Talk:Camille Paglia

Inside joke about S.P.?

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

Article too long

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

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

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

138.67.44.175 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Neutrality of Article

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

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

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

Biographical Information

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

(Duplicate material removed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

feminism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typography

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

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

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

Paglia and Mailer

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

Bio Material Removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typography

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

Lew Rockwell

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

Objectivism Scholars

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

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

POV check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book tour

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

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

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

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

Biography

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

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

Camille's criticism of male gay rights activists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donna Mills Interview

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

Critique

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

Well, actually, here's a start.

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

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

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

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

---

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

uhh, contradiction of faiths?

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

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

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

Improving this entry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good article nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's good about it?

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

Good article nomination failed

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

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

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

Classicist?

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

Categories

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

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

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

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

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

From "The Rate Debate, Continued":

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

From "The Joy of Presbyterian Sex":

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

— Walloon 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Help!

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

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

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

What's with the astrology chart?

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

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

Still way too long

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

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

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

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

Influences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influences on Paglia's Work

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

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Camille 3.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Scaled Down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Paglia 2.jpg

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Paglia 4.jpg

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

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

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

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

liberal or libertarian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thesis Question

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

NPOV dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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