Talk:Surrealism/Archive 6

message: It seems to me that the intro to this article is too long: it pushes the table of contents off of the bottom of the screen! If no one else takes up this project, i think i'm going to try to move some of the content out of the top of the page into the named sections below. Any input?
Jes5199 17:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Long Intro

message: As with many artistic movements in Europe,
*this assumes POV that surrealism is an artistic movement, and that it is limited to Europe.  A surrealist group, e.g., already existed in Japan prior to this.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Second World War and Beyond 

message: As a recent drop-in here, I am confused about the nature of the objection to Surrealism an "artistic movement."  Some of the objections simply seem directed at the implication that it was a "visual art" movement.  Of course it wasn't only, or even primarily, that, and the fact that Surrealism did not begin or end with visual art should be made clear.  But I also don't think "artistic movement" conflicts with a more expansive definition that crosses formal and other categories.  "Art" or "Artistic" ,in that sense, casts a very wide umbrella. Other objections here seem to insist that surrealism was no kind of movement at all. That part I just don't understand, unless you want to separate Surrealist ideas from Surrealist activity.  Please clarify. 68.164.132.95 19:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity about the "artistic movement" dispute 

message: User 24. is right about this Rosemont being a self-labeled surrealist. Boyer's argument that his friend is significant because of a submission to an online website GROVE shows the lack of credibility in his assertion. 
:Your assuming that printed source edited by others is an online source Rosemont submitted to himself, without any basis for your assumption, shows your bias.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They denounced this with both a statement and counter-exposition.  And who cares what anti-surrealist Rubin "documents"?  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Why do you have this obsession with computerized sources?  Have you ever heard of a library?  Why if someone has provided a citation is he, in your opinion, obliged to "scan a few copies" of it?  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Because he ceases to be "real" with the passage of time?  Where did you get this idea that photographs have to be provided of everyone to prove they are "real"?  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: If you don't want to buy the books from them, check them out of a library.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't have any "priviledge" [sic] that you do not have.  Everyone is free to edit Wikipedia.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Recent drop-in here.  Franklin Rosemont is for real--he edited a copy of the magazine "Cultural Correspondence" in the late 70s that was reprinted as "Surrealism and its Popular Accomplices" by City Lights Books (the beat poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti's press in San Francisco) that was quite widely distributed for years--it may still be available, I don't know.  It consists of a bunch of short articles (including a few by FR) that take a very expansive view of surrealism--basically, the book looks at works in popular culture (e..g. The pre-surrealist comic strips "Little Nemo in Slumberland" and the "Upside-Downs", Buster Keaton, the Marx brothers, "Voodoo" Blues, an early article on Henry Darger) that somehow seem to partake in a surrealist sensibility.  It did include a few bits by and about contemporary surrealist practitioners, most of whom I've never encountered elsewhere.  The anthology argues here and there for an ongoing surrealist movement, but mostly it just discusses stuff that seems interesting from the perspective of an admirer of surrealisist ideas, with some emphasis on the associated leftist cultural critique.  Anyway, the guy (or someone using that name) is for real.  68.164.132.95 23:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: You can include this information (debate as to whether or not the group disbanded) in the surrealism article, though it may be a little too detailed for this and you might want to include it in the GPMS article.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on the article

message: The "Surrealism after Breton" should document all of the above POVs. NPOV means documenting POVs and giving some ability of the reader to judge credibility. 
1. Whatever anyone thinks of Rosemont.  He is notable - there are paper publications and recognitions of the Surrealist Group of Chicago in places such as the New York Review of Books. Not friendly recognition, but "notable" is the standard here. Having published and been commented on by others means notable. 
:Agreed.  --Daniel C. Boyer 21:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, so long as it is truly NPOV and comprehensive.  --Daniel C. Boyer 21:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: As long as this is not restricted to "shows and exhibitions," agreed.  Plus there is no reason to exclude exhibitions by The Surrealist Movement in the United States and other "new" groups including the World Surrealist Exhibition (which was the most extensive-ever surrealist exhibition).  Other shows, such as the 1993 Totems Without Taboos show, are perhaps too great a level of detail to get into here.  --Daniel C. Boyer 21:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrealism After Breton 

message: Added Chagall, Maddox, Gascoyne to Category Surrealism. Added Surreaslism to Modernism and Postmodernism. Stirling Newberry 13:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should Surrealism really be included under Postmodernism?  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrealism the category 

message: exact quote, "Moreover, Rosemont is only one of the significant figures who have carried on surrealism". Well, Dan, I kindly ask you, please PROVE that your friend is, "significant"? I ask Stirling to contact Mary Ann Caws (she is an expert on Surrealism, no matter what Boyer says) and I think you can reach her at the CUNY (in New York City) University, or just go to her site and drop her a note. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't she and Jennifer Mundy (another expert on Surrealism) CURATE the, "SURREALISM DESIRE UNBOUND" exhibit at the Musuem of Modern Art in 2002? They have a book on it too, I have it, its real good. I think Mary Ann Caws has a website and contact info, see what she has to say about the, "significance" of the man who trashes her in his publication, ARSENAL?24.168.66.27 05:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Document the controversy. Stirling Newberry 13:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Boyer statement for today

message: Well,Daniel, how do you think this article is going now?63.169.104.2 21:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So, how is this article now?

message: but please take out the brainstorming passage, it is complete garbage and it ruins the article. Please take it out. It might be a good idea to let Boyer present material that is more credible to the article. Stirling, I am going to have ask you to please sit back and re-think any future additions you make to this article. You place way too much emphasis on how surrealism has, "influenced" many of the components of what surrealism originally intended to destroy. When someone removed one of your HUGE additions, it is not vandalism, by the way. I am going to have to ask you to let Boyer review this article and present the material that really upholds the integrity of surrealism, while creating a great article. Boyer(though I do hate him) has more knowledge of surrealism than you. Stirling, you really have no real grasp of surrealism, if you did, you would know that it really intends to (leave as its cultural legacy) overthrow capitalist society. This article makes me want to puke.24.168.66.27 05:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of trying edit wars, censorship, blanking, turf edits and so on. Why not write a section on "the aims of the Surrealist Movement"? Stirling Newberry 14:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: This might be a good idea.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok, put Rosemont in

message: Stirling, I can see that you are intent on letting the "brainstorming" passage stay in the article. To avoid any edit war, I will no longer remove the passage, since you feel that the information is important to the article. I just need to know that the reference source IS from any books on Surrealism and where I can find it. Also, can the passage be condensed at least? It is real long, but that is how I see it.24.168.66.27 18:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I withdrawing it as too controversial for this group. The relationship of Brainstorming and Surrealism is a commonly established link in what is called "creativity studies". Stirling Newberry 19:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be that the brainstorming passage be pruned down to be quite short as it is really, at best, of minor significance to the article.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dan about the brainstorming. Very minimal as long as it documents surrealist explorations and automatism, which Stirling can provide information on, I could live with it.24.168.66.27 02:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A message to Stirling in good faith about the "brainstorming" passage

message: Stirling, I need to let you know that IF there is ever going to be any passage or paragraph on Contemporary Surrealism or Surrealism after Breton, I must stress the importance of this fact as it is inevitable to begin with, as you will see. ANY, "Surrealist Groups" and any, "Surrealists" that are active today and operating under the surrealist label are: SELF-LABELED or SELF-IDENTIFIED SURREALISTS, even if they share affinities with one another and acknowledge the other as an authentic surrealist, they are not!!!! There is no such thing as, "being a surrealist" because some relative fellow traveller and unknown claims they are. 
Stirling, Daniel C.Boyer is a SELF-IDENTIFIED SURREALIST and so are his friends. They are: "The Portland Surrealist Group" consisting of Brandon Freels and MK Shibek (real name Jim Redden) and Morgan Miller (who is a bartender in Portland) and two others whose names I forget, they claim to be authentic surrealists, but they are not. Then there is "The St.Louis Surrealist Group", which consists of Andrew Torch and Ronnie Burke and Susan Burke, obviously you can see that this is a group of three friends. Then there is Eric W.Bragg, a self-identified surrealist who runs a terrible do-it and build it yourself website, surrealcoconut.com who writes about himself on his website and his friends as contemporary surrealists. They are self-identified surrealists and the website is very misleading too. Then there is this "Honolulu Group" that Boyer tries to keep promoting on here in the links section, that NOBODY knows about. Then there is Xtian and Lady Hannah Cadaver, from Melbourne, Australia. They are two self-identified surrealists, who are really Goth Artists, who are also friends of Boyers. In fact, everyone mentioned above is friends and collaborators of Boyers. Then you have Zazie, a self-identified surrealist and friend of Boyer's, who is really a WEBIST and denies this fact! She exhibited all over Europe in Webism Art Events and now she claims she is an Ex-webist because the self-identified surrealists in the "GPMS, Paris Surrealist Group" denounced Webism in a public statement. 
Stirling, can you see why Boyer is so intent on editing this article with his POV?
Stirling, when I was rude to you, I apologized. When I insulted you, I apologized and when I removed your edits, I offered good faith in no longer editing what you wanted in, like the brainstorming. At least I can work with you. Boyer has an angenda to promote him and his friends as surrealists and they are the ones who really capitalize on this great movement, and they are all full of shit. That is a fact.24.168.66.27 19:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What group do you mean here?  I can reiterate that Rosemont is mentioned in the Grove Dictionary of Art, and add that the World Surrealist Exhibition was written about in ArtNEWS, as part of the extensive media coverage of that event.  I would also look at the Amazon.com entry on Penelope Rosemont's Surrealist Women (published by the University of Texas Press) and note that Franklin Rosemont online for Britannica.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: You might want to read about her, and many other women who participated after the approved period of surrealism, in Surrealist Women.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another message to Stirling and to all about Contemporary Surrealism today

message: Stirling, please take a look at this overwhelming evidence regarding WHY Daniel C.Boyer is so intent on promoting his POV and version of the Surrealism article. Please take a look at this URL here on Wikipedia no less and read down to the second paragraph, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_C._Boyer
"Two of my articles, "Are You Crazy?: Mental Illness and Whiteness" and "Seattle 1999 - Just the Beginning," and one of my drawings, "The Breakfast Club," were published in Surrealist Subversions, edited and introduced by Ron Sakolsky." 
Now, Stirling, go to the Wikipedia Surrealism article and scroll down to SOURCES and look for the Sakolsky book, which Boyer blantantly promotes on here. I will remove this from the article tomorrow. It cannot stay while Boyer is allowed to edit this article to promote him and his friends. 
Stirling, I also ask that a complete review of the Surrealism article be made and any and all of Boyer's edits and additions be investigated with the fullest degree of scrutiny to prevent anyone from using this service to promote their goods. Stirling, I will continue to support your edits, even those I disagree with and challenge, I will do so in good faith.24.168.66.27 21:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stirling, please take a look at this overwhelming evidence

message: Stirling, what did Mary Ann Caws say to you? Please let us all know! Also, please SPECIFY the SOURCE of the, "Notability" that you assign to your subjects. By the way, Stirling, are you recently NEW to Surrealism, that is, in studying and researching it? Please let us know.24.168.66.27 21:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stirling, what did Mary Ann Caws say to you?

message: I decided to agree with Boyer on this very important fact: SURREALISM IS NOT AN ART MOVEMENT! All misleading and unsubstantiated claims cannot stay in the article, like all the overwhelming art information that Stirling has flooded the article with, I have to agree with Boyer on this fact. 
Surrealism does not leave its cultural legacy to someone who edits this article as a preface to an art catalogue.24.168.66.27 17:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Much needed revisions on this article. Surrealism is not an art movement

message: This is an outrage! Aragon's contributions to surrealism in its development are historic.24.168.66.27 18:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree he should be mentioned.  Be bold and do it yourself!  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh Dan! I have to do everything myself!24.168.66.27 02:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no passage on Louis Aragon?

message: Four in one day! He has literally taken over this article. Its ruined!24.168.66.27 18:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Four Reverts by Stirling today, count them

message: Stirling is now accusing me and Daniel C.Boyer of violating Wiki rules today and he has reverted the page five times today. I gave my last revert today (the third and last in accordance with Wikipolicy) and Dan only gave one revert, if I am correct. I did not violate any rules today and neither did Dan. Then Stirling makes a statement that we did violate rules but has no evidence. Now he wants us blocked just because we disagree with him. Hey, I disagree with Dan practically 99% of the time, but I reach agreement with him. Stirling, it appears wants to control this article, am I wrong?24.168.66.27 19:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am requesting that you both be blocked, and procedings to permanently ban you both as being unable to follow even a modicum of wiki rules, as well as obvious attempts to game the system. You and Boyer are both POV trolls and problem users, and my patience is at an end with both of you. Stirling Newberry 19:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a POV troll who is "unable to follow even a modicum of wiki rules".  If you will read this talk page and the archived talk pages you will see that there have been a number of times I have agreed with you, I was willing to work with you on the post-World War II section, but you have persisted in reverting (including valuable information you've not disputed the value of) and stonewalling.  And what do you mean, "obvious attempts to game the system"?  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Dan, after all, he is showing good faith. Stirling, please do not engage in a, "witch trial" here against Boyer and myself. We disagree with each other and we disagree with you, but after all that is said and done, an article is there with information that is accurate. Surrealism is about total revolution and that is not my point of view or opinion. 
You learn a lot about someone who edits, by what they spend their time on in here and how they edit. Dan does not like me and I do not like Dan, we both know that and that is old news, BUT we do LOVE SURREALISM and it appears Dan is very passionate about what he does and what he edits, that I respect (though I loathe him and his friends, I respect the DESIRE they have to live surrealism). 
Stirling, its not just art. Its not just randomly documenting material that satisfies your tastes, which appears to be classical music and the lot. That's cool, that is what you are into. However, we, Dan and I and others, have been editing on here a while and we are editing this article because we are very passionate about surrealism. You need to accept that and try to work with Boyer, especially. I still hate Dan, but I will allow his friends work to be documented in the article, I wish he would do the same for me, but that I can live with. Even if Dan, changes my edits, I still respect his DESIRE to do so, Stirling, can you?24.168.66.27 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In case you did not see what happened

message: Both Andre Breton and even Mr.Rosemont have acknowledged the IMMENSE influence of F.W.H Meyers on Surrealism and that should be documented. I added Clark Ashton Smith into the surrealist influences paragraph. Clark Ashton Smith is documented in the Rosemont edited book, and that is important. "The Abominations of Yondo" really is a strong surrealist source of inspiration and I thank Mr.Rosemont for documenting him in his book.24.168.66.27 17:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Both Andre Breton and even Mr.Rosemont have....

message: Why, Stirling, Why? Why, would you remove Toyen from an encyclopedia article on Surrealism? Why? 
Why, would you remove any references of influence on Clark Ashton Smith? Why, today, do you state that you are reverting to the last revision made by Boyer, when you just stated yesterday that you would have both of us banned? 
Stirling, I did not remove all your art edits. I removed some paragraphs that are so laden with art-critiques and your opinion that it is not fair to the article's presentation of facts. This is not an art catalogue where you describe color palettes and the lot. I did condense the art-related material, and I left many of your additions in. After all, you did a complete makeover of the article. Anytime, someone changes your edits, you allege vandalism and threaten to have us banned. 
Sir, please be fair and try to work with us and allow us to make revisions. You completely removed ALL of my edits. When you removed TOYEN, from the article, proves to me that you are not editing this article in good faith. 
Dan, what is your feedback on Stirling's decision to remove Toyen? I completely disagree with this man. Toyen is a VITAL contributor to surrealism and a very important part of the history of surrealism and the surrealist movement.24.168.66.27 18:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the removal of Toyen is quite unreasonable given her significance.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dan 100% on Toyen. Stirling, you have to be fair here.24.168.66.27 20:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: But you weren't "presented with an up or down vote on them".  There is nothing to prevent you (apart from time, or your inclination as to how much you'd like to spend on this, but that's really nobody's business but yours) from editing the article line by line or even word by word.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stirling removed Toyen from the article from the addition that I made

message: It appears that Stirling feels so strongly about NOT allowing a very significant surrealist, Toyen, to be included in the article, (along with Jindrich Styrsky and Oscar Dominguez as well!). 
:For him to remove mention of all three of these people, without giving a reason, is of highly debatable value, to put the best possible spin on it.  And it could certainly be argued that in doing so he is guilty of the same behaviour he complains of from me in RfC, as he is removing, without saying why, colourably important and certainly documentable information.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Again, Stirling removes TOYEN!

message: Stirling is trying to start a campaign to really get us banned. I went to his user page and then went to the RfC page and when you scroll down towards the end of the RfC page, towards, Candidates..., you will see what Stirling is writing about us. Here take a look from, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment
Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold
List newer entries on top
/User:24.168.66.27 Allegations: personal attacks, excessive POV pushing. See Talk:Surrealism. 
/User:Daniel C. Boyer Allegations: personal attacks, attempts to use Wiki to promote websites, inserts attacks in articles. See Talk:Surrealism and edit history of Mary Ann Caws 
In the meantime, I kindly ask of Stirling to PLEASE work with Dan and myself, before you proceed on this campaign to ban us, its just not fair and is very mean-spirited. I had many disagreements with Dan for a very long time, but I never went to this extreme. He has the right to edit as do I.24.168.66.27 21:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I have NEVER seen Daniel C.Boyer insert an attack in the article. Stirling, that is not true and that statement is intentionally misleading. I am worried about this.24.168.66.27 21:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dan, please read

message: Who is Adriano Monteiro???? and why are they (user 200.) inserting this artist in a, "neo-surrealism" and ero-whatever category in the introduction to this article? Then what kills me, is that Stirling leaves this in, he does not remove it or replace it, somewhere or anywhere else, and yesterday he removes three very important surrealists (documented in the history of the surrealist movement, no less), TOYEN, DOMINGUEZ, and STYRSKY and leaves this in!!!
Dan, have you or your comrades ever heard of Andriano Monteiro?????24.168.66.27 03:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adriano Monteiro????

message: Why is there untranslated French at the top of the article? If this quote is to be used at all, it should inserted after an initial summary of what Surrealism is (if anyone can agree on this point) and should definitely include an English translation and explanation. An article about Surrealism shouldn't be surreal itself.  --Polynova 08:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Removed. Stirling Newberry 21:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untranslated French 

message: *Added stub on Toyen.  Added to cat surrealism
*Added Penelope Rosemont to Category:Surrealism.
*Added Mary Ann Caws to Category Surrealism
*Added Arsenal Group Article, added to cat Surrealism
*Added Benjamin Peret article, added to cat Surrealism
Stirling Newberry 21:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Surrealism articles

message: Stirling, would you please stop referring to my edits as vandalism! I am trying to work with you and Dan! In the meantime, read my responses above.24.168.66.27 02:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After putting up with your lies and attacks, I am simply going to ignore you. The toyen scream job was simply the last straw, and from here on in, if you can't learn to write POV, I will simply revert what you write without checking it closely, the signal to noise ratio coming from your user name is simply too low to be worth anyone's time and effort. After screaming bloody murder about how important Toyen is - neither you, nor Daniel, could be bothered to actually create the article. Stirling Newberry 03:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stirling wants the article all to himself.24.168.66.27 05:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: To say that you have "put up with" his "lies and attacks" is somewhat questionable, given that you've made them the subject of RfC.  And you are now admitting ("I will simply revert what you write without checking it closely") that you are not going to edit in good faith any more.  I would ask you to reconsider this, because it is colorably grounds for being listed on RfC.  --Daniel C. Boyer 21:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stirling, would you please stop referring to my edits as...

message: The Surrealism article is slowly shaping up. Today, I added some relatively minor additions, which did not get immediately removed from the article, and that shows me, that there exists an element of desire to improve the article by working together. I never would think in a million years that I would ever agree with Daniel C.Boyer on anything, but lately, I must state that both HE and Stirling are presenting edits that appear to be helpful to the article.
::We all can make this the BEST reference source, or a very good one, on Surrealism, if we can reach some kind of agreement on NPOV and POV, from what I see on here from the past three days. As of right now, the only suggestion that I have is, that maybe, just maybe, can we agree to CONDENSE or Shorten, some of the art-related passages that refer to influences on other movements. My point is that Surrealism (the visual arts and the poetry and literature, etc.etc) did have an influence on a large portion of Modern Culture, during the 20th century up to now, BUT that was NEVER the DIRECT intentions of Surrealism, along with all its subsets, (the visual arts, poetry, polemics, theory, etc,etc). 
:Boyer does present some very strong points and his argument is sincere and certainly valid, when he edits. In the past, I had BITTER feuds and disagreements with him on here, but there was some kind of need to present this article according to the intentions that Breton and ALL the surrealists DESIRE. 
:Stirling, I highly recommend, if you ever get the chance, to read, "PROLEGOMENA TO A THIRD MANIFESTO OF SURREALISM OR ELSE" by Breton and that would be a great window of opportunity to understand MORE of what Boyer's (and myself) thought, in regards to this article, is striving for. Let the record show that I am not in any way, shape or form, speaking and writing the above on behalf of Boyer, we still dislike each other, but for the sake of the article, WE MUST ALL AGREE to make this the BEST article on Surrealism.24.168.66.27 21:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An observation on the article as it is now

message: Who removed the following surrealist theorists from the article and WHY? Karel Teige, Aime Cesaire, Rene Menil, Octavio Paz and Shuzo Takiguchi are ALL VERY SIGNIFICANT Surrealist Theorists as DOCUMENTED in MANY Historical Books on SURREALISM! Ask any ART SCHOLAR as well, even ask Mary Ann Caws or even ask Mr.Rosemont and I can tell you that they would both agree that Teige, Cesaire, Menil, Paz, and Takiguchi are very important surrealist theorists, especially Teige!!!! The person that removed the addition, PLEASE RESPOND! Tell us all WHY you removed these Surrealist Theorists from the article, when I am providing accurate facts on who these surrealists are to help report and illustrate the facts!!!24.168.66.27 00:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who removed the following surrealist theorists from the article and WHY?

message: I made an attempt to improve the prose in the intro section, and corrected an number of grammatical and punctuation errors.  Minutes after I posted the edit, the whole thing was reverted with no explanation except "POV".  Please justify this wholesale reversion. 68.164.133.172 04:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain the immediate reverting of my edits 

message: Bravo to the person that added this information!!!
In the 1920's several composers were influenced by Surrealism, or by individuals in the Surrealist movment. Notably Martinu, Andre Souris and Edgar Varese who stated that his work Arcana was drawn from a dream sequence. Souris in particular was associated with the movement, he had a long, if sometimes spotty, relationship with Magritte, and worked on Paul Nouge's publication Adieu Marie.
Whoever added the above information did a wonderful job on their research, especially with the mention of Varese! Keep up the great research!Classicjupiter2 07:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent Addition to article in Surrealist Music!

message: Stirling! I take great offense at your obnoxious remark, "POV pimping"!!! Please grow up!  The Fact that Surrealism is a Revolution is a Fact, just look at the one of the very first publications edited by Pierre Naville and Benjamin Peret, "La Revolution Surrelaiste"!!!! translate that to THE SURREALIST REVOLUTION!!!  Shall I provide EXACT (and DOCUMENTED) quotes from Historic Surrealists, like Andre Breton and Claude Cahun, no less!!!! or the countless numbers of surrealists past to present!!!???  Stirling, you cannot deny what is HISTORIC fact. Even Dali knew this and agreed with it!!! For God's sake, please stop being so stubborn and turning this article into a snobbish art catalogue, which it was. There are numerous pamplets, publications, manifestos, that state that Surrealism is Revolution!!! Again, start from the very beginning, one of its main sources, "La Revolution Surrealiste"!!!Classicjupiter2 15:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop removing my edits! They are facts!

message: Below, you the researcher of Surrealism will find one of the many, many, many reference sources on Surrealism and Revolution. Here is one(at least I do the work and try to help!):
San Juan, Jr., E.  Surrealism and Revolution: Perspectives from Antonio Gramsci, Walter Benjamin, Aime Cesaire. Pullman, WA: Working Papers in Culture Studies.
there are many, many more, but you have to do the research into Surrealism. Keep looking.Classicjupiter2 18:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The philosophy section is too shallow, IMO, but I set it apart because of the confusion between the philosphy, the movement and the odd juxtapostions. The philosphy and revolution are intertwined. Developing the philosophy section will, I think, bring out the revolution aspect. I'd be glad to collaborate on expanding the philosophical section of the _article_. I don't have access to the resources mentioned, but others here do. Let's put something together. However, for wikipedia I'm not interested in writing a manifesto. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 20:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I am going to put my edit back in as it was as soon as the 16th shows up on Wikipedia. The Surrealism is a Revolution addition can be found in many surrealists statements, Breton's included. This article is becoming an art catalogue. Anyway, I am not changing my edit, unless someone who knows something about Surrealism can come along and work with me. Also, I plan on making many serious additions to this article, passages on Surrealism and Anarchy, plus the numerous documented information and resources I will provide. One cannot cheat history. Surrealism is revolution and that is a fact, whether Stirling likes it or not.Classicjupiter2 20:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrealism is Revolution! Reference source for research

message: Count them!!!!  What kills me is that nobody does nothing about it!!!!Classicjupiter2 01:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can report 3RR violations to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.  Please tone down the rhetoric (and the exclaimation points) and attempt to come to an agreement with other editors. Gamaliel 01:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Four reverts by Stirling Newberry on July 15,2005

message: I don't dispute the revolutionary aspect of Surrealism.
For one thing the revoltion comes from the philosophy, otherwise it seems like revolution for revolution sake. Again, I'll say, the philosphical aspects of this article sorely lack depth.
As to the added paragraph...
"Revolution. The revolutionary aim of Surrealism is to engage mass revolutionary action..."
What is mass revolutionary action? What form does it take for Surrealists?
"... on a dynamic level..."
What is a dynamic level?
"... through anarchist, poetic and artistic expression, to liberate humanity from the Miserabilism..."
Miserabilism? What is Miserablism?
... of modern life. Surrealism strengthens the revolutionary attitude..."
What is the revolutionary attitude?
...towards life and the freedom of all the peoples of the world."
All these things need to be explained to the reader who is not up to speed with revolutionary rhetoric. Just like the jargon about "conscious" and "unconscious" needs to be explained.
-->>sparkit|TALK<< 02:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
No one has been disputing the inclusion of material on Surrealism being revolutionary, it's the language. I'm going to RFC the user, as he is now engaging in personal attacks and false accusations, and has no intent of reaching any sort of consensus. Stirling Newberry 03:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions I posed need answered in the article if the concepts are to be included in the article. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 16:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Sir, please do not give orders to me. In the meantime, the answers to your questions can be found here, so start here, http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org/ and read everything on the site, that is not hard to do, they even make it easy for you to navigate.
Then work your way back in time to the beginning of the surrealist movement and maybe you will learn something about Miserabilism. If you never heard of miserabilism, then this article deserves to be the snobby art catalogue that it is. The whole article sucks.Classicjupiter2 16:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: That would be "ma'am" if such designations are used. ;) I understand the concepts, including miserabilism. I suggest that the concepts be explained in the article if they are used in the article. Thanks for the reference link... and the assignment. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 17:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Good, I am going to put my original passageback in. If you want to explain the concepts, that is great, but please respect my edit. I don't mind if you make some changes to my edit, but keep it nearly intact so that the researcher or student of Surrealism can understand. If you want to further explain the concepts in the article, then I am open for suggestions. The researcher of Surrealism must be given as much information they need, and a section on Anarchism is needed, as I mentioned in a few posts above. The, "rift" between Dali and Breton is a bit off the mark in this article. It was not just Dali's support for Franco, but many incidents of Dali's stances of commercialism, fascism, and his views on blacks and jazz music that really placed him at odds with his ex-comrades. Really, in respect to facts, Andre Breton was concerned over Dali's views back in 1934, Dali really was out on his own direction (seperated from the Paris Surrealist Group) towards the end of 1938. Dali's active years in Surrealism is 1929 to 1938, though Dali did manage to break out his marvelous magic even during his, "classical" era. Dali really became a snob when the money went to his head. Its a shame that Salvador and Andre could not have understood each other's incentives more. Dali hated Marxism, in his letters to Bunuel, Dali used to trash Marxism a lot. Anyway, even though many surrealists (some that are alive still from back in the days of the 40's to now) really HATE Dali, but I don't. Even Breton, looking back on Dali's contributions acknowledged that Dali was intense, real intense and his contributions to the movement are of extreme surrealist value. My guess is that the massive money he was making on the sale of his art, went to his head. Dali was certainly a revolutionary when he first joined the movement and the years 1929 to 1932 (and 1934) contain come real bizarre surrealist works and writings, that even the Paris Surrealist Group thought was too extreme, but definitely SURREALISM!!!! VIVA DALI!!!Classicjupiter2 17:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolution 

message: I forgot about this website. 
http://oiseautempete.internetdown.org/article.php3?id_article=118
I hope it comes up. I must write a couple of passages for the Surrealist article mentioning Le Libertaire. How anyone can ignore and overlook the obvious is beyond me.Classicjupiter2 16:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Research Gem Found Here!

message: I will agree to a consensus. Please offer one so that the edit war will stop. Here is what I will offer: I will no longer add the "Revolution" passage to this article. All I ask of Stirling and Sparkit is to do a rewrite of the article removing all non-notable and unnecessary information and non-credible sources. I recommend a complete re-write on the "Impact of Surrealism" passage. Also I ask that you do state in the article that the official surrealist movement did end with the death of Andre Breton in 1966 and his group, the Paris Surrealist Group disbanding in 1969. There really is no credible Surrealist Movement in the USA, I suggest that you remove all information on Franklin Rosemont from the article in the references. Then I will agree to your consensus.Classicjupiter2 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not being uncivil. I am however pursuing dispute resolution, because a repetition of this circumstance is not acceptable. The purpose of all of this is not "us" but the improvement of wikipedia, and in this particular case, the coverage of surrealism. Stirling Newberry -  Bopnews 18:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About the Reverts

message: The edits by sparkit on July 20, 2005:
* No deletion of material.
* Additional of a literature section.
* Movement of art related material to visual art section.
* List of Breton movement artists (too bad its not known as the "Bretonian Surrealist Movement", things would be much clearer if it was)
* Addition of sentance about Breton courting Duchamp and Picasso to join the movement, which they never did.
* Added, "To further the revolutionary aim of Surrealism, in 1927 Breton and others joined the Communist Party. (Breton was ousted in 1933.)"
* Rearranging some paragraphs within sections into chonological order.
* Grammar changes.
* Broke paragaphs containing not very related material into multiple paragraphs.
* Quote mark fixing.
* many link fixes.
-->>sparkit|TALK<< 21:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I agree to all the above edits. Now, this proves that I am giving so much of myself and not changing none of your changes. Now, can you please do not change the one and only one edit that I made today and leave it alone for God's sake. I agreed to a consensus. I agreed not to put the "Revolution" passage in the article anymore and I agree with ALL, again let me repeat ALL of your edits above! So can you please do not revert the one edit that I made in the sources. That is all I ask. Please. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 22:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 20, 2005 edits 

message: I will agree to leave the Rosemont book source in but the Revolution passage will stay in. Good Faith on my part.Classicjupiter2 16:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok