Talk:Camille Paglia

Who is Camille Pagiia?

Seeing her name sometimes while waiting on line at supermarket, I'd confused her with minor British aristocrat. Recently, saw an old Susan Sontag interview via Youtube, & realized I was mistaken.

Sontag declined to discuss Paglia, who is apparently some kind of publicity hound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.131.225.246 (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Today, Rush Limbaugh praised her on her writings about Madonna. -- AstroU (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Ouroborosian appears to be a poorly-disguised sockpuppet of And we drown. Here is a link to And we drown restoring the "LGBT scientists" category [1], using the edit summary, "She is a media theorist, which is a social scientist, which is a scientist." Here ([2]) is Ouroborosian restoring the same category, using the near-identical edit summary, "Read category description, she is a media theorist, which is a social scientist". Checking their edit histories shows that Ouroborosian started editing soon after And we drown "quit" Wikipedia in a huff, after making crude insults against several other editors on his user page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Political views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not undo without consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticising liberalism ?

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

Feminism section

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

Concerning the word and the thing

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

Transgender

Ms. Paglia has identified herself as transgender. See the CBC News interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rgLvitaYM

In the video, at 9:12, she quite clearly states that she "considers herself transgender" and that she has "never identified at all with being a woman."

Pretty important revelation. Should this be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.129.125 (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Her comments regarding transgenderism in the Weekly Standard cited article in the "politics" section might be illuminating to this issue. Activist (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

She also explicitly says "I identify as transgender" in her interview with Jordan Peterson. (Apparently youtube.com is a blacklisted site for whatever dumb reason (it's been a while since I contributed to WP, so this was pretty shocking to me...) but you can find it on YouTube. The title is "Modern Times: Camille Paglia & Jordan B Peterson" published on a channel named "Jordan B Peterson") at 35:33 in the video. —Memotype::T 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Global warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COI editing?

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

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

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

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

"A sentimental myth unsupported by evidence"

The text says:

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

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

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

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

Since, on top of all that, RationalWiki calls her a "global warming denialist",[3] and since she has gone on record saying that "virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved",[4] I believe the article text gets it wrong. GregorB (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)