Talk:Frederick Sontag

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Ed[edit]

I'll see what I can find out about him. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

It seems unlikely that the reviews listed in Gales are the only ones on Sontag's books. Given that we now know that such reviews exist, is there any way to track them down? Google Scholar doesn't seem to be particularly helpful for this. Does anybody have better tools at their disposal? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalled (anybody got access?)

Major influence on Kris Kristofferson's life[edit]

Steve Dufour wrote: "The Kristofferson link, although a minor item, could be worth mentioning since Kristofferson mentioned Sontag as a major influence in his life."

I agree. Kris Kristofferson indicated Sontag was a major influence on his life - "one of the best things that ever happened to me", and I think this would certainly be of interest to some readers, and if those readers follow the link and read more detail they get an important window into what kind of person Sontag was as a mentor. It might actually be appropriate to go the other way, and include a little more detail about it in this article (e.g., "And he spent the whole night—the better part of it—talking me out of quitting.") since it reveals something important about what kind of person Sontag is. -Exucmember (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(i) This is only sourced to the Pomona College Magazine -- hardly a prominent source. (ii) As they met while they were both students, it is heavily tangential to Sontag's notability as a professor -- particularly as Kristofferson's own notability is in an unrelated field. As such, its inclusion would appear to be blatant WP:UNDUE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that Kristofferson said that Sontag was one of his professors at Pomona. Sontag is now in his 80s.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're most probably correct -- I interpreted the "with" in "He took a couple of courses with me" to indicate that they took the course as co-equals, but the 12y age difference would seem to indicate otherwise. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, I still think praise, in a relatively minor source with a relatively close association with Sontag, from a former student whose career quickly diverged into wholly unrelated areas (military, music & acting), isn't appropriate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to put the sentence back as an interesting minor item in his life story. Lots of WP articles mention minor connections. I think it adds a little interest for the readers, who will probably mainly be Dr. Sontag's friends and his students, and potential students, at Pomona.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I don't see what was wrong with Hrafn's version which you removed: In 2004, singer, actor, and songwriter, Kris Kristofferson said of Sontag's encouragement to exert himself in seeking a Rhodes scholarship while at Pomona College, "It was one of the best things that ever happened to me."Borock (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put it back if you like. I agree with Hrafn that it is not an important part of Sontag's life. I put the information in at first when I was trying to save the article and that was one of the few sources I could find. I think it adds a little interest to the article and also adds a positive note after the kind of depressing information about the stabbing.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it back then.Borock (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if the Kris Kristofferson article is to be believed, the single biggest Pomona influence on Kristofferson was its athletics department. Further, I'm having trouble finding non-Pomona-centric sources on Kristofferson that make the connection. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't question the honesty of the Pomona college paper do you? No one is saying that the incident is notable, for its own article for instance, just that it might be okay to add here as a minor item.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, "honesty" isn't the issue, emphasis is. It would not be surprising for an interview with the Pomona college paper to emphasise Pomona over other influences and academics over sports. Third party coverage should be consulted as to whether this emphasis is an accurate reflection of how important these influences were. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says he graduated with a BA summa cum laude in Literature, so he must have done okay academically. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church[edit]

In covering a scholarly book, we should be giving coverage to:

  1. Critical commentary on the work in scholarly reviews. If there are no such reviews, then we should be asking ourselves,'why are we covering this book at all?'
  2. What the book has to say about its subject.
  3. Everything else coming a very distant third.

That it "was based on ten months of first-hand study of the church, and includes a nine hour interview with church founder Sun Myung Moon" is a detail that might be relevant if we giving the book intensive coverage (e.g. a large section of its own) -- as the only thing we say about the book, it is an irrelevance.

If we can't find anything relevant to say about this book, I'll be removing the coverage of it.HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem here? Isn't that just a straightforward description of what the book is? Zagalejo^^^ 05:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's some relatively obscure details on the background to the book's creation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This book is the most thorough, comprehensive study of the international Unification Church ever conducted. We don't have a source for that assertion, but the fact that the book is the result of a distinguished professor's spending ten months studying the church seems like a similar statement, and is certainly more than an obscure detail. I'm closer to Zagalejo than Hrafn on this one.
On the issue of whether or not to mention the nine hour interview with church founder Sun Myung Moon, this is by far the most in-depth interview with him ever conducted. And though we also don't have a source for that assertion, such an interview is obviously a major feature of the book (hardly an obscure detail), and another reason why the book is significant. -Exucmember (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked back through the history. Nice additions, [User:Hrafn|Hrafn]] (i.e., this one about the book). -Exucmember (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stabbing[edit]

The stabbing seems to have garnered several articles in the LA Times, so is a legitimately prominent issue for coverage. I've attempted to expand the material on the basis of the article opening paragraphs, but further expansion will need somebody who can go behind the paywalls. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UC-centric bias & WP:DUE[edit]

  • Ed Poor nearly got this article deleted through concentrating so heavily on Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church (see this version, just before I became involved), while neglecting Sontag's main claims of notability.
  • As this is not an article on Sun Myung Moon, whether or not "this is by far the most in-depth interview with him ever conducted" is irrelevant in determining noteworthiness.
  • St. Petersburg Times (our only source on Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church to date) is a fairly minor mainstream media publication (being only the second-largest publication serving the Tampa Bay Area). Given that, in covering academic writings, we should be giving preference to (more authoritative) discussion/reviews in academic journals and the like over MSM in any case, StPT is very low on the WP:DUE hierarchy.

I would therefore suggest far less emphasis on Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church (at least until we can find coverage on it in academic sources), and more emphasis on Sontag's works that have received academic notice. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're giving undue weight to the book. A Worldcat search shows that it is in more libraries than The Existentialist Prolegomena and The God of Evil combined. However, this might be useful. Zagalejo^^^ 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:DUE -- it does not state that weighting should be 'in proportion to the number of libraries that WorldCat shows holding the book.' As to the link -- I was in fact the editor who posted it to #Reviews above.
Oh, I didn't see that. No, DUE doesn't say anything about library holdings, but let's think about this. If a book is in that many libraries, it was almost certainly reviewed somewhere, right? Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These Google Books snippets vaguely hint at potentially useful articles: [4], [5]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was worth mentioning that he spent 10 months of his life and travelled to Europe and Asia to study the church, meeting many members -- as well as critics. Right now it sounds like maybe he spent 10 months reading about it in the library. 22:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Not that it makes so much difference since almost the only people who will read this article will probably be Dr. Sontag's friends at Pomona. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wikipedia works on RSs to hand, not speculation.
  2. SMM&tUC already makes up very close to 1/2 the 'Works' section.
  3. Given an academic career spanning 50+ years and 13 books, 10 months does not seem particularly noteworthy (particularly as we don't know that he was working solely on the book during that time). In any case, the cited reference does not state that the research was purely "international" (so that bald adjective is more misleading than its lack), but rather that it included the NY headquarters, the UTS (as well as the interview with Moon himself). The material on the book's background in the article is already out of proportion to the single paragraph the only (very minor) source we have to hand gives on the subject.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I could have said "multi-national" rather than "international." Steve Dufour (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW he has written about 30 books so far. I wouldn't object if the entire "Works" section was taken off since it focuses on only 3 of them and is mainly the opinions of reviewers.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's still more than 10 months/book on average. I would most certainly object to its removal. Reviewers = reliable (& generally expert) third parties. It is their material that we should be basing the article's coverage of his works upon. It concentrates on three of them, because this is the only three that we have reliable third party material on as yet (albeit fairly low-quality material on SMM&tUC). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I don't think that "multi-national" is much of an improvement -- (i) it's a bit out of place in this context & (ii) it gives undue weight to the foreign part of Sontag's investigation (when we have no information that it was conducted mostly overseas). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the chapter titles from the table of contents:

I. How and Why This Book Was Written

II. What do the People Say in Europe?

III. What do the People Say in the United States?

IV. The Search for Origins in Japan and Korea

V. What does the Doctrine Teach?

VI. The Author's Questions and the Replies of Sun Myung Moon

VII. What Can the Movement Teach Us?

Except for the words in the title of the book, the word "international" is the single best descriptor of what the book is. The table of contents also lists 18 sections under these 7 chapter headings; 7 of the 18 detail his extensive interviews in 7 European countries. Another single word that's a good descriptor of Sontag's "study" (it wasn't in the library!) would be "firsthand". Perhaps "firsthand investigation" would be better. -Exucmember (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Only two of the book's seven chapters are on the "international" aspect of the movement. I would therefore state that Exucmember's claim as to "the single best descriptor of what the book is" is unfounded.
  2. The article already gives WP:UNDUE weight to this book (approx as much as the other two books covered combined) in proportion to the article, and undue weight to its background in terms of coverage of the book (could anybody explain to me why, in the context of Sontag's 50+ year academic career, the ten months spent on the book & the 9 hours spent on the interview is significant to Sontag, or to understanding him).
  3. In the context of this, do we see attempts to increase the coverage on other aspects of Sontag's academic career, to give them WP:DUE weight, or even to find a more authoritative source on which to base coverage of SMM&tUC on? No, we see a whole heap of effort by UC regulars, trying to leverage more coverage of the background to SMM&tUC, based upon the same mediocre source.

This is not an article on the Unification Church nor even, as its primary focus, an article on Sontag's work on the UC, so kindly stop attempting to WP:COATRACK it to the contrary. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The middle two sentences of the paragraph could be taken out. They are about the UC. The first and last sentences are about Sontag and his book. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Steve, the middle two sentences are about what the book says about its subject. The last sentence is simply statistics-cruft about how Sontag prepared for writing the book. How many other single-paragraph descriptions of a book would contain such cruft? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Steve's last edit gives the paragraph more balance. Now we need to extend out coverage of the other of Sontag's 30+ works, so we don't give the impression that he wrote only 3. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict with two comments above and two below] I find the tirade aspects of Hrafn's discussion here laughable - the title of this talk page section (where were the baseless accusations of "Kristofferson-centric bias" when I suggested adding a whole sentence? or - God forbid - even two!?!), appeal to WP:UNDUE to try to squelch the use of the single word "international" above the consensus of others who have voiced an opinion, and now accusing those on opposite sides of almost every UC debate (except recent ones largely because of Hrafn's sometimes staking out ridiculous positions) of WP:COATRACK - because we want to use a single word ("investigation" or "international"), as it accurately describes the subject matter? I am sincerely amused!
Steve, I do think Sontag's book is significant among major studies of the UC in that it is one of the most comprehensive ever, and perhaps the only international academic study. I think this says something about Sontag's accomplishment, so even if the sourcing is a bit weak, we might consider adding a phrase of some sort that hints at Sontag's achievement in conducting this major study. There is of course no requirement that we detract from the quality of an article because of absurd notions that conflict with giving the most accurate, concise description of a book that has garnered significant attention. And certainly other works of Sontag's should be discussed in proportion to the sources we can find. -Exucmember (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think it would be better to take off the whole section than to have 30 paragraphs of quotes from book reviews. The article is supposed to be about the person, not about people's opinions of his books.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exuc. It would be possible to have an article on just the book. It is certainly notable enough. Far less important books have articles here. I was not able to find sources myself, but I'm not the best at that anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exucmember: if article had been started by a known Kristofferson fan, with Kristofferson content predominating, and the majority of the mainspace/talkpage effort thereafter being concentrated on increasing that Kristofferson content, there's a good chance that there would be a section here on the talkpage on 'Kristoffercentric bias'. That didn't happen, so neither did the talkpage section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"significant among major studies of the UC" = significance to UC, not to Sontag's academic career. This is a basis for increasing coverage of the book in Unification Church, not here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the rather small pond of people who know something about the UC, Dr. Sontag is just about the biggest frog. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That demonstrates the significance of Sontag to UC, not the significance of UC to Sontag -- and it is the latter that should form the basis of editorial decisions on this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, that is one of the things he is known for. Too bad we can't get an advanced look at his LA Times obituary. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to ExUC for beefing up the article. I thought it was going to be afd'd to death. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works section[edit]

If undue weight is a problem why not just delete the whole section? Most of it is just opinions of reviewers quoted out of context. And it only discusses 3 of his 30 or so books. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the hidden-comment attached to the tag: "The coverage of SMM&tUC is currently out of proportion to the rest of Sontag's work. It should not be expanded (but may be refined) until other aspects get compensating coverage". What this section needs is more coverage of other aspects of Sontag's academic work, not elimination of what's covered already (particularly not the other two books, which definitely do not have WP:UNDUE weight). What is not needed is more UC-fueled obsession over the background to SMM&tUC (which I will note is the only aspect of this book that Ed originally covered). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree here. It is the amount of work, and first-hand study and investigation, that Sontag put into his study of the UC that makes it important. He is also sometimes still interviewed by journalists as an expert on the Unification Church. If you are going to have a paragraph on the book that is. There is no requirement that there be a paragraph on each of the books he has written. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took the section out. How about leaving it out until some more reviews of his other books are found? If that's what people want that is. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it has been put back. No problem. At least the debate could have been put on hold since there would not have been undue weight to any of his books. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Have we any indication that "the amount of work, and first-hand study and investigation" for this book is exceptional, either for Sontag or for academics generally? There's no indication in the source that this is the case -- the bit on the background is mere scene-setting (given directly after an equal amount of material giving Sontag's background).
  2. An academic is notable for their writings. Covering their writings, per se, is therefore not problematical. My problem, as stated both here on talk and in the hidden comment attached to the template, was with the obsessive interest in one aspect of one of Sontag's books, in spite of the fact that this book has already got slightly disproportionate coverage.
  3. As coverage on the SMM&tUC background has been trimmed, and as more amterial has been incoluded on one of the other books, I'm willing to remove the {{undue}} as an act of good faith.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article will be unreadable if it has a paragraph about each of even half of the books he has written.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we ever get to having sourced commentary on half the books, it'd be time to split it out into a subsidiary article on them (15 substantial sources = easy WP:NOTE). In any case, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Currently we have only sources on three books (and a lead on a source one further). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that an article on "Opinions of book reviewers on the works of Dr. Fredrick Sontag" would run afoul of the policy about indiscriminate collections of information. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I think that this viewpoint is without merit. The title would be 'The works of Fredrick Sontag' or similar, and it is entirely appropriate to base such an article on reliable third party coverage of these works -- which would primarily be reviews of them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that WP:N would call for at least one source that discusses the whole body of his works in depth, not just reviews of individual books gathered together. You are free to disagree of course.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that view as being supported by WP:NOTE. Further I would note that this interpretation appears to be contradicted by a wide range (the majority?) of articles (including most 'List' articles) where no single source gives coverage of the entirety of the topic in depth. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to side with Hrafn here. An academic is normally significant because of his works. (We absolutely need the section!) Some works are more noteworthy than others. Sources are our guide: some works get coverage, others don't. The one I happen to know something about is SMM & the UC, which may well be the most cited work on the UC written by any academic in the history of scholarship on the issue. -Exucmember (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion can be found at WP:VPM#Too many book reviews. I note (as explained there, in more detail) that I too support a "Works" section, and think that three paragraphs is perfectly fine. As for the hypothetical Works of Fredrick Sontag article, I suggest discussing it when we get a lot closer (if ever) to spinning things off. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, I hope you are never arrested by the CIA and forced to read Wikipedia articles until you break down from boredom. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section also bothered me reading the article. It is mainly quoting book reviews. I think there is a WP policy against "quote farms." Borock (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the "quotefarm" tag. Let's see what interested people think. Borock (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote for removing the section. It is really undignifed padding and not needed. I would prefer a couple of opinions on the whole of his work as an author and philosopher. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the material. He seems to be much better known as a teacher than an author. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World War Two[edit]

I think that it's a good idea to mention that Dr. Sontag joined the Army during World War Two. For one thing it gives some perspective. I don't think he would have joined the military except for the war, he had another calling. Also although almost everyone knows that 1943 was in the middle of the war, some for some young people it might not come to mind right away. I also think it adds some interest to the article, rather than a plain enumerating of dates. Also anyone in the military during the war is considered a World War Two veteran, not just those who engaged the enemy in combat. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source states: "Military/Wartime Service: U.S. Army, 1943-46; became sergeant." The "Wartime" is probably sufficient to allow mention of WWII without WP:SYNTH, as long as we are careful to not go beyond the source to imply that he saw action ("during" rather than "in") -- I have also placed the context info after the information that is explicitly stated in the source, to give the latter primacy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican[edit]

According to a former student I spoke with today, Sontag was the first Protestant to teach in the Vatican. I can't find any good source for this claim though. Anyone know of one? Thmazing (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Frederick Sontag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_Sontag&oldid=1201661739"