Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/African American literature

African American literature
African American literature has become one of the most important genres of American literature in the last decade, as evidenced by authors like Toni Morrison, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature. I should note that while I did not start this article, it is a self nomination because I did greatly expand it. These changes have been reviewed and supported by the article's earlier authors.--Alabamaboy 29 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)


 * Support. Definitely. Alabamaboy has done great work. - Darwinek 29 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)
 * Mild object . Great work, but it needs a larger lead to meet the FA criteria. - SimonP June 29, 2005 17:00 (UTC)
 * I just addressed this concern. Does the expanded lead work for you now?--Alabamaboy 29 June 2005 17:29 (UTC)
 * Support. My concern about the lead has been fully addressed. - SimonP June 29, 2005 17:44 (UTC)


 * Support. Yes. Phil s 29 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent article, good pictures and references. Reads exactly like a commercial ("real") encyclopedia. Borisblue 30 June 2005 01:30 (UTC)
 * Support, most definitely. [[Image:PhoenixSuns 100.png|20px]]Phoenix2[[Image:Teamflag1.png|20px]] 30 June 2005 03:02 (UTC)
 *  Mild objections : I know that I go into too much detail in my surveys, but there is insufficient detail here.  Some nebulous phrases lead to misunderstandings ("Many" slave narratives being considered "the most literary works of the 19th century?"  Most literary among African-Americans or most literary period?  Many are more literary than Melville or George Meredith or Douglass?).  In the Civil Rights literature section, many of those figures are, in fact, post-WW2 writers and not Civil Rights Era (depends upon how one defines the Civil Rights era).  WW2 is one of the most important events in African American literature, for it took people away from their rural settings, established de facto desegregation, and then plopped those folks back into the segregated and racist US.  The GI Bill did a great deal for all literature, African American literature not excepted.  Hurston gets a bit more credit than is probably her due.  It's true that she's famous, but she was an anthropologist primarily who has the one novel, but I'm not sure she gets headline status over Langston Hughes.  As the article gets to the present day, it grows appropriately expansive, but there are some fundamental problems (a coherent definition of the genre that carries a distinction from "American literature"), far too fast a passing over of major figures, lack of any noting of the tensions carrying forth between generations (e.g. Jean Toomer being rejected by the Black community for trying to "pass" and proclaiming himself Hispanic, and Hurston herself falling afoul of similar accusations; the "hard" and "soft" approaches to the wider white society is one of those dichotomies that runs for a long, long time).  Some historical influence would help.  Sorry this comment is a mish-mash, but I tried to help with some edits, and I hope they show what sorts of things it is that are driving me to actually object.  Geogre 30 June 2005 03:32 (UTC)
 * The american civil rights movement period can, in its broadest sense, actually includes World War II. Although Wiki has it from 1955-1968 for the second part of the movement, this article American Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954) lists the second part of the movement as being from 1945-1970. I have also seen WWII being included in other datings of the movement. In addition, while much of the groundwork for the Civil Rights movement came out of black experiences during WWII, there doesn't appear to be a definitive "WWII period" during African American lit. Still, you are correct in this being important and I have made some references to WWII and the Great Migration in this section of the article. Does it now work for you?
 * Excellent revision. It removes pretty much all of my stated objections.  I have a new one, alas, but I think you'll be able to get around it quickly.  See below. Geogre 30 June 2005 11:46 (UTC)
 * The article does mention some of Hurston's problems, which lead to her works being "forgotten" for decades, and I could add in Toomer's info (although I'm reluctant to b/c Toomer isn't an overly important literary figure). However, I wanted to avoid having any one section dominating the other sections. Since the Harlem Renaissance has its own article, perhaps this expansion should go there. Would this work for you? I have also now moved Langston Hughes' reference to before Zora Neale Hurston in the article--that makes sense to me b/c he is the biggest name of this period. However, I should say that Zora Neale Hurston's influence goes beyond her one famous novel. She wrote 14 books, mostly fiction, and while she was ignored for years she did influence the biggest writers in recent African American lit, such as Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, and most of the women who now dominate black literature, and this influence should not be underestimated.
 * If I missed anything else, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 30 June 2005 10:36 (UTC)
 * Ok, the body of the development narrative reads well now, and certainly I won't try to suggest that a thesis of mine needs to be in (the continuing dichotomy of "hard" and "soft" approaches). However, there is a thing that needs citation, I'm afraid.  When you get to the second half of the article, which is a discussion of the reception and consideration of AA-literature, you have a number of quite true, but uncited, recitations of the arguments for and against the academic periodization.  You mention conservative scholars (although, frankly, I think the Balkanization argument far predates those idiots in ties who have claimed it now, so I'm not sure that it started as conservative; in fact, I thought it was rather originally pretty liberal by saying that the campus Am-lit. class had to change to incorporate AfAm-lit), but there are only passing references.  When you get to "proponents answer" a bit down, it reads like original research.  I know it isn't.  I know that the points you raise are shared by many, but the bulwark of a citation will help a lot.  I also think you might want to be careful about mentioning identity politics: that's something DeSouza (sp?) wants you to mention, because he wants you to change your focus from the irreducible truth of AfAm lit to the big "culture wars."  If you can cite some of those, I'll go to full support. Geogre 30 June 2005 11:46 (UTC)
 * Geogre: Thanks. You raise some good points and I'll address them by finding citations for the criticism section. I'll get back to you shortly when this is corrected.--Alabamaboy 30 June 2005 13:23 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article with references. In addition, I reworked the criticism section. Please look through and let me know what you think.--Alabamaboy 30 June 2005 16:09 (UTC)
 * Enthusiastic support: Excellent changes and a much stronger article now.  I have no hesitation in supporting fully.  Thanks for the hard work.  Geogre 1 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)
 * And many thanks for your great suggestions. The comments you and others here have made really helped me push the article to a higher level. Best, --Alabamaboy 1 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)


 * Support in the light of recent edits. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 11:18 (UTC) Also Mild Object. In addition to the points raised by Geogre, I was troubled by the sentence "African American history is as long and detailed as the history of the United States, and African-American literature has similarly deep roots.", which was then followed by a reference to a work published three years before the founding of the US. Maybe this should read something like "African American history is as long and detailed as the history of the European colonization of North America, and African-American literature has similarly deep roots", although that's not quite right, either. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 09:12 (UTC)
 * I have made a change to this. How is this: "African American history predates the history of the United States, and African-American literature has similarly deep roots."
 * I have further adapted this wording myself. Hope it's OK. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 11:18 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Many thanks. --Alabamaboy 30 June 2005 13:23 (UTC)


 * Support. I'd like to see it include a lot more detail and context (from other literature and American politics) eventually, but this is a thorough and complete survey to build on.  Minor quibble: I don't think African American literature is properly described as a "genre," since presumably it includes all the many genres of literature (poetry like that of Hughes, novels like Chesnutt's or Morrison's, essays like Douglass's or DuBois's). -- Rbellin|Talk 30 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on an idealistic level--genre probably should not be used this way. Unfortunately, it has passed into common usage to use genre to describe all types of literary divisions such as "Native American Literature," "Gay and Lesbian Literature," and so on. For example, a Google search for "Genre 'African american literature'" yields 28,500 results, including this and  . Personally I'd prefer to use a word like classification. But general usage is genre and I believe we should use what is commonly accepted. Are you okay with this?--Alabamaboy 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The image Image:Morrison toni.jpg is claimed as "copyrighted fair use".  However, I'm not sure it is fair use, and in any case, fair-use images should be used as infrequently as possible.  (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted. It came from the Toni Morrison page and, since I didn't upload it to that page, I can't verify its copyright status. I replaced it with a public domain image of her from the U.S. Library of Congress. Does this remove your opposition to the article?--Alabamaboy 1 July 2005 10:47 (UTC) With more investigation I found that the new image is also copyrighted. However, the image is from the U.S. Library of Congress and according to text at, the image may be used in promotion of Morrison's book. Since this article does indeed discuss (promote) this book, I believe this use of the image is valid. I would also state that the use also falls under fair use. Does this remove your opposition to the article?--Alabamaboy 1 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
 * BTW, I should add that I agree with your statement about fair-use pics being used as little as possible. After looking at the last dozen or so Featured Articles, I noticed that most of them were filled with fair-use images. My article takes a different track--the only fair-use pics are the one of Toni Morrison (and I believe this use is valid due to the wording on the original image) and the image of the book. Due to the fact that the fair-use images constitute such a minor part of the article, and the fact that use of these images is supported by the Fair use flow chart, I think the images are okay. Comments?--Alabamaboy 2 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)
 * The two current fair-use images are ok, since one is a book cover, and the other has specific rationale behind why it is fair use. The original image seemed to be claimed as fair use on the grounds of "everyone else is doing it". --Carnildo 6 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)


 * Support. Impressive. A few things that are too minor to temper my enthousiasm: the wikilinkage is excessive to my taste; I have taken the liberty of removing some links that were clearly superfluous, apart from smoothing out some minor glitches. The lead is still very blue, maybe you should consider linking some terms only later on in the article. Great work! &mdash; mark &#9998; 2 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I'll move some of the links in the lead to later in the article. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 2 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)


 * Support. Great article, meets all FA crieteria. --FuriousFreddy 3 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice job. Stbalbach 19:28, 3 July 2005 (UTC)