User talk:Brian Sweeney

African American literature

Brian, thanks for your great edits to the African American literature article. Still, while you've added in good material, I have concerns about some of the information you deleted from the article and your attempt to change the article to reflect a "broader, transnational African diasporic context." Also, why did you delete the entire characteristics section? That seems like a useful section to me. Finally, the lead now feels too short and not informative enough for someone who merely reads the lead and not the rest of the article (my understanding is that the lead should summarize the entire article).

I deleted some "characteristics" stuff and relocated others elsewhere. The claims I deleted seemed to me uncritically to essentialize African American literary production and in any case were unsourced. (I retained a sentence about oral tradition which you rightly complain is unsourced.) My intention was to restore a much revised "Characteristics" section but in a form that emphasizes debates over the meaning of African American lit rather than conveys the illusion of consensus. Re: Length of lead--I don't think length is valuable intrinsically. The original lead was longer but was also needlessly repetitive and redundant; e.g., basically narrating the history of African American lit from C18 to present two times over, as you can see here [1]. Moreover the original lead described Af Am lit as "literature written by, about, and sometimes specifically for African Americans." This is a highly controversial definition (I am thinking specifically of the second & third parts of the definition) and so I removed it from the presumably more objective first paragraph & plan to incorporate it into a later paragraph on debates over what constitutes an Af Am literary work (cf. Claudia Tate's discussion of this in Psychoanalysis and Black Novels [1998].)

That said, I like your ideas on fleshing out the relationship between slave narratives and early African American novels and adding a section on major theories of Af Am lit from Gates, Baker and Toni Morrison (although the section should include more theories than simply theirs).

Yeah, I agree.

I think, though, that as you do this you need to provide references to statements as you go. For example, while it is true that "African American writing has tended to draw on oral forms such as spirituals, sermons, gospel music, blues and rap" we need a reference for statements like this.

The sentence regarding African American lit's drawing on oral tradition preexisted my edits. My only contribution was to move it to another spot and add "sermons." It will take us more than a few days to document everything that every previous editor has ever put into this article. I welcome your assistance in this endeavor!

As for the "broader, transnational African diasporic context," I'd like to discuss this before changing the article to reflect this view. While I'm not certain this is the approach to take with the article, I'm also not totally opposed to it and definately believe some elements of that should be included. Again, we'd need solid references to back up any of this which we added.

Re: situating African American lit in broader transnational context; cf. Gilroy Black Atlantic (1993). It is suprising to me that there should be any controversy about this--any more than it would be controversial to situate a regional literature like Southern US lit in a larger national literary & cultural context. To treat Af Am lit as a self-contained national tradition (as the original WP article does) without gesturing to its participation in a larger African diasporic culture is very 1980s.

Hope you are enjoying CZ and the pilot project. Also, please note that I'll be traveling to a funeral for a few days and not online. Best, --Jason Sanford 15:07, 1 November 2006 (CST)

I invite you to restore information I deleted you think is of importance.Brian Sweeney 11:29, 2 November 2006 (CST)

Thanks for the detailed response. I'm relieved to hear you will be working on a new "characteristics" section, which was my main issue, and your other comments sound equally good. Go for it and work up what you can (being sure to provide the needed references). I'll join in on the article as I get the time. As for the "broader, transnational African diasporic context," as I said there's nothing wrong with adding that, especially with regards to African American literary theories which emerged in the 1970s and made much of the diasporic context (although there were some who also made the connections in the early 1900s). Best, --Jason Sanford 12:51, 6 November 2006 (CST)

Jason, I appreciate your interest in my edits to the African American literature page, but I have to admit to being annoyed with the tone of your comments. My impression was that editors would vet content, not order authors around as though they were paid staff writers. As I see it, it is my prerogative to make the changes I think appropriate and then you can exercise editorial oversight as you see fit. I do not expect to be ordered around, however, or have to seek your approval in advance for edits. If this is the way relationships between editors and authors are going to work at CZ, well then, I have grave doubts about its success. Brian Sweeney 16:19, 6 November 2006 (CST)

Brian: I'm not ordering anyone or approving your edits. While I'm an editor, I also write articles and have a strong interest in African American literature. In case you didn't know it, I essentially wrote the original Wikipedia article on African American literature, which was selected as a featured article. That said, I make no claims about owning the article and I've long thought the article could be vastly improved. And, as I mentioned in my original comment to you, I agree and support most of your edits and suggested future improvements.

When I first saw your edits to the article, I was very concerned that you'd deleted parts of the article without stating why. Instead of merely reinserting these sections, I thought I'd ask you about it. Your reasoning, and your future plans for the article, sounded good and I said so. My comments to you were essentially saying I agreed with your changes and proposed changes and would support you on your approach to the article. That is what I meant when I said "go for it."

I hope this clears things up. To repeat, I have no intention of ordering you around or anything like that (and don't plan on doing this with authors on any article). However, even though I'm an editor, I also write article and, when doing so, have to seek consensus with fellow authors. What I'd like to do is work together with you to make this the best article it can be--and your recent changes and proposed changes appear to be doing just that. Best, --Jason Sanford 08:51, 7 November 2006 (CST)

BTW, I do want to apologize for not being clear in my original message and for any misunderstandings that caused. I strongly support the Statement of Fundamental Policies, which states that "Editors will be expected to work "shoulder-to-shoulder" with authors in the wiki." My goal on writing articles is to work shoulder to shoulder with anyone willing and qualified to do the work--and you obviously are both. I have no intention of squashing anyone's work or stepping into issues UNLESS a dispute arises, and in this case since I've previously worked on the article any dispute would have to be settled by another editor to avoid a conflict of interest. Anyway, as I've said you have my full support on your edits and future plans for the article. Best, --Jason Sanford 09:07, 7 November 2006 (CST)

That is what I meant when I said "go for it." What you actually wrote was, "Go for it and work up what you can (being sure to provide the needed references)." Even aside from the fact that I have already pointed out that the statement you blame me for leaving unsourced was one I retained from your version of the article, the tone of this remark strikes me as overweening and presumptuous. I became involved with CZ to collaborate in my free time with other learned people in the production of knowledge, not to take my place in the lower ranks of some bureaucracy. It is obvious to me that what is really at issue here is your sense of ownership over the WP version of this article which, I am sorry to have to say, had serious flaws--featured article or no.Brian Sweeney 21:56, 9 November 2006 (CST)