Talk:Camille Paglia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Inside joke about S.P.?

Is there some sort of inside joke about Camilles opinion columns? Nearly all of them reference Sexual Personnae. It is such a constant that there must be some sort of in joke or reason why she does this which she made known at some point? (Other then her own self description as an egomaniac.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.52.2 (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Article too long

Although I was entertained by a couple of her books, Camille Paglia is not deserving of an encyclopedia article of this length. What has she really done other than been ranked by some obscure magazine as one of the "top 100 intellectuals"? When I went to Barnes and Noble bookstore (which is pretty big), they had only a single copy of "Sexual Personae." That was it. They told me that I had to order her other book if I wanted them. My point in relating this is that, although she may appear on a lot of popular television programs, Camille Paglie as a writer is simply not that influential as to merit 20 pages of writing, a lengthy discussion of childhood and 100 references. I would recommend that the article by cut in half. Perhaps we should vote about this issue.

By the way, one way to look at this is to compare it to the Noam Chomsky article. Notice that his article is hardly longer than this one. At the same time, he has written at least one book a year for the past 40 years. To relate this back to my Barnes and Noble experience, I happen to know that most stores carry at least 10 copies of Noam Chomsky books for every book by Camille Paglia. Yet another way to look at it is to view the number of articles in foreign languages listed on the left side of the page. Notice that only 6 foreign langauge articles have been written about Paglia, while about ten times as many are available for Chomsky. This foreign language criterion is important because it is an indicator of international influence and cannot easily be manipulted by English-speaking fans (unless they happen to know Swahili!). The point here is that the Camillie Paglia article should be cut in half.

Although my comments may seem harsh, the article is written well. I think that it deserves more than a "B." If you want to laugh at how ridiculous these designations are, just see the Michael Jackson article. Although the article contains some of the most bizarre sentences that you will ever read in the English language, it was nonethelss designated as a Good Article!

138.67.44.175 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If indeed you read the (very much accurate) article, you know that it will be quite fruitless to argue that she has been of minor influence. And you're again wrong to suggest that her book sales have been anything but enormous. The article is certainly not too long.

On a final note, since you're clearly new to wikipedia, all new comments go at the BOTTOM of the talk page.

--Tom Joudrey 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, Although you suggest that her sales are "enormous," I see no references or citations to back this up. Furthermore, the article in no way convinces me of any sort of influence on the same level as someone like Noam Chomsky. As an example, I see no evidence that this individual has been the recipient of any major awards (for example, a Pulitzer prize). All I see is some list of "Influential Thinkers" in a magazine that I have never even heard of. Unless you can convice readers that this subject is of great importance, then I believe that the childhood section and the list of influences should be cut down significantly.138.67.44.69 00:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

As I posted earlier today, I have added extensive criticism of Paglia to this page, including criticism of Sexual Personae, equity feminism, and her public sparrings with various academic figures. Unless someone can come up with points that justify the disputation of the neautrality, the label of diputing the neautrality is no longer warranted.

Furthermore, someone is vandalizing this talk page and reposting the dispute of neautrality banner without explanation. This is unacceptable.

"Neutrality" (note the spelling) is wholly in the eye of the reader. The word has no operational content. The "neutrality disputed" banner simply means that someone out there doesn't like some aspect of the entry, but is not willing to edit it herself. I doubt that it is possible to write an entry re Paglia that everyone would see as "neutral." Sorry if I sound like a postmodern nihilist.202.36.179.65 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Biographical Information

Notable figures in history born on April 2: Charlemagne, Casanova, Hans Christian Andersen, Emile Zola, Max Ernst, Buddy Ebsen, Alec Guinness, Marvin Gaye, Leon Russell, Linda Hunt, and Emmylou Harris. (etc., etc.)

(Duplicate material removed)

I don't understand why this information was removed. Is having lots of information really such a bad thing for an encyclopedia?

Well, in this case...yes. The point is that when people come to an article on Paglia, they want to know the major points about her life and her influence on society in a way that makes these points stand out and be clear. While the above is interesting to Paglia-philes, it makes it very difficult for someone to "sort through" all of it to find the major points concerning Paglia. Perhaps a separate article, "Paglia timeline" or "Events in Paglia's life".

Looking at the article now, there could be more in the sections, stuff from the above even. The problem is, it's not very helpful to say things like "On this date, Patti Smith's album is released" without saying why this relates to Paglia at all, or who Patti Smith is. There are a lot of comments in the above that was deleted that could be very useful, if they were incorporated into an expository section that put all the ideas together, instead of an exhaustive list of dates and details. Not everything in the above is not helpful; it's just the context and presentation. Hope this explains, maybe someone can piece these good points from the above into a few paragraphs (or more).

It's amazing how long this article is for such an unimportant person. She seems bitter about everyone she's encountered. (Anonymous User) May 25, 2006

Seriously, quibbling aside, it's unnecessarily verbose, with too many inessential details. With relation to how much is written relative to the persons historical importance i.e. reference to Hume, I think it would better to look at examples of A class entries, for example Chomsky's is succinct, not too much detail, a good overview, and it includes criticism.

-- Here is something that should be mentioned somewhere in either the Bio section or the Introduction: What is the correct pronunciation of her last name? I'm guessing, Pah-yah? Meseems this article cries out for that tidbit of information. (Randall)

Wasn't she notorious at Bennington for getting into physical fights with students? In fact, didn't that lead to the end of her academic career there? This deserves mention.

feminism?

Could do with more about her feminism and clashes over rape, etc?

Could do with less of the extended biography! Tiles 05:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it could be moved to a seperate article, like Camille Paglia (biography). --Goethean 16:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. It's already too much. Paglia, a public intellectual of minor importance, has a more extensive and detailed biography than David Hume.

Ha! Get a sense of Hume-or a greater appreciation of Paglia. She is much smarter and more valuable. Add to the Hume article if you really love the guy so much.

Moreover, her biography contains all sorts of precious and private details only she or a close friend could know, which makes this article something more of an appreciation than an encyclopedia article. What is wanted is some editing, and I'm about to provide it. 68.110.199.122 14:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm that every detail of the entry was found in publically available sources or through research that anyone could do. As for Hume -- perhaps he'd have a bigger entry if he had been on Oprah too.

As for the feminism info, I put in sourced information, including Paglia's own quotes (you can't dispute her own quotes!) It was removed. This is not okay on Wikipedia! I'm putting it back and I'm gonna keep putting it back unless someone gives a good reason for not including it. LTC 03:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to shout. Wikipedia articles don't generally attack the good faith of the subject of the article in the first paragraph, which is precisely what your text does. This subject is already treated in the first part of the description of Paglia's significance. — goethean ॐ 15:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

How can anyone be so beautiful and so bright at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.55 (talk • contribs)

What is the source for the quotes in this line? She has been called the "feminist that other feminists love to hate", one of the world's top 100 intellectuals, and by her own description "a feminist bisexual egomaniac". Can someone footnote the reference?--24.4.230.204 07:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Typography

Shouldn't all the book titles be in italics (however you'd like to encode them in the Wikipedia system)?

Also, isn't the line 'This is a quite fresh reading of old favorites -Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress," Colderidge's "Kubla Khan," and more' poorly punctuated, too redolent of point of view, and rather subjective? (Also badly written?)

corrected --goethean ॐ 01:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paglia and Mailer

Paglia is a self-declared feminist, yet her brand of feminism is contrary to the image of it. It would be interesting to explore the differences between her ideas and those of other feminists, and to inspect the similarities she shares with a supposed anti-feminist Norman Mailer. There is a quite a bit of civil-libertarianism in Paglia's political thought, and Mailer himself calls himself a "left-convervative". It would be worth someone's effort to explore the strand of neo-Emersonion individualism both writers share.

Bio Material Removed

I have begun removing some of the biographical material and am putting it here. These are passages I felt were hilariously inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. 68.110.199.122 14:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

(The name "Paglia" specifically describes the color of the straw that is produced in Italy, the same color that George Eliot had in mind in Daniel Deronda when she wrote of "the pale-golden straw scattered or in heaps.") this might be interesting for an article on straw but contributes nothing to our understanding of Paglia

That's funny. It's been put into a footnote.

At the age of nine she tried to produce the play Hamlet (based on the Classics Comic Books) in school but became frustrated because some of her classmates hadn't learned their lines. The experience taught her that she couldn't depend on other people, and she soon became a rather aggressive child. This kind of dime-store psychoanalysis (even if it is self-analysis) doesn't belong here

The year 1959 was an especially important year in Paglia's development, as it was the year her family got both a telephone and a TV set. Television exposed her to the movies of the 1930s for the first time, especially those of Katharine Hepburn, who made a big impression on her. She also fell in love with Elizabeth Taylor, and obsessively collected every photograph of her that she could lay her hands on. In 1961 when Taylor won for Best Actress at the 1960 Academy Awards for Butterfield 8, Paglia's reaction was "feverish excitement the whole next day at school." At about this time, she received a lecture from her father regarding Voltaire's poor opinion of actors.

While in high school, she began research on Amelia Earhart. The research lasted three years, ending when she was 17. She said, "I spent every Saturday in the bowels of the public library going through all these materials, old magazines and newspapers, before microfilm. Everything was falling to pieces. I probably destroyed the whole collection! I was covered with grime." She planned to write a book on Earhart, and while the project never came to fruition, she wrote about Earhart for a popular magazine in the 1990s.

Andy Warhol's Chelsea Girls was released that year. Paglia saw it and was particularly taken with actress Mary Woronov. She later remarked: "She was one of the most original, stylish, and articulate sexual personae of the royal House of Warhol. I never forgot her, and I followed her subsequent movie career with great fascination." Many of Paglia's memories of the 1960s are linked to movies. For instance, in 1968 she and her friend Stephen Jarratt saw Joseph Losey's Secret Ceremony, and Mark Robson's Valley of the Dolls, and continued to write about the experience years later. I don't think a wikipedia article should be speculating about her memories

Paglia conducted an extensive tour in support, lecturing and signing books at many universities and bookstores across the US. why is it interesting or unusual that she went on a book tour?

I think now these should go back in since there is no appreciable difference in quality or relevance between the crap here and what remains in the article. I will begin with the delightful business about the straw. Bds yahoo 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It was rightfully removed, so I've taken it out again after you reinserted it. --67.180.200.145 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Typography

I have long felt that the introductory material about her significance to the 1990s as "Two-fold" was poorly phrased and not quite correct. First, why would the entry only focus on her influence on the '90s intellectual world? Secondly, her influence was not relegated to just the topics of feminism and the humanities curriculum.

Lew Rockwell

"She is a contributor to the libertarian news and opinion blog LewRockwell.com. " This does not appear to be true. There are no articles by her on this site, although the site does link to her articles at Salon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.230.204 (talk • contribs)

Objectivism Scholars

The Objectivism Scholars category is accurate. It is for people who have written about Objectivism in an academic context; they need not be Objectivists themselves. LaszloWalrus 23:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Objectivism Scholars category most certainly is not accurate. Where has Paglia written about, or in the tradition of Objectivism? — goethean ॐ 23:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

POV check

Paglia is world reknown for her intellectual assaults on the ideologies and methods of contemporary feminists. Vamps and Tramps has a hilarious section of mass media cartoons full of feminist reactions to Paglia. The whole book is loaded with penetrating criticisms of contemporary feminist ideology, politics and attitudes, establishment academia, etc.

News articles from all over the world note these arguments and show a very colorful, controversial, and sometimes shocking Paglia. This article shows little of that Paglia's intellect, seems to discount or ignore her 'problematic' positions and is awash instead with titillating gossip about her history. To me, a top intellectual's key ideas deserve far more coverage than her history. For that reason, I am going to POV check this entire article.

I will be glad to supply NPOV news sources should the content in Paglia's own material be insufficient to represent her well here. However, knowing how she is loathed, feared, and no doubt misrepresented by establishment feminists and academics I suspect that some slanderous and unbalanced and incomplete POV might be intended here. I ask that those editors who can write this article in complete, balanced and fair NPOV that shows all sides of Paglia do so.

As I am no such editor, I will leave that to those who know Paglia's positions/personality much better than I do. I will be glad to dig for news sources and offer any other assistance I can as Paglia has been a refreshing breath of fresh air for me in an era of very stale, shameless and false 'victim'-feminist sloganeering. Please comment and/or suggest what I can do to assist in this effort. Anacapa 05:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

To claim there is a POV problem with this entry is ridiculous. You ave not shown a single instance where there's bias, you have only said you'd like for there to be more information about her intellectual ideas. That's a content issue, not a point of view issue.

To the anonymous editor above, this is a POV by omission issue to me which is how lack of complete content becomes used to serve POV. I say again this article fails to reflect the many NPOV news articles (usually written by women) about Paglia, her highly critical ideas and the shunning, loathing and fear she inspires in Women's Studies departments, among second-wave victim-feminists and in PC academia. To ignore such content here is quite POV... I will link a few interviews, news articles to show the omissions here and to compare news media POV's with the POV's in this article which makes no real mention of Paglia's sustained assault of second-wave feminism.Anacapa 22:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there's definitely a problem with this article in terms of POV and omissions: while most similar biographies will have a general section on controversy or criticism there is nothing of that kind here. On a basic note, her main media exposure has been through embarrassing public rows with, amongst others, The Modern Review and her infamous exit from an ITV News interview, yet there is no mention of these very public incidents. I'm by no means qualified to do this justice, but I'll try if no-one else is willing to. Driller thriller 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Book tour

Shoot-from-the-hip comments Paglia made on her 2006 book tour may be colorful, but are certainly not worthy of inclusion here. Let's follow one of Paglia's lessons and not become prisoners of contemporaneity. Unless it's something like "There is no female Mozart...," leave it out. 161.253.46.102 05:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)K. Duve

These articles look as though they were either written by Camille Paglia herself or by her official biographer. The continuous positive spin on her life and work, and the (apparently) highly detailed knowledge of the subject would be more appropriate if the subject were a saint or national hero.201.1.53.116 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

She is a national hero IMHO, one of the world's top 100 intellectuals (from the US) in an increasingly witless world...but that said POV is POV and I applaud all efforts to attain NPOV here.Anacapa 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The entry for Foucault is very detailed. It may even be longer than this one. I don't see a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.230.204 (talk • contribs)

Biography

The biography section is still far too long. It includes such information as when the Romans invaded the town where her mother was born, and which level of the house she once lived in as a child! This sort of information just makes the entry unreadable for people who just want an encyclopediac overview of her life.

We also need to consider WP:Notability This is an encyclopedia biography, so events which might have had a significant impact on her as a person, but aren't notable for the public at large should be excised. The article is currently 51kb, 19kb over the suggested article maximum. Ashmoo 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Camille's criticism of male gay rights activists

Excerpt from the "Ask Camille" column published in the June 23, 1998 issue of Salon magazine.

"Gay artists are certainly not helping things either. They are producing a whole lot more and mattering a whole lot less. As I said to Rod Dreher of the New York Post (Page Six, June 12) about the controversy over Terrence McNally's scheduled play, "Corpus Christi" (whose Christ figure in the current script has offstage sex with an apostle), it does not help the gay movement for Christian ideas to be routinely "defamed by so many childish, nihilist gay writers." Playwright Tony Kushner, for example, who led the McNally defense and whom I called a writer of "self-canonizing propaganda," falls pathetically short of the artistic stature of Tennessee Williams, an openly gay man who wrote masterpieces that are admired around the world.

As for Sen. Lott's classifying homosexuality with psychiatric disorders like kleptomania and alcoholism (I don't accept the current party line about alcoholism being a somatic disease, even if certain people have genetic difficulty in metabolizing alcohol), it is perfectly consistent with his beliefs as a conservative Christian. I view homosexuality not as a disease but as a social adaptation, productive or destructive as the case may be, to private and public pressures.

Gayness is certainly not innate, and those who trumpet that science has proved otherwise should be condemned. That gayness may be intricately related in childhood development to other personality traits, like shyness, aggression or artistic talent, is a more likely hypothesis.

I have been struck, in my brief encounters over the years with a half-dozen prominent gay male activists, by the frightening coldness and deadness of their eyes. Behind their smooth, bland faces I saw the seething hatreds of Dostoevskian anarchists. Gay crusading, I concluded, was their way of handling their own bitter misanthropy, which came from other sources. I found these men more spiritually twisted than anyone I have encountered in my life. The gay movement should not be left in their hands.

You call yourself "secular," as do I. Secular humanism is strong only when it can offer science and art as vibrant substitutes to conventional religion in the search for meaning. But militant gay academics and their jargon-spouting post-structuralist minions have trashed science and art. As a teacher, I am concerned about young people's cultural milieu. Until gay activism can expand the imagination and feed the soul as well as religion does, give me religion."

For full article click here: http://www.salon.com/col/pagl/1998/06/nc_23pagl.html

Donna Mills Interview

I have removed this section because it was placed under the category which should be about works that Paglia authored. It is merely a magazine interview, it is not a book or production: ===Donna Mills Interview (2002)=== In November of 2002 Donna Mills revealed to Camille Paglia in an interview that the character of Sandy in Grease was based on her exeriences as a Chicago-area teen.--67.180.200.145 04:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Critique

Can someone throw something critical in here? it reads like it was written by the Camille Pagila fan club. A little section called "Criticism of Pagilas Politics" perhaps? There are other notable intellectuals covered in wiki that have not escaped the inclusion of a critical review section. A bit more balance here please.

Well, actually, here's a start.

• The challenge in reading so melodramatic a writer is figuring out which ideas are genuinely new (and not just unexpected departures from an otherwise predictable ideological platform), which are genuinely original (and not simply designed to shock), and which are sufficiently valuable as to make all the other stuff worth wading through. [from critic Elizabeth Kristol]

• This is megalomania on a lunatic scale. [Mary Beard on Paglia's Vamps & Tramps: New Essays]

• There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity. Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, "Poor dear, it's probably PMS."' Whereas, if a man behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, "What an asshole." Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia, Sheesh, what an asshole. [from Molly Ivins]

• As Camille Paglia's success has demonstrated, what is most marketable is absolutism and attitude undiluted by thought. [from Wendy Kaminer]

---

Thank you for your excellent observations and quotations. And may I add that Paglia's being called an "intellectual" and a "feminist" shows just how easily some people are fooled. Nancymc 22:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

uhh, contradiction of faiths?

How is Paliga listed in both the atheist cat and the Roman Catholic cat? Methinks this confusion could use some research to substantiate it. eszett^talk 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, she claims to be a Catholic atheist. In an interview with America magazine, I believe. — goethean ॐ 13:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretty tricky, but I'll buy it. eszett^talk 20:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Improving this entry

As is all too often the case with Wikipedia entries, the prose here did not flow well, and I've polished a goodly number of sentences in the Biography section. I hope I have not done violence to the facts, because that was not my intent. I agree that the Biography often dwells on trivia that should be removed. I invite others to do this.

It is indeed the case that Paglia is both a cultural Roman Catholic and an atheist (source: America article of a few years back). She has a very distinguished antecedent here: George Santayana. Her stance is blatantly contradictory only to those who insist that religion requires mental assent to a body of dogma. The only religions for which this is strictly true are Islam and Christianity as defined by their respective clergy. Religion also has large and powerful cultural and sociological dimensions. Also, I once read that something like 10% of French tell pollsters that they are atheists yet consider themselves Roman Catholic in some vague sense. My Hindu friends cheerfully tell me that Hinduism is, at bottom, "a way of life." Likewise, Catholicism can be "a way of looking at human nature."

The entry should definitely say more about those who disagree with Paglia, and why. I can't help here, if only because I am not a humanist. For starters, why not link the article to critical reviews of Sexual Personae? Paglia admires traditional scholarship by such as Winckelmann and Kenneth Clarke; does her own work live up to this ideal? Yet the little I have seen in print of disagreement with Paglia strikes me as predictably angry reactions by feminist intellectuals. But these are precisely the people she most loves to skewer; that they pay her back in the same coin is ho-hum. When she says, in effect, that biology will have the last word and that nature will not be deceived (and I agree), that predictably outrages academics specializing in feminism and homosexuality. Where are her shrewd critics?

I have yet to read Sexual Personae; it is her Nietzschean astuteness about certain aspects of masculinity that draws me to her. What made me a fan was her notorious MIT lecture published in Vamps and Tramps. I am rather surprised that she has not been assaulted, even assassinated.

What many seem to overlook is that she is, at heart, an American humorist, and that deflating the pieties of the day is the humorist's stock in trade. Note her passion for Oscar Wilde. Her insulting humor reminds me of the humor of a certain kind of very bright boy I knew in high school and college, a humor that was no respecter of sexual pieties, whether bourgeois or feminist. Humor is raucous, bawdy, and deep down, conservative. By conservative, I do not mean "in sympathy with George Bush and his ilk" but "unwittingly respectful of the point of view articulated by Edmund Burke." Once you go beyond Paglia's racy remarks about sex and androginy, you soon discover a lover of the classics, a respecter of many intellectual traditions, even including her Roman Catholic heritage, a thoughtful centrist in politics, a realist in international affairs, and a 1960s libertarian in many respects. Nobody seems to mention that her father taught for many years in an extraordinarily conservative Roman Catholic liberal arts college. Few see what is evident to me, namely that she is a product of the classical Mediterranean civilisation. She noisily proclaims the Dyonesian, sure, yet also admires its Appollonian antithesis.

Few also are aware that Paglia is a legal parent of the son her partner bore a few years ago--that is a profoundly existential choice. The entry claims that she now describes herself as bisexual; her writings lead me to suspect that that is true, but can anyone document it?202.36.179.65 19:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Her MIT lecture is reproduced in Sex, Art, & American Culture--not Vamps and Tramps--Tom Joudrey 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I am inclined to pass this article, except for a few small items that I feel can be quickly corrected, and I will hence place this nomination on hold.

I am concerned with the lack of citations in the Introduction section. Several factual tidbits are not easily verifiable by a reader who might desire to see these statements defended.

Also, though as per the good article criteria it isn't grounds for failure, I feel as though there could be several more images added to enhance this article.

I have reviewed the concerns brought forth by the editor who evaluated this article for the Wikipedia Biography project regarding a lack of criticism in the article, and feel as though these concerns have been addressed by the editors.

As a side note, I would encourage those who edit this article to sign their comments, as the unsigned comments seem rife.

Should no other objections to this article be raised (and I welcome them, as I do not claim to be perfect and may have missed something critical), and if this article is corrected in seven days, I shall pass it. I do, however, reserve the right to fail this article should I notice something I had missed before, or should another editor bring up anything I've failed to consider. Please review this article as time allows and correct anything else that may be awry. I will reread this article entirely in seven days and my final judgment will be based on that edition alone.

Good work, regardless. I can tell that the editors have put in a great deal of work on this article and I enjoyed reading it.

Cheers! Chuchunezumi 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What's good about it?

It still reads like the demented ramblings of a besotted Paglia devotee - though maybe they just suffer from aspergers syndrome, hence the pedanticalness. It is not typical of a good quality encyclopedia entry. It still needs some serious whittling. Also, the item "Influences on Paglia's work": where are the citations to substantiate that each and every one of these individuals "strongly" influenced her? it's simply POV. And, do we really need so much background on each of her works?

Good article nomination failed

As none of the concerns I raised above have been addressed, I am failing this article. I encourage the editors to revise and resubmit, at which time, I'll be happy to reread this article for good article status. Chuchunezumi 01:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am restoring the previously deleted section entitled "Influences on Paglia's Thought." The entry on Foucault -- Paglia's biggest intellectual adversary -- has such an entry, with an introduction worded in exactly the same manner and serving exactly the same purpose, so I fail to see why it is perfectly acceptable for it to remain in Foucault and not in Paglia. May I also insist that before one deletes a chunk of accurate and verifiable information that it be put to a vote. Damion 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If "accurate and verifiable" please substantiate with citations in every instance otherwise it assumes too much regarding a readers prior knowledge. If you have an issue with a entry that takes a similar approach go and deal with it, your reference to Foucault as "Paglia's biggest intellectual adversary" states pretty clearly that your motivations are not neutral.

Classicist?

I don't see anything in her educational background that indicates she qualifies as a classicist, as stated in this article. It says she did a Masters in philosophy and that her dissertation (still under the dept of philosophy? or literature studies or some other sort?) was on a non-Classical Studies topic. Zeusnoos 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Paglia lacks university training in classics. She almost certainly did some serious Latin in Catholic high school. She is very warm to Mediterranean civilisation, in part out of loyalty to her Sicilian heritage. From her pen I learned the name of Winckelmann, and she probably has read Edith Hamilton, Gilbert Murray, and the like. But she should not be called a classicist.202.36.179.65 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Paglia most certainly does qualify as a classicist. She has made extensive study into Jane Harrison, James George Frazer, Eric Neumann, etc. Read "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders" if there is any doubt at all on this point.--Tom Joudrey 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Why is there a tag on this article stating it "does not adequately cite its references or sources"?? It has more footnotes than MOST wiki articles.

The tag is not on the article; the tag is on the Introduction section. This is because the article failed its good article nomination because of the lack of source references in this section (see above).

Having said that, citing all the informations is ridiculous; it would take forever. All her supporters would have to be cited from different articles, and much of the other stuff would require someone to go back and trace those aspects from Sexual Personae. This is a ridiculous expectation in my opinion.--Tom Joudrey 04:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now provided citations for the Introduction, therefore correcting the main problem for which the good article nomination was failed. The only issue left is to provide more pictures. Can anyone help with this?--147.9.171.130 05:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories

She's a Roman Catholic and an atheist? ;) Kowalmistrz 14:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

From "The M.I.T. Lecture":

I'm just saying that in this particular case, these two great artists that I studied [Emily Brontë and Emily Dickinson], that that was the direction of their eroticism, but they were really celibate. And I think that that's one of the options. Of course, I'm Catholic! And I have a cousin who's a nun, and I would have been a nun in Italy.

Also from "The M.I.T. Lecture":

I'm not a practicing Hindu, I'm not a practicing Buddhist, I'm not a practicing Catholic. But for me as a Catholic that coming together of all those world-religions at that moment was profoundly liberating.

From "The Rate Debate, Continued":

Now I, as a Catholic and also as a Freudian, have the opposite view. I believe it's society that trains us not to be aggressive, that trains us to be ethical.

From "The Joy of Presbyterian Sex":

As a lapsed Catholic of wavering sexual orientation, I have never understood the pressure for ordination of gay clergy or even the creation of gay Catholic groups. They seem to me to indicate a need for parental approval, an inability to take responsibility for one's own identity. The institutional religions, Catholic and Protestant, carry with them the majesty of history. Their theology is impressive and coherent.

— Walloon 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Help!

I tried to improve this article by taking out some of the more egregiously unnecessary bits of fat in this article, only to have them reverted also immediately. Anyone looking for an understanding of Camille Paglia from this article will look in vain at the moment. It needs to have an objective tone throughout, not the present hagiography followed by a tacked-on section on "criticism" at the end. I'm tempted to say it's the sort of article she deserves, but I will resist the temptation. 82.69.28.55 10:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

-- It gets reverted immediately because the articles has been written, edited, and revised for years to get to this point, and you are attempting to unilaterally delete a big chunk of work that numerous other people have approved!

For the record, I went through the history and checked 82.69.28.55's edits. I agree with them. Everything he removed was essentially trivia, ideal for a magazine article or a fansite, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I don't think its continued existence is proof that it has been 'universally approved', but rather no-one could be bothered editing it down. Ashmoo 15:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What's with the astrology chart?

The link to Paglia's "Astrology Chart" in the list of notes is irrelevant. Okay to remove? -reedes

removed as it was both OR and promoting an astrology site --ReedEs 00:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Still way too long

This article is still way too long and full of irrelevant details. Things like which books she read and liked and who's party she went too shouldn't be included unless the very fact is in some way notable. A WP article should be on notable acheivements, not every formative experience and opinion she has ever had. Ashmoo 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For instance, the long lists of poems included in Break, Blow, Burn. And her list of influences. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Every author has influences, these need to be brought down to no more than 10. Likewise with the list of poems, it is better to just list the most prominent poems and authors who get more than one poem. I won't make any changes for a few days, but please respond if you don't want the changes to take place. Ashmoo 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your intentions, and indeed the few changes you've made in the last week have been very useful. At the same time, (and as someone who's spent years helping to formulate this article), I would simply caution you against being too aggressive in your edits.--Tom Joudrey 19:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I understand that people have put work into the article and don't want to negate that hard work. To this end, I've been making my changes very slowly, so that other editors with a stake can debate any changes I have made that they feel remove important info from the article. Hopefully, you and other editors will keep an eye on my changes and provide feedback as quickly as possible, so as to avoid large reversions. Ashmoo 14:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Influences

I chopped this whole section as it is far to long and trivial. The infobox at the beginning has a section for Influences already. We should just put the most important influences there. Every author/poet that she has ever enjoyed or praised isn't sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. Ashmoo 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Every author/poet that she has ever enjoyed or praised isn't sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia.

Every writer that she has ever enjoyed or praised isn't listed here, so your statement doesn't seem relevant. — goethean ॐ 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was exaggerating slightly for comic effect. But my point still remains that the list is not notable enough to include in such detail. I checked your edits, and think they are fine. Ashmoo 09:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how the 'influences' are supposed to be sorted? Alphabetically? By importance? Chronologically? — goethean ॐ 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My problem with your removal is that the text is well-sourced. Did you look up the citations to see if Paglia claimed that she merely admired these figures, or whether she was influenced by them? And, yes, I think that someone can be influenced by over 40 writers, filmmakers, and artists. In fact, Keith Richards, who Paglia claims that her philosophy is based on, in missing from the list. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the article should say how each of these writers contributed to her viewpoint, since much of it is easily demonstrable and can be sourced. — goethean ॐ 15:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits were based on the WP:NOT policy of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information'. WP isn't supposed to be a general source of information, but rather an encyclopedia. And a very long list of influences isn't terribly encyclopediac, but would be better in a biography. Just because something is sourced and verifiable doesn't automatically mean it should be included in the article.

I didn't check any of the sources. The 'Influences' section has been on talk for a long time, trying to get the editors who support its inclusion to work on it. To no avail. I don't mean to sound harsh and am quite open to discussion, but there are major issues with this article that need to be addressed, mainly, reducing the amount of trivia/non-notable details. Ashmoo 11:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

These seem like matters of opinion, not fact. — goethean ॐ 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

By 'These', do you mean which facts are trivial/non-notable? If so, I agree. The line between notable/non-notable is not well defined. Hence, we need to discuss any conflicts of opinion. I'm happy with the changes you made last week. If you are unhappy with anything I change, let me know. Ashmoo 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We keep having this debate, and yet the "Influence" section remains at both the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helene_Cixous pages. If it's good for them, I fail to see why it is trivial or irrelevant here. --70.6.81.71 05:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I also think the 'Influences' sections on the pages you mentioned could probably be reduced a bit too. I agree with the comment on Talk:Hélène Cixous. I'm not against an Influences section per se, but it needs to be well sourced, and describe how they influenced her. A laundry list of more than 10 influences in unencyclopediac. Ashmoo 12:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Influences on Paglia's Work

Thinkers, writers, and artists whose work has apparently or admittedly had a strong impact on Paglia's thought include:

• Gaston Bachelard
• Simone de Beauvoir
• Ingmar Bergman
• Harold Bloom
• Norman O. Brown
• Kenneth Clark
• Samuel Taylor Coleridge
• Patrick Dennis
• Emily Dickinson
• Emile Durkheim

• Mircea Eliade
• Lewis Richard Farnell
• Sandor Ferenczi
• Leslie Fiedler
• James George Frazer
• Sigmund Freud
• Allen Ginsberg
• Erving Goffman
• Germaine Greer
• Jane Ellen Harrison
• Arnold Hauser
• Carl Jung

• G. Wilson Knight
• Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing
• D. H. Lawrence
• Joseph Losey
• Mary McCarthy
• Marshall McLuhan
• Erich Neumann
• Dorothy Parker
• Walter Pater
• Plutarch
• Denis de Rougemont

• Marquis de Sade
• Oswald Spengler
• Edmund Spenser
• Rod Serling
• Parker Tyler
• Andy Warhol
• Alan Watts
• Oscar Wilde

Fair use rationale for Image:Camille 3.jpg

Image:Camille 3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Scaled Down

I have scaled down the article quite a lot, as it was (as many below have observed) ridiculously long, biographical, and biased. I still feel that it is still too large an article and will work on ways to scale it down further, in order to portray a more concise and less biased account of Paglia and her views. Alison88 15:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase that you are looking for is "vandalistic deletion". I will be reverting all of your undiscussed changes when you are finished. If there is a particular passage that you believe is biased, please bring it up for discussion. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalistic deletion? I apologize if that is what it seems like, as that was not my intention at all. Your reactions seems harsh, to me? The article as it stood was rather biased and contained perhaps too many biographical details and quotes for a wikipedia article, all of which have been discussed on this page previously. Restore it if you will but my intention was not to vandalize. Alison88 15:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have already restored it. Can you explain to me why you reversed every change that I made to the article? Alison88 15:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

goethean, I would ask you to WP:AGF. Alison88, while I think some of your edits were good, it did seem you inserted POV of your own (the bit in Criticisms about her not being a 'real feminist', etc). I think your best strategy to pare the article down will be to fix one paragraph at a time and wait a day or two for people to provide comments, argue the changes etc. Massive unilateral changes just invite wholesale reversion. Consensus is the key to WP. Ashmoo 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ashmoo. I actually do have a few sources for the criticism that I wrote into the section - that I did plan on adding. However I probably should have waited to post that until making reference to them. I may do so in the future. I realize that consensus is key here, but wholesale reversion did strike me as harsh when the revisions I made could have been discussed and perhaps reversed individually, and I felt a bit attacked by goethean, to be honest. But yes, I did make a great deal of changes to the article and can understand why it might have been seen as vandalism due to the scale of my edits. Alison88 15:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So you believe that the criticism section needs to be expanded, while the rest of the article should be decimated. — goethean ॐ 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is an unfair attack Goethean. I had a point that I hoped would add to the criticism, not detract from the rest of the article, and was working on citing. Feminism is an area of interest for me and some have criticised Paglia of anti-feminism. However I actually was going to bring up scaling down the criticism section along with the rest of the article, as it is quite long. However, I apologize for removing so much of the original article, but I do still believe that length of the article is still worth discussion. Alison88 15:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a summary of your changes. Were you really under the impression that you could remove 75% of the article without any discussion? — goethean ॐ 15:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight, I did remove too much. But I stand by my earlier points. Alison88 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My other point of advice would be: If you remove more than a single sentence, place the removed text on this Talk and provide an argument for why it doesn't belong in the article. ie trivia, not-notable, unsourced, etc. Ashmoo 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, will definitely adhere to this for all future edits. Thanks, Alison88 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, I concur with both Ashmoo and Goethean that the edits were far too wholesale, so I'll try to do my part as well in monintoring what information is deemed extraneous and deleted. However, keep in mind that Ashmoo has already performed the great majority of this work.--147.9.203.237 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks goethean for neatening up the BBB section. I would like to say though, that I did agree with 90% of Alison88's removals. I did disagree with her addition of unsourced criticism though. This article still has way to much trivia. Ashmoo 11:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I need to see good reasons for the deletions. I don't think that that's too much to ask. — goethean ॐ 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. I won't removed anything without putting it here and explaining why I think it should go. I don't want to chop any useful info from the article, but at the moment I think it does contain slightly too much 'trivia' that stops a reader getting a good overview of her life and career. Ashmoo (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paglia 2.jpg

Image:Paglia 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paglia 4.jpg

Image:Paglia 4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

liberal or libertarian

Paglia's ideas on embracing freedom of sex and drugs are civil libertarian ideals, shared by liberals and libertarians. Liberals and libertarians differ not on questions of civil liberties, but on "fiscal liberties" and their support or criticism of tax-and-spend social programs such as public parks, public museums and libraries, public schools, public hospitals, and welfare. From my readings of Paglia's writing, I had gathered the impression that she was squarely with the liberals on these issues, but in fact, I can't find firm evidence one way or the other. Is there firm evidence that Paglia supports free market rather than government means to perform these functions? If not, or until such evidence is found, I request that the references to Paglia as libertarian on her page, and the even more strident echoes on pages such as Andrew Sullivan, be removed.

More broadly, the many libertarians writing on wikipedia and frequently rushing to mark defenders of civil liberties as "libertarian" rather than "liberal," with scant evidence, are in real danger of turning the site into the next Conservapedia, and I dearly hope they will take up rigorous and enthusiastic fact-checking and citations as they continue their rigorous and enthusiastic documentation of the libertarian movement. Electronwill (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to not even argue about whether she is a libertarian/liberal, but just find 3rd party reliable notable sources who have described her one way or the other. Ashmoo (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Does anyone know of any? Is anyone interested in Paglia also interested in drawing those distinctions? And if not, is it OK just to remove the labels for now? Electronwill (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support removing any description of her that isn't supported by a source. Ashmoo (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, she self-identifies as a "radical-sixties libertarian" in multiple sources, most extensively in Vamps and Tramps. I'll adduce sources shortly.--147.9.203.221 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, a source. In this case, I think it should be specified that it is a self-description, as what Paglia says about herself and what others say about her are often quite different. Ashmoo (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It took me a few days, but she writes in Vamps and Tramps, "No Law in the Arena", "As a libertarian, I support unrestricted access to abortion because I have reasoned that my absolute right to my body takes precedence over the brute claims of mother nature." (41). I should add that her reasoning is in fact libertarian, not liberal, as she "recognizes that abortion is killing," (40) "a form of extermination," (41), rather than the liberal claims that the fetus does not qualify for personhood. Incidentally, she identifies online as a libertarian twice here, again here, and again here. I should say that reviewers and articles frequently identify her in their own words as a libertarian, like here, and [1] she's interviewed in a libertarian magazine. There are more sources, but this list should suffice. In this light, the current articles desription seems fair.--216.164.61.173 (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thesis Question

What exactly is the topic, and thesis, of Sexual Personae? 216.201.48.26 (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I added the POV template because the article doesn't seem to state anything other than "reasons people don't like Camille Paglia." I'd suggest a section of the article be devoted to the acclaim she's received, just to counterbalance the neutrality. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 03:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have summarily removed the template because you evidently didn't read the article. When you do, you'll find the names of dozens of supporters, including the substance of their praise. Just because it isn't cordoned off under a praise section doesn't mean it isn't there. Here are just a few examples from the article:

--"Her supporters (for different reasons) include Andrew Sullivan, Christina Hoff Sommers, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, Matt Drudge and her Yale mentor Harold Bloom. Elise Sutton, a dominatrix advocating female domination of males, describes Paglia as a female supremacist and a friend."

--By all accounts, she was an excellent student at Nottingham High School. She spent her Saturdays in the Carnegie Library, absorbed in books and manuscripts. In 1992 Carmelia Metosh, her Latin teacher for three years said "She always has been controversial. Whatever statements were being made (in class), she had to challenge them. She made good points then, as she does now. She was very alert, 'with it' in every way."[12] Paglia thanked Metosh in the acknowledgements to Sexual Personae, later describing her as "the dragon lady of Latin studies, who breathed fire at principals and school boards."

-- It was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award that year, and then reprinted in paperback by Vintage Press in 1991. It became a best-seller, as did her subsequent books Sex, Art and American Culture: Essays (1992) and Vamps and Tramps (1994).

Cheers.--216.164.61.173 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

Anyone looking for evidence that Paglia's interview with Huw Christie did indeed happen, and that it contains the accusation about Foucault, will find it here http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/continuum/v4n2.pdf. There is no question that this interview is authentic. Skoojal (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the citation needed template without adding a valid citation to the article. You have done this twice now. I will correct your citation for you. — goethean ॐ 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Skoojal (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I think the article should probably mention that in the same interview in which Paglia accused Foucault of deliberately spreading HIV, she showed herself willing to consider that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS, or even exist. Readers need this context in order to know what to make of the accusation. Skoojal (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Paglia on homosexuality

Someone really ought to add something to the article about Paglia's views on the origins of homosexuality. They are as important or more important an example of her willingness to break with liberal orthodoxies than her skepticism about global warming(considering, that is, that Paglia is regarded as more of an expert on human sexuality than she is on climatology). Also, they would counter-balance the misleading assertion of Marianne Noble that Paglia has an 'absolute belief in biological determinism.'Skoojal (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a mention of Paglia's views on homosexuality to the article, and removed the mention of global warming, which is only one of a rather large number of ways she has broken with liberal orthodoxy, and not the most important. I'm not necessarily opposed to Paglia's views on global warming being mentioned, but if someone does put them back in the article, please de-emphasise this issue because it is less important to understanding her than the stance she has taken on homosexuality. Skoojal (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming Works

"Paglia is a longtime critic of the fiction and Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis. In 2009 Paglia is due to release Haggard in Narnia: How C.S. Lewis Ruined America, a scathing polemic about the double lives of evangelical Christian readers of C.S. Lewis. In the book Paglia will argue that Lewis fetishizes male sexual dominance, while promoting a Victorian era repression of sexuality, leading C.S. Lewis readers to act out their sexual frustrations in illegal or secretive social settings, such as underground male prostitution rings. [53]"

Is this really true? This does not even remotely sound liker her or any of her past works.

Just read the alleged title, "Haggard in Narnia: How C.S. Lewis Ruined America" are we really suppose to believe that now C.S. Lewis and not Gloria Steinem is the target of Paglia's wrath?

Besides Paglia ussually uses more sophisticated or pop culture titles "Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickenson," "Vamps and Tramps," "The Birds," the inclusion of Ted Haggards name in the title alone sounds rediculus as Paglia has always expressed a great deal of disdain in her column for the dragging up of these sexual scandels. It would sound more like her if it were called "Oscar Wilde in Narnia."

Btw the source is difficult to check as it is not a link and a web search turned up nothing, furthermore none of this is even remotely mentioned on her website at Salon.com, and forgive me but the last time she decided to do a book she resigned from writing her column their at Salon.com I don't see this happening.

Everything mentioned in the description runs counter to everything she has done prior, and doesn't sound like her at all. It sounds like somebody making up something they think would sound like her, and then posting it. Cleary anyone familiar with either her writings or who have actually read the Chronicles of Narnia can tell that the person who posted this has not. Notice btw that they do not include the Publishing House.

I move that the person who wrote this either provide a direct and credible source that can be checked or remove it, as all of that sounds like bullshit. 216.201.12.177 (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It was obviously nonsense; I removed it. Skoojal (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor at the University of Pennsylvania?

The article says she is now a "Professor of Media Studies at the Annenberg School of Communication and Professor of Comparative Literature and English in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania." Does anyone have a source for that? She is still in the faculty directory at The University of the Arts (a different school), and her latest article at Salon (5/14) [2] also says that she is a professor at The University of the Arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.99.12 (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Interview With Camille Paglia - help sought from registered Wikipedia user

Hi there

I need help from a registered user of Wikipedia as my site Outrate.net was placed on a blacklist some years ago due to editorial misunderstandings.

To be removed from the blacklist, a user of Wikipedia needs to confirm that pages like this:

outrate.net/camillepaglia.html

Would be suitable as an external link on, for example, this Camille Paglia entry.

I believe it would be, but am unable to request the removal of Outrate.net from the blacklist as I am the editor of the site.

Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.37.98 (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Gloria Steinem's comparison of Paglia to Adolf Hitler

This article contains the following sentence: 'Revered second-wave feminist Gloria Steinem compared Sexual Personae to Mein Kampf, and likened Paglia to Adolf Hitler.' Does this really belong in the article? I ask not primarily because Steinem's alleged comment is defamatory in the extreme, but because the source given is this website [3]. When I added something about Paglia's remarks about Foucault to this article, and used that website as a source, it was deemed by another editor to be inadequate and unsatisfactory, and the remark promptly had a 'citation needed' tag added to it. So why is that website an OK source for the Hitler comparison? There is an issue of consistency here. Skoojal (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which comment about Foucault you are referring to, so I can't comment on that. But I definitely think that Steinem's comment regarding Hitler is notable enough for inclusion. The link you provided doesn't seem to go to the quote, but the article contains two links, a DIVA magazine article referring to the controversy, and a youtube video showing both Steinem and Paglia arguing about it. Since Paglia herself has repeatedly mentioned Steinem's comment, I think that shows that it is notable enough for inclusion.

If you want to talk about the Foucault comment, I'd be happy to discuss that as a seperate issue. Take care, Ashmoo (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment about Foucault was Paglia's accusation that he deliberately spread HIV. I originally used the Bubsy website as the source for that. Goethean thought that this wasn't good enough, which lead to a short dispute between us, resolved when I produced a better source. So the question is, why is the Bubsy site good enough for Steinem's comparison of Paglia to Hitler?

I was concerned by the word "revered second-wave feminist Gloria Steinem", as well as "Renowned essayist and public intellectual Susan Sontag". I believe there's a Pacific island cult who worship Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh but don't think there's a group that reveres Gloria Steinem. Richard Pinch (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction

I've taken another look at this; I got my wires crossed on this one. Actually it's a completely different remark about Paglia made by Betty Friedan that is sourced to the Bubsy site. So the question becomes, why is that an acceptable source? Skoojal (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was very anxious about adding text to the article which alleged that Paglia had made a very serious charge against Foucault, text which was cited to a magazine that I had never heard of, and was posted on a personal website. The text you are discussing is in the May 1995 issue of Playboy, something that can be easily verified at most public libraries. The text of the Playboy interview happens to be available at a personal website, a link to which the contributor was nice enough to supply. The link can be removed if you would like. Using data procured from a a 10-second Google search, I have made the citation to Playboy more robust. If any of the information that I have added to the article is in error, I welcome any corrections. — goethean ॐ 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, the link contains a copyright violation and I am going to remove it. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a crucial point, but surely either the website is a reliable, suitable source or else it isn't. It's used, I note, once in the Articles by Paglia section, twice in the 'Interviews' section, and once more in the Articles about Paglia section. If that website isn't a reliable source for some things, then at least the first of those four links should not be there. Skoojal (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sexual Personae

Skoojal, would you please explicate your removal of 1.) the thesis of Sexual Personae 2.) Your elimination of the academic reaction to Sexual Personae.

The first seems particularly vital because her sexual theory is her single most famous idea and the theory that undergirds all her other work. An equivalent omission would be noting Chomsky's contribution to linguistics without providing a synopsis of that contribution, which would clearly be unacceptable. Thanks a lot! --208.58.202.116 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed what you described as the thesis of Sexual Personae because it wasn't clear to me that it was useful. Maybe some version of it would be OK; I will consider this. As for the academic reaction to Sexual Personae, I removed it because it has no relevance to Paglia's biography. She has barely mentioned her academic critics, and there's little reason why she should. Also, it suffered from the 'one more critic' syndrome of people saying the same things. Skoojal (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the description of thesis ('Sexual Personae presents a highly unorthodox psychosexual theory, contending that women dominate the sexual matrix by virtue of their reproductive powers. Nature and women are bound together by qualities of luridness, fluidity, murkiness, and uncanniness, which together form the broad catergory of the chthonian. Men, horrified by female powers they can neither exert nor control, attempt to bring Apollonian order, symmetry, and logic to nature, and their efforts to evade the implacable forces of the Dionysian manifest themselves in art, literature, and Western civilization') was either well expressed or fully accurate. The word 'highly' doesn't need to be there; unorthodox is a strong enough word. Also, the source cited (a self-published article by Kevin Cassell) is dubious. Skoojal (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC

Thanks for getting back to me; your response has been helpful. First, I would reiterate that the thesis of Sexual Personae is what launched her to prominence and which undergirds all her subsequent scholarly work. As of right now, the article doesn't provide even a single sentence describing the content of Sexual Personae.

By all means, edit for accuracy and sylistic improvement (I'm amenable to dropping "highly"), but it is inappropriate for you to remove Paglia's most important intellectual scholarly contribution wholesale from the article.

If the citation is a concern, I would propose that Sexual Personae be cited rather than a intermediary source.

As to the issue of her academic critics, Paglia has of course addressed them at great length and repeatedly throughout her career. In Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders, for example, Paglia specifically criticizes the work of prominent academics including classicist Martha Nussbaum, the Lacanian-driven Diana Trilling, New Historicist Stephen Greenblatt, Marxist Terry Eagleton, anti-foundationalist Stanley Fish, Foucault, Derrida, post-structuralist David Halperin, and many others. She's also famously criticized Judith Butler, praised her mentor Harold Bloom, etc. Furthermore, she has written essay after essay addressing the state of academe, so clearly she cares deeply about what's going on there. And incidentally, even if she ignored her response from academe, which anyway she has not, her refusal to address it would not foreclose its inclusion. See, for example, the inclusion in wikipedia of Martha Nussbaum's critique of Judith Buter to which Judith Butler never responded.

I echo your concern of the "one more critic" concern, and propose that their critiques be condensed so that anyone interested might follow the link directly to the source.

Finally, you have removed John Updike's much-discussed response to Sexual Personae. He is not an academic and his review is substantively different than any other that appears. Both Updike's status as a literary giant and the unique content of his review justifies its inclusion.

Thanks for helping us reach a consensus on these matters, and I shall wait to hear your assent or further thoughts before making alterations so as to avoid further editing conflicts--208.58.202.116 (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to having some summary of Sexual Personae - it depends on how it is written and what is used as a source. Sexual Personae itself would certainly be better than the article by Cassell. While Paglia has certainly responded to and criticised many academics, this usually has little to do with their criticisms of her; she has criticised the people you mention for quite other reasons. It did occur to me that John Updike's response to Sexual Personae was the one thing I removed that might usefully go back into the article, but I'm still not entirely sure it should.

The contents of other wikipedia articles are a different issue. Although I am in no hurry to remove it, since I need to work with other editors, I personally don't think that having Nussbaum's criticism of Butler in the Butler article is a good idea. Skoojal (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh says he's a fan of her in this New York Times Magazine article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html?pagewanted=9&_r=1&ref=magazine Might this interesting fact be incorporated into the article somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.70.68 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See the 5th paragraph in the "Overview" section. — goethean ॐ 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Top One Hundred Intellectuals mention: should it be in the article?

I have shifted the mention of Paglia's place in the Prospect's list of the world's top intellectuals several times; more recently it has occured to me to wonder whether it should really be in the article at all. My problem with it is that I don't think it shows anything about anything except for Prospect (and of ocurse Foreign Policy) itself. OK that does it; I've made up my mind that it's going out. There's enough information about Paglia's importance in the article without phoney measures of it of this sort. Skoojal (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you think it is irrelevant or 'phoney'. It seems to me to be highly notable. Could you elaborate on why you think that it should be removed? — goethean ॐ 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you think that every intellectual who was rated on that poll should have their place on it mentioned in articles about them, it is arbitrary to include Paglia's place on it here. My view is that polls of this kind are silly, and tell us nothing objective about anyone's importance - as if it really were possible to tell how important an intellectual someone is by conducting a poll! Mentioning the poll in the article treats it more seriously than it deserves to be treated. But as I said, I'm not going to edit war over this. Skoojal (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the poll's methodology; presumably they polled academics and intellectuals and summarized the results. I don't see how this makes it meaningless, phoney, etc. — goethean ॐ 20:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you think that every intellectual who was rated on that poll should have their place on it mentioned in articles about them, it is arbitrary to include Paglia's place on it here.

That would be fine with me, but more importantly, it is off-topic and irrelevant to the question of whether it should be included in this article. — goethean ॐ 21:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The poll was phoney because it reflects people's subjective opinions and nothing more. Their opinions about how important an intellectual someone is prove nothing about their objective importance. Actually, I think Paglia ranks much higher than number 20, so that silly poll trivializes her. Skoojal (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One wonders how you plan to rank intellectuals in a purely "objective" manner which is a reflection of something other than "people's subjective opinions". Are you going to ask the pope or something? — goethean ॐ 14:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not plan to rank intellectuals by importance at all. It's a silly, pointless enterprise. Skoojal (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

After some reconsideration, I have once again removed the mention of that poll from the article. The results of Prospect's more recent poll do not include Paglia, and it is obviously misleading to mention the old poll but not the new one (the rather odd results of which prevent one from taking that poll seriously anyway). Skoojal (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the new one? (I'm not checking up on you, just interested.) — goethean ॐ 22:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The new poll's results are here [4]. I found this through Arts and Letters Daily, which includes a pertinent comment that should prevent any sensible person from taking this poll seriously. Skoojal (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Feminist

OK, Paglia may be a feminist, but please don't edit the article so that this comes first! Paglia is primarily a literary critic, and that's the really interesting thing about her, not her feminism. I am considering removing the "Feminist criticism" category, because I'm not at all sure that Sexual Personae is an explicitly feminist book. Skoojal (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As per my edit summary, I think that author should come before "teacher". Social critic can before that if you want. — goethean ॐ 02:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, author does come before teacher. Where's the problem? Skoojal (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I placed feminist before author, because she is a well-known feminist author. forestPIG 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, I think Paglia's feminism is less important than her being a literary critic (and I suspect Paglia would agree with that, not that this should be the decisive issue). Skoojal (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not looking at this as if it were an order of importance. It just doesn't make sense to keep the two words apart when they can compliment each other. forestPIG 00:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you write that Paglia is a "feminist author", then you are reducing her writing to feminism, as if nothing that she wrote falls outside "feminism." Please don't do that. It's misleading. Skoojal (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That is patently untrue. forestPIG 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see Skoojal's point --- Paglia is not merely a feminist author. She is not defined primarily by her feminism, and her main topic is not feminism (it is just as much poetry, art, sex, film, nature) and although her writings are all mediated by feminism, they are also mediated by other factors. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Paglia is not really a feminist by any definition other than her own--as many of the other citations and descriptions in the article make clear. I think self-described feminist is better in terms of accuracy. Joe (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of controversy about whether Paglia is a feminist--it's certainly not NPOV to call her one. While Martin4200 claims that there are other citations calling her a feminist, there are just as many authoritative sources stating that she is no such thing--or that she's actually an anti-feminist. By calling her a "feminist," the article takes sides in an ongoing controversy about a living author. "Self-described" is accurate, and neutral. Joe (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion as to Paglia's being a feminist or not is irrelevant. If some sources state that she is not a feminist, that can go in the article provided that it is not WP:UNDUE and it is not done in such a way that it takes sides. Implying that she isn't really a feminist in the lede (which is what "self-described" does) violates WP:NPOV and is not acceptable. Devil Goddess (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not going to get into an edit war, Devil Goddess, so will not revert it for now, but the lede should be completely neutral, and not take sides in the dispute. "Self-described" is accurate and objective--"feminist" is making a judgment. Your opinion that she is one is no more relevant than that of anyone else who says she is not. This deserves further discussion. Shouldn't the lede (at least) be completely indisputable, with controversies explored (without WP:UNDUE and without taking sides, of course), in the article? Should we call her "anti-feminist" in the lede? She is as much that as she is a feminist. (Joe) 12:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here seems to be a good solution. On the List_of_feminists page she is listed as a "dissident feminist." That's more accurate, neutral, and consistent with the rest of wikipedia. Joe (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Consistency with the rest of wikipedia is absolutely irrelevant. Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source. The term "dissident feminist" has no clear meaning and is not encyclopedic. Devil Goddess (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Devil Goddess, "dissident feminist" has just as much of a clear meaning as "feminist," which, as this discussion makes clear, is a contested term. It really doesn't seem like you're striving for NPOV, or to be encyclopedic here, but trying to close off what is an open question. Why should the article, especially in the lead, take sides in an issue about which there is a great deal of controversy? I'm sure you'd agree that "anti-feminist" would violate NPOV in this case? The principle is the same. There certainly is no consensus that Paglia is a feminist--her status as one is contested, as the article itself makes very clear. There is nothing encyclopedic about accepting her own definition, while rejecting those of her critics. That's subjective as can be. Perhaps there's a better compromise--"feminist" is clearly wrong, and "anti-feminist" is just as wrong. The other descriptors in the lead (American author, teacher, social critic) are factual, neutral, and accurate. To include "feminist" among those is misleading as it attributes the same degree of consensus to that label for Paglia, when no such consensus exists. Perhaps others will weigh in on this. Joe (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, Jugoretz. "Feminist" has a clear meaning insofar as it is a term that appears in dictionaries. "Dissident feminist" does not. The "controversy" about Paglia's feminism consists of a small number of her personal enemies denying that she is a feminist. I do not consider this a basis for revising the article. Devil Goddess (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's quite clear that we disagree! I do hope others will weigh in on this. The controversy about Paglia's feminism is not just a "small number of her personal enemies." In fact, there are not really any mainstream feminists at all who would classify Paglia as a feminist. You are clearly taking sides in that controversy. Are you sure that you're really striving for NPOV here? By arrogating to Paglia a status (that of feminist) which is contested, you're attempting to close off an open issue. I do consider this a basis for changing the article. But it's silly to go back and forth just between the two of us. I won't revert it right now. Joe (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters that much anyway. forestPIG 23:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:American Roman Catholics

User:Skoojal has again removed the Paglia article from Category:American Roman Catholics with the following statement: I have again removed the Catholic label, because it is a serious piece of misinformation. It remains misinformation regardless of whether Paglia insists on calling herself a Catholic.

If you do not consider Paglia's own published, repeated, explicit claims, both written and spoken, that she is a Catholic to be evidence that she is an adherent to Catholicism, what does constitute evidence for adherence to a particular religion? Are you going to follow her to Sunday Mass? On the Barack Obama page, we consider his own consideration that he is black as sufficient evidence that he is, indeed, black. Adherence to a particular religion seems to be an even more straight-forward case of "I am if I say I am". I the face of this compelling evidence, as well as the fact that three users [5] [6] [7] in addition to myself have expressed agreement with the placement of the category, I think that you should reconsider your opinion. — goethean ॐ 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Camille Paglia has called herself a pagan. She has also made it clear that she is an atheist. In Paglia's private definition of 'Catholic', it may be compatible with being a pagan atheist, but that is not how the Catholic Church sees things. Paglia has the right to her own private definition of 'Catholic', but that does not mean Wikipedia should accept it. Skoojal (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's true that Paglia has also called herself a Catholic, but it is not reasonable to interpret such statements as anything but a way of saying that she has a cultural affiliation with Catholicism. They are not statements about religious belief, which is what the Catholic category refers to. Notice how Paglia says, 'I'm not a practicing Catholic' and calls herself 'a lapsed Catholic.' Both of these statements place her outside Catholicism. I stand by the claim that calling Paglia a Catholic is misinformation. Skoojal (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

but that is not how the Catholic Church sees things

Actually, I don't think that the church has weighed in on the matter of Paglia's religion. Paglia, on the other hand, has. You have chosen to reject her words, but four other users on this talk page have accepted them. You should revert yourself. — goethean ॐ 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We could stick her with Sinéad O'Connor in Category:Catholics not in communion with Rome, except that she hasn't been excommunicated. — goethean ॐ 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are claiming that the Roman Catholic Church accepts pagan atheists as Catholics, then this ceases to be a serious discussion. I do not think that Paglia said that being Catholic was her religion, and it wouldn't make it true if she had said that. Again, I suggest asking for a third opinion. The discussions to which you refer are old, and do not prove that there is a current consensus for labelling Paglia a Catholic. Skoojal (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a new category for lapsed Catholics who continue to admire the Catholic Church without embracing Catholicism as their religion. One could then include in it such people as the philosopher George Santayana, who sometimes called himself a "Catholic atheist," or the socialist writer Michael Harrington, who came from a strong Catholic background, became an atheist, but continued to admire the Catholic Church. JimFarm (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are a baptized Catholic you are still a Catholic even if don't practice or believe, until the church says you are not one. Nitpyck (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Feminist positions?

in the section about paglia and feminism, it reads like a laundry list of people's objections to paglia.

what about what paglia has contributed? what about writing on her actual positions, detailed and explained, on the varying issues within feminism and culture? as it is now, it reads like she's contributed nothing valid to feminism, which i wholly disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phospholipid (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Paglia and Feminism section looks that way because I dumped all the criticism of Paglia by feminists that wouldn't fit anywhere else into it. As I said at the time, it wasn't a very satisfactory way of proceeding, but it was still better than the way it was before. If you have some concrete proposals to make to improve the section, then let's hear them. Skoojal (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual personae

Updike, a preeminent author and literary critic, wrote an essay reviewing Paglia's work; being of a literary constitution, his focus is decidedly literary: he is troubled by her tendency to hammer with declarative assertions rather than write interrogative sentences that elicit flexible tentative insights. He says this more cogently than I and the article doesn't require the paraphrasing I've just offered. As I say, this is an assessment by an extremely prominent author and literary critic that directly addresses Sexual Personae.--208.58.202.116 (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So what? I mean, I'm honestly sure you think this is an important assesment of Paglia's work, but I can't see that particular review as having any importance for a discussion of her life. This is an encyclopedia entry, not an essay. Skoojal (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day, however prominent he is, his opinion, in that manner, is no more relevant than mine to this article. Paraphrasing would not be a terrible thing if you want to retain it. Updike does not strive to be neutral, and what you have is, whatever his literary standing may be, a highly opinionated, evocative ("harangue", "hammer them into submission", "uncompanionable prose") piece. Were you implying that his assessment is correct? You seem to be tending that way; my point is, you can't trumpet your own views just because a preeminent author agrees with them -- the article lacks balance, especially with the criticism in isolation of any praise like that. Why, for example, was it a best seller? And why did it cause a controversy -- I haven't read it yet, but I presume it was for more than the writing style. Also, does anybody agree with Updike? How do I know this isn't a radical view that is being given undue weight? Much more appropriate would be a paragraph of around the same length of Updike's assessment, that presented opposing views (to be outstandingly positive or negative is wrong for the article, as Updike is) -- as Skoojal said, you don't need to overload it with assessment. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Updike's review of Sexual Personae was on the whole balanced--he found as much to praise as criticize. And biographies typically do go beyond providing the facts of the subject's life and discuss the achievements that make him or her worth writing about in the first place. I think there is a place in this article for at least a paraphrase of Updike's review. 99.234.101.193 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs more commentary

I found this article mainly descriptive, it doesn't do a lot in explaining the content of what here academic contributions are, such as what ideas she was trying to convey in her works and her logic behind them. Most of it just states that she is a controversial figure whose suffered personal attacks, but does not explain why she is controversial. I was more hoping to learn more about her ideas like "the female vagina is a wound" and so forth, but there is nothing in this article that really describes her works.--Waxsin (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

POV problem

The Overview, especially the first part, is not neutral and uses weasel words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.199.242 (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Spur Posse

Where did she call them "beautiful"? Шизомби (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

An extremely minor point: A note (currently note 2) says of the name Paglia: "the g is silent." This is not completely accurate; it is an Italian name (and so the point is not unrelated to the biographical data in the following section), and while for practical purposes of English pronunciation it isn't wrong to say that the g is silent, the Italian consonant combination -gl- doesn't sound the same as a lone -l-. Since the G affects the pronunciation of the following L, in a sense it isn't silent. I think the solution would be to give a phonetic 'pronouncer', based on Wikipedia guidelines, but I don't have the knowledge to do this for the article myself. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has been getting a lot of vandalism recently. It is probably one or two people who are doing it. Vandal reverters should pay closer attention to edits here - I've noticed that sometimes they revert only the most obvious vandalism, leaving less blatant vandalism (random changes of words that alter Paglia's meaning, for instance) in the article. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian?

Should mention be made that Paglia is "openly lesbian" in the opening paragraph? As the article stands now, there is no "personal life" section and this salient fact appears only in the "Yale Graduate School" section which states that "She has repeatedly noted she was openly lesbian while at Yale Graduate School..." The article seems to be written in a style as if the reader is supposed to know this pertinent fact, but it is not explicitly stated until much later. This is much like "burying the lead" in a newspaper article. 76.209.143.105 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that no one else has replied or commented on this issue. I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable than myself and perhaps more atuned to the sensitive issues involved would reply or comment, but since no one has, I went ahead and made an edit. 76.209.143.105 (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so both revisions to the opening paragraph that mention her status as being openly lesbian have been reverted, the last with the comment "this detail is ancillary to why she is notable/her profession and would only be appropriate if included as part of a more extensive lead, if at all". OK, fair enough. Then why not mention this detail in the "Overview" section where many oblique references to homosexuality are made, but she is not explicitly identified as being lesbian herself? 70.134.170.3 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. — goethean ॐ 17:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, goethean. I have done so. 70.134.170.3 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A change in the first sentence

Camille Anna Paglia (born 2 April 1947 in Endicott, New York) is an American author, teacher, social critic and dissident feminist. should be Camille Anna Paglia (born 2 April 1947 in Endicott, New York) is an American dissident author, teacher, social critic and feminist. . Dissent is her forte and covers all her endeavors. Nitpyck (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I would oppose that change. — goethean ॐ 22:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

dissident feminist not; propose edit to lead

The opening paragraph needs a correction.

To be a dissident feminist, one must be a feminist. I'm aware of four sets of arguably feminist positions she has taken:

1. She opposes those rapes to which honorable men object. That's my recollection from an art criticism book by her (I forgot which one). That means that what happens to females and that might be called rape is wrong only if selected men think so. Feminism is about women's right to make their own decisions. To place the rightness and wrongness of rape in the hands of non-females is wrong, as is placing the rightness or wrongness of what happens to Catholics in the hands of Muslims or Protestants or of what happens to South Africans in the hands of Argentinians or Cambodians.

2. She favors equal professional and political power, according to Wikipedia re Vamps and Tramps. I'm confused about her qualifying that by being against special protections, since feminists in modern decades have also opposed special protective laws (e.g., laws against night jobs ostensibly because being outside at night was dangerous to women and laws against working in dangerous factories while men could but the conditions weren't changed). I wonder if she believes modern feminism is special protection. It is only insofar as affirmative action is, and that's proven helpful and has been endorsed by major employers. Affirmative action has been controverted and that's a fair discussion, including whether it should be temporary, but then I'm left wondering how she thinks professional and political equality would ever be achieved without affirmative action at some time, since we're all encouraged to go for as much power as we can get, which means men stay ahead and equality is never reached. Expecting equality solely through magic is a denial of efforts to devise on-the-ground and institutional strategies and therefore is doomed to failure. Either she doesn't realize that or she does. She's been in too many discussions (debates, correspondence, interviews, etc.) to believe that no one credible has explained the need for a nonmagical solution. So I think she wants to prevent equality.

3. She is a Lesbian. However, I have met a Lesbian anti-feminist, and while I believe that Lesbianism almost implies feminism, the issues are separable, and, if she isn't feminist, being Lesbian doesn't cure it.

4. She may have had clearly feminist views early in her life, even before feminism became a mass movement. But if she has come to voluntarily dissent from those views, being a past feminist doesn't make her one afterwards.

So I don't see feminism in her.

One contrary argument has more validity: A member of a reviled minority is anyone who says they are, on the ground that no one but the suicidal or reckless asks to be reviled to a deeply self-damaging degree. But that's not widely endorsed. The most populous nation in the world has roughly a fifth of the world's population and thus its nationality is by far a minority, but no nation to my knowledge is willing to accept virtually unlimited numbers of immigrants from elsewhere. Every major religion requires something more than self-identification for admission. The U.S.'s top two political parties, in states where they can, require some affirmative step by a potential member, e.g., registering exclusively in one party. And sociological-minority civil rights movements must be led by people who are constituents of the population primarily to be advanced by the movement and who believe in some selection of the relevant civil rights being sought because completely open admission is a route to sabotage and is destructive of the civil rights efforts.

I don't know that she has suffered much damage from calling herself a feminist. It's a stretch to call being widely criticised when she publishes and speaks widely and has a long-term teaching position the suffering of much damage from calling herself a feminist. No doubt that being a woman she has suffered much; women generally have; but apparently not because she calls herself a feminist. Calling herself a dissident feminist has likely gained her a degree of men's protection, i.e., the protection of those with sociologically more power.

She is a critic of feminism, as was Betty Friedan in later years, and she's welcome to offer criticisms. But criticizing feminism doesn't make the critic a feminist.

Yasser Arafat described himself publicly once as a Jew. I don't know Israel's official state response but I doubt they gave him a passport under the law of return. I agree with Israel if they did not consider him a Jew. Indeed, Israel essentially stopped negotiating with him and placed him under house siege, and I don't remember that being protested on the ground of Mr. Arafat being either a Jew or a self-described Jew.

An NPR interviewer called her a feminist, dropping the label of dissident, but NPR doesn't decide these things for any civil rights movement, nationality, political party, or religion. I'm pretty sure NPR, a journalism organization, would agree.

I think this self-label is hype. She being an author and a teacher are more realistic and should stay intact. But I don't think we need to accept everyone's hype as if it were objective.

My boss at work once called me "doctor", but that doesn't make me one. Feminism isn't licensed or legally regulated and it has many branches of thought, but it isn't undefined. We wouldn't call General Motors a real estate company because it owns real estate for its factories (if it does). At least one U.S. President has wanted to be called the "education President", but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

On Camille Paglia:

She is a dissident when it comes to feminism.

She is not a dissident feminist.

I'd like to rephrase the opening paragraph. A previous discussion objected to "self-described" but surely there's a better construction than what's in the article lead now.

Maybe "critic of feminism". She is that.

What do you think?

Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Paglia

I'm going to have to revert some of your edits to Paglia because you removed well-sourced, highly relevant material on Foucault. — goethean ॐ 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It was sourced to Continuum magazine, a fringe, AIDS denialist magazine. It hardly seems a suitable source to me. Please establish that this is a reliable source appropriate to a BLP before using it here. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It was also sourced to Paglia's book SAAC, a reference which you removed. Pease do not remove references from Wikipedia articles. Do you really think that the magazine made up the entire conversation between the interviewer and Paglia, which was quoted in the footnote? The content has been in the article for a while, and one thinks that Paglia would have objected if the interview was in fact, fictional. — goethean ॐ 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Paglia is very vague in that book about what she is suggesting Foucault did. So the source was being used in a way that was quite questionable. Continuum, which denies that HIV causes AIDS, is as fringe as you get, so it would be a bad idea to readd what she allegedly claimed there. I have no idea whether Paglia takes any interest in Wikipedia or not, and that's not really relevant. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So you believe that Continuum fabricated an interview out of whole cloth, and that this fabricated interview, containing highly inflammatory rhetoric from Paglia, has sat in this article since May 0f 2008. Sorry, but that's not really credible. I suggest that you revert yourself. — goethean ॐ 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: For an attack on the PC-ridden National Endowment for the Arts, see my op-ed piece, "More Mush from the NEA," in the Oct. 24 Wall Street Journal. For a superb critique of the scandalously overpoliticized scientific research on AIDS, see Christine Johnson's long interview with Australian biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos in the new issue of the British AIDS magazine Continuum. The American major media have effectively suppressed long-standing questions about whether the AIDS test is reliable or whether an HIV virus in fact exists at all. Looks like Paglia is "as fringe as you can get". — goethean ॐ 02:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not think that Continuum made up the interview. As a fringe, AIDS denialist publication it is nevertheless a very dubious source to use in terms of BLP, which seems to be clear that we need to use good sources. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no claim sourced the Continuum. That's simply where the interview is found. — goethean ॐ 04:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What if you just cite her Salon.com article, where she says, "The American major media have effectively suppressed long-standing questions about whether the AIDS test is reliable or whether an HIV virus in fact exists at all." That bypasses Continuum entirely. And what's more credible than what Paglia said herself?184.77.15.82 (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of 2 categories

The deletions weren't point-of-view but I see another problem. Camille belongs in a category like Critics of Feminism, which I think doesn't exist, but WP:OVERCAT forbids categories based on an "[o]pinion about a question or issue". That potential category plus American Feminist Writers and LGBT Feminists all violate WP:OVERCAT, the latter two because, once she's in them, they become categories about issues. The solution, I think, is either (a) to ask for reconsideration about the overcategorization policy or (b) to rename the one category as American Feminism Writers to include her (in which case I don't know what to suggest re LGBT Feminists, so I'd recommend deleting her from that). Your thoughts? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's Category:Criticism of feminism, but I think that Category:American feminist writers and Category:LGBT feminists are more appropriate categories (assuming that she can't be in all three, which would be ideal). I don't understand your reasoning for removing her from the feminist categories. — goethean ॐ 13:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Nick Levinson: The deletions were POV because you removed the categories based on your personal understanding of what feminism is and who is a feminist and who isn't. I didn't try to reply to you before on on this issue because I don't really want to come to Wikipedia to debate stuff like that. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I added Category:Criticism_of_feminism because it clearly applies. Thank you for telling me about it. My reasoning about the other two is mainly in the talk topic “dissident feminist not . . . .”.

On her views, what the article needs is a statement, brief or detailed, of what the feminism is that she believes in and that would distinguish it from isms that she agrees are not feminist, I assume distinguishing from masculism, for example. I don't know what would go into that statement, so I can't draft one. I've read one of her books that included her discussion of feminism and an article about her that she approved of and don't recall any claim to feminist belief other than what I outlined above, which is why I laid out the argument.

I don't intend to burden you or anyone in particular and appreciate the edit that followed the case made earlier. That edit meets the need. When I got to thinking about categories (the result of drafting a largely unrelated new article), I wondered about this situation.

This discussion is for anyone interested, and is for the purpose of addressing the article page.

My disqualification for addressing this issue is mainly that I'm a man, a very vital disqualification, which is why I'm profeminist and not feminist. My qualifications include that I'm profeminist, that I've read extensively in the literature in feminism by both identified feminists and by women from other perspectives, and that I volunteered with feminist organizations where I fulfilled responsibilities that depended on having profeminist sensibilities. I disagree with some feminists and some feminists disagree with each other but all are still feminists.

But if someone rejects feminism, they're entitled to that view. There've also been many women who've said, in effect, "I'm no feminist but" followed by their statement of something some of us call feminist; if those speakers prefer not to be feminist, or not to be known as feminist, that's their right, but we note that in substance some of them are feminist. Camille applies the label. We should know of the substance behind that label. If there's no substance, the label can't apply unless the label is to have no meaning. So far, the label has a meaning, a variety of meanings, as described in various Wikipedia articles, and some of those meanings sometimes contradict each other, but feminism is still easily distinguished from masculism.

Language is for communication. No word can be so encompassing that it covers every possible meaning, not even universe, because any such word would be meaningless and therefore useless for communication. The mere fact that there's a controversy about whether to be embraced by a given word, such as feminism, means that the word does not mean anything and everything. If she's feminist and if I'm opposing the categorizations as feminist, that would be POV. If we want to keep the two categorizations, the rationale has to be NPOV. To achieve NPOV means supporting the categorizations with relevant content in the article.

Is there a feminist statement by her somewhere that meets this need? I'd be interested in reading it.

Thank you very much.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC) (Minor edits to my post about 15 minutes later.)

I honestly don't understand how anyone can possibly fit within both feminism categories and the "criticism of feminism" category, so I have removed that addition. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

She could be both, if she's feminist. In the article, it says, "Paglia criticized leaders of the American feminist movement. . . . Paglia compared feminists to cults such as the Unification Church. . . . Paglia called Steinem 'evil' and equated her with Joseph Stalin. . . . Paglia has repeatedly excoriated Patricia Ireland, former president of the National Organization for Women, calling her a 'sanctimonious,' unappealing role model for women . . . whose 'smug, arrogant' attitude is accompanied by 'painfully limited processes of thought.' . . . Paglia contends that under Ireland's leadership, NOW 'damaged and marginalized the women's movement.' . . . Paglia has called feminist philosopher Martha Nussbaum a 'PC diva,' and accused her of borrowing her ideas without acknowledgement. She further contends that Nussbaum's 'preparation or instinct for sex analysis is dubious at best.'" I assume all of that is properly grounded in fact, so it should stay and doesn't need editing, to my knowledge.

So that qualifies as her criticism of feminists and of feminism. Could you please either restore the category link or would you prefer that I do?

If we're going to give her the other two categories, which must be based on her being a feminist, is there anyone who can post any citation for any profeminist statement by her that makes clear her stand on any single issue or any single principle? She doesn't have to endorse every position; no woman can. But even one position would go a long way to establishing that she is, indeed, a feminist.

Nick Levinson (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Applying the "criticism of feminism" category to someone implies that the person rejects feminism entirely; applying it to Paglia places her in the same category as Pat Robertson and Phyllis Schlafly, neither of whom she has much in common with. Go ahead and restore it, if you must. I won't remove it again without consensus, though I certainly think it's silly. But I'm not going to enter into a discussion about who is a real feminist and who isn't; I find that a waste of time, and I'm satisfied that the feminist categorires are appropriate. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The category also contains Rush Limbaugh, who Paglia has been largely positive about. — goethean ॐ 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you're making. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Paglia a birther?

Here's a world net daily article citing Camille Paglia as giving credence to the birth certificate conspiracy theory: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94300. Here's the article it links to at Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/camille_paglia/2009/04/08/bow/index.html. Here's what Camille Paglia says: "Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling." (She also says, " Out of respect for the presidency, conservatives need to put up or shut up about these issues.") This resulted in fallout from the DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/18/784050/-Camille-Paglia:-Unhinged-Birther) and Village Voice (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/09/camille_paglia_1.php). Finally, Lew Rockwell said he was amused: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/31184.html. Is this worth putting in the article?184.77.15.82 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say probably not, since my guess is that she never made a big deal out of it. She also stated that she saw ambiguities on the certificate, not that she actually believes he wasn't born in the United States. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Really bad wording

"Paglia (pronounced with a silent 'g') is an intellectual of many seeming contradictions: an atheist who respects religion[3] and a classicist who champions art both high and low. "

Now tell me, how is an atheist who respects religion a contradiction? I would contend that most atheists respect religion (maybe not here on this Wiki, but the ones I've met are respectful). Secondly, how is the second a contradiction at all? I say word it as follows: "Paglia (pronounced with a silent 'g') is a classicist of both high and low art. She considers herself an atheist who respects religion[3]" blah blah blah, or something similiar. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This wording has been in the article for years, and I always thought it had a cheesy high-school assignment quality to it. I would support making it a bit more encyclopediac. Ashmoo (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Much of the article is cut and pasted from her myspace page. I'm going to start cleaning it up. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

It is clearly written, or heavily contributed to, by a PR firm; citing references isn't a free pass to fill an article with crap. At least slap a notice on it.178.25.205.134 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article has many WP:NPOV issues, but deletion is not a useful or realistic option. Ashmoo (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. She is clearly notable, and cleaning it up will take time. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what all the "crap" this article is filled with actually is for the unwashed masses willing to actually work on it but unable to see the aforementioned execrement?--Cybermud (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could explain it a few different ways given my educational background, but I'll spare you my pedantry. (; Seriously, it is a mess, and to be very honest, so far the hardest thing is sifting through all the google new hits of what she is quoted as saying to find a few nuggets of real biographical data from reliable 2ndary sources about her. Apparently she is notable primarily for being notorious. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why has the entire section about all of her books been removed? She is a scholar, and they are the most important part of the article.--68.232.117.141 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that material. The problem with it was that all of the references came from her own works, and thus the characterizations of the works constituted original research. What we need are some references from 3rd parties analyzing her works. If you have some such sources, please bring them to the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a passage about Paglia in Al Franken's classic Lies and the Lying Liars ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.116.225 (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article looks a little as though it was written to present Katha Pollitt's opinions about Paglia as objective fact, eg in passages like, "Pollitt also accuses Paglia of "glorify[ing] male dominance", noting Paglia's characterization of the Spur Posse as "beautiful"." "Noted" is the term one would use if Pollitt's assertion that Paglia praised the Spur Posse was indisputably true, which actually it's not - I don't believe Paglia is ever on record as having said what Pollitt claims she said, so we only have Pollitt's word for it. 121.72.185.10 (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article is still a mess, and I hope to get some more time on this this weekend--what I've been doing is throwing pretty much anything I could find that has a source other than Paglia's own works into the article to move it away from being a copy of her myspace page, and I'll be the last to claim that the prose is good, or that it's well balanced. Certainly, if material can't be sourced, we should remove it. In regard to the specific point you make, I for one would have no objection whatsoever of recasting as ', claiming that Paglia characterized the Spur Posse as "beautiful"' if we cannot find a source for what Paglia actually said. Of course, my sense of the karmic tingles a bit, given that I could not find any documentation of Steinem comparing Paglia to Hilter or her book to Mein Kampf, other than Paglia's claim. But these are (mostly) living people so strict sourcing is absolutely necessary. And Paglia has made a living as a lightning rod for decades now--the hardest part of finding good 2ndary sources on her is wading through all of the quotes and soundbites and interviews she's made, so I'm sure we'll be tuning the wording for quite some time. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Feminism?

In other articles Paglia is cited a signifigant critic of feminism, but even here her "criticism" is more an exchange of one liners that seems to be done more for media attention than making an actual point. I'm not sure what wikipedia's policy is on such things, but calling her a "critic" of feminism seems to be distorting facts. I move for the deletion, or at least condensation, of that section.

Support:

"Paglia is noted as a critic of feminism as debilitating ideology" -The citation for this line leads to a book review. The only line in that book review about feminism states "It thus squares well with another of her aims, to rescue feminism from its unwise ideological allegiances." That's not really a criticism, there's no actual point behind that line except for drawing attention via controversy.

"Paglia wrote that they were ignorant of art, science and history, were hostile to men, and were harming young women by teaching them to see themselves as victims" -Citation needed. Also, this isn't an argument, it's an insult at best, but seems more of an empty statement. Unless she addresses an issue with some depth, I don't see why we need to inflame this rhetoric.

"Paglia claims that Millett began "the repressive, Stalinist style in feminist criticism".[41]" -Once again, this isn't an argument.

And so on. We don't catalog every time Bill O'Reilly calls someone a Stupidhead, I don't see why we catalog this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.23 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a monograph. If reliable sources consider Paglia a critic of feminism, your and my opinion is beside the point. — goethean ॐ 01:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is terrible! I came to this article not knowing anything about Camille Paglia, and now that I've read it, I still don't! All I know is that a lot of other women seem to hate her. I have no idea what her views on feminism are, or what she has done in her life (other than a humorous story about pouring lime into a toilet). Why not cut down the criticism by about 90% and move it all into a criticism section, and add some sections detailing her actual views and accomplishments? Zluria (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is still a bit of a mess. Unfortunately, most of what makes Paglia notable is her ability to attract criticism from others rather than any particular 'accomplishments'. And most of her views come piecemeal from articles rather than being presented as a coherent whole. Ashmoo (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And most of her views come piecemeal from articles rather than being presented as a coherent whole.

Huh? I take it you haven't read Sexual Personae. — goethean ॐ 14:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The sections concerning Sexual Personae are the strongest in the article. But half of the article is reactions to her personality and her Salon articles. I think this is the section that needs to be made clearer. Ashmoo (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood your comment. — goethean ॐ 15:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article needs a lot of work still, but one problem is she has become a lightning for harsh commentary. It would be good if some of us could dig up some scholarly analysis of her academic work. I confess that in my searches I've been pretty much focusing on news articles, and it's difficult finding those that are not interviews with her. She is a critic, and an academic, but it seems that mostly (or perhaps lately) she is known for being sharp of tongue and controversial in her opinions. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Neoconservative"

Sexual Personae is characterized in the article having a message that is 'neoconservative'. The author, being a Democrat, certainly doesn't consider the book's message to be neoconservative. Is a Time magazine book review a sufficiently reliable source for a controversial description of the book? — goethean ॐ 15:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes to that question, but would also not characterize the use of neoconservative as controversial in this context--that's about as mild a reaction as one finds to the subject of the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Neoconservative" is now most commonly associated with the Bush/Cheney policy of "spreading freedom" and is pretty widely viewed as a perjorative as a result. I believe the book review intended the word more as a way of saying "new" or "nouveau" conservative -- in sharp contrast to the much more common interpretation of the word of late (eg see: [8]). Given the potential for confusion I think it better to use a different word. Regardless, I don't think it should wikilink to the neocon article as that has nothing to do with the book. The sourced reviewer actually used/invented the phrase "'nonconservative cultural' message" which is not really an encyclopedic thing to copy -- especially leaving off the "cultural" qualifier and thus implying the book is about free market realpolitik somehow and not gender issues.--Cybermud (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really agree. I went back and read the review, and did some research on the term neoconservative, and I think the author is using it in the way it was used in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The phrase from the review is "Personae's neoconservative cultural message", not "nonconservative". I would endorse expanding the article's use to include "cultural message" as well. I do not have strong feelings regarding the wikilink, but I will point out that the WP article Neoconservatism does provide a historical overview of the term. Would it be appropriate to wikilink to a subsection in that article? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were the case that the use of the term in this article accurately aligned with the connotations it held 30 years ago, how does that make it appropriate or accurate terminology today? What would be appropriate is to just use an adjective that actually describes the book -- and "neoconservative" ain't it.--Cybermud (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The question is not whether it is accurate in general, but does the material accurately reflect the source. I do not know if you have taken a general look around for material on Paglia, but there's not much out there that doesn't focus on her polemics or polemics about here. The article is a reliable source, and I think my edits have pretty well reflected that source. As I've said, I do not object at all to trying to make it more accurate, but I am uncomfortable with the notion that we cannot reflect what the source said because common usage has changed. I think you are correct about current usage, and perhaps it is due to my age, but I do not find it problematic since I recall usage of "neoconservative" from that time and earlier. Would you be willing to accept recasting the material using the word, but making it clear that that characterization is from that particular period? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But the question really is whether it's accurate in general. Both in terms of what the word means today and what it was meant to mean when it was used. Certainly, saying "neoconservative cultural" is a more accurate reflection of the source and much better in general, as when I, and most readers, read "neoconservative" by itself we interpret that to be referring to an ideological view of foreign policy, economics and government intervention in foreign countries (which has very little to do with culture or gender.) I suppose it would be fine to clarify that the use of the term is meant to reflect it's more popular usage prior to the 2nd Bush's presidency (where the term achieved widespread usage) though I'm not sure how readable the prose would be once that's done.--Cybermud (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll take a crack at the wording later. I would not claim to be able to predict how most readers would read "neoconservative," and, again, it may be my age, but from my POV even King George II's version of it does include culture and gender issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Molly Ivins quote

I removed the following passage quoting Molly Ivins and was reverted:

Ivins concluded her review with this passage: "There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity. Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, 'Poor dear, it's probablyPMS.' Whereas, if a man behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, 'What anasshole.' Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia, Sheesh, what an asshole."

First by someone claiming this quote showed the "ire that Paglia generates", and then, because Molly Ivins and the publication her review was published in are "highly notable." Both of these justifications fall flat. The article on Paglia is not a WP:Coatrack for ad hominem expletives, no matter how fancifully worded, from "notable" persons or publications, and the article has plenty of content to reflect the fact that ideological policing feminist's foam at the mouth in response to Paglia. The section in question is about a book Paglia wrote. How is it encyclopedic to add a large passage their about how Ivins calls Paglia an asshole in her book review? I can appreciate how some editors may like the phrase as a neat witticism or an accurate portrayal of their particular POV wrt to Paglia but how does it contribute to the section on the book "Sexual Personae" or the article in general? Maybe i'm wrong though. I'm sure there are lots of "notable" people that have been published in "notable" publications who have used expletives to describe Paglia. Maybe we should create a whole section dedicated to that?--Cybermud (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you quote from the linked essay what principle you think it is that the passage violates? — goethean ॐ 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, can you provide some sources that treat her work from a scholarly perspective? We certainly could use more of that. As I alluded above, I have not been able to find all that much that does not treat polemics surrounding her. Paglia herself seems to relish these kind of characterizations, since she brings them up in reviews regularly. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn, most of the secondary sources I have about Paglia are not so much about her or her work directly rather than the polemic reaction to it by feminists that disagree with her (something she does indeed seem to enjoy.)--Cybermud (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

@Goatean, are you replying to me? I have no idea what you are asking me for. Could you clarify?--Cybermud (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You claim that the molly ivins quote violates WP:Coatrack (probably the most abused Wikipolicy). How does the passage violate WP:Coatrack? — goethean ॐ 04:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not claim that it violated WP:Coatrack just that the article is not a coatrack for Ivin's quotes which contribute nothing to readers knowledge of the article's subject. If we can get past your focus on misuses of that policy in general, and whatever point it is you'd like to make here in relation to it, would you please respond to the actual substance of my comment and not a trivial aspect of it? Specifically, that this quote is not adding anything to readers knowledge about Camille Paglia aside from the fact that Ivin's called her an asshole in a clever way during a book review. If you want me to give you a concrete policy to fixate on though, I will claim it violates Wikipedia:Handling trivia--Cybermud (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I already have --- Ivins and Mother Jones are highly notable, and therefore not trivia. BTW, if you want scholarly reviews, there were several of Sexual Personae, eg in the TLS, although IIRC they were not positive. — goethean ॐ 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I would also point out that Paglia is primarily notable for the controversy she generates. I doubt she could pass WP:PROF, unless one could argue that the push back against her scholarly works by feminists represented significant influence (and I wouldn't attempt that myself). --Nuujinn (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely you jest. She's had at least 3 best-selling books. Google books lists 20,000 hits, and Google scholar 3510. Someone is poorly informed. — goethean ॐ 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, i don't jest. WP:PROF is a high bar, in my opinion too high (it seems silly to me that any person playing sports in a professional capacity is automatically granted notability, when talented academics with fine publications do not meet our criteria). Google hits in general or in scholar don't really count, nor does being a best selling author. I just don't think she meets any of the [criteria. One could argue that she meets #1, but I would suggest that her actual impact in gender studies and literary criticism has been minimal, aside from being a bright target for polemics. But that being said, she clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR so we're not really arguing about anything significant. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are totally dodging the issue. I did not say exclude Ivin's or exclude Mother Jones, neither of which have ever been removed or suggested being removed. Rather, the fact that Ivin's, at length, calls Paglia an asshole.--Cybermud (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Cybermud, I do not believe that Goethean is dodging anything, and I would suggest that accusing another editor of dodging a question in this manner might be construed by some as failing to assume good faith. Now, Ivins is a notable person, known for her sharp wit, and the review is very critical of Paglia's work. There's no question of notability. What policy would you point to as a basis for excluding the last part of this particular quote? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the section again, Ivins is probably given too much space, although at the moment we don't have anything to replace the passage with. The section needs expansion. — goethean ॐ 03:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that, some additional sources covering her works would definitely improve the article. I'll check out lexis-nexis tomorrow and see if I can find anything. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the Ivins quote. I hope Cybermud continues to remove it if it is restored again. Wikipedia doesn't try to record every nasty remark ever made, and that Ivins may be "notable" doesn't mean we need to record things like that. I consider that material to be highly dubious under BLP policy, and even if it doesn't violate BLP, it serves absolutely no useful purpose to include it. It definitely is WP:UNDUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.196.149 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I put it back, I think it places her in the context of her, for lack of a better phrase, confrontational feminism. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What total nonsense. The quote is just random, meaningless slag. Plenty of people have made rude remarks about Paglia, but that does NOT mean Wikipedia needs to quote them unless there is some special reason why they really are necessary. That's absolutely not the case here, and the excuses for reading the quote are ridiculous.

I see I have been reverted. I will not edit war over this, I ask that the IP point to specific policy that forbids this kind of quotation. The source is reliable, we do not censor material. Paglia's meat and potatoes is making controversial quotes about others, it is no surprise that it is returned in kind. Also please sign your posts using 4 tildes. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "this kind of quotation"? I never said there was a policy forbidding quotations calling people "assholes", or even one against quoting rude remarks. But there is a policy - WP:BLP - which dictates that we have to be careful about editing articles about living people. That means that we need to be particularly careful about how we employ other policies, like due weight. I see the "asshole" quotation as a perfectly obvious example of something that does not meet due weight, making it dubious under BLP. We could include the Ivins quotation if there were some special reason why that particular rude comment was important or significant, but I see that no one is seriously attempting to offer such a reason. Absent some special reason for including that quote, out it goes. Removing material because it is a BLP problem isn't "censorship", and it is sophistry to suggest it is. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And to "Dusti", who undid all my edits without giving any explanation, I'll say this: If someone removes something calling it a BLP violation, you need to give some explanation of why it isn't a BLP violation if you revert - NOT simply revert them without giving a reason, which comes across as rather rude. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also not good enough to say that the quote should be included because Paglia has said rude and/or controversial things about others - that just dodges the issue of why this PARTICULAR quotation by Ivins matters so much it must be included. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just disagree. See Wikipedia:Blp#Criticism_and_praise, which directs us to balance criticism and praise, relying on reliable sources. Paglia's an academic, but I would suggest she is primarily notable for the furor she generates by her abrasive language and attacks on others, and their responses. The Ivins quote is a good example of feminist reception to Sexual Personae, it is well sourced, and I've recently added some material praising the work to ensure balance. Also, for what it's worth, I'm surprised that one would object to the asshole comment and not to the various Nazi/Hitler/Stalin/ comparisons. If you believe that the quote is a BLP violation, please point to the specific section of BLP policy you believe it violates, and we'll hash it out here. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop shifting the burden of proof to others. The question is NOT why should this quote be removed. (although, for starters it's an ad hominem attack and completely unencyclopedic.) The question is, what value does quoting a meaningless expletive add to this article in the first place. As stated previously, the "noteworthiness" of Ivins and Mother Jones are not at issue. I feel like I'm reading a kindergarten narrative about someone calling someone else a poopy-head (even if it's couched in a witty way that some editors enjoy how is it encyclopedic?) How does this help build a better encyclopedia or contribute to this article? Asshole has no real meaning aside from when it used as a crude reference to the sphincter. If this quote has any place on WP it's in the Ivin's article where it shows she has a potty mouth because it tells us next to nothing about Paglia. Paglia has not responded to this ad hominem, uniformatitive expletive so what does this long quote tell me about the article, Camille Paglia that I, as a reader, have come to WP to look at?--Cybermud (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How does this help build a better encyclopedia or contribute to this article?

It relays one of the notable reactions to Paglia's work. I'm sorry that you personally don't like the wording of the passage, but hopefully you can understand that that is not the most relevant factor in determining content. Please improve the section rather than simply removing material that you don't like. — goethean ॐ 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Goethean. Notability only concerns what subjects may have articles created about them. If Ivins calling Camille Paglia an "asshole" were notable, that would mean it would have its own article, or that one could be created. Unless you actually want to try that, please don't use such silly arguments. I will observe that the edit summary you used when reverting me ("quotation is well-referenced, and thus meets BLP") shows an unfortunate misunderstanding of BLP. Just because something can be referenced, that does NOT automatically make it acceptable under BLP. Other criteria - including due weight - also have to be met. And as there is absolutely no consensus for including the quotation - despite what was recently claimed by someone who reverted Cybermud - the quotation should stay out for now. Under BLP, burden of proof falls on those who want to include it. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, to Nuujinn, saying that "she is primarily notable for the furor she generates by her abrasive language and attacks on others, and their responses" isn't good enough. That is simply your personal opinion (I think it's wrong) and it's not relevant to BLP. You and others who want to include the "asshole" quotation (and note that it isn't even about Paglia's work as Goethean claimed above - it's an abusive comment about Paglia as an individual that says nothing about Sexual Personae as a book) need to explain how it is more important than the actual arguments Ivins used in her review of Paglia's book, for example those trying to show that Paglia writes in sweeping generalizations. Why on Earth are you insisting on including Ivin's personal abuse of Paglia rather than the actual reasons she gave for disagreeing with Sexual Personae?! How would they not deserve the space you're trying to give to a playground insult? 116.199.211.49 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To quote the section of BLP policy Nuujinn mentioned, "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." Sorry, but it's hardly "responsible" to include pointless junk like the "asshole" comment. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just open an RFC for this and let Gothean and Nuujin make the case there for why it's important to cite Molly Ivin's saying "Sheesh, what an asshole" I don't feel it incumbent upon me or others to argue that it should be removed because I can see no valid reason to include it to begin with. As I stated before, it's not a "notable reaction" it's trivial content of barely tangential relevance to the article. I want to read about Paglia, but don't know who Ivins is or care if she thinks Paglia is an "asshole" (whatever that even means to Ivins.) This content is like me going to the article China and adding a long passage about the current price of tea there. I'm willing to accept whatever the consensus of an RFC is but, for my part, the arguments for inclusion that have been given here are not at all persuasive to me. If Gothean and Nuujin agree to abide by an RFC, I will open it because we seem to be getting nowhere here and the edit in question has been reverted at least a half dozen times in the last week.--Cybermud (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I will abide by the consensus of an RFC. However, I will reiterate that all of our time would be better spent in improving the article rather than continuing to fight this silly battle. — goethean ॐ 20:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope everyone understands that generally an RFC runs for a month, so it will take much time. By policy, everyone would have to abide by the results of an RFC, so that's not a question. I've rather just avoid the hassle, personally. Cybermud and 116.199.211.49, just to be clear, both of you are objecting to use of Ivin's quote because of the use of the word "asshole", and other personal attacks in the article mentioned in the article as it stands now, made by Paglia or by others about her, are not a problem from your point of view? I ask because I want to make sure that I understand exactly what your objections are. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to agree to an RFC, and will abide by the result - provided that the quotation remains out while the RFC is in process. Until and unless there is a clear and genuine consensus that it is not a BLP violation, I will continue to treat it as such, and will remove it as I would remove any other BLP violation. Thank you for not restoring it again. I object to the quotation not so much because it uses the word "asshole" (such quotations might be acceptable under some special circumstances) but because it's absolutely gratuitous and unnecessary. It wouldn't violate BLP if there were a genuine reason why it needed to be included, but there isn't, so it's hardly acceptable under the policy. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I object to the quotation not so much because it uses the word "asshole" (such quotations might be acceptable under some special circumstances) but because it's absolutely gratuitous and unnecessary. It wouldn't violate BLP if there were a genuine reason why it needed to be included, but there isn't, so it's hardly acceptable under the policy.

Why do we need a special circumstance to quote a reliable source that uses a naughty word? — goethean ॐ 21:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please. We need "special circumstances" because Goethean, there has to be some actual reason why we would quote any source saying anything. If there isn't a good reason for including something, we don't include it. You and Nuujinn have been repeatedly challenged to explain why this quotation ought to be included, and you have repeatedly failed to provide a valid reason - all you've done is to misrepresent Wiki policies like BLP and notability. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Camille Paglia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Lack of criticism== Can someone throw something critical in here? it reads like it was written by the Camille Pagila fan club. A little section called "Criticism of Pagilas Politics" perhaps? There are other notable intellectuals covered in wiki that have not escaped the inclusion of a critical review section. A bit more balance here please. I raised this issue in the POV section on the talk page some time ago now, but no-one has yet added a 'Criticism' or 'Controversy' section. I've rated the article as B class because of this omission. I was tempted to rate it as Start Class but with the level of detail in the article I thought it might be a little churlish. Driller thriller 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Bold textDid Camille know Joey Pavia. The Pavia's. Oak Hill Ave, Northside of Endicott. Contact Joey pavia at: joeypavia2002@yahoo.com

Last edited at 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)