Talk:Camille Paglia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Regarding the criticism section of this article

WP:CRIT says this: 'In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet.' This, it now seems to me, is sensible, and so are the remarks by Jimbo Wales, which are quoted there: 'And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.'

On those grounds, I think much of what is in the criticism section of this article is of dubious worth. Specifically, the criticisms of Paglia by Beth Loffreda, Mary Rose Kasraie, Marianne Noble, Sue O'Sullivan, and Kevin Clark could all probably be deleted, and there would be no significant loss. None of them could be properly incorporated into the article, as per Wales's suggestion (Noble's criticism about Paglia's belief in 'biological determinism' is wildly wrong, as I've already pointed out). Most of the other criticisms, including those by Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Naomi Wolf, Molly Ivans, and Katha Pollitt, are probably relevant and should stay. They are the kind of thing that could be worked into the main body of the article with enough effort. These six women are or were much more prominent and important than Paglia's other more obscure academic critics. They matter because they are the sort of people Paglia has replied to and commented on; this makes mention of them suitable to a biographical article. That hardly applies to the other critics. Skoojal (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No objections? Really? Then I'm making the change. The question that has to be asked is whether what is in that criticism section would be mentioned in a normal encyclopedia, and the answer is obviously that most of it wouldn't, since it has no biographical relevance. When a criticism section includes sentences that start with something like, 'Literary critic Mary Rose Kasraie echoed Lofreda's analysis...' then you can see that the material is pointless. How many critics who 'echo' other critics need to be mentioned? I think none. Skoojal (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What I've done is preliminary to eliminating the criticism section totally. Everything in it can and should be integrated into other sections of the article. Skoojal (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of that material was recently restored by an IP editor. I deleted it again. Whoever did that really should have had the courtesy to discuss the matter here first and address my arguments. Why it's 'important' when one academic critic echoes another academic critic, I don't know. Skoojal (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Paglia and the AIDS dissident movement

I think this article should mention the fact that Paglia has been willing to consider the suggestion that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS. There are two sources for this. One is the Continuum article (containing the accusation about Foucault) that has already been used as a source for this article. The other is a brief comment by Paglia in a Salon column. The Salon column is mentioned by the Perth Group of AIDS dissidents here [1] and is also mentioned on the Virus Myth website here [2]. The column itself is here [3]. Besides the intrinsic interest of this subject, Paglia's comments about this issue are important because they may help readers trying to know what to make of her suggestion that Foucault deliberately spread HIV. Skoojal (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious: the accusation that someone deliberately spread HIV might possibly look less serious if the person making it also is willing to consider that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS. Huw Christie pointed this out in the Continuum interview: 'If there's no virus, it's absurd, however.' Skoojal (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Paglia and the French

I recently removed the word 'certain' from a sentence about Paglia's hostility to French thinkers. This might seem a minor edit, but it needs a full explanation. I can understand why that 'certain' was placed there - it was presumably to make people aware that Paglia wasn't hostile to all French writers, and to make sure that she didn't sound simply anti-French. But the problem with that, frankly, is that Paglia really is anti-French. She has made clear that she has problems with France as a country. It's true that she has given a few French writers some credit, but this is an exception to her basic stance. I think that, since the mention of Paglia's praise of Gaston Bachelard, and partial praise of Roland Barthes and Gilles Deleuze has been added to the article, there is enough material in that section to make the nuanced character of Paglia's views apparent, so the 'certain' does not need to be there. I removed it mainly because 'certain French writers' is unhelpful and irritatingly vague. 'Modern' isn't very good either, but it's still better than 'certain.' Skoojal (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Some mention of Paglia's praise of Simone de Beauvoir and use of Jean-Paul Sartre (he's quoted in Sexual Personae) needs to added here, and I'll probably do this soon. Skoojal (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There was already something about Paglia's view of de Beauvoir in the article, of course, but I have added more. Skoojal (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Paglia's comparison of feminists to the Unification Church

Someone please tell me where Paglia compared feminists to the Unification Church, because this emphatically needs a source. I gather that it's somewhere in Vamps and Tramps, but I can't find it right now. Skoojal (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Paglia has refered to "victim-centered" feminists as "moonies or cultists", and someone changed it in the article to the "Unification Church" in an attempt to be more politically correct. She says it in more than one place, but I know it was in this [4] article.--208.58.202.116 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should make clear that Paglia used the term 'Moonies'; otherwise, it misrepresents what she said, and doesn't capture its full scorn. But I need a source before I can make that change, and that link seems to have nothing relevant. Skoojal (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the Unification Church because it wasn't sourced, but have now re-added it, with a source from Sex, Art, and American Culture. I believe Paglia makes this comparison in Vamps and Tramps too, and it would be good to add that as an additional source. Skoojal (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspect content

The article reads, 'Elise Sutton, a dominatrix advocating female domination of males, describes Paglia as a female supremacist and a friend.[20]' The article on Elise Sutton says that this person's identity is dubious, and that 'Elise Sutton' may not be a single person. 'Sutton' may describe Paglia as a friend, but Paglia has never mentioned Sutton as far as I am aware, so this looks dubious. I think it should probably be deleted. Skoojal (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording of the overview

My reason for making the article say that Paglia has taken controversial stands such as rejecting the idea that gays are born that way and being skeptical about global warming was to make clear that these are only two of a wide range of issues where Paglia has taken provocative or unconventional positions. The reworded version of this makes it sound as though homosexuality and global warming are the only two cases where Paglia has done this, which they certainly aren't. Skoojal (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will be changing this back in the near future if no argument as to why I shouldn't is offered. Skoojal (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On insults

To respond to Nuujinn's question about other insults in this article - both those by Paglia against others and those by others against her - I will simply remark that they need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. I am in general unimpressed by the way they are organized and presented in the article - they're a poorly written mess, and at least questionable under BLP - but I don't intend to wipe them all at present. Maybe they can be turned into something more acceptable, and I will hold off from deleting them for the moment in recognition of that. But there should be no doubt that major changes are needed; the insults material is terrible in its present form, and is a major reason why this is not a good article, or one fully in accord with BLP. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The "relationship to feminism" section is the biggest problem here. It looks like a random collection of quotations rather than a coherent discussion of where Paglia stands in relation to feminism, and much of it probably should be wiped, though as noted, I'm not going to do that just now. That quotation from Susan Sontag for instance ("We used to think Norman Mailer was bad, but she makes Norman Mailer look like Jane Austen") - what does that have to do with anything? Of all the things Sontag might have said about Paglia, is that really the most relevant or informative? Could nothing better have been chosen? I doubt it even has anything to do with feminism, given how Sontag distanced herself from the movement, so why is it in the feminism section? Some of the other material - like the stuff about Naomi Wolf and Germaine Greer - is somewhat better, but in general, it's a just a mess. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I also have no problem whatsoever with insults so long as they have substance to them, are balanced and relevant and don't overwhelm the article. On the contrary, I think this article should reflect the large critical response she has received for both her views (ie genuine academic disagreement), and her audacity in challenging the ideological policing and political correctness that is so prevalent in the MSM and the academic arm of feminism (aka women's studies.) I just hope that the insult has some genuine substance to it (unlike "asshole" or "poopy head.") I think adding some prose that summarizes some of the ad hominem vitriolic attacks which lack real substance would work too (the "ire" that's been variously commented on), but quoting them verbatim just seems like a waste of space and gives the appearance that WP, or at least editors, have an axe to grind or POV to promote by giving such content the prominence of a verbatim quote (especially for BLP articles.) Molly Ivins may be notable, but she's not that notable. If, and when, someone exceptionally notable, like Hillary Clinton, calls Paglia an asshole, or when Paglia publicly responds to someone calling her an asshole, I won't object to it.--Cybermud (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So if you both want to improve the article, why don't you both go out and find some material to add to it, as goethean and I have suggested. Also, Cybermud, I'm pretty sure "poopy head" has not been in the article itself. And I think both of you should take a look at the state of the article in mid september--if you think this is a BLP mess, that was much much worse. Take, for example, Paglia's assertion that Steinem compared her to Hilter--that was sourced back to an interview in Diva magazine, but when one tracks down Steinem's quote, that's not the comparison Steinem made. See also the Paglia's assertion that Foucault spread AIDs. It could be much better, but it has been much worse. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See also the Paglia's assertion that Foucault spread AIDs.

That shouldn't have been removed either; Foucault is not covered by BLP. — goethean ॐ 01:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, if we can find a 2ndary source that covers the issue, something beyond Paglia's bald assertion in an interview. If it's only supported by Paglia's assertion, it strikes me as gossip. But I'm open to discussing it, esp. if we can find some sources beyond the interview. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense to me. I'm saying that the article should report on the fact that Paglia said/wrote something not on whether Foucault did such-and-such or not. Maybe it's gossip, but it's Paglia's accusation against a major philosopher and it belongs in Paglia's bio.

However, here's a source. — goethean ॐ 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the general problem is that Paglia has said so many negative things about so many people that we'd run out of bits trying to document them all, and indeed, there's no need, since much of her later writings are just that. But I'll try to work up something short on the source that you present, and we'll see if it works or not. Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Goethean here. If Paglia's the one making the insult it's definitely fair game, even if she's just calling famous people poopy heads in interviews, but saying he spread aids is not really an insult so much as a serious allegation of misconduct against a very well known philosopher (as much as I'm not fond of postmodernism.)--Cybermud (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I will be kind and say that your familiarity with Paglia's work appears to be spotty at best. — goethean ॐ 15:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If Paglia's the one making the insult it's definitely fair game, even if she's just calling famous people poopy heads in interviews.... Cybermud, we cannot let this article become a platform for Paglia's views, that would violate NPOV--we follow sources, and if reliable sources are critical of Paglia, they are fair game, too. Advocating for inclusion of her attacks on others while blocks attacks on her could be construed as POV pushing and an implication of a conflict of interest. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a simple solution to this. We shouldn't quote rude things people have said about Paglia, or rude things she has said about others, unless there is a genuine, encyclopedic reason why we should. Paglia has said plenty of rude things about others, and other people have said plenty of rude things about her, so there's a lot of material that could be quoted - but in general there's no reason why it should be quoted. A good rule of thumb is that if some comment was reported by a third party, reliable source, with no axe to grind for or against Paglia, then it's likely to be worthy of inclusion, but there is no substitute for editoral judgment; we don't automatically include something just because it could be sourced. Otherwise, the article degenerates into a mass of BLP-dubious quotations. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how many times, or in how many ways, I can say it, but I'm not against critical content or censoring people critical of Paglia. I never said that Molly Ivins couldn't be used as a source or that we can't include critical content. To re-iterate, I said the "asshole" quote was undue trivia, completely unencyclopedic and of no value to this article. That's a far cry from "advocating" for the inclusion of Paglia's attacks on others -- although not seeing the distinction between quoting Paglia, in her own article making trivial comments, as being more germane to the article than quoting other people making trivial remarks could also be construed as POV pushing and a conflict of interest since we're on the subject.--Cybermud (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How? Please be specific. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

[5] a source on the Ivins spat which doesn't mention the naughty word. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A digression

I'm not sure this is relevant to the article, but it seems apt here, it's from a short courier-mail article:

• SOME of the best writing on books comes from authors' responses to reviewers, and the reviewers' responses to the responses. United States academic Camille Paglia sank the slipper into reviewer Elaine Showalter over sections of her review of Paglia's Sex, Art and American Culture in The London Review of Books. Paglia suggested that Showalter belonged to the American feminist establishment with its ""vicious, Kremlin-walled Stalinism". Showalter retaliated by quoting a newspaper report of a seminar at which Paglia allegedly shoved a photographer and said: ""I said no flash, asshole . . . I'm an academic talking ideas here."

Is there a source for this - could you direct me to the URL? It might be helpful. I'd suggest that in general if we want to cover controversies and disagreements between Paglia and others it's best to quote published sources dealing with those controversies, not to select pieces from out of works directly part of such controversies. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's a source for it, it's from an australian newspaper, the courier-mail, no, I can't give you a url since it's from a lexis-nexis search. I don't think we need to use it, since it's a passing remark from an article on another topic. Better to dig up the original refs in the London Review and whereever Showalter quoted the newspaper report. There's no shortage of these kinds of remarks. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

--- Hi. I think it's worth pointing out that some of the 'criticism' section of the article seems misleading, far-reaching or just an inaccurate representation of peoples' views by using quotes out of context. For instance, it's implied that Christina Hoff Summers is critical of Camille Paglia, however, in her talk shown in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOTj9NDv80&feature=related, which is the only reason I've heard of Camille Paglia, she describes her as brilliant, the closest thing to a genius in the field of gender studies and urges the audience to read her if they read anything. The section says: Many feminists have criticized Paglia; Christina Hoff Sommers calls her "Perhaps the most conspicuous target of feminist opprobrium", noting that the Women's Review of Books described Sexual Personae as a work of "crackpot extremism", "an apologia for a new post-Cold War fascism", and patriarchy's "counter-assault on feminism." Sommers relates that when Paglia appeared at a Brown University forum, feminists signed a petition censuring her and demanding an investigation into procedures for inviting speakers to the campus." This may all technically be true but it gives the impression that Summers is endorsing these opinions, when in all likelihood she's denouncing them. I haven't edited the article but may alter the wording to reflect Summers' position if no-one else does. - Anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.8.195 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Continued reinsertion of the quote

This has to stop. We need to have agreement on a way forward. That way forward is the RFC, to which I have just agreed. I'll certainly accept the result whatever it is but Goethean has to stop reinserting the quote until and unless the RFC produces a result in favour of including it! Someone tell Goethean to stop reinserting the quote now! 116.199.211.49 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And note the way he even reverted my spelling correction (it's Millett, Goethean, not Millet). 116.199.211.49 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote calling Camille Paglia an asshole

There has been an inordinately large amount of debate on the topic of including a long quote in which Molly Ivins calls Camille Paglia an asshole in the WP:BLP article on Camille PagliaCybermud (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to Ivin's review in case anyone wants to actually read it. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep it out. Quite likely a BLP violation, but it shouldn't be included even if it isn't, since it's undue trivia. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep it out Amazing that there's even a debate as to whether or not an encyclopedia should quote some author calling another, unrelated, author an asshole in a book review when there's no deeper relevance to the quote whatsoever besides the fact that it exists and has a reliable source--Cybermud (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep it out Trivia in the extreme. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep it in. This is one of the most notable reactions to Sexual Personae; maybe this wasn't clear, but Molly Ivins was Kind of a Big Deal. The dynamic between Ivins and Paglia is itself a topic that has received RS attention. The "onoz BLP" squeamishness surrounding this is the kind of thing Paglia herself would openly mock its perpetrators for, and there needs to be an end of vague "uh there are maybe kinda sort some BLP issues" language, and a statement of exactly what element of BLP-related policy or guidelines are violated by the inclusion of this quote, if BLP matters are to be at issue. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My objection is that the specific wording of an insult is too trivial to include in an encyclopedia. If this comment represents an important reaction to her or her work, it should be worded properly, 'she has been severely criticised for...', 'she has been personally insulted by her critics because of her views on...'. The insulting text can be cited. Martin Hogbin (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Molly Ivins is a pretty big deal, and I would say that the review is pretty important, in that it represents a common reaction among contemporary feminists in the arena of popular culture. Sexual Personae was banned in some feminist's bookstores. There are also a number of academic reviews, positive and negative of Paglia's works, which strike a much different tone, but what I've found thus far does not treat Paglia directly, but focuses more on the works themselves (as is to be expected from academic reviews). I think in this context it is very important to keep in mind that Paglia is notorious for making sharp, provocative attacks on those with whom she disagrees. She's very smart, a substantial critic, and her academic work is both praised and criticized, but I think she's in the public eye mostly because of the controversy she generates (if you read some of her columns on Solon you'll see what I mean). FWIW, I like the Ivins quote and think we should retain it, but I also readily acknowledge that because this is a BLP we must be careful to maintain balance, that's one reason I've added some positive review info to that particular section. I also think that the if we keep the Ivins quote it should be moved to a different section, since it's really about her, and not her work. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since notability policy is being misrepresented again here, let's remind ourselves that it only concerns what subjects may have articles created about them. See WP:NOTE. If Ivins calling Paglia an "asshole" were really notable, that would mean that an article could be created about it, the Molly Ivins called Camille Paglia an asshole article. Does anyone here really believe that creating such an article would be appropriate? Moreover, it's not true that Ivins was a very important opponent of Paglia. Paglia devoted lots of effort in the 1990s to criticizing Naomi Wolf, Susan Faludi, and Gloria Steinem, but she has said little about Ivins, notwithstanding Ivins's attack on her - there's no entry for her name in the indexes of either of Paglia's two essay collections, for example. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin, I take if from your last response that you're ok with it so long as we can place the insult in a reasonable and larger context, while assuring balance, and so long as it's not just a trivial insult? I would also expect we'd have to have some discussion of how that might be done.

@Seed of Azathoth, I'm sorry, and I've asked before, but what policy or guideline asserts that statements made in reliable sources about an article's subject are only fit for inclusion if the subject has responded to them? We routinely use critical material from reliable sources in BLPs to which the subject has made no response. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not actually own the word "notable", and it has a meaning that isn't about whether Wikipedia articles are allowed to exist. You might want to look into that. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting me. I never said that there is a policy "that statements made in reliable sources about an article's subject are only fit for inclusion if the subject has responded to them." BLP does however require strict attention to the issue of due weight, and random vulgarities of the "asshole" or "poopyhead" kind normally do not meet due weight, certainly not in this case. In pointing out that Paglia didn't find Ivins's attack significant I was simply trying to help people keep some sense of perspective and appeal to their common sense. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I'm misrepresenting you, but assuming that Paglia didn't find Ivins attack significant (which we cannot do, since we follow sources--for all we know Paglia laughed her head off at it), what does that have to do with anything here? You keep suggesting that Paglia's reaction or lack thereof is somehow relevant, but I do not believe there is any policy that suggests that in order for a criticism to be included in an article, the subject of the article has to have had any reaction of any kind to that criticism. I also note that you just added what I regard as a fine addition to the article in which Paglia is noted for calling Foucault a bastard, how is it appropriate to include that if you're rejecting Ivin's attack (which is not random at all, it's part of a wonderfully written diatribe)? BLP means we need to be careful, not that we need to censor content based on reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be assuming that decisions about article content can be based only on policy. It doesn't work that way. Policies do not and are not meant to show us what to do in each particular case; they're just general sets of principles, and editors must use their judgment in deciding how they apply to individual cases. That's why common sense is also relevant. That Paglia didn't respond to Ivins's attack in any significant way (it's mentioned in Sex, Art, and American Culture, where it gets a one sentence description: "Attack on Paglia") is one of the things suggesting that it's undue material and that we shouldn't include it. To quote WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." How many people other than Ivins have called Paglia an "asshole", and how does it count as anything other than a tiny minority view? Clearly, if Paglia had responded to it, that might have given it greater prominence, perhaps enough for it to meet due weight, but she didn't. And since this is getting tedious, I suggest that unless you have something significant to say in reply, let's stop this discussion and give other editors a chance to get a word in. Clogging the RFC section of this page with our arguments is offputting to other editors. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that all decisions about article content should be based on policy, and the policies must govern how we make decisions in the particular case. The fact that Paglia has not responded at length isn't relevant, as far as I know, because there is nothing in UNDUE, V, RS, etc. that suggest that a criticism is only usable if the target has responded to that criticism, as you seem to be suggesting. In regard to clogging the RFC, you'll note that I've not !voted yet, I was holding off until other editors responded, since our views are already evident in the prior discussions. As you well know, Paglia has attacked, insulted, and criticized a large number of people, and it is no surprise that she herself has been attacked, insulted and criticized. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How many people other than Ivins have called Paglia an "asshole", and how does it count as anything other than a tiny minority view?

This line of argument is so absurd as to be borderline WP:POINTy. Apparently the implication is that we cannot include anything in an article unless a majority embraces the exact same wording. — goethean ॐ 03:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Please let's end this discussion here and give other editors a chance to comment. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep it in One objection that has been raised to use of the quote because it uses an expletive, but WP is not censored. Another objection has been that Paglia did not view it as serious enough to give much of a response, but I do not see how that it relevant. WP:BLP has been cited, but that policy says that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." I do not believe anyone has objected to the tone or the source. That leaves the legitimate question of due weight and what the quotation adds to the article. Ivins was a notable feminist, and her review of Sexual Personae is a scathing criticism of Paglia and her work. If one googles around a bit, one can see that Ivin's review has received a good deal of attention. Ivins' views resonated with many feminists of the time, but also struck a cord with others, and the closing lines of the review have been widely quoted, see ST Magazine, The Daily Kos, OutImpact magazine, the Times-Picayune (On the road and in the know, 1993-10-17), and The Quotable Bitch. That the quote has received such attention raises it, in my opinion, from the merely trivial. I will also note, although I recognize that it's nothing more than my personal opinion, that rhetorically, the quote is a fabulous ending to a very well written essay, and thus a suitable rejoinder to Paglia's own polemics, which are also very well structured and very well written. But the fundamental point is that Paglia has elicited a wide range of reactions, some very strong, and I see no issue with us documenting those, expletives included. Paglia has produced a number of scathing reviews herself, so if we are to maintain neutrality, we have to include criticisms of her if we are to have criticisms by her. To exclude the former while retaining the latter would violate NPOV. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP says to be careful about negative material. A quote calling someone an "asshole" is negative material, and as such it's exactly the kind of thing we shouldn't include unless there is an unusually good reason for doing so. Wikipedia not being censored has nothing to do with it, and it's silly (at best) to suggest it does. Your excuse for including Ivins's drivel here appears to be that four whole pages on the entire internet mention it. I checked your sources; the Daily Kos mentions it only in someone's response to a blog posting. If you think that's a reason for including it in a BLP, then you're pretty desperate, frankly. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you know what makes people look desperate, is personal attacks in a content dispute. Just sayin'. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seed of Azathoth, please focus on the content, not my state of mind, personal attacks are not allowed here.

The direct quote is mentioned in five (not four) reliable news sources that I have cited, and shows that it is widely known and acknowledged, just as many of Paglia's negative assertions about people are widely known and acknowledged. The review in general receives broader coverage in what we consider reliable sources, which are, in my opinion, what we should be looking at. However, if for the sake of discussion here, you wish to increase the scope beyond what we regard as reliable sources, a google search for '"what an asshole" Ivins Paglia' gets over 2,000 hits, many to fora and blogs discussing the Ivins' quote in question, so your assertion that "four whole pages on the entire internet mention it" is simply incorrect. And since some of the strong objection has been that Ivins is a "potty mouth", yes, I feel very strongly that censorship is an issue here. We should be careful about negative material, WP:BLP says "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The sources for the quote are not in doubt, of high quality, and cited. And I note that WP:BLP does not at all exclude negative information unless the sourcing is questionable, and in this case, it's not. Your assertion that "A quote calling someone an "asshole" is negative material, and as such it's exactly the kind of thing we shouldn't include unless there is an unusually good reason for doing so" just isn't supported by WP:BLP--we include a wide range of negative material in BLPs, and that's fine, so long as the article over all presents the information in a neutral manner and that the material comes from reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Desperate" was a comment on the quality of your arguments, not on your state of mind. I think the same about your latest arguments. You provide no reason for thinking that any of your sources (at least the online ones that can easily be searched) are reliable, nor do you even attempt to answer my point about the inappropriateness of using someone's reply to a blog post for purposes of assessing due weight. Same applies to all those other blog postings and comments you think so wildly important. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And as for BLP, yes, it does permit negative material in some cases. Never said otherwise, and you're misrepresenting me when you suggest I did. But it only permits negative material when there's really a good reason for including it. Your thinking that Ivins calling Paglia an "asshole" is cool is not a reason for including it, and neither is blather on blogs. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, but if you meant it that way, I suggest you refactor your comments, as "If you think that's a reason for including it in a BLP, then you're pretty desperate, frankly" is pretty clearly a characterization of me, not my comments. But in any case, characterizations of my arguments as "silly, at best" or "desperate" are not, in my opinion, appropriate here as they do not address content issues. Also, I do not recall claiming that I think '...that Ivins calling Paglia an "asshole" is cool", and I would ask again that you refrain from personal characterizations of this type--they are not helpful.

As for the reliability of the sources, the ones that is most relevant are the sources for the quote itself, which are irrefutable, as WP:BLP requires that negative information be well sourced. There's no doubt that Ivins said this. The sources I've referenced are magazines and newspapers with editorial oversight, and that's part of the standard for reliability. The sources are certainly reliable enough to support my assertion that the Ivins quote was used by them, which is what I'm saying, in order to demonstrate that the quote is well known. That the quote we're discussing also appears over 2000 times in a google search also lends support to that position, and I think the fact that the quote has been cited widely in a variety of sources does support the notion that it's inclusion is not a violation of WP:DUE, and thus I believe I have addressed your point.

Finally, you've said I've misrepresented your position, I'm sorry if you are taking my questioning you about which part of the policy asserts your position as misrepresenting you, but we can clear the matter up quickly if you will point to section of WP:BLP that support your assertion that WP:BLP "...only permits negative material when there's really a good reason for including it." --Nuujinn (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Does no one ever say anything silly on Wikipedia? Are we to be forbidden to call it "silly" if someone does say something silly? I will refactor, but consider that complaining about my comments about you when you're arguing for including vulgar personal abuse in an article about a living person seems strange. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As for your assertion about the source for the quote being reliable - yes, but who said otherwise? Its being reliable or not is not the issue. Someone making a vulgar comment in a book review doesn't provide us with an automatic reason to put that comment in an article about a living person - that is the issue. Due weight is assessed through reliable sources, not the number of times something appears on the internet - especially not on blogs. You mentioned five sources, but four of them are internet sites, and you provided no evidence they are reliable; responses to blog postings on the Daly Kos clearly don't count as reliable. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And finally, in reply to your point about BLP: is it actually your argument that we should include negative material when there isn't a good reason for including it? I'm afraid you seem to have a serious misunderstanding about the intent of the policy if you think that. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you may be confusing how we interact with one another in discussions and how material winds up in articles. In our discussions, we are to focus on content and not the contributor. In articles, we are to accurately reflect what is said in reliable sources. Picking and choosing what we want to include in articles based on what we regard as "vulgar personal abuse" is not appropriate. The internet sources I brought are books, magazines and newspapers, and those are generally considered reliable even when they appear on the internet--they are certainly reliable sources for an assertion that they said "x", and that's all I'm using them for in this discussion. You focus on the DailyKos, fine, I'll drop that one. I believe the intent of WP:BLP is to get the article correctly and accurately sourced, and to neutrally present what reliable sources say. I believe that the fact that Ivins is a notable feminist writing about another notable feminist is sufficient reason to include the quote, especially since the quote itself is widely known. Now, will you please point to section of WP:BLP that supports your assertion that WP:BLP "...only permits negative material when there's really a good reason for including it"? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is appropriate to make decisions about article content based on whether something is "vulgar personal abuse." Obviously we have to do that, and use own judgment as editors about what is abuse, or it wouldn't be possible to enforce BLP, since its intent is in part to prevent harm to living people. I find it hard to take your suggestion that I must show that BLP only permits negative material when there's a good reason for including it seriously. WP:WIKILAWYER is a relevant essay here. And regarding reliability of sources, no, the fact that something is a book a magazine or a newspaper does not automatically make it reliable - it depends on what kind of book (or whatever) the source is, what kind of reputation it has, and so forth. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As for, "I believe that the fact that Ivins is a notable feminist writing about another notable feminist is sufficient reason to include the quote" - again, no. That's equivalent to saying that we need to report that someone said something just because they said it - you could use that argument for quoting Ivins's entire review here, which we obviously wouldn't do. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of it, we can and do represent the view of a notable person by another notable person if that view is presented in a reliable source. I believe the Ivins quote nicely sums up her position. WP:UNDUE states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." (emphasis mine). Note that the policy does not prohibit inclusion of points of view, Ivins' view is published in a reliable source, she is a prominent feminist, her position is widely known and quoted in reliable sources (and yes, magazines and newspapers with editorial oversight are generally considered reliable, as are books that are not self published) so we are obligated to represent her view, even as we represent Paglia's view of other feminists. I've reviewed WP:BLP three times tonight alone, I see nothing in it that supports your assertion that it "...only permits negative material when there's really a good reason for including it", nor anything in it which suggest 'it is appropriate to make decisions about article content based on whether something is "vulgar personal abuse."' What I do see is an emphasis that negative information be reliably sourced, and this is reliably sourced. You disagree with my position, and that's fine, but you should be able to point specific policy statements to support your opinion. It is not lawyering to ask for clarification as to what specific policy statement supports another editor's assertion that a general policy supports their position. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is blather and I don't consider it worth replying to, frankly (I did try to respond on your talk page). You seem hung up on the specific way I expressed my argument, but you're plain wrong in thinking that Wiki policies need to use the exact same wording as I did in order for my interpretation of them to be right - and I stand by my suggestion that implying that is lawyering. Due weight requires us to show that material is important enough to be worth including in the article (the "good reason" I keep refering to...); you haven't shown that this particular vulgarity of Ivins does meet due weight. If you believe I'm misusing or misrepresenting BLP take this up at a different forum. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your position is really no different from what mine would be if I suggested that what you're saying counts for nothing because you can't show a policy which states in so many words that a quote calling someone an asshole can sum up someone's position. You're imploying a double standard of argument, trying to show that everything I argue has to be stated in the exact same language in policy, but not of course meeting that standard yourself in what you argue. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I must ask that you leave off personal attacks, characterizations of my arguments as "blather" are not helpful. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has ceased to be productive. I will strike my comment, as a gesture of goodwill - but it's not a personal attack, because it's about your comment, not you. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but please note that even if you do not intend such to be about me, but rather my comments, it's still not about the content, and that's what we're here to discuss. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That was itself not a comment about article content. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor was it an attack on another editor or that editor's comments. WP:CIVIL is one of WP's five pillars and should be observed at all times, see in particular 1.d under Identifying incivility. If you really think your use of words such as "desperate", "silly", and "blather" conform to policy, we can move this part of the conversation to the WP etiquette notice board. I'd prefer to let the matter drop, myself, as I feel we've made some progress. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully appreciate the lack of censorship on WP and the fact that sometimes vulgar language actually can concisely communicate an idea. Too many people think that profanity is not civil. Let me leap to correct this misconception. What the fuck encyclopedic value is there in quoting "Kind of a big deal" Ivin's calling Paglia an asshole? I see a whole lot of good arguments for keeping it out and whole lot of clever responses to them, but see absolutely NO good argument for including it in the first place. The burden of proof has somehow been shifted to why this should be excluded when I've yet to see a good reason to include it in the first place. To be absolutely clear, there is universal agreement on including Ivin's review of Paglia's book. The one, and only, subject of contention is the trivial quote at the end where Ivin's calls Paglia an asshole. I do not buy that the quote effectively shows the ire that Paglia generates. Surely there is a source that can speak to that directly. There's no encyclopedic value in this. Put it on WikiQuote.--Cybermud (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, and that's why we're here. Also, I do not think there's a burden in either direction. WP:BURDEN requires that material be sourced, as as this material is well sourced, I don't think that policy applies. vulgar language actually can concisely communicate an idea, yes, I think that's why Ivins used the word asshole, and the concision of the quote is one reason I like it and think it's worth including. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] I saw this dispute at RfC and thought I'd add my comment. While I don't think this comment is a BLP violation, since it's sourced, I do think it's trivial and unencyclopedic. That it's profanity isn't a problem, but that it's trivial is. Thousands (maybe millions) of people think Paglia is an asshole. The fact that one such detractor is notable enough to get her opinion published does not make it a relevant part of Paglia's biography. --Coemgenus 13:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, keep it out. If anything, insults like this tell us about their authors, not the targets. If the comment is so important, put it in the article for the person who said it.μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep out- I agree the immediately previous account. If the arguments in favor of including it are that the fact that someone important has a long dispute with her, create a small section explaining the dispute with some actual relevance and meaningful information. The fact that someone made a brief insult is trivial. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Begging pardon, but it's merely a brief insult, it's the culmination of a long and harsh review, and I would encourage commenters to read the review if they have not done so. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

I think that much of the problem with the "asshole" comment is that Nuujinn and others seem to be intent on inserting it in the section on Sexual Personae. For a section on a work of literary criticism, the "asshole" comment is obviously wrong - not because it's abusive but because it's not really about Sexual Personae. It's a comment about Paglia that tells us nothing about her book. Personally, I don't believe that the comment should be mentioned anywhere in the article, but one could at least make a case for including it in the "Paglia and feminism" section; it wouldn't be so obviously wrong there as it would be in the section on Sexual Personae, since that's where all the other feminist remarks about Paglia as an individual have gone. Maybe some kind of compromise along those lines could be developed? If consensus is eventually reached to include the "asshole" comment, that's where it should go. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objection to moving it to that section, indeed, I think it is better there. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As another compromise, Seed of Azathoth, would it suit you better if we used "crassly egocentric, raving twit" from Ivins review instead? That phrase is more widely quoted (I can provide sources if you like). --Nuujinn (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I find it rather surprising that, after having argued that the "asshole" comment was so very important that it must be included, you now suggest that it could be dispensible after all. Whether "crassly egocentric, raving twit" is more or less worthy of inclusion than "asshole" is not easy to say. I'm not sure that it would be better, involving as it does four times as many words. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I do think it is important and will be sorry to see it go. But the RFC isn't generating any significant interest in either direction, and compromise is part of coming to consensus, and consensus is what we need here. You suggested one compromise to achieve that, I'm suggesting another in return. Personally, I think the twit characterization is harsher than the asshole comment, but then asshole is one of my nicknames at work. But the twit characterization does not use an expletive, and that's one of the objections to the asshole comment. And it also appears in the Encyclopedia of feminist literature, which suggests it's encyclopedic, so it addresses another objection. There are a few reviews in which it is directly quoted, from reliable sources, so it has coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm really going to have to consider whether I want to express an opinion about this. Maybe other editors can express their views? Seed of Azathoth (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we're obviously not in a rush. Regarding the length, yes, it's four words, but what we're talking about dumping is the entire quote by Ivins, which is sentences (I'm not sure that's any consolation for you, but I thought I'd point that out). --Nuujinn (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Intellectual of many seeming contradictions

Medeis deleted the "intellectual of many seeming contradictions" part of the overview section, claiming that it was synthesis. From WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Multiple sources were not used here, only a single article, so it's not synthesis. I appreciate that there are other reasons why someone might want to remove it, but please let's not misrepresent policies do to that. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Medeis's edit summary ("we use attribution here, not original research. If the source said those words or their equivalent, then quote the source"): what that seems to imply is that something is original research unless it is based on a source and we quote the source saying it, in exactly those words. WP:NOR simply does not say that and it was never intended to support such an extreme position. If it did, then Wikipedia would be nothing but a collection of quotations and writing worthwhile articles wouldn't be possible. As I said when I edited while accidentally logged out, it's perfectly fine to summarize what a source says in different language; that's not original research. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your reword is fine, the problem is that it came across as a statement of fact when it was an editorial summary. Adhering to and attributing the source are the proper way to handle it. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I grant that "in a category of her own" is an opinion that needs attribution, but I suggest that what you've done {"Margaret Wente for The Globe and Mail summarizes Paglia as a writer "in a category of her own...a feminist who hates affirmative action; an atheist who respects religion; a Democrat who thinks her party doesn't get it.") can be improved upon. The first thing that readers see when they read the "overview" section of an article called Camille Paglia shouldn't be Margaret Wente; it should be Camille Paglia. Otherwise, we're distracting people's attention away from Paglia and on to Wente; that's unfair both to Paglia and to our readers. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem to anyone else that the lead just has too much in it? Would it be better to flatten it out, and stick to bare bone facts about her career and writings, with a nod to the fact that she's both praised and blamed? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a first crack at a skeleton version:

• Camille Anna Paglia (English pronunciation: //ˈpɑːliə//), (born April 2, 1947) is a US author, teacher, and social critic. A self-described dissident feminist[1], Paglia is University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at The University of the Arts in Philadelphia. She is the author of the best selling 1990 work of literary criticism Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson, and has written books and articles on a variety of subjects including art, popular culture, feminism, and politics for both the popular and academic press. Known in part for her controversial views on social issues such as abortion, homosexuality and drug use, she is a critic of feminism in the United States, and the influence of French writers such as Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault.

Feel free to use big knives and broad strokes to improve, if that suits. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Change it if you like. Your suggested version may be slightly better than what is there now. The only alteration to your proposed version I'd suggest is using "Known in part for her views on controversial social issues such as abortion, homosexuality and drug use" instead of "Known in part for her controversial views on social issues such as abortion, homosexuality and drug use." Seed of Azathoth (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that will work. Any other comments? If there are no objections, I'll redo this in a day or so. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and redo it. The Madonna reference is perhaps dated, since Paglia hasn't been so enthusiastic about her lately. Regarding other parts of the article, I'm not entirely happy with Medeis's changes to the overview section, but I hope we can come to agreement there. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Can Someone add a picture please ?

I can't do it from this computer. Paglia's page should have one. Ideally in the midst of hyperbolic argument :D! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.162.171 (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Camile fucking Paglia"

AIUI, this is somekina meme, indicating a stance on the use of language. Don't see anything in the archives or current text about it. Would be great to have something on the origins, context, details. In advance, let me mention WP:CENSOR. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TROLL. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

e.g where the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos refs are good sources. FKC, STFU. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

article style

My difficulty with this article (so common in the genre) is that it said very little about Dr Paglia's specifc views and (by citation and name check) a lot about the social anthropology of criticism - it was not an exercise in meaningful communication. 90.203.80.177 (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation removed

I have removed the following BLP violation from this article: "Others have criticised her [eg, Paglia's] stance, particularly her assertion that Foucault was a Nazi apologist." That sentence was a violation because A), the source used was a blog and as such is totally unacceptable for a BLP, and B) it does not even reflect what was in the source correctly. Nowhere does the blog post in question say that Paglia called Foucault a "Nazi apologist" or that anyone criticized her for doing so. Rather, Paglia appparently called Paul de Man a Nazi apologist (which he was). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As an additional note on this, the user who added the material I removed is named "NotoriousQRG." The blog that this user added as a source is run by "Quiet Riot Girl." If "NotoriousQRG" is the same person as "Quiet Riot Girl", as the initials suggest, then the material added was not just a violation of WP:BLP, but also possibly a violation of WP:COI. It's definitely not OK to use your own blog postings as a source in an article about a living person. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

footnote 33

The sentence ending with footnote 33 has open-ended quotation marks: Paglia "nearly came to blows with the founding members of the women's studies program at the State University of New York at Albany, when they categorically denied that hormones influence human experience or behavior.[33] Could someone with access to the relevant volume correct this? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

fixed. — goethean ॐ 04:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Madonna Megastar

User:FreeKnowledgeCreator just removed Madonna Megastar from the list of Paglia's works, with the edit summary: "Madonna Megastar is not a book by Paglia. She only wrote one essay for it".

There is only one essay in MM, and it is by Paglia. Thus, all of the text in the book is written by Paglia. I have a copy of the book in front of me. The cover says: Mit Einem Text Von Camille Paglia".

WorldCat lists Paglia as the sole author. [6] [7] — goethean ॐ 12:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronoun issue?

The following sentence appears in the Overview section:

Paglia has said that she is willing to have her entire career judged on the basis of her composition of what she considers to be "probably the most important sentence that she has ever written": "God is man's greatest idea."

I can't get the linked video to play, but the third-person "she" strikes me as unlikely. ForDorothy (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

film roles

Paglia has had bit parts in several movies: It's Pat!, Henry Fool, The Watermelon Woman come to mind. These should be added. — goethean 18:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Ouroborosian has added a large number of dubious and/or unsupported categories to this article, and has persisted in doing so even after being reverted. I ask him or her to immediately stop this behavior and discuss matters here. Please consider categories more carefully. Paglia is primarily a literary critic and a cultural commentator. She is not a philosopher, not a scientist, not a sociologist, not a "libertarian historian", and not any of several other things you are trying to categorize her as. The excuse given for categorizing Paglia as a "libertarian historian" (a term she has never applied to herself, or that any reliable source has ever applied to her) was that "She's a libertarian and an (art) historian". The excuse isn't convincing. Paglia does call herself a libertarian, but that has nothing to do with her work in art history. If Paglia's work in art history were "libertarian" in some meaningful sense, then you might have a case for calling her a "libertarian art historian", but it isn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Where the "scientist" part is concerned, the justification for calling her a "scientist" was, "she is a media theorist, which is a social scientist." Scientists are people who do scientific research. Paglia does not do scientific research, and she's no scientist. If the "category description" indicates otherwise, then it is wrong, and needs to be changed. The "philosopher" part is also wrong. Paglia has never called herself a philosopher, or been identified as a philosopher by any recognized authority in the field of philosophy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Paglia is not a "sex-positive feminist"

I would ask Medeis, who recently restored the "sex-positive feminists" category following my removal of it, to try re-reading Sexual Personae, especially the first chapter. It does not express "sex-positive" views; rather the contrary. For example: "Sexual freedom, sexual liberation. A modern delusion. We are hierarchical animals. Sweep one hierarchy away, and another will take its place....My theory is that whenever sexual freedom is sought or achieved, sadomasochism will not be far behind...Happy are those periods when marriage and religion are strong. System and order shelter us against sex and nature. Unfortunately, we live in a time when the chaos of sex has broken into the open." I stand by my removal of the "sex-positive feminists" category: Medeis should not have restored it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Paglia's most repeated claims are against the suppression of porn and prostitution, and for gay rights, S&M, and polemics against what she sees as the "sex-negative" claims of feminists Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon (who she delighted in constantly deriding and caricaturing). It is accurate to characterize Paglia as seeing herself as a sex-positive feminist. — goethean 23:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Paglia has never used the term "sex-positive" to describe herself, to my knowledge, nor has she ever used the term "sex-negative" to describe the people she has criticized. So the term is simply someone's arguable opinion of her and her work; you evidently agree with it, but I disagree. It should be removed as unsourced. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless I find new sources to modify my views, I am not going to argue for or against the category. Now, as for the narrative in the article itself, it maybe should be nuanced. I'm not sure if that will make all/both sides feel better about including or not including the category, if the article itself includes a short discussion of the way in which she is, and the ways in which is she not, sex-positive, here is one source where it's clear she is, on the one hand, 1) considered by many to be or to think-of-herself as sex positive but 2) these same people point out she is not acting sex-positive so again, it's nuanced.

The topper to all this? In the same interview, Camille Paglia, so-called “sex positive” feminist, attacks Naomi Wolf for … wait for it … writing about her sex life! Says Paglia about Wolf:

I was shocked at the grotesque sexual exhibitionism here of a woman who is turning 50 this year and who is the mother of two teenagers. Why would anyone do this to herself and her family?

So let me get this straight: Camille Paglia, fearless advocate of “sex-positive feminism,” hysterically clutches her pearls and rushes to the fainting couch because a woman who is 50 years old and has kids is writing about her sex life?...Paglia’s fawning interviewer doesn’t even bother addressing these bizarre inconsistencies, but that’s no surprise, since he didn’t take on her Big Lie about “inventing” sex positive in the first place

This from the Washington Monthly [8]. So apparently in Salon, Paglia claimed to have "invented" it, yup, here's what Paglia says:

. And by the way, these PC gals don’t even realize I invented the now widespread feminist term “pro-sex” — which, when I first used it on the road in 1990 (in a litany that went “I’m pro-sex, pro-porn, pro-art, pro-beauty, pro-pop”), would provoke startled laughter from audiences.[9]

But I will perhaps shock(?) FreeKnowledgeCreator by largely agreeing with them (I mean agreeing with her or him, as in, agreeing with FKC and I am saying this with humor referencing our extended past exchange...) because to call yourself one, is different from it being widely accepted you are one. It's not the same as beign transgender where a person is what he or she says they are in gender identity. It's more like someone calling themselves a humanitarian and if they are someone most consider the opposite, well....It's not even clear from the quote whether Paglia considers herself "sex-positive" today, it says she did back in 1990, and I haven't read the rest of the Salon interview..does she still consider herself sex-positive today or is she some kind of post-sex-positive (or post-post-post-sex-positive ;-)? And even if she does, I do think there have been significant voices, not just this one in the WM but others I have seen over the years that I'd need to take time to look up, where notable people have at least, raised questions about how sex positive (or not) Paglia's positions are.

In sum, I'm not at this time taking a position on whether the category should be included or not but am suggesting the above be put into the article itself in some condensed form (that she says she is (or at least in 1990 was) but on the other hand that many have questioned whether this is so. And if we put that into the article, putting both sides of that, maybe all sides can feel more listened to, both Goethean and FKC and others, regardless of whether the category is added or not (with more information and citations over time it may become clearer) Hope this helps. Harel (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Postscript, she does in same Salon piece indicate in another place again, a bit earlier, that she is "pro-porn" saying, "Even when Wolf tries to celebrate sex, she remains prudishly anti-porn — which is a completely illogical position. " [Added later: I'll include one last suggestion since time prevents me from revisiting this page in the near future: a survey of let's say, some of the top 5-10 who are recognized as sex-positive (Susie Bright etc) or otherwise recognized feminists who are not in any clear way either linked to/supporters nor against/had fights with Paglia, and a survey of those, do they consider her sex positive, the opposite, or in between, and use that to possibly help at least partly settle this. Good luck.]

I think that self-identification as sex positive is sufficient cause to include the category. — goethean 13:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Paglia said that she was "pro-sex", not "sex positive". More importantly, there is plenty in her writings that contradicts either description of her. The category should not be included. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Distinction without a difference — goethean 22:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Try replying to the other part of what I said, the more important part. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Global warming

I question the need for this article to say anything about Paglia's views on global warming. It's not a subject she is well known for commenting on, and her views about it don't form any part of the reason she is notable. I also think the current material (the "religious dogma" comment) is out of context, and gives a rather misleading impression of Paglia's views. She has tended to be skeptical of current theories about global warming, but she has acknowledged the possibility of climatic disaster nevertheless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I don't feel strongly about inclusion of the material. However, maybe a short paragraph on her thoughts on natural science generally is appropriate, since her thoughts on the topic are interesting and somewhat important to her worldview. Perhaps this short paragraph might include a reference to her climate change skepticism. — goethean 19:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It might well be very interesting to know what Paglia thinks about the natural sciences. I'm not sure that she has ever expressed herself fully on the subject, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reads Like a PR Piece

Did Camille Paglia author this article? It has very serious tone(WP:BLP) issues that must be addressed immediately. The article needs to be much more objective and needs to include some criticism too. KingHiggins (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's too vague a comment to respond to. Try saying something more definite about the article, and it would be easier to respond. You indicated on my talk page that you thought some of the material in the lead was trivial, but you didn't say which material specifically - not helpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, in an effort to be constructive I will give a list of some of the contentious material:

* Paglia has celebrated Madonna - trivial

* radical libertarian positions - remove 'radical', not needed.

* In the 'Overview' section every paragraph begins with 'Paglia'. Also, why not put a paragraph about her early life before the overview, this gives the reader some idea of who she is before dicussing positions.

* Paglia's Sexual Personae was rejected by no fewer than seven different publishers (not unusual, in and of itself), but when finally published by Yale University Press, became a best seller, reaching seventh place on the paperback best-seller list, a rare accomplishment for a scholarly book. - descriptions like 'no fewer', 'finally published' and 'rare accomplishment' do not sound encyclopedic. This isan example of the general deficiencies in tone.

* The education section needs to be reduced, it is too long and has too much trivial information. Her position on Susan Sontag is not notable enough for two paragraphs.

The article needs some perspective of what other academics think of Paglia. I think Sontag herself said somewhere that she had no idea who she was. I can keep on giving you a list or I could start making revisions and improvements as long as you are not threatening an edit war over it. Are you happy with this article? KingHiggins (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In the first place, if you want to discuss this article, please do so here on the talk page and stop posting on my personal talk page - I don't want to have two simultaneous discussions in different places.

Go ahead and remove the Madonna reference: I don't care.

I don't think "radical" should necessarily be removed from "radical libertarian". "Libertarian" is an unfortunate and rather vague term. "Radical" helps to make it somewhat more specific in meaning.

If you are able to rewrite the "Overview" section in a competent way, go ahead; you don't need my or anyone's permission for this. I agree that it's wrong for every paragraph to start with "Paglia". A paragraph about her early life should not go before the "Overview" section, because obviously the point of the "Overview" section is to introduce Paglia to the reader.

Maybe I should care about the "tone" issues of the sentence you mention; however, I really don't. But rewrite it if you can do so competently.

I also don't care, per se, about the length of the education section. Please don't remove the material on Susan Sontag. Sontag was a famous public figure, and the details of her career, and her early interaction with Paglia (contradicting her later claim not to know who she was) are of considerable importance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Yes, I agree that the talk page discussion should be terminated. I cannot find an overt reference in the lead of Libertarianism that specifically refers to the ideology as 'radical'. However, as you said, the term encompasses many different ideologies - perhaps 'radical' is ok.

The overview introduces her ideologies but as you said the 'point of the "Overview" section is to introduce Paglia to the reader.' It does not do this very well and I would be happy to try and restructure it. Look at similar biographical articles(for example the French post-structuralists she criticised): Michel Foucalt, Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida the first section is always something like 'early life' or 'life'. It seems a better approach to introduce biographical information first and then ideological information in her 'views' sction.

Sontag said herself that she had no idea who Paglia was in a 1997(I think) interview. Two paragraphs is too much.

that in the works of Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan and Michel Foucault, she never once found a sentence that interested her - this section on her opinions on French thought give undue weight to her own opinions. For such a controversial figure to be given so much room in the article about highly criticised beliefs is wrong. I will start drafting some revisions and then I can offer them on the talk page. KingHiggins (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You added the following rubbish to the lead, which I've now removed:

"Her critiques on feminism and post-structuralism aswell as her various positions on politics, sexuality, art and culture have made her a devisive public figure. She has both been characterised as a 'conspiciously gifted writter' as well as possessing 'fantastical immodesty'. Her positions on femininity and homosexuality have lead some to describe her as antifeminist."

Could you please not add crap like that to the leads of biographical articles? It's contrary to the spirit and letter of BLP, and seems to express overt hostility to the subject of the article. We don't need a list of every controversial comment people have ever made about her, nor do we need controversial comments that look as though they were chosen at random. The "gifted writer" and the "fantastical immodesty" comments are both perfect examples of the kind of material that doesn't belong in the lead - neither comment has such importance that it deserves to be there. To say that "some" have called her antifeminist, without explaining who the "some" are, is unacceptably vague, and it looks stupid as well as blatantly biased. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've resorted to edit warring to remove text from the lead that you disapprove of ("Paglia taken radical libertarian positions on controversial social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and drug use. She is a critic of American feminism and of post-structuralist theory.)" You removed it again, after I restored it, with the comment "please discuss on talk page." Sorry, but you're the one who needs to get consensus on the talk page if you want to remove that material. If there's no consensus for your changes, the article will remain as it was. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please keep a cool head, and lets focus on the article. In your revert you removed four useful sources on Camille Paglia, describing her as antifeminist was not necessarily a bad thing - if you read around this subject more you would find that the vast majority of literature on her notes her somewhat unconventional or 'controversial' Feminism. The reader of the article needs to be aware of this.

I can understand why you removed the two quotes, what I was attempting to do was balance one with the other, but perhaps it would be better to find comments specifically on her work. Instead of the some the name of the two journals could be used, and perhaps there could be another sentence with her response to those alligations. The specific paragraph you want to keep is essentially trivia and belongs elsewhere in the article: what does a 'radical libertarian position on homosexuality' look like? It seems urrerly vague to me. It wouldbe better if another editor looked at the changes and formed an opinion on what is best. KingHiggins (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The lead needs to accurately summarize the main points of the article. If you are introducing new content in the lead, you are doing it wrong. — goethean 15:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding - I agree in which case the sentence about Paglia being antifeminist would be appropriate - the first sentence of the 'Feminism' section reads Some feminist critics have characterized Paglia as an "anti-feminist feminist," critical of central features of much contemporary feminism but holding out "her own special variety of feminist affirmation. - so we agree this should be included in the lead? KingHiggins (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I can understand why you added the "anti-feminist" bit. I really can. I can see very well why someone might think that was reasonable and would improve the article. Consider, however, that it does seem biased to mention that someone has been called "anti-feminist" without also mentioning that others consider her an important feminist voice. If one point of view is mentioned, the other would have to be mentioned too. Yet mentioning both in the lead would make it read awkwardly: would it really help to fill the lead full of "some people have said this...but other people have said that..." statements? To include the sentence you mention in the lead seems too much like an attempt to force-feed readers controversy. (NB, there's nothing "trivial" about Paglia taking controversial positions on social issues such as homosexuality). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok I understand your position and I am happy to leave the lead where it is - I think it is better now than it was before anyway. I will see if the sources used to inform the quote can be reinserted elsewhere in the article. I think the best way to improve the article now would be to reorganise the setions so that the first section is called 'early life', the second section is called 'education' and the rest of the article on her views and publications. This would bring it more broadly into line with other BLPs - what do you think the best way to move forward is? What do you think should be done to improve the article? KingHiggins (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing getting rid of the "Overview" section entirely. I'm not sure whether that would be a good idea or not, though I suppose a case could be made for it. What, exactly, do you have against that section? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Overview" section is unusual for BLPs and I feel that most of the material could well be dispersed among the other sections. For example Paglia's Sexual Personae was rejected by no fewer than seven different publishers... and the rest of that paragraph belongs in the Books section where it would be more contextualised. The bulk of the first pragraph can be placed into the Views section accordingly. This would bring the article a much more coherent structure. It is not that I have anything against the material in the section, I just feel like ot could be broken up and contextualised. KingHiggins (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Views: Feminism - Rename or elaborate

I came to this section to find her views on feminism. There are 7 paragraphs in this section, and almost nothing saying what her views actually are. Instead each paragraph is just a quote from a person/organization trying to discredit her views on feminism but not mentioning what the views are. I recommend renaming this section to critiques or elaborating on her views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.77.58.141 (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"The New York Times" says

I'm curious as to why the opinion of the NYTimes is so important it is mentioned in the lede. Perhaps in a section about how she should be classified it would make sense. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Some of her views have been characterized as conservative"

I wonder about the use of this sentence. First, it doesn't list which views. Second, the link is to an article which is behind a paywall. But even if the article were accessible, I understood footnoted references to be intended to support statements in the article, not to be places to go for further reading on what is hinted at in the text. In fact, I would think that the details of her mix of views which are variously described as left wing, right wing, or libertarian would be content worthy of this article, rather than a mere reference to the fact that such a various description exists. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't really see what you're complaining about - if there is a source to say that some of her views have been so described, then why not use it? It isn't passing judgment on whether the characterization is correct or not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Political views

A week or so ago, FreeKnowledgeCreator (who judging by the above, frequents this entry or at least this Talk page and who has had exchanges with several other editors) undid an edit. Having looked at one of the included references, in Reason, I confirmed the statement attributed to Paglia is true, only it turned out to be that she had made a much stronger statement, namely that it did not merely contribute to 9/11 that the country was distracted by the Lewinsky affair, but that the national distraction from Clinton's not resigning, "directly" led to the country being blindsighted, so I added that word. FKC "undid" the edit with the comment this this was "completely unecessary" since it was a mere "detail. I'm sorry FKC - regarless of any person's politics, views on feminism, Paglia, views on 9/11, views on Reason, or anything else, it is incontrovertibly a huge difference to claim a major historical event (which 9/11 uncontrovertially is) is something that the failure to resign "directly" led to.

One can try to name any other major historical event - the U.S. entering any war, the Assassination of a leader, any other major historical event, and in no example one can think of, does it become a "mere detail" let alone a "completely unnecessary" detail, if someone asserts that some preceding events "directly" led it to. In any and all such cases that is a materially different analysis, to say it "directly" led to it. If Paglia has any later statements if she no longer thinks it "directly" led to it, or she was misquoted or changed her mind etc, fine, include those. But please do not erase the critically central word she is directly quoted as using - we are not in the business of using "white out" to edit out uncomfortable historical statements, at Wikipedia. The word "directly" is Paglia's not mine, and makes for a much different and much stonger assertion, and the entry should reflect that.Harel (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Harel, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a blog or a political commentary site. Encyclopedias cover general information. They aren't meant to offer minute commentary or analysis on people's comments or views. That's what you're missing here. So, I have had to once again revert your unnecessary, unconstructive change to this article. Please don't repeat it without getting consensus first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia. In the article about Paglia, in the section in question, our encyclopedia entry includes her own words and thinking about political issues. Perhaps you misread the use of the word "analysis" above? It clearly refers to Paglia's analysis, yet your reply seems to refer to and oppose, analysis by us as editors. Yet what you characterize as "minute commentary" and as "analysis" (by wikipedia) is neither: Paglia's own words are included in the article. Her words are neither "commentary" nor are they "analysis" on the part of wikipedia - they are her own analysis, which is exactly what the article had both before, and after, my edit (the "before" and "after" differing by one word).

Paglia is not someone who is inexperienced in the use of the English language, is she? She chooses her words deliberately and with care, one has to presume. The reference that was already cited (http://reason.com/archives/2004/11/01/whos-getting-your-vote/10) has Paglia say, to quote verbatim the full sentence, this:

"[My] Most embarrassing vote: Bill Clinton the second time around. Because he did not honorably resign when the Lewinsky scandal broke and instead tied up the country and paralyzed the government for two years, leading directly to our blindsiding by 9/11."

I hear loud and clear that you do not want wikipedia's entry to let readers know that Paglia said "leading directly", but you give no reason. In your original comment do not give any reason or justification as to why the inclusion by wikipedia of Paglia's own word "directly" is, as you assert it to be, somehow "quite unhelpful" nor to you give any explanation, either, to your assertion now that it is somehow "unconstructive" to include Paglia's actual phrase, "leading directly to" - those were her words, after all.

The article cites this reference but for some reason, omits the adverb Paglia deliberately chose to include, namely the word "directly," and instead the article quotes her as merely saying it "led to out blindsiding by 9/11". I would turn the question around and ask why the strange, peculiar choice to skip, to omit that word?

And what exactly is "quite unhelpful" or "counterproductive" about using the phrase "leading directly" that Paglia herself chose to use? You can't very well argue that it's to "save space" since the difference is just one single word, which is hardly going to swamp the computer servers or people's computer screens, to put it mildly. Nor can one reasonably assert that the word gives almost no additional detail; on the contrary, any time anyone asserts that X led "directly" to Y, one is making a very specific and strong assertion, as already noted, this is true whether one is talking about this major historical event (9/11) or any other. This is a stronger and more specific assertion than the general statement "The events X......led to Y..."

Since that adverb, "directly" adds important detail about Paglia's views, we cannot claim that the two versions ("leading directly to" versus the censored version "leading to") have indistinguishable meanings. Nor can "lack of space" be the reason. Hence deciding to omit that word, is either arbitrary, or censoring, or sloppy.

It seems to me that you do protest a bit too much, FreeKnowledgeCreator, at what a terrible thing it would be to include Paglia's actual words, don't you think? In fact, the problem is with the original omission, and I want to thank you for helping me find the words: it is the hiding from readers' eyes of Paglia's own personal choice of phrasing, that is unconstructive and quite unhelpful. It is very unhelpful to keep away from our readers, Paglia's choosing to make that quite specific and quite strong (and hence quite relevant) decision that she wanted to say "directly lead". Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring out the words (or making arbitrary personal decisions we don't like Paglia's adverb, for any other reason) to censor the words wikiepdia directly quotes. I am prepared to bring outside and higher level editors/administrators as neutral observers. Harel (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you have heard of policies such as due weight? Unless you wish to argue that the article should include every single comment that Paglia made about everything, the simple fact of her making a comment is not by itself a reason for including it here. Your reason for wanting to include it was apparently that 9/11 was an important event. Obviously it was extremely important. That doesn't mean the details of Paglia's comments about it have any great significance. She is not, after all, the most important commentator on 9/11 - hundreds, maybe thousands of people have made more important or more noteworthy comments about it than Paglia. Since commenting on 9/11 isn't what she is primarily known for, what she has said about it is of relatively small importance even for this page. So we need basic details only. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh? When you write "Your reason for wanting to include it was apparently that 9/11 was an important event" you make it sound as if I am suggesting the quote about 9/11 be included, as opposed to not being included. In fact the article already was including the refernece to 9/11, before I made the edit (to make the quote more accurate by adding the one key word that was deleted out but which Paglia did say). This is not a discussion about including versus not including Paglia's quote about 9/11. The fact is the article does include it. If you want to argue to remove all references, to her views on 9/11, that's your option, but that's a separate discussion. The article, before, already contained 21 words about this ("Paglia criticized Clinton for not resigning after the Monica Lewinsky

scandal, which she says led to America being "blindsided by 9/11") but it turns out that her own word "directly" was omitted for some reason. Surely this accuracy is worth 22 words to be more clear about what she actually said, if it was worth 21 words (while being less accurately representing Paglia's position) earlier. As a reminder, the reference that was already cited (http://reason.com/archives/2004/11/01/whos-getting-your-vote/10) has Paglia say, to quote verbatim the full sentence, this:

"[My] Most embarrassing vote: Bill Clinton the second time around. Because he did not honorably resign when the Lewinsky scandal broke and instead tied up the country and paralyzed the government for two years, leading directly to our blindsiding by 9/11."

I have still not heard a response about why you deleted the word "directly" (let alone why it was "counterproductive") and surely we have to say the real thing that is counterproductive, is not informing readers; what is counterproductive that giving readers a less accurate picture of her views (by deleting her own word, "directly"). Instead I am hearing a shifting rationale for your vehemently opposing that Paglia's own words be given, that X "led directly to" Y, by censoring out the word "directly" we are not giving readers a more "general" pictures, we are just giving them a less accurate view of her words.

Again, saying this is not the focus of Paglia does not answer the question; obviously it was deemed important enough for her to have (other editors, not me) create and include a section called "Political views" - not my decision, but that of others. Secondly, including her views on 9/11 was the decision of other, earlier editors, not mine. Now, given that the article does have a section called Political views and given (based on past decisions in previous edits, by others) that it does have 21 words about her views on 9/11, when I checked the source and was surprised to see her original language was stronger, "leading directly to...9/11" it would be wrong to deep that word deleted and wrong to keep our readers in the dark.

Really I am trying to assume good faith here, but, honestly, with the changing rationale, and now claiming that you want to conserve space and not write "too much" because 9/11 is not at the center of Paglia's work does not feel like a good faith argument. If you're so concerned about Paglia (personally I am neither for nor against 100% of Paglia's writings; but we should not be in the business as wikipedia of editing out a word just to "soften" what Paglia actually said and make it less accurate by deleting one word she deliberately used) but if you're concerned, to being fair to her or however you see it, then why don't you suggest a sample sentence or two, which does include the word "directly" but in a way that sounds better to your ears (than just adding that single word in quotes before the existing word "led", as I had)? I am open to that. One possibiilty is to just include Paglia's original sentence in the reference, or some shorter version, or even a bit longer (maybe even you are ok with that if the phrasing is ok with you) either is fine with me so long as we do not censor/delete out the word "directly" that she deliberately used to describe her views. I am trying hard to come to compromise instead of calling outside editors, I hope this will be acceptable with you so we can reach a mutually agreeable or at least acceptable, and not have to escalate this. Would you suggest (below) such a phrasing? Harel (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Writing long screeds like that, and quibbling about the details of what I said (which may, admittedly, have been less than clear) is really pointless. You seem to be obsessed with the idea that because someone says something or uses a word, we have to put it in an encyclopedia. No, we don't. Encyclopedias don't work that way. We don't need to mention every detail of what someone says about something or mention every word they used. Otherwise, we would simply have to quote everything they say about everything. Maybe adding "directly" does give more information about Paglia's views on 9/11. The truth is, there's no reason why we should give more information about her views on the subject, since they're of relatively little intrinsic importance. Again, see WP:DUE. I do get tired of having to say the same things. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I admit I am not the world's most concise writer, but at the same time, what you say were your own "Admittedly,..less than clear" writings, and also your shifting, changing reasons - were in no small part the reason. As far as your statement "Maybe adding "directly" does give more information about Paglia's views on 9/11." - it is not merely "more information" - it is giving a more accurate representation of what Paglia stated.

Our job at wikipedia is, inter alia, to give a more accurate representation, rather than a less accurate representation, of a persons' positions (when we have a section on that person's positions, which is what this article has) when this can be done at little or not cost (e.g. 22 words rather than 21). It is counterproductive and harmful to readers to repeatedly insist that we must not have a 22 word more-accurate sentence and to insist strangely that we must somehow have a 21 word less-accurate sentence instead.

Since you chose not to take up my offer to suggest your own sentence, and since you admit that there is "more" valuable when we do not delete the word "directly" I will put some version in that include the strangely omitted word "directly" back where it was - in Paglia's own sentence. It should never have been deleted/ommited in the first place...

Please do not undo without consensus.

And maybe you will let go of the insistence to safe one word at the cost of making the article less accurately representing her views (like, what she actually said and thought and her actual analysis) and save us both time so we can both move on to other things..Harel (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't be bothered reverting your latest edits, or responding to most of your comments. Just remember, for future reference, that if you want to change an article, you're the one who needs consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In my view the person (who may or may not have been you - I realize it could have bee someone else) who first decided to remove the word from the quote should have gotten consensus before removing it, or if they used the redacted quote in first introduction, should have discussed it. Keeping in mind that not every change requires consensus, I agree that it did in this case; you seemed to have conceded my point so I changed and invited you to either accept it or to bring outside views, but was asking not to revert without outsiders. Fortunately Goethian came in and I thank him for it, and I thank also you for hearing the points I was trying to make all along, which Geothean summarized, and not battling to keep out a word which would have lowered the article quality. Regards, Harel (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the word "directly" should be added to the article. It is well-sourced, accurate, and gives a better understanding of Paglia's views without sacrificing much space. — goethean 17:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. As I said, I don't intend to revert Harel's latest edits, which seem at least acceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Goethean for taking the time to comment. It seems as if "accurate and gives a better understanding of Paglia's views" without taking hardly much additional space, are pretty clear to all, as I thought from the start. And while it seemed that my making exactly the three or four points Goethean summarized fell on deaf ears or led to a shifting reason against any changes, I will put that as water under the bridge and thank you too FreeKnowledgeCreator, for hearing these points and acknowledging them (I'm glad also to hear it's at least "acceptable" to you) Harel (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Free has since been blocked for sockpuppetry ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.87 (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticising liberalism ?

re : Paglia is known for her critical views of many aspects of modern culture, including liberalism, the word liberalism isn't anywhere in the only 'live' source. Plus I point out that the word 'liberalism' has a long and honourable usage OUTSIDE of 'modern US liberalism' (the link), as far as I could see in the source, she was both defending 'free market' AND 'freely available healthcare', she was also criticising European social security frameworks, but defending social 'safety nets', does all that add up to 'criticising liberalism'? Looks like synth to me.Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Feminism section

The Feminism section is one big mess. It consists of simply short, context-free insults between Paglia and her targets of criticism. For instance, the exchange with Naomi Wolf is reduced to petty insults, with Wolf calling her "intellectually dishonest", and Paglia calling her "a twit", with nobody having any idea what the dispute is about. This is ridiculous. I have slightly elaborated upon Paglia's criticism of Wolf, but more should be done. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Ouroborosian appears to be a poorly-disguised sockpuppet of And we drown. Here is a link to And we drown restoring the "LGBT scientists" category [10], using the edit summary, "She is a media theorist, which is a social scientist, which is a scientist." Here ([11]) is Ouroborosian restoring the same category, using the near-identical edit summary, "Read category description, she is a media theorist, which is a social scientist". Checking their edit histories shows that Ouroborosian started editing soon after And we drown "quit" Wikipedia in a huff, after making crude insults against several other editors on his user page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly approve of the the "crude insult" part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.131.225.246 (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Camille Paglia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081230063354/http://www.salon.com:80/april97/columnists/paglia970429.html to http://www.salon.com/april97/columnists/paglia970429.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080411071450/http://www.salon.com:80/july97/columnists/paglia2970722.html to http://www.salon.com/july97/columnists/paglia2970722.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the word and the thing

I do not believe that the removal of the link I added was warranted. The concept of the word and the thing is unknown by general audiences, and the page previously linked to, while not featuring very close wording in its title, is likely the only article that could give audiences information to assist them in understanding Paglia's argument. AndrewOne (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Global warming

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: You've used up more than your allowable 2Rs (via the 4th R) for the next 23+ hours. I've accepted two of your edits, in an effort not to be disputatious, and replaced text and added citations that I hope you would read (including the Times reader feedback accompanying the Krugman article) before violating the rule for the 3rd time. Activist (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the three revert rule, which I have not broken. Per WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You will note that the edits I made subsequent to yours are a "series of consecutive edits", not multiple reversions ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert", to quote the policy again). I made a series of modifications to the text you added, notably removing your personal commentary about what, in your opinion, are the inadequacies of Paglia's view of global warming, an obviously non-neutral bit of text that does not belong in a biographical article. Do not replace it, thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood anything. You've reverted the text six times in the last half hour or so. When I tried to add a citation, I was met with a series of five new and different edit conflicts. It cost me the time I spent in researching and providing an additional citation, as I accidentally lost it when confronted with your many reversions. You have still neglected to ping me, though obviously I've been trying to come to some amicable solution. Please, don't remove my addition without seeking consensus. I'm assuming that you don't have a COI, specifically that you're not Paglia herself. I hope you can give me that reassurance. Activist (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Activist, you did misunderstand something. You misunderstood the three revert rule, as I explained above, quoting the policy. Rather than try to contradict me on this, you simply ignored the explanation. Run along and report me for 3RR violation if you wish. I'm unconcerned with this, as you are quite wrong about the issue. I am going to remove the term "contrarian" that you added here, as it is, once again, an inappropriate form of editorializing that does not belong in a neutrally written article. I am also going to remove the additional citation you added, as it is to a New York Times piece that does not even mention Paglia, making it irrelevant and inappropriate to this article. Please do not restore anything without seeking consensus, as establishing consensus for information you wish to add is your responsibility. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I asked you to read the citations I added but instead you repeatedly dashed ahead with your own view. I don't see you seeking any consensus for any editing you've done, here, or with regard to other articles. For instance, your rapid and consecutive 15 edits, twice, on the The Evolution of Human Sexuality article. Paglia's statement about global warming in the Standard interview is virtually the definition of contrarianism. Please leave it alone. I asked you a question about a possible COI you haven't answered. Activist (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I did look at your added citation; it was irrelevant, as noted, because it does not mention Paglia. You appear to be using it in a way that involves original research. To be perfectly clear about it, I do not care what you think "the definition of contrarianism" is: editors are not supposed to add content to articles based simply on what they personally believe. As for your complaint that I have not sought to establish consensus for my edits at The Evolution of Human Sexuality: trying to establishing consensus is unnecessary there because no one is questioning my edits. That article has always been overwhelmingly edited by me and nobody has as yet taken it upon themselves to question one single edit I have made there. Here, you are confronted with an entirely different situation. You are making edits that somebody is questioning. Therefore, you should seek consensus for them. That is how things are supposed to work when an edit is disputed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Goethean: @Harel: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Looking at the comments above on this TALK page, it appears you've been at this rodeo before, FKC. It's not about what my "belief" in what the definition of "contrarianism" is. The Krugman commentary and others cite climate change denialism, to which Paglia subscribes, as the epitome of contrarianism. I also note that you've made 265 edits to the Paglia article, and 94 to this TALK page: I'm not the first to have broached the subject, as other editors have criticized your redactions here, as well as your responses, similar to what we've discussed in the last few hours, though I haven't looked beyond this current page at archived content. Activist (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Krugman's piece is visible here. It does not mention Paglia and is not relevant to this article. In trying to use it to label Paglia's views as "contrarianism", you are engaged in synthesis and original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Goethean: @Harel: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: It seems you followed your 6 rapid reverts yesterday by waiting 23 hours and 48 minutes to revert once more, without pinging me, in order to escape the consequences of being subject to arbitration, I presume. I'll take that as a concession, despite your lengthy protestations and rationalizations yesterday, that you were in fact conscious that you were violating the rule. You haven't answered the questions I put yesterday. Do you have a COI with this article, and are you actually Camille Paglia? While it appears you might be, I don't believe the latter is true for a number of reasons, but the question could be easily resolved with yes or no answers. Activist (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason for me to respond to ridiculous comments, including the suggestion that I violated the three revert rule (which is false, as I explained above, not with "rationalizations", but by pointing out what the relevant policy actually states), or ludicrous speculation about my identity that no one is going to take seriously (though you should nonethelesss see WP:OUTING). Try addressing the substantive problems with your addition rather than engaging in distracting nonsense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "OUT" anyone. However if in the unlikely event I somehow became notable, or my sibling did, I or we should not be editing an article about us. "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself." Activist (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

COI editing?

I've put the question in my previous post. I'm not trying to "out" anyone. But Wikipedia's COI rules should apply. If this article is being edited/perfumed by its subject, or someone with a conflict of interest, the behavior should cease. If there is no COI, any reversions should be subject to the consensus process. Activist (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please simply make the case for your additions instead of raising irrelevant issues or making nonsensical comments. I think the comment from Wendy Kaminer is trivial and does not merit inclusion in the article. The same applies to Paglia's comment about David Horowitz - it is not really a relevant element of her biography. You are free to disagree if you wish, but it is up to you to make a convincing case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I get the impression that you feel as though you should be the sole arbiter as to what should be in, or not be in, this article. There's no case to be made if you've prejudged what is or is not appropriate for this article, and you simply ignore any other editor's opinion, as can be seen above. I give up at this point. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. Activist (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Also I accept your lack of a COI in this article, despite your unwillingness to simply deny it and your confessed sock puppetry above. I looked at your User page. Even Paglia couldn't be burdened with the extremity of those efforts at self-justification. Activist (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"A sentimental myth unsupported by evidence"

The text says:

In an 2017 interview with The Weekly Standard, Paglia stated that liberals "posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming," but contended that the idea that they do so is "a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence".

This statement seemed odd to me, so I compared it with the source:

It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming (a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence) flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender. Biology has been programmatically excluded from women's studies and gender studies programs for almost 50 years now. Thus very few current gender studies professors and theorists, here and abroad, are intellectually or scientifically prepared to teach their subjects.

It appears that Paglia actually says global warming itself is "sentimental myth unsupported by evidence". From the above quote, it also seems obvious that she doesn't question the liberals' stance as "defenders of science" in the issue of global warming - quite the opposite, she contrasts it with what she sees as the absence of the same appeal to science when it comes to women's studies.

Since, on top of all that, RationalWiki calls her a "global warming denialist",[12] and since she has gone on record saying that "virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved",[13] I believe the article text gets it wrong. GregorB (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Disputed content

Endie, please stop making disruptive edits. You have repeatedly objected to part of François Cusset's discussion of Paglia, alleging that the material is inaccurate or unsupported by the source cited. You have done nothing to support that claim, and the justifications you have offered to remove that material - like those you made here where you stated that "Merely adding a reference does not change original opinion to encyclopedic fact" - are confused. The "fact" in question is that someone expressed an opinion, and all the article is doing is reporting that opinion. If you are trying to suggest that the section contains original research, then you are mistaken; it doesn't. I'm afraid your edit summary here is likewise confusing and unhelpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I should be interested to read the specific text in Cusset that is being used to support this. Unless it is a long piece of text that possibly infringes copyright to repeat in full, could someone please provide it here so that others can read it and assess? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not own a copy of the book in question. However, it can easily be search on Amazon.com. The relevant passage, on page XVIII, reads,

"As Paul de Man had seen before anyone else, theory should probably be defined negatively, based above all on the reluctancy it meets, the resistance it triggers, the hatred and disgust it can often arouse. There is no better evidence of this than the phenomenal success of Camille Paglia when she calls Foucault a "bastard," or of Alan Sokal when he tricks Social Text with his own version of "fashionable nonsense" ...

The citation does, in fact, support in the material in the article, despite Endie's assertions to the contrary. His edits may be in good faith but the reasons he was giving for removing that content were very confused. Perhaps the problem was that I did not provide the page number in the citation and he could not find the relevant page? (By the way, you will note that Endie's edit also removed the citation to Cusset's book completely, despite leaving some content from the book in the article). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I found the text on google books, and have provided a link to it in the citation. I agree that the citation supports the article text. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Although I notice that particular page and link do not support the previous sentence about Cusset's view ("François Cusset writes that Paglia, like other major American public intellectuals after World War II, owes her broader recognition mainly to the political repercussions of polemics that first erupted on college campuses, in her case to a polemic against foreign intellectualism"), so a different page number and link will be required for that. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I originally added that content, and I was careful about what I added. See page 37 of the book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled to find this here this morning, as I had gone back to the text, found the reference, realised that I was wrong, reverted my change and gone so far as to thank FreeKnowledgeCreator, which should have been visible in their edit history. The idea that someone would say "no, you were right, I was wrong" may be what they find "confusing", but it's certainly not "disruptive" (also, thanks for the page number reference, which does make it much easier to find). Endie (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)