Talk:Surrealism/Archive 4

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

The Talk:Surrealism discussion page has been archived 9 times.

If you wish to reply to something that was said in an archived comment, please copy the relevant text to the current talk page rather than editing the archives.

Topic

The topic of Talk:Surrealism is the wikipedia Surrealism article, and how we can improve it. This is not the place to copy and paste lengthy texts or engage in arguments about non-wikipedia topics. Thank you for cooperating.

Relevent discussion only, please

As some here have pointed out, discussion on this page should be specifically about the Wikipedia Surrealism article and how to improve it. It is not a discussion board for anything vaguely related to Surrealism, nor about actions of Wikipedians which are not directly related to the text of the article. Please try to refrain from adding off topic rants or personal sniping here. -- Infrogmation 18:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Two. One to hold the giraffe, and another to fill the bathtub with brightly colored machine tools.
Sorry, couldn't help myself. - Sigg3.net 13:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category

Having both Category:Art movements and Category:Cultural movements is unecessary, as "Art movements" is a sub-category of "Cultural movements". Hyacinth 00:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that someone looking for art movements in Category:Art movements should be able to find this article, either in that category, or in a subcategory. I don't see a problem with also having this article listed under Category:Cultural movements. It seems kind of useful actually, as it emphasizes that surrealism is not just an art movement. ~leif 01:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wigdor Poll

This poll was previously archived to Talk:Surrealism/Archive 03, but then 63.169.104.2 replied to it there, so I've moved it back to this Talk page for further discussion. ~leif 20:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The inclusion of Keith Wigdor in the Surrealism article has been the subject of much controversy and many article reverts.

VOTE

After researching Wigdor, and reviewing the article history and the arguments on this talk page, please vote for one of the following, or suggest another course of action below:

  • option #1: Keith Wigdor should be included in the article as the leader of Surrealism in the 21st century. The entire article could even be replaced with the simple statement "Surrealism is Keith Wigdor". (this option is included to recognize a POV that has been expressed by anonymous editor(s))
  • option #2: Keith Wigdor should not be included in the article at all because he is not notable enough, and because there is a strong possibility (based on writing style and Wigdor's history on the internet) that he actually is one or more of the anonymous wikipedia users who promotes Wigdor here and frequently reverts against general consensus.
    • this would be my first choice ~leif 18:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This would be my first choice. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Wigdor, whomever he is, does not appear in the Grove art database, which tells me, while he may be notable in his own way, that he does not merit mentioning, much less a larger mention than Ernst, Magritte, or Miro. Gamaliel 19:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote against this choice.24.168.66.27 21:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I Vote FOR this choice. I stumbled upon this article, and its problems, recently and I am very suprised. Keith Wigdor is NOT a notable artist....period. It is furthermore obvious to me that he is desperate to become notable as he has been personally attacking this article and its users. This is a large concern to a collective encyclopedia and thus I hope that he realizes this and stops his attempts to poison the record.Mach535 19:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • First choice. Hyacinth 21:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:14, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • option #3: Keith Wigdor should be mentioned briefly in the article, but his Surrealism in 2004 statement should not be (because it was just published last month, is only known at all because of rampant self promotion, and it's generally not notable)
    • this is my second choice ~leif 18:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This would be my second choice. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote against this choice24.168.66.27 21:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I Vote that Surrealism in 2004 should not be mentioned specifically because it was, as Leif pointed out, published last month and it has absolutely no relation to surrealism save its name! As for mention of keith wigdor, I am still against it. Mach535 19:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote to keep article intact. Mach535, please stop making attacks against article paragraph subject. You already made false allegations, stop. 63.169.104.2 18:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote to keep the article intact with Wigdor in, and I ask Mach535 to avoid making false and unsubstantiated allegations against Wikipedia policy.63.169.104.2 18:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • 63.169.104.2 may be a sock puppet for 24.168.66.27. See below. ~leif 20:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also this poll is not authorized and is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy.63.169.104.2 18:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the policy which this poll violates. Gamaliel 22:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Non-voting replies to this poll

  • I kindly disagree with both Leif and Daniel since it is evident by their contributions to the Wikipedia Surrealism discussion page (and Boyer's refusal to validate the existence of his surrealist friends by not providing pictures) are biased against Keith. This is another attempt at bypassing consensus which was evident in the past administrator JRosenweig's success at successful agreement with the article. Plus, Infrogmation already started an article on Keith which states he is working in Surrealism. If Keith's, "Surrealism in 2004" is removed from the article, I will kindly propose an intensive investigative review into validating all of the information on the Surrealism article and all its related pages. Vague and invalid information dominates many of the surrealism related pages and particulary this surrealism article. Did you all know about Yvon Goll? His surrealist publication came out before Breton's first manifesto. I can provide the factual reference material on this. Also, Boyer's friends, The Rosemonts should be removed from the Surrealism article if Keith Wigdor's, "Surrealism in 2004" since there is much doubt as to the claim on the Rosemonts meeting with Breton and there is still no picture to prove that claim. Still Boyer will not provide one picture on this Brandon Freels either. Also, I recommend some kind of input from experts on Surrealism, hopefully Jennifer Mundy and Mary Ann Caws to validate the information on Boyer and all his friends. Gamaliel is welcome to his or her opinion as anyone here, but if you are really attempting to validate information on Keith Wigdor in regards to this surrealism article, you must apply the same scrutiny to all the reference information on here, which needs to be examined with intensive research. I cannot believe any claims by the Rosemonts that they met Breton until a picture of them with Andre Breton in 1965 is provided, same goes for Boyer's friend Freels, where is the picture? You really need to poll all the reference information links on The Surrealist Movement in the USA as well, plus everything in this article.24.168.66.27 20:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Please let the record show who is starting this poll in the first place and their credibility in providing accurate (and any information) to the Surrealism article here on Wikipedia. Leif, admitted in his own words regarding his first Wikipedia contribution on the Internation Surrealists against the RNC, that the article would be VfD. Also, why did Leif submit a surrealist article to Wikipedia that was written by an anonymous source? Who is, "Depth Squad Distro"? Is this a person? What do they look like? Are they real? Are they surrealists? What is the real name of the author? This is the kind of research that you already have with the surrealism article. Still no pictures to prove that the Rosemonts met Breton. Still no evidence to validate that Ron Sakolsky is a surrealist. Still no evidence to prove that Brandon Freels is a real person because there is no picture of this anonymous author who gets an entire article written for him here on Wikipedia. At least you all know that Keith Wigdor is a real person by his picture that is online. Still no evidence to prove the names of the members that expelled Dali. Still no proof as to the credibility of the book Rosemont edited that was written by Breton, "What is Surrealism". Why does Mark Polizzotti's book, "Revolution of the Mind" have no mention at all on this Rosemont? Why does this official autobiography on Andre Breton state that Jean Schuster did disband the Paris Group of Surrealists in 1969?24.168.66.27 20:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The article you're referring to is not relevant to this poll, or even this article. Please stop bring it up on Talk:Surrealism. Please stop making ad hominem attacks against myself and others. If you are interested in seeing Wigdor included in the article, you should vote for one of the three options or write a clear fourth option and ask for votes for it. Currently the vote is 3-zero to remove Wigdor from the article entirely. Please do not rename the poll I have created; if you want to create a poll that covers issues beyond Keith Wigdor you are welcome to do so. ~leif 21:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wigdor Poll and Surrealism Article Poll

If Keith's, "Surrealism in 2004" is removed from the article, I will kindly propose an intensive investigative review and poll into validating all of the information on the Surrealism article and all its related pages.24.168.66.27 21:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of Leif's bias against Keith Wigdor

This is Leif's own words, "is only known at all because of rampant self promotion". Also, "Currently the vote is 3-zero to remove Wigdor from the article entirely". That is not factual because I just made my vote and the poll that leif proposes is an attempt to provide a favorable idiosyncrasy to both Leif and his friend Boyer. I kindly protest any removal of Keith Wigdor from the Surrealism article. If that happens, then I will ask for an inquiry and arbitration into verifying all the information in the Surrealism article. Still no response from Leif to provide conclusive evidence to the credibility of the premises and his creation of argument as claimed to be valid. 24.168.66.27 21:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When I said there was currently a three-zero vote, that was accurate, as you had not voted on any options but merely stated that you "kindly disagree with both Leif and Daniel [...]". Now you have stated that you are against two of the poll options, but still have not voted for something. If none of the options are satisfactory to you, you should offer another option in the poll so that others might vote for it.
I admit that though I had not heard of him before reading Wikipedia, at this point I am definitely somewhat biased against Keith Wigdor. I find his art mediocre, and his internet ramblings asinine and annoying. My opinion has nothing to do with this poll, however. If you propose a reasonable poll option for keeping Wigdor in the article, and that option gains consensus, I would abide by it. So far, you have not done this.
Also, if there are other inaccuracies in the article, why don't you correct them instead of complaining about it here? ~leif 22:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leif,why so fast to make a proposal to quickpoll?

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism".

Sir, I have been providing good faith in regards to presenting and examining the quality of the Surrealism article's information. Leif, have you discussed your quickpoll attempt to remove the information on Keith Wigdor's manifesto, "Surrealism in 2004" with a Wikipedia Sysop? If you did, can you tell us all here who the sysop is that you spoke to, before you made the attempt at a quickpoll vote? I do not see you providing any good faith at all, if you did not inform me of your decision to quickpoll before discussing it with a Wikipedia sysop or administrator, that is my view on this matter.24.168.66.27 22:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe your edits have all been in "good faith".
I wouldn't exactly call this poll sudden, considering that Keith Wigdor has been an issue of reverts with 24.168.x.x vs. various users (some of them admins, IIRC) for months, since long before the Surrealism in 2004 statement was even published (as far as I've seen, it was first published in September, but I could be wrong).
But no, I did not contact an admin before starting this informal poll. I posted it on WP:RfC where admins might see it, and if you would like to contact an admin directly you are welcome to do so. ~leif 22:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What Now?

This poll was up for 5 days, and in that time received 4 votes to remove Keith Wigdor from the article, and 1 against it. The page got archived; and I removed Wigdor from the article. Then today 63.169.104.2 came along, restored the Wigdor paragraph, inclduing the Surrealism in 2004 statement, and made a number of edits to the poll (including voting twice) on the Archive page. So now I've moved the poll back here, so more people can vote if they want to... As to 63.169.104.2's comment that this poll isn't valid; I don't believe I am required to use any special protocol to start a poll. I just wanted to try and gain consensus from other interested parties, and my informal poll did that. I think it could have been left up longer, but it hadn't received any votes in two days when it got archived. ~leif 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

63.169.104.2

I think it is also important to consider the strong possibility that 63.169.104.2 is a sock puppet for the only other pro-wigdor voter, 24.168.66.27, so their votes in this poll should not be counted. See User talk:24.168.66.27 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.168.92.117. 63.169.104.2, can you confirm or deny that you are the same person as the 24.168 editor? The RfC page that says you are predates my knowledge of this dispute. ~leif 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This person 63.169.104.2 is right about this user Leif

Dear Leif, your admission to your bias against the surrealism article subject, Keith Wigdor, and your admission that your poll was not approved by a sysop, and your admission that you did not speak with an administrator, plus the overwhelming animosity and name-calling in your posts, "sock puppet" and the misguided efforts of your ad hominen attacks against anyone who posts in favor of the surrealism article subject, Keith Wigdor, proves that you are not to be trusted with editing this article in good faith. I will not deny the fact that you have the right to edit, but your failure at providing fairness and good faith, plus sincerity, proves that you are using this Wikipedia service for personal gains of entertainment or self-satisfaction. At least Daniel C.Boyer knows the Surrealism subject and though I firmly disagree with him, at least he is very aware and very knowledgable of the subject. You are on some kind of personal vendetta with anyone who posts in favor of the surrealism article subject, Keith Wigdor, and your own admission to having bias proves that you and your poll is not valid and totally inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and practices, plus you are a fairly new user here. Leif, you need to do these two things, in good faith, leave the Keith Wigdor paragraph alone and stop vandalizing the article by removing the paragraph or stop circumventing Wikipedia policy for your own self aggrandizement and personal attacks against those who post in favor of the surrealism article subject Keith Wigdor. I have a strong feeling that you will persist in carrying on with your attempts at bypassing consensus and any attempt to try to remove the information on Keith Wigdor from the surrealism article, so I will ask you to please stop and let it go! You have refused to co-operate with me in good faith and your sneaky attacks and questions are unjustified and they undermine the integrity of the editing process here on Wikipedia. You refuse to reach any kind of consensus and you are beyond compromise. Please stop the name calling and unfair labels and attacks and leave the article alone, unless you have any surrealist related information, hopefully on maybe, Aime Cesairre or Andre Thirion, like I asked you in the past, which you still refuse to examine. I will not engage in discussions with those who admit to bias and admit to violating Wikipedia policy. Stop!24.168.66.27 00:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy has been violated? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 00:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A response to Infrogmation's question about what policy has been violated

Dear Infrogmation, this is in good faith as in answer to your question. The user Leif has violated all of the following, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Do not make personal attacks on the Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy Consult widely - make a special effort to engage potential critics of the new policy, engage them and get them to help find the middle ground early. Do not rush - you will get there faster if you give the process the time it needs. People may oppose an idea simply because they feel it has not had adequate discussion, and especially if the feel a policy is being pushed through to circumvent discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policy#How_are_policies_decided.3F Key policies You don't need to read every Wikipedia policy before you contribute! However, the following policies are key to a productive Wikipedia experience, and the sooner you get to grips with them, the better. 1. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Use the criteria at Wikipedia:Survey guidelines to develop the survey (some parties may dispute the validity of the survey if this is not done properly). The survey should be carefully designed to present all sides of the dispute fairly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines The following is a page outlining the guidelines that may be followed when using surveys on the Wikipedia. These are not binding in any way. 1. Any Wikipedian may start a survey on any topic, but attempts to reach consensus are much, much, MUCH preferred, and should perhaps be followed even when it pains us most. 2. Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. You will need to resolve the following issues: Infrogmation, I have the evidence to back up my case and Leif has refused consensus and admitted to bias against the surrealism article paragraph subject on Keith Wigdor.24.168.66.27 02:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The above survey guidelines specifically state that they are recommendations and need not be followed to the letter. I believe the poll here is as near as we'll get to consensus, with currently 5 votes to drop mention of wigdor, and 2 anonymous votes to keep him. The question of the second "keep" vote being a sockpuppet of yours is not an unreasonable one, or a "personal attack", considering that question has been raised before in an RfC and was not denied then. If you think you have a "case" and want to initiate some sort of official wikipedia dispute process, go for it. I bet they'll suggest you make a login name, too. I've been tempted to start such a process myself, but I'm reluctant to waste a sysops' time with you. ~leif 02:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Leif's idea of a consensus?

"but I'm reluctant to waste a sysops' time with you."

Leif, your actions and statements are beyond the point of reaching any kind of understanding or willingness to obtain the goal of consensus and agreement. You have proven beyond a reasonable doubt to not being fair and sympathetic to differing views on the subject of Keith Wigdor in the surrealism article. Leif, read this,

1. Any Wikipedian may start a survey on any topic, but attempts to reach consensus are much, much, MUCH preferred, and should perhaps be followed even when it pains us most.

You admitted to bypassing this process and you also admitted to bias and not discussing this with a sysop, then to conclude your attempt at consensus, you state this, "but I'm reluctant to waste a sysops' time with you." Leif, you are really engaging in actions that are not in the best interests of the surrealism article. Why can't you just leave the article be and leave the paragraph alone as it was already? You refuse to offer any kind of diplomacy and good faith and your statements are evidence of personal attacks that do not help this at all. You leave me no choice, your actions have finalized any attempt at establishing the groundwork for fairness and agreement on the article. I ask that you please stop.24.168.66.27 04:18, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The poll achieved consensus-minus-one, which I believe is as close as we'll get on this issue. Please, go ahead, and initiate any official process you think is appropriate. I will participate, to try and reach an official decision on this issue, if you think that is necessary. In the meantime, please do not continue to revert the article to include the Wigdor paragraph.
I think you should focus your energy on improving the Keith Wigdor article, and be content that it can be listed in Category:Surrealism. ~leif 04:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leif! Infrogmation! We need your help on the Surrealism-related article on Zazie!

Dear Leif, Dear Infrogmation! We need your help on the Surrealism-related article on Zazie! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazie I think that Pierre went crazy and you have to see what he wrote in the article! He deleted the entire article and substituted some crazy and insane rant!24.168.66.27 19:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I am requesting the protection of this page or the blocking of 24.168.66.27, due to violation of the 3-revert rule (1, 2, 3, 4), as part of a continued practice of reverting against the consensus. I hope this page will not have to stay protected for long, and I am sorry 24.168.66.27 has insisted on pushing the issue this far. ~leif 00:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leif, you admitted that it was your opinion. You violated policy by not addressing consensus first and talking with a sysop. Then you state that you, "will not waste a sysops time with you"24.168.66.27 01:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What are you saying is my opinion? What consensus was not addressed? Do you even know what consensus means? The current vote is 6-1, and you continue to revert this article anyway... You are now making it necesary to waste a sysops time, after already having wasted far too much of mine. I'm going offline for a while; I ask again that you please stop using this article to promote Keith Wigdor. ~leif 01:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another false allegation made by Leif, since I did not break the 3 revert rule because...

Please read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version#Reverts_and_edit_conflicts 24.168.66.27 01:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What? How does that say you did not break the 3 revert rule? You're not making any sense. ~leif 01:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. Where you think an older version of a page is better than the current version, a revert is sometimes appropriate.

Wikipedia practices something along the lines of vigilante justice. Here's how it works:

First you spot some vandalism, for example someone replacing the entire page with profanity, or adding a page with useless content. So you revert the page to the last good version, or you mark the page as a candidate for speedy deletion. 24.168.66.27 01:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disagreement over if a paragraph belongs in the article is not "vandalism". It may (or may not) be inappropriate, but please try not to throw around allegations of "vandalism" lightly or inaccurately. Multiple revert wars IS innappropriate and against Wikipedia policy, hence I am temporarily protecting the page; see below. -- Infrogmation 01:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Page temporarily protected due to continued revert war. If possible, please try to discuss and resolve differences. You may see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for further options. -- Infrogmation 01:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have tried to establish consensus on this issue, and resolve our differences, but based on the fact that this user has been reverting this change on this article for many months before I was involved, I think it's unlikely that they will just go away. What would you recommend as a next step here? ~leif 02:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Infrogmation, thank you for your insight and good faith decision

Infrogmation, I respect your authority and status here at this great Wikipedia service. I have absolute faith in your decision. I will obey your request and I ask that the user Leif stop making allegations and violating policy against me and anyone else that supports the paragraph subject.24.168.66.27 01:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What request will you obey? Obviously you can't edit the page right now, but will you stop reverting after the protection is lifted? You're the only person reverting to your version, so if you will obey my request to abide by consensus and not include Keith Wigdor, then the protection can be lifted! Can you clarify what request you mean to say you will obey? Thanks. ~leif 01:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The surrealism article should be protected

The surrealism article should be protected so that the public, along with college students and everyone researching surrealism knows that this article is seriously flawed and dominated by a bias against Salvador Dali, Keith Wigdor, Andre Thirion, and anyone else who does not conform to the limited scope of the post-Breton era. Jean Schuster disbanded what was left of Breton's group back in 1969, (fact, read Revolution of the Mind), this paris group today is a total fugazi, so is the surrealist movement in the usa. All they appear to be is a bookseller outlet through Kerr and very limited. Definitely not recognized as any official representatives of surrealism and even its history. You wonder why this publication Arsenal went after Mary Ann Caws? At least the public can look at all the previous page history to review this surrealism article. Dali was the man who gave surrealism its international platform, Breton was a shadow and real jealous too.63.169.104.2 17:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article is protected, but thats only a temporary measure. This being a wiki, the page will remain editable eventually. Will you please agree to not revert the surrealism article to include Keith Wigdor? There will be no bias against him in the article when he is not included in it, or at least no more "bias" than there is against the thousands of other surrealists who aren't mentioned. Again, I suggest that you focus on improving the Keith Wigdor article -- it's a mess right now, but I don't currently have the time or inclination to get into that one. ~leif 18:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please stop giving orders, Leif, and please stop attacking those who do not agree with your POV. The Keith Wigdor article was first created by Infrogmation and others added to it. It is not a mess, please avoid causing any disputes on that article.63.169.104.2 20:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am not trying to "give orders" to you, and I've edited my language above slightly to avoid that impression. But you still didn't answer my question:
Will you stop reverting the Surrealism article to include Keith Wigdor? ~leif 23:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Re: User 63.169.104.2's personal opinions
Personal opinions are great. They're even better than great! Sometimes they're even objective through consensus. I will not have a discussion on the importance of Breton vs. this Wigdor character (which I, as I said earlier, have never crossed paths with in my dive into Surrealism as science), but I think we both can agree that we strongly disagree. Our task is then to create an "as stream-lined as possible" article on Surrealism. A general scope. In which Dali and Breton both are heavy set characters. In fact, the interviews of Breton by André Parinaud are regarded the most comprehensive and concliusive history of _the beginning of Surrealism_, but Breton clearly states that this all in his own views. Still he gives Dali alot of credit. And reason to believe Dali was not a Surrealist... (Oh, well.) I let out seemingly obscure, but brilliant minds of Surrealism (i.e. Witkacy as stated earlier) in order to reach an article other people can use. Maybe we should add an "Surrealism in depth" article or something.. This is a consideration I think all wikipedians would feel as "the right thing to do" given the complex matter at hand and the numerous misjudgements of Surrealism throughout history. - Sigg3.net 08:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected, for now

I've unprotected the page. I hope it can stay open to edits, and that I won't need to reprotect it or block anyone from editing. A suggestion: How about before anyone again makes an edit that they have seen reverted in the past, and hence already know is controvercial, they post the suggested change here in talk, with an explanation of why they think it would make the Surrealism article better? If other people think the proposed change would make the article worse rather than better, explain why they object. Please no personal attacks, let's just try to have a better article. -- Infrogmation 16:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The, "survey" and "consensus" are not binding

As it is stated by Wikipedia.63.169.104.2 20:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC

I came here from RfC. Is the dispute still active? Maurreen 06:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surrealism/Archive_4&oldid=96110464"