This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil Rights MovementWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementTemplate:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementCivil Rights Movement articles
Construction section badly needs to be edited for length[edit]
The Construction section is far too long and detailed for a general encyclopedia article, and reads more like a graduate thesis in literary criticism. Much of the section appears to focus more on the theories of specific critics who are mentioned repeatedly by name. The central point - that Haley was very much involved in shaping both the tone and content - can be made and a few examples given in about a third of the length. 64.30.93.144 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean...that's not the central point. You're welcome to edit down the section and I'm sure it could be shorter but understand that the issues are these:
Squaring then contemporary arguments that Malcolm was the sole "author" with later work that contradicted this, WHILE bearing in mind that much of the back and forth over authorship happens without real input from Malcolm or Haley.
Dealing with the possibility (fact?) that Haley materially changed things which became intimately associated w/ Malcolm's image in his later years (namely how the book deals with his relationship with the NOI.
Accurately and respectfully summarizing the real and substantive academic and community debate about the authorship of the book and what it means.
I don't believe that his can be summed up as "haley was involved with shaping both tone and content". Again, you're welcome to take a crack but please understand that there may be more going on than your surmise. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
