Talk:Camille Paglia

Quote calling Camille Paglia an asshole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intellectual of many seeming contradictions

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a first crack at a skeleton version:

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

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

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

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

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

Can Someone add a picture please ?

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

"Camile fucking Paglia"

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

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

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

article style

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

BLP violation removed

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

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

footnote 33

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

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

Madonna Megastar

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

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

WorldCat lists Paglia as the sole author. [1] [2] — goethean ॐ 12:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronoun issue?

The following sentence appears in the Overview section:

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

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