Talk:Bracha L. Ettinger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2008[edit]

Complicated discussion here:[1] Modernist (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon verification via Facebook, Ori Redler and his friends have asked through right wing lists to eliminate Ettinger from Wikipedia and reduce her importance, because she is an Israeli human rights activist. This is a purge for political reasons. I am going to restore the eliminations and will need administration help. Artethical (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you provide a link, please? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please enter Ori Redler in Facebook. The first line declares: On Facebook there are may anti-Israeli/Anti-Jewish groups, etc. Follow the links if they are still there right now. I am going to proceed to look again at the internet and bring here the List of "bad jews" monitored by some people from the University of Jerusalem, denouncing Ettinger, Ofir and others. I hope all the links are still there. This is very serious. Back in few minuets. Artethical (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot find anything like that. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is clear that the removal of Ettinger from all articles was unacceptable, and that it was done with some goal other than Wikipedia's best interests in mind. However, it also does not seem to me that Ettinger was mentioned, at times very prominently, on pages where it was inappropriate to do so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that this is clear by now that Ettinger was "lynched" in purpose. I suggest that we proceed to correct the damage. You can look at Google Books, and also you can Google her to find what I have found about this coordinated "witch-hunting". I am sorry that I do not want enter this. You are invited to verify. Since her references are correct and corresponding to Wikipedia rules and criteria, I suggest that we respect the rules and criteria, and simply return in good faith, respect and dignity, and undo the unjustified deletions. I will do the best that I can in this direction.Artethical (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're not really answering my objections. I get that she's published - even through Minnesota, which is a very good press. But there's a large gap between having a book out under Minnesota and Julia Kristeva. Unless you can show notability on the level of Kristeva, Freud, Irigaray, Lacan, and Mulvey then you're hard-pressed to suggest that she's as notable as some of the additions were suggesting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to assume good respect and am simply stating that you are perhaps differently informed. No offense. Freud and Lacan is one level, the others are another level in which Ettinger fits. It looks that you have taken the initiative to remove her from many different pages, I am still trying to assume good faith. You know by now what was going on, we seem to have different conclusions.Artethical (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kristeva is a very different level from Ettinger as well. As is Irigaray. Mulvey as well - Mulvey's concept of the male gaze is one of the most influential and assigned essays in film studies. Ettinger's essay on the matrixial gaze... isn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have left you a message on your page too. I am sorry if I have upset you, I see that you have done your best and in a good way. We simply don't agree on this, but I sincerely want to remain polite and to contribute to general knowledge. I am very dedicated to the subject. But - no bad feelings. We are informed on the field in a different way. The future will tell. Best, Artethical (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be quickly persuaded by some stats on anthology appearances by Ettinger. I note, for film studies, that she is not in Film Theory and Criticism, which is the major film theory anthology used these days. She's also not in the new Norton anthology for feminist theory, nor in the general Norton anthology of theory and criticism. Which gives, I think, a solid sense of perspective. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

theory description bad[edit]

Can someone re-write the theory section such that it makes sense to someone coming to it fresh - at present it is full of undefined non-standard terminology and concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

individual wrote own article?[edit]

not sure what the exact wiki policy on this is, but the whole article scream off brachia l. ettinger writing this article herself. The indepthdness of the ideas and unnecessary description seem odd, and almost promotional. The writing is downright rude in it's inaccessibility and language use, I propose a simplification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the article is terrible and reads like a PR piece. I've added (and re-added) a hatnote. It needs a serious re-write. Bhny (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the hatnote - re-writing is a better idea than just tagging...Modernist (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes tags are dumb, but I thought the problems with the article tone needed highlighting. I'm done with my edits and leave the re-writing to you or others. Thanks. Bhny (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lot of this article makes no sense[edit]

I know that it's "feminist film theory" and all, but Wikipedia seems to be using all the weird invented words that nobody but Ettinger has used ("matrixial", "metramorphosis", "m/Other", "com-passion" etc.): this might fly in some journals, but unless an actual meaning can be pinned down, it shouldn't fly on Wikipedia. (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No response? Look at Bracha_Ettinger#Major_concepts. It's pure absolute rubbish, almost parody. (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I trimmed "major concepts". Can someone else do the same for the following sections? Bhny (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would still argue that very large portions of this article are literally without any sense or meaning. (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

international and prominent[edit]

[moved from my talk page 22:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)]

Dear BhNY International and prominent are standard in wikipedia for artists of this huge international status. This artist has studios in few different countries all over the world and participating in the most important international exhibitions. The number of books dedicated by art historians pf the first order is without precedence. Man artist of this status are considered inrernational and prominent. Man philosopher of this standard and status are considered ageless and international. I am asking you please do not delete and replace again without discussion first. We might need more discussants. Artethical (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe she is prominent and international, just we don't usually say things like that about people. Please read this link- WP:PEACOCK. You have to be prominent to get an article written about you in wikipedia. Any prominent artist would have international shows. Basically the article should state what the person does and the reader will make up their own minds. Bhny (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree in principle with what you're saying; however I still think the tag is excessive. Although the writing in the article can definitely be toned down...modesty is good...just saying...Modernist (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"promotes the subject in a subjective manner"[edit]

I added a "peacock" tag which unfortunately was removed. Much of this article reads like an art gallery bio. It isn't at all encyclopedic. Here are some examples of the problems-

  • a prominent international artist
  • The vibrating quality of the paintings bring to mind a mental "ultrasound".
  • She calls for a delicate process of differentiation and differentiation, coemergence and cofading between the generations
  • she adds that of primal apperception of the other, through "fascinance"
  • Ettinger articulated the 'matrixial gaze' and the process of 'co-poiesis'. This allows new understanding of trans-generational transmission, trauma and artistic processes.
  • who had proposed an ontology of string-like subject-subject (trans-subjective) and subject-object (transjective) transmissivity for a rethinking of the human subject
  • The idea of a corpo-Real is a part of her symboliseation of a new feminine psychic zone [meaningless, as well as spelling and capitalization errors]

etc. Bhny (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely needs some editing and re-writes...Modernist (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am engaged in French feminism. I will try to do serious editing in the coming few months. Give me some time, please be patient and wish me luck Doraannao (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modernist: do you still think the hatnote I added is excessive? This is one of the most extreme examples I have seen. Bhny (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do; lets see if the rhetoric is modified first...Modernist (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done some edits mainly to the "Artist" section. It is now at least readable. The "Psychoanalyst" section is still a huge mess obviously. No way does that obscurantism belong in a bio. Bhny (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

group and solo shows[edit]

I don't understand why there is an exhaustive list of group and solo shows (obviously taken from a gallery handout). Groups shows by their nature are not usually notable for an artist. If any of these solo shows are notable then we should explain why. Artists have shows, unless it is notable there's no point in listing them. Jackson_Pollock, Picasso, Georgia O'Keeffe don't have a listing of shows. Important shows are just mentioned in prose. Bhny (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets get real please - articles about artists are not set in stone; there isn't a recipe. Pollock, O'Keeffe and Picasso don't need a list of group shows - they are beyond famous. Ettinger is far less known and the list of museum exhibitions matters...Modernist (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Her shows matter more because she is less famous? I don't even know how to argue with that. Bhny (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I've seen here - there are dozens of articles on artists - more contemporary that Picasso, and Pollock that include lists of solo shows; group shows; or particular pieces - if they are performance artists establish their notability. For instance - this article: List of contemporary artists encourages artist articles to include important exhibitions - like a Whitney Biennial of the Venice Biennial as reason for inclusion. Most people have never heard of most of the people on that list...Modernist (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't seem to list important exhibitions, we seem to list them all and give no explanation. Wouldn't it be better to have some prose talking about important shows and how influential they were? I quickly went through about 12 artists and none had group show listings, also List of contemporary artists doesn't say anywhere that we should include a list of shows in our article, it says "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" would be a criteria for being included in that article. Bhny (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, and various articles about artists that I've seen - and I've seen a lot; include those lists; not a big deal...Modernist (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Exactly"? we see seem to be in total disagreement so I'm not sure what you are exactly agreeing with. Bhny (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's this as an example: [2]...Modernist (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly refers to has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, FWIW...Modernist (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think exhibitions should be considered standard fare in many artists' biographies. I am of the opinion that they all should be considered important in the context of a biography of an artist. I think group shows are no less important than one-person shows. Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article reads like a bad Paul Celan poem[edit]

Look, I understand that critical theorists (especially francophone critical theorists) feel the need to write in a jargon comprehensible to only themselves and a select few initiates, but does Wikipedia have to employ the same jargon in writing about them? Ettinger may not be concerned about being understood by the general public, but Wikipedia should be. As things currently stand—and as they have stood for years, as this talk page makes evident—large sections of this article are virtually incomprehensible. The "psychoanalysis" section is composed largely of weird neologisms that Ettinger herself made up and that she seems to be the only one who uses. A brief selection of the best nonsense jargon in the article:

woman(girl)-to-woman(mother); differentiating-in-jointness by borderlinking; the archaic the m/Other (Autremere); the 'matrixial gaze' and the process of 'co-poiesis'; feel-knowing; the phantasmatic and traumatic real of the pregnant becoming-mother, are trans-inscribed; etc...

Now, again, if Ettinger wants to use this kind of jargon in psychoanalytic theory (and I can't imagine how this would be conveyed in a therapeutic context), that's her business. But Wikipedia is no place for this kind of nonsense language. I would like to propose, as has been suggested on here many times over the years, either a translation of Ettinger's theory into a comprehensible language devoid of one person's idioglossia, or the significant pruning of the theory section of the article, which I can't imagine conveys any real information to more than a handful of people. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have deleted that section. It really didn't seem salvageable at all. Equinox (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And annoyingly someone's just restored it, saying "discuss first" - which I did, multiple times, on this page; I also put in a request for cleanup on this article at one point; but nobody helps so what else could I do but delete the rubbish? Equinox (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No cleanup a whole year later. Removed it again. Equinox 22:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless you were posting as an IP, I don't see much discussion from you as claimed. Now, the article has no sections on her being a psychoanalyst. The deleted sections on her being a psychoanalyst are dense and disorganized, but are not completely unintelligible. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, I very often post as an IP (though I note that IPs get totally different, inferior treatment from established editors!). Equinox 05:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The Matrixial Gaze" has the same problems as this article, i.e. lots of verbiage with little or no clear meaning. Equinox 16:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GOCE Copy Edit[edit]

I have done a copy edit to the end of the “Psychoanalyst” section. I would delete half of that section simply because it discusses her work, and is not biographical. I would also delete the “Psychoanalytic Theory” section, as well as the “Fascience Forum for Ettinger Studies" for the same reason. I would also delete all but the most recent three or four publications, exhibitions, conversations etc…
I had tagged numerous sentences that needed citations intending to go back and check further for citations. In the meantime, someone removed them all and replaced them with an overarching Citations tag. Given the lack of credible material on Ettinger, I don’t think I’ll spend the time on this.
Here I have found a pdf that might possibly be a reference for her art/writing etc… except that, given the overwhelming detail, it was likely written by the subject herself.
I also found another pdf, again by the subject , which I can’t now locate, that provided very detailed autobiographical detail.
I'm assuming that the "Copy Edit" can't be dedeemed complete until all the deletions are done, and I assume that can't happen until a consensus (among whom?) is reached on this. So i leave it in its present state. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The PDF list on the BAAD formal site is taken from the source book Art as Compassion edited by curator Catherine de Zegher and art historian Griselda Pollock.[1]. The "Fascinance Forum" is an Indian Forum that in my view should be respected.Doraannao (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC) These authors research on the artist took more than 20 years, as many sources show. Doraannao (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The psychoanalytic part is an off-puttingly dense read. I think that the biographical needs to be better separated from the theoretical and the latter put in better chronological order, since the part on theory seems to be an explanation of the psychoanalyst, as person, section. IOW the sections are somewhat reversed. The paragraphs could be broken up a bit, and the jargon brought down to earth. Hard to do unless you can consult the literature, which—although based on traditional Freudian analysis, especially on Freud and Kohut—is probably too new-fangled for my library to be of much help. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
         I can try to to reverse the order of those sections to begin with. Doraannao (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have done what I can with this article so please feel free to jump in. I do think, however, that there is a line between a person's life and their work in a biographical entry. In this case, I feel major deleting should be undertaken. If the work is signficant then an article on the Work of B.E. might be more appropriate than trying to cover it here. Regards. Twofingered Typist (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bracha L. Ettinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All links work and seem useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bracha L. Ettinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is still the single most embarrassing article on Wikipedia[edit]

Just look at it... Jesus. Equinox 14:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]