Hey, Akhilleus. Since you were a recipient of Cretanpride's lovely little email back in September, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new proposed policy under discussion at Wikipedia:Death threats. I've put in my two quadrantes, but I thought you'd like to know as well. Best, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts in the field of Classical Greece and Rome, for your upstanding patience and care when working with your articles, and specifically for your defense of academic consensus on the pages The Odyssey, Alexander the Great and Homosexuality in ancient Greece, I award you, Akhilleus, with this Epic Barnstar, which ironically refers both to the topic which you clearly adore and to your resiliency in the face of the 'many twists and turns' these challenges have given you. CaveatLectorTalk 06:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#historical_periods. Thanks! --Espoo 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted Mythical chronology of Greece on 20 October, saying "nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythical chronology of Greece". Seeing that there is no deletion debate at this link, I will undelete the article for now. I might add that I can conceive of no reason to delete this article, please explain your reasons. dab (ᛏ) 09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the proper discussion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mythical_chronology_of_Greece_(second_nomination). However, we do need an article on Jerome's chronology. I really don't see why this had to be deleted instead of fixed, so instead of undeleting, I'll recreate the timeline at Jerome's chronology of Greek mythology. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Did you see my response to your arguments? --Espoo 10:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda maverick 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)I added a book reference to the Diogenes article. Is that what you guys want? I'm new here.[reply]

If you thinks the Greeks would not have understood the concept of child corruption, you must not have had a look at Plato's Phaedrus. Check 241c,d. Socrates himslef recognizes that a bad lover can ruin not just the body of a boy, but his mind and spirit. And what difference do you see in pedo-philia and ped-erasty? They refer to the same business - "love" of boys, making boys into "lovers" respectively. Brenda maverick 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Achilles - I am very familiar with the literature, but I confess to spending way more time studying the original material (with some knowledge of Greek) rather than reading the critics. (I have read Dover's book more than once.) I believe etymologies are helpful, actually, especially if you study the original contexts of the words without prejudice. The passage in the Phaedrus to which I directed you is a case in point. Socrates himself admits here ( and elsewhere) that having an old lover is not "necessarily " a blessing for the youngster. Europe fell into a funk for 2,000 years partly on account of the denial of observation of evidence, and worship of authority. I do not seee myself doing what you disparage as "original research" so much as pointing out what is actually IN these texts - so that we can see what is there, and quit finding stuff that is not there. I do think these discussions are useful, by the by. Brenda maverick 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see how looking at the evidence in the text constitutes "original research". As for this particular point about corruption of the young: in this speech, Socrates goes on and on about the miseries of the boy in the arms of an old ugly drunk, and the grief that comes to him from the old man's faithlessness, irritability, and jealousy. He says the old man has no goodwill towards the boy but is just satisfying his appetites (as the wolf "loves" - "agape" his food). Its after this that Socrates says that a boy in this situation is injured ("blaptw") in property, body and mind. So for you to say that the Greeks "did not/would not have understood the concept of child corruption" cannot possibly be right. Besides this, they were human beings, and very advanced people at that, so it is absurd from that point of view. Clearly, Socrates and his cronies were good with sex with boys, but so are some elements of our own culture - congress and the catholic church for examples. There is no monolith of opinion even today on the matter, and doubtless there was not then, either. So this business about concensus (for which you are praised on this talk page) inevitably misrepresents reality, then and now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

All we were talking about was your remark - that the idea of child corruption was entirely foreign to the Greeks. I haven't been interpreting the Phaedrus anywhere in my articles, just trying to make the point that your rationale for deleting my sentence does not hold up. i did read the article on POV (and the other one) and I am trying to conform to it without doing violence to the material. And I read somewhere that "Achilles" mean "the people's grief" - but this is not certain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

Mr. Achilles, Fine to leave it out, but not for the reason you give, that the idea of child sexual abuse (as we term it today) was foreign to the Greeks. Even if you don't think Socrates was guilty of it (and I personally think the historial facts concerning the life of Socrates are not only irrecoverable but also irrelevant to understanding Plato), the important thing is that Socrates himself explicitly discusses the problem. Do you deny even this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

In the Charmides, Socrates gets excited at the sight of the inwards of a child's cloak and quizzes him about sophrosne (self-control). Charmides is in the company of his "epitrophos" - a surrogate parent, caretaker (we'd say "childsitter"). In the Lysis, the boys' guardians come to walk them home after they have been playing knucklebones. Do fourteen year old boys need to be walked home? In fact, plato carefully avoids giving exact ages. Why? Because it is a grey area and a matter of judgment, and the distinction between taking advantage of a kid and having a legitimate relationship is hard to codify. Why are you so sure Plato was not at least raising an eyebrow? Why does he have Socrates trash talk man-boy love, and then feel like he needs to beg the forgiveness of Eros? Why does he even raise the spectre of abuse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

I suspect that Skinner's argument is circular - young men must have been under the control of a male guardian until the age of 18 BECAUSE Socrates would not have been hitting on anyone under the age of 18. What is Skinner's independent evidence that Charmides (or the boys in Lysis - Menexenus and Hippothales) was 18 and not 11 or 12? I really try NOT to speculate, but boys who need to be walked home from school must be pretty young, too young to be making decisions about which old men are appropriate sex partners. But don't mistake me - I am just saying that Plato is full of innuendo. You can't be sure beyond a doubt of how to interpret him. But to take him at face value is to neglect his own warning- that "children" cannot find hidden meanings in literature, that books fall into the wrong hands. Why does Plato express so much anxiety about the misinterpretation of literature?

And this reminds me of what protagoras says to socrates, that it is not surprising that most people think virtue IS something that can be transmitted from adults (parents and teachers) to their children. he says what would be surprising would be if it were NOT teachable. I would say the same thing about this pederasty of pedophila (which you find different but I do not - the french use the first term, we use the second) business. What would be surprising is if there were NO men taking advantage of children. Civilized people worry about such things, as Plato appears to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

I am shocked that you think I am personally attacking you. What do you think I said? I have said nothing personal at all, and in fact know nothing about you personally. Maybe this is a case of mistaken identity. In fact, I had begun to think of us as wiki- friends. What did i do?! Brenda maverick 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Achilles. That little business was entirely confusing to me. There was some meddling that I could not sort out, but I am not as tech savvy as many of you guys. For the record here, I do think we have more in common than not. (So many people, unfortunately, could not care less about Plato.) So it would be a shame to let our relatively small differences sabotage the cause. A little conflict keeps things alive, but the last thing on my mind is to ruin anything. Brenda maverick 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that the Theaetetus is PLATO'S theory of knowledge? Isn't this like saying that Hamlet speaks Shakespeare's "theory" of the uselessness of living? What's the difference? Seems like sloppy thinking to paste the writer and his character together as if there were no difference between them. THIS is excatly the sort of thing you are constantly criticizing me for: unverifiable claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

I do not doubt for one instant that Plato wrote the dialog. It bears all the marks of his brilliance. All I am saying is that Plato playfully disavows it (he writes here like Soren kierkegaard, under a kind of "pseudonymity"). My only point is that we ignore Plato's details at our peril. Is this OK with you? Brenda maverick 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you've granted me this: that Plato is a gamester? or won't you go this far? Brenda maverick 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied to you on my own page, if you don't mind going there. I'm sorry, but I haven't slept in a few days. Brenda maverick 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Just wanted to thank you for offering a 3rd opinion at Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and more importantly formatting the refs. Keep up the good work.-Andrew c 18:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

man do not delete the macedonian translation please. It's finnally time for us balkans to live in the 21st century! It won't change nothing having or not the macedonian translation. Look at other pages how much translations exist! What about giving other exept of the greek? For example why not french, german? So people can read it in there own language! Alexander has had his kingdom in all the teritory greek, macedonian, turky, indian! He is antigue one and it is really stupid if we are doing it!

Please just be friends and thinking mature! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noname real (talk • contribs).

I think it will be better if it is written, so if it is not others mk will do the same (puting the name infront of). Let it be please in the first paragraph with others names, i don't see any wrong. He has got also today's MK territory is it is right if it is written in that lang. By this way we can stop further vandalism and discussions about it. It was another user before me to put the translation and then me, and if not me it will be others by me and the story will last forever. So that way i think the discussion will end.

Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noname real (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Again we have a big problem. The same way i may be blocked u may be too. I don't see any difference. It was the best if the way stay in the first paragraph and not infrond off and i had agree.

I am sorry, but this sounds like a threat to me: if not me it will be others by me and the story will last forever... I will keep reverting, u know... For reasons mentioned and explained and supported by logical arguments and scholarly opinions. and, btw, i do not agree. Hectorian 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC0

Achilles, I don't think you have reason to say there is a "concensus" that your page is better than mine. Where are you getting this idea? Mine took complaints, to be sure, but yours isn't better. You leave out most of the interesting features. Don't be like your namesake. You know Homer sings of Achilles' "menis" - his terrible, destructive pride. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

It is a rage born of pride. I really can't believe you want to defend this article against mine. You say: "the cause of life can never be dead"  ??? I can't work with people who think this is good thinking or good writing. You think a circular argument is "Valid"? Socrates defines the soul to be immortal, and so therefore it is? What logic class was that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure if you are reading my comments, because they don't seem to show up on the screen, but if you are going to be this bullish in defending something this bad, AND you manage to have me outnumbered then I am on the wrong playing field. This is really absurd, not to say Mickey Mouse. Brenda maverick 04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I suggest that you file a request at WP:RFCU Bucketsofg 05:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

See this [1] advice which User:Xandar did not follow in his revert-war.Rumpelstiltskin223 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on polutropos: I should have come to you first anyway! --Wetman 07:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

He just vandalized the Goa Inquisition page again [2]. Please take action against this user. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for adding the additional information to the Ekajati sock case. I think it's my first case and I think I've fumbled some of the steps in the process of filing it. It doesn't help that I'm overloaded with the Starwood arbitration. I'm still not entirely sure what I found is absolute proof but it sure looks suspicious to me. Thanks again. If you notice anything missing about what I've done, I'd appreciate you letting me know. It seemed unusually difficult for me to follow the instructions for filing the case. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 06:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the cleanup work, making a tough task fighting the backlog easier. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must have formatted the case wrong, so could you please help me do it right? Zbl 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alos, I just saw that you called it frivolous. HUh? Zbl 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block him without due process of law? Zbl 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block is being lifted on him and another user, so will you now help me format this right? Zbl 01:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the hell's going on here, but I did unblock User:Elkwjdvc after assurances from the user and Zbl that Elkwjdvc was not a sockpuppet of User:Puppop (which was the reason I blocked Elkwjdvc in the first place) . . . But seeing Zbl's messages on your talk page, I'm wondering whether this is an attempted conspiracy against the user originally reported by Zbl at SSP. Thoughts? · j e r s y k o talk · 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) nothing to see here, move along . . . · j e r s y k o talk · 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? What has Supasoldier ever done to me/Puppop/Elk? Zbl 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the formatting, I was having a confusing time. However, you got it slightly wrong. User:Nintendude2000 and User:Solid Snake999 are supposed to be the puppets and the puppetmaster is supposed to be User:Quade999. Can this be fixed? Or should it be left the way it is? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I only "met" you a few days ago, but was impressed. I have looked at several recent contributions, and was impressed. I've looked at your depth of contributions, and ... you can guess. You seem a more suitable admin candidate than I was, possibly more suitable than I am now. Would you accept a nomination for adminship? (It's a partly selfish question, given where I suspect you would start helping out even more ... :-) ) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you rather publically, and thought this would be most appropriate. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I've worked with you for a while and think you'd be even better with the tools. The site needs more good sysops: new users are registering faster than we build new mops. May I make like Mickey Mouse and conjure up a duplicate of mine for you? Warmly, Durova^Charge! 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea. Haiduc 22:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "(this is actually a separate case from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alejandrozamora)". Can you explain how? They both refer to the recent AFD. I can't see any way that they are different, except that one attracted some evidence and one didn't. --adavidw 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I thought User:Zamorafan was included in the first one, but I see he was only mentioned in the comments. --adavidw 07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, 'bout the Athena thing, I reverted incorrectly, sorry for that.--JJ the Crusader 18:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, 'bout the Athena thing, I reverted incorrectly, sorry for that.--JJ the Crusader 18:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Changed the discussion of Prometheus Bound. Tell me whether you think the alteration addresses it better. - Mocko13 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report in respect of HistoryHero (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. Sandstein 07:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

...has also had some major revision done, and if you get the chance your expertise on the subject matter would be much appreciated. I'm going to sit out on both the Sophocles and Aeschylus articles for a week or so and come back for a copy-edit and touching up. Long term goal for both is FA. - Mocko13 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, Akhilleus, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored you felt I was a strong candidate and glad you appreciate my efforts to deal with the original research that litters Wikipedia's classical music articles. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You have archived several ungoing discussions. I think this was a bad idea. Could you please restore all ongoing discussions? Thank you. johanthon 10:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

message 2: Akhilleus, I agree that it would be a good idea to archive some of the closed discussions, but the thing is that the chapter 'Naming, About Paganism, the Poll for the Requested Move of the page, Page Name is POV, NPOV is one of .......' are related to one another and are part of a perpetuum discussion. Everything else can be archived. I think especially the poll is vital for the context of this ongoing discussion. So please keep those related chapters. Thank you. johanthon 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, I know the poll is 6 months old, but it is related to the posts from 17/18 februari. I really would like to help archiving the non-related chapters, however I don't understand how and the explaining page about archiving does not help me much so unfortunatly I have to leave that for a brave warior. johanthon 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I really wish that people would stop focusing on this supposed "POV" issue, which I find to be very trivial, and concentrate on improving the content of the article." --Akhilleus (talk) Akhilleus, I feel with you. You are so right, but unfortunatly christianity has hurted many peoples deep in their souls. So I'm affraid we'll have to be patient. johanthon 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Akhilleus, can you tell where to find the procedure required to ban the IPs of Classicjupiter and his proven sockpuppets?--TextureSavant 15:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like people on the community ban page were not receptive to the situation. What do you recommend we do next? Actually, even at this point, no admin has left any kind of warning and/or block on Classicjupiter2's talkpage about the sockpuppetry.--TextureSavant 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a tool somewhere in my monobook that generates those reports. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my monobook is massive please be careful. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its here Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all secondary sources which form the basis of the articles we have use Peisistratus, which is a latinized half-measure in my view (I would prefer the -atos). In looking through the "what links here" it's all over the map; I've done most of the dabbing now, I'll probably finish after lunch, but haven't elected to really change the text of the various articles. Someone else is certainly free to do that and to move all the Peisistratae (or -ai) to Pis- names, but I have been working off the existing article's spelling but have -os'ed the tyrant. Has anyone done a Google scholar search to see what scholars choose? Carlossuarez46 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:GREEK, which is of no help (the vowel cluster here – ει – is to be transcribed "variable: to be discussed". In any event, the whole gist of WP:GREEK is to avoid later, Latinized forms, here that would certainly include the "Pis-" spellings. In any event, WP:GREEK has the big ole caveat (sorry for the Latin) that common sense prevails. So I tried to divine a "common sense" among the the ways various wikipedians have been using the name(s). Alas, there may be "sense" but little commonality; indeed I came across a couple of articles that used 2 different spellings of the same guy's name. So given that wikipedians' sense has no commonality, I turned to my trusty sources for the articles, which by and large are 19th century - hence public domain - scholarly British authors, who are fond of the Latin "-us" over "-os" but reject the "i" for "ει", even prefering "Alexandreia" over "Alexandria", the later being nearly exclusive usage in Latin authors writing in Latin, the former holding closer to the Greek original. So, I've made a judgment; others may differ, but there is no absolute policy one way or another; if you want to change all the "Peis" to "Pis" go right ahead; WP is free for all to edit. I think I may still do a google scholar search to if modern researchers in English have found common ground on a single spelling. Carlossuarez46 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Google scholar shows:

Peisistratus 590 hits Peisistratos 598 hits Pisistratos 21 hits Pisistratus 783 hits

So while Pisistratus gets a plurality, it's not by much and it's no majority. What we have is 1107 ghits for Peis- forms, and 805 ghits for Pis- forms, with 1292 for forms in -us versus 619 in -os. What does this all mean? It means that one can go ahead and spell it like the pros, who spell it nearly any which way. Carlossuarez46 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "common uses take precedence over standard rules" and the example used is an -os that stays -os rather than its Latinized -us. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than expend further effort at this (including the redirects) – actually what got me on this was doing the Orchomenus (nicely latinized) article so I was just trying to tidy up after myself – I'll let the -os -> -us fanatics finish that job. Oh and your username does end in -us. ;-). Carlossuarez46 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Akhilleus, to answer your last question, my opinion is that Classicjupiter2 is essentially a spammer who wishes to use wikipedia to promote himself. He has spent the past few years "getting close" with the Surrealism article just so that he appears like a "resident expert" on the subject. In his position, he has pushed his personal http://www.surrealismnow.com link forward while at the same time discouraging others who challenge him.

Some of us, such as user:TheEvilPanda, user:Daniel_C._Boyer and myself, know him outside of wikipedia as Keith Wigdor, someone who has been rejected by the int'l surrealist movement as being an art opportunist who is interested more in his art career rather than anything else associated with surrealism, in the philosophical, activist, political meanings. For at least 5 years, Keith Wigdor has had a vendetta against various surrealists who have rejected him, and this has spilled into the wikipedia domain.

So to make a long story short, yes he is a spammer who's out to promote his own self-interest, but he also gets a thrill from disrupting others who are genuinely interested in the surrealist movement. Hence his attempts to block the discussion of the current, contemporary surrealist groups (such as the Chicago group) who just so happen to want to have nothing to do with him.

As you have seen, he has access to several IPs. If you block one of those, then he'll just find another one to use, like he has been doing for the past 2+ of his years on wikipedia. In light of this, what do you suggest?--TextureSavant 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you response, Akhilleus. Today I opened an AMA request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/TextureSavant

I did this because, from reading the ArbCom page, it seems like we haven't quite done enough yet to start an ArbCom case. Hopefully after the AMA going through, then maybe ArbCom will be the next step (assuming the sockpuppets keep appearing, which I suspect they will)?--TextureSavant 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparkit, did you know you've been listed as a party to this case?

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/TextureSavant

I'm listed too, but I haven't been involved in this situation other than a few comments recently. Do you understand what's happening on the Surrealism page? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akhilleus! I did know I was named in that, but I don't know what being a party in such a case means, or what participation is expected or available to me. I do understand what's happening on the Surrealism page. Thanks! [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkit, I don't understand what's happening on the Surrealism page--by which I mean, there seems to be a long-running dispute here, but I don't really understand what it's about, or what the various parties actually want. It doesn't seem to be just about adding a link to an external website...anyway, if you understand what's happening, could you explain it to me? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did misunderstand. I'll compose a brief recap of my understanding of the conflicts. Hopefully by this evening. [>>sparkitTALK<<] 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My read on the conflicts on Surrealism related pages centers on several core questions:

• What is "real" Surrealism? To Andre Breton and the original surrealists, surrealism was a change in thought processes, priorities and the like in an effort to revolutionize society. There's a political aspect to what at first blush is a visual arts or literature movement. It's my understanding that the original movement wasn't about creating works, but changing society and the works were a side effect, an artefact. Thus, part of what we're dealing with here is the differences in the definition of the term "surrealism" – originally surrealism was a process (and still is to many people) not the product, but the product has become known as surrealism. That's why there's a phrase in the article, " In more mundane terms, the word "surreal" is often used colloquially to describe unexpected juxtapositions or use of non-sequiturs in art or dialogue."
• Closely parallel to "what is 'real' surrealism" contentions is who is or isn't a "real" surrealist. Some contend that surrealists are only those who adhere to the original tenets. To confuse the matter, much visionary art and the like looks very similar to the work of the original surrealists, and thus the visionary art is called surrealism. There's some clamoring of individuals and groups to be recognized as surrealists.
• What's happened with Surrealism since Breton's death? Some say the movement died with him. Yet other groups, besides the original Paris-based group have formed.

So, inclusion of links, mention of various individuals, works and the like, IMO, are reflections of the contentions above. Disruptive tactics and ad hominem arguments make it difficult to sort out the problems.

I hope this helps. [>>sparkitTALK<<] 19:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkit, thanks, that's very helpful. But this isn't an abstract thing for some of these editors, right? Some of them believe that they are real surrealists and that other editors aren't real surrealists. And in the process, it seems like what the article says about surrealism has strayed from a conventional art historical understanding of surrealism. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it is very real to the participants.

The main article (Surrealism) as it stands now basically just covers the philosophy/thought aspect. At one time it contained the history and art aspects, too. But in Oct. 2006 HappyCamper branched the history section (History of surrealism) into a separate article and Surreal-one broke the art part (Surrealism in the arts) into another article.

After having left the scene for a number of months, and coming back and finding that an art article had been created, but material duplicated in the main article, I deleted the art stuff from the main article as a way to avoid maintaining the info on both pages.

I've been hoping that once the smoke clears we can join the main, history and art articles back into one. Then proceed to present the info in NPOV fashion by presenting the multiple sides of the story. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per this, please be advised that I observed both the user (Hillock) and the suspected sock account (Chuprynka) and they had very little in common. Hillock is a fierce POV-pusher but there were no evidence of Socking. Chuprynka was rather a reasonable editor. The sockpuppetry report was filed by a user who is a confirmed sock himself. Betacommand is not exactly known for thoroughly investigating before blocking (rather to the contrary) and if he took time to investigate this frivolous complaint, he would have seen that these users had little in common and that the request was filed by a confirmed (now banned) sock. Betacommand has no checkuser either. Anyway, the block of these accounts is not my concern since the users have left anyway and should any of them comes back, they will request the unblock. However, I reverted the false and unsupported accusation of socking and if you are to restore it, please make sure it is backed by some more solid evidence than just by "Betacommand said so". Happy edits, --Irpen 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to post my analysis of the case and full reasoning behind it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my error, in my haste to stop the vandal who was doing damage faster than I could correct it, I wanted to get the report in ASAP and neglected to read the directions as their length was overwhelming in the face of continued damage. I have now corrected this and the page should be in proper form now. Thanks again! WilliamKF 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that external links to sites that contain more indepth information on a subject were forbidden. I added back one edit to the Cultural_depictions but without the link. - Politicalpoet 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]