Jump to content

Talk:Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

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

Comment by Sedgwick

[edit]

Hi, I hope this is the right place to post these factual corrections. The article leaves the impression that I was on the regular faculty at all the institutions listed. That isn't true of UC-Berkeley or Dartmouth. I held a one-semester visiting lectureship (as the Mrs. William Beckman Lecturer) at Berkeley (1988); and I taught one six-week session at the School of Criticism and Theory when it was located at Dartmouth (1992).

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

- How do you know its you? - Random Person.

Sedgwick is a crucial figure in this area of scholarship. A panel and papers are being presented about her work at the MLA Conference in Los Angeles, 2011, so all consideration about the accuracy of the article should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuracy primo (talk • contribs) 07:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexual identity?

[edit]

When I was taking gay studies classes in the 1990s, I was told that this professor is heterosexual. It's not something she proclaims too loudly, but no one can find any statements where she has said, "I love or have sex with women." Her heterosexuality is important because to some it give credibility to queer theory. Some people think if you write in that field then you are just a gay person with an agenda. Sedgwick's presence as a heterosexual in the field has done some to validate it. I don't think she's looking to be praised for it, however, her heterosexual status does come up in classes where her books are taught. This is something that readers of this entry may want to know. It does add to the discussion on the professor as a topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chumley41 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Is there any information about her husband? His name, even? Is he Mr. Sedgwick, and is Kosofsky her maiden name? Luminifer (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This author never identified herself as "Heterosexual" but as "Queer". Her marital/partner status is not an indication of her self-identified sexuality. --David Shankbone 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That enters into a whole realm of identity politics, then... Luminifer (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this helpful quote: For her, sex was split in two. There was the hygienic "vanilla" sex with her husband, during which "I have orgasms and it feels good, but it's not what I think of as sexual." Then there was the fantasy world that she'd masturbated to since childhood, which she describes in an aptly stark haiku: "Violence and pain / Humiliation. Torture. / Rape, systematic." Her fantasies had institutional settings, schools, prisons, waiting rooms, undressing rooms, quasi-medical "procedures" to be submitted to. Bravely, she tells Van Wey that "there's not one single thing about them that I'm not ashamed of -- as soon as I step outside of their own, proprietary space. There, I love them." Together they construct a catalogue of these sexual scenarios in all their excruciating, banal detail. at http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/27/sedgwick/print.html ... Luminifer (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously can't be used as a source, but when I flat out asked Sedgwick her sexuality (and met her partner at her home) she told me "queer". This is not a small matter for this biography, as sexual identification and "queer" as a descriptor was at the heart of her work.[1][2] She would strenuously argue against classification as "straight" or heterosexual, no matter how she lived. --David Shankbone 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't the Salon piece linked above be used as a source? I agree with the contributor who suggested that Kosofsky's contributions to queer theory may have been seen as more significant given that she proclaimed her heterosexuality, than if she were viewed as gay. It may be worth a side mention is all. It would provide the casual reader some insight. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC) --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, this can't be right: "she maintained a married, monogamous, heterosexual relationship for decades." In Dialogue, she writes of having had an affair, therefore not monogamous. More important, Sedgwick never identified as hetero; does a long-term marriage to a person of a different sex mean otherwise? If so, Oscar Wilde was heterosexual also. And more: He had children with his wife; Sedgwick never had any. Is there a reason why "queer" isn't an acceptable designation? Sunya (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Sunya[reply]

Biography assessment rating comment

[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives

Could use a few more inline cites, but essentially a B.

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉ 03:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden text

[edit]

I have hidden parts of the long, long text of this page because they are blatant expressions of opinion, personal and otherwise (WP:POV) by the cognoscenti, which have no place on her official wikipage. I don't dispute or disagree with anyone's opinions, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and the tone and the POV on Kosofsky-Sedgwick's page has got to be cleaned up. I am going to watch this page in this regard. Please feel free to contact me if you want. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this part of the text. I am not sure what is POV (I suppose you really mean "biased") about the page. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professor

[edit]

An uncalled for designation of Sedgwick as an "Extinguished" professor at CUNY. Could someone with entry take care of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.216.29 (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issue?

[edit]

What is the neutrality issue on this page? It has been so marked since April of last year. That's almost 12 months! Would be good to get a picture of what is wrong with it and how it may be improved. Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not seem neutral to me. I didn't know anything about her, but arrived here after reading a strong criticism about her and was hoping for balanced information. I did not find it here on Wikipedia. I'm also sorry to find out that she has passed. Still the only criticism on the page seems to be written by her most ardent supporter not someone in any way neutral. I'm surprised to see that the neutrality of this article is not disputed. I guess someone removed the label (I'm assuming it was there at one point) given the comment above. Someone as controversial as she was, and there's almost no criticism? Even a supporter should acknowledge her detractors and not sweep criticism under the carpet. This article reads more like a love letter than an encyclopedia entry. I'm sorry to say it's not neutral and makes me doubt the veracity of its entire contents. TomasMFC (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed to this page before. I'll look into this and figure out how to do it. Do you have any ideas for sources? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Her work may be best suited to literary students who can cope with, make up their own minds about, and appreciate Sedgwick’s sometimes elaborate prose." I'm not sure the relevance or accuracy of this statement. Isn't much scholarship "best suited" to students/scholars in the field? Shouldn't students makes up their own minds about any given text? I'm not even going to touch on "cope with" being a completely loaded phrase. Further, this is all clearly opinion and/or original research. Can this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.19.91 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Is that really not attributed? I thought I remember seeing this in a text. The point is that Sedgwick is particularly "far out", if you'll forgive my loaded phraseology.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add more!!!

[edit]

Hi! I am a college student, and I added to this page as a part of a project for one of my classes. Throughout editing, I learned a lot about Sedgwick. While this page is off to a great start, I think that we should continue to actively add to this page as there is a good amount of information about Sedgwick out there -- it just takes a little while to find :). Sofiaa.pastore (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sofiaa.pastore, welcome to Wikipedia! A few of your edits to this page have been altered or reverted, and I hope I can communicate the reasons for this. Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines, I think the most helpful for you would be the following:
  • WP:NPOV – specifically WP:SUBJECTIVE. Basically, it means that Wikipedia's tone should remain neutral. An easy way to use overly promotional language, which Wikipedia calls MOS:PUFFERY.
  • WP:OR – specifically WP:PST. Basically, it means that we should rely on secondary sources and not make our own inferences about the sources. So, instead of only citing Sedgwick to talk about her work, report on what others have said about her work, and how they have interpreted it.
Also, once you have contributed to the body of the article, then add to the lead to ensure it captures the essence of the article. (This isn't a rule, it's just something I have found makes my contributions better and easier to write).
Thanks for your contributions thus far, I appreciate your enthusiasm! Wracking talk! 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rephrasing

[edit]

I was initially confused by the phrasing used this sentence (boldface emphasis is mine): "Sedgwick felt Kimball's criticism of her in Tenured Radicals was highly unfair, given she had not actually written the article, which was published only in the summer of 1991..."

On first glance, I thought Sedgwick's authorship of the article was being disputed. I think either of the following replacements for the boldface portion would make clearer that the actuality of Sedgwick's authorship isn't in question:

"given that she had not yet written the article"

"given that it was not yet possible for Kimball to have read the article"

I'm sorry if this isn't the best way to suggest changes, or if I should have done something else (such as edit it myself) instead. Since this topic is far outside of my area of expertise, and I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's protocols, I thought I'd leave it to more regular readers of Sedgwick's page to decide whether any change was warranted. Esc123456789 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eve_Kosofsky_Sedgwick&oldid=1213511885"