The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have cleaned up a lot of the OR in this article, but it needs more references and more research about Sontag's writings. It should describe her major works briefly, using reviews as sources and tell us more that the reception and critical analysis of her major works. Also, it notes that she was a leading intellectual, but it doesn't say why. What did she say or write that was influential in intellectual circles? Finally, of course, it is missing lots of refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to clean up the criticism section. This is regarding her quote about the white race being a cancer and subsequent *recantation*. I was trying to change the following sentence: According to journalist Mark M. Goldblatt, Sontag later recanted this statement, saying that "it slandered cancer patients". I was trying to change it to something more reasonable like the following: Sontag later amplified this statement by way of sarcastic recantation, saying that the original statement “slandered cancer patients". Sontag may have recanted at somepoint, but she certainly wasn't recanting when she said that. So we can get rid of the recantation statement, or change the words to reflect what sontag actually meant. Human beings, especially intellectuals, don't actually ever recant statements this way. Just like no one in the entire history of the English language when trying to actually withdraw calling someone else "shit-for-brains" has uttered "I'm sorry, I actually just slandered shit and I certainly did not mean to do that."
It is fairly obvious that what she was doing was doubling down on the original statement by issuing a sarcastic recantation. So why does this edit keep getting reverted? Because some journalist said that this was actually a recantation? Would we also believe this journalist when he said the moon was made of cheese? Sontag may have recanted somewhere at some time, but this was not a recantation. This should be changed or deleted completely.
We all speak English and have brains here, so is it a disability to use them in this context? My apologies if these changes to my edits were automated. - mike jones
The matter is rather simple: If there is a reliable source that states that Sontag later amplified this statement by way of sarcastic recantation... then fine, please add it to the article along with the reliable source. If not, then that is your own personal analysis otherwise known as original research and it is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 02:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I see, so this is you just outright ignoring the plain meaning of the english language and hiding behind bureaucratic nonsense you've wrapped yourself with because you have a personal axe to grind in all this. How can you, in any universe, positively assert that someone recanted a statement that the white race is a cancer by saying a follow up statement saying that they did not mean to slander cancer patients? Thanks for your help, Dr. K, enemy of truth, you just made wikipedia a little hit dumber, which was obviously your goal. -mike jones
Yup. Personal attacks are typically used by people who have nothing of substance to add to a discussion. Thanks for saving me the time trying to educate you further. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 02:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
How can you, in any universe, positively assert that someone recanted a statement that the white race is a cancer by issuing a follow up statement saying that they did not mean to slander cancer patients? Sontag may or may not have recanted the original statement, but when she said that she did not mean to slander cancer patients THAT was not and could not be a recantation. Denying this truth because someone somewhere wrote that it was in fact a recantation just serves to cloud history, and the only reason you are persisting in this is you have a POV to grind. So, Yup. People that refuse to engage in a discussion of the point at issue and instead rely on the fig leaf of wiki bureaucratic minutia to avoid doing what is required in order to make the entry more truthful and more useful are always engaged in distorting the truth. That's you. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Mike Jones