Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:35, 3 August 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Autobiography of Malcolm X article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] African diaspora Mid‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Autobiography of Malcolm X article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

On crediting Haley as a co-author of the Autobiography of Malcolm X

Support, I say the book should be credited as a co-authored work, specifically "The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a 1965 book by human rights activist Malcolm X co-authored by Alex Haley.". GabeMc (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The truth is, he's the author, and that's what this article correctly said for 6 years before Malik Shabazz decided for the entire community that Malcolm X wrote the book.Mk5384 (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose because there are abundant reliable sources that show the book attributed to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley", and none that attribute the book to "Malcolm X co-authored by Alex Haley". — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

None? It seems quite a few have been listed for you above.Mk5384 (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out the one that says specifically that the book was written "by Malcolm X co-authored by Alex Haley", as GabeMc would like the article to say. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that he has already pointed out a few of them. You know my position. The truth is, Malcolm X didn't write one word of this book, which you very well know.Mk5384 (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't pointed out any. He's pointed out articles that describe Haley as co-author, but that's not the same thing.

And it doesn't matter what I know or don't know. It matters what reliable sources say. (Read WP:V.) On Thursday I asked you to show me a Misplaced Pages article about an autobiography that credited the ghostwriter as the author instead of the putative author. I'm still waiting. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would an admin, of all people, request one Misplaced Pages article as a source for another. That's not permitted. And, per WP:RS, "mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable". "That's not the same thing" is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, and utter nonsense.Mk5384 (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, as a compromise, whilst noting that the truth of the matter is that Alex Haley is the sole author.Mk5384 (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems the original source for "assisted by" was the books original title, not it's original author attribution/copywrite. The book was originally copywrited to Alex Haley and Malcolm X . The title was later changed to "as told to", a more accurate phrase considering Malcolm did not physically write a single word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph let alone the entire book without a co-author.--GabeMc (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing what it says on the cover with its attribution. Until the mid- to late-1970s, the cover didn't mention Alex Haley at all. Then it started mentioning him, because Roots made him famous. First the cover said, per the attribution, "with the assistance of Alex Haley". Later the cover was changed to "as told to Alex Haley". I'll bet you've never seen a copy whose cover—or any page in the book, for that matter—says "co-authored by Alex Haley".

You still haven't explained why the 1110 Google Book hits that attribute the book's authorship to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley" are wrong. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at The Library of Congress , you will see that the original copywrited title said "with the assistance of" the first page of the book says "Copywrite 1964 by Alex Haley and Malcolm X, then Copywrite 1965 by Alex Haley and Betty Shabazz" .

So does that mean Betty Shabazz co-wrote the book as well? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear Malik, are you arguing that Haley was a writer with a primary copywrite credit but not a co-author?GabeMc (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What is a "primary copywrite credit"? His name may have come first because of alphabetical order. The royalties were split evenly between Haley and Betty Shabazz.

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 /_Stalk 23:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear Malik, are you saying that while Malcolm X himself did not physically write a single word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph with his own hand he did author the entire book without a co-author? GabeMc (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that reliable sources attribute the book to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley". — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Find a single WP:RS that makes reference to the Autobiography and uses that phrase as its attribution"-User:Malik Shabazz

• The New York Times
• The Oxford companion to twentieth-century literature in English
• The oral history reader By Robert Perks, Alistair Thomson
• Civil Rights Movement: People and Perspective… by Michael Ezra, page 173: "written by Alex Haley"
• Voices of Freedom: An Oral History of the Civil Rights Movement by Henry Hampton, Steve Fayer page 668 lists Haley as the author
• DATABASE: Library of Congress Online Catalog considers him an author on the book and the entry seems to make it clear that the phrase "with assistance from" is an object in the original title, not an official publishers credit per se.

GabeMc (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the phrase that the book is by "Malcolm X, co-authored by Alex Haley"? Nowhere. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

By contrast, nearly all 1,110 of these books cite the autobiography's authorship as "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"

— Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Jet Jan 27, 1997 says, "He inked the bestseller Queen, co-authored The Autobiography of Malcolm X.
• Alex Haley: The Man Who Traced America's Roots states: "It was Haley who co-authored the controversial bestseller The Autobiography of Malcolm X" Black
• World/Negro Digest Jan 1976 says, "Alex Haley, co-author of The Autobiography..."GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Still don't see the magic phrase you want to put in the article. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"By contrast, nearly all 1,110 of these books cite the autobiography's authorship as "Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley."

Those hits are coming up because that is the original title of the book, as evidenced at The library of Congress.GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is from The Library of Congress: "Main Title: The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley." That is the official original title of the book. So yeah, if I Google the title of a book I will get 1,200 hits. GabeMc (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Still don't see the magic phrase you want to put in the article."

Look here GabeMc (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On page 444 of The Heath Anthology of American Literature it says this: "...the Autobiography of Malcolm X (1965), co- authored by Alex Haley".GabeMc (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"his autobiography, co-authored by Alex Haley." GabeMc (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Autobiography of Malcolm X. The book, which was co-authored by Alex Haley"--GabeMc (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

From the Cleveland Institute of Art: "along with books such as The Autobiography of Malcolm X , co-authored by Alex Haley" GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Look on the first page"...Malcolm X wrote in his 1964 autobiography, co-authored by Alex Haley."GabeMc (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't produced a single source that rivals this, which cites the book as having been written by "Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley". Or this. Or this. Nice try, though. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 00:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

All three of your examples were texts citing the title of the book, none of them are using that phrase in a sentence as mine are. That phrase is verbatim from the title, and is not someone referring to the book that way.

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 /_Stalk 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"the book, which was co-authored by Alex Haley" "...the autobiography co-authored by Alex Haley" "...The Autobiography of Malcolm X, co-authored by Alex Haley" "The Autobiography of Malcolm X (co-authored by Alex HaleyGabeMc (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"from The Autobiography of Malcolm X, co-authored by Alex Haley" GabeMc (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Autobiography of Malcolm X, co-authored by Alex Haley" GabeMc (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) "The Autobiography of Malcolm X, co-authored by Alex Haley" GabeMc (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC) --GabeMc (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are ten MORE sources that refer to Haley as the co-author of The Autobiography of Malcolm X--GabeMc (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't even fathom the level of arrogance required for Malik Shabazz to declare, "This is a closed issue".Mk5384 (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that there is no such thing as a "closed issue", Wiki editors ALWAYS have the ability to open issues as they come, and no one admin can decide the final word on an article. --GabeMc (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. He's just trying to push us around.Mk5384 (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly Sources

Here are five scholarly sources who use the phrase "co-authored by Alex Haley":

Here are five scholarly sources who refer to Haley as a co-author of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

GabeMc (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I also find it extremely troubling that Malik summarily ignores myriad specific examples of WP:RS, in favor of the 1100 google hits he got by typing in a series of words. It is deliberately duplicitous.Mk5384 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is (a) Gabe has been doing nothing more than "typing a series of words" into Google and (b) this is a closed issue. If you don't believe me, ask again at WP:RSN. There is no controversy or question concerning how authorship is attributed in scholarly literature, except in your mind and that of your buddy Gabe. Now drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just at WP:RSN, and don't see anything that says it's a "closed issue". Please stop attempting to bully other users into accepting your word as law. The big, bad admin is the only one wielding a stick here.Mk5384 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I am curious, why are your three sources better then my 20? And one more time I will explain why I think you seem so confused, "with the assistance of Alex Haley" is a phrase FROM THE TITLE OF THE BOOK so your sources are good if you want to confirm the title, nothing more. This is beginning to feel like a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. "All Misplaced Pages content is edited collaboratively. Misplaced Pages contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." --GabeMc (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not three sources, it's 1,110. And no, it's not a quote from the title of the book (and there's no need to shout). It's the way the authorship is attributed in bibliographies and footnotes. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 00:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious why is "this is a closed issue" as you stated, and how is the mocking statement "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass" befitting an admin?--GabeMc (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a closed issue because of the discussion at WP:RSN. One editor said "That pretty much settles it, in my opinion." Another wrote "I gotta agree with him". They were both referring to bibliographic citation of the authorship as "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley". — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are four citations that do not attribute authorship to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley".

"The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley." is not the only title of the book used since 1964, there are more than one version with more than one title, it is an accepted official title. See the TEN WP:RS below that include the phrase "with the assistance of Alex Haley" as PART OF THE TITLE.

• The Library of Congress says the title is: "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley."
• The British Library Integrated Catalog says the title is: "The Autobiography of Malcolm X : with the assistance of Alex Haley."
• The National Library of Australia says the title is: "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley."
• The National Library of Scotland says the title is: "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; with an introduction by Paul Gilroy." It also list Haley as an author.
• The Harvard Libraries says the title is: "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley." Harvard also says Alex Haley is the author.
• Stanford University list the book as: "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; foreword by Attallah Shabazz ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley ; afterword by Ossie Davis." Stanford also gives Haley an author credit.
• Yale University says the title is: "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; foreword by Attallah Shabazz ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley ; afterword by Ossie Davis."
• MIT has the title as: "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; foreword by Attallah Shabazz ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley ; afterword by Ossie Davis." MIT also goves Haley an author credit.
• Oxford University autobiography of malcolm x%22&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3A(%22OX%22) says the title is: "The Autobiography of Macolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley." Oxford also lists Haley as an author.
• The University of Chicago says the title is: "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley ; afterword by Ossie Davis." The University of Chicago also lists Haley as an author. --GabeMc (talk) 03:13, 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.

• autobiography of malcolm x%22&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3A(%22OX%22

GabeMc (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you are leaving out EVERYTHING I have written, and EVERYTHING Mk5384 has said, not to mention one editor said:

and

Also, your editor who said :"I gotta agree with him"--Yoenit (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC), also said:

So it seems like two editors agree with you, while two agree with me, I have shown 27 WP:RS that agree with me, you have shown three pictures of a bibliography that state the title of the book.

How is this "a closed issue"? Explain how this is settled BY CONSENSUS. --GabeMc (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Malik, explain again how "with the assistance of Alex Haley" is NOT A PHRASE from the title of the Autobiography". --GabeMc (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't respond to people who feel the need to shout. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as shouting, I see it as capitalized words in boldface, but fine, I agree to not shout at you. --GabeMc (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So, do you disagree with UCLA, Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, and The University of Chicago, or are these sources not as good as your sources? --GabeMc (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"With the assistance of Alex Haley" is no more part of the title than the phrase "introduction by M.S. Handler".

I asked you earlier, and my challenge still stands: Show me bibliographic references to the Autobiography that attribute the authorship to "Malcolm X, co-authored by Alex Haley" (which is the phrase you want to use in the article). I've shown you three specific examples, and a link to more than a thousand more.

In case you don't understand, I'm talking about the way the authorship of the Autobiography is cited in scholarly papers and in books. (Note: You can tell the difference between the title and the author by italics and commas.) Not what newspapers say, not sentences that Haley co-wrote the book, and not what libraries' card catalogs say.

I've shown you my sources. It's time for you to put up or shut up. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Malik, but you don't get to say, "not what newspapers say." Make that argument at WP:RS-not here.Mk5384 (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I cited four scholarly sources that refer to him as the co-author. --GabeMc (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Authorship

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 /_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 /_Stalk 01:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your source calls Haley an author on the previous page, page 251, , and in it's bibliography, attributes the book to "Malcom X, with Alex Haley", page 629. — 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 /_Stalk 03:08, 1 August 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 /_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 . — 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 /_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 /_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 /_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 /_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 /_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 /_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)

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 /_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 /_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 /_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 /_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 /_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 Misplaced Pages 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 /_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 "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: . — 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 Misplaced Pages 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 /_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 /_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 /_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, "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 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 1992 Ballantine edition attritbutes authorship as a "collaboration"? — GabeMc (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Shakespeare's? 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.

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:

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)

Refs

1. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive
2. Gray, Paul (June 8, 1998). "Required Reading: Nonfiction Books". Time. Retrieved April 25, 2010.
3. Stringer. "The Oxford companion to twentieth-century literature in English". Google Books. {{cite web}}: Text "Jenny" ignored (help); Text "first" ignored (help)
4. Gray, Paul (June 8, 1998). "Required Reading: Nonfiction Books". Time. Retrieved April 25, 2010.
5. I will take some time to go over quote from various sources here, including sources that I know both sides have read. Bear with me
6. Autobiography, p. 445
7. Autobiography, p. 467-468
8. Autobiography, p. 476
9. Dyson, Making Malcolm: The Myth and Meaning of Malcolm X, p. 31
10. Dyson, Making Malcolm: The Myth and Meaning of Malcolm X, p. 23
11. Wideman, in Malcolm X: In Our Own Image, p. 103-104
12. ibid
13. ibid p. 105
14. Rampersad, in Malcolm X: In Our Own Image, p.119
15. Rampersad, p. 119

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)

Ghostwriter

• Ghostwriters typically do not get credit, let alone copyrights to a book, whereas Haley gets both.

• How many ghostwriter's names are as synoymous with the work as Haley is with the Autobiography? To the point that when a Harvard professor assigns the Autobiography for class reading, they include Haley's name on the syllabus.

• How many ghostwritten books could you find over 100 reliable sources referring to the ghostwriter as a co-author?

If this were a ghostwritten autobiography, would Haley's name be such an integral part of the brand, or even mentioned, let alone regularly credited as co-author? — GabeMc (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an absurd and untrue assertion. See Where's the Rest of Me? by Ronald Reagan with Richard G. Hubler, for example. Or your current favorite, Growing Up X by Ilyasah Shabazz with Kim McLarin. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that call Richard G. Hubler a ghostwriter on the Reagan book? How about for Kim McLarin on the Shabazz book? Your links only prove that there are two writers on the biographies, so what are they supposed to be proving about ghostwriters? — GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what a ghostwriter is? Have you read the Misplaced Pages article, particularly the section titled "Remuneration and credit"? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Protonk said, "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." - Protonk (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC) — GabeMc (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

From Ghostwriter:

• "A ghostwriter is a professional writer who is paid to write books, articles, stories, reports, or other texts that are officially credited to another person." (first line)

Anyway, Wiki is not a reliable source, is it? So what is the point of citing it? — GabeMc (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "citing" it, I'm referring you to it because it's clear you have no idea what a ghostwriter is. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Gates has a history of omitting Haley, look here. — GabeMc (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Look here, and here. It not as simple as you would like. — GabeMc (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus version of lede

On June 30, Mk5384 proposed a compromise version of the lede. GabeMc said it would be "the sensible thing to do" and I agreed to it.

Shortly thereafter, Gabe made a similar proposal at my Talk page, which I accepted.

On July 3, I implemented the compromise the three of us had agreed to.

That version stood until July 26, when Gabe unilaterally decided to change it.

I am changing the lede back to the version we agreed upon—wherein we includes Gabe. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that in his June 30 message to me, Gabe specifically included the phrase "Haley ] the book", a phrase he now vehemently rejects. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Malik, the ghostwriter bit was part of a compromise, my end was that Haley was to be credited as a collaborator, which you did not include, here you seem to be claiming that we made an agreement and I backed out, which of course, is the opposite of what happened. — GabeMc (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• "On June 30, Mk5384 proposed a compromise version of the lede."

You didn't implement Mk5384's full suggesion, which included: "It could then explain the differing opinions of authorship, and give examples." The first part added nothing substantive. And did not further the point he argued for over a month, as the second part would have done.

• "GabeMc said it would be "the sensible thing to do".

Malik, you should finish the sentence, that's not what I said, this is: "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."

• "Gabe made a similar proposal at my Talk page, which I accepted."

It was a suggestion, not written in stone, and you failed once again to add the substance of what I had been arguing for a month. My suggestion included: "is a 1965 book, the result of a collaboration". The substance of my suggestion, like Mk5384's, was ignored by you.

Malik, you are edit warring, and I think most sensible editors will be able to tell that by the above discussion. You are taking things out of context, misquoting statments, reverting without regard to sources and consensus, etc.

Not one single editor has supported your view since the RfC tag went up 32 days ago. How do you have consensus? Here are two editors who have agreed with me, , . Who has supported your view, and what sources have you provided since June 28th?

I never came to a consensus with you Mailk, and wishing cannot make it so, but even if I had, I can change my mind 30 days later based on 150+ sources, right? You are not actually claiming that my suggestion on your talk page, which you in substance ignored anyway, was my final and binding opinion that can never be changed, right? — GabeMc (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

9 out of the last 42 edits to this page are you reverting, , how do you have consensus if every fourth edit is you reverting someone else?

Here is what your best supporter, banned user Mk5384, was saying in late June, early July:

• June 28, 2010, , , ,
• June 30, 2010,
• July 1, 2010,
• July 2, 2010, ,
• July 3, 2010, — GabeMc (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

On June 28, three minutes after the RfC tag went up, you said, "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)"

Your very first comment post RfC tag admits that, "Two other editors disagree." Since that time, two more editors disagreed, here, , and here, , and I provided 182 WP:RSs that supported co-authorship, here, . So please explain to me where consensus shifted to your preferred version. — GabeMc (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as having reached consensus, not one single editor has supported your view since the RfC tag went up 33 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." — GabeMc (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• C-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles