Talk:Bracha L. Ettinger

August 2008

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

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)

Can you provide a link, please? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I cannot find anything like that. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

theory description bad

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 80.200.208.190 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

individual wrote own article?

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 213.93.40.178 (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

I've removed the hatnote - re-writing is a better idea than just tagging...Modernist (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

A lot of this article makes no sense

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. 86.160.127.102 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)