Talk:Camille Paglia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeCamille 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, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Who is Camille Pagiia?[edit]

Well, for a start she is recognised as being a feminist! An activist user FreeKnowledgeCreator has been working hard to ensure she is not presented as such and reverted my incliusion of this label without offering any proof that she is not one. Could I ask all users who are interesting in this page keep an eye on this user, who is using blocking etc to shut down edits that do not conform to a particular view of Paglia. This kind of trolling behaviour goes directly against the spirit of Wikipedia - and that of simply truth. Wikipedia should not be a avenue for radical gender activists to rewrite the facts.Mangonorth (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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)


Ms. Paglia has identified herself as transgender. See the CBC News interview here:

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

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

Her comments regarding transgenderism in this article [1] might be illuminating to this issue. Activist (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
She also explicitly says "I identify as transgender" in her interview with Jordan Peterson. (Apparently is a blacklisted site for whatever dumb reason (it's been a while since I contributed to WP, so this was pretty shocking to me...) but you can find it on YouTube. The title is "Modern Times: Camille Paglia & Jordan B Peterson" published on a channel named "Jordan B Peterson") at 35:33 in the video. —Memotype::T 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

I am removing this for reasons of WP:BLP. Common sense should apply here. Paglia is a provocative person who has said a lot of things about herself and others, some of which no doubt are not meant to be taken literally. I suspect her comments about being transgender are an example of this. It is not clear that she means it in a literal sense and she may not understand the term in the same way that other people would. If you insist on including this in the article at all, then you should include it in the form of a direct quotation from her, to be completely sure that you are avoiding any misrepresentation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The section merely repeats that she herself has claimed to be transgender and does, in fact, cite specific quotes. I see no reason this should be left out of the article since it's something she has claimed multiple times and over a significant time span. It's clearly not just something she just whimsically went off about as some kind of joke or parody. I'm restoring the sections as I don't see how WP:BLP in any way invalidates this section. (Edit: If you want to add sources that have criticized her for saying this, that would be nice as well) —Memotype::T 13:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Memotype. I agree, I don't see what BLP has to do with this. I'm also not sure what evidence beyond what has already been provided would be sufficient to convince FreeKnowledgeCreator. cagliost (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, Cagliost. Paglia's own statements will do. The issue some may have with Paglia's claims go to the heart of a contradiction in the Trans movement agenda: if we completely divorce gender from biology - anyone can identify as transgender. And that can be dangerous if these self-identifying people dissent accepted trans dogma. According to the 'new rules' of gender, Paglia does not need to be actually physiologically intersex to make claims to being transgender, for it's all a "social construct". As to whether she is 'genuinely trans' will ruffle feathers, but she is free to make her claim. It is possible that people who disagree with her opinions will only pleased when she stops talking. Mangonorth (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Given her (?) transgender, non-woman self-identification, I wonder whether she is quite okay with the ongoing use of the she/her pronoun set. --Haruo (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"A sentimental myth unsupported by evidence"[edit]

The text says:

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

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

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

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

Since, on top of all that, RationalWiki calls her a "global warming denialist",[2] and since she has gone on record saying that "virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved",[3] I believe the article text gets it wrong. GregorB (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Disputed content[edit]

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

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

Susan Sontag[edit]

The paragraph (in the Education section) about Paglia and Susan Sontag's speech at Bennington seems much too long. It occurred on one day, forty five years ago. Why is it even in the article at all?Browntable (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The article asserts that she was born in 1947. This statement seems to be too short. Her birth occurred on one day, seventy-one years ago. Why is it even in the article at all? (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Alexander Pushpin

Camille Paglia is a Feminist.[edit]

without any discussion or response to my statement below FreeKnowledgeCreator reverted my inclusion of 'feminist' in the lead line of the article. Not only did this user try to edit to reflect his/her own bias (and agenda to portray Camille Paglia in a particular way) FreeKnowledgeCreator had me blocked as a vandal. This person is spending WAY too much time policing Wikipedia, shaping it to his world view and silencing those who dare to challenge it. Please Wiki friends keep a sharp on this user. This behaviour goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Mangonorth (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I find it strange that as a key feminist intellectual, Paglia is simply identified as an academic and social critic. I have added "feminist" to her description. At a recent talk in Seatlle, Paglia went as far as to effectively identify herself as pre-feminist or proto-feminist. If anyone can provide evidence of Paglia publicly distancing herself from the feminist label, it can be removed. I suspect that someone at some point has removed the title as she has been critical of other popular feminists. Mangonorth (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added the hyperlink to feminism. She is listed as a 'dissident feminist' [[4]] on the Wikipedia 'List of Feminists' page - but again that may be disputed. She perhaps should be identified as a second-wave feminist.Mangonorth (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed your addition of "feminist" because I believe that it serves no useful purpose to describe her in such a fashion; the description of her as a "academic and social critic" is sufficient. "Feminist" is a contested label and identifying Paglia as a "feminist" without qualification is not informative to readers. Saying that she identifies as a "dissident feminist" would be more meaningful and more appropriate. Your statement that I had you "blocked as a vandal" is incorrect. I am not an administrator and cannot block users (your block log shows that you have never been blocked). You are confusing being blocked with having your edits reverted; they are entirely different things. Furthermore, I do not consider your edits vandalism; I simply disagree with them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
A quick look at the referencing leads me to agree with OP.
  1. The first reference was a link to the University of the Arts search engine. (fixed)
  2. The second reference says, "Author, social critic, avowed feminist, and teacher Camille Anna Paglia ..."
  3. The third reference says, "She's a feminist who hates what she calls a "politically correct" feminist establishment."
  4. The fourth reference, which I deleted, was an uninteresting hit parade list not mentioned in the body of the entry.
  5. The fifth reference, says "The warrior feminist intellectual with a glorious history of spats with interviewers and rivals has mellowed. But not much."
  6. The sixth reference is a dead youtube video, its grave duly marked for all eternity.
I would be surprised if this article did not require radical rewriting, but, as you can see, I've only made it through the first few references. :) SashiRolls t · c 19:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Totally disinterested bystander here and based on what I've read, she's obviously some kind of feminist. The "unnecessary" argument feels flabby to me; i.e. one person's opinion "I believed" vs. consensus. What do YOU, collectively, believe? I noticed one Editor called another Editor's argument "foolish", which undermines credibility, even if it was last year. Also, for all the importance the word "feminist" seems to have in the Lede, the section on "feminism" itself is a hot mess. You'd have to pay me to read that crap. The real and interesting fodder for the Article exists in whatever dispute Paglia may have with the use of the word "feminist", vs. what others have said about her. What strikes me as most noteworthy about the discussion is that there's a lot of flash and fire about one word in the Lede, and the section where all the good and gritty details of the word could be discussed are ignored and a list of really boring facts about "whatever" are there where something interesting to the Reader should be instead. Message: Worry less about the word in the Lede, and worry more about that hot mess in the "Feminism" section. No one cares who Paglia "admires" and that's the very first sentence of the section. You might as well highlight and bold "BORING AREA DO NOT READ" in the title there as a courtesy and a warning to the Reader to STAY AWAY. Meanwhile, the Editors ignore the very interesting details and controversy over whether Paglia is any Feminist at all, and if so what type. But not in any substantive way, no it's reduced to whether or not the word should be used in the Lede. That's my perspective as both a Reader and a still-learning Editor. The dysfunction stems from the fact that the interesting grist is being ignored, while there's a full-on catfight over a single word in the Lede. I recommend you reorganize your perceptions and priorities.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mangonorth. You have recently used several insulting and offensive edit summaries when editing the article Camille Paglia, for example here and here. That is not acceptable behavior. I will make an issue of it if you continue. You are accomplishing absolutely nothing by labeling someone who disagrees with your edits a "biased activist" or describing a legitimate editing disagreement as "vandalism". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, I stand by what I've posted. I'm blowing the whistle your nonsense. Please do make an issue of it - the sooner we have an unbiased observer review your activist editing the better. Stick to editing your weak-headed fantasy topics and stop trying to distort reality to reflect your social-justice platform. There is nothing legitimate about your approach to Paglia - just persistent and malignant and at odds with the Wikipedia project. User:Mangonorth

If you continue to make insults and false accusations in edit summaries I will report your behavior at WP:ANI. Such behavior is unacceptable. Also, as an additional note, it is best not to make assumptions about the beliefs of total strangers, as that is rude and arrogant. I do not have a "social-justice platform". Such an expression suggests that I hold some kind of far-left views. For the record, I don't. I'm glad to get that cleared up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Paglia is a feminist. That is a fact. It is supported by the reality of her long academic and publishing career, as well as her public profile, which has been defined by feminist issues. "Camille Paglia feminist" receives 171,000 hits on google for that reason. The Wikipedia summary that heads up any google results has an impact upon people's perception of her. If Wikipedia calls her a social critic, that's what people will refer to her as. You know that. Your insistence on undermining Paglia's legacy can only be understood through a lens of political bias. Your thin skin, however, cannot be explained. You haven't cleared anything up. Your refusal to engage my valid arguments and adequately respond says it all. User:Mangonorth

The preceding exchange between Mangonorth and myself was reposted from Mangonorth's talk page. Its posting here is misleading because it makes it look as though it originally took place on this talk page, which it did not. I have no interest in responding to personal abuse and other nonsense from Mangonorth, which is of course off-topic for this page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"anti-feminist feminist" and/or "dissident feminist" or similar[edit]

Let's start looking. Will add whenever find:

  • unorthodox, libertarian feminist Soble, Alan (2006). Sex from Plato to Paglia: M-Z. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 738–. ISBN 978-0-313-33425-2.
  • Paglia, for instance, has been called 'post-feminist' for openly criticizing aspects of second-wave femininism, yet never claimed to be post-feminist and rejects claims she is 'antifeminist,' arguing instead that she is 'a feminist who wants to radically reform current feminism' (Paglia 1992a, 56).Alison Horbury (28 July 2015). Post-feminist Impasses in Popular Heroine Television: The Persephone Complex. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 43–. ISBN 978-1-137-51137-9.
  • "Camille Paglia has been called the "anti-feminist feminist" for decades but she's not one to back down." Modern feminism needs to 'stop blaming men,' says Camille Paglia Axylus.arisbe (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The woman who never sleeps Axylus.arisbe (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Peter Loptson (4 February 1998). Readings on Human Nature. Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-55111-156-8.  Axylus.arisbe (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh me oh my. They've got this new thing called "Google scholar". Who knew? ["anti-feminist feminist" pagliaAxylus.arisbe (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • More google scholar for "new feminist and paglia: ["new feminist" pagliaAxylus.arisbe (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "variously labeled as post-feminists, anti-feminists, power feminists and new feminists" Brunsdon, Charlotte; Spigel, Lynn (1 December 2007). Feminist Television Criticism: A Reader. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 978-0-335-22545-3. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So yeah. I think it's fine to describe her as a feminist, probably qualified with some or all of those labels above. But a feminist. If you wanna take the POV (and yes it is a POV) that "new feminists" etc aren't feminists, then that is a topic for a different article, not this one.... so the only problem now is actually deciding which one(s) to use, and citing them to WP:RS. Research which will regrettably take time. User:FreeKnowledgeCreator's reversion of my edit can stand for few days. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason for the lead to state that Paglia has been described as an "anti-feminist feminist". Your edit was inappropriate in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Like any number of public figures, Paglia gets described as many things. It is utterly unreasonable to simply pick one of them (because you like it, perhaps) and slap it in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Knock knock. I know what WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV and other policies and guidelines and essays say. Been here a while. Off and on, ten years. And if sources say she's a(n) [anti-feminist, new, power, libertarian] feminist, then that's what Wikipedia says. You seem to be in the difficult position of arguing with WP:RS. Oh, and I didn't "just pick one and slap it in the lead". I am researching the option of including that and/or several others.  Axylus.arisbe (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
If you know what they say then you should have known better than to make such a foolish edit. It makes no sense to say "if sources say she's a(n) [anti-feminist, new, power, libertarian] feminist, then that's what Wikipedia says". The sources contradict each other and are of varying degrees of reliability and quality, so of course we don't and can't repeat all their views as fact. We mention their opinions about such issues when they are of sufficient relevance to be mentioned at all and we present them as opinion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
"Sources contradict each other and are of varying quality..." That's exactly why I didn't revert you, and exactly why I am looking into this question. Let you know when I'm done. BTW, the question of whether or not she identifies as a feminist, and of what type, and who agrees or disagrees, is obviously of huge importance to this article. And BTW #2, my edits aren't "foolish". I may be wrong sometimes, but I ain't dumb. Cheers. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Your edit was this. It was an obvious violation of MOS:LEAD. The lead summarizes the most important points of the article. The material you added there clearly is not one of the most important points of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I refer you to the first "BTW" in my post above. If it isn't highlighted yet, it should be. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

How many copies has Paglia actually sold?[edit]

How many copies has she actually sold? I can't find it anywhere on the internet, came here to wikipedia expecting to see it and can't find it here either. I'm especially interested in Sexual Personae - how does it stack up in terms of popular intellectualism? CoronaryKea (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Libertarian feminist[edit]

They have these newfangled things called Google and Google scholar. You can find 'self-described libertarian feminist" , and many other similar turns of phrase. She described herself thus in Free Women, Free Men, according to this new thing called Google Books. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

After watching her interviews with Jordan Peterson & with the Reason-described Lou Reed of Reason, libertarian feminist, or capitalist feminist, or even conservative feminist, wouldn't seem out of place. Katherine Maher might prefer equity feminist. There is a posted recording of her Seattle Public Library lecture titled "Camille Paglia Equity Feminism" (here). She even fluently cited one of pataphyicist Baudrillard's titillating titles ("Forget Foucault") en passant. ^^ Thanks, Harambe!  ♦  SashiRolls t · c 17:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Student petition[edit]

Should the petition to have P removed from the faculty at UArts be mentioned? (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, we're not permitted to call her feminist in this article. Since suppression of facts seems to be the order of the day... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the feminist definition, I have reverted a couple of attempts to define Paglia as feminist within the lead section, but only because they were unsourced or improperly sourced - I'm not aware of the definition being disallowed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I once posted a thread on this talkpage listing a handful of sources (above, username axylus.arisbe). And if I posted it on the article, you can bet I sourced it well. Arguments that she is not a feminist are all No true Scotsman. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The lead is rather short and I think it would be helpful to expand it generally, including mention of Paglia's feminism, and her relationship to other strands within it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
{{sofixit}}. I'll start a timer to see how long it takes before you are reverted. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation[edit]

I recently removed an addition that included, among other things, the following: "NAMBLA used Paglia's statements on their website, citing a passage of Sexual Personae: "These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal, but somehow in bad taste. On the evening news, one sees handcuffed teachers, priests and Boy Scout leaders hustled into police vans. Therapists call them maladjusted, emotionally immature. But beauty has its own laws, inconsistent with Christian morality. As a woman, I feel free to protest that men today are pilloried for something that was rational and honorable in Greece at the height of its civilization." Note that while the quote from Sexual Personae is cited, the statement that NAMBLA used it on their website has no citation whatsoever. It is clearly controversial and uncited material. So the material amounted to a violation of WP:BLP. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the part that is claimed by Freeknowledgecreator to have been without citation. I have then reinstaured the paragraphs which are covering an important aspect of Camille Paglia's position on child sexuality and he removed my paragraph again without justification. I am opening this discussion here with a 48 hours invitation to defend why this paragraph should be deleted as he engages in a edit war. If no one provides a rational objection to the exclusion of this important information, I will add the paragraph again and escalate to dispute resolution. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I already gave you a reason. WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." You are giving excessive space to one aspect of Paglia's work for what appear to be tendentious reasons, beginning an entire section with references to Paglia's comments about NAMBLA, a very minor aspect of her work indeed. These statements, "Paglia made statements in support of NAMBLA, a pederasty and pedophilia advocacy organization. She also supports lowering the legal age of consent", are not even sourced to Paglia herself, but to a blog comment by one obscure critic (the blog comment does mention her comments on NAMBLA, but does not even mention her view of the age of consent). You follow that with more sensational, salacious, cherry-picked material, for example, " In an interview with pro-pedophile activist Bill Andriette, she states that she can find nothing wrong with sex play between an adult and an 8-year-old". Firstly, that is an undue detail, and secondly, having looked up the archived article used as a source, I believe you are misrepresenting it. Your addition gives the reader no idea of the context of Paglia's remarks, and Paglia does not, in fact, clearly say that she approves of "sex play" between an adult and an 8-year old. Keeping out misleading material like that is simply common sense. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
1. Concerning your first critique, you are failing to Assume Good Faith by attributing tendentious reasoning to me. I'm using the minimal amount of space needed to lay out the full context of her quotes, which is something you agree on if I read your other critiques. The size of this section is comparable to other of her "views" section and have similar amount of mainstream coverage. If you can find a shorter way to phrase things, go ahead but please stop deleting the entire section. Her views on child sexuality have been covered in The Telegraph, The Time, Salon, The Guide, and all of these sources are properly cited which leaves no doubt that this section is warranted. Paglia did more than be mentioned in an obscure blog post, she signed the NAMBLA manifesto as it is reported in The Telegraph article by Tim Stanley, who's not obscure enough to not have his own Wikipedia page. 2. I have now added the direct source for Paglia's support of a lower age of consent, that is, Vamps and Tramps pages 90-91. 3. I have now directly quoted Paglia's statement in the interview so that people can see the full context of it. 4. I have reinstated the section with those corrections. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. If you make a tendentious addition, you can reasonably expect someone to call it that. That "The size of this section is comparable to other of her "views" section" is part of the problem with it, and shows that it is unreasonable and excessive. According to whom have Paglia's views on "child sexuality" received as much attention as her views on politics in general, for example? According to you? That Paglia's views on "child sexuality" have received as much as her views on politics in general, as you claim, is simply and flatly false. Yet you have made the "child sexuality" section even larger than the "politics" section.
Your quotation from Paglia's interview with Bill Andriette is more accurate than the material you originally added. But by adding even more material, you have made it even clearer that the addition is unreasonable and unnecessary. Paglia has said many provocative things, to many people, in many interviews, and the article cannot include more than a few of them. We certainly don't need a whole lengthy quotation ("You know I can see forbidding, or being concerned about, situations where a larger man is convincing a small boy to let him have anal intercourse with him. I can see why people might start to be concerned about this, because does this young child I'm talking about a really young child, say, eight years old is he really cognizant about what is going on here, what anal intercourse is. But just sex play? What is wrong?") plucked from a single not particularly noteworthy interview, just because you happen to be fascinated with her comments on child sex.
Though it is not the main issue by any means, one claim you added, "Paglia also supports lowering the legal age of consent", is based on comments she made in a book published in 1994. Did it occur to you that Paglia's views in 2019 might not be the same as what they were twenty five years earlier? Though I do not recall the source, I do recall Paglia stating somewhere that her views on the issue had changed. Though you may not be trying deliberately to misrepresent Paglia, what you are doing is still clearly unacceptable and does not meet the high standards demanded by WP:BLP. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Given the constant deletion of the subsection, I have opened a Dispute Resolution concerning the Camille Paglia article. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Camille_Paglia#BLP_violation Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Given that Freeknowledgecreator refuses to engage in a dispute resolution, I have listed the case at Wikipedia:Third_opinion. It is clear to me that views that were covered in Salon, The Telegraph, as well as The Time, do fit into the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines and Freeknowledgecreator has failed to make the case that these citations which come directly from Camille Paglia are in any way libelous or that they have been retracted by her. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC) I have also reinstated the section by shortening the text to address his critique concerning length. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The addition you are trying to make is unacceptable.
The section begins, "Paglia made statements in support of NAMBLA, a pederasty and pedophilia advocacy organization". It is irresponsible to state that Paglia "made statements in support of NAMBLA" without the slightest context and without any explanation of what the statements in question were.
The statement, "Paglia also supports lowering the legal age of consent", is based on comments Paglia made in Vamps and Tramps, a book published in 1994. It is irresponsible to present very old statements as though they necessarily reflected a person's current views. In no way is it my responsibility to show that Paglia has changed her views. Rather it is your responsibility not to add statements that go beyond what the sources say (in this case, that Paglia stated in 1994 that she supported lowering the age of consent).
The quotation from Sexual Personae is, like the statement that Paglia supported NAMBLA, presented without the slightest context to explain Paglia's remarks. It does not help readers to quote a short passage from a long and complex book without explanation. Such a quotation fails the test of WP:PROPORTION.
The quotation from the interview with Bill Andriette is obviously needlessly long, and likewise fails the test of WP:PROPORTION. Like the quotation from Sexual Personae, it has been chosen gratuitously and without good reason.
Though this is not the main issue, your "Child sexuality" section is poorly written and poorly organized. For example, in one paragraph, it begins with a quotation from Sexual Personae, a book published in 1990, then suddenly jumps to a statement Paglia made in an interview many years later (in 1999), then suddenly jumps back, without explanation, to Sexual Personae again. That is not good or remotely acceptable writing. The material you have added mixes in gratuitous quotations from Paglia with your personal comments on those quotations in an unacceptable fashion. Such material is editorializing.
Your comment that I, "failed to make the case that these citations which come directly from Camille Paglia are in any way libelous" is confused. I never stated, implied, or tried to argue in any fashion, that any material you added was libelous.
You might remember that BLP's need to be written in a cautious and conservative manner, per WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." If you do not understand that, then you have no business editing them.
Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
As for my refusal to engage in dispute resolution at WP:DRN, that is my choice, since it is a voluntary process. That the process in question was disrupted by an account, Erdmännle, that received a swift block, shows to me that I was right not to want to take part. Although that account was not found to be a sockpuppet of yours, its behavior gives rise to the suspicion that WP:MEATPUPPETRY was involved. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion giver (and all round DR volunteer) here. At a cursory glance, I wouldn't necessarily say that the section should be wholesale deleted - their views are indeed published in many reliable sources, as well as books they published themselves. But not everything is as it should be. For example, Paglia made statements in support of NAMBLA, a pederasty and pedophilia advocacy organization.[79][80]. Source 79 says - "..“Two years ago,” she wrote, “with Allen Ginsberg and others, I signed a manifesto supporting NAMBLA..", and source 80 only mentions NAMBLA once, specifically As far as Ginsberg's pro-NAMBLA stand goes, this is one of the things I most admire him for.. Based on reading these two sources, I would recommend this sentence be removed as it is not supported by the sources.

"Paglia also supports lowering the legal age of consent.[81]" - this is directly supported by the reference provided (which I've obtained a PDF version of - specifically on page 90 her book says "I favour lowering the age of consent to fourteen". Since this is a book directly published by her of her views, as long as us editors attribute the content correctly. It would be appropriate to attribute anything written to when it was written, given the age of the content. However, I agree that there are proportion issues here and excessive quoting is done, which could be more concisely summarised, and some sections add little value to the reader to detail Pagalia's views. I would recommend the below as a possible starting point.

Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 14:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. I have now reinstated the section while cutting down on direct quotes and expressing the consensus that has emerged about what are her views and how best to express them succinctly. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I would caution you to review what has been added to the article, as opposed to the suggestion I made. I feel what you've added is still out of proportion to the whole article and it should be trimmed. I don't think there's adequate sourcing for the first sentence to be included, weighing proportion in this factor too. My third opinion only endorses the suggested text I've mentioned, and I don't support the section as it is written. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 22:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd like you to clarify the issue you take with the first sentence so I can bring the proper correction. Why do you believe that the first sentence is not supported by adequate sourcing? Paglia states herself in ref. 79 “Two years ago, [...] with Allen Ginsberg and others, I signed a manifesto supporting NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association).” and I state "In 1993, Paglia signed a manifesto supporting NAMBLA [...]" Just trying to figure out what is the problem with this sentence so I can do a proper correction. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I am willing to accept a suitably modified and cut back section. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Although I don't contest the addition of something in the article about Paglia's comments on this subject matter, I tend to agree with Freeknowledgecreator's concerns about the way it has been worded, so much so that I do believe it is a BLP issue. My reading of some of Paglia's statements in sources gives me the impression that her comments are informed by an artistic aesthetic and a comparison with cultural history, yet, as currently worded, the article picks out bald statements and uses them to give the impression that Paglia is a pro-paedophilia campaigner. I think this really fails BLP; the context of Paglia's comments really needs to be fleshed out. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)