Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Autobiography of Malcolm X was written by Alex Haley between 1964 and 1965, based on interviews conducted shortly before Malcolm's death (and with an epilogue for after it)....

What is the meaning of what is in the parenthesis? I was going to attempt to make it syntactical, but I can't even figure out what it's supposed to say.

This substantial stub expansion was written by McDogm, un-logged in as a result of computer cookie problems. It needs a link to Cornell Wild.

This article says it was published in 1965, while the Alex Haley article gives a publication date of 1972.

[edit] Intercollegiate Review

I see no significance to the reference to the Intercollegiate review. Following the link simply produces a series of highly partisan bashing of various books, in which "Autobiography" in incidentally mentioned. It seems of only transitory value, and I'm removing it from article. -Raskolnikov

I agree. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies

Just because the book is important doesn't mean its inaccuracies can't be listed. Malcolm X was known for exaggerating events to serve his rhetorical needs---a wikipedia article should be balanced enough to acknowledge that the book contains inaccuracies proffered by Malcolm X himself, and not due to any error by Haley. Both of the facts listed--the palming of the bullet and the misstating the historical nature of Atilla the Hun---are valid criticisms of Malcom X's autobiography. The final chapters added by Haley after Malcolm's death detail the "palming the bullet" story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.123 (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if the criticisms are valid, they can't be added to the article unless there is a source stating who has made them. ... discospinster _talk 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You describe the book's "many inaccuracies" as "notabl[e]". If they are significant, it shouldn't be hard to find a verifiable reliable source that makes those criticisms. Without a source, that's just your own personal commentary, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not logical. 1st. The story about Malcolm X "palming the bullet" is IN THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY'S POSTHUMUS CHAPTER. In other words, the citing the story would involve citing the article itself. 2nd. THE STORY ABOUT ATILLA THE HUN IS LINKED TO WIKIPEDIA'S ARTICLE ON ATILLA. You're just trying to stifle criticism of X. Note how you don't allow anything bad in the article criticizing him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.123 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the first case, if the claim is made in the book itself, then the citation would be the book. In the second case, unfortunately one Wikipedia article cannot use another Wikipedia article as its source (or any open-wiki-type site for that matter). If the claim in Atilla the Hun has a citation, then you can use that citation for this article as well. It's not a matter of "allowing" criticism; it's about verifying claims, whether they are positive or negative. If someone added that Malcolm X developed a cure for cancer, that would be removed too, if it wasn't referenced! ... discospinster _talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First, Malcolm didn't have a daughter named Attila. Her name is Attallah. Second, nobody would mistake his Autobiography for a book of ancient history (he makes a three word, parenthetical mention of the sack of Rome*), or a work on genetics (he mentions the work of Gregor Mendel), etc. Including a paragraph in the article about Attila and the sack of Rome gives WP:Undue weight to an insignificant point in the book.

* "Attallah, our oldest daughter, was born in November 1958. She's named for Attilah the Hun (he sacked Rome)." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)