Talk:Surrealism/Archive 2

message: This page was 114k so I archived 18 sections from the top and moved them to Talk:Surrealism/Archive. In the future, please try to sign your posts with ~~~~ (automatic name+timestamp) so that the identity of comment authors will be preserved through archiving. Most of the text I moved was signed, but a lot of the newer discussion that is still here on the talk page is not. Signing one's old posts would be helpful in making the discussions here more readable. ~leif @
On preview, the page is still 97k, but a lot of the remaining text does relate to the current issues so I'm not archiving it all yet. ~leif @ 23:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: In Manifestoes of Surrealism by Breton, he clearly stresses the scientific foundation of Surrealism, nested in the thoughts of Sigmund Freud. I think this should be mentioned at the beginning of the article somewhere. I'll have to get back to you when I've read the manifestoes again so I can be sure this is right. Objections? - Sigg3.net 07:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What about Freud?

message: I came here because I was interested in finding out what surrealism is.  This article doesn't help me as much as I'd like.  It opens with a very general statement about the movement, then instantly starts listing instances of surrealism (usually without explanation, forcing me to follow numerous links).  I'm sure that it's a good compilation for those familiar with surrealism, but those of us who don't know it are left baffled.  Most entries on movements (literary or otherwise) begin by identifying chief characteristics, etc. -- they certainly should, I think.  Can someone here put in a paragraph early on that explains in more direct terms what, exactly, surrealism is? I'd appreciate it. Jwrosenzweig 16:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the same comment earlier.  Perhaps also an additional article on surrealism (art) would be of use to those of us whom primarily identify the movement with art.  --zandperl 02:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Format

message: Where should surrealist postage stamps be mentioned?  --Daniel C. Boyer 00:19, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrealist postage stamps

message: What's this:
Dali proved to become surrealism's greatest success even surpassing Breton.
Even though there was an element of internal competition within the group built around Aragon and Breton, also admitted by Breton himself, this has nothing to do with the result(s) of the surrealistic experiments the large group performed on numerous occasions. Heh, Soupalt almost killed someone when set into trance once, and during the same gathering others were brutally waken up before committing suicide. To say that Dali proved to be(come) surrealism's greatest success has got nothing to do with surrealism itself (or, an Sich), but the "level of fame" among outsiders. The outsiders, those who read and enjoy the result of surrealist experiences, should not be regarded as "an audience" to the same extent as the audience of Dada performances, normal bookreadings etc. etc. Blah, blah, blah. My point is this: would we like to write an article about how surrealism percieve itself or how others have "mistaken" it to be an artistic movement? (Failing not to repeat Boyer) - Sigg3.net 21:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you say is essentially true, and I think an article along these lines (but what would it be titled?) might be good.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that most people wouldn't consider it "mainstream" enough to be 'pedia material, but should'nt this be part of it somehow? Maybe one should just do an external page and link to it? - Sigg3.net 17:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken and agreed. If I was understood as arrogant on this matter, I apologize, because that was not my intention. I do believe we're all better off presenting Surrealism as "an artistic movement", since we must expect students to use this in their tasks etc., but I also think that we should do an "alternate version" linked to it. This could be done by me and others writing and publishing on an external page and then link to it, or it could be done wikipediawise (which I do believe would be most 'democratic'). I'm no propagandist, and having "amateur-studied" Surrealism for at least a year, I'd say that most of "what the people thinks" about surrealism is wrong. But, as a 'pedia, the perspective at the matter should be broad enough to be acceptable to anyone. - Sigg3.net 10:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What's this?

message: This page has been protected since June 26, 2004, and that's a long time. The edit war that preceded the protection is, appropriately enough, quite surreal. Did anyone really mean to have a duel over the link to Surrealist movement in the United States? I'm unprotecting, so play nice, okay? Quadell (talk) 19:48, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
: The frequent reverts back and forth are inappropriate; if this continues the page will need to be protected again. -- Infrogmation 18:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection. 

message: Please don't protect the version that attacks Keith Wigdor and Terrance Lindall!
: See my note below. If they're important, how about putting some effort into biographies of them? -- Infrogmation 20:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Infrogmation

message: If Terrance Lindall and Keith Wigdor are important figures, how about articles on them? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 20:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wigdor and Ll 

message: He is a legend and a recognized surrealist! "THE END OF MAN" by Terrance Lindall is a surrealist masterpiece! That is just one of his great masterpieces of surrealism! There are references to Terrance Lindall, the surrealist online, and his contributions to surrealism in the 21st century are now of legend! The surrealist event, "Brave Destiny" was a huge success and is now considered one of the most revolutionary breakthroughs in surrealism for the 21st century. There was over 500 surrealists on exhibit at that great event! Praise, Praise, Praise for the surrealist Terrance Lindall! Terrance Lindall has opened doors to this movement and brought it to the public! This great man is to be praised for his contributions to surrealism and also his brilliant legacy in art as well! Viva Lindall! Viva Surrealism!
:Your allusion to the production of a "surrealist masterpiece" gives the false impression surrealism is an artistic movement.  Not one of those 500 was a surrealist.  And what about Lindall's own admission he is not a surrealist, just a promoter of art events?  When am I going to get an answer on this?  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: is a Surrealist

message: I've reprotected the article after trying to include a good amount of the text from various versions (which I presume will be satisfactory to nobody). Actual discussion (rather than flippant comments and blocks of semi-relevent yoinked text)would be appreciated if people want this returned to unprotected status. -- Infrogmation 21:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-protect 

message: Infrogmation is dictating that this article remain under the control of him only as evident by his unfair lock on the edit. He allows a false statement to remain that attacks Wigdor and he refuses to accept the overwhelming evidence of the reference material on Terrance Lindall, who is a recognized surrealist. 
:Lindall might be recognized as a surrealist, but he is not recognized as such by himself, and in my opinion, that is usually enough to preclude any other recognition.  --Daniel C. Boyer 22:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What you really mean (unless you are going to even claim anything to the contrary) is that you don't like them.  Because I haven't heard any reason beyond this why you say this.  Then you follow this up with a webcentric view of research.  --Daniel C. Boyer 22:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not fair

message: I wonder if anyone here with an interest in minor surrealist figures would review the newly-created George Reavey article? ThanksFiliocht 14:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A REQUEST

message: About Massurrealism (see link):
 
What must be understood, like the nature of subconscious thought, surrealism is continually evolving. Although some do not want it redefined from its early roots, others understand the necessity of evolution or "revolution." Creativity is evolution, and surrealism is a creative movement. Here is another variation:
Massurrealism is a form of art that is rooted in the combination of mass media related art [ such as pop art ]  and surrealist imagery. Essentially it is an evolution of surrealism that is strongly influenced by mass-media and  technology.  The term massurrealism was coined by artist James Seehafer in 1992. Shortly thereafter artists began  writing about massurrealism. These essays came from a variety of artists including digital artists, video artists, as well as art directors and graphic designers. The first Massurrealist theme exhibit was  held in 1995, in Connecticut, USA.   One important point about massurrealism is the common thread among massurrealists, the marriage of pop-art/mass media subjects and techniques to the surreal, which are individually expressed in each artist.  These are just a few techniques that  bridge the gap between the "traditional" and the newer media. As time progresses, newer media and technology are being discovered. The evolving computer technology alone is changing what is considered "mass-media". A world wide, grass-roots art interest, massurrealism follows this evolution,  embodies the mystery of today's society.  Expressions of the imagination and  the creativity are what  surround its  inspiration.
:Surrealism is evolutionary in its essence as well as revolutionary.  But when Massurrealism starts off its definition with "is a form of art," whatever else it might be, it has ceased to have anything to do with surrealism.  --Daniel C. Boyer 22:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: MASSURREALISM

message: We just had a conversation with Terrance Lindall. He says that the comment in your article that he admitted he was “not a surrealist, just a promoter of art shows” comes from an email conversation with one of the people who threatened to kill the participants in the BRAVE DESTINY show in 2003. 
:Lindall admits it, you admit it, QED.  If even Lindall admits that he is not a surrealist, he should not be described as such in the article.  --Daniel C. Boyer 22:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A history of which he admitted, at the beginning of his "Manifesto," to be almost completely ignorant, given that in it he admits to being astonished at the basic principles of the movement, the first Manifesto, even the movement's very definition as given by Breton.  "Re-write the history"?  That's rich.  And he descends further into obscurantism when he implies that surrealists are seeking credibility as "artists or scholars."  --Daniel C. Boyer 22:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Why don't we get an electrical engineer to write the article on philosophy?  Or an expert on the history of spiritualism to write an article on knitting?  --Daniel C. Boyer 22:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion, and an opinion

message: What is the reasoning behind the people who are editiing to assert the importance of some people, but who remove the links to their names?  Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 01:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: There should be information about music on this page. Mr. Bungle, Merzbow, The Residents, and some of Les Claypool's projects come to mind... Surely others could help make a large enough list to make the inclusion of these groups appropriate. ~leif @
:Section added, though its not exactly what you had in mind. Hyacinth 07:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrealist music 

message: "I'm still somewhat new to wikipedia rules, and I don't know if this sort of thing is allowed". That is an exact quote made by this person, Lief. First, I really do not see the credibility to mention that Mike Patton, and Les Claypool and Primus as Surrealists, though they are really great musicians and I like their music, especially Claypool's side project from the past, SAUSAGE. I have reservations about them be considered as Surrealists, however I will show good faith and consider their mentioning in the article. This is a big compromise and I request that if you are already opening doors to mentioning hardcore musicians like Mike Patton, who does not promote himself as a Surrealist, then certainly Terrance Lindall can be mentioned here. I still do not see the conclusions that you will not produce, instead of saying the article, "sucks". Then you add the hardcore information. OK, that is cool. I like SAUSAGE and I do find some elements of surrealism related grooves in Claypool's, "RIDDLES ARE ABOUND TONIGHT", so I will allow it as you do. But the Lindall and Wigdor information must stay, even though you are extremely biased towards mention of them and you refuse to provide a credible premise to your argument. Is there any reason why we cannot mention Jacques Lacan as well?
:The fact that you blatantly misspell a name that is right in front of you really doesn't help with people's suspicions that you are just a troll.
:I did not say Lindall (or anyone else) shouldn't be mentioned here! I merely said that the current mention of him was poorly written and should be fixed. And since the paragraph has been the cause of many article reverts, I suggested doing it on the talk page.
:Furthermore, I didn't say the article sucks, I said your paragraph did. I doubt you could find any other editor who would say your paragraph (which I've saved above to give this discussion context) is wikipedia quality.
:Lindall probably should be included, and he will be as soon as someone writes some decent text about him. He should have his own article too, but it seems so far all that anyone has done there is copy and paste a copywritten magazine article (see Terrance Lindall). I would like to see a much lengthier Surrealism article that has room for Lindall as well as well as a wide variety of surrealist music, past and present. ~leif @ 18:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Leif

message: Why do you get so bent out of shape over a typo and the misspelling of your name? So what. I misspelled your name! So that gives you the right to call me a troll? I agree that the Surrealist Music should stay. In the meantime, please refrain from name calling and nasty responses. I also suggest an extensive analysis for your input into surrealist music in this article which needs clarification for the benefit of the public that researches surrealism. Leif, just because you and I agree that Claypool and Patton's music is surreal, still needs more support from the analytical perspective. Also, please tell us what you think about Andre Thirion? I would find your response to be very revealing and informative? Leif, Did you get the chance to read, REVOLUTIONARIES WITHOUT REVOLUTION?
: "So what. I misspelled your name! So that gives you the right to call me a troll?"
::No, I said you're acting like a troll troll because you accuse published groups and authors of "not existing" until you see a photograph of them (see Talk:Brandon_Freels). And because you're not editing the paragraph in question here, and instead just posting your nonsense version back into the article. The name misspelling was just another not-so-subtle example of your edits that could be perceived as trolling.
::Please stop reverting to your version, the version where the quotation marks are scattered about randomly and Lindall is implied to be 'the surrealist of the 21st century, and try to work with Daniel on the talk page to make an NPOV coverage of these topics. I'm sure an admin will lock this page again if you persist, and I suspect that may even be your goal. Why do you keep restoring your version and refuse to cooperate?
::As for your questions about what I have and haven't read, I'm not trying to have a conversation with you about other subjects, I'm trying to get this article fixed. ~leif @ 21:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Leif

message: What is with the unfair and rude troll label? If someone wants to verify the existence of someone who is a current author, wouldn't you want to know if that person was real, instead of the information being prone to total falsehood. It is obvious Daniel Boyer does not want to reach any compromise. 
:I have repeatedly edited the paragraph in question, despite my believing that it gives far too much prominence to individuals of marginal importance in the history of surrealism as a whole, and includes one individual who by his own admission is not a surrealist, and also gives far too much prominence to one fairly insignificant (in the history of surrealism as a whole) and the relatively insiginifance (in terms of the history of surrealism as a whole) reaction to it.  My suspicion is that what you mean by "compromise" is a complete capitulation to your version of events, and this I am unwilling to do.  I am willing to do further work on the paragraph in question, and will do so after this edit.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it very strange that you dismiss Lindall's admission that he was not a surrealist so easily as the result of "coercion" when no reasonable person could conclude that that was the result of the effort of the issuing and signing of the "Craven Destiny" statement.  Furthermore, I find it odd that while you presumably do not see any problem with criticising the commitment of the signatories to surrealism after they failed to carry out the "threats" in it, you do not, apparently, see anything to criticize in what may well be a lack of commitment to surrealism on the part of Lindall, who so easily recants after what he supposedly sees as "harassment" on the part of the "Crevel gang."  (Do you see anything wrong with Lindall and Nii not having the faintest idea who Crevel was?)  Nevertheless, these are essentially irrelevancies as regards the article.  I attempted in editing the paragraph to include the supposed motivation for Lindall's disclaimer while not giving it more date than it deserves.  If you can produce a statement from Lindall saying that this was the reason for his disclaimer, the qualification should certainly be given added weight.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is this Leif?

message: You asked:
What is the reasoning behind the people who are editiing to assert the importance of some people, but who remove the links to their names? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 01:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Mr. Infromation

message: At the request of Terrance Lindall, please leave him out of the article. He finds this whole thing not worthy of being included in. It will also satisfy the incredible Mr. Boyer! If Mr. Lindall is included, we will contact the FCC. It defames Lindall to be included with a group of extreme Left Wing fringe people and in an article which does not reflect the course of surrealism ih our time.
::Just a question here: are threats to contact the FCC really appropriate in the context of Wikipedia?  I think it would be very problematic to have Wikipedia's content influenced in this way.  That said, I would not be adverse to mention of Lindall being excised from the article, but not because you say Lindall says that is what he wants, because he is not significant enough to the history of surrealism.  As for your saying "[i]t defames Lindall to be included with a group of extreme Left Wing" people, this is tantamount to an admission that he is not a surrealist.  If surrealism is not radical, it is nothing.  --Daniel C. Boyer 13:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to leaving Lindall out, but it's not Mr. Lindall's decision to make (and the FCC certainly doesn't have anything to do with it either!). So if the above comment indicates that the pro-Lindall contingent here will stop trying to insert him into the article, so be it, that makes things easier. If people continue to put the old poorly written paragraph about him into the article, then I suggest we use the version of the text I said I supported above (Dan's edit of my edit of the anonymous user's original text).~leif @ 23:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave him out!

message: Dear Lief: C.S. Lewis warned us about you and Boyer in the Screwtape Letters.  You and Boyer have found a way to poison the educational system of the West by using this “free’ encyclopedia to foist Marxist Leninist doctrine on the public by redefining things like “surrealism’ in an extreme left wing slant. I notice that you are deleting most of my comments that support my contentions against Boyer. That is another thing…only your comments can stand in this “free and open discussion.’ I do not expect to win any points on this discussion page because the Wikipedia is obviously infested with extreme Marxist Leninists who want to rewrite the history they have so ignominiously lost. I will in fact take this matter outside of Wikipedia where the matter can be joined. When you redefine things with exteremne left wing anti-American, anti-democratic doctrine as with the web sites you list here do, the intent is obvious. And when you use the sterling All-American names like Terrance Lindall in your cant, you are inviting extreme difficulties.
===C.S. Lewis predicted this=== 
-
Dear Lief: C.S. Lewis warned us about you and Boyer in the Screwtape Letters.  You and Boyer have found a way to poison the educational system of the West by using this “free’ encyclopedia to foist Marxist Leninist doctrine on the public by redefining things like “surrealism’ in an extreme left wing slant. I notice that you are deleting most of my comments that support my contentions against Boyer. That is another thing…only your comments can stand in this “free and open discussion.’ I do not expect to win any points on this discussion page because the Wikipedia is obviously infested with extreme Marxist Leninists who want to rewrite the history they have so ignominiously lost. I will in fact take this matter outside of Wikipedia where the matter can be joined. When you redefine things with extreme left wing anti-American, anti-democratic doctrine as with the web sites you list here do, the intent is obvious. But when you use the sterling All-American names like "Terrance Lindall" in your cant, you are inviting extreme difficulties.
+
Dear Lief: C.S. Lewis warned us about you and Boyer in the Screwtape Letters.  You and Boyer have found a way to poison the educational system of the West by using this “free’ encyclopedia to foist Marxist Leninist doctrine on the public by redefining things like “surrealism’ in an extreme left wing slant. I notice that you are deleting most of my comments that support my contentions against Boyer.  
:Your accusations against me might be relevant to an article on Daniel C. Boyer, or perhaps a number of other articles, but given that I am not even mentioned in the surrealism article, they are not relevant, and furthermore, such irrelevant attacks, coupled with amateur psychoanalysis, threats, exhortations for people to get criminal proceedings going against me, and, essentially, advocation that the FCC should become involved in controlling the content of Wikipedia -- not only do none of these have anything to do with the content of any current article, but it could be argued that they are damaging to Wikipedia as a whole.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want a cookie? Because, I am stunned by these allegations and must congratulate the allegator. Yes, Wikipedia itself is infact a "Marxist Leninist" plot against the american education system, conceived by Boyer and myself and foretold by C.S. Lewis, with an end goal of destroying the good american name of Terrance Lindall. I will be happy to discuss this with you further if you'll please start signing your posts (~~~~) to make the discussion readable. Until then, I'm going to have to ignore futher comments from you. But I must congratulate you, as you have finally figured out our dastardly scheme; please, have a cookie, and consider going elsewhere. Goodbye. ~leif 19:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: C.S. Lewis predicted this

message: -
Dear Lief: C.S. Lewis warned us about you and Boyer in the Screwtape Letters.  You and Boyer have found a way to poison the educational system of the West by using this “free’ encyclopedia to foist Marxist Leninist doctrine on the public by redefining things like “surrealism’ in an extreme left wing slant. I notice that you are deleting most of my comments that support my contentions against Boyer. That is another thing…only your comments can stand in this “free and open discussion.’ I do not expect to win any points on this discussion page because the Wikipedia is obviously infested with extreme Marxist Leninists who want to rewrite the history they have so ignominiously lost. I will in fact take this matter outside of Wikipedia where the matter can be joined. When you redefine things with extreme left wing anti-American, anti-democratic doctrine as with the web sites you list here do, the intent is obvious. But when you use the sterling All-American names like "Terrance Lindall" in your cant, you are inviting extreme difficulties.
+
Dear Lief: C.S. Lewis warned us about you and Boyer in the Screwtape Letters.  You and Boyer have found a way to poison the educational system of the West by using this “free’ encyclopedia to foist Marxist Leninist doctrine on the public by redefining things like “surrealism’ in an extreme left wing slant. I notice that you are deleting most of my comments that support my contentions against Boyer.  
:Your accusations against me might be relevant to an article on Daniel C. Boyer, or perhaps a number of other articles, but given that I am not even mentioned in the surrealism article, they are not relevant, and furthermore, such irrelevant attacks, coupled with amateur psychoanalysis, threats, exhortations for people to get criminal proceedings going against me, and, essentially, advocation that the FCC should become involved in controlling the content of Wikipedia -- not only do none of these have anything to do with the content of any current article, but it could be argued that they are damaging to Wikipedia as a whole.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want a cookie? Because, I am stunned by these allegations and must congratulate the allegator. Yes, Wikipedia itself is infact a "Marxist Leninist" plot against the american education system, conceived by Boyer and myself and foretold by C.S. Lewis, with an end goal of destroying the good american name of Terrance Lindall. I will be happy to discuss this with you further if you'll please start signing your posts (~~~~) to make the discussion readable. Until then, I'm going to have to ignore futher comments from you. But I must congratulate you, as you have finally figured out our dastardly scheme; please, have a cookie, and consider going elsewhere. Goodbye. ~leif 19:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: C.S. Lewis predicted this

message: You and I can get this goose cooked if you will accept this edit:
"Some artists, such as H.R. Giger in Europe, who won an Academy Award for his stage set, and who also designed the "creature," in the movie "Alien," have been popularly called "surrealists," though not identified as such by Marxists in the movement, who have criticized their activities. The Society for the Art of Imagination has come in for particularly bitter criticism from the Marxist surrealist movement (though this criticism has been characterized by at least one anonymous individual as coming from "small contingents worldwide")."
:Absolutely not.  It makes it seem as if criticism of Giger is, or only could be, limited to Marxists and Marxist criticism, when it is not.  And what on earth is the "Marxist surrealist movement"?  I've never heard of this tendency (or entity).  The below is what I'm thinking is the farthest I could go.  
:"Some artists, such as H.R. Giger in Europe, who won an Academy Award for his stage set, and who also designed the "creature," in the movie "Alien," have been popularly called "surrealists," though not identified as such by those in the movement, who have criticized their activities.  The Society for the Art of Imagination has come in for particularly bitter criticism from many in the surrealist movement (though these criticisms has been characterized by at least one anonymous individual as coming from "the Marxists [sic] surrealist groups, who maintain small contingents worldwide")."  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel, I really must object to statements like "though not identified as such by those in the movement" as they imply that the all of surrealists agree in their application of the surrealist label (clearly, not the case!). It's relatively easy to qualify such statements by saying "some in the movement" and so on. I'm not just talking about the Giger paragraph; there are a number of other places where this applies too. ~leif 20:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Look Boyer

message: Let the record show that the first article posted by Leif was the, "International Surrealists against the RNC", which was immediately Voted for Deletion. 
:No, this is still in process, though as the vote has gone so far, it is all but certain that it will be deleted.  Let the record show that I voted to delete.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again you may be implying that surrealism is an artistic movement (which it is not); else what would be the significance of expertise in the arts? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Many of them aren't artists at all.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: 24.168.91.84, I've taken the liberty of editing your references to me in the above paragraph to use  my wikipedia username (Leif); I ask that you please not call me by other names here. Of course, this being a wiki, I have no way to "force" you to do any such thing, but I'm asking you, and perhaps you will be friendly enough to oblige me of this simple request. As to your above comments about the surrealists international article, it was not actually the first article I posted, but I did say I "had a feeling in might not withstand VfD" (only slightly different than your "thought that the article was not going to last"). As I said when I first entered Talk:Surrealism, I don't really care one way or the other if the references to Lindall stay, but rather I just want the article to look good. The paragraph had typos and mistakes and I said it should be fixed, and that any POV disputes with it should be settled on the Talk page instead of in the article. I don't see how you can say I've "dominated" the article by my removing that one paragraph for editing. Anyhow, carry on ~leif 09:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Leif and Daniel C.Boyer's unjust attacks

message: I have taken the liberty to remove the paragraph written by Dan in regards to the NowSurreal, where he provides false information about Keith Wigdor. In all fairness, I cannot let this stand either. Leif, I do not need your permission to, "carry on". I will comply with your request not to refer to you by your full name as you wish. Dan has proven that he is beyond any concessions or compromise in regards to the Surrealism article. If the Wikipedia Community feels it necessary to remove posts by me in reference to Dan, then so be it, but I cannot stand by and allow Dan to spread false information about Keith Wigdor in regards to the Now Surreal UK website and Keith Wigdor. As for Terrance Lindall's name not being in the article, you are all doing a major disservice to the public and to any students who are researching contemporary surrealism. Leif, please do not tell anyone here to, "carry on". Your own admission on the International Surrealists Against the RNC has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that your arguments are not valid and you do not wish for the integrity of the Surrealism article as evident by your input here. Daniel, you are monopolizing the Wikipedia Article and Surrealism and I ask that since you refuse to reach any consensus, that you allow the article to stand as it was under Jrosenwieg. If not, I will continue to edit this article for the quality and integrity of information in regards to surrealism and its history all the way to today. It is revolting to allow any statements made out of coercion to be allowed as credible. Either way, I have about a good 40 years to keep on editing, you know, so I will not give in to your attempts at monopolizing this article and any article regrading surrealism. I will keep on editing. Forward....
24.168.91.84 18:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Leif and Daniel C.Boyer

message: I ask of the Wikipedia Community, I cannot allow the paragraph written by Dan in regards to him providing false information about Keith Wigdor and Now Surreal Uk to stand. I have the right to prevent this misinformation from spreading online and I ask Dan to stop replacing that paragraph in there. I will have no choice but to remove it, or if I am not allowed to remove it, I will add the true information within the above paragraph. As you can see, I will stand by my decision to maintain the integrity of this information. I thank Dan for providing the information on the Dali magazine, why he would even allow anything written by him to appear in a publication that honors Dali proves Dan's history of contradictions. Also, Surrealism today is no longer involved in the activities that Dan and his few friends engage in. Since Breton's death, and since the world recognizes the real potentials of Surrealism thanks to the great Dali, Surrealism today is primarily engaged in the arts and is recognized as an art movement, even by friends and associates of Boyers. Yes, Dan, your friends do exhibit their surrealist art, even with people that have collaborated with Keith Wigdor!24.168.91.84 18:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: All attempts at a consenus and agreement with Boyer have been exhausted

message: Dan, your request for retraction about selling your art in Dali Collector's Magazine has been granted. I removed the passage, Since you have clarified that you wrote a cricism of Dali in the magazine. Now, I ask you to remove the Keith Wigdor information from the paragraph that you wrote above.
:No.  The information is accurate.  I will only remove it if you remove the inaccurate accusations about me concerning nowSurreal and either explain, to my satisfaction, why you say that I was involved in wrecking SURREALISM 2002, or retract that statement as well.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dan's retraction request granted

message: I have removed All the information in the post about Now Surreal UK. Let the record show that the response by Dan was not accurate, AND that I showed good faith in granting his request to remove the passages. Let us see if Dan can do the same honor in return.
:If you are going to continue to say my response was not accurate, when in fact it was, I am not going to even consider removing the passage, as what it would in essence do is condemn me without the evidence remaining here to defend myself.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the passages as you requested! I have shown good faith!24.168.91.84 18:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Dan, you are totally impossible to reach any kind of agreement on anything!!!  Let the record show that when Dan requested the passages to be removed, I removed them, NOW he is saying that they were accurate which they were not!!! I will continue to edit without the interference of Dan. I showed good faith and complied with his request!!! 24.168.91.84 18:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice you are still claiming that it was accurate when you fail to explain how I wrecked SURREALISM 2002.  (Not that this is germane to the article).  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dan's request granted, now let us see if he shows good faith and compromise

message: Should surrealist analysis of the group be mentioned in the article? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Daniel, The Psychedelic Furs were surrealist from the perspective of surrealist analysis. I agree to add them to the article.24.168.91.84 19:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Psychedelic Furs

message: I think it would be a real important addition to the surrealist filmmakers. "Industrial Symphony No.1" by David Lynch is surrealism (the filmed preformance). I have the video tape somewhere, I need to find it first, then I have to see if anyone will agree that it would be a good idea to add David Lynch as a surrealist.24.168.91.84 03:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: David Lynch is not a surrealist filmmaker, although it could certainly be argued that some of his films have some interest from the surrealist perspective.  If something along these lines could be mentioned, I would not be adverse to it; the only thing I would object to is if it were claimed he was a surrealist filmmaker without any contrary POV being mentioned.  --Daniel C. Boyer 12:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I do disagree with Daniel on the issue of David Lynch being a surrealist filmmaker. I find all of his movies (except DUNE) to be surrealist, but that is my opinion.24.168.91.84 19:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: David Lynch

message: Dear Daniel, Dan, can you explain why you would protest against the WAH's BRAVE DESTINY SURREALISM SHOW and send that CRAVEN DESTINY protest when one of the comrades and contributoring surrealist artists to your friends in THE PARIS SURREALIST GROUP was on exhibit in the BRAVE DESTINY show? Why would you threaten to, "burn all the paintings" of one who is a contributor to the PARIS SURREALIST GROUP and was also on exhibit in Brave Destiny? I am real confused.24.168.91.84 03:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to engage in any discussion with you concerning Brave Destiny/Craven Destiny on this talk page as information concerning this controversy has how been agreedly excised from the article, and particularly as mention of Terrance Lindall has now been excised from it.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Daniel C.Boyer, please help me by providing an answer to this question about Craven Destiny?

message: You are a better spin doctor than Bush!!! Hahahaha!!!!!!!I never stated, "he considers the hypocrisy of one of the members of the Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surrealiste having, allegedly, illustrated the cover of one of the issues of the Society's bulletin)." Please go back and read my previous post.24.168.91.84
:I did.  I am characterising the claim from what I consider to be an NPOV, not quoting.  Please let me know if you think this could be improved.  (Did you ever notice how both you and the "great" Wigdor both have a habit of bursting out with "Hahahaha"?  Just wondering.)  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey Dan!

message: FACT: On September 20 – November 2, 2003, BRAVE DESTINY had its SURREALISM SHOW at the WAH!
FACT:http://www.wahcenter.org/exhibits/2003/surreal/BD_artists.html
FACT: Scroll down the above URL's page and you will see KATHLEEN FOX, two names above Prof.Ernst Fuchs!
FACT: Again, let the RECORD show that on Sept.20 to Nov.2,2003, Kathleen Fox was in the WAH's BRAVE DESTINY exhibit as INDICATED by the above Link!
FACT: The WAH receives the CRAVEN DESTINY threat to, "burn all the paintings,etc,etc,...." from Daniel C.Boyer and his few friends in the surrealist movement.
FACT: ZAZIE(EVI MOECHEL) and PIERRE PETIOT are MEMBERS of THE PARIS GROUP OF SURREALISTS and ZAZIE's signature is on the CRAVEN DESTINY threat to WAH!
FACT: exact quote from CRAVEN DESTINY threat, "To this end, we will converge upon this exhibition during its final days, burn the paintings, and hurl the squirming participants, ridiculous costumes or not, into the East River!"
FACT: NONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THE THREAT EVER SHOWED UP TO PROTEST!
FACT: On, 7 March 2004, The PARIS SURREALIST GROUP releases,S.U.RR…#4 TRANSMUTATION du LANGAGE.
FACT: Directly stated on their website, dernière mise-à-jour Dimanche 7 Mars 2004 at, http://ed.surrealistes.free.fr
FACT: KATHLEEN FOX IS THEIR COVER ARTIST!!!!
FACT: KATHLEEN FOX WAS ON EXHIBIT IN BRAVE DESTINY THE PREVIOUS YEAR on the following dates, On September 20 –November 2, 2003.
FACT: THE PARIS SURREALIST GROUP HAS A SOCIETY OF THE ART OF IMAGINATION ARTIST, KATHLEEN FOX, WHO WAS ON EXHIBIT IN BRAVE DESTINY DOING THEIR COVER FOR, S.U.RR…#4 TRANSMUTATION du LANGAGE.
FACT: Both the WAH's BRAVE DESTINY and THE PARIS GROUP OF SURREALISTS have the same artist helping them.
Hey, Dan, Please explain. I am dying to hear your spin on this. Oh, You do realize that this is major.24.168.91.84 17:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The FACTS

message: The more evidence that I will show you all, will prove that Keith and Terrance's(500 plus) position is valid! Daniel, will you PLEASE explain this?!: 
FACT: One of Daniel Boyer's surrealist friends and comrades is STUART INMAN!
FACT: STUART INMAN's NAME is on the CRAVEN DESTINY threat to WAH's BRAVE DESTINY!
FACT: He is one of the signatures on that document stating to, "burn all the paintings,etc..."
FACT: STUART INMAN AND KATHLEEN FOX appear to have been in the SAME group of surrealists!
FACT: The overwhelming evidence is here: http://ed.surrealistes.free.fr/tantque.htm
scroll down the page and you will see this, 
Les surréalistes en Grande-Bretagne : Krzysztof Fijalkowski, Kathleen Fox, Stuart Inman, John W. Welson, Francis Wright.
FACT: STUART INMAN, one of the CRAVEN DESTINY signatures and friends of Daniel's is ALSO on the same group list as KATHLEEN FOX!!!! 
FACT: This information on the PARIS Surrealist Group Website goes back to 1995 and the group of Grande-Bretagne goes back to 1992!!! (please tell me I am wrong on that fact, I am open to discussion on this)
Now, ASK yourself, WHY would STUART, who is one of the signatures (and surrealist) on CRAVEN DESTINY, Sign that Document, along with DAN and their friends, while KATHLEEN FOX is on exhibit in BRAVE DESTINY at WAH and the evidence PROVES that KATHLEEN FOX was in the same surrealist group as Stuart, who threatens to, "burn all the paintings"????
OH MY GOD!!! Someone, please EXPLAIN??? Please??? This gets more embarrassing upon discovering the evidence!!!24.168.91.84 21:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh My GOD! MORE FACTS!

message: FACT: Paradoxical Awakening Exposition of the Paris group of the surrealist movement, of some friends d’ailleurs and other alchemists of the street Pernelle.  June 2000 -House of
the Arts of Conches (Eure)
FACT: http://ed.surrealistes.free.fr/Expos/Eveil_Paradoxal/eveil_paradoxal.html
Why???
24.168.91.84 22:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Zazie(Evi Moechel) and Kathleen Fox???

message: http://surrealisme.ouvaton.org/article.php3?id_article=40
sells for 15 euros24.168.91.84 22:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More Facts

message: Hey Dan, is your friend and comrade Johannes dedicated to both surrealism and music or music and surrealism, or just music?24.168.91.84 02:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This question (showing your complete incomprehension of surrealism, as it suggests that surrealism and music are somehow mutually exclusive) doesn't have anything to do with the article.  --Daniel C. Boyer 12:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Craven Destiny, "surrealists"?

message: Wait to you see this gem! This is my favorite! It appears that one of the BRAVE DESTINY artists(and contributor to the PARIS SURREALIST GROUP and a past surrealist group member and contributor along with Stuart, the surrealist ones in Great Britian according to the Paris Surrealist site)KATHLEEN FOX is also a member of the "INTERNATIONAL SURREALISTS" and here is the evidence,
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/33628/index.php
Please scroll down the page and you will see that a BRAVE DESTINY artist who was in the WAH show that CRAVEN DESTINY protested against is also a signature and member of INTERNATIONAL SURREALISTS!!!!!!24.168.91.84 02:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: MORE FACTS

message: http://images.google.com/images?q=Kathleen+Fox+&ie=UTF-8&hl=en
FACT: go to the image for the art of imagination and you will see that KATHLEEN FOX was in a juried exhibition for THE SOCIETY FOR THE ART OF THE IMAGINATION at Cork Street London back in 2003!!! She won first place and the same artwork was in a Paris Group of Surrealist publication! Its like one big family!24.168.91.84 02:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: FIRST PLACE WINNER

message: Hey Dan, is this The Society for the Art of Imagination's First Place Winner from the juried selection at Cork Street in London from 2003 and also the BRAVE DESTINY Surrealist Artist, KATHLEEN FOX with none other than Paris Surrealist Group member Pierre Petiot???
FACT: here take a look at the picture!
http://www.zazie.at/Fellows/00_Images/PragVernissage99/KathleenPierre.jpg
24.168.91.84 03:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ONE BIG HAPPY SURREALIST FAMILY

message: Anyone else notice the WARNING: This page is 145 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB notice? I think that this talk page needs to be archived, and without all that nonsense ranting (stuff which has nothing to do with the article or anything else on wikipedia). Surely there is a more general forum on the internet where that stuff is appropriate; it is not here. If someone else would do the cleanup work that would be great, otherwise I'll do it myself in the near future (reply with any objections below). I propose that this talk page be entirely cleared, and the parts of it that are on-topic can be saved on Talk:Surrealism/Archive. If people still want to respond to any of the previous threads they can simply copy them from the Archive page back to here. OK? ~leif ☺ HELO 23:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.  --Daniel C. Boyer 23:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup the talk page