User talk:93.35.147.108

April 2024
Hello, I'm CanonNi. I noticed that you recently removed content from Lust, Caution without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. (talk | contribs) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have added an explanation for the edit. The section was for controversy, and the "evidence" for that section was two articles, both of which are apparently behind a paywall. Factually speaking, there was no widespread controversy on the matter. By the same token, articles such as the following in Vulture: https://www.vulture.com/2007/09/will_lust_caution_save_the_nc1.html that talks about the movie saving the NC-17 rating by not depicting a homosexual relationship: "“Lust, Caution” is free of the sorts of sexual content (rape, incest, orgies, gay sex scenes, etc.) that lead some to write off other NC-17 works as subversive or transgressive.". I don't think that it makes sense to label such singular data points and isolated opinions as a "controversy". For that matter, from the abstracts of the paywalled articles themselves, I wouldn't say that they were highlighting a controversy, the second one of the two for example discussed the *symbolism* of the movie comparing it to the tone of the book. 93.35.147.108 (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also add that, for a curated article, it also doesn't really make sense to enumerate every singular take without taking into account whether it is subscribed by any relevant portion of the population, or isolated data points, giving the mistaken impression that they are both widely accepted and relevant, where one could really find articles and opinions supporting basically any point of view. To me, it does not make sense to "build a case" on the back of a couple of (if you look at the details, very different) articles, pretending that they represent some kind of coherent, identifiable "camp" or "perspective", rather a scattered, isolated opinion. Compare and contrast that with the sections on the other controversies where we are presented with widely shared opinions on the cultural impact of the female protagonist's betrayal from a Mainland Chinese perspective. 93.35.147.108 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)