Jump to content

Talk:Surrealism/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Archive 9

The Talk:Surrealism discussion page has been archived 9 times.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

First Paragraph Rewrite, Definiton of Surrealism

Let's see what feedback I get:

Surrealism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surrealism, a term coined by Guillaume Apollinaire in 1917, is a concept or philosophy stating that the liberation of the mind, and subsequently the liberation of the individual self and society, can be achieved by exercising the imaginative faculties of the "unconscious mind" to the attainment of a dream-like state different from, or ultimately ‘truer’ than, everyday reality. Surrealists believe that this more truthful reality can bring about personal, cultural, and social revolution, and a life of freedom, poetry, and uninhibited sexuality. André Breton, said that such a revealed truth would be beatific, or in his own words, "beauty will be convulsive or not at all." In more mundane terms, the word "surreal" is often used colloquially to describe unexpected juxtapositions or use of non-sequiturs in art or dialog. When the concept of surrealism has been "applied" by associated groups of indivifduals, it has often been called a “surrealist movement,” whether cultural (including artistic) or social.

What do you all think? Objections?Surreal-one 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is a bit too long I think. Also, there are too many terms with quotation marks around them. It will be better to add footnotes to them to supplement their meaning. For example, from what I gather, the "unconscious mind" in the surrealist sense, sort of means the part that is just beyond imagination - sort of transcendental. The text from which the term coined by Apollinaire can be added as a footnote as well. That is somewhere in the article. I suggest we replace the first paragraph with this one (if there aren't too many objections), and then do these little fixes. Sound good? --HappyCamper 15:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Very good! Can you do these changes? Surreal-one 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the both of you, but please remember to stay concise and on point. Also, the BEST reference material on Surrealism is by the scholars, Caws, Ades, and Mundy, if you need to review more. Last, but not least, PLACE Yourself in the position of the Student, or Researcher, who is going to go online, type in Surrealism into Google and they get this article; what you should be aware of is HOW they read and understand the article. Please keep Boyer and his ilk on a leash, so they do not keep coming in and vandalizing the process. Noted, the section on Black Surrealism must stay, because that is 100% factual and vital to the article. Clarity, Coherence and a Balance Proportion of Material, will make this the BEST Article on Wikipedia!!!Classicjupiter2 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK! Next week we look into the history. There is a lot of good material in the article already. Still, it needs to be organized better. However, I will research credible sources and cite them if I add material. I will appreciate your editing help. Thanks!Surreal-one 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried my best. See the edits here. I also removed the entire history section and made History of surrealism. Even that history page is ~12 kB. --HappyCamper 23:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking Good!Classicjupiter2 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

May I now suggest that we have SEPARATE wiki articles on "Surrealism in Politics," "Surrealism in Theater," " Surrealism in Film," "Black Surrealism" etc. Then we no longer have everybody adding their favorites and making a continually revised and vandalized article. For example, in politics the place of the Chicago Surrealist Group can be expanded. In "Surrealism in the Arts," Brave Destiny can be mentioned...without fights that make this article here impossible to become "featured." We can list at the bottom of this article that other articles on these sub-topics are available and linked here.Surreal-one 19:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Surrealism

There is now History of surrealism - in the main article, there is a section there too. It would be nice to have a 1-2 paragraph summary. Could someone write that please? --HappyCamper 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Done!Classicjupiter2 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea is to eliminate a lot of material that, if important, can be found in other articles on wiki, such as a list of surrealist techniques, or spin-offs such as the post-WWII Situationalists or Japanese Butoh. Also, after thinking about it, all of the artists and writers and agitators who came after Breton died and claim to be surrealists are part of a new history, only inspired or influenced by the Golden Age (which this article should be about). If the new ones are important, they can have their own article somewhere on wiki and not be in the “History of Surrealism.” That way we can also avoid the many vandal “newbie’s" who want to place themselves in history!!! The core of the history of surrealism died with Breton, although many surrealists who were part of the Golden age continued to live, such as Dali.

To see final rewrite see Rewrite History of surrealism More than 2 paragraphs based on what we had. Remember, a good edit makes everyone unhappy! Opinions please!Surreal-one 16:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

REMEMBER! As I think Happy Camper knows, THIS IS AN ARTICLE, NOT A BOOK! It should not be too long, but should summarize the essential and not be too expansive. My book will come out in a couple of years! Surreal-one 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that was real good!12.196.6.162 18:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

May I now suggest that we have SEPARATE wiki articles on "Surrealism in Politics," "Surrealism in Theater," " Surrealism in Film," "Black Surrealism" etc. Then we no longer have everybody adding their favorites and making a continually revised and vandalized article. For example, in politics the place of the Chicago Surrealist Group can be expanded. In "Surrealism in the Arts," Brave Destiny can be mentioned...without fights that make this article here impossible to become "featured." We can list at the bottom of this article that other articles on these sub-topics are available and linked here.Surreal-one 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything looks fine to me. Please do.Classicjupiter2 23:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians, I think something quite magical is finally happening on these articles! I agree, we should have separate articles as suggested above. It seems that surrealism is too large of a topic to be covered on one page. As a guide for ideas, one example to look at how our mathematics article is structured. And yup, Wikipedia is not a book. --HappyCamper 15:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

May I inquire as to why mention of the Chicago Surrealist Group and their link is being continually removed from this article after I have added them? -- TheEvilPanda 15:46, 20 January 2007

Surrealism in the Arts rewrite

I have started an article Surrealism in the Arts. I will proceed to rewriteSurreal-one 14:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we try a Surrealism and media page instead? When I think of the "arts", I only think of visual arts, but we might want to include the stuff about television and such. --HappyCamper 15:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just started rewriting this and I was thinking that art, in and of itself, is not classified under "media" but includes the media of television, film, movies, etc. For now I leave media under the category "arts" rather than the other way around. What do you think? Take a look at where I am now: i will post right now to the "Surrealism in the Arts" page. I think that most will like the new section on "Surrealism in the computer age" also. I am still working on it, but am open to ideas. I am sort of at the place where a lot of this is happening in NYC. "My hand is on the pulse of new surrealism." I have to leave for a benefit dinner today for Islamic art, so i will continue tommorrow. Thanks! Surreal-one 17:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

P.s.: We could make Arts a separate article from Media, but I am not sure that works either. Media is public transmission of information that also includes much that is not art, and not all art is media.Surreal-one 18:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts: I've only glanced through the current page. First thought is that it needs Wikification. This is easily done. Maybe I'll parse through it when I get a moment. There's one external dot-com site that uses the material already. Nice that they mentioned Wikipedia. Actually, maybe you're right to put "media" under arts. I think the visual aspect of surrealism is probably more predominant than any other sort of media. Good idea. --HappyCamper 21:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I still want to add some material and continue to edit what is there. Afterward I can wikify. We have plenty of time to finalize, but I think we can have the entire thing done this week!? See you tomorrow!Surreal-one 01:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, do me a favor. Don't change the SURREALISM IN POLITICS passage, that is already fine, and factual. Leave it alone, trust me. The other stuff is cool.Classicjupiter2 23:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK! Seems good enough alreadySurreal-one 01:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK guys and Gals, I am done with my rewrite on the arts. See Surrealism in the Arts. I am going back to the history and include the "Impact and Critques," since they belong there.Surreal-one 17:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have finished History of surrealism. If you guys can add the references, links and sources to the bottom of the appropriate pages and if you agree with the edits, we are in business.Surreal-one 17:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So fast! I have a hard time playing catch-up right now. :-) Classic, what do yout think about the new pages? Everyone, I think I'm going to start removing content from the arts sections, now that the material is found over in the Surrealism in the arts page. --HappyCamper 20:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The New Pages are GREAT! You did a wonderful job!Classicjupiter2 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey Mr. Camper! That Mathematics series is super! This comes from a philosophy of logic and epistemology "expert." I learned a few (actually a lot of) thingsSurreal-one 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Surreal-one, check the spelling on Robert Venosa. By the way, you did a WONDERFUL JOB! Now, lets try to keep this article vandal-free.Classicjupiter2 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that Surrealism (art) redirects to the main page, Surrealism. Shouldn't it redirect to Surrealism in the arts? --Shroom Mage 17:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Surrealism in theater correction

I must strongly argue for the removal of Artaud in this category. His theatre of cruelty is a totally different area of theatre--while sharing a few qualities and perhaps having a few similar objectives, the definitions of surrealist theatre provided by Apollinaire in his preface to "Breasts of Tireseus" and Breton in his Manifestos are particularly different than the theatre suggested by Artaud. Compare pictures of past productions for examples.

User:scrycer

Feminist Critique?

"Feminists have in the past critiqued the surrealist movement, claiming that it is fundamentally a male movement and a male fellowship, despite the occasional few celebrated woman surrealist painters and poets. They believe that it adopts typical male attitudes toward women, such as worshipping them symbolically through stereotypes and sexist norms. Some feminists have argued that in surrealism women are often made to represent higher values and transformed into objects of desire and of mystery."

I personally have a hard time following this, as it could be applied to most every major artistic movement of the 20th century. In otherwords I feel it may be too broad of a statement to hold water in this article. Could sources be provided and could the argument be refined?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.138.114.148 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, either specific feminist critics of surrealism should be cited, or the section should be removed. TheEvilPanda 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone appears to have hijacked this article for their own extremely POV purposes. The repeated removal of any mention of the Chicago Surrealist Groups or any of the other contemporary groups reveals a bias on the part of certain editors here which is hindering the article's simple ability to be informative. Having gone through some of this article's history, it seems Surreal-One and Classic Jupiter are hell bent on suppressing mention of the Chicago Group for the stated reason that there is no photographic evidence of them meeting with Andre Breton. This is so completely irrelevant and bizarre that I have to wonder if the editors in question are not mentally ill. Meanwhile, they insist on including a link to "Surrealism Now" which laughably purports to be "the official voice of surrealism". I hope they can stop acting so obnoxiously and not create a need for arbitration and banning. TheEvilPanda

Unfortunately, the subheading is SURREALIST ART RESOURCES and INFORMATION for which the SURREALISM NOW! link has been on there for months! All of a sudden, this brand new user, TheEvilPanda comes along to make personal attacks against myself and another user, and then inputs a link into the wrong section. This CHICAGO SURREALIST GROUP link even states that is a website for "Revolution" and not art, so why this user, TheEvilPanda is placing it in this section is beyond me. Also, I cannot understand why its so difficult to get any solid information on this particular group in question, that has been going on for years, there is no credible source information in any museums, and from scholars (not affiliated with this group) that can validate this input. The External Links Section subheader specifically states SURREALIST ART RESOURCES and INFORMATION for which SURREALISM NOW! provides an enormous resource of massive listings, go to their SITE MENU. Anyway, I would support mention of this CHICAGO SURREALIST GROUP in the article, with more solid information on this group. Show me some scans of ARSENAL, the Interior Pages of their issues, etc., not weak information, pictures of their members, etc, and I will be more than happy to support inclusion of them into the article within the article, as well, so they can get the promotion that Evil Panda wants them too, since that appears to be the case here. What troubles me is the statements that were already made by this user (even look at their user name) which appears they are not here in good faith and providing good will to other users and their edits. A more Wiki-friendly approach will suffice, thank you.Classicjupiter2 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why including scans of published materials is necessary to prove the group's legitimacy, considering that the article has no scans of Le Revolution Surrealiste (for example) either. Does that mean we should remove mention of the original surrealist group too? If you want a copy of Arsenal you can still order copies from Black Swan press. You seem to keep changing your reasons for why the Chicago Surrealist Group should not be included. There is no reason to doubt what the Chicago Group says about themselves, since none of it is particularly incredible or extraordinary. Anyone could meet Andre Breton by going to Paris and attending one of the Paris Group's public events. If your problem is the subheading in the links, then I'll gladly add the subheading "Currently active surrealist groups." As for "Surrealism Now!", it claims to be "the official voice of surrealism." This is misleading and wrong. Can you produce some evidence that the website is such an "official voice"? The fact that you rely so much on the testimony of museums and "art historians", as if these are final authorities on what is and what is not surrealist, shows that you completely miss the point of surrealism, which was always inimical to these institutions. I will allow your "Surrealism Now" link to remain, as a compromise, if you will permit material regarding Chicago Surrealist Group and other current surrealist groups. If you vandalize the article one more time I will ask for arbitration. TheEvilPanda

Update: I have now added a scanned image from Arsenal/ Surrealist Subversion, Vol. 4. The image is taken from the Herbert Marcuse website www.marcuse.org. Any other complaints Jupiter? TheEvilPanda

Please do not accuse me of vandalizing the article. I really like Herbert Marcuse and I read a lot of his material. Also, we are not here to debate Surrealism, nor do I wish to debate in general. This is an encyclopedia. I will agree to the inclusion of THE CHICAGO SURREALIST GROUP, also I think it wise that you ADD them INTO the Article as well. I think a "Contemporary Surrealist Groups" mention within the article is worth adding. So, just to show that I am not antagonistic towards any of your edits, I will allow the new subsection, I like SLAG anyway. OH, lets not forget to mention comrade JUAN CARLOS OTANO and The Surrealist Group of Rio de la Plata!!! OH, lets also add Keith Wigdor to your new subsection as well. It has been written by a well known and notable source that Keith Wigdor is "the leader of the International Surrealist Movement", a reference link can be provided as well, as well as an article from a reporter from the Phillipines too.Classicjupiter2 18:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One site for Keith Wigdor is enough. The title "International Leader of the Surrealist Movement" is extremely arbitrary and I doubt many surrealists would accept it. The article is not particularly informative and you seem to have included it simply because it calls Keith Wigdor the "leader of the international Surrealist Movement." I don't that's a very good reason for including it and I have removed it. Keith already has his website Surrealism Now which promotes itself as the "official website." That's enough absurd delusions of grandeur for one wikipedia article. TheEvilPanda

The groups I listed are not my "friends" as I haven't met any of them. They are simply Surrealist groups that I know of. I have allowed the inclusion of the Rio de la Plata group. You may include any other groups you wish but one link for each person/ group, that means only one link for Keith Wigdor. The Keith Wigdor article does not belong under the subheading and Keith Wigdor already has a link (Surrealism Now). I am adding the links again. If you remove them I will call for arbitration. TheEvilPanda

You are being very spiteful. In fact, I added comrade Juan Carlos Otano and his group, along with Gregg Simpson and The West Coast Surrealists and the article source on Wigdor too, all under the subheading. Also, to show that I am even being totally graceful and giving, I allowed mention of The Chicago Surrealist Group WITHIN the article, along with a scan, along with mention of them, so they not only get mentioned within the article, they get a scan and an External Link as well. Please be fair, I am giving so much, please be fair. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that you are Keith Wigdor, and you are desperate to promote yourself, even linking to an obscure article where you are only mentioned in passing. So no, you aren't giving anything. As for the Arsenal scan, that is there for your satisfaction, seeing as you demanded a scan of interior pages. If you would like to remove the scan, you can. But you aren't "giving" anything, seeing as how the surrealist groups I added are ALL legitimate. Meanwhile, your claim to "officially" represent surrealism is very dubious indeed. TheEvilPanda

Really, this is not the place to engage in any hostility. Any mention of Herbert Marcuse in this article is a good thing, and its about time that a scan of Arsenal was presented on here for the benefit of research. It would be splendid to see any picture of Franklin Rosemont, why he remains so evasive in any photos is beyond me? Andre Breton was certainly not camera shy and there are so many pictures of him (Breton) online and in the history books. However, I did GIVE and you are being a sour puss. Totally spiteful. What does Marie Dominique Massoni look like? I remember seeing a picture of some woman with very large breasts and that might have been her (please forgive my description, but that is nothing to be ashamed of, having large breasts, but her teeth were kinda in bad shape), I wonder if that was our comrade Marie? Also, I am not Keith Wigdor, why you are attacking him is beyond me. Lets move forward for the sake of the article and all who research. Its good to be Wiki-friendly, lets be Wiki-friendly.Classicjupiter2 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Evil Panda: Wigdor-Jupiter-surrealone are all the same person, and have been hijacking this wiki article for many months now, just for their own self-interests, not to make a better surrealism article. As a surrealist-friendly person, I have been following what goes on on this page, and also know for a fact that Wigdor is poorly regarded (an understatement) by most, if not all, surrealist groups, so his presence on here is really a joke. Keith Wigdor as "The leader of surrealism"? Please. I'm all for arbitration. It's been a while since any administrator has done anything to make the links section of this article NPOV. Maybe it's time for that again.--TextureSavant 15:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with NPOV linking, edit-war over mention of Chicago Surrealist Group in article. An ongoing dispute between several users, including me, and Classicjupiter2 who has insisted on suppressing links to the Chicago Surrealist Group and other groups, and including several links promoting or mentioning Keith Wigdor. TheEvilPanda 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I have not suppressed links to the Chicago Surrealists as evident in my most recent edits and I have provided total good faith with you as well. Also, for the record, both users, TextureSavant and TheEvilPanda are new users to this article and discussion. I agreed to a compromise, I agree to the addition of The Chicago Surrealists and also a scan, and also mention of them within the article. Now, all of a sudden, the SURREALISM NOW! external link which has been on here for months, is being removed in bad faith. Also, allegations made by both users are not in good faith and very Un-Wiki. Also, I even added other groups to the article as well, that were removed, lets get them back in, and not engage in any edit war that will harm the article. The section, SURREALIST ART and RESOURCES is exactly that way it is and SURREALISM NOW! provides SURREALIST ART and RESOURCES. We are not here to debate SURREALISM but to contribute to the article in a Wiki-friendly manner.Classicjupiter2 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No use lying. Anyone can read through the history of this article, as well as the talk page archives, and see what you have done over the past few months. TheEvilPanda 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Actually, ClassicJupiter2 has been playing these games for a few years now. Finding a way to include Keith Wigdor in the article is usually the ultimate objective. A few months ago he started using the "surrealone" handle in addition to the ClassicJupiter account, and also continues to make disruptive/destructive edits from various IP numbers. Keith Wigdor is not part of the surrealist movement: he is non-notable, and a "Keith Wigdor" vanity article that he and ClassicJupiter were pushing on wikipedia a few years ago ultimately got deleted. Here are the results of the VfD for that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Wigdor

If Keith Wigdor and ClassicJupiter2 aren't one and the same, then at least the reader can see from this page that they are working together to promote themselves. And if you check toward the very end of that VfD page from 2 years ago, you will see that Keith Wigdor, Nancy Wigdor and ClassicJupiter all have been playing games just to benefit Wigdor's popularity--TextureSavant 01:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And as a remedy, I recommend that Wigdor have only one link to his site (surrealnow.com), at the most (even though I still personally don't think his link belongs on the page), depending on what other users and resources suggest, and also that other surrealist groups get justly represented in the links section, like the groups from Paris, London, Portland, Athens, Chicago, just to name a few. Wigdor/ClassicJupiter2/SurrealOne and all their other sockpuppets have no right to suppress the links of these active, valid surrealist groups. Some arbitration is required here on the part of wikipedia administrators.--TextureSavant 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wigdor/ClassicJupiter2/SurrealOne all have the same style of writing- lots of irrelevant rambling and frequent exclamations with CAPITAL LETTERS. It would be a mighty coincidence that three different people bent on promoting one obscure artist would write in the same exact manner. They are all Keith Wigdor. By the way, I am also for the removal of the Surrealism Now link as it contains misinformation and alot of non-surrealist material being labeled Surrealist. I've left it on right now to avoid further trouble from Wigdor. TheEvilPanda 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So just to let everyone know, I've added some more of the active surrealist groups that Wigdor/ClassicJupiter2/SurrealOne deleted a while back. Just for the record, it should be noted that Wigdor's/ClassicJupiter's site is only about visual art and nothing more, so that particular website does not belong in the "active surrealist" section, and never should appear there.

In the "surrealist art and resources" category, it seems to me that Wigdor's "surrealismnow.com" site isn't the only site that has links and resources for ART, so I'm going to add Sebor's site as well. If Sebor's site (surrealists.org) gets deleted by whomever, then it only makes sense that the surrealismnow link should also be deleted.--TextureSavant 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also make the recommendation that the "785 approved surrealist" links by Josh Neuman also be deleted, since really the site is an advertisement for Josh Neuman's art. Likewise, "Surrealismnow" is also really just an advertisement for Keith Wigdor. You will notice that Keith Wigdor's name appears on just about every page of this latter site. While Wigdor might only be an "emerging artist" at best, he is not considered an important artist (or member, even) of the surrealist movement, therefore I vote for his site to be removed. Either that, or we fill the "art resources" section of the article with the myriad of all those many surrealist and pseudo-surrealist artist individuals. There's nothing wrong necessarily with having a lot of links for wiki-readers to chose from, but it is wrong to have Keith Wigdor and surrealismnow LINKFARM website as being the ultimate and only expert on contemporary surrealists. That would be a complete joke, and it also happens to be completely inaccurate.--TextureSavant 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed spam and vandalism in external links section, all these groups are completely non-notable and had articles VfD. Keep these groups out of the article!- Unsigned

Who is this Protector777? I noticed that he came here before to remove links, including the link to the Chicago group, which he called "personal spam" I think, but he left up the Wigdor link. Very suspicious. Now he has taken the measure of removing all the links. Sorry, but alot of those links contain some very in-depth information that readers of the article might find very interesting. There is no good reason to remove them, unless you're Keith Wigdor. TheEvilPanda 13:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Protector777: I didn't care that Keith's surrealismnow site was on here since it had been on here forever, but recently with the addition of yet another KW site, it's an obvious attempt to be more than "informative" for the sake of wikipedia. I delete spammy links and until recently, I didn't see his links as spammy since it was just one. I see his intentions now, so yes... I will help remove them. Leaving the surrealist groups on this page will eventually result in a link spamming by people starting their own personal groups, so lets keep it off of here. This is not a recruitment center.

Protector777: you are wrong, b/c the SurrealismNow site has not been on here "forever"; it has only been here for a year at most, and more likely a few months. Your reasoning for the surrealist groups' deletion is that they serve "recruitment" purposes, but that's not really a reason, and you know it. The links serve informational purposes, providing information to those who want to know about the most contemporary developments of the surrealist movement.

And you still haven't really said anything that would make one think that you are NOT Wigdor, so if you want an edit war, then you've got one. I only hope that this mediation effort works. It might be in your interest to go to that page, linked to below, and to enter the discussion, rather than hovering around the article, waiting to delete links that you don't like. In the meantime, I will restore the links you deleted.--TextureSavant 23:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The links have nothing to do with "recruitment". Surrealist groups do not seek "recruits". Surrealism is not about swelling your group's ranks with converts. Only surrealists join surrealist groups. I for one am neither a member nor an associate of any of the groups. The links provide a wealth of information on contemporary surrealist activity. The groups are all legitimate- that is, they are composed of surrealists doing surrealist work according to surrealist principles. If you look at any wikipedia article on various social/ political movements, there will usually be external links to existing groups if there are any. No one removes these links because of their supposed "recruiting" function. TheEvilPanda 01:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

This page is being voluntarily mediated through the Mediation Cabal. It would be appreciated if aggressive edits are avoided until a resolution is reached. The process is not compulsory, and the relevant page can be found here. Thanks. Jem 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jam and Protector777.Classicjupiter2 23:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Protector777 and ClassicJupiter2 are both Keith Wigdor's sockpuppets.--TextureSavant 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

More unnecessary allegations, we are here to work together for the benefit of the article and the Wiki community.Classicjupiter2 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Protector777: I've been removing spam from this page and other art related pages for a very long time. I don't care to prove myself about this issue at all.. it's a waste of my time since I really don't care what you think of me or my edits. Basically, I have nothing to do with KW.

So, for the real issue. Spamming this wiki for personal reasons. I'm removing the surrealist groups because this wiki page will not accept any single artist featured as an external link. SO, there's no reason that gathering 5-10 artists and creating a website for their combined efforts merits being promoted here. It's still a personal site that is not what's acceptable to be on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Protector777 (talk • contribs).

Well, I have had a look at the article and related namespaces. I would advise everyone to Follow Wikiquette and avoid personal attacks or accusations of sock puppetry. It appears that there is going to be no agreement about the inclusion of links, so I propose the following resolution. Comments on these ideas would be appreciated. Much of this is based from wikipedia guidelines on external linking.

  • All links to other Suurealist movements should be removed from an external links section. If they are included in the article and are relevant they should be allowed to stay. A list of groups is generally unencyclopedic.
  • If it is felt that the links have genuine and important relevance, they should be added to a new page, entitled along the lines of "International Surrealist Movements." However, in order for this page to remain relevant, each link must have a short description after it explaining its relevance (with NPOV). The top of the page should also have a description about what a Surrealist movement is, and how it affects surrealism. In this way, the links are retained but seperated from the artcle removing any possibility of non-NPOV allegations. The decision on this newly create dpage is subject then to peer review on its relevance, leaving the surrealism article to remain unaffected.
  • A link to the above suggested page could be included under the "See Also" section of Surrealism.
  • Each link that relates to another site that merely details examples of surrealism should be thoroughly reviewed. It is not suitable for links to other pages that merely concern surrealism to be placed here; many users would find these pages easily themselves through google or another search engine. Pages that are referenced from the article or directly back up a point made in the article should remain linked. Evidence for this should be given on this page to allow discussion.
  • Wikipedia's policy on external links states that pages must not be listed for the sole purpose of furthering the reputation of the page. If consensus is that a cetrain link violates this guideline, it should be removed.

What does everyone think of these proposals? Jem 12:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Jem, if you are going to create another article for International Surrealist Movement, they have to be notable to satisfy the Wikipedia guidelines. Remember that Andre Breton died in 1966 and the official surrealist movement under Andre Breton in Paris, the Paris Surrealist Group was disbanded in 1969. That fact is in many history books on surrealism, so lets keep the record accurate for the sake of Wikipedia, or you will be doing nothing but supporting self promotion of Eric Bragg and his friends who have been trying to get on Wikipedia for years.12.196.6.162 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, don' forget that if you guys do create a page or article for International Surrealist Movement, you will have to mention Bernard Dumaine and James Sebor, two International Surrealists, who are part of the International Surrealist Movement, and they also exhibited in an "International Surrealist" show last year in IA. Bernard Dumaine and James Sebor, two international surrealists are going to be in a book, "Metamorphosis" with Prof.Ernst Fuchs and other comrades in the surrealism and visionary movements, all under the same surreal movement. So you guys will have to include Jon Beinart, a great surreal artist and great supporter of international surrealism and visionary art and all the other surreal artists too. Beinart Surreal Art Collective should get mentioned. Beinart is the best surrealist out there!12.196.6.162 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what Jem says makes sense to me. At this point I don't feel that it's terribly important to include the group links. What is important is that recent important developments in surrealism (such as the Chicago group) are mentioned and that Wigdor's self-promotion is taken out. I accept the proposal and the article as it is right now. Here is another question which I hope can be answered- the Chicago Surrealist Group has an article devoted to it on wikipedia, is it acceptable to provide the group's link on the group's own article? This is another page that Classicjupiter2 has attempted to sabotage. TheEvilPanda 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Leaving the group links out of the surrealism article and writing separate articles about these groups might be a good alternative. But the problem is that this attempt has been made before, and Wigdor/ClassicJupiter2 has made efforts to either sabotage and/or have these separate articles deleted. And if there is to be an article about the International Surrealist Movement, I will state right here that I will do everything I can to keep Wigdor and any other art-opportunist out of it. The surrealist movement is very much against artist-opportunists like Wigdor who take no social responsibility for themselves, and the surrealist movement is about more than just art, but people like Wigdor never understand this important point. Therein lies the bone of contention.--TextureSavant 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am all for an International Surrealist Movement article! in fact, SURREALISM NOW! is the official website of The International Surrealist Movement as well as other related movements and tons and tons of surreal artists and surrealists as well. Lets go for it!12.196.6.162 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Include Beinart Surreal Art Collective!12.196.6.162 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Brave Destiny too!12.196.6.162 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wigdor, on the one hand, claims that the International Surrealist Movement was disbanded. He typically says this when people talk about legitimate existing groups. But then he goes on to say that his personal website is the "official website of the international surrealist movement." Pray tell, in what way is it official? Do you have photographic evidence of meeting Andre Breton or any other notable surrealists, Mr. Wigdor? An International Surrealist Movement page might be good, but frauds and hucksters like Wigdor have to be kept off of it otherwise it would be a joke. I am in favor of Jem's proposals, by the way, as long as Wigdor/Classicjupiter2/Surreal-one is kept off the Surrealism page. TheEvilPanda 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that the "mediation cabal" has done so far is to move the dispute (about wigdor and his self-serving antics) from the surrealism page to a new page, such as this envisioned "International Surrealist Movement" page. I wonder if we all have different goals: the mediators want peace and quiet on the surrealism page, while TheEvilPanda and I would like something to be done about Wigdor and his sockpuppets (since he has made himself into an obstacle with regards to creating and maintaining encyclopedic entries on current surrealist groups and activity).--TextureSavant 22:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Protector777.Classicjupiter2 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that the Surrealism Now website is spam? I'm glad we've come to a consensus on this. TheEvilPanda 13:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm relieved.--TextureSavant 14:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to add the SURREALISM NOW! link back in, a direct link to SURREALISM NOW's SURREALISM RESOURCES page on that site, so once the student or researcher clicks on it, they go right to SURREALISM RESOURCES and LINKS, this is for study and research which the External Links was originally intended. The two above users were the ones who started this edit war, which I have no interest in engaging for the benefit of the Wikipedia community.Classicjupiter2 17:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Classicjupiter2's recent action proves that he is not to be trusted. The mediation process means nothing to him. He had already agreed to leave the Wigdor links off. He needs to banned. There's nothing else that can be done. TheEvilPanda 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please no attacks, for the benefit of the Wikipedia community, we can work out a consensus, we are not here to attack and engage in an edit war, you started this problem.Classicjupiter2 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if you want so much to put your friends groups in, then do so. As for the links that been on here for months, SURREALIST ART and RESOURCES, they stay. I added BEINART SURREAL ART COLLECTIVE because they also have many notable artists. Also, I couldn't help but notice Eric W.Bragg's SURREALCOCONUT in the links of that site, so its a win=win for all.Classicjupiter2 19:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That is Eric Bragg's name on there, you know, among all those "artists", http://www.beinart.org/links/artists.php go see....Classicjupiter2 19:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to promote Eric Bragg. It's already been agreed, including by you, that these links will be kept off. Further, by your own logic, since the international surrealist movement was disbanded, it is impossible for Wigdor to be its leader. Therefore, the Surrealismnow.com contains misinformation any way you look at it. As for the edit war, you started it years ago when you began sabotaging Boyer's work. Anyone can look at the archive and see what you have done. Somebody ban this guy please. TheEvilPanda 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear TheEvilPanda, please work with me on this. First, do not attack me and please stop insisting that I must be banned, that is not proper Wikipedia manners. We are all here to help one another, not hurt one another. For the benefit of the article, lets allow the administrators to decide the outcome of the issue, either way, I will honor the arrangement that is upheld among a consensus of administrators' decisions to further implement reform to this article. I am not here to argue Surrealism and argue who is and who is not a surrealist. I read the policy guidelines for External Links and specifically SURREALISM NOW!, which has been on the external links section for months, until you insisted on these attacks, etc., provides a neutral resource for students and researchers for specifically the study of Surrealism, go to the page in question and see what I mean. Also, SURREALISM NOW! is not a commercial website. It was created by a surrealist named Keith Wigdor for the entire public to engage in the study and research of Surrealism and also, for the purpose of exhibition of surrealist art today, and most important, this website is exclusively non-commercial. Any artist that insists of selling their art or a product of their creation is provided a link to that item in question to their own site. Take for example the website, THE SURREALIST MOVEMENT IN THE USA and The Chicago Surrealist Group which are mentioned within the Surrealism article here on Wikipedia. According to the guidelines established by Wikipedia Policy, a commercial website selling books, (ISBN, etc) does not meet the criteria for inclusion, yet this group and its links, and scan are provided within the article. OK, so now, they have been given exposure within the Wikipedia article. Now, its up to the editors, the Wikipedia Community, its administrators, etc to decide the enforcement of policy if this material warrants inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia, same goes for SURREALISM NOW! and anything Surrealist related. You appear to be real sore at this Keith Wigdor, let it go. Why go on and on over one guy? What is the threat that this Wigdor is to your precious Internaional Surrealist Movement and its groups? This is not to be debated withing the parameters of an online encyclopedia and the constant insults and attacks to have users banned, myself included. We are here to help and provide one another with the information and resources to further benefit the article, not hinder its growth and integrity.Classicjupiter2 19:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Classicjupiter2, time and time again, you have yourself argued about who is and who is not a surrealist. Anyone can see this in the archive. I suggest you cooperate with Jem our mediator, as TextureSavant and I have, and cease spamming the article with your links. The Surrealism Now link is a site of personal promotion for Keith Wigdor. It contains lies and misinformation, and the little information it does have about surrealism can be found already in the article and the external links already provided. The site is superfluous- worse, it is misleading, and therefore will not be allowed in the article. The Chicago group's website has not been included, so your point about commercial linking here is empty. The Arsenal scans are from the Marcuse website and in fact I put them there at YOUR request. So in no way can the mention of the Chicago group or the Arsenal link be considered in violation of the commercial links policy. If you have any respect for the mediation process you will cease inserting your promotional links. TheEvilPanda 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am cooperating with Jem, the mediator, you started this problem, if you keep removing the SURREALISM NOW! link, I will put it back in. Notice how you and Texture Savant come out of the woodworks to start an edit conflict along with the non-stop attacks. As for the Surrealism Now! link, its stays.Classicjupiter2 20:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As per our agreement, the art links and group links will no longer be on the surrealism page. It looks like Classicjupiter2(Keith Wigdor) is breaking the agreement by trying to put a link to his surrealismnow site back on the page. This is not an act of cooperation, but of defiance. Hopefully this vandalistic behavior will catch the attention of an administrator. In the meantime, if I see art links added to the article, I will delete them.--TextureSavant 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, I was away yesterday and I apologise for missing most of this dispute. However, this cannot be allowed to go much further, or else it will end in formal mediation. Inevitabley, this will end with further sanctions for all concerned. The way I see it, we have made some progress, and fallen back in other ways. It appears to be consensus that the groups will not be included in this article, unless specifically and directly relevant to the body of the text. This isssue seems to be free from dispute. If any person here wishes to create articles about seperate surrealist movements, as per my suggestion, then they are more than welcome to- provided they meet notability requirements. If these groups are as well known as it is claimed here, then there should be no problem with this. If they are not, the articles will be speedily deleted anyway, and that will end the matter. If, as it is claimed also, there is any vandalism to these subsequent pages that is not constructive, this should be referred along the appropriate channels.

I think, however, now is the time for serious co-operation. This revert war will, and has, led to bans being put in place by completely neutral administrators. In my opinion, TextureSavant and TheEvilPanda have made a sacrifice by saying that the links to the surrealist movements, whilst perhaps relevant, do not contribute massively to the article. In a similar vein, the SurrealismNow! link, whilst being completely relevant to the article, does not change it sufficiently enough to warrant it being included. This is not my personal judgement, it is that of wikipedia guidelines; specifically that it would not add a unique resource if the article was to become featured. I notice, co-incidentally, that becoming featured is one of the aims of the article. As such, perhaps people should submit to the wishes of the community and allow this to become featured, and not jepoardise it by adding what are evidently controversial links.

I wish also to point out another guideline, specifically Conflict of Interest. This states that before a link is added that may contain any promotion of a secific person related to the article (such as Keith Wigdor, the apparent leader of the surrealist movement) then the link should be posted on the talk page before the article to allow consensus. This doesn't appear to have happened before the link was added, but the consensus in its wake does appear to be against such a link. Although I am remaining entirely neutral, I must advise that should this matter go to mediation or arbitration (as it looks like it may if no resolution is reached), it is highly likely it will be found that the SurrealismNow! cotnravenes these guidelines.

Lastly, perhaps this may help the situation regarding the links. The DMOZ Open Directory Project is a regulated and edited database of links that are neutral and deemed to be of good quality. Adding {{tlp|dmoz|Arts/Art_History/Periods_and_Movements/Surrealism}} will give {{dmoz|Arts/Art_History/Periods_and_Movements/Surrealism}}, providing an indepenantly verified and neutral body of links. If it is felt that a "resource" link is worth being on DMOZ, then it is also worth being on wikipedia, and should be submitted to the DMOZ. This is, again, supported by guidelines (point 2).

Also, if this edit warring continues, administrators will ban users solely on their violation of the 3RR, not because of the article itself, so I must strongly advise against such behaviour.

As always your comments are welcomed, and I hope we can reach a conclusion. Jem 11:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with the article as it is, and I'll abide by Jem's recommendations. However, I think Classicjupiter2 should be banned, otherwise he will surely cause further trouble when he feels the admins aren't looking anymore. TheEvilPanda 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's disappointing that the wiki admins haven't bothered to do anything about Wigdor's(ClassicJupiter2) 3+ years of vandalism to this article. Usually his style is to wait until things cool down, and then you will see him putting his surrealismnow link back into the article. Very sneaky! But alas, the admins don't really care.--TextureSavant 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see this going better. I sincerely hope it stays this way and you should have some faith, but, if in the future this edit war restarts, then perhaps it may be best to go to arbitration or formal mediation, as the cabal can only do so much. I'll wait to see Classicjupiter's response, but hopefully this case should close soon. Jem 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, I am in college and me and my friends needed that surrealismnow link on here! What happened to it? Our professor loved that surrealismnow website.Fatsosurrealist 15:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Keith.--TextureSavant 15:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My name is Frank Riccardi, I am not Keith. My class needs that study link back in, thanks.Fatsosurrealist 18:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Keith, you and Frank should try saving the link as a favorite, that way, you wouldn't need to find the link on wikipedia. Or if that isn't possible, here's an idea: why don't you get a pen and write the URL down somewhere? Do they have pens and paper where you are?--TextureSavant 02:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It's unfortunate that your class is benefited by the addition of links that have a long history of being controversial (see, uh, above). I'm not really interested in the whole argument about whether these links are useful / self-promotional / etc -- instead, I've reverted your changes on the basis that editing entries based on "what my class needs" is not a good reason for editing Wikipedia. Best, Docether 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I am very concerned about this sudden influx of very new users who have appeared and just jumped back to reverting links in order to push a particular viewpoint; it would be a lot more helpful for us all if they are discussed here. If this continues, then there may be evidence of sockpuppetry, and although I would advise against filing sucha report at this stage, people will be well within their right to. It would be betetr to reach consensus here first. Speaking of which, I do believe that we had found a consensus before these reverts. It isn't my place to involve myself in the reverts, but if we feel consensus is to keep the page without links, then it is more than justified to revert the changes. Be mindful of 3RR however. Jem 09:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jem, an investigation into the sockpuppetry is a wonderful idea. Wigdor has been playing these sockpuppet/impersonation games for years. "punkrockerarist" and "fatsosurrealist" are most likely his. Isn't it strange that those 2 users have appeared only over the last few days, just to attempt to restore Keith Wigdor's "surrealisnmow" link? I think filing a report about Keith Wigdor's sockpuppetry is a great idea -- That's what I vote for.--TextureSavant 14:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Do it. Please. TheEvilPanda 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jem! Dude, I got yer message. I am into surrealism and its history, that link was good for the page here. Dig it, guys, I am not into any feuds, maybe a little moshing in the pit, dig, but I am not here to feud.Punkrockerartist 19:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Keith, that's real convincing. Keep piling on more cliches please, dig. TheEvilPanda 06:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My name is not Keith, its Mike. Chill out.Punkrockerartist 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

These two links don't seem to fit with the overview/historical tone of this article. I'd like to remove them.

Museum for Surrealism in Germany

This looks to be the works of an individual artist rather than an informative, overview or academic piece.

Franz Kafka and Marcel Proust, the 2 Albums, "recomposed photographs", in a rather surrealist spirit.

While possibly surrealist collage work, "rather surrealist spirit" seems tertiary and perhaps confusing to the topic at hand.

Comments? >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Kafka & Proust were never part of the surrealist movement, then the link is really irrelevant. And you're right: "surrealist spirit" is a vague descriptor, and not necessarily surrealist. And the German surrealist museum link is also just for a select artist(s), so it probably doesn't need to be in the text. I like the idea of having a minimal amount of links for this article, and certainly ones that deal with individual artists can become too numerous and cumbersome, especially all of those non-notable ones.--TextureSavant 15:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I removed them, assuming I guess, that silence by other editors means agreement. >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism and its history after Breton died

It is a well documented fact that Surrealism as an organized movement ended after Andre Breton died in 1966. For the benefit of the article, its wise to leave out any mention of "The Chicago Surrealist Group" since it is a front for a business BLACK SWANN PRESS that sells books written by the Rosemonts, who make a living off their self-promotion.Classicjupiter2 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly a "well documented fact". The most intense period(s) of surrealist activity have been after this point, with the expansion of the movement to include groups all around the world. Its history is absolutely continuous before Breton died and after, with no break. If you are using the Paris group as a basis, this is truly questionable, as groups other than the Paris one (Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Japan) existed decades before Breton's death and the Czech group has existed uninterrupted until the present day. If you are still, without any evidence, going to say that surrealism "as an organized movement" ended with Breton's death (Breton made very clear that the movement wasn't personally tied to him in that way and said surrealism would continue after him), that is certainly a POV, but when this claim is made in the article it certainly can't be stated as a fact. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you substansiate these claims? As a mediator, it is my job to get people to talk before making changes, as I have said all along. The fact that you have simply stated the reasons for your actions is not consensus or discussion, and you are not helping the article here. We had already reached consensus that references to the Chicago group could remain if linked to the article, which it was before it was reverted. Furthermore, it says that the group was active in the 1960s. This could therefore have taken place before 1966, when you claim Breton died and the movement died with him. It is these points that may seem small but give reason for discussion. Jem 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jem, the group was active in the 1960s -- it started in 1966 -- it was active in the 1970s, it was active in the 1980s, it was active in the 1990s and is active in the oughts with no interruption of its activity or any sort of modification that would lead one to make these sorts of judgements. If they are going to be made anyway with no evidence, they should be treatd (edited) cautiously so as to give them the weight they deserve (it could be expressed that it's certain people's -- and then they can be identified -- POV that the group ended, though this is not in harmony with any actual events). --Daniel C. Boyer 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Jem, Keith Wigdor's/ClassicJupiter2's purpose is 2-fold: to promote himself and to discredit other surrealists. You could consider this a case of sour grapes. He also bashes some of these contemporary surrealist groups online, on various online forums, like the indymedia websites. But regardless, I think the Chicago group have proven their encyclopedic noteworthiness through their 4 decades of activity, through their numerous publications and events. Wigdor's just being vengeful because his personal (surrealismnow.com) link was removed!--TextureSavant 01:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jem, go here for starters, its a business that sells books, http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org/pages/black.html Classicjupiter2 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also initiating an investigation int sockpuppetry by the account Classicjupiter2. This will solve the last line of debate. If Classicjupiter2 has no tinvolved himself in any sockpuppetry he will be exonnerated. If however, the opposite is true he will be appropriately sanctioned. I do this as a neutral decision for the benefit of the article, as to end all of these accusations. I am by no means taking sides here. Jem 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jem, do you know anything about The Chicago Surrealist Group before you have been involved with this article? I only ask this out of curiousity. What about your own knowledge of surrealism and the surrealist movement? Just because a groups says that they are active since the 1960's, does not mean that they are (Read Franklin Rosemont's own word on his site for yourself). As for your investigation into sockpuppets, it would also be a good idea to investigate the integrity of the information that has been on this article. I have been editing on here for years, sir, please take that into consideration when you do your investigation, and while you are at it, investigate the information on this article, like everyone else.Classicjupiter2 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What does it say on Franklin Rosemont's site (and what is the URL) that would disprove this claim? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Its only fair to open a case against TextureSavant and TheEvilPanda who are the same user, Eric W.Bragg. Fair is fair.Classicjupiter2 23:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not the same person as TheEvilPanda. In all likelihood our respective IPs will indicate that we reside in different parts of the world. Please feel free to check on this if it makes you feel better. Oh, and so far, both Texturesavant and TheEvilPanda have not been vandalizing the article, while indeed Classicjupiter2/Punkrockerartist/fatsosurrealist/SurrealOne have, so really it is this latter cluster of usernames which would warrant the closest level of scrutiny!--TextureSavant 01:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not invesitgating; this is done by a neutral party of administrators. I wouldn't like to see this case go to the ArbCom, so I have recommended this course of action to avoid this. On an aside, I know nothing of the Surreaslist movement, I am a scientist not an art student. But perhaps this serves to illustrate some of the ambiguity in the article that is being created if a non-expert reads the article and gets a completely separate meaning from what is meant by the experts. Something to consider perhaps. Jem 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jem- there really is no way to substantiate the claim that surrealism died with Andre Breton. I would also note that Classicjupiter2 himself does not really believe this, since he claims Keith Wigdor (himself) is the movement's current leader, and also praises other individuals/groups that he describes as surrealist. I've pointed this out before and Wigdor has yet to respond to it because he knows his position in untenable. He only claims the movement died in an attempt to discredit surrealists and groups that he dislikes. The claim is entirely subjective- the "evidence" he provides are the opinions of some art historians who were never part of the movement. Surrealism has a number of identifiable principles, and none of them centered on the person of Andre Breton. It therefore stands to reason that current groups that practice these principles, stand in the tradition, and call themselves surrealists are real surrealist groups. The Chicago Surrealist Group actually did have a living connection with Breton and the original Paris group, both directly and through other later surrealists like Ted Joans and Philip Lamantia. The group continues to be active and has been an important influence in contemporary surrealism and surrealist scholarship (for example, Penelope Rosemont's Surrealist Women anthology). TheEvilPanda 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you know this?Classicjupiter2 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If the Rosemonts were lying, Elisa Breton (who did not die until 2000) would have said so, as the Rosemonts mention meeting her at the same time. Instead, she wrote them a warm and friendly letter which is published in Arsenal number 4 I believe. There are many other people who they met who have not denied it either. TheEvilPanda 16:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One of Keith Wigdor's/ClassicJupiter2's wikipedia disruption tactics has been to insist on viewing a photo of Rosemont and Breton standing together, as if such a photo is the only way to validate Rosemont & Breton's relationship. Wigdor's logic is that the lack of such a photo is solid proof of Rosemont's non-notability. Once again, sour grapes from Wigdor. You can see some of this on the discussion page [1] of the chicago surrealist group, if you take a look at Classicjupiter2's comments. Apparently Wigdor/CJ2 has been very eager to get rid of this article for a long time. Sorry, Keith -- the article won't be deleted. --TextureSavant 17:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was asking a question to one peson, it seems that two are answering for one and hyping this Chicago "surrealist" Group. The Elisa Breton letter is published in "WHAT IS SURREALISM" and it does not indicate anything about a meeting that took place with Andre Breton back in 1965. In fact, the letter in Rosemont's book that he edited, CLEARLY states (the letter in question is from 1967) about the inability to carry on the movement between Paris and Chicago in the USA. In fact, the Paris Group disbanded in 1969 anyway. The obvious is that you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote non-notable "groups" by latching on to this Chicago bunch and the legacy of Breton. Also, Lamantia and Joans's involvment in Surrealism was extrememly fleeting. Though Joans did write a lot of boring polemic rants against the master surrealist Dali, which is old news anyway. Even a sourpuss like Joans knew that he could not reach the greatness of Dali and claimed the racist card as usual, because he was black.Punkrockerartist 00:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There you have it Jem- ClassicJupiter2 has just admitted that Punkrockerartist is his sockpuppet (he says "I thought I was asking a question to one peson..."- the question being referred to was asked under the Classicjupiter2 name). I think this is pretty definitive proof. Goodbye, Keith. TheEvilPanda 04:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude or dudette, I didn't admit to anything. I forgot to ask my question to you. Which is: Why do you hype this Chicago "surrealist" group? My name is Mike, by the way, and you can call me Mike, Dude (or dudette, if you are a female).Punkrockerartist 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, "Mike," that's quite a transformation, from writing exactly like Classicjupiter2 to now giving us a pathetic attempt to approximate "punk rocker" speech. How do you follow up a question that you "forgot" to ask? You should try meeting some actual punk-rockers, Keith. Use the word "dudette" and see how they laugh at you. TheEvilPanda 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few punk rockers here at Pratt! Hey Mike, its Frank, Dude, you rock! How many blacks did Andre Breton allow into his Paris group?Fatsosurrealist 17:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone!

Hi everyone, my name is Lisa Petrasci. Whats all the fuss going on here at the Surrealism page?Lisa Petrasci 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is sad, Keith. TheEvilPanda 21:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

?Lisa Petrasci 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism has become a soap opera. >>sparkit|TALK<< 06:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction, Sparkit: surrealism has become a Keith Wigdor sockpuppet soap opera. All of this is happening because Keith Wigdor's surrealismnow.com link was removed from the article. It's interesting how some people respond to the face of adversity, eh?--TextureSavant 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The best way to respond to the 'face of adversity' is this: SURREALISM NOW! The Official Website of the Surrealist Movement in the 21st Century and all its affinities, created by Keith Wigdor to save Surrealism from the gasbags! Unfortunately these gasbags, the bogus 'surrealist' groups that DICTATE the MARVELOUS to the world (while shutting anyone and everything out) are engaging in this worst kind of deception, a ruse to cash in on the monopoly of sad intellectual hasbeens with no artistic and creative talent, yet they attach their names like parasites to the legacy of Andre Breton: These hypocritical criminals are: Eric W.Bragg (yes, the Eric W.Bragg, no need to go in there), Brandon Freels (a 30 year old self labeled intellectual dynamo from Portland, but very vain and shallow and rather dumb too), Shibek (real name Jim Redden), Morgan Miller (a bartender in Portland), Lady Hannah Cadaver (a fairly attractive goth model in Australia, but extremely vain and shallow), her silly boyfriend Xtian (a real no talent creep), Zazie (real name Evi Moechel) the ex-Webist found guilty of hypocrisy and surrealist treason by the Paris Surrealist Group (another group of gasbags, however Marie Dominique Massoni is really the real surrealist thing, Guy Girad is lame), Pierre Petiot, an overweight gasbag in an online rift with Michael Richardson, our dear friend Daniel C.Boyer, a Wikipedia surrealist who is a lotta fun in his back and forth with comrade CJ2!, Stuart Inman (a nobody gasbag whose claim to surrealist fame is contributing to ANALAGOON, who cares!), SLAG (a bunch of full of themselves hypocrites who write endless rants in online blogs denouncing anything that violates the marvelous, yet they do not do a damn thing about it!), and last but not least, FRANKLIN and his lame wife PENELOPE ROSEMONT, the dynamic duo from Chicago who hijacked Surrealism and totally alienated anyone from the outside that showed any real interest in this great movement! They are the biggest criminals of all, cashing in on the marvelous, while duping the public, as well. Bragg is their toy poodle, SURREALONE was right on that!Lisa Petrasci 16:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it normal for the admins to take this long? Now Keith isn't even trying to hide it. TheEvilPanda 18:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For God's Sake! For all that is sacred and holy in the anarchist tradition of our almighty Surrealism! Will someone in a position of authority DO SOMETHING???!!! Call the Police! Call President Bush! Call Dick Cheney! Call Jamie the 17 year-old scientist student! Call Franklin Rosemont! Call the USA troops back from Iraq to handle this Wigdor character! Call Art Linkletter! Call somebody! Oh Dear God!Lisa Petrasci 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's spelt Jaimie, actually, Lisa. Your sarcasm is tantamount to a personal attack on me, and as such will not be tolerated. Please consider this a warning. Jem 19:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jamie, just because I spell your name wrong doesn't mean you have to be so authoritarian with me. Honest mistake. You are a 17 year old who admits to spending more time on Wikipedia than you do your own studies, what does that say about your role in 'authority'? Wait, I forgot, you, Jaime, are here to moderate this Wikipedia, that is wonderful and great for Wikipedia, there is no denying that fact. I am not being sarcastic with you, young man, just being very direct with you and I respect you (here in this data realm), so please respect me and don't talk down to me and give me warnings. Now go and do your homework! Consider that a warning, young man!Lisa Petrasci 19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jem, now you can see what the real Keith Wigdor(Lisa Petrasci/Classicjupiter2/SurrealOne/fatsosurrealist/punkrockartist) is like. His bitterness and sarcasm shine through every time. Oh, if only his poor surrealismnow link wasn't deleted from the article, then he wouldn't be acting like this. Poor, unfortunate Keith Wigdor: he'll just have to find another way to advertise his website. But I do think the admins should ban Wigdor from wikipedia. Lisa Petrasci is just another sockpuppet for Wigdor.--TextureSavant 01:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to put the case in perspective

Check this link as a source http://www.davaoweb.com/bien_banez_1.html

Keith is the recognized leader of the NEW International Surrealist Movement!!!

Wiki always requires evidence, and this link is from a vetted, verifyed international news source. If you check his SurrealismNOW site, you will also see internationally recognized artists participating. He is credible and legimate, not like the Chicago group or Rosemont. Evil Panda and the others are unknowns who want to take over the article. They have no credentials or verifyed sources. Surreal-one

Look how desperate Keith Wigdor is! This davaoweb.com website is all about local news for a city in the Phillipines. The person who wrote the article is only some kind of local reporter/writer, not even part of any art movement or group or whatever. The only reason why Wigdor is listed as the "leader of the int'l surrealist movement" is because Wigdor described himself that way to the person who wrote the article. This article is meaningless, and there is nothing conclusive about it other than that these are a group of emerging artists who are trying to generate some hype about their newest works.
Furthermore, isn't it kind of strange that a no-name periodical in the Philipines mentions Wigdor as the leader of the surrealist movement, while there are no other sources to substantiate this outrageous claim?!? I hope the editors/admins here @ wikipedia are able to see that this Keith Wigdor is nothing but a charlatan, in addition to being a sockpuppeteer.--TextureSavant 16:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Evil Panda says about the Rosemont's being assocated with Breton; "if the Rosemonts were lying, Elisa Breton (who did not die until 2000) would have said so," That hardly constitutes proof that Rosemont & Breton had any regard for each. It would not hold up in court of law and should not on Wiki. One might also say that She did not deny that Wigdor is the current leader of the movement. So Wigdor is the leader!

Look, all of those Midwestern guys who claim to be revolutionary surrealists, more power to them. They are just not important outside their small pond. And they never will be because they want to be exclusive in their small domain. The reason Wigdor is the leader is that he is expansive, not exclusive. Since you can't beat him, join him!Surreal-one

Your fail to mention that Elisa not only did not denounce the Rosemonts, she wrote a letter to them, published in Arsenal, and also co-signed a collective letter to them published in "What is Surrealism". This letter also included Toyen and Mimi Parent. The letter very plainly recognizes the Chicago group as surrealists. Elisa never said anything about Wigdor because she had never heard of this obscure internet troll and had better things to do. TheEvilPanda 16:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you very well know that Elisa was quite senile at her end. I am sure that Rosemont wrote to her and she wrote a kind letter back as she would have to any sychophant of her husband's. She just did not know who the hell he was! We also know that anything published in the Arsenal in likely bogus! Ans the "What is Surrealism" is by Rosemont himself, the big liar! You are using Rosemont to verify that Rosemont is connected to Breton!!! How likely are we to accept that as verification! Get real and provide proof in the New York Times or the Washington Post that Rosemont is important and is Breton;s legacy. We all know that Wigdor is the current leader.

If you get a letter from the Museum of Modern Art or the Metropolitan Museum today saying that Rosemont is anything important I will be impressed! Surreal-one

The letter was written in the 60's and Elisa was not senile, in fact the activities of the Rosemonts are discussed in detail so she knew who they were and what they were doing. The book was published in 1978 so if there were any lies or distortions someone would have said something by now. Try reading it sometime. As for the museums and newspapers you mention, none of them will ever mention Keith Wigdor, so you fail at your own criterion for importance! TheEvilPanda 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies about my lack of knowledge about when Elias wrote to the Rosemonts, etc. But since I and most people do not follow Rosemont, whether or not Elisa wrote to the Rosemont's in the 1960's is something we would not have known. Why did Breton NOT write to Rosemont??? I still believe she was replying with a standard 'thanks for kissing my husband's ass" to a non-entity sycophant, Viz., Rosemont. This book published by Rosemont in 1978 or any other time does not lend any credibillity to anything. He lies too much. Look, as a local has-been "self-proclaimed surrealist" of the midwest who makes a lot of noise, he is still not "important" and never was "important." Or else there would be a lot of articles about him NOT ALL BY HIM and they would be by well known authorties at universities. Let the poor fellow Rosemont drift into oblivion without reminding him and us of the ridiculous thinking that is his shame.Surreal-one

As much as I am giving up hope of ever finding an amicable solution to this problem, I would remind everyone that a talk page is not for discussing the topic of Surrealism and is for discussing changes to the article. We seem to have got a little off topic? Jem 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jem; i will assume that you have the best interests of the article at heart, but there are older and very clever people here who are trying to undermine the article. Whatever Classicjupiter does is basically in the best interests of historical "surrealism" and the article. This discussion is very much about who will control the information in the article. i am hoping the Midwestern faction will yield to truth and not try to rewrite history. I think if they stop attacking Wigdor and worked with him they would benefit, and so would TRUTH. Surreal-one

Surrealism in the arts section

Much of the information in the "Surrealism in the arts" section was duplicated in the Surrealism in the arts article. Though I'd personally like to see "Surrealism in the arts" as a section of the main Surrealism article, I updated the Surrealism in the arts article with the changes from the main article, and then cut it from the main article. Avoiding duplication is my intent. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a term paper on Franklin Rosemont for my professor at Pratt and he failed me! All Rosemont's alleged 'connections' to Breton are bogus. I should have switched majors! Damn!Fatsosurrealist 18:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So I will leave all of you for a while. Hope you will not fight. Best thing is, leave out everything controversial. If you put in the unimportant, the article becomes unimportant. If you are THAT important, you are important whether you are in the article or not. Best regards!!! God Bless the Midwesterners...Do something important!Surreal-one

This Rosemont is a scam. He never met Breton, I read the book! That letter says nothing about a meeting with Breton and this Rosemont!Fatsosurrealist 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Bill McAlery and I am a native of Chicago for the past 40 years. About Franklin Rosemont. He is only a local hero among the Chicago labor rights movement, he really has limited involvement with the arts, real limited, except for his old gallery 'Bugs Bunny' that he ran with his wife, Penelope, real shitty artists that claimed they were surrealists. There were others in the local arts in Chicago that used to call Franklin out on his bluff, if he really did meet Breton, he said he did, but thats all he would say. Others, myself included, did not buy into it. Just to let ya all know.Bill McAlery 22:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Keith Wigdor creates a new sockpuppet every day. Today, it is "Bill McAlery". --TextureSavant 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am talking about Franklin Rosemont. He has really made a rep for himself over his alleged connection to Breton, I and others in Chicago think its made up.Bill McAlery 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is shocking. I am afraid I am closing this MedCab case pending SSP investigations. It is also my recommendation that this case should be taken to ther ArbCom in the near future if there is no improvement. Jem 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this, Jaime. After 2 years of ongoing battle on these pages about who is or isn't a valid surrealist or surrealism resource maybe it is time to go to ArbCom. >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I've noticed this page because of the case on WP:SSP. In view of the backlog there, someone might want to place a request at WP:RCU instead; they usually respond quickly there, and the sock problems here seem pretty severe. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea.Bill McAlery 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the results, Keith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2 --TextureSavant 03:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Frank McCort and the dublin surrealist group from 1979

Anyone have any information on Frank McCort and the dublin surrealist group from 1979?Dublin Surrealist 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sparkit, that was a legit link to real surrealist groups.LiquidGeology 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is to discuss links and arrive at consensus on their appropriateness before adding them to the page.
So, how's about everyone post their pet links here on the talk page and let's discuss. Or shall we wait for this sockpuppet thing to be resolved?
>>sparkit|TALK<< 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Users "LiquidGeology" and "DublinSurrealist" are both sockpuppets of Keith Wigdor, most likely. Notice how both accounts were created today. I wonder if another checkuser analysis should be done? What do you think, Sparkit? --TextureSavant 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I think if you think they are sockpuppet accounts you might want to add them to the SSP dealie, or the checkuser thingie. :) I'm impatient to have the problem resolved, myself. >>sparkit|TALK<< 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser will probably give you a faster response. You might also want to request that the page be protected, if new accounts keep adding links against consensus. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I put in the request for the usercheck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2_2nd_case
What I'm not sure about is how to get the surrealism page protected. Are we to assume that because Classicjupiter2's sockpuppet accounts have been blocked indefinitely, that the IPs he's using are also being blocked?--TextureSavant 00:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The underlying IPs are not being blocked. You can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. I think the page might qualify for some kind of protection, but you'll need to read over the policies at WP:FULL and WP:SEM and see what you think. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
ok, I made a page protection request.--TextureSavant 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Simulated reality

I will remove thei s link when the page becomes unlocked.1Z 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is a wikilink in the "See also" section. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surrealism/Archive_9&oldid=1251936124"