Talk:Camille Paglia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Camille Paglia was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
December 16, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

Who is Camille Pagiia?[edit]

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 (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)


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 (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Political views[edit]

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 ( 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 ( 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 (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Reads Like a PR Piece[edit]

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

Sorry, that's too vague a comment to respond to. Try saying something more definite about the article, and it would be easier to respond. You indicated on my talk page that you thought some of the material in the lead was trivial, but you didn't say which material specifically - not helpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, in an effort to be constructive I will give a list of some of the contentious material:
* Paglia has celebrated Madonna - trivial
* radical libertarian positions - remove 'radical', not needed.
* In the 'Overview' section every paragraph begins with 'Paglia'. Also, why not put a paragraph about her early life before the overview, this gives the reader some idea of who she is before dicussing positions.
* Paglia's Sexual Personae was rejected by no fewer than seven different publishers (not unusual, in and of itself), but when finally published by Yale University Press, became a best seller, reaching seventh place on the paperback best-seller list, a rare accomplishment for a scholarly book. - descriptions like 'no fewer', 'finally published' and 'rare accomplishment' do not sound encyclopedic. This isan example of the general deficiencies in tone.
* The education section needs to be reduced, it is too long and has too much trivial information. Her position on Susan Sontag is not notable enough for two paragraphs.
The article needs some perspective of what other academics think of Paglia. I think Sontag herself said somewhere that she had no idea who she was. I can keep on giving you a list or I could start making revisions and improvements as long as you are not threatening an edit war over it. Are you happy with this article? KingHiggins (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
In the first place, if you want to discuss this article, please do so here on the talk page and stop posting on my personal talk page - I don't want to have two simultaneous discussions in different places.
Go ahead and remove the Madonna reference: I don't care.
I don't think "radical" should necessarily be removed from "radical libertarian". "Libertarian" is an unfortunate and rather vague term. "Radical" helps to make it somewhat more specific in meaning.
If you are able to rewrite the "Overview" section in a competent way, go ahead; you don't need my or anyone's permission for this. I agree that it's wrong for every paragraph to start with "Paglia". A paragraph about her early life should not go before the "Overview" section, because obviously the point of the "Overview" section is to introduce Paglia to the reader.
Maybe I should care about the "tone" issues of the sentence you mention; however, I really don't. But rewrite it if you can do so competently.
I also don't care, per se, about the length of the education section. Please don't remove the material on Susan Sontag. Sontag was a famous public figure, and the details of her career, and her early interaction with Paglia (contradicting her later claim not to know who she was) are of considerable importance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. Yes, I agree that the talk page discussion should be terminated. I cannot find an overt reference in the lead of Libertarianism that specifically refers to the ideology as 'radical'. However, as you said, the term encompasses many different ideologies - perhaps 'radical' is ok.
The overview introduces her ideologies but as you said the 'point of the "Overview" section is to introduce Paglia to the reader.' It does not do this very well and I would be happy to try and restructure it. Look at similar biographical articles(for example the French post-structuralists she criticised): Michel Foucalt, Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida the first section is always something like 'early life' or 'life'. It seems a better approach to introduce biographical information first and then ideological information in her 'views' sction.
Sontag said herself that she had no idea who Paglia was in a 1997(I think) interview. Two paragraphs is too much.
that in the works of Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan and Michel Foucault, she never once found a sentence that interested her - this section on her opinions on French thought give undue weight to her own opinions. For such a controversial figure to be given so much room in the article about highly criticised beliefs is wrong. I will start drafting some revisions and then I can offer them on the talk page. KingHiggins (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You added the following rubbish to the lead, which I've now removed:
"Her critiques on feminism and post-structuralism aswell as her various positions on politics, sexuality, art and culture have made her a devisive public figure. She has both been characterised as a 'conspiciously gifted writter' as well as possessing 'fantastical immodesty'. Her positions on femininity and homosexuality have lead some to describe her as antifeminist."
Could you please not add crap like that to the leads of biographical articles? It's contrary to the spirit and letter of BLP, and seems to express overt hostility to the subject of the article. We don't need a list of every controversial comment people have ever made about her, nor do we need controversial comments that look as though they were chosen at random. The "gifted writer" and the "fantastical immodesty" comments are both perfect examples of the kind of material that doesn't belong in the lead - neither comment has such importance that it deserves to be there. To say that "some" have called her antifeminist, without explaining who the "some" are, is unacceptably vague, and it looks stupid as well as blatantly biased. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that you've resorted to edit warring to remove text from the lead that you disapprove of ("Paglia taken radical libertarian positions on controversial social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and drug use. She is a critic of American feminism and of post-structuralist theory.)" You removed it again, after I restored it, with the comment "please discuss on talk page." Sorry, but you're the one who needs to get consensus on the talk page if you want to remove that material. If there's no consensus for your changes, the article will remain as it was. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please keep a cool head, and lets focus on the article. In your revert you removed four useful sources on Camille Paglia, describing her as antifeminist was not necessarily a bad thing - if you read around this subject more you would find that the vast majority of literature on her notes her somewhat unconventional or 'controversial' Feminism. The reader of the article needs to be aware of this.
I can understand why you removed the two quotes, what I was attempting to do was balance one with the other, but perhaps it would be better to find comments specifically on her work. Instead of the some the name of the two journals could be used, and perhaps there could be another sentence with her response to those alligations. The specific paragraph you want to keep is essentially trivia and belongs elsewhere in the article: what does a 'radical libertarian position on homosexuality' look like? It seems urrerly vague to me. It wouldbe better if another editor looked at the changes and formed an opinion on what is best. KingHiggins (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The lead needs to accurately summarize the main points of the article. If you are introducing new content in the lead, you are doing it wrong. — goethean 15:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I can understand why you added the "anti-feminist" bit. I really can. I can see very well why someone might think that was reasonable and would improve the article. Consider, however, that it does seem biased to mention that someone has been called "anti-feminist" without also mentioning that others consider her an important feminist voice. If one point of view is mentioned, the other would have to be mentioned too. Yet mentioning both in the lead would make it read awkwardly: would it really help to fill the lead full of "some people have said this...but other people have said that..." statements? To include the sentence you mention in the lead seems too much like an attempt to force-feed readers controversy. (NB, there's nothing "trivial" about Paglia taking controversial positions on social issues such as homosexuality). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok I understand your position and I am happy to leave the lead where it is - I think it is better now than it was before anyway. I will see if the sources used to inform the quote can be reinserted elsewhere in the article. I think the best way to improve the article now would be to reorganise the setions so that the first section is called 'early life', the second section is called 'education' and the rest of the article on her views and publications. This would bring it more broadly into line with other BLPs - what do you think the best way to move forward is? What do you think should be done to improve the article? KingHiggins (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be proposing getting rid of the "Overview" section entirely. I'm not sure whether that would be a good idea or not, though I suppose a case could be made for it. What, exactly, do you have against that section? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The "Overview" section is unusual for BLPs and I feel that most of the material could well be dispersed among the other sections. For example Paglia's Sexual Personae was rejected by no fewer than seven different publishers... and the rest of that paragraph belongs in the Books section where it would be more contextualised. The bulk of the first pragraph can be placed into the Views section accordingly. This would bring the article a much more coherent structure. It is not that I have anything against the material in the section, I just feel like ot could be broken up and contextualised. KingHiggins (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Views: Feminism - Rename or elaborate[edit]

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

"The New York Times" says[edit]

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

"Some of her views have been characterized as conservative"[edit]

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

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

Criticising liberalism ?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)