Your link to Ralph Pomeroy is not accurate. He was not a physician. Ralph Pomeroy was a gay New York poet who wrote "Corner." He died in San Francisco in the Fall of 1997. He taught at the Academy of Art University during the late 80's and nineties. His friend, Edward Field, discusses his life in his book: The Man Who Would Marry Susan Sontag and Other Intimate Portraits of the Bohemian Era. Ralph collaborated with Andy Worhol on the work "A La Recherche du Shoe Perdu. In an article for the The Gay & Lesbian Review,July-August, 2005, Volume 11 Issue 4, Edward Field notes that "Ralph was accepted by Yaddo in 1955." Submitted by Deanne Berger-Moudgil.

I will linke it to the Wiki page for POET Ralph Pomeroy.

The second half of this article is risible. It reads as if written by a hagiographer, or by C.P.'s literary agent. 68.9.190.30 01:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely this encyclopaedia isn't the place for the extended biography we have here. What's needed is a brief sketch of her life and then a serious look at why we might be interested in her, her writings.

This is the excessive bio info removed from the article Tiles 01:02, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

April 2, 1947, 6:57 PM. In Endicott, New York, Lydia Anne Paglia gives birth to a baby girl, Camille Anna Paglia. The father, Pasquale Paglia, is a professor of Romance languages. Notable figures in history born on April 2: Charlemagne, Casanova, Hans Christian Andersen, Emile Zola, Max Ernst, Buddy Ebsen, Alec Guinness, Marvin Gaye, Leon Russell, Linda Hunt, and Emmylou Harris. Feb. 15, 1990 : Writes a negative review in New York Newsday of Jamake Highwater's book Myth and Sexuality. On the 18th, lesbian scholar Lillian Faderman writes a favorable review of Sexual Personae for the Washington Post Book World. March, 1990 : Harper's Magazine publishes an axcerpt from Sexual Personae. On the 13th, Walter Kendrick reviews Sexual Persone in Village Voice. May 13, 1990 : Reviews "Cleopatra: Histories, Dreams and Distortions" by Lucy Hughes-Hallett in The Washington Post. June 25, 1990 : Mark Edmundson, reviews Sexual Persone in The Nation. July 22, 1990 : Terry Teachout reviews Sexual Persone in New York Times. August 16, 1990 : Debates feminism with Sandra M. Gilbert, Susan Gubar, Felicia Bonaparte, and Helen Vendler in pages of New York Review of Books. December 14, 1990 : Writes about Madonna's "Justify My Love" video in the New York Times.

(Duplicate material removed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The biography section is still far too long. It includes such information as when the Romans invaded the town where her mother was born, and which level of the house she once lived in as a child! This sort of information just makes the entry unreadable for people who just want an encyclopediac overview of her life. Ashmoo 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]