Talk:Avital Ronell

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

Untitled[edit]

This Wiki reads like it was written by a fawning grad student. Ronell deserves a biography, but she is a very minor figure and her Wiki does not warrant this kind of length/biased treatment. It's absurdly padded.Garthhudson (talk)Garthhudson

Thanks for creating the article, but where does the term "black lady" come from? It seems to mentioned only on a few webistes, and they refer to this page? Please provide reference...Goodlucca 18:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to originate from here, where "black lady of deconstruction" is quoted, although the page does not list a reference for the quote. A Google search for "black lady" and "avital ronell" returns lots of Wikipedia mirrors, and sites that reference Wikipedia, but nothing else. Avital Ronell is not black. [1] I do not know if she is a lady. I have never heard the term "black lady" before except in the literal sense; perhaps the people at egs.edu meant "black sheep", or perhaps it is a very specialised term. A Google search for "black lady" and "deconstruction" is not helpful. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I suppose we will now have to open the discussion again on whether the EGS faculty pages or communications are considered appropriate wiki resources, which increasingly it seems to be. Of course the Beitberl page here [2] also lists the statement, but again in the exact same phrase. There are of course also individuals referencing her as such: “i have a sort of crush on writer/philosopher black lady of deconstruction avital ronell….”[3] But the origin and meaning of the term is not clear although it is obviously in use by those she knows. Whether it is beneficial in this page is questionable. I will try to do some research around this…some comments would be welcome.Goodlucca 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The term may just apply to her tendency in her ealier days of dressing in all black. This tells us little about her thoughts of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.226.130 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She does like dressing in black. Perhaps it refers to her performance work too, since I've heard of a performance she did covered in white. I also found it referenced here in a film by the national film board of canada. I just wanted to comment here since I added the "major contributions" section and someone sent me a message about using an account. Lotu5 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a philosopher box like the one for Jean Baudrillard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.45.143 (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Avital Ronell. 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}}).

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) 14:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avital Ronell. 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) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiography[edit]

Entirely unbalanced hero worship. Nicmart (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicmart: Can you suggest some good sources that represent a significant point of view missing from this entry? Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the tone of the article is too hagiographic. Although I feel the solution is to reduce the amount of POV text and overblown language in the article, rather than add new text as an attempt at false balance. Ashmoo (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Article in Salon[edit]

Here's an interesting article in Salon. I'll put the link here, not in the article (Personal attack removed).

"A witch hunt or a quest for justice: An insider’s perspective on disgraced academic Avital Ronell" 8 Sept 2018. https://www.salon.com/2018/09/08/a-witch-hunt-or-a-quest-for-justice-an-insiders-perspective-on-disgraced-academic-avital-ronell/

Omc (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Omc: Please assume good faith and try to comment on the content, not the contributors. If you think the content of entry is slanted in some way, please do specify your concerns so we can address them (as neutrality is a priority for us all).
As to the TUMULT/Salon piece, on its own it is not suitable for inclusion, as it is a primary source on this subject (a first-person essay describing the author's own experiences and opinions) and the encyclopedia aims to be a tertiary source (i.e. summarizing analysis already published by reliable secondary sources, rather than publishing new analysis of primary material). If you can suggest reliable secondary sources that discuss this primary source, that could be suitable for inclusion, pending other WP policies like WP:DUEWEIGHT. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987: "Please assume good faith and try to comment on the content, not the contributors." You're right. I'll be more careful in the future.
Can you point me toward the Wikipedia guidelines regarding the use of primary, secondary, tertiary sources? I'm familiar with the guideline against original research, but that doesn't seem to apply because this article is a secondary source, at least as I understand it -- but that's what I'm trying to understand.Omc (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Omc, the consideration is much appreciated!
And good question; it is complicated (note I corrected my first characterization bloew). Wikipedia definitely is very precise about what counts as a primary source, and when (ironically--given its reputation--I've found WP to be often far more rigorous in use of sources than I encountered in formal education!) So, this piece does a few different things, and so functions differently in different places. On the one hand, Hüppauf analyzes Ronell's texts; given his status in the field, on this he provides IMO a reliable secondary source. He is the one analyzing primary material; he's suitable to do so; and a reasonably reliable outlet saw fit to publish his analysis. (Some editors still feel even this is not really a secondary source, and that a true secondary source would be a review article summing up various analyses; however this comes up more in, for instance, medical topics.)
By contrast though, when he recounts experiences or makes other factual claims, he offers a primary source account. To emphasize: primary sources are not bad. They're just not what Wikipedia mainly uses as the basis for entries: instead, what we'd want to see are other outlets reporting out his claims independently and offers a secondary analysis of how reliable they are. That'd be perfect for inclusion and to be honest it would be a great way to improve this biography, because it would touch on multiple sections of the entry. Such sources are, further, necessary here because of additional restrictions on sources used in biographies of living people, for legal as well as ethical reasons.
I know these are fairly fine-grain distinctions; feel free to ask any questions, whether of me or of WP:Helpdesk if it might be useful to hear another person explain it. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting myself: it is a legitimate source for his evaluation of her work, as he is an expert in the field and a first-person piece like this can be a reliable source for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. So it's now included that extent and in the manner advised by WP:NEWSORG section of the reliable source guideline (attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact). Innisfree987 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current person template[edit]

I have added the {{Current person}} template to this article pending new information related to the Title IX investigation into Ronell and the controversy surrounding it, including but not limited to the actual details of Ronell's suspension as well as the progress and outcome of the civil lawsuit against Ronell and New York University. In order to reflect this, I also updated the lead to include a direct reference to this current event --Depuffer (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, the Current template is for when large numbers of editors (perhaps a hundred or more) are all working at the same time; this is moving pretty slow comparatively, so I've removed the tag. As to the lead, several editors have removed it as undue, so if you do think it belongs, I might suggest starting a discussion here on the talk page to reach consensus (and perhaps discuss phrasing). Keep in mind editing policies like due weight and biographies of living people. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information. Sometimes it's hard to know exactly when a template is necessary. I think that your decision ultimately makes sense. That being said, I don't understand how mentioning the Title IX investigation and suspension from teaching could possibly unduly weight the lead. In fact, I'm not even sure how that applies here. Yes, these are facts that cast a generally unfavorable light on the subject, but they are also facts that are very significant to the subject's biography. Title IX investigations are rare and significant, especially when they result in consequences. A tenured professor well-established in her university receiving a suspension is also a very rare thing that merits significant attention. Finally, there is a major article section devoted to this subject; it seems odd not to mention it at all in the lead. Certainly, the phrasing can be adjusted such that it presents the facts as objectively as possible, without, for example, a derogatory tone or focusing too much on the unflattering (or, in the reverse case, flattering) details. At the very least, I feel strongly that the lead needs to mention: (1) the investigation, (2) its finding, (3) the punishment, and (4) the lawsuit that was brought as a consequence.
You didn't mention why my contribution to the "Reception" section was also removed. I added a criticism from a well-known academic working in a related field (continental philosophy). I also attenuated the opening "Many scholars have praised..." statement since the entire section appears to neglect all of the well-documented controversy and (negative) criticism surrounding the subject's work and career. This section in particular presents itself as if it were written by a fan, not by a neutral party. --Depuffer (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the lead, I don't have a strong view at this time (for now I'd probably favor a single sentence like, "Ronell was suspended from New York University in the 2018-19 school year for sexual harassment of a graduate student."), but to clarify about due weight issues: rather than being about what individual editors do or don't find important (WP:NOR), the purpose of the lead section is just to give a summary of the whole entry, as developed following the weight given by reliable secondary sources. Right now the lawsuit you mention isn't even sourced in the body of the prose, so for sure it shouldn't be in the lead first.
I did explain my removal from the Reception section but I'm happy to elaborate. Leiter's personal blog is a self-published source, which is barred from use in biographies of living persons (other than an entry on Leiter himself): WP:BLPSPS. Even in non-BLP entries, Wikipedia (as I describe above) strongly prefers secondary sources with external quality controls like editorial oversight, peer review, fact-checking, etc. On occasion exceptions can be made when the self-published source's expertise on the matter at hand is unquestionable, but announcing you've never heard of a subject is pretty much disqualifying in this regard, by Wikipedia standards. So this would be out even for entries on Ronell's books rather than her biography. As the policy on this (WP:SPS) advises: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources and we should use those instead.
The claim about critical theory I removed because it was unsourced; additionally, in my estimate, it's probably not an entirely accurate characterization. E.g. have not seen any critical race theorists jumping in the ring for Ronell. Hope that's clarifying. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional context. I disagree about your characterization of the Leiter source. He is an authority in a related field, and it does not matter if his statements are published in his own blog or in a major academic journal; they are relevant, especially when they are used to describe his views, insofar as he is an authority in that field, related to other assumed authorities, especially when the latter are being presented as universally celebrated: WP:COMMON. That being said, I understand and sympathize with your reticence, and will drop it. In any case, "Ronell's work has received both praise and criticism" is a much better and much more accurate way to begin that section, so there's already improvement.
I think that your suggestion for the lead is also a good one. I would simply add that the best way to solve the problem about the lawsuit not being mentioned anywhere else in the article would be to add a line or two to the relevant section before updating the lead. --Depuffer (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2002 TLS piece and WP:QUOTEFARM[edit]

We now have two different editors citing the same piece to claim on the one hand, that it characterizes Ronell as "the most interesting scholar in America" or by contrast that "Her prose reads like a plodding translation of a French version of Heidegger, but there is hardly a sentence that does not try to stop the show to receive an ovation for its cleverness." Unfortunately it is paywalled for me. Might those who can see it please offer some additional opinion on what would make for the most neutral, accurate characterization of the piece as a whole?

On a related note, the entry currently has far too many quotations. An effort to paraphrase reliable sources, rather than picking out favorable or unfavorable bon mots, would, I think, really help to ensure that all sources are being accurately represented in their totality. To answer the question from your edit summary, Rider1819, this is why I removed the Pollitt quote. In context, that paragraph in Pollitt's piece was saying she understood Ronell came from a tradition of intentionally using difficult language to challenge power structures and therefore her cohort should have been more attune to the role they were playing in just such power structures. Cherrypicking the "Ronell’s work strikes me as a big bowl of word salad" quote really does not accurately represent the point Pollitt was making and I think striving to summarize accurately can help ensure we attend closely to the issue of fully and fairly representing the sources at hand.

Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The TLS review by Rée quotes the claim that Ronell was "the most interesting scholar in America" but doesn't originate it. Rée writes, "Stupidity comprises a miscellany of detailed studies falling within her professional province as a Professor of Comparative Literature at New York University, where she has received endorsements as 'the most interesting scholar in America' and 'the foremost thinker of the repressed conditions of knowledge'." Rée doesn't say who first called Ronell "the most interesting scholar." Rée engages with Ronell's argument in detail, but finds her rhetoric "excessive," and concludes that "if purism is bad for politics, Ronell may not be going the right way about avoiding it. Her politics of contamination looks curiously like a romantic yearning for the purity of lawlessness."
I agree with you that the point of Pollitt's last paragraph is that scholars in the deconstructionist tradition, focused on power and discourse, should have been quicker to realize what they were doing in the Ronell case, but I still dissent from your assertion that Pollitt's assessment of Ronell's work as "word salad" is misrepresentative of Pollitt's opinion of Ronell's work. Here is Pollitt's article again, if others would like to take a look.
As for the quotefarm concern, before the last week or two, this article referenced only acclaim for Ronell's work, which may not be representative of the reception of her work more broadly. A quick look through JSTOR finds much praise for her by others in the high theory community, as is currently sampled in this Wiki article, but even there the praise isn't universal, and there seem to be a number of objections to her style in reviews that appeared in venues aimed at a wider readership, such as the TLS, LRB, NYT, etc. If the "Reception" section is trimmed back in the interest of preventing a quotefarm, I'd advocate for balance.
A related, but separate, concern: It seems to me that most of this article, as it stands, is likely to be impenetrable to readers outside the high theory community. For example: "In general, Dictations: On Haunted Writing traces the closure without end of influence's computation." If Ronell's contributions can't be explained more clearly, it seems warranted to let readers of this Wikipedia page know that critics like Pollitt have also been frustrated by her style. Rider1819 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

After thinking it over, I would suggest adding the following sentence to the end of the lead:

"Ronell was suspended from New York University for the 2018-19 school year for sexual harassment of a graduate student."

Yea, nay, other? Innisfree987 (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADD But usage seems to be inconsistent. I looked at half a dozen wiki articles about academics charged with sexual harassment, and some mention the issue in the intro and some don't. I'd suggest that the cut-off maybe should be whether there was a finding and a sanction, rather than just an allegation, and in this case would vote for including it in the intro. This source says the suspension is without pay, and that the investigation lasted eleven months. Rider1819 (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ADD Considering the fact that the article has a subsection dedicated to the topic, that the investigation, conclusions, and sanction have had a direct and documented impact on her biography, and that it has received significant attention across a broad spectrum of both print and digital media, including a full-length article in the New York Times, it is conspicuously absent from the lead. --Depuffer (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avital_Ronell&oldid=1210112453"