Jump to content

Talk:Camille Paglia

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Memotype (talk | contribs) at 13:56, 11 April 2018 (→‎Transgender). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeCamille Paglia was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 16, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Her comments regarding transgenderism in this article [3] might be illuminating to this issue. Activist (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Agreed, multiple instances of her identifying as transgender. I'll add it to the article. cagliost (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing this for reasons of WP:BLP. Common sense should apply here. Paglia is a provocative person who has said a lot of things about herself and others, some of which no doubt are not meant to be taken literally. I suspect her comments about being transgender are an example of this. It is not clear that she means it in a literal sense and she may not understand the term in the same way that other people would. If you insist on including this in the article at all, then you should include it in the form of a direct quotation from her, to be completely sure that you are avoiding any misrepresentation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section merely repeats that she herself has claimed to be transgender and does, in fact, cite specific quotes. I see no reason this should be left out of the article since it's something she has claimed multiple times and over a significant time span. It's clearly not just something she just whimsically went off about as some kind of joke or parody. I'm restoring the sections as I don't see how WP:BLP in any way invalidates this section. (Edit: If you want to add sources that have criticized her for saying this, that would be nice as well) —Memotype::T 13:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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",[4] 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",[5] I believe the article text gets it wrong. GregorB (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content

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

I should be interested to read the specific text in Cusset that is being used to support this. Unless it is a long piece of text that possibly infringes copyright to repeat in full, could someone please provide it here so that others can read it and assess? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not own a copy of the book in question. However, it can easily be search on Amazon.com. The relevant passage, on page XVIII, reads,
"As Paul de Man had seen before anyone else, theory should probably be defined negatively, based above all on the reluctancy it meets, the resistance it triggers, the hatred and disgust it can often arouse. There is no better evidence of this than the phenomenal success of Camille Paglia when she calls Foucault a "bastard," or of Alan Sokal when he tricks Social Text with his own version of "fashionable nonsense" ...
The citation does, in fact, support in the material in the article, despite Endie's assertions to the contrary. His edits may be in good faith but the reasons he was giving for removing that content were very confused. Perhaps the problem was that I did not provide the page number in the citation and he could not find the relevant page? (By the way, you will note that Endie's edit also removed the citation to Cusset's book completely, despite leaving some content from the book in the article). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I found the text on google books, and have provided a link to it in the citation. I agree that the citation supports the article text. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I notice that particular page and link do not support the previous sentence about Cusset's view ("François Cusset writes that Paglia, like other major American public intellectuals after World War II, owes her broader recognition mainly to the political repercussions of polemics that first erupted on college campuses, in her case to a polemic against foreign intellectualism"), so a different page number and link will be required for that. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I originally added that content, and I was careful about what I added. See page 37 of the book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit baffled to find this here this morning, as I had gone back to the text, found the reference, realised that I was wrong, reverted my change and gone so far as to thank FreeKnowledgeCreator, which should have been visible in their edit history. The idea that someone would say "no, you were right, I was wrong" may be what they find "confusing", but it's certainly not "disruptive" (also, thanks for the page number reference, which does make it much easier to find). Endie (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Camille_Paglia&oldid=835905909"