684864150] [http://www.amazon.com/African-American-Religious-History-Documentary/dp/0822324490/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277702819&sr=1-12#reader_0822324490] [278] [http://www.amazon.com/Sisters-Struggle-African-American-Rights-Black-Movement/dp/0814716032/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277703228&sr=1-7#reader_0814716032] [http://www.amazon.com/Malcolm-Graphic-Biography-Andrew-Helfer/dp/0809095041/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277703762&sr=1-11#reader_0809095041] [http://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Malcolm-Blacks-World/dp/0252007743/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277704920&sr=1-28#reader_0252007743] [http://www.amazon.com/They-Had-Dream-Frederick-Douglass-Malcolm/dp/0140349545/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277704920&sr=1-31#reader_0140349545] [http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Malcolm-Radicalism-Remaking-American/dp/0415951232/ref=sr_1_76?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277705673&sr=1-76#reader_0415951232] [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Pilgrimage-Islam-Robert-Dannin/dp/0195300246/ref=sr_1_29?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277706214&sr=1-29#reader_0195300246] [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Malcolm-Companions-American/dp/0521515904/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277706391&sr=1-19#reader_0521515904] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288] [289] [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] [298] [299] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304] [305] [306] [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] Here are 25 bibliographic citations, all WP:RSs that attribute authorship soley to "by Alex Haley". [314][315][316][317][318][319][320][321][322][323][324][325][326][327][328] [329][330][331][332][333][334][335][336][337][338] GabeMc (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Here are 7 of the finest Universities on EARTH: UCLA, Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, and The University of Chicago, who all give Alex Haley an author credit on the Autobiography. [339] [340] [341] [342] [343] [344] [345] --GabeMc (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC) As far as having reached consensus, not one single editor has supported your view since the RfC tag went up nearly 30 days ago. And here is an excert from the biography of Ilyasah Shabazz, Malcolm X' daughter; "The Autobiography of Malcolm X", written by my father, with Alex Haley." [346] — GabeMc (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Malik, that's over 150 sources that say Haley was an author on the Autobiography, where are your sources for ghostwriter? --GabeMc (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC) This is starting to cross over into tendentious editing on your part Malik: You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors. No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e. g. "You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors. I have removed the ghostwriter wikilink from the lede and the phrase "with the assistance of" from the info box per talk pge RfC consensus and a multitude of reliable sources. -- GabeMc (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Go to hell, Gabe. You wouldn't know tendentious editing if it bit you in the ass. Oh wait, you would. That describes your behavior at Roger Waters. Good luck with the GA nomination. I would hate to see an edit war spoil your chances of attaining GA status. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Per edits [347] and [348] by Malik Shabazz. "yes, it's POINTy; see WP:LEADCITE" From WP:LEADCITE "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Explain how this policy allows you to revert me to remove every citation from a contentious statement in the lede. --GabeMc (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Malik, you have been behaving this way on this page for at least 30 days. [349] You are acting as if you own this page. "There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in an honourable draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass." --GabeMc (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Closing section

• Collapsing this so I can read things without horizontal scrolling. Will add a closing statement in a bit. Protonk (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ok. Reading the content of the RfC, the rest of the talk page and the article itself leads me to some initial conclusions. The primary dispute is between two editors over wording in the LEDE of the article (as the current revision of the body contains what seems to be enough nuance to satisfy either side. I may be wrong on that supposition). Both editors have marshaled a great deal of sources pointing toward their preferred text. Here I say "their" and refer to the editors personally but I understand this is fundamentally a content dispute. My first suggestion to both editors is to seek out and present one clear argument from one authoritative source supporting their position. I know NPOV drags us toward utilizing the preponderance of reliable sources on a subject, but arguing by preponderances is a numbers game. Gabe can bring 125 specific sources to bear with some effort and Malik can bring a link to 1100 sources with some effort. All things being equal I'm more convinced by 125 specific sources than suggestion of many more, but all things are not equal. In this specific case, what is of interest is not the text string "with the assistance of" versus the text string "co-authored". We want to get to the heart of the matter which means reading material that gets at the distinction. Will history remember Haley as a ghostwriter or a co-author (or author)? This is distinct from how the publisher wished to indicate authorship or how directory services catalog authorship.
• So what do I want? This debate was in full swing before the RfC and continues apace. I suspect both sides want a break or some resolution. Here's my offer. I would like both editors to offer the full text of a proposed LEDE, citations/footnotes included and one source which they believe best makes their case (you don't have to cite the source in the lede, just pick one I can get to from the internet. I have jstor & lexis-nexis). At which point we will try and see if we can't come to an agreement. If we can't, I'll just choose one of the two ledes (or some combination). If both editors don't want to provide a sample compromise lede and a source then I will try my best to close this RfC without them. Is that ok with both/all parties? Protonk (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your time. That sounds very fair to me. I will happily provide you with a sample compromise lede and a source. Should I provide it here, or on your talk page Protonk? — GabeMc (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

On here would be best I think. Protonk (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion:

The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a 1965 book about the life of human rights activist Malcolm X (1925–1965). Journalist Alex Haley wrote the book based on more than 50 in-depth interviews he conducted with Malcolm X between 1963 and the activist's February 1965 assassination. In 1998, Time named The Autobiography of Malcolm X one of the ten most influential nonfiction books of the 20th century.

In support of the Wikilink for Ghostwriter, I offer this page from Kwame Anthony Appiah and Henry Louis Gates, Africana: Arts and Letters. ("Later that year Playboy commissioned Haley to interview Malcolm X, an assignment that led to Haley's first book, his ghost-written Autobiography of Malcolm X.") — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your source calls Haley an author on the previous page, page 251, [350], and in it's bibliography, attributes the book to "Malcom X, with Alex Haley", page 629. [351] — GabeMc (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion:

The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a 1965 book about the life of human rights activist Malcolm X (1925–1965). Journalist Alex Haley co-authored the book based on more than 50 in-depth interviews he conducted with Malcolm X between 1963 and the activist's February 1965 assassination. In 1998, Time named The Autobiography of Malcolm X one of the ten most influential nonfiction books of the 20th century.

In support of the co-author attribution for Haley I offer The Oxford companion to twentieth-century literature in English. — GabeMc (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to play tit-for-tat, your source says Haley wrote a "lenghty foreword" to the book; in fact, Haley wrote an epilogue, not a foreword. What other basic facts about the Autobiography did Oxford get wrong? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No Malik, Oxford didn't get it wrong. According to Alex Gillespie writing in The Cambridge Companion to Malcolm X, the Penguin edition of the Autobiography has Haley's eplilogue at the front of the book (Cambridge Companion, 2010, p.38). — GabeMc (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your source is also, Oxford. — GabeMc (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My, we have a serious problem. First, the book is published by Running Press. Second, Appiah and Gates vs. GabeMc. Hmmm. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wiki link you provided above, Africana: Arts and Letters, your source was published by Oxford University Press, 2005. — GabeMc (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not "Appiah and Gates vs. GabeMc", they also consider him an author, page 251 and 629, here [352]. — GabeMc (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

How about Wiki editor Malik Shabazz vs. Ilyasah Shabazz, Malcolm X's daughter; "The Autobiography of Malcolm X", written by my father with Alex Haley." — GabeMc (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(a) A ghostwriter is a specific type of author. (b) Oxford published the complete encyclopedia, but my link is to a selection of literature articles from the encyclopedia, and the selection was published by Running Press.

Now explain again why the Oxford Companion is credible when it misses such a basic fact such as whether Haley's 75-page epilogue is at the front or the back of the book (not easy to miss, since it deals with events that take place after Malcolm X's assassination). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Autobiography itself, contains several errors of fact, so I guess by your standards then, you no longer have a source for "with the assistance of", since it came from a book that contains factual errors about his life, even though he wrote it. — GabeMc (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your source calls Haley a co-author, and attributes authorship to Malcolm X, with Alex Haley, and that's what I have been arguing for since June 25, 2010. — GabeMc (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. You've given up on your source and you're relying on mine now? Where do Appiah and Gates call Haley a co-author? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• If at all possible could you guys limit your comments to each other here to what you would consider moving toward agreement? I don't think that after this whole RfC and discussion one side of the dispute is going to educate the other side. I'll take some time later tonight and read both sources in depth as well as tracking back through some other sources in the RfC. Till then if you aren't moving toward a compromise I'd prefer if you avoided arguing about it. Now I do have to make the caveat that this isn't a formal process of any sort. I can't impose a result on the article and you aren't bound by any agreement. You just asked for comment, didn't get much and now want someone to make a neutral suggestion. I'm planning on doing that. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's fine with me. I'm willing to abide by your decision. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. — GabeMc (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Some attempt at compromise

Ok. Reading both sources and reading through some proportion of the linked sources in the RfC doesn't help too much. The overwhelming majority of sources posted by Gabe and Malik refer to the authorship question in passing, then move on. I was hoping that Haley's article in the Oral History Reader would have had some comment on Autobiography (given that it was basically an oral history), but it did not. the closest I came to finding a source which talked about the relationship between Haley and Malcolm was this article in an edited volume. But even there the author uses terms like "crafted with" and speaks about authorship as shared, concepts which are closer to the notion of co-authorship but wouldn't be unheard of when speaking about ghostwriting. So even after digging through sources I am still back to a numbers game, which is no way to answer a question. This is especially disconcerting because the notion of "ghostwriting" hinges not on the degree of collaboration but on ex post credit. Obviously plenty of the sources seen above offer co-authorship credit to Haley, but the selection of the word "autobiography" brings some of that into question. Am I being clear on this? I hope so. If not let me know and I'll try to clarify.

But I don't want to reshash that debate. I suggest in the absence of strong evidence which directly addresses the authorship question we not make a strong determination in the lede. The two suggested ledes are very similar--it might be enough to simply remove the wikilink to ghostwriter in one version of the lede without inserting the word "co-author". However this situation must be clarified to the reader in one of two ways. We can have a sentence or two in the body of the article addressing the issue of authorship (assuming that we can find one source for either side which directly speaks to that problem) or we can have an explanatory note serving the same purpose. Is that acceptable? Protonk (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first off, thank you so much for taking the time out of your weekend to help us, and Wiki get this right, it is much appreciated.

• Request Clarification - When you suggest removing the Ghostwriter Wikilink from the lede, does this apply to the Ghostwriter Wikilink in the body of the article as well?
• Question - What is your opinion on the text-string "with the assistance of" in the infobox? — GabeMc (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Both good questions. To the first I really think that depends on what kind of text we can agree upon in the body. I would love to see an article or book which talks about the ghostwriting claim--up till now what I have seen (and I haven't done an exhaustive search) are references to the book "ghostwritten by Haley" etc. My ideal body paragraph would include a cite to "Malcolm X and the Black Public Sphere" (the article I linked above) and a cite to a competing interpretation of authorship with the text itself explaining that discussion. To the second, I don't have an answer yet. Would both of you be ok with just "with" as opposed to "with the assistance of"? Protonk (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question - Per, "...the notion of "ghostwriting" hinges not on the degree of collaboration but on ex post credit."

Haley gets credit, and copywrites, and his name in the sub-title of the book. Why would a ghostwriter get credit, and copywrites to a book if they were not a co-author? Can you think of any examples where this was the case? Ghostwriters are often not even mentioned except in passing.

• Answer - I prefer the phrase, "with Alex Haley." — GabeMc (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it appears (I haven't read the book) Haley isn't treated as a ghostwriter per se, but the word "autobiography" in the title is a rather strong claim of authorship. Can you see where someone might see a conflict in terms of attribution and collaboration? Protonk (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The word autobiography in the title is marketing, not author attribution. It should be noted here that this article had been stable for several years untill Malik began a series of edits on April 25, starting here. — GabeMc (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

But marketing is author attribution in some sense. That's why I made the point about ex post credit dictating 'ghostwriting'. I'll try and reiterate my core trouble in closing this RfC: both sides have sources referring to the book as ghostwritten or co-authored. Neither side has a source actually discussing the authorship question (I have looked more closely at Gabe's sources than Malik's, simply because I can just click through Gabe's) in enough detail that I could point to said source as an authority on this question. That means we are left with two methods of resolving the dispute (if we ignore compromise). We may rely on argumentation, in which case I am forced to agree with Gabe. Haley easily clears what I would consider authorship for the book, despite the title. This is evidenced by widespread attribution as well as his participation not meeting normal characteristics of ghostwriting. Or we may rely on preponderance of sources. In which case I have to grant some weight to Malik, because a great deal of sources (not the bulk of them, but enough to be worth mentioning) refer to the book as ghostwritten or refer to Haley as ghostwriter or refer to Malcolm as the primary author (in some way or another). Under those two decision rules, the best answer might be to bury the question in the body (As described above) and answer it with some sentence along the lines of "Haley's role in writing Autobiography has been alternately characterized as ghostwriter, author, collaborator and co-author". That is an awkward sentence with some PEACOCK problems, but it is all we really can land on unless we can find some strong sources which directly address the question. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Neither side has a source actually discussing the authorship question"

• Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. — GabeMc (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Most of those are of the form I described above, mentioning Haley as a co-author and moving on. Notable exceptions are The Development of the Self-Image in Black Autobiographical Writing (an MA thesis I would have to dig to find full text of, a shame because the expurgated pages around p. 90 seem to actually speak to the question at hand), The conversion experience in America: a sourcebook on religious conversion (p. 132 speaks directly to the question, but can't answer it), Encyclopedia of American race riots refers to the collaboration as a dictation from Malcolm to Haley, Betty Shabazz, Surviving Malcolm X paints a very conflicting picture though I can't fully diagnose it from snippets, the obit states the work was a collaboration and moves in. I don't think I'm being clear. There is not a shortage of sources which describe authorship one way or another. There is a shortage of sources which delve into the description. Why would this be considered a co-authorship, why would it be considered a dictation? What was the relationship between the two men? I know that you and Malik have answers to these questions, I'm looking for sources which have answers, so we can present it to the reader. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of Rickford's biography of Betty Shabazz. If you tell me what pages you're looking for, I can post what they say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

On page 77 Rickford's biography calls Haley the "collaborating writer of his autobiography." — GabeMc (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How about here, here, here, here, or here? — GabeMc (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your fourth link is wrong. Haley's voice is not the narrative voice (except in his Epilogue), nor did he use Malcolm X's journals (if, in fact, he kept a journal) as material for the Autobiography. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the other four? As far as factual errors, like I said, the Autobiography itself has errors of fact, but you still consider it reliable do you not? — GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the other four? More of the same, that is, they don't say anything on point. Any Google monkey can type the words "Malcolm X" "Alex Haley" collaboration into a search engine and post 250 links here. We've been asked about the nature of the collaboration. Your fourth source was the only one that discussed that, and it's wrong about some pretty basic facts, which calls into question other assertions in the source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Protonk asked, "What was the relationship between the two men?", I am attempting to find sources that speak to that issue. He liked 4 out of my first 5 sources, and since his last comment I have posted 10 more. I think there are at least 10 very compelling sources in this group so far, with more to come. — GabeMc (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are five more, here, here, here, here, here. 00:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[353] [354] [355] [356] [357] Please read these five additional, very compelling sources that address the question: "What was the relationship between the two men?" Since this debate began in June, I have provided over 200 sources to support my claim, Malik has offered 4. Malik is the one who made the content change starting on April 25, 2010, why is the burden not on him, to prove ghostwriter, and assistant? — GabeMc (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1) I've never used the word "assistant", so please don't put words in my mouth.

2) I've presented several high-quality sources that bolster my contention that Haley was a ghostwriter. If you feel the need to continue piling on sources, that's your business. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"I've never used the word "assistant", so please don't put words in my mouth."

Then do you agree to use "with Alex Haley" in the infobox, and not "with the assistance of Alex Haley". — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as you show me a copy of the Autobiography that credits the authorship of the book that way. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik, are you aware of copies that say "as told to" and not "with the assitance of"? — GabeMc (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

On the title page? Nope. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, here, and here, front cover. — GabeMc (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? You can't tell the difference between the front cover of a book and its title page? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the front covers of the books in the links above say "as told to" but the title page says "with the assistance of"? — GabeMc (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "claiming" it; I can tell you it as a fact. Go to a bookstore or library if you don't believe me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If I found a copy, that did not include the phrase "with the assistance of", anywhere on it, would it really matter? — GabeMc (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've always maintained that the infobox should credit authorship the same way the book does. Just as every other Wikipedia article about a book does it. If the book's authorship credit has been changed, I think we should change the infobox to match the book. But I bought a new version of the Autobiography just a few years ago, and it has the same title page as the older editions I have. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe both of us should go to a bookstore tomorrow, and see how the book is being attributed now. — GabeMc (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Question - Malik, where on the title page does it say Malcolm X was the author? — GabeMc (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the word "autobiography" in the title is a rather strong claim of authorship".

Interestingly, while the word "autobiography" is indeed in the title, Malcolm X is not listed as an author, and nowhere in the book does it say "written by Malcolm X", or even "by Malcolm X". Nowhere in the book itself is Haley ever referred to as a ghostwriter. Also, the title page list of authors mentions Haley and others, but not Malcolm X. Maybe they didn't list him as an author because the title already says it, but shouldn't his name also appear in the list of auhtors, and not just the title? It seems "with the assistance of" is a way of avoiding the text string "by Alex Haley.

• Even more interestingly, the back of the Ballantine edition (1999) to which we are reffering, calls the book [http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Malcolm-X-Alex-Haley/dp/0891902163/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280789028&sr=1-3#reader_0891902163 "the result of a unique collaboration between Malcolm X and Alex Haley"]. — GabeMc (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Neither side has a source actually discussing the authorship question"

Here are ten good ones: [358][359][360][361][362][363][364][365][366][367]. — GabeMc (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are five more sources that speak to the authorship process, very good ones: here, here, here, here, here. — GabeMc (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Protonk, for spending your valuable time working with us to try to resolve this issue.

Just a few points: there is no "ghostwriting claim" because Haley was a ghostwriter. There is no "competing interpretation of authorship" except in the minds of Wikipedia editors; consequently, a search for an article that discusses it will prove fruitless.

As Gabe well knows, copyright doesn't mean anything. The copyright in Autobiography was held by Betty Shabazz and Alex Haley.

Finally, Here is a JSTOR article that describes the relationship between Malcolm X and Alex Haley (see footnote 1). While it doesn't use the word "ghostwriter", it is clear that Haley's role was to function as an amanuensis, not a co-author. I could also refer you to John Edgar Wideman's essay "Malcolm X: The Art of Autobiography" in Joe Wood, ed., Malcolm X: In Our Own Image—a book that is (unfortunately) not available online—who makes the same point. When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we should call it a duck. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'll pull that foonote out and quote it here, as it is interesting:

Malcolm X told the storyof his life to Alex Haley in a series of interviews that took place over a period of nearly two years.Malcolm read the text of the Autobiography, approving and correcting the chapters as Haley wrote them, although he did not live to see the last revisions made in the manuscript. Evidence both internal and external to the Autobiography suggests that Haley kept to the agreement he made with Malcolm to include nothing Malcolm had not said and to say everything Malcolm wanted included.

• If true, this better describes a ghostwriter than a co-author. Unfortunately, this footnote is the only comment made in the 19 page piece about the authorship. Ohmann spends the rest of the article writing as though the voice in the Autobiography is Malcolm's and only Malcolm's. I will go to the library tomorrow and pick up the Joe Wood book. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Whose book is this?" Malcolm x, to Alex Haley, suggesting, that Malcolm himself did not think the book was as close as your footnote above. — GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Without context, that question doesn't mean anything. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You are correct, it needs context. It's from, The Autobiography of Malcolm X — GabeMc (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's from the epilogue you keep mentioning. — GabeMc (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Question- Would an amanuensis get their name on the cover, copywrites, and 50% of the royalties? The back cover says the book was, [http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Malcolm-X-Alex-Haley/dp/0891902163/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280789028&sr=1-3#reader_0891902163 "the result of a unique collaboration between Malcolm X and Alex Haley"]. What was that about WP:DUCK? — GabeMc (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Question - Where on the title page of the Autobiography does it say Malcolm X was the author? Are the text-strings "written by Malcolm X", or "by Malcolm X" anywhere to be found in the Autobiography itself? — GabeMc (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Counting the title page and the copywrite page, Haley's name appears four times, "Malcolm X" appears twice. — GabeMc (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Consider this, Haley's epilogue is 75 pages long, and constitutes 16% of the book. Haley wrote 16% of the book, 100% by himself, on top of everything else he had contributed, and he finished the final edit on the book after Malcolm's death by himself. He has his name on the front cover, a copywrite, 50% royalties, the back cover of the Autobiography says the book was a "collaboration" and a multitude of secondary sources refer to him an either "the author", "co-author", or "collaborator". Like Malik said, if it looks like a duck, etc... — GabeMc (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• "marketing is author attribution in some sense"

Look [http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Malcolm-X-Alex-Haley/dp/0891902163/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280789028&sr=1-3#reader_0891902163 here] and click the back cover, the current marketing of the book is as a collaboration between Malcolm X and Haley. — GabeMc (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik, would you say the [http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Malcolm-X-Alex-Haley/dp/0891902163/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280789028&sr=1-3#reader_0891902163 1992 Ballantine edition] attritbutes authorship as a "collaboration"? — GabeMc (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

It comes down to this question: What is more verifiable, Haley as an author, co-author or collaborator, or as a amanuensis/ghostwriter? — GabeMc (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Another edit break

Off to the library. Be back in a few hours with (hopefully) some comments. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting so much of your valuable time into this Protonk, Wikipedia will be more accurate because of your dedication to research. — GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm back, just reading some of the Joe Wood book and the Epilogue. Should have a big comment and final suggestion late tonight or tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Extended RfC Summary

Authorship is not necessarily a factual question. In most cases (even in cases of single authors), authorship is a narrative constructed by authors, readers and historians. Attempts to answer questions about authorship by appealing to the text itself often fall flat, because the text is mute on critical subjects. Take the (little a) authorship problem of Shakespeare. Here I don't refer to the question of who wrote Shakespeare's plays but which among the plays written were in only Shakespeare's hand? Many of Shakespeare's plays were released multiple time in the bard's lifetime with significant changes. Were they all distillation of one unpublished ur text? Were they the process of continual refinement, making the final versions the "most Shakespearean"? Or was the first version the most pure with later revisions subject to "memorial reconstruction"? We have hundreds of years of scholarship and a surprising amount of physical evidence (namely information on printers for each folio or quarto), but we cannot answer this question conclusively. One reason is that each theory--the ur text, revisionism, and memorial reconstruction--is built not only from available facts but from a narrative about Shakespeare. Facts are incorporated as needed to make the narrative work, but the driving force behind out conceptions of authorship are our stories giving coherence to the evidence.

And Shakespeare is a relatively easy target, humorously enough. All of our narratives surrounding authorship (including the conspiracy narratives) come from ~200 years after his death. Other authors, most notably contemporary authors, complicate the question of authorship by inserting their own narratives. And authors are people. They lie, embellish, conceal and minimize. This isn't to say that narratives are necessarily lies. That's absolutely not true. Narratives are the coherent structure human beings use to scaffold disparate events. They are as necessary to cognition as Potassium, but they are not invariant and they are not free from temporal influence.

On its face, the question of who wrote The Autobiography of Malcolm X ought to be dispatched quickly--Malcolm X wrote it! That's why we call it an autobiography. But everyone involved in this discussion knows that the true nature of a thing is not revealed in its name. A name is part of an image presented to a public. Even the original publication of Autobiography includes three concurrent and contradictory claims. The book is simultaneously an autobiography, a biography "as told to" and a biography "with the assistance of" Alex Haley. All three claims can only be true if we take dictation and assistance to be subordinate and derivative tasks. Along those lines, a great deal of evidence suggests that Malcolm and Haley views those tasks to be derivative and subordinate.

Another letter was dictated, this one an agreement between him and me: "Nothing can be in this book's manuscript that I didn't say and nothing can be left out that I want in it."

Faced with this arrangement, Haley makes an addendum to the contract specifically referring to the book as an "as told to" account. Later we see Haley recounting what he describes as a common episode, Malcolm X furiously editing copy for small details which deeply influence diction.

He pored over the manuscript pages, raptly the first time, then drawing out his red-ink ball-point pen as he read through the chapter again, with the pen occasionally stabbing at something. "You can't bless Allah!" he exclaimed, changing "bless" to "praise." In a pace that referred to himself and his brothers and sisters, he scratched red through "we kids." "Kids are goats!" he exclaimed sharply.

Corrections like this are common in co-authorship, but the importance of Malcolm's presence in the voice of the piece is important. We will come back to it.

...I sent Malcolm X some rough chapters to read. I was appalled when they were soon returned, red-inked in many places where he had told of his almost father-and-son relationship with Elijah Muhammad. Telephoning Malcolm X, I reminded him of his previous decisions, and I stressed that if those chapters contained such telegraphing to readers of what was to lie ahead, then the book would automatically be robbed of some of its building suspense and drama. Malcolm X said, gruffly, "Whose book is this?" I told him "yours, of course," and that I only made the objection in my position as a writer...I never again gave him chapters to review unless I was with him. Several times I would covertly watch him frown and wince as he read, but he never again asked for any change in what he had originally said. [My emphasis]

I imagine all parties to this dispute have read the above paragraph and taken away your own meaning from it. I implore you to read it again. The passage is fraught with multiple meanings. We are meant to understand the original interviews contained the story of Malcolm's early positive relationship with Elijah Muhammad (probably recorded prior to there estrangement), but upon reviewing these chapters he wanted them removed (Haley fears, in a section I snipped out, that the book might take the form of a polemic against the Muslim Brotherhood). Haley doesn't voice this concern to Malcolm, instead offering a stylistic defense. This prompts an immediate reply getting to the heart of ownership and authorship. Haley defers automatically and in doing so could have said "I only made the objection in my position as a (ghost)writer". Later chapters are not mailed away for review but reviewed in concert. That's a superficial read. But more is going on. First, Haley chose to include this anecdote in a sprawling epilogue which was more about Malcolm X than about the book (in fact, very little of the epilogue concerns the book itself). Second, even if the original interview about Elijah Mohammad was serendipitously timed, Haley knew that the structure and tone of the book would be marred if it were told from a current standpoint. He also voices the fear that the book may become a vehicle for reprisal (to the readers, not to Malcolm). Third, Haley's immediate statement of deference and clarification/minimization of role is not to be taken at face value. Where the relationship between the two men is mentioned, notes about Haley's avowed stance of deference and Malcolm's paranoia are replete. Here I am not referring to general paranoia, though there is evidence of that (and obvious evidence that it was justified). I am referring to specifically the paranoia that Haley or Haley's white editors would misrepresent Malcolm. He demanded a letter from Playboy magazine indicating that no redaction would take place and even after receiving the letter was astonished to find that Haley had convinced the editors of Playboy not to trifle with Malcolm's words. The same fear is voiced about Haley's first article for Reader's Digest. Throughout the epilogue there is strong evidence that Malcolm wanted a hand in crafting the final image of the book and evidence that Haley felt it necessary to adopt a subordinate position. Finally, the resolution of this conflict involves Haley observing each subsequent review, however surreptitiously. On the surface the outcome seems to be a recapitulation of the agreement in my first quote. But is it? Haley words this very specifically and deliberately: "he never again asked for any change in what he had originally said", noting a victory but repeating the notion that the biography was first and foremost a dictated work.

I want to move away from the Autobiography itself as a source and look at some comments made in secondary sources covering the biography. Remember, even though these are secondary sources they are not sacrosanct. At the heart of this controversy is the legitimacy of two competing narratives. A narrative which portrays Haley and Malcolm X as collaborators and co-authors and a narrative which portrays Malcolm X in a dominant position exercising control over style and content. Secondary sources may not be critical evaluations of these narratives. They may be focused on other issues or may be inclined to see only one narrative. Many of the secondary sources already mentioned in the RfC suffer from the former problem. They mention the book en passant and offer a fleeting characterization. The form the characterization takes is usually common across a number of articles, books and bibliographic references--simply because the authors or librarians have taken one narrative as established fact and don't spend time or energy questioning it. Which narrative they choose is basically arbitrary. The second form comes into play only when the secondary source has a particular view which prejudges their selection of narrative, even when they expend time and energy on the subject. A number of the contemporary black scholarly sources treated the autobiography itself as a mythic or Freudian story and never gave a moment's thought to the possibility that the voice in the text may be as much Haley's as it was Malcolm's. Michael Dyson's Making Malcolm: The Myth and Meaning of Malcolm X (primarily chapter 2, but elsewhere as well) criticizes several contemporary historians and biographers for re-purposing Malcolm's story as a transcendent narrative without being critical enough of the underlying ideas. He also illustrates the basic idea of Malcolm's strategy of image control in one particular quote:

[the book] reflects both Malcolm's need to shape his personal history for public racial edification while bringing coherence to a radically conflicting set of life experiences and coauthor Alex Haley's political biases and ideological purposes

I mention this quote not because it includes the word "coauthor". While I believe Dyson feels Haley was a coauthor, the use of the word is meaningless. The important part of the quote is the explicit mention of Malcolm's desires to present his history for public consumption (as well as the struggle between Malcolm and Haley in terms of politics and ideology). Malcolm wanted control over the text of the Autobiography because he wanted to ensure control over his public image (we can speculate why he wanted such tight control, but that isn't necessary). Is it too much to ask whether or not Malcolm would want control over presentation of authorship?

Moving away from Dyson, who might rightly be considered a bit heterodox in Malcolm X biography, I want to turn to Joe Wood's edited volume, Malcolm X: In Our Own Image. I cannot excerpt the whole thing but I implore everyone involved in this dispute to read (in its entirety) John Edger Wideman's "Malcolm X: The Art of Autobiography" (pp. 101-116). Wideman takes a sprawling look at the broad and dense narrative landscapes found in biography--further fathoms and leagues due to the epic stature of mid-20th century black history. I will quote one passage especially.

You are sitting in a room listening to a man talk and you wish to tell the story of the man's life, using as far as possible the words you are hearing to tell it. As writer you have multiple allegiances: to the man revealing himself to you; to the same man who will read and judge what you write; to an editor with an editor's agenda and maddening distance; to yourself, the demands of creating a text that meets your aesthetic standards, reflects your politics; to a potential publisher and reading public, etc., etc. You are serving many masters, and inevitably you are compromised. The man speaks and you listen but you do not take notes, the first compromise and perhaps betrayal. Your notes are intended to capture the words you hear but they are also designed to compress, select, filter, discard. A net, no matter how closely woven, holds some things and loses others. One crucial dimension lost, like water pouring through the finest sieve, is the flow in time of the man's speech, the sensuous environment of orality that at best is crudely approximated by written words.

You may attempt through various stylistic conventions and devices to reconstitute for the reader your experience of hearing face to face the man's words. The sound of the man's narration may be represented by vocabulary, syntax, imagery, graphic devices of various sorts--quotation marks, punctuation, line breaks, visual patterning of white space and black space, markers that encode print analogs to speech--vernacular interjections, parentheses, ellispes, asterisks, footnotes, italics, dashes...The drama of the encounter between yourself and the man may be enhanced by "stage directions" that set the scene and cue the reader to the hows and whys of what's being said.

Wideman goes on to note that in the body of the work, this authorial agency described so wonderfully above is absent. Haley submerges his voice in a manner Wideman describes as "...Haley does so much with so little fuss...an approach that appears so rudimentary in fact conceals sophisticated choices, quiet mastery of a medium". I can barely improve upon Wideman's insight. Haley wrote the body of the Autobiography in a manner of Malcolm's choosing, but chose to write the epilogue (as Wideman sees it, and as I see it) as an extension of the biography itself. Haley's voice in the body of the book is a tactic, producing a text nominally written by Malcolm but seemingly written by "no author" (p. 105). Treating the book as an autobiography was a tactic for Malcolm as well, one Dyson and Wideman argue was made for a variety of reasons, political as well as stylistic. But building this facade, allowing the reader to feel as though the voice of Malcolm X was speaking directly and continuously was, in Wideman's words, a matter of authorial choice.

...The nature of writing biography or autobiography or any kind of writing means that Haley's promise to Malcolm, his intent to be a "dispassionate chronicler," is a matter of disguising, not removing, his authorial presence.

Wideman spends the next few pages noting stylistic decisions and contrivances that Haley chose in order to present a seamless facade to the reader and to the world, from diction (p. 107) to tense (p. 106) to dialect (p. 108). I won't quote page 110 because it is too delicious. Too perfect for the point I'm trying to make. You'll have to find the book and read it yourself. I promise you won't regret it.

The next essay in the volume is by Arnold Rampersad, biographer of Langston Hughes. Rampersad focuses mainly on disassembling Perry's psychobiography of Malcolm X, but alights on the Autobiography for a few pages. Rampersad points out that the writing of the autobiography itself is part of the myth-making process. Part of the narrative of blackness in the 20th century, and consequently should "not be held utterly beyond inquiry". He continues:

Haley understood that autobiographies are almost by definition projects in fiction, in which the autobiographer selects from memory such material as seems to him or her most alluringly totemic. He took pains to show how Malcolm dominated their relationship and tried to control the composition of the book, but Haley knew that memory itself also selects, often in defiance of the autobiographer. And the autobiographer--in this case both Malcolm and Haley--is further guided by all the autobiographies he or she has ever read or heard about. The life, already distorted and diminished by the process of selection, thus acquires a narrative shape that may itself be its deepest meaning.

Like Dyson's quote, I do not mention this section because Rampersad claims Haley has a strong role in the relationship. I mention it because Rampersad re-affirms the process of narrative generation and because he emphasises Haley's decision to illustrate to the reader how Malcolm controlled the process. This fits with Wideman's broad comment about Haley's authorial strategy.

So where are we left? Dyson, Wideman, and Rampersad (by no means the only sources out there, of course) illustrate that the construction of biography and the assignment of authorship is a process fraught with meaning. Discussion of how to present that process must grapple with that meaning in a real manner. Too many of the sources used in the RfC and in discussions above rely on simple recitation of Haley's promise to Malcolm or an unexamined claim that Haley was a co-author. This is not too surprising because for many researchers the authorship question is not the primary problem of interest--and for some it clouds of invalidates their research question. There are about 40-50 articles in a ten year span after the publication of Autobiography which rely deeply on the assumption that the voice in the piece is singular and is Malcolm's. All or most of them would be discredited if the reader assumed that Haley had a significant role in crafting the voice and presentation of Malcolm in the book.

It is my opinion that Haley had a deep and significant role in the book, even excluding the epilogue. Haley publicly minimized the appearance of this role during the creation of the book and in its final text for two main reasons. First, Malcolm demanded it, as he was paranoid about his words being twisted or otherwise misapprehended. Second, the diminution of Haley's voice served a stylistic and a rhetorical purpose. Allowing readers to seamlessly listen to Malcolm's voice and allowed them to treat the work as a broader philosophical comment (This isn't necessarily wrong, just advantageous for the writer and the publisher). Despite this public self effacement, Haley's role as collaborator and partner is unmistakable. It appears not only in the epilogue (albeit infrequently) but in Widemans's comments, in Rampersand's comments and in Dyson's comments, as well as in other sources which merely describe the relationship but do not examine it critically. Lastly, Haley's authorial presence in the text is notable. Obviously Haley's voice in the epilogue is significant (as is the relative size of the epilogue in comparison to the book as a whole), but Haley's actions to unify the text and present it (a la Wideman's explanation) are important.

That said, Haley is nominally a ghostwriter. We can acknowledge the authorial presence of Haley in the body of the work but must remember that much of his talent was spent hiding himself from the reader. Likewise the conditions Haley labored under were designed (and were effective!) to allow the reader to imagine the work as that of a singular author, merely translated by Haley. And for what it matters, it is clear that Malcolm's public and private views were that the book was his work and was to be an "as told to" volume.

Both of these conditions are true. Haley is both ghostwriter and co-author. Haley is a significant force in the book but an an absent voice. Haley shapes the narrative within (and without) the book but also labors under constraints established by Malcolm X.

An article about the book deserves to cover this complex situation with care and depth. It demands a mention in the lede as well as at least a few paragraphs explaining the situation. I can't mandate content, but I suggest that my interpretation above could be appropriate to both sides. I hope it wasn't too tl;dr. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Section for comments

Might be best to park comments about the above summary (and only the above summary) here. Protonk (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Protonk, not just for your time and effort, but for the remarkably well written, and researched suggestion you offered.
• Suggestion - Protonk, I think it would be best for the article if you wrote the authorship section in the body, and take comments from Malik and I until we agree.

I would however, like to offer my suggestion for the lede and three conditions for the article:

• Condition 1 - No ghostwriter wikilinks anywhere in the article, since Wiki is not a reliable source anyway, and linking to it undercuts the article's assertion that Haley was also a co-author.

• Condition 2 - Attribute authorship in the infobox as "Malcolm X, with Alex Haley."

• Condition 3 - Double cite "collaborator" in the lede, as per WP:LEADCITE for contentious statements in a lede.

• Lede Suggestion

The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a 1965 book about the life of human rights activist Malcolm X (1925–1965). The book is the result of a collaboration with journalist Alex Haley, who wrote the Autobiography based on more than 50 in-depth interviews he conducted with Malcolm X between 1963 and the activist's February 1965 assassination. In 1998, Time named The Autobiography of Malcolm X one of the ten most influential nonfiction books of the 20th century.

— GabeMc (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Protonk. I appreciate that you have spent so much time on this.

Unfortunately, Gabe seems to have read what you wrote and come away with... nothing. His "suggestion" is virtually the same as what it was a few days ago, giving no credit at all to Malcolm X in the lede and making up his own attribution for the infobox.

Gabe, I've been asking for more than a month: Show me a single Wikipedia article about a book in which the infobox cites authorship differently than it is credited in the book (except for known hoaxes, such as Clifford Irving's "autobiography" of Howard Hughes [which evidently doesn't have a Wikipedia article]). It's not an unreasonable request.

(And before you start whining, I'm not "citing" Wikipedia. I'm asking you to demonstrate why this article should break with the style that seems to govern all other encyclopedia articles about books.)

I'm working on my own language and I'll post it later or tomorrow. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik, please answer this basic question, how and where on/in the book does it say Malcolm X was the author? I am confused, the only places his name is mentioned are in the title of the book, and on the copywrite page after Alex Haley's name. I can't find anywhere on the book where it says it waws written by Malcolm X. — GabeMc (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, Gabe. For 45 years, people have mistakenly attributed the book to Malcolm X when in fact the book was solely the work of Alex Haley. You really should contact the press to bring your discovery to the whole world's attention. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Malik, does the phrase "not anywhere remotely near helpful" ring a bell here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik, and Sarek, look here, then here. Show me one single source for Malcolm as author that does not include, "and Alex Haley", or "with Alex Haley". — GabeMc (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said Alex Haley wrote the book by himself, though many sources do. I am trying to ask a specific good faith question about the title page, which to you Malik, is all the proof you need about the books authorship. The title page does not say, "by Malcolm X", "written by Malcolm X", "authored by Malcolm X" or any variation thereof. If the title page is your proof Malik, tell me how you derive sole authorship for Malcolm using the title page? The Autobiography neither claims Malcolm is the sole author, nor that Haley was a ghostwriter, yet that one page proves me wrong and you correct, in your mind. Protonk said: "Haley is both ghostwriter and co-author." So why am I still the one who is wrong? I had editors chastise you for uncivility, an admin declared you were edit warring, and Protonk supports my contention that Haley was an author, so where am I wrong? — GabeMc (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that progress isn't being made here. It took about 6-7 hours to research and write that summary above. it will take half that time for me to do justice to a lede and a body section covering this issue. The reason I spent time and energy on the subject was because the answer wasn't simple. I suspect that my summation will neither make Gabe nor Malik happy because my tentative conclusion on the basis of the sources I read is that Haley was treated like a ghostwriter at the time. He expended energy to minimize his own voice, he signed a contract to nominally limit his authorial discretion in favor of what looked like verbatim copy, and he accepted credit which looks a lot like how ghostwriters are credited (when they are credited). However, this view of Haley as ghostwriter is a deliberate narrative construction of Malcolm X and contemporary black scholars who wanted to see the book as a singular creation of a dynamic leader and martyr. It is not borne out by a detailed read of the autobiography or the full relationship between the two men which is best described as a collaboration. Haley exercised discretion, guided Malcolm in critical stylistic and rhetorical moments and compiled the work. I'm taking pains to point this out now because even though I could write the body and the lede, it wouldn't be mine. This RfC would not reach a satisfactory conclusion and I would have wasted my time if I left you with a block of text (which will be riddled with grammatical errors!) which neither editor could modify without creating another dust up. So I'm going to make a blunt statement. I feel both Malik and Gabe's views of the authorship question are wrong and my conclusions repudiate both views in part. Can both sides accept this as a content starting point rather than re-fighting the rather boring and unenlightening question of who the sole author of the book is based on what the inside jacket says? IF the answer to all those questions is no, then I am going to step away from the article and recommend you guys seek formal mediation. Because the only way to resolve this dispute appropriately would be to impose an outcome. 22:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs)

Thank you Protonk. I understood your point, which is why I didn't rush to post a suggestion yesterday. I have copies of all the books you mentioned, and I wanted to review them carefully—as you did—while drafting proposed language. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't need a detailed reply. Just an understanding from both parties that my suggested language would probably differ from your preferred revision. Both you and Gabe have indicated that now. And I also wanted to tamp down the arguing that has been going on for the past week over the same issue. I need some indication that both sides will be able to work with a suggested draft rather than revert to the same disagreements. You don't need to answer that part now. Just think about it. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Protonk, all I am argueing is that the book was a collaboration, something I knew before this, Malik seems to be the only person who has disagreed. I didn't need more time to construct a proposal, because I did not learn anything from your summarry, no offense, but you essentially said he was a collaborator, co-author, and nominally a ghostwriter, I already knew that. See if you can come to a compromise with Malik that satisfies your preferred version, and I will comment and make suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't take offense and I'm sorry if I'm asserting an equivalence in characteristics between both parties to the dispute where one may not exist. If you or Malik feel that I an underestimating your willingness to compromise or mischaracterizing your past participation, I'm sorry. I didn't intent for my RfC close to serve as a comment on behavior, so I tried to get away from any comments which would rest largely on behavior. As for your thoughts on nuance in the article (for both you and Malik) please note that I'm just trying to get a sense of your stances from the debate above and in the RfC proper. If you guys are closer to compromise than you appear, then the battle is halfway done! Protonk (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop it already, Gabe. Back in May I wrote that it was a collaboration. Our difference of opinion has been how to describe the nature of the collaboration. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik, if you were okay with "collaboration" in May, then why did you not include it in the lede after my suggestion from June 30? — GabeMc (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik, can you produce a diff showing your willingness to include that Haley was a collaborator post June 25, when I started editing the article? No, of course not, you won't even reply to this. Fortunately, diffs don't lie, and the record is plain to see for anyone who looks carefully enough. — GabeMc (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Stop it already, Gabe. Back in May I wrote that it was a collaboration. Our difference of opinion has been how to describe the nature of the collaboration." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Then explain this series of edits where you slowly began minimizing Haley's role starting on April 25, when Haley's credit in the lede went from "was written by Alex Haley between 1964 and 1965.", to "The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a 1965 book by human rights activist Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley." by May 31

• April 25, when you demoted him from author in the infobox.
• April 25
• May 26
• May 31
• May 31, where you unilaterally decided the article should describe him as a ghostwriter.
• May 31
• May 31

— GabeMc (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who said what when. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've worked up a draft at User:Malik Shabazz/AMX. I'd appreciate comments here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Section for comments, part II

Malik, I read your draft and have some suggestions to start off with. These are preliminary ideas, and should not be construed as my final, all-inclusive and binding opinion on the draft. I reserve my right to add suggestions as the process moves forward, and this should not be construed as "all and everything" I am suggesting or proposing for the coming compromise.

• Suggestion - Change "The book was written by Malcolm X and journalist Alex Haley." to "The book is the result of a collaboration with journalist Alex Haley, who wrote it based on more than 50 in-depth interviews he conducted with Malcolm X between 1963 and the activist's February 1965 assassination."

Reasoning

1) The text string "written by Malcolm X and Alex Haley", might be the least common way to express the books authorship that I am aware of. The prepoderance of sources do not agree with that choice of words. Google comes up with four total hits on "written by Malcolm X and Alex Haley". The lede should state the book was "the result of a collaboration", which seems to be the most common way reliable scholars describe the book.

Protonk said: "the full relationship between the two men...is best described as a collaboration." - Protonk 22:26, 4 August 2010

2) The addition of "who wrote it based on more than 50 in-depth interviews he conducted with Malcolm X between 1963 and the activist's February 1965 assassination.", adds enough detail without being tedious, and the reader learns more from the lede about the books creation.

• Suggestion - Now is not the right time to be introducing content alledging Haley was an FBI informant. Lets stick to the content issue at hand, and not start new controversies now please. — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion - a) The epilogue should be mentioned, and described properly, pointing out that it was Haley's alone, without input, or veto power from Malcolm, and b), it should be mentioned that Haley finished the book himself without a final revision or edit by Malcolm. — GabeMc (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• This can be added in or left out. The epilogue was no mean feat. But questions about Haley's authorship don't extend to authorship of the epilogue, so we might not be answering much. If you guys want I think Dyson mentions the epilogue itself as a significant portion of the overall work. I can get that quote and cite before I return the books. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do cite the Dyson book, I am sure it will be helpful. — GabeMc (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question - Currently, there are no ghostwriter wikilinks in your draft, will you go on record that you will not insert them down the road soon, or long after we come to an agreement? — GabeMc (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion - The section "Relationship between Malcolm X and Alex Haley" should be changed to "Collaboration between Malcolm X and Alex Haley".

Reasoning - The, "relationship between", sounds kinda like they were lovers (not that there's anything wrong with that), versus collaborators. — GabeMc (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think relationship is fine, the word is broad enough to encompass the interaction between Malcolm X and Haley. If you guys both want to change it to collaboration, that is cool too. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Protonk, do you prefer the section begin with "collaboration"? Because that seems to be the best descriptive word for the two mens relationship, wouldn't you agree? — GabeMc (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference. If there is a section heading you and Malik can agree to, that is probably best. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question for Protonk - How do you think authorship should be attributed in the infobox? — GabeMc (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Honestly? "Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley", no wikilinks, but a footnote explaining that the authorship is a disputed topic with multiple interpretations. It is hard to write such a note without running afoul of SELFREF, but I think it is both possible and necessary. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree to "Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley", no wikilinks, but a footnote explaining that the authorship is a disputed topic with multiple interpretations." in the infobox — GabeMc (talk)

With the caveat that we attribute the book exactly as the actual title page does, Title: "The Autobiography of Malcolm X", Author Attribution : "with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley." Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not exactly what the title page says, no more, no less? — GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I think this passage should be included: "...The nature of writing biography or autobiography or any kind of writing means that Haley's promise to Malcolm, his intent to be a "dispassionate chronicler," is a matter of disguising, not removing, his authorial presence."(Wideman, p.105) immediately after the bit about "including everything Malcolm X wanted to include and nothing he had not said." — GabeMc (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try to better organize your comments. Here are my responses, in roughly the same order as your comments:

1. Why do you persist in erasing Malcolm X's agency from the lede?
2. Is there any particular reason to repeat language from the article, word for word, in the lede?
3. Since we're dealing with what people have written about the relationship between the two men, why exclude Marable's view?
4. If you want to mention the epilogue, write something about it.
5. I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.
6. Changing "relationship" to "collaboration" in the heading seems like a reasonable suggestion.

   On second thought, it's probably better to remove the noun altogether, since the first sentence of that section includes the word "collaborate".

7. Quoting verbatim from sources is a sign of a poor Wikipedia editor. I've already included that, in my own words.

I think that covers everything. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you find these reponses to your comments better organized. Here they are, in roughly the same order as your comments:

1. I'm not, I'm trying to restore Haley's agency, which you removed in this series of edits, (note the vague edit summaries), look here, here, then here.
2. The language used to be in the lede, and it worked fine. "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."
3. It's not appropriate to introduce new contentious content not related to the current content dispute IMHO, maybe Protonk could speak to that issue. As far as, "why exclude Marable's view": Look Here, it's an article written by Marable where he twice calls Haley the co-author of the Autobiography. That was one of the original sources I offered back on June 25, 2010. So yeah Malik, good question, "why exclude Marable's view"?
4. The lede used to mention it in a consise way, and again, it worked fine the way it was before someon deleted it, but sure, I would be happy to write a short description of the epilogue.
5. I'm not sure what you are referring to.
6. "Malcolm X and Alex Haley" is better than "relationship between".
7. The inclusion of select quotes from noted scholars in not "a sign of a poor Wikipedia editor". Please read: WP:QUOTE, WP:MOSQUOTE, WP:CITE. Also, since you often refer to other Wiki pages, here you can see extensive verbatim quoting of sources at Malcolm X, Alex Haley, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Stokely Carmichael, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Margaret Sanger, Gloria Steinem, Mother Teresa and Barack Obama.

You missed the question about ghostwriter wikilinks popping up in the future. — GabeMc (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think the article "worked fine" before my series of edits, do me a favor and revert it to that piece of shit. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I mentioned a couple of specific text-strings that "worked fine", I did not intend to imply that I think "the whole article was fine", the article is much improved because of your efforts, and was indeed a stub before you began improving it. — GabeMc (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could clarify which part of this trainwreck "worked fine the way it was": "The Autobiography of Malcolm X (ISBN 0-345-35068-5) was written by Alex Haley between 1964 and 1965, as told to him through conversations with Malcolm conducted shortly before Malcolm X's death (and with an epilogue after it), and published in 1965." That's the concise mention of the appendix in the lede you referred to. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This was the link I provided above. — GabeMc (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik, can you please find one thing we can agree on, you have been arguring for 40 days without any sign of giving on any points and I am one step away from mediation, so if you wanna start working together fine, otherwise, I will request mediation and a solution will be forced on both of us. I have begun my own draft, since I think working with you on yours will prove too tedious. — GabeMc (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

At least address the Manning Marable article I cited above. Which one of you is wrong, Marable, or Shabazz? Is this your strategy, to be impossible and not bend on any points no matter how small? — GabeMc (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to introduce a suggestion that Haley was an FBI informant unless it is corroborated by some serious evidence. The FBI did surveil Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad, so paranoia among them and their colleagues was well founded; however, I don't see much independent coverage of the claim that Haley was an informant. I'll look at the article a bit closer. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Protonk, the corroborating evidence aside, assuming it exists, is this an appropriate time to introduce contentious material? — GabeMc (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is curious that once again, the source Malik is using, this time for the "FBI informant" claim, Black Routes to Islam by Manning Marable and Hishaam D. Aidi, calls Haley, "co-author of the Autobiography" on page 307. — GabeMc (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question - Where in the Joe Wood book does it call Haley a ghostwriter? Here Cornell West says the book was "by Alex Haley". — GabeMc (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'll get an answer to the Joe Wood question, but keep in mind that it was an edited volume with a number of different perspectives. As for the controversial claim itself, off the cuff I don't think it should be added, but I'll have a more firm opinion after I read the sources. Back, for a moment, to the 'ghostwriter' question. there are a number of sources which say everything but the word ghostwriter. Carol Ohmann wrote an article on the Autobiography as a Franklin-style autobiography and dispenses with any question of Haley's agency in a footnote. Her entire piece leans on the notion of Malcolm as sole or dominant voice and she does not consider intermediation. I don't mean to single her out, she's not alone among contemporary scholars in their treatment (though, as you have pointed out above, maybe not in the majority). But I bring it up as a case where a source intimates Haley is a ghostwriter but doesn't say it out loud. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As per the Carol Ohmann article, how is her article any different then the "sources which call him a co-author don't give justification for the claim". Also, she does not call him a ghostwriter, and she assumes that after Malcolm X was murdered, that Haley did not finish the book as he saw proper, versus trying to keep a promise to Malcolm X, which is assumptive and not verifiable. Betty Shabazz called Haley "the collaborating writer of his autobiography" and suggested he may have fabricated material "after Malcolm's death".

Further, who is Carol Ohmann anyway, to have the final word in 1970, and why would we strain to justify Haley as a ghostwriter from her article when The New York Times called him a co-author in 1970, and a collaborator in 1992? The Carol Ohmann article is absolutley smothered by a vast multitude of sources that say otherwise. Look at the arguement, ghostwriter is inferred from her footnote, come on, one footnote from an obscure writer, in one article does not make Haley a ghostwriter. Plus, it's such an obscure reference, try finding a copy of the actual article — GabeMc (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't pick her out because she's vocal on the subject. I picked her out as an example of the common reference you and Malik are wielding in those vast multitudes. Though she does spend some time in that footnote ostensibly making the case for Haley being a ghostwriter, it is more likely that she is only passing along information she believes to be true. No critical analysis of the authorship problem was undertaken in the Ohmann piece, and this is true for most of the sources I have seen. As I said at the very beginning of the RfC, the sources which are valuable are those which speak directly and critically to the problem. Protonk (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ohmann source is Malik's original source that he has used to revert me and support ghostwriter since June 25, though it was contributed to the discussion by Sareck on June 23 . Here is another Jstor source that refutes it's claim of the Franklin Tradition. — GabeMc (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Noted Scholars

Protonk, I understand what you mean about "where a source intimates Haley is a ghostwriter but doesn't say it out loud", but what about when numerous scholars do not mince words and flat out consider Haley an author. Why are we stretching to prove he was a ghostwriter dispite a multitude of scholarly sources that suggest he was an author?

• Cornell West

• Manning Marable and here

• Michael Eric Dyson

Above are three preeminent scholars who consider the work co-authored. — GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to pick on you, but that Cornel West link is exactly what I am talking about when I say that most of the huge volumes of sources presented on either side present an uncritical or shallow claim. West says Haley wrote the autobiography in one sentence of a one page introduction to a biography of another man who happened to be in Autobiography. That isn't compelling at all. All a source like that lets me do is count it. Protonk (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You aren't picking on me, you are right, the references, in and of themselves, often seem like an "uncritical or shallow claim". But the ones above were written by academic geniuses and highly respected scholars of African American history, who have researched, and debated, and contemplated the subject for decades, not Carol Ohmann, or GabeMc, or Malik Shabazz, or Protonk. Yes, some examples are comments in passing, but do you really think Cornell West, or Michael Dyson, or Manning Marable didn't think carefully about how to attribute authorship when mentioning the Autobiography in print? Don't you think they chose their words carefully, and with some scholarly preparation when commenting on their hero's book in writing? Those "uncritical or shallow claims" above show the short-hand conclusions made after decades of scholarship by some of America's leading African American hitorians. Why do they need to go into great depth for you to believe they view the work as co-authored, and why do you assume they had not looked into the subject great detail before they made their comments in print? — GabeMc (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well now I am going to pick on you. :) That line from cornell west is useless. It is less content than the Ohmann footnote and does not speak to the book itself. I'm sure West has strong reasoned opinions about the authorship problem and obviously we should defer to those, but we don't have evidence of that, at least not directly. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"That line from cornell west is useless" - Do you feel the same way about the article written by Manning Marable? — GabeMc (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What about African American lives by Henry Louis Gates and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, where they cite the book as "Malcolm X and Alex Haley"? Again, two preminent scholars who chose to attribute authorship in a particular way, in this case, the book says: "Haley's first important book, The Autobiography of Malcolm X...was Haley's artistic creation" (p. 367), and "Malcolm X and Alex Haley, The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1999)" (p. 555)

How about these pages from The Michael Eric Dyson Reader, Michael Eric Dyson, a noted scholar disussing Malcolm X at length, and calling Haley a coauthor.

Protonk, per the Cornel West reference being an "uncritical or shallow claim", and "I'm sure West has strong reasoned opinions about the authorship problem and obviously we should defer to those, but we don't have evidence of that, at least not directly."

Actually, there is much direct evidence that West has studied Malcolm X. And while the sources listed below do not delve into the authorship of the book per se, it is clear that Cornell West has read as many sources as we have.

• Chapter 8 of Race Matters is called "Malcolm X and Black Rage", and while the chapter does not delve into authorship, it shows a certain depth of understanding about the man, and was included in the Joe Wood book.

• Malcolm X is discussed at some length in Prophesy deliverance!: an Afro-American revolutionary Christianity by Cornel West.

• In his memoir.

• Malcolm is covered in great detail in The African-American Century: How Black Americans Have Shaped Our Country by Henry Louis Gates and Cornel West.

• In Struggles in the promised land: toward a history of Black-Jewish relations by Jack Salzman and Cornel West.

• In Cornel West: a critical reader by George Yancy and Cornel West.

• Cornel West contributed a chapter to the famous Joe Wood edited volume.

Why then can we not assume, that noted scholars Cornel West, Manning Marable, Michael Eric Dyson, Henry Louis Gates and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham have researched Malcolm X at least as well as Carol Ohmann, or GabeMc, or Malik Shabazz, or Protonk? Why are we better suited to attribute authorship then they are? The specific choice of how they attribute authorship is not "uncritical or shallow", simply because they don't proceed to discuss in depth about the authorship, and to assume that multiple preeminent scholars all made the same incorrect and uninformed claim is ridiculous. — GabeMc (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at these sources yet Protonk?

• De/colonizing the subject: the politics of gender in women's autobiography By Sidonie Smith, Julia Watson
• Autobiographical occasions and original acts: versions of American identity ... By Albert E. Stone
• Pillar of fire: America in the King years, 1963-65, Volume 1998, Part 2 By Taylor Branch
• R.E.A.L: the Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature. I By Herbert Grabes, Hans-Jürgen Diller, Hans Bungert
• A fatherless child: autobiographical perspectives on African American men By Tara T. Green
• Vulnerable subjects: ethics and life writing By G. Thomas Couser
• The margins of the text By David C. Greetham
• African Americans and Jews in the twentieth century: studies in convergence ... By Vincent P. Franklin
• The well-educated mind: a guide to the classical education you never had By S. Wise Bauer — GabeMc (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Again. That line is useless. It is a single sentence clause in a foreward to an unrelated book. Would you feel comfortable basing a contentious claim on it on the fact that the speaker is (inarguably) authoritative? Also, and I really don't want to be rude, but I can't read every source you throw out. Can you just tell me which of the above say more than the text string "collaborated w/ Alex Haley"? It is what I have been asking for since I first made a comment on the RfC. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"That line from cornell west is useless" - Do you feel the same way about this article written by Malcolm X scholar Manning Marable?

All nine of the above sources "say more than the text string, "collaborated w/ Alex Haley". — GabeMc (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Protonk, I didn't mean to annoy you. I don't need to list any more sources here. But those nine above are what, I think, you asked us to find, so I spent many, many hours of my valuable time researching and I found them, and listed them above for your easy access. I was just trying to get a handle on what sources you do approve of. I won't list more sources here if it is not helping, but it would be helpful if we could come to some agreement on which sources should be used in the ideal draft. — GabeMc (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean, I made my preferred type of source abundantly clear in the edit which proposed a solution to the RfC in form of you and Malik choosing one source to best represent your position. You chose an authoritative source (The Oxford companion) which provided only one sentence of comment (unless we include the bit about the foreword where must assume they mean epilogue). In fairness, Malik made the same type of choice and further, finding the kind of source I wanted takes time and energy. It took me a day to find one and I had access to a university library. And after a long discussion we are still working w/ authoritative sources making brief claims in pieces where those claims are tangential to the work. As for the Marable article (A better link is here), what part of the article speaks to the question at hand? I don't doubt that Marable writes "co-authored with Alex Haley", but that is a statement of identification. Later in the article he mentions Malcolm and Haley's correspondence being of historical importance as well as the personal recollections of Haley. We can infer from this (we would be correct, in my opinion) that these statements perhaps indicate Marable's opinion about Haley's role in the book. But they could just as easily support the opinion that Marable felt Haley kept outstanding notes on his interviews. I won't belabor the point, but what I'm looking for are sources which have at least three contiguous sentences referring to the authorship. Preferably one of these sentences would include a novel fact about the relationship between the two men which couldn't be gleaned by a cursory reading of the epilogue, but that might be asking too much. The reason for this admittedly arbitrary preference is that we are staking claims in our tertiary source based on interpretive or deductive claims made in secondary sources. We ought to be able to convince ourselves that those secondary sources are in fact making those claims and not just passing them along. And none of this is a requirement. I'm here (hopefully) as someone without a vested interest and with a willingness to push for compromise. I'm not here to judge consensus (a traditional RfC close, which might be considered binding) because there isn't any to judge. I know it is frustrating and difficult to work with me but if we all bear with it the article can be improved and can be stable. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you 100%, I have already spent so many hours searching for that source, and as far as I can tell by your feedback, I have not produced any usable sources, so I must not be the right person for that particular task. I am sure they are right there in plain sight on Google, or Amazon, but I couldn't find them, or I didn't look in the right place. Protonk, is there anyway you, could find a few sources that meet your criteria, and then suggest to me, which ones to use in my draft? It would be most helpful to have a few agreed upon sources.

Challenge - Protonk, or Malik, produce reliable sources that meet Protonk's criteria above, and describes Malcom X as the author.

Challenge - Protonk, or Malik, produce reliable sources that meet Protonk's criteria above, and describes Alex Haley as the ghostwriter?

Please explain the difference, I must be missing something here, you seem perfectly at ease calling Malcolm X the primary author, and Haley a ghostwriter, with none of the articulated sources you demand to "restore" Haley to author. Please explain how is this not an inconsistancy in due dilligance? — GabeMc (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, in the draft I am working on, I am giving my best effort to present as well-rounded, verifiable, and accurate account of the "collaboration" as is possible based on the sources available today. — GabeMc (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I became the monster. First, I thought I did provide sources that met the criteria I described above which treated Haley as a core collaborator who took pains to act as an invisible figure in the writing of the biography. In fact I know I did because not only did I cite those sources I quoted from them at length. Second, we have basically the same outlook on the desired end content for the article. Haley is basically a co-author, Malcolm X demanded what was essentially a ghostwriter, public and scholarly view at the time of the book treated Haley as an invisible figure, but it has become more common over time for sources to critically or reflexively treat Haley as a de facto coauthor. I assume from your assent to those points in isolation that you wouldn't be averse to them being in the article in concert. Where I am pushing back against you is the issue of sourcing. A contentious issue like this must be sourced appropriately so that the reader can draw their conclusions not only about the underlying issue but about how the issue was resolved in the text. We should strive to link to informative, critical resources which directly address the relavent portion of our tertiary text. We should strive to avoid citations to perfunctory comments from authoritative sources because all that empowers future readers and editors to do is say "Well Cornell West said X" and "Other less regarded scholar said !X", resolving the dispute by measuring the relative regard of the speakers (or if there are multiple speakers per side measure some weighted average). That's a bad way to produce a tertiary source. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A specific look at the sourcing Gabe provides

Sorry for dismissing some of the above sources in the same breath as the West comment.

In R.E.A.L: the Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature. I there are several compelling sections, but frustratingly, critical pages are unavailable from google books. Specifically p 256-257 discuss Haley's insertion of conceit into the book, but these pages follow from 2 missing pages which clearly discuss the collaboration in more depth. Likewise p. 247 introduces the depth of collaboration required to distill Malcolm's persona into the autobiography but the immediately following page is missing. So there is much to be gleaned, but also we should be wary.

By contrast, Carol Boyce Davies' article on "Collaboration and the Ordering Imperative in Life Story Production" is largely full text and very relevant to our discussion. She mentions specifically the difficulties of producing a single autobiographical tone from an interview (shades of Wideman). The bulk of the article refers to the general process of collaborative texts and autobiographies, but her perspective is helpful nonetheless. Note also, supporting Malik's argument, her paragraph on the top of page 8.

Vulnerable subjects: ethics and life writing is probably not something I would quote in the article, although it does cover the basic ideas we are struggling with. The subject of the essay is on writers and vulnerable subjects, an example being on 38-39. The singular voice produced from a collaborative effort appears similar to Haley and Malcolm, but don't think that we would describe Malcolm as incapable of producing a similar text (As the example on 38-29 was). 44-47 talk about "as told to" celebrity autobiographies, but i'm hesitant to treat Malcolm X in the same way we would treat Rod Stewart. 49-50 provides a serious discussion of ghostwritten autobiographies, but I would argue that the author takes a narrow and negative view of the process of ghostwriting.

I don't have much time for " Fatherless child: autobiographical perspectives on African American men" (ch. III). The first few pages offer a short review of some critical scholarship on the autobiography, but then the author abandons this premise and treats the autobiography in the same way Perry treated Malcolm--as a Freudian complaint about fatherhood.

The margins of the text pages 45-47 demand to be read in their entirety. Partially because they support Marable's critical view of Haley but partially because they offer a clear portrayal of how a ghostwriter may have been transformed into a co-author, with only the tacit approval of the subject.

"The Portrayal of Jews in The Autobiography of Malcolm X" doesn't add much to the conversation. The title and opening paragraphs are tantalizing, but the author raises the prospect of a clouded shared narrative as the source of moderation in Jewish portrayal, then ignores it.

"The well-educated mind: a guide to the classical education you never had" is blunt, but falls into the category of far too short and too matter-of-fact.

All in all, the preponderance of these sources are very helpful. Protonk (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

arb break II

You are not the monster, I'm sorry if my tone seemed to imply that I though you are, I don't. I get it, and, as you point out above, we are entirely in agreement. I concede, the West comment is meaningless, I will only link to "informative, critical resources which directly address the relavent portion of our tertiary text". — GabeMc (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S., I am taking everything you have said into great consideration in writing my draft, and want to include all of your suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S.S., if you happen across any other sources that are worth mentioning, please let me know. — GabeMc (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have some errands to run at the school on Monday so I will be back in the library again there. And by then I should have read Malik's upload of Marable's book. Hopefully I'll have some more info on the subject. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Protonk. Your hard work will pay off when the article is the best there is on the subject! I know you can't read all my sources, but I am interested to know what you think about this one, pages 231-264, if you have the time to read it, I think it is exactly what we are looking for. — GabeMc (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oooohhh. That one lets me tax the interlibrary loan system! Protonk (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Aww, its in the catalog at my library. I'll look at it tomorrow morning Protonk (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll also want to check out Eugene Victor Wolfenstein's The Victims of Democracy: Malcolm X and the Black Revolution, it's available on Google, full view. — GabeMc (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Arb. Break

Well, because in my opinion, at least, he both played the role of ghostwriter while malcolm was alive and he was treated as one in terms of the narrative constructed by a Malcolm around the book as well as a number of black scholars. Some of whom don't mince words and call it ghostwritten, but the majority consider Haley to have been at least a co-author. I haven't read those three sources yet (I will), but I will say that the preponderance of sources which call him a co-author don't give justification for the claim. And my conclusion above is that the claim is contested. We aren't setting out to 'prove' Haley was a ghostwriter, or I'm not. We are trying to get a handle on the full picture, part of that picture being that a non-trivial narrative of authorship was built around Malcolm necessarily diminishing opinion of Haley's work. That needs to be reported in an article about the book. Doing so isn't easy. the fact that we are having these discussions now is testament to that. But we ought to do it. One final note (well, final for this comment!). While I insist that we say and wikilink "ghostwriter", I also insist that we help readers understand that part of Haley's power in composing this work was to disguise his voice (as the Wideman article notes, along with Rampersad and Dyson). Haley the author helped the world see the book as though it were Malcolm speaking. that's where the other part of my insistence comes from. That we treat Haler as a co-author and collaborator because strong evidence exists he performed those functions. I know I am repeating myself from the summary above, but the balance of those two points is crucial in my mind. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am working on a draft of my own, with several scholarly sources on the way, and I am taking your points into great consideration. I strongly disagree with linking to ghostwriter. It is my opinion that Haley was in actuality, a co-author and collaborator who also performed the functions of a ghostwriter. — GabeMc (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'm of basically the same opinion (with some notable but small diffs). But wikilinks aren't endorsements or judgments. If we had a sentence which stated "Haley was a co-author of the book but undertook many of the functions of a ghostwriter", we aren't endorsing everything on the other end of that wikilink. And we want to build the web. If this article makes people think about what is and isn't a ghostwriter or what is and isn't an author function, then we ought to point them to those article so they may explore and improve them. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you Protonk, and I think the text string, "Haley was a co-author of the book but undertook many of the functions of a ghostwriter", gets right to the heart of what is verifiable, by multiple scholarly sources, but I would be absolutely shocked if Malik would agree to anything like that. — GabeMc (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Black Routes to Islam

• The Marable book looks interesting but isn't in my library. Do either you or Malik have a copy? Protonk (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have the Marable book. Portions of it may be available through Google books — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Which Marable book? — GabeMc (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Black Routes to Islam. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I've uploaded Marable's chapter of Black Routes to Islam here (PDF format). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malik, most helpful. — GabeMc (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read it tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

From Marable's chapter of Black Routes to Islam

• "the actual mechanics of the Haley-Malcolm X collaboration"
• "like the coauthored Autobiography"
• "Haley’s sometimes-weekly private commentary with McCormick about the laborious process of composing the book."
• "In late 1963, Haley was particularly worried about what he viewed as Malcolm X’s anti-Semitism. He therefore rewrote material to eliminate a number of negative statements about Jews in the book manuscript, with the explicit covert goal of “getting them past Malcolm X,” without his coauthor’s knowledge or consent."
• "the materials of Alex Haley, coauthor of the Autobiography, used in preparing the book" — GabeMc (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said above, these references may seem like "uncritical or shallow claims", but they were made with great thought, with copyeditors, editors, publishers, researchers, fact checkers, etc, and with the whole of Malcolm X scholarship at their finger tips. They are well informed opinions from a preemient scholar, and his publisher. — GabeMc (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to list some pulled quotes here for the three of us to look at. I'll quote at length outside of article space, so I hope you'll forgive me for bending the NFC policy.

Nearly everyone writing about Malcolm X largely, with remarkably few exceptions, accepted as fact most, if not all, of the chronology of events and personal experiences depicted in the Autobiography’s narrative. Few authors checked the edited, published “transcripts” of Malcolm X’s speeches as presented in Malcolm X Speaks and By Any Means Necessary against the actual tape recordings of those speeches or the transcribed excerpts of the same talks recorded by the FBI. Every historian worth her or his salt knows that “memoirs” like the Autobiography are inherently biased. They present a representation of the subject that privileges certain facts, while self-censuring others. There are deliberate omissions, the chronological reordering of events, and name changes.

Our express use for the above quote is limited. In general it supports my claim that too much of the contemporary scholarly record assumes that the Autobiography is veritable truth, devoid of any influence by Malcolm or Haley. But I think using it too broadly is a bit of a synthesis. I do like it though. I think we will have to rely on Malik to recover pagination. I found this on 7/17 of the pdf.

But the first, most original, and most talented revisionist of Malcolm X was Malcolm X himself. I slowly began to realize that Malcolm X continuously and astutely refashioned his outward image, artfully redesigning his public style and even language to facilitate overtures to different people in varied contexts and yet beneath the multiple layers of reinvention, who was he? Was the powerful impact of his short thirty-nine years of existence actually grounded in what he had really accomplished, or based on the unfulfilled promise of what he might have become? Malcolm X is memorialized by millions of Americans largely because of the Autobiography, which is today a standard text of American literature. But was Malcolm’s hajj to Mecca in April 1964, the dramatic turning point of the Auto- biography, the glorious epiphany Malcolm claimed it was at the time, and that virtually all other interpreters of him have uncritically accepted? Was this spiritual metamorphosis, the embracing of color blindness, and the public denouncing of Elijah Muhammad’s sexual misconduct all just part of the political price he was now prepared to pay to gain entry into the Civil Rights Movement’s national leadership? Was this not the final “reincarnation” the necessary role change for El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz to reach inside the court of the Saudi royal family and to gain access to the corridors of governmental power throughout the newly independent nations of Africa and Asia?

A bit more direct on the subject, but we will see later in the article that Marable sets this aside somewhat in favor of the notion that Haley played a large role in toning down Malcolm's image. 8/17

One folder in Romaine’s papers includes the “raw materials” used to construct Chapter 16 of the Autobiography. Here, I found the actual mechanics of the Haley-Malcolm X collaboration. Malcolm X apparently would speak to Haley in “free style”; it was left to Haley to take hundreds of sentences into paragraphs and then appropriate subject areas. Malcolm also had a habit of scribbling notes to himself as he spoke. Haley learned to pocket these sketchy notes and later reassemble them, integrating the conscious with subconscious reflections into a workable narrative. Although Malcolm X retained final approval of their hybrid text, he was not privy to the actual editorial processes superimposed from Haley’s side. Chapters the two men had prepared were sometimes split and restructured into other chapters. These details may appear mundane and insignificant. But considering that Malcolm’s final “metamorphosis” took place in 1963 through 1965, the exact timing of when individual chapters were produced takes on enormous importance.

This is an excellent description of the process I think happened. It is also corroborated by Rampersad and Wideman. And hopefully it will provide our path for compromise on treating seriously the agency of Malcolm X in the Autobiography. 13/17

The Library of Congress held the answers. Doubleday’s corporate papers are now housed there. This collection includes the papers of Doubleday’s then-executive editor, Kenneth McCormick, who had worked closely with Haley for several years as the Autobiography had been constructed. As in the Romaine papers, I found more evidence of Haley’s sometimes-weekly private commentary with McCormick about the laborious process of composing the book. These Haley letters of marginalia contained some crucial, never previously published intimate details about Malcolm’s personal life. They also revealed how several attorneys retained by Doubleday closely monitored and vetted entire sections of the controversial text in 1964, demanding numerous name changes, the reworking and deletion of blocks of paragraphs, and so forth. In late 1963, Haley was particularly worried about what he viewed as Malcolm X’s anti-Semitism. He therefore rewrote material to eliminate a number of negative statements about Jews in the book manuscript, with the explicit covert goal of “getting them past Malcolm X,” without his coauthor’s knowledge or consent. Thus, the censorship of Malcolm X had begun well prior to his assassination.

14/17 I like this part mostly because it includes the confounding factor of the publisher, one of my points in the original big summary. I'm not beneath a little preening. :) But more generally these passages support an argument that Malcolm X asked for a ghostwriter but got a co-author, even without his knowledge or consent. the resulting text was not only different from what Marable thought Malcolm would have written but different from what may have actually been said in the meetings between Haley and Malcolm. I'm a little nervous about the lack of access to original documentation, but Marable is reliable and there isn't much we can do on that front. As for the discussion about including Haley's possible role as an FBI informant, I'm inclined to say it should stay out of the article on the book but might be included in the article on Haley himself. Take that with a grain of salt, though. I haven't read the sources Marable cites to support his claims on Haley's status. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Marable is likely the most respected scholar who has also reasearched the subject in great detail, and having seen original parts of the manuscript, he has a uniquely informed perspective of the book's writing process. A very helpful source indeed. I look forward to his upcoming bio, where I assume he will critically address the books authorial agency in detail. Your points are not lost on me, and they will be integrated into my draft. I found this passage from Black Routes to Islam interesting:

In late 1963, Haley was particularly worried about what he viewed as Malcolm X’s anti-Semitism. He therefore rewrote material to eliminate a number of negative statements about Jews in the book manuscript, with the explicit covert goal of “getting them past Malcolm X,” without his coauthor’s knowledge or consent.

The passage is interesting to me not because of the claims of anti-semitism, but because it shows Haley as a significant influence on the book's prevailing ideology. — GabeMc (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A significant but sub rosa influence, though. :) Protonk (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sub rosa in the sense that the book could well have been credited as "by Malcolm X and Alex Haley", but Marable does suggest Haley's ideologies had some influence on the image of Macolm X portrayed in the book. I suggest that the example above played a significant impact on the book's popularity, and acceptance in mainstream literature. It's difficult for me to imagine the same book as assigned reading for college freshmen if it included the anti-semitic passages Malcolm wanted it to. As it reads now, the Autobiography portrays a general paranoia and distrust of white people, but it does not commit to anti-semitism per se, something entirely different, and something Haley had a significant role in "toning down", according to Marable. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As per Haley and the FBI. Look at this interview with Marable on Democracy Now!. He details the FBI claim a bit. — GabeMc (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully we three can agree to punt that discussion to Haley's article. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%, while the FBI claims are notable, they should be discussed in Haley's article, not the Autobiography's. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik to Gabe

Stop. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gabe, let me make a few things clear to you: I don't need to see the word "ghostwriter" to understand that a writer is describing somebody as a ghostwriter; it may be clear from their description of the two men's relationship. I truly pity you if you are so literal-minded that you cannot think for yourself. By the same token, the words "co-author" or "collaborator" are devoid of meaning. They tell me nothing about the relationship between Malcolm X and Alex Haley. I won't reply to your witless questions ("Which one of you is wrong, Marable, or Shabazz?"). I'm sorry you feel working with my draft would be "tedious", but at least I made an effort to write something. You wrote... nothing. Because, as you acknowledged, you learned nothing from what Protonk wrote. Come to think of it, I probably won't reply to you at all until you finish your draft. Good night. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I do understand when the source is inferring Haley was a "ghostwriter", but if you edit by inference, without the preponderance of secondary sources actually saying it, then you are likely attempting to insert a synthesis, which violates WP:ORIGINAL. "the words "co-author" or "collaborator" are devoid of meaning". "Well, that's like, your opinion man." -The Dude That is a response to your comment here I would have written something before if I thought it had a snowball's chance of you agreeing to any of it, but now I don't need you to agree, I just need a mediator to agree, something I am quite sure I can do given some time to pour over sources and edit. If my draft is well presented and accurate, and superior in balance and scholarly accuracy, it will eventually prevail. I am just trying to inprove the article, you are welcome to participate, or not participate, either way, the article will be improved. — GabeMc (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)