Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:08, 23 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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

view · edit Frequently asked questions 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography 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. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Men's Issues Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Higher education 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. Visual arts 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. Women artists 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? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2014/December.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Logs and discussions: Move logs: Emma Sulkowicz Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) Discussions: Emma Sulkowicz → Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz. Moved to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), 6 February 2015; see discussion Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) → Columbia University performance art controversy. No consensus, 7 June 2015; see discussion

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

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)

I think her comments are appropriate for the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 11 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. Sarah 18:16, 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)

There is praise and criticism to go around, but not just for the artist and the artwork, but for the school as well, hence I've made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 04:36, 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)

The first source describes her as a social critic. Wouldn't that be more appropriate?Mattnad (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This source describes her as a "cultural critic". I think that would be appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 12:06, 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)

Hi BoboMeowCat—how would we neutrally paraphrase strong criticism? Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 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 Ape 20:43, 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 Ape 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. Nblund (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—why aren't "Name and profession … enough? Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is the arbiter of which voice is mainstream or not? Paglia is far more notable, authoritative, and established than a freelance writer for Artnet. Salon, the primary source for the interview, did not see fit to characterize Paglia as an "dissident feminist". Misplaced Pages editors then want to interject their own views on this. It's really a case of not liking message so there's an effort to dismiss the messenger with a qualifier.Mattnad (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad: Paglia calls herself a dissident and even sympathizers acknowledge she's not a mainstream feminist. Its not a pejorative, its her well-established public persona: I am a dissident because my system of beliefs, worked out over the past five decades, has been repeatedly attacked, defamed, and rejected by feminist leaders and their acolytes across a wide spectrum, both in and out of academe (link). You can't say "feminist leaders have attacked me for decades" and then simultaneously claim to be a part of the feminist mainstream.

Bus stop As I explained: James Carville is a "professional political consultant", but it would be misleading to quote his views on politics without acknowledging his political affiliations. Camille Paglia is a critic, but she's best known to the public as a critic of mainstream feminism. She has a broader ideological and political agenda that probably has a lot to do with her critical judgement of this piece, and its pretty clear from the quote that she's making a point about her view of contemporary feminism. Nblund (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever she has said in the past (and putting aide your interpretation since we all can have opinions), Salon was speaking to her as a "social critic" according to that article from which this all springs. Paglia is known for many things by many people, but it seems to me that adding phrasing is less about elucidation and more about POV.Mattnad (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is something that Camille Paglia uses to describe her own views. If your objection is that this is somehow biased or contested, you're just mistaken. Its something used by both sympathizers and critics to describe her views. I've included several links below attesting to this.

The Salon article calls her "a provocateur" defined as: "a person who provokes trouble, causes dissension, or the like; agitator". Provocateur is sort a pejorative description, "dissident feminist" really seems like a more generous way of describing her position. You're arguing that this is about a POV, but whose point-of-view is this supposed to be exactly? Nblund (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—it would be a nonstandard description of the person to introduce her as a "dissident feminist". That is a particular spin for a particular purpose. You say "James Carville is a 'professional political consultant', but it would be misleading to quote his views on politics without acknowledging his political affiliations". We are not discussing "political affiliations". We are actually discussing an opinion on a work of art. You say "Camille Paglia is a critic, but she's best known to the public as a critic of mainstream feminism." We are not discussing "mainstream feminism". We are not even discussing "feminism". Under discussion is a reaction to a work of art. Our primary question is who is providing that reaction? What is the standard description of that person? We should not contrive nonstandard descriptions for any reason unless such a nonstandard description is supported by sources in direct relation to the artwork. As far as I know such sourcing is absent. You are arguing for the inclusion of nonstandard descriptions of Paglia that you feel will provide insight into Paglia's negative reaction to the artwork. By doing so, you are running the risk of introducing bias. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "nonstandard description"? Where is that standard coming from? Let's be clear here: she uses the term to describe her own views (Examples: 1, 2, 3). Other outlets, both supportive and critical, use those terms to describe her as well (ex: 1, 2, 3). You're going to be very hard pressed to justify calling this a "biased" description.

Surely you recognize that my mention of Carville is an analogy: his job title is "professional political consultant", but he's a well-known Democrat whose political analysis is often shaped by his political affiliations. Similarly, Paglia's job title is "cultural critic", but she's a well-known polemicist whose views on feminism often shape her cultural criticism. In both cases, its necessary to contextualize the person's views.

Her quote is absolutely discussing feminism. Re-read: Camille Paglia described Mattress Performance as a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," adding that a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them.. She's giving a view on the artwork that is informed by her ideological perspective. Her's is widely considered a "fringe" view among feminists, if we're going to give article space to it, we need to offer a bare-minimum of context for that fact. Nblund (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the links you provided,(and looking her up further) I can see that I disagree with many of her opinions. But that is not a ground for marking her as "dissident feminist" in this article. You said "She's giving a view on the artwork that is informed by her ideological perspective." So? Every critic's views are informed by their ideological perspective, and she may be considered "fringe" among feminists, but she is still a very notable art critic and we quote her because she is an art critic. Are you saying all art critics have to abide by feminist standards or they will be considered fringe? You, by your own admission, trying to label her as someone with fringe views, and that is a POV. It's not like we are presenting her as the face of feminism. That's exactly why we should not give her unnecessary qualifiers like "feminist, anti feminist, dissident feminist" etc. It's a verifiable fact that she is an art professor and critic, her views on feminism, however, is not clear and should not be mentioned one way or the other, especially in an article about an art piece where she is quoted because she is an art critic and merely a footnote. Darwinian Ape 22:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the links, you should have noticed that she calls herself a dissident feminist or is described as a dissident feminist in every single one. Literally all six sources use those exact words. Is that really not a grounds for using the label?

She's really more of a cultural critic. Her academic work primarily deals with literature, and she's written some on film and popular culture. She is not known as someone who has an expertise in visual or performance arts. Salon doesn't appear to be interviewing her because she's an art critic: they ask about her views on Bill Cosby. She doesn't really even discuss the quality of the art itself, she just calls it an example of an ideology she dislikes.

I didn't call her views fringe, but, no, its not POV to call a particular viewpoint "fringe", its part of assigning due and undue weight. Misplaced Pages has a whole entry on WP:FRINGE.

I really don't see anything remotely unclear or contentious about calling her a "dissident feminist", this is just not a plausible argument. She repeatedly uses the term to describe her own views. Her's is the only perspective on feminism quoted in the article. Its problematic on its own, but its especially problematic if we can't include a basic -- wholly noncontroversial -- description of her views. Nblund (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think one should be an expert on art to make notable criticisms on art, but "Paglia has been a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, since 1984." If that does not make her an expert on art, I don't know what does. You may have noticed, the art piece itself is a feminist art piece, in the category of Feminist art. So it's obvious that the critique of the art piece may touch the feminism issue. But she is commenting on the art piece there not feminism in general. ... a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them. she is clearly criticizing a Feminist Art, not feminism itself.

You also said, "I didn't call her views fringe, but, no, its not POV to call a particular viewpoint 'fringe'" and no it's not, but you are going to have to prove that her views are fringe by providing sources that call her views fringe. But there is no source that call her, especially on art and as a social critic, fringe to my knowledge. In any case, this article is not a place to discuss whether her views on some points are fringe or not, people can find her views on her own article. Describing her as social critic is neutral and factual, adding "dissident feminist" label is unnecessary and serves no purpose and it rather reads like trying to discredit her critique: "she said those negative things, but look she is not actually feminist so her views are not important" Darwinian Ape 23:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that her views aren't notable, I haven't said she has fringe views. I said she's a firebrand and an ideologue who is notable to the general public because of her controversial take on contemporary feminism. I've provided six separate sources that support this view, all of them discuss her conflict with contemporary feminism, and all of them use the term "dissident feminist" to describe her views.

Here's how she's described in a (overall, very positive) interview in Reason.com:

She would go on to become one of America's most famous academics and cultural critics, an "anti-feminist feminist" and an incendiary atheist who once wrote that "God is man's greatest idea." From her perch at Philadelphia's University of the Arts, Paglia has befuddled orthodox partisans and ideologues for decades.

You can't be an "incendiary" who "befuddles orthodox partisans" and simultaneously claim to be mainstream. She's notable precisely because her views are outside the mainstream. This isn't pejorative, its what made her famous and its a big part of the reason a lot of people like her. Calling her a "dissident feminist" or "outside the feminist mainstream" does not discount her views -- its literally her description of her own views. You acknowledge that her quote is discussing her feminist views, and I think its pretty much indisputable that those views are outside the mainstream, so what, precisely, is the objection to describing her as a "dissident feminist"? Nblund (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"so what, precisely, is the objection to describing her as a "dissident feminist"?" I wouldn't have any, if this was her own article. But in this context labeling her as "dissident feminist" reads like an attempt to demean her views on this piece. If we were to put a caveat on that it might've been OK, but that really would be WP:UNDUE So why not just use her name and profession with an internal link to her own article? It's as neutral as we can get. Darwinian Ape 01:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not its demeaning really depends on your personal view of the feminist mainstream. Its akin to describing John McCain as a "maverick Republican". Regardless of how you feel, Paglia clearly fully embraces the description, and her supporters don't seem to see it as demeaning at all. Its clearly relevant, and its accurate and well-sourced. There were valid questions about whether or not her quotes should be included at all, and this seems like an eminently reasonable compromise.

NPOV and RS policies both require that we provide adequate context when citing biased sources or minority views -- Paglia is both. This doesn't mean we have to eliminate her perspective, but it does mean we need to offer some minimal acknowledgement of the fact that she's a very controversial figure. From Misplaced Pages:Neutrality of Sources

"On controversial topics, Wikipedians often need to deal with sources that are reliable but non-neutral. The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide. Intelligent readers will weigh the opposing sides and reach their own conclusions." (Emphasis mine) Nblund (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that concerned about "dissident feminist" except that it seems gratuitous and selected to position her views a certain way. I still can't understand why wikipedia needs to take this position when Salon did not. If the other opinions which are presented as positive views receive no similar qualifiers, why do we need this here? Attaching something like this to the only negative review on the art does not reflect equal treatment. Now, since Paglia is the most notable person to comment on it does mean there's more from her background to pull from, but it does not follow that we should pick something that make it look like Misplaced Pages is taking sides here.Mattnad (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Salon called her a "provocateur", which is essentially synonymous with "dissident". It actually seems more pejorative, but we can use that description if you prefer. I have a tough time finding articles that simply describe her as a "critic". She's been known, her entire career, as a controversialist, and this is usually mentioned -- using one term or another -- in interviews with her.

Paglia recognized as a contrarian with a critical minority perspective on feminism. That perspective colors her extremely controversial views of literature and popular culture. She's directly discussing her controversial views on the nature of feminism in the quote in this article. he other views in that section are from respected contemporary art critics. All criticism is subjective, but neither of these critics are typically regarded as "firebrands" or "gadflies" or ideologues. Honestly, if you have an example of someone prominently calling Jerry Saltz a "crackpot extremist" for his critical work, I'll add it in -- no question, but, as it stands, Paglia appears uniquely controversial. Nblund (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My point exactly, by saying she is a "dissident feminist" we are separating her from other critics, and that is what makes the label "demeaning." As I said, if this were her page, I would not object to the use of dissident feminist because we would have context, her views explained in full. But in here it's not appropriate. I would also object to calling John McCain a "maverick Republican", when quoting him in an unrelated article. If we are to claim bias on her part, then some may claim bias on other critics because they all biased one way or another. One can say they are only supportive of this art piece because it helps them their feminist agenda, but that would be a NPOV violation, as is your reasoning. Also I wonder, what is the valid reason for not including her views? I looked at the talk page and only reason I could find was A21sauce calling her something warranted redaction per blp, the gist of it was, presumably "I don't like her views" Darwinian Ape 03:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

How are they biased? Can you find a reliable source where someone raises some major ideological critique of either of the other art critics here? Nblund (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying they are biased, rather everyone is biased in one way or another if you think like that. It's not my logic either that declared Paglia biased because of her opinions on feminism, but if you follow that logic you can say others are biased too, because they are feminists, liberals, performance artists etc. Does Paglia have a grudge against the artist? No! Her criticisms are to her art and as you pointed out earlier her opinions are informed by her ideological perspective. But it's true for all the critics in the article. This is not an art piece with some aesthetic beauty to be judged, it is a statement on a social issue, so anyone who praise the art praise it because of the social aspect of it, its criticism, both negative and positive, has to come from an ideological place. But at the end, it is an art piece we are discussing, not feminism. And she is not biased against the artist, she just doesn't like her art. The name and profession is enough for us to put her opinions in the article, we don't have to go out of our way to explain who she is and what her ideology is, it's simply undue. Darwinian Ape 05:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Everyone has opinions, but not everyone is an ideologue. Can you find reliable sources that suggest some broad ideological bias in the criticism of either of the other art critics mentioned in the article? Nblund (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying you have reliable sources that suggest Paglia is critical of this art piece because she has ideological bias? It seems to me like we are running around circles, and this is a minor content dispute. I agree she may not be a garden variety feminist but we can't explain that by a single title without sounding like we have a bias against her, we certainly can't give much weight to her ideology in the article. The term dissident feminist is not a well defined label. We are not even using that term in her own article, I don't think it would be appropriate here. Darwinian Ape 16:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There are other opinion sources that note Paglia's bias is playing a role here, but I don't really think that is even a point worthy of dispute: this is consistent with her well-known ideological orientation. I'm not asking you to provide an RS that demonstrates that their criticism of this particular piece is biased, I'm asking you to provide an RS that indicates an ideological bias in their body of critical work. Have other people called Jerry Saltz a contrarian or a provocateur? You seem to be suggesting that these other critics are analogous, but I don't see evidence of that.

Let me be sure I understand you: you acknowledge that her views are outside the mainstream, and you acknowledge that her not-mainstream views are on display here, but you don't think we should include an indication of that fact because it would introduce bias. Am I way off base? Nblund (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Her views are not in line with mainstream feminism, but feminism is not the only ideology is it? Feminism is not the default position for art critics is it? Think of the Noam Chomsky's criticisms on postmodernism, his views are "outside the mainstream postmodernism" can you call him biased if he criticize say a postmodern article? Darwinian Ape 19:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

But, as you've acknowledged, her comment is offering feminist perspective on feminist artwork. So, then this is pretty clear cut: when we're quoting a view that we agree is outside the mainstream, we need to give that view due weight -- which means (at a minimum) we acknowledge that its an outsider viewpoint and that it is considered controversial. Nblund (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Nblund's views are not in line with Paglia's. Hence the persistence on this point.Mattnad (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this is a helpful contribution to the discussion? Assume good faith. Nblund (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There's not issue of good faith here. It's observation. You are advocating treating the Paglia quote through a lens of "dissident" feminism. That's very different from how the other editor opinions and how Salon (the source of the interview) treated it. Other editors, including Sarah/SlimVirgin have argued against "labeling" her like that. You've been very insistent on that language and have stated you believe she's holds extreme views. Extreme from where? Whatever your answer, it will be a personal opinion that's different from several other editors who are advocating a more neutral presentation.Mattnad (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to read more closely. I haven't stated that I believe she holds extreme views. I haven't stated my personal opinion of Paglia at all. What I said was that multiple outside sources describe her as a "contrarian" a "provocateur" or otherwise outside the feminist mainstream. She herself uses the term "dissident feminism" to describe her views, so that seems like a pretty good option.

You seem to be under the impression that describing her as an outsider is insulting, but I think that might be because you're not really familiar with her public persona. Paglia calls herself "the most obnoxious woman in world history!", she is not someone who views herself as a part of the mainstream, she is not someone anyone sees as the part of the mainstream. People like her because she is incendiary. I actually don't think any other editor is disputing the accuracy of the term "dissident" at this point. Primarily because it really isn't tenable. Nblund (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund: First off, mainstream is not equal to mainstream feminism. Arguably the art piece in question can be said outside mainstream, or "radical". Again The Chomsky example, would you call him biased because he harshly criticized postmodernism? Every commentator in the article is offering their "feminist perspective." Because it's a feminist art. It's not neutral to assume a critic who is outside or critical of mainstream feminist ideology is biased against this art piece. The other problem is when you put a vague label like "dissident feminist" on someone without elaborating what that means(which we can't do in this article) it makes it look like we are trying to discredit her criticism. That is why we should neither call her feminist nor dissident feminist. Darwinian Ape 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I recognize that mainstream≠mainstream feminism, but, because her comments are about feminism and feminist art work, they should be weighted in accord with how she is viewed in those fields.

I would absolutely call Chomsky biased, and I would be very hesitant to quote him as saying something like: "renowned linguist Noam Chomsky says America is the greatest threat to the world". If we can't adequately contextualize her views here, they probably shouldn't be included, but if we insist on doing so, a brief (two-word) description seems like an eminently reasonable compromise. If the problem is just the vagary, I previously suggested an alternate: "an academic who has been critical of mainstream feminism".

As I've said previously, people like Paglia because she is a confrontational figure. There's nothing inherently discrediting about being considered "outside the mainstream". There are many respected public figures who are viewed as free thinkers and non-conformists. Nblund (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—she isn't a "dissident feminist". That is a description. She is a "professor". And she is an "author". Is she a professor in the "Dissident feminism" department at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia? Your choice of wording is simply your cherry-picked terminology to cause the reader to discount what she has to say. The article contains gushing praise and the article should contain unmitigated negative criticism. We don't include disclaimers for those lavishing praise on the artwork so why should we issue disclaimers for those excoriating the artwork? Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well put, @Darwinian Ape, thanks--A21sauce (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have started an RfC about this issue below. It appears that there's still significant disagreement among the editors here and on BLPN. I hope that new, uninvolved editors will be able to provide clarity and help develop consensus. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

BLPN

A BLPN post was made related to this discussion. See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mattress_Performance_.28Carry_That_Weight.29. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How should Camille Paglia be described/identified in the article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Brief background of the issue and dispute:

There has been much discussion about how to describe/identify Camille Paglia when mentioning her comments about Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (the subject of the article). Discussions can be found at WP:BLPN#Mattress Performance (Carry_That_Weight) and above on this page at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#Camille Paglia.

The sentence in question is (in its current form), Social critic Camille Paglia described Mattress Performance as "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," adding that a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them." I have underlined the descriptor in question.

The current version uses "social critic" to describe Paglia. Past versions used other labels, including "feminist". There is disagreement in using the label "feminist" to describe her. However a number of sources and other academics say otherwise (see past discussions and Camille Paglia for details). She uses the label to describe herself, specifically "dissident feminist" or "outside the feminist mainstream".

How should Camille Paglia be described/identified in the article?

Based on past discussion, following suggestions have been given:

1. Social critic
2. Feminist
3. Dissident feminist
4. Professor
5. Professor at University of the Arts (Philadelphia)
6. Author
7. No label

I am initiating this RfC because clear consensus has not been reached in either forum despite days of discussion. I hope this RfC will bring fresh perspectives and generate consensus. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe its a typo, but I haven't seen any outside sources saying that she's not a "dissident feminist" or that her views represent the feminist mainstream. It seems like she herself, as well as her supporters, acknowledge and even embrace her reputation as a gadfly and an outsider. Has someone actually cited academics who characterize her views as "mainstream"? Nblund (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund: Thank you. Sentence order error. Have fixed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that no one (that I'm aware of) has suggested adding "dissident feminist" without text that clarifies that Paglia refers to her self this way. "Self-proclaimed dissident feminist" is the terminology used by source cited. "Self-described dissident feminist" was previously in the article, lifted from Paglia's BLP. Text most recently in article was "social critic Camille Paglia, who refers to herself as a dissident feminist". EvergreenFir, perhaps you could tweak the choices to reflect this such as: "3. Dissident feminist (with text that Paglia uses this to refer to self)" --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC comments

• Support #1 but okay with #4 or #7 - I think social critic is best as it describes Paglia neutrally. Professor gives a label of authority and can be used as an appeal to authority, though she is indeed a professor and this is a title she's earned. If no label can be agreed upon, I think it would be best to omit a label and simply allow readers to view her Misplaced Pages article to determine it for themselves. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support #4 and/or #5 and/or #6. Strictly speaking it is identification that is called for, not description. I wouldn't mind "description" such as "social critic" or "cultural critic" but I oppose what I see as agenda-driven description as exemplified by the term "dissident feminist". I don't oppose the descriptive term "feminist" but I wouldn't advocate using it as long as there are terms such as "dissident feminist" swirling around in the blogosphere. We don't want to appear provocative. Of my choices I think the one I prefer most is Author. The heart of the issue is whether to dumb down the encyclopedia or to leave questions unanswered. The reader whose interest is piqued obviously has to do more research. The mistake that some editors are succumbing to is thinking that they can be all things to all readers, when the reality is that the reader has to look into this matter to understand the many views on many subjects addressed by Camille Paglia. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3 but prefer a more explicit description of Paglia's views. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support #4 or #5, or #7 as a last option. Professor is the most neutral of the choices. BTW, this is a really poorly formatted RfC, there should not be seven choices, you might as well have a fill-in-the-blank option too. GregJackP Boomer! 20:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support #3 I do think its important to re-iterate: "dissident feminist" is how she describes her own views, and its a phrase frequently used by her supporters. I'm open to alternative phrasing, as long as they communicate her unique position. The key policies here are WP:BIASED, and WP:NPOV, particularly the section WP:BALASPS. In short: Paglia is distinct from the other art critics we cite in that section, and it creates a false balance to pretend she isn't. She is widely acknowledged to be an unorthodox feminist ideologue whose art and literary criticism are driven by a very specific (and deeply controversial) agenda. As it stands, Paglia is the only explicitly feminist perspective quoted in this article. Simply calling her a "social critic" doesn't accurately capture the nature of her public persona. If we're going to cite her, its important to place her views in an appropriate context. Readers should not walk away with the impression that Paglia's view of what feminist work "should be" is representative of feminist views in general, nor should she be portrayed as someone whose views on art are primarily aesthetic. Nblund (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1 per my comments in above section. would not object to 4, 5 and 7 though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinian Ape (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support #3 This is how source used for content in article describes Paglia: renowned and self-proclaimed "dissident feminist" , but I'd also support any qualifier which addresses that Paglia is a vocal opponent of mainstream feminism, because the quotes are about feminism. This seems warranted per wp:biased which states: 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..."..--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—by that reasoning we can simply call her a feminist, Choice #2. Forgive me for butting in here, but what am I misunderstanding about this? Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus Stop, describing Paglia as a feminist wouldn't address the concerns raised in wp:biased. The reliable sources describe Paglia as an opponent and vocal critic of mainstream feminism. Paglia's self-descriptor, "dissident feminist" addresses the bias (definition of dissident: adj: disagreeing or dissenting), although I'd support any qualifier that addresses Paglia is a notable critic of American feminism.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat—no, she is a feminist. A "dissident feminist" is a "feminist", is it not? Are all feminists of one mind? Furthermore, our article on Camille Paglia reads "Paglia, a militant feminist and open lesbian, was working at her first academic job at Bennington College." That she is combative with other feminists is not a defining characteristic for the purposes of the Mattress Performance article. She thinks for herself. It is as a feminist that Paglia issues the scathing criticism of Mattress Performance. I am perfectly willing to identify Paglia as an "author" in our article. That is choice number 6 in this RfC. She is a complex entity and that is to her credit. I am not advocating that we describe her as a "feminist". Our Camille Paglia article also reads "Some feminist critics have characterized Paglia as an 'anti-feminist feminist,' critical of central features of much contemporary feminism but holding out 'her own special variety of feminist affirmation.'" Why would we want to reduce her to a "dissident feminist" when all she is doing in this article is voicing criticism of a work of art? Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose #2: It is clear from the above discussion and from Paglia's article that she is far outside mainstream feminism, so simply calling her a feminist without qualification is misleading. I have no preference among the other options. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• comment: If her ideological views don't matter here, why not just say: "Cultural critic Camille Paglia gave the work a negative assessment, calling it it 'masochistic'" and leave out the stuff about her views of contemporary feminism? A big part of the problem here stems from the fact that the quote we're using is really more about Paglia's view of feminism than about the work itself. Several editors are saying her perspective on feminism isn't worth mentioning, but we're actually directly quoting her perspective on feminism. Nblund (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund: "Negative assessment"? Is Paglia incapable of speaking for herself? Does she need Misplaced Pages editors paraphrasing her? And no one said that her "ideological views" don't matter. But we can't cram everything about Paglia into the Mattress Performance article. The reader must go elsewhere if their interest is piqued. You say "A big part of the problem here stems from the fact that the quote we're using is really more about Paglia's view of feminism than about the work itself." It doesn't matter. Paglia gets to say whatever she wants to say because we have established that she is a notable commentator. The reader is understandably interested in Paglia's view of the performance piece Mattress Performance and she is perfectly capable of articulating her own thoughts on this particular artistic entity, just as are the various art critics arrayed in the article. Negative criticism and positive criticism give a reader ideas about what other people think about the work of art. The opinions of notable people, to the greatest extent possible, should be unfettered by disclaimers. These are virtually random reactions compiled here. There is no discipline governing what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Nobody is questioning what Roberta Smith is saying by describing it as "strict and lean, yet inclusive and open ended, symbolically laden yet drastically physical," or writing that "comparisons to the Stations of the Cross and Hester Prynne's scarlet letter were apparent". What is Jerry Saltz referring to when he refers to it as "clear, to the point, insistent, adamant ... pure radical vulnerability"? All of the reactions found in the reception section are merely off-the-cuff remarks. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop I don't really think there's a rule against paraphrase, (WP:IMPARTIAL actually suggest we should be cautious about directly quoting participants in a heated dispute) but I would also be open to: "Critic Camille Paglia called the work 'a protracted exercise in masochism''. Nblund (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—there is nothing wrong with negative criticism. I think there should actually be more added and some of it could come from Paglia. You are suggesting that we paraphrase Paglia who says the artwork is "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism" yet you are not suggesting that we paraphrase an art critic calling it "one of the most important artworks of the year". And by the way we are not documenting a "heated dispute". We are not documenting any dispute at all. This happens to be an article about an individual work of art. The notable people weighing in with an opinion on the artwork (Roberta Smith, Jerry Saltz, Marina Abramović, artnet, and Paglia) are not even in dialogue with one another so how can it be a dispute? The "Reception" section is a collection of comments by notable people. Such comments are simply of intrinsic interest to a reader. Often artwork is polarizing and provocative. We are not hosting a "dispute". We are including interesting commentary from well-known people. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we'd paraphrase here. All the reliable sources I've seen on her comments quoted her similarly to how the article is now. Unlike the other reviewers/comments, Paglia is far more notable and was picked up by several sources. What's the value in reinterpreting her words which are not that many compared to the article length?Mattnad (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What I suggested in title=Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)&diff=677399442&oldid=677392816 here isn't a paraphrase, its a direct quote. Nblund (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1 & 7: #1 is close to what Salon and several other sources use in reference to this topic. #7 is completely neutral, and given Paglia already has an article, readers can learn more about her. "dissident feminist" carries a lot of baggage with it which is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages's voice.Mattnad (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be more concerned about it if it were not a self-descriptor. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC discussion

Given the extent of past discussion, I humbly request that involved users limit their discussion in this RfC to new information or ideas if possible. There has been a bit of bludgeoning occurring and, in my opinion, much of the same thing is being reiterated. This RfC would be most fruitful if new voices are not drown out. (Edit: to be clear, I'm not asking involved edits to refrain from !voting, just avoid further bludgeoning). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the bludgeoning, and I'm keeping my comments to a minimum, but I do think a short summary of the key points might help outside voices to understand the dispute. No one is going to want to wade through that wall of text to figure out whats already been said. Nblund (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Or we can let other editors come to their own conclusions without shaping by the involved parties?Mattnad (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Feminism articles
• Low-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Start-Class Men's Issues articles
• Low-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles
• Start-Class New York City articles
• Low-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• Start-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles
• Start-Class visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles
• Start-Class Women artists articles
• WikiProject Women artists articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment