Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::Hi ]—you say "'Readers can look it up on their own' seems like a justification for not having an encyclopedia at all." No, it is a "justification" for having separate articles. ] (]) 00:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Hi ]—you say "'Readers can look it up on their own' seems like a justification for not having an encyclopedia at all." No, it is a "justification" for having separate articles. ] (]) 00:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:: @Nblund, the critics don't have to be neutral, and we are not using WP's voice for her views. There are other critics quoted in the article do we qualify them as feminists, no they are called art critics, performance artists etc. Frankly, I really don't know much about Paglia, but in any case using her name and occupation should be neutral enough, otherwise seems to me like a bit of POV pushing. In her page we describe her as " American academic and social critic." That should be enough. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:: @Nblund, the critics don't have to be neutral, and we are not using WP's voice for her views. There are other critics quoted in the article do we qualify them as feminists, no they are called art critics, performance artists etc. Frankly, I really don't know much about Paglia, but in any case using her name and occupation should be neutral enough, otherwise seems to me like a bit of POV pushing. In her page we describe her as " American academic and social critic." That should be enough. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::I'm not suggesting that her criticisms need to be neutral, I'm saying that these non-neutral statements need to be contextualized. I think its likely that many readers will be unfamiliar with Paglia, and may be not be aware that her views considered to be outside the feminist and critical mainstream. Name and profession aren't really enough. Karl Rove and James Carville are both "professional political consultants", but I think it would be misleading to quote a political assessment from either one without mentioning their party affiliations. Paglia is similar: she's a critic, but she's far better known as a polemicist than as an academic.
::: The other art critics aren't identified by their ideologies because they aren't ideologues. Jerry Saltz and Roberta Smith may be feminists, but they are really best known as art critics -- I don't know anything about their views on feminism because they don't publish them, AFAIK. ] (]) 14:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
===BLPN===
===BLPN===
A BLPN post was made related to this discussion. See ]. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
A BLPN post was made related to this discussion. See ]. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Revision as of 14:58, 20 August 2015
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
These issues have been discussed on the talk page or noticeboards, in some cases several times. Please consult the FAQ before raising the same questions. Many thanks!
Q1: What does it mean to say that discretionary sanctions apply to the page?
The Arbitration Committee has approved special sanctions for pages about gender-related controversies and (separately) for pages about living persons. Both sets of sanctions apply to this article and talk page. This means that administrators may topic-ban and block editors who cause problems, particularly editors who violate the living-persons policy (BLP).
Q2: Do I need to create an account to edit this article and talk page?
No. You may edit while logged out if the pages are not semi-protected. But you should not edit logged out or use alternative accounts to avoid scrutiny or give the impression that you are more than one person. While alternative accounts are allowed in some circumstances, they should be avoided on pages that have become contentious.
Q3: Why is this article named after the performance art?
The performance art made the allegations notable. It was therefore decided that the art and its reception should be the focus of this article. A separate article, Columbia University rape controversy, exists about the controversy surrounding the art and the allegations. A biographical article on Emma Sulkowicz also exists.
Q4: Does Misplaced Pages have an opinion about these allegations?
BLPCRIME says: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law."
Q5: If I believe the allegations are true or false, may I add that?
No. BLP applies to all living people. The article must be neutral in tone, and should not state that the accused or accusers are lying, wrong or acting in bad faith. Misplaced Pages must assume a disinterested position. AVOIDVICTIM may apply to all parties.
Q6: May I offer my opinion on the talk page about what happened?
No. BLP applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages. Furthermore, a talk page is not a forum.
Q7: Why does the article not link to the lawsuit?
The lawsuit is a primary source, which means it was written by one of the involved parties. BLPPRIMARY allows the careful use of primary sources, but they should not be used to support contentious claims about living persons. Anything contentious in the article should rely on independent secondary sources (articles written by people not involved in the dispute).
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists
A fact from Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 December 2014, and was viewed approximately 6,483 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Emma Sulkowicz has protested Columbia University's handling of her sexual assault case by carrying her mattress around campus?
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Camille Paglia
Deleted Paglia's reaction. <refactor BLP> (She blames the government being sideswiped by 9/11 on Bill Clinton not resigning after the Lewinsky scandal ), and her comments come months after everyone else's. --A21sauce (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
While that's an unconventional theory it has no relevance here, and neither does the timing of her comments. I don't think there was a good reason for this revert. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Paglia is hardly an unknown and her opinions on Clinton are hardly extreme. A lot people thought he should have resigned for what could easily be considered a form of sexual harassment or misconduct (you know, a male superior having a sexual relationship with a very junior female subordinate in the workplace). She's an established academic on the topics of feminism. While Paglia may not go with your idea of the flow here, she's important enough to be interviewed by Salon. Salon is a major publication that is considered pretty liberal so you cannot even say they are biased towards a negative POV on the topic. Your personal opinion on Paglia has been noted, but we rely on reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hardly. She teaches at an art school. Conservatives like to drag her out to get a "woman's voice" but that doesn't make her legit. As I said, its weeks after others have commented and it's making that section longer than it needs to be.--A21sauce (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If a notable feminist scholar who teaches at an art school is not an appropriate person to comment on this topic, we can probably do away with all the other commentaries. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Paglia is known to be unconventional. Per WP:BIASED, Camile Paglia's POV should definitely be in-text attributed as the viewpoint of a "self-described dissident feminist". Also, it's wp:undue to give Paglia's brief comments it's own paragraph, quote her at length, and conclude the section with this content. I tweaked this and moved it up with the other art commentators. Senator Gillibrand and the reaction to Gillibrand's invitation of Sulkowicz to 2015 State of the Union Address seems much more significant and should end section with this content.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
After familiarizing myself with Paglia I think I understand what all the hubbub was about, and I've cut her commentary down further. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Article says "art world generally responded with enthusiasm" but cites no source. There are a few examples but it doesn't mean art world generally responded with enthusiasm. For all we know those examples could have been cherrypicked. Looks like original research --Nomad (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Sarah because I believe she added the content. I haven't had time to look over all the sources, but judging from these snippets: Artnet cited it as "almost certainly ... one of the most important artworks of the year," and New York magazine, included it in his list of the best 19 art shows of 2014, it seems "with enthusiasm" appears to be fair paraphrasing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't see a problem with adding Paglia. As for "responded with enthusiasm," that's a topic sentence; it introduces the paragraph (or part thereof, in this case) and doesn't need its own source. It seems clear from the sources in the article, and others not added, that the response was enthusiastic. Sarah18:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat, this is not an article about Camille Paglia. This edit is unacceptable. I understand the rationale that was given for that edit; I simply don't accept it. You gave WP:BIASED as a justification, but "self-described dissident feminist" is itself a notably non-neutral and biased expression; the "self-described" part in effect implies that Paglia isn't what she describes herself as being. Otherwise, she could simply be described as a dissident feminist. Your addition should be removed per WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's usually necessary to add a descriptor or qualification for a person who already has their own WP BLP. If someone wants to know more about Paglia and what she stands for, they can just click on the link and read the article about her. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:BIASED: editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".. Please note that all of the examples given in WP:Biased already have a BLP, but they are sufficiently biased sources meaning that in-text attribution may be warranted. It seems clearly warranted with respect to Camile Paglia. It also seems important to note that a source referencing that text and discussing her views on Mattress Performance opens by addressing Paglia's bias and saying specifically: renowned and self-proclaimed “dissident feminist” Camille Paglia lambasted Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz’s mattress performance--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Your reply misses the point. The problem with "self-described dissident feminist" is that it is itself a biased description. It implies that Paglia isn't really what she says she is (what would you think it would imply if an article referred to someone as a "self-described law professor"?) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, I guess it's possible to interpret that way, but I didn't read it that way. Also, it is the specific phrasing the source referenced uses, and it also the specific phrasing used in Paglia's BLP. I read "self-described" in this case, not as a question of accuracy of that description, but rather a reflection of the fact that "dissident feminist" is not a widely used or known phrase, and it seems to actually be a descriptor that Paglia coined. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Whether you understand it that way personally is not the relevant issue. The issue is what it is likely to imply. That the source uses this specific wording does not mean that Misplaced Pages must do so also. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
It is not appropriate for us to introduce Paglia as a "dissident feminist". Our sentence reads "Art commentator and self-described dissident feminist, Camille Paglia, criticized the work…" An "art commentator" she clearly is. But "dissident feminist" is a far less clear term. "Feminist" itself is an unclear term. If someone adamantly denied that they were a feminist—that would likely be noteworthy. But aside from core concerns, "feminism" refers to a far ranging variety of responses to a basically older, "patriarchal" social arrangement between men and women. The term "dissident feminist" is being used lightheartedly by Paglia when she describes herself that way. By invoking such terminology she is noting that she has a history of rejecting mainstream feminists. This is a theme Paglia returns to repeatedly. She will say for instance "The horrible truth is that the feminist establishment in the U.S., led by Gloria Steinem, did in fact apply a double standard to Bill Clinton’s behavior because he was a Democrat. The Democratic president and administration supported abortion rights, and therefore it didn’t matter what his personal behavior was." There are many more such instances in the Salon/David Daley article. But that characterization is self-applied. This is a nuanced area. The label "dissident feminist" should not be used in our article as if it had some objective meaning that is ready for public consumption. Compare it to "art commentator". Is there any doubt as to what "art commentator" means? Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been reverted here the the argument being, in the edit summary: "Excessive, and she's not a law expert." There was no mention of anything of a legal nature—not in my wording, or in the source. Nevertheless, I'm going to leave that out, though I think it bears mentioning. I've reworded Paglia commentary in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
You guys need to stop revert warring with each other. Unless it's a BLP violation, let it stand for a few days while you talk it out. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a BLP violation to simply use the adjective "feminist" to describe Paglia. She considers herself a "dissident feminist" which seems quite different.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi BoboMeowCat—you say that one term "seems quite different" from another term. What distinction do you see between the term "feminist" and the term "dissident feminist"? Can you tell me what each of those terms denote and the distinction between the two terms? Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The fact that she is critical of mainstream feminism is key context for her statements that probably ought to be included as preface. The term "self described dissident feminist" occurs repeatedly in sources discussing her views (google news search), and it seems to capture her orientation and position among feminist fairly well. She explicitly embraces and explains the moniker in this interview.
If the problem is solely the vagary of the term, how about "an academic who has been critical of mainstream feminism"? Nblund (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Even skimming Paige's article shows she's considered anti-feminist by tons of scholars and sources. She may label herself as such, but we cannot use that label without qualification given that so many sources disagree with it. Quibbling over the descriptor for her is frankly putting too much weight on her opinion ... just link to her page and let readers determine who she is. We don't need to describe her for them, especially when such description is difficult and contentious. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Considering the content of the quotes from Paglia, which have been added to the article, some sort of in-text attribution seems needed per WP:BIASED; however, the detailed quotes from Paglia may be undue weight. If shortened and neutrally paraphrased, we may not need attribution per wp:biased. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Evergreenfir, there is no need to call her feminist or anti feminist or dissident feminist or whatever else. Readers can easily go to her page and look her up if they are interested. Darwinian Ape20:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
"Readers can look it up on their own" seems like a justification for not having an encyclopedia at all. Paglia is noted as a vocal critic of mainstream feminism and, more recently, of anti-rape activism. She is commenting on artwork that is closely tied to both mainstream feminism and to the anti-rape movement. Simply calling her a "cultural critic", or failing to offer any context at all for her views, gives the misleading impression that she is a neutral observer making an aesthetic judgement. Nblund (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nblund—you say "'Readers can look it up on their own' seems like a justification for not having an encyclopedia at all." No, it is a "justification" for having separate articles. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nblund, the critics don't have to be neutral, and we are not using WP's voice for her views. There are other critics quoted in the article do we qualify them as feminists, no they are called art critics, performance artists etc. Frankly, I really don't know much about Paglia, but in any case using her name and occupation should be neutral enough, otherwise seems to me like a bit of POV pushing. In her page we describe her as " American academic and social critic." That should be enough. Darwinian Ape01:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that her criticisms need to be neutral, I'm saying that these non-neutral statements need to be contextualized. I think its likely that many readers will be unfamiliar with Paglia, and may be not be aware that her views considered to be outside the feminist and critical mainstream. Name and profession aren't really enough. Karl Rove and James Carville are both "professional political consultants", but I think it would be misleading to quote a political assessment from either one without mentioning their party affiliations. Paglia is similar: she's a critic, but she's far better known as a polemicist than as an academic.
The other art critics aren't identified by their ideologies because they aren't ideologues. Jerry Saltz and Roberta Smith may be feminists, but they are really best known as art critics -- I don't know anything about their views on feminism because they don't publish them, AFAIK. Nblund (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
.svg){kind=small}
