Jump to content

Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X/AMX Draft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Be bold, blunt, and honest, I want this article to be as good as it can be

[edit]

Nothing is set in stone, and everything can be changed, I am willing to do whatever it takes to get the article right. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Protonk, I realize that as of now the article is temporarily quote heavy, something I intend to fix with summary. I was hoping you could give me your opinion on which quotes you think "can't be summarized (because they are distilled already or otherwise important to a reader)", ones we should "keep in the body", to support the verifiabliity of the article's claims. — GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk's Comments and Suggestions

[edit]
  • A few more cites from the epilogue might be in order. I see you have them in a section where Haley talks about it, but I think we can insert those into the beginning of the collaboration section. Also the very specific instructions Haley agreed to can go in the late paragraph of Writing the Autobiography, which itself can probably be broken in to two paragraphs.
added specific instructions Haley agreed to the last paragraph of Writing the Autobiography, which I broke in to two paragraphs
inserted cites from the epilogue into the beginning of the collaboration section — GabeMc (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I talk about the sections on scholars, I want to suggest a different organization. Right now you have things broken up by scholarly voice. I suggest that instead you break sections up thematically. Basically Marable talks about Haley (and co.) working against the influence of Malcolm X. Wideman talks about the nature of biography working against the expectation of voiceless narrative. Rampersad talks about (sort of) the nature of the autobiography as deeply important to 20th century blackness, meaning that we tended to treat the book as an extension of Malcolm for political or philosophical reasons, and that attachment should be subject to scrutiny. Dyson talks about (in your quote) Malcolm himself using his authority over Haley in order to control his image--control that extended to the presentation of Malcolm as primary author. He also talks about (cited by you, but not quoted) contemporary biographers ignoring Haley for reasons similar to those mentioned by Rampersad. I think we would be better off breaking this down into:
    • Narrative presentation (here Wideman comes front and center, but Rampersad can be brought in too)
    • Contemporary presentation and reception of Malcolm as author (Dyson, Rampersad, and others)
    • Haley and Malcolm, broadly (Marable, Haley, Wideman's 2nd quote, Rampersad)
Created sections suggested above, integration of information a work in progress. — GabeMc (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marable's 2nd quote is probably the more indispensable. The first quote can be broken up and summarized into two separate main points. The first being that the interviews themselves were naturally disjoint (Up to and including the sentence about pocketing notes). The second point can be brought up along with Haley's comment that Malcolm retained final approval as a reminder to the reader that an initial on every page is not what it may seem to be. A crude analogy would be to consider Malcolm a president with veto power and Haley a legislator who can alter a bill at any point from authorship to the final vote. A yes/no decision on a block of content doesn't negate the many points of interest along the way. The second quote (as you say) points out the impact lawyers, publisher and what-not had on the book, but it also gives a rare glimpse of a secondary source explaining the primary documents for the purposes of illustration. For us, that is great. From a stylistic standpoint I would introduce the quote, quote it, then explain it further. Right now you quote and then explain, which can be difficult for some quotes where the relevance or voice is not immediately clear.
First quote broken up and summarized into two separate main points
2nd quote introduced, quoted, then explained further — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you know, I really like Wideman's first quote. It speaks to the english geek deep inside me. The 2nd quote can probably be summarized and not included. In the last sentence, subsumption might be a better word than submerged? I think that was what I wanted to say on the AMX talk page but couldn't find the words
Summarized 2nd quote
Changed "submerged" to "subsumption" — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go back and check the talk page, but we ought to hear a bit more from Rampersad. The quote can probably be summarized, but I would strongly recommend that the fragment " He took pains to show how Malcolm dominated their relationship and tried to control the composition of the book..." be quoted inline in the Haley and Malcolm section, because it undergirds the point that their relationship was fraught with minor power struggles.
Rampersad quoted inline in the Haley and Malcolm section
Retrieved a bit more from Rampersad, unfortunatley for us, most of his essay deals with Perry's bio. — GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should hear more from Dyson, but I don't think there is much to quote specifically. I'll go look at the book again.
Added some more Dyson, though there is not much in his book that is specifically about the writing of the Autobiography. — GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Haley section seems both the weakest and the most likely to provoke a disagreement. I won't talk much about it because I think if the whole lvl2 header were reorganized by theme not source this would cease to be a problem.
Agreed, the Haley section will be integrated as the article is reorganized by theme. — GabeMc (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can probably be pushed off until a later date, but some of the great stuff we have unearthed here and on the RfC should be used in sections apart from the author controversy. I see no reason why some other sections couldn't be expanded based on the cites we have found.
Agreed, there's some great stuff that we discovered during this research project that would improve the article if included. Hopefully Marable's upcoming bio wil prove resourcesful, as properly sourcing anything has proved most challenging. — GabeMc (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, your insights have proved extremely valuable!
P.S., be sure to check out The Cambridge Companion to Malcolm X By Robert E. Terrill, I am pretty sure this is the best source I have found so far. This one and this one have proved helpful as well. — GabeMc (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very excellent source. Reading it now. Protonk (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, maybe you can give me your suggestions on which passages in particular will improve the article. — GabeMc (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best essay would be Jeffery Leak's which unfortunately has several large blocks removed from the preview. I see from worldcat that it is at several public libraries in the Chicago area, is it in any public libraries near you (unlike the bulk of these texts it is not in my university library). We can probably include the bit about how Leak feels this was the most edited any work by Malcolm X had been (esp in the section about how the publishers exerted influence on the presentation and content), but the stronger stuff is much harder to excerpt without seeing the whole article. I can't tell if he is making unfounded claims or if the missing pages include strong evidence and argumentation. Brian Norman's essay might be good for the parts of the article which tie in to the 1992 film, but there isn't enough of it in full text for me to see how helpful it could be. Protonk (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, the sections online are teasers, but they hint to an extensive analysis thoughout that made me think this book might be the definitive scholarly study on the subject, that's why I forked out for my own copy which should arrive within the week. P.S. my parents grew up, met, and married in Chicago, the greatest city in America in my opinion. — GabeMc (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik's Comments and Suggestions

[edit]

I know you put a lot of time and effort into this draft, Gabe, but it's still a quotefarm and it's become an essay to boot. Maybe Wikipedia needs a new article about the Relationship between Alex Haley and Malcolm X? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like it, ProtonK likes it, what do you suggest Malik? — GabeMc (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quotefarm issue can be ironed out through regular editing. It's not an essay, it is an attempt at resolving a complex subject. At this point I'm going to insist that you participate in that resolution or that you step back from the article. Protonk (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion, Protonk. I see that you and Gabe have been working together on this draft for two weeks, but it was just dropped in my lap on Friday. I need a little time to digest it. And yes, it is an esssay that strays quite a bit off topic.
But thank you for threatening me. I really appreciate it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After numerous edit wars, a talk page dispute, an RfC and dueling drafts, I would hope that both sides would be interested in resolution. I'm no more threatening you than I am suggesting that the only remaining steps should conciliatory progress be impossible are mediation or acquiescence by one editor. If you aren't going to work toward a final state of the article with Gabe we need to know now, because otherwise convincing of various propositions is a waste of time for all concerned. If you don't want to work with Gabe but are willing to accept a moderator's decision we need to know now as well so that process can be started. But I'm not going to facilitate a discussion whereby advances are made in good faith by one side and resisted wholesale by the other. I reject your insinuation that I'm a partner but I'll fully admit that researching the subject has led me to a specific set of opinions on the content. Should you want the same kind of feedback on your draft all you need to do is ask. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't insinuate you were Gabe's partner, simply that you were informed two weeks ago about this draft. I was just told about it two days ago. I'm trying to work on a good faith resolution, but it's a very long essay and it takes time. I've started drafting some comments at User:Malik Shabazz/Sandbox, but to be honest the whole structure is pretty bad. The essay meanders and repeats itself, but I'm trying to work with what Gabe wrote. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some new comments

[edit]
  • The Lead should be expanded somewhat to match the expanded article.
I had expanded it a bit, but Malik objected. Do you have any specific suggestions?
Not yet. What Malik said below is correct. Just noting it so we don't forget, as this draft represents a significant expansion for the article. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose expanding the lede, but I think Malik should write it if he agrees with expanding it. — GabeMc (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a large change which I hope will best reflect the compromise between Gabe and Malik. A good deal of changes have been to the voice of the article, avoiding tone problems which may have developed from the genesis of the draft--a contentious RfC. Words like "corroborate" and the like are probably better excised (though I am sure I helped push toward wording like that).
I think it does represent a compromise between Malik and I, and thanks to Malik's fine suggestions, the overall tone of the article is now neutral.
  • I know Malik is concerned about the number of quotes in the article. I also know that this concern will undoubtably be echoed by FAC reviewers. On that note, I'll try to go back over the draft and look at quotes which I feel are indispensable:
  • All three quotes from Haley's epilogue are important. They are valuable for readers and future editors.
I agree, Haley's quotes are retained.
  • The andrews quote is great as it provides some analysis of the tension between Malcolm X and Haley, though would it be better to place it after the Haley quote describing how Haley came to insist on being present at each editing session?
Placed Andrews quote after Haley quote describing how Haley came to insist on being present at each editing session.
  • There are three Marable quotes. Can we condense the first one?
Condensed and paraphrased first Marable quote.
  • Wideman's quote I've talked about before, and I like it.
Wideman quote retained.
  • The Stone quote is interesting. the portion after the ellipsis seems less vital.
Removed portion after ellipses.
  • Dyson's quote is good, though it could be paraphrased were we pressed.
Condensed and paraphrased Dyson quote, for the sake of commity.
  • Wood and Eakin both provide informative quotes but can be summarized (I think)
Summarized most of Wood and Eakin, though I retained one Wood quote in blockquote format.
  • The first line after the dyson quote, "Rampersads suggests that Haley understood autobiographies as "almost fiction",[43]. Dyson writes, "The Autobiography of Malcolm X...has been criticized for avoiding or distorting certain facts. Indeed, the autobiography is as much a testament to Haley's ingenuity in shaping the manuscript as it is a record of Malcolm's attempt to tell his story." points to a grander issue. Haley has been criticized for fictionalising historical accounts (See Cornel West's comments about Roots). I don't know if we want to open this can of worms, but we might want to devote a sentence to it.
I included the sentence, as it is indeed notable, and it deserves a mention, but I still need the specific source you refer to from Dr. West. Can you provide it to me please?
It was Gates and not West. And the quote is less helpful than I had remembered. Cited here, but not available outside of paying highbeam for the text (It isn't on Lexis Nexis, maybe on proquest). Might not be worth it, though there was a little more meat there. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence for now, though I do agree, Haley's shady reputation is notable. Betty Shabazz suggested he made stuff up also. — GabeMc (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might there be a way we can fold Autobiographical narrative presentation into the Writing the Autobiography section as a sub-section?
Added section Autobiographical narrative presentation as a sub-section of Writing the Autobiography
  • Should Summary be Summary of the text? I don't know. Feels weird to have a summary section right below the lede.
Agreed, changed section title to Summary of the text
I agree. — GabeMc (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Protonk.
With respect to the lede, Gabe, I think Protonk is suggesting it should be expanded to summarize the new material in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Malik, do you think the lede should be expanded to summarize the new material in the article, and if so, would you be willing to write the expansion? — GabeMc (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree the lede should be expanded. I'll draft something over the weekend. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede expansion

[edit]

Your lede expansion looks great, well done Malik. They always look better in three paragraphs, IMHO. I agree with your lede tweek Protonk.

  • Question - As per, "Although Malcolm X and contemporary scholars regarded Haley as the book's ghostwriter"
While I'm not disputing the point per se, I am asking if this claim in the lede is properly sourced and explained in the body?
Which of our agreed upon sources, contemporary to the book, which I assume means 1965-1975 or so, specifically, "regards him as the book's ghostwriter", while not also referring to Haley as an author or collaborator? — GabeMc (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]
"Lomax says that Malcolm became a 'lukewarm integrationist'. Goldman suggests that Malcolm was 'improvising', that he embraced and discarded idealogical options as he went along. Cleage and T'Shaka hold that he remained a revolutionary black nationalist. And Cone asserts that he became an internationalist with a humanist bent."

I hope you don't mind, Gabe, but I added Wikilinks to Lomax, Cleage, and Cone (each of whom has a Wikipedia article) and first names for Goldman and T'Shaka (who don't). I don't think the average reader will know who these people are. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully some final comments

[edit]
  • Should we explain what an Augustinian confessional narrative is? Maybe a sentence?
I wikilinked to Augustine, Confessional Writing and Religious Conversion, is that enough?
I think that can probably be enough. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Autobiographical scholar Albert E. Stone concurs with Haley's comparison with Icarus." Is in a funny place, as we haven't established Haley set out to allude to the Icarus myth yet.
I think I fixed the issue with a simple reword, correct me if I am wrong.
  • "but he also performed the basic functions of a ghostwriter and biographical amanuensis, writing, compiling..." Do we have the right tense for amanuensis?
I think so, the term is derived from a Latin expression which may be literally translated as "manual labourer", again, correct me if I am wrong.
  • " In the agreement, Haley gained an "important consession";" I changed this to concession. Was it spelled incorrectly in the source?
The writer of the article has major spelling issues, always has, a touch of moderate dyslexia does not help.
Heh. Well I ask because I've corrected spelling in sources inadvertently insdead of adding [sic]. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rampersad identifies some restrictions inherent in autobiography, a view that is supported by Eakin." Where supported by Eakin? This sentence is kind of by itself. Maybe put it in a footnote or remove it? Or expand it to clarify the extent of corroboration. I probably caused this problem by having you move this section earlier in the article.
"Where supported by Eakin?"
In the essay by Eakin called Malcolm X and the limits of Autobiography.(Andrews, 1993, pp.151-161)
"This sentence is kind of by itself."
I think I fixed that now, I personally would rather retain it because the information is important and double sourced.
Yeah. The information is useful, but the placement was the concern. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the placement still a concern, because it can easily be moved to a more suitable place. — GabeMc (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rampersad point generally is a strong one. Contemporary activists and scholars thought of Malcolm differently than King or DuBois or (god forfend) Booker T. Washington. Malcolm X was an incipient revolutionary, martyred before his time. the scale of interest in making him a mythical figure (by blacks) almost dwarfed the push by whites to soften the image of King after his death.
I agree.
  • About Haley and fiction, the comment I was referring to is in the distressingly not-available Beam, Alex. "The Prize Fight Over Alex Haley's Tangled 'Roots'", Boston Globe, October 30, 1998, from Henry Louis Gates Jr., regarding the contents of Roots.
I think at some point a section about Haley's reputation for embellishment and plagarism should be written in the Alex Haley article, and then mentioned appropriately at AMX.
I agree. I wish that the article containing that quote was available, but since it is not and we have enough AMX specific commentary, we can leave it for a later date. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second haley quote about Malcolm X reviewing chapters is immediately followed by another blockquote (From Andrews). Can we break that up a tad?
I moved the Andrews quote, which I think solved the problem, please correct me if I am wrong.
  • "According to Marable, Haley worked, "hundreds of sentences into paragraphs"" I changed senences to sentences. Was the error in the source?
Thanks for correcting the spelling.
Thanks once again Protonk. — GabeMc (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malik is gonna go over it one more time and I will then work in his suggestions before the article is moved to mainspace. — GabeMc (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Malik

[edit]

1) "Langston Hughes biographer, Arnold Rampersad, in criticizing The Color of His Eyes: Bruce Perry's Malcolm, and Malcolm's Malcolm ..." That's the title of Rampersad's essay. He's actually criticizing Bruce Perry's biography of Malcolm X, Malcolm: The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America.

Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) I have a copy of the article to which Protonk refers, "The Prize Fight Over Alex Haley's Tangled 'Roots'". Here's the Gates information:

Let history judge. History-like, it is already judging. Haley is distinguished by his absence from the recently published Norton Anthology of African American Literature co-edited by Harvard's Henry Louis Gates Jr. "Let's speak candidly," says Gates, who was friends with Haley and is close to his family. "Most of us feel it's highly unlikely that Alex actually found the village whence his ancestors sprang. 'Roots' is a work of the imagination rather than strict historical scholarship. It was an important event because it captured everyone's imagination."

I can e-mail the article to either of you, or post more of it, if you'd like.

Otherwise, I think the draft is ready to be moved to mainspace. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I expected more suggestions for deletions from you. Are you sure you agree with the current length, and amount of quotes, because there is always room to compromise if you are not yet in full agreement with the draft. — GabeMc (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's okay. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be very grateful if you could email that to me. I think you have my email but if not it is my username at gmail.
  • Also the Perry bit is a good catch. For some reason I thought I changed the draft to reflect that, but I must have forgotten. Protonk (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the article I'll generally concur with gabe that the place for the bulk of that reference is in the Alex Haley article and the Roots article. Maybe later on we can add a bit about haley and roots into the end of Malcolm X and Alex Haley as collaborators, but it is not sufficiently related to push the point now. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Autobiography_of_Malcolm_X/AMX_Draft&oldid=388027153"