Talk:Surrealism/Archive 5

message: Wikipedia Policy does stipulate that a consensus is not binding.24.168.66.27 00:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please link to the policy you are referring to. Of course, the 6/1 consensus in the informal poll could always be overridden by a larger consensus in another poll (and I have encouraged you to start a new poll if you are not satisfied with the old one), but until such a time that there is a consensus apparent here that differs from the one on Talk:Surrealism/Archive 04 promotion of Keith Wigdor should not be re-inserted in this article. Please do not revert on this issue again. ~leif ☺ HELO 03:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir, you appear to be very intent on refusing my right to edit. The Wikipedia Policy regarding consensus can be found here on Wikipedia. Why don't you know about it?24.168.66.27 03:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied at User talk:24.168.66.27#Wikipedia_Policy because this thread is now more about users and policy than about this article. ~leif ☺ HELO 04:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Policy

message: I propose that the Surrealist film section should be merged with the brief TV section. The film section could also be cleaned up a bit, and one film that I doubt anyone would object to adding is Waking Life. ~leif ☺ HELO 22:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrealist film and television 

message: This is probably the best version of this article now, thanks to the new recent revisions and additions by this user Sterling. It is certainly good to see different people inputting information into this article that has been dominated by too much vague information by Daniel C.Boyer. Way too many references to the likes of his friends have ruined this article as well as surrealism. That book by Franklin Rosemont, "What is Surrealism" is the most blantant misrepresentation of facts regarding surrealism and how it should be researched. 
:Why do you say this?  Can you support even one single thing you are writing?  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is probably the best version of this article

message: I've added a  template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernism template 

message: Stirling Newberry's POV that surrealism is an artistic movement is not borne out by facts yet he persists on reinserting it.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts, it is the most common usage of the word. Wiki rules clearly state that articles must represent in proportion to presence of points of view. This article does not, yet, meet that standard. You can complain all you like, but acting in bad faith is not going to help your cause. Stirling Newberry 16:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are implying that I am acting in bad faith there is a certain irony here as you are the one who is acting in bad faith (pointedly ignoring every single primary source on the subject).  Moreover, the cited standard certainly couldn't be true across the board.  The man on the street, when pressed, would probably not have the POV that Stalin was born in Gori, Georgia, but might well have had him born in Russia.  Should we acknowledge this as the primary POV?  If people in general used the word "communism" to refer to an artistic movement, despite the fact that no such artistic movement exists or has existed, how should this be dealt with in Wikipedia?  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artistic Movement 

message: Dear Stirling, your edits have really distorted this article. You literally saturated this article with SO many art references that are really not completely true to the aims and principles of surrealism. With all due respect, you are editing this article like some kind of art critic or museum curator. I do understand that you have the right to add information, but you completely leave out ALL the most important facts and details regarding the true aims and principles of surrealism. Also, you saturated this article page with so many links to paintings, it is beyond me that you would deny any links to any collage artworks by Breton or anything by Toyen. Stirling, plus, I doubt that you even care about mentioning the MOST important figure in all of surrealism, Lautremont! Stirling, do you know who Gerome Kamrowski is? If you can add any art links on him to this article that would be nice. Or E.F.Granell.24.168.66.27 01:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Stirling, your edits have really...

message: So? Stirling Newberry 02:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Pov Troll 

message: In fact, Dali was kicked out of it... and nicknamed "Amida Dollars" (anagram) for selling out. I think he favoured the fascists in Spain.
The proper surrealists were linked with socialism and communism, although they got alienated from Stalinism proper, but there isn't much mention of this in the article.
:Do you have a reference or citation to back up these two claims? See Wikipedia:Cite sources. Hyacinth 18:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that the poves want the ability to "excommunicate" different usages of the word. It's like the argument between different groups as to what constitutes "real" socialism. Dali was expelled from Breton's Surrealist movement in 1937. He himself argued that in the 1950's he was not a "surrealist", but, look up his work from the 1950's in Hughes and others, and it is still listed as surrealism. The argument is over who "owns" the world surrealism. Wikipedia is dedicated to documenting all commonly used versions of a term.  Stirling Newberry 18:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the article as I edited it did document that.  But the article as you edit it does not document the use of surrealism to mean surrealism, rather than some non-existent "artistic movement".  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper surrealism was a political movement 

message: That POV is already documented. Stirling Newberry 14:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? Hyacinth 19:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Anonymous Pove Troll 

message: You spelled Tanguy wrong in the article, you wrote, Targuy, and also Ernst Max!!! Also, it's Avida Dollars, not Amida Dollars, you idiot!!! Now go back and listen to your lame classical music.24.168.66.27 18:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:24.168.66.27, Please see below regarding personal attacks. Hyacinth 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stirling, your spelling is wrong and also..

message: Stirling, you and your edits are so LAME! This whole section that you added is like reading some awful art catalogue. Please let a surrealist ADD the CORRECT information!!!! More information on surrealists like ELT Mesens and Toyen, etc, etc, etc. You are real lame, Stirling, go away!!!!24.168.66.27 18:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:24.168.66.27, please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor....Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party". If you continue to make personal attacks you may be temporarily blocked from Wikipedia. Thanks. Hyacinth 19:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stirling's other addition, "Surrealism as an Artistic Movement" is awful and not reliable

message: You can see that I am upset as anyone LOYAL to Surrealism would be, so with all due respect, the namecalling goes on the path of a two-way street. I don't like being called a Troll either, Stirling. So, in order to prevent me from being blocked by Hyacinth, I will refrain from lashing out, but do not do it to me either. Calling someone or anyone a troll is also a personal attack.24.168.66.27 17:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Comments

message: This article needs to be precise in its presentation of the facts regarding surrealism. Let us FOCUS and ANALYZE what perspective we can engage, so that the article can stay coherent and factual. The best source on Surrealist Art is, "Surrealism and Painting" by Andre Breton. You need to research and reference that before you decide to write a POV dominated article passage like the one on Surrealist Art. The Pop Art reference MUST GO! There is no colleration nor any adherence to any, "influence" or, "effect", or, "impression" that Surrealism had on Pop Art, becuase it just does not exist, nor should Pop Art even be mentioned in the article. There are way too many essential surrealist artists being overlooked by Stirling's additions of artists to this article as well. Stirling tells us all about the usual suspects, like Miro, Picasso, Dali, Tanguy, etc,etc, which we can all reference from any common art catalogue or book, but remember the ESSENTIAL SURREALIST ARTISTS, that you overlook to serve the dominant art world bias, and they are TOYEN (who is probably one of the most important Surrealists and Surrealist Artists ever, in my opinion), RAOUL UBAC, JINDRICH STYRSKY(who is also another MAJOR SURREALIST and SURREALIST ARTIST),WILHEIM FREDDIE(who is just as technically brilliant as Dali!!!),WILFREDO LAM, JACQUES HEROLD, CLOVIS TROUILLE, GEORGES MALKINE, etc, etc. 
This is just one point that I bring up.
Now, how about an article passage on SURREALIST POETS? Where is there any mention of LOUIS ARAGON or RED FRONT by the way?24.168.66.27 17:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Now, for Comments on Article

message: Seriously, now Stirling, this article can improve. I will abide by all the advice given to me by Hyacinth and try to understand your edits more comprehensively. Please try to understand my position as well. This can get better. A clear distinction must be made in regards to the context of Surrealism and how it is to be documented for others to research. It must be accepted to acknowledge the foundation set by Breton and even after his passing as well. We all know that many facets of modern life have been affected by Surrealism in one way or another, but we are focusing on the true aspects of Surrealism here when we document the facts. 
Also, it is a fact, (most overlooked by the followers of Breton, and even Breton himself) that he, Andre Breton, was NOT the first person to stake claim to founding Surrealism, and publishing the first surrealist publication. Do we all know who Yvan Goll is?24.168.66.27 21:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest not personally addressing headers to people on talk pages. Headers should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. For instance, you could make a header whose title describes in a few words one problem you have with the article. This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article. Hyacinth 21:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously, now Stirling, this article can improve

message: First, when writing articles that have multiple documented stable points of view, it is important to be precise with language. As with many "isms" the word "Surrealism" is applied to multiple related groups of people, and as a result must have each context defined correctly, and used consistently in the article. You keep referring to "surrealism" as if it is a monolithic term or group. This is not the documentable usage: surrealism means different things in different contexts. There are numerous monographs and books on "surrealism" that mean surrealism in the visual arts, which consider the philosophical movement the same way a book on musical impressionism would consider the movement in the visual arts: a background. This is not uncommon (symbolism, classicism, romanticism, minimalism, modernism - all apply to varying, but related, movements). The article should explain clearly to a reader which is which, so that they can understand whatever it is made them look it up.
As far as I can see the material wants to be divided into the following sections:
# Surrealism as a political movement, which would focus the evolution from Dada to surrealism, on Breton manifesti and the movement formed around them, and how that movement, as a coherent movement exists today.
# Surrealism as a philosophical and literary movement. On the techniques used by surrealists to produce surrealist work.
# Surrealism as an artistic movement - which would focus on the movement in the visual arts.
# Surrealism as a genre - it's use beyond specific movements, including its influence in film, popular culture and so on, particularly in reference to those who describe their work as surreal but who have no direct connection to the various surrealist traditions/movements.
When you say "true principles of surrealism" what you mean is "not part of surrealism the political or philosophical movement." There is absolutely no reason why this should not be documented in an NPOV manner. However, Surrealism is not owned by anyone as a trade mark, it is not up to this article or its authors to determine who is, and who is not, a surrealist. Our job is to document who identifies or is labelled a surrealist, what that means in context, and what connections are to be drawn, and what controversies surround that identification. NPOV does not mean saying only nice things, it does mean attributing precisely who is saying what. 
There is sufficient information in the article already - let alone what needs to be added - to take it and break it up into several sections (as postmodernism was) with a descriptive section on each, and then a reference to a main article which will be devoted specifically to that particular idea or thread in surrealism. This will also reduce the need for semantic apparatus - once a person is directed to a page on "Surrealism (visual arts)", then the introduction to that article can say "This article refers to the movement in the visual arts, (See also Surrealism (Literature))" Or whatever the other topic articles are named.
Remember the reason I bounced to this page is because I created a modernism template, and put Surrealism on it, and am working on upgrading the cultural movements categories and articles on wiki. Part of the point is to get people who are looking up "surrealism" to realize the breadth and importance of this movement. However, that means both within itself, and also in other movements as well. 
Let us work together to get this article to its best form. (But yes, having a wiki account would improve your credibility).Stirling Newberry 07:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline 

message: "For this reason, Wigdor is like a ghost, especially like an ugly, twinkie-eating ghost." this is an exact quote by the user, Bleedy and that is just one of many constant attacks and lies that this person has made. Stirling, I suggest that all attacks be permanently removed from this page, even the stupid, "lame" remark that I foolishly made towards you. I was real stupid for attacking you and I apologize. This user, Bleedy is out of control and beyond reason. You have to see that attacks and lies he has written over at the Keith Wigdor article, but that is old news. I want to move on and work with you and get the Surrealism article fixed for the benefit of us all. Bleedy keeps on making constant attacks and that will be a problem. Stirling, I do support your suggestions.24.168.66.27 17:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I removed the harrassment because...

message: The issue of personal attacks on this surrealism discussion page must stop. The user Bleedy refuses to be civil, polite, understanding and willing to reach any form of compromise as you can see by the above multiple attacks.24.168.66.27 20:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The issue of personal attacks on this surrealism discussion page..

message: Stirling, I need to hear back from you so I can delete all the attacks on this page. All of them, all around, or if you want to, is good as well. Either way, we have to get this surrealism article back on track, unprotected and working according to the suggestions that you made.24.168.66.27 00:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The attacks should be deleted to help this move on

message: Stirling, I also suggest that we place emphasis on surrealism as an art movement, because after all, it is an art movement and the art is what stands out.24.168.66.27 00:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hardly a compromise to give everything to one party in the conflict when that party persists in adding nonfactual information to the article.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another suggestion for compromise and to move forward

message: I have just put a 48 hour block on both User:Bleedy and User:24.168.66.27, in response to Bleedy's personal attacks and 24.168.66.27's deleting discussion from talk pages. Both users have repeatedly been warned to follow Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia:Civility and have previously been blocked for edit/revert wars. (To add my personal opinion comment: they seem to generate much noise and little signal here. ) -- Infrogmation 18:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary block 

message: I am working out an angle on the very strong bond between surrealism and anarchism as it is historically documented (fact), which you can see from this fantastic website, http://flag.blackened.net/af/org/issue44/surr.html
which documents when Breton contributed to the publication Le Libertaire. I need to find the best section paragraph in the surrealism article here on Wikipedia to place the information on surrealism and anarchism, probably a whole section.24.168.66.27 02:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You surely mean after Breton broke withe the Communist Party, right? Ejrrjs | What? 16:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrealism and Anarchism

message: The article version by Stirling is more informative and factual than Daniel C.Boyer's point of view. My only disagreement is with the paragraph on brainstorming, but that is it. I denounce all my past remarks against Stirling and his edits. Let the record show that I support Stirling Newberry's current version today. I also would like to state that I was never responsible for the past edit war prior to this article being protected by KingTurtle, which was way too long. Stirling, I do apologize to you for all the past stupid remarks that I made towards you and I would like to see MORE SURREALIST ART information on here, so that the public and college students around the world can research this great movement. By the way, the current surrealist movement today in 2005 is an ART MOVEMENT! 
:The "current surrealist movement," which is Keith Wigdor alone, who for some reason is surrealist even though he has redefined surrealism to be everything surrealism opposes.  I get it.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wigdor and his even smaller number of friends have spoken.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The article version by Stirling is more....

message: Who wrote this, "A few American managers have been quick to see the interest of such a technique at the level of employee relations: those who can express themselves can have more. "Organize brainstorming sessions for us!" they tell the specialists: "this will show our employees that we care about their ideas, because we're asking them what they think!" The technique is rapidly becoming a vaccine against the revolutionary virus."?
and why?24.168.66.27 00:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut down the brainstorming material as in my view (though I am open to arguments otherwise) it is far too extensive for an article on surrealism, not about brainstorming; on second thought, I think this should be acknowledged.  --65.174.35.65 17:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just out of curiousity...

message: I propose that the word, "utopian" should be changed to, "revolutionary", that is all for the second paragraph. Other than that the, "employee relations" paragraph later on in the article should really be removed and maybe (just to help), some information that researchers could be really impressed with, but I really am having much difficulty in accepting the, "employee relations" paragraph, I think it really kills the article. Stirling, is there another alternative to this addition?24.168.66.27 01:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An idea for the second paragraph in the introduction

message: Daniel, when you read the following introduction from the article that, "Surrealism is an art movement", and then this statement on the Talk page, "And like it or not, when preparing an encyclopedia article, expert opinion matters", what do you think?
:I think that the expertise has to be relevant to the subject in question.  An expert in basket-making's expert opinion on planetary orbits doesn't matter.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been exhaustively proven.  To start with, read the Manifesto of Surrealism.  Where in this do you get the idea that surrealism is an art movement?  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Saying that "it is the ART that stands out most of all" is POV.  Edit the article to express this POV, but as POV.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Daniel C.Boyer...

message: Stirling's version is much better than Boyer's. Also, Daniel C.Boyer reverted this article 4 times today, thus he violated the Wiki 3 revert policy. I think he should be temporarily banned for his blantant actions today.63.169.104.2 22:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not revert the article 4 times today.  I edited it.  --Daniel C. Boyer 02:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stirling's version is much better than Boyer's