 |
 |
If you find this site useful or just support what I'm doing, I'd really appreciate if you could donate. To cover server costs and for the hundreds of hours I've put into making this happen.
|
 |
If you spot content on this site that is genuinely illegal or actually puts someone in real danger, contact [email protected]. We have multiple agents reviewing tickets 24/7. Note that we try to maintain as much transparency as possible, both about ourselves and of the actions of Wikipedians. For example, if we removed a live link to CSAM content that was posted by a Wikipedia admin, we would replace it a placeholder like "<link to CSAM that was posted by Demiurge1000 redacted by Undersight>". Note that "I don't like it" is NOT a valid removal reason. If instead you are a Wikipedophile trying to get all the dark secrets of Wikipedia censored, please follow this guide instead.
If you would like to contact the owner of this about something else (e.g. press inquires, feature requests, bug reports), e-mail [email protected] or [email protected].
|
Revision 1496800 of "Tupi language" on enwiki== Disputes ==
As I'm asked to stick my nose into this, here's my first observation: I see some personal arguments between editors, and a lack of any discussion about the specific merits of the bits of text in the article that get changed back and forth. How about before anyone reverts anything in the article that they have already seen put in and taken out before, they explain: '''1)''' What they find objectionable in the text they wish to change and why '''2)''' How they wish to change it and why they think what they wish to change it to improves a problem. Thanks, -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 05:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Details of contention ==
=== long or short quote ===
The quote at the end of the first paragraph keeps being changed back and forth between a shorter version and a longer version. Those who prefer one version or the other will please explain why, thank you. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 20:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
=== "surrealist artist active in surrealism" ===
Here's one I'll state my personal opinion on: I don't think we need to call him "a [[surrealist]] [[artist]] active in [[surrealism]]" because "surrealist" is just a redirect to "surrealism". That seems unnecessarily redundant to me. However if someone wishes to explain why the longer version is better, I'll keep an open mind. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 20:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:The links are redundant that way. However, it may also be pointed out that it is bitterly disputed whether Wigdor is a surrealist, and certainly controversial as to whether he is active in surrealism (as he hasn't participated in any collective activities whatsoever), and this is putting it as nicely as possible. To fail to acknowledge the overwhelmingly negative reaction towards Wigdor within surrealism is to fail to be NPOV. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 20:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:Daniel, I doubt very much that your friends will prevent Wigdor from his right to work in Surrealism, as anyone else. He is a surrealist whether you and your friends like it or not. Wigdor is and always will be a surrealist.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 19:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dear editors: Please take some time to read [[Wikipedia:Civility]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. Thanks. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 05:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
''"24.168.66.27", if you could help provide some of these important photographs of Keith Wigdor, it would be most helpful, and would also validate the idea of K. Wigdor being on the same level of importance as Andre Breton, for example. "24.168.66.27", perhaps we could make this into a team-effort? I'm more than willing to work with you here. Let's collaborate.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 15:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Wigdor is a webist, not a surrealist ==
''Ok, after thinking it over and after a few discussions with Keith, it seems more appropriate to remove the "surrealist" references from the article. Or, at least, to remove the part where it mentions in the beginning about Wigdor's having been "active in surrealism." The reason for this is that surrealist activity is defined by collaboration with other surrealists, and apparently there are no surrealists who wish to collaborate with him.''
''Also, to reinforce this idea, there are no photographs of Keith with other surrealists, such as Rosemont, which would demonstrate his importance within the surrealist movement. For these reasons, the wiki article should not be used to portray Wigdor as a surrealist if in reality he is not... Wikipedia, as with any other encyclopedia, should be used to present the historical truth, rather than someone's self-marketing or self-serving propaganda.''
''If need be, I can present some additional evidence to be used, possibly in the article, which would show that Wigdor has made more than a few pro-capitalist, sexist, racist comments, all of which are completely and non-negotiably antithetical to the surrealist movement. I am not afraid of calling upon a wiki arbitrator/administrator to back me up on this, if necessary. Perhaps even a vote would be the most democratic solution.''
''With that said, I think the article should be reshaped in order to stress Wigdor's webist and digital-art accomplishments, assuming that the article should not be deleted for its overall irrelevance, at that point. Some might actually view K. Wigdor as an ingenious artist, but whether or not that ingenuity will make ripples in the contemporary art world remains to be seen. Come to think of it, how many photographs of Keith Wigdor with other important art-people exist? Who knows Keith Wigdor?'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 20:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bleedy, did you read what you have just written in your above post? Do you know what Statement Analysis is?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 18:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
''But I'm still having trouble locating photos of Wigdor with famous people. After talking it over with Keith @ lunchtime today, we both came to the conclusion that the "surrealist" parts of this article definitely need to go. Keith Wigdor and I are going to hash this out over the weekend, and by Monday, we will make some changes to the article, god willing, and will be prepared to get a wiki arbitrator involved, if necessary.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 20:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
''Ok, Keith recently agreed to a removal of any references to the int'l surrealist movement in the article, so that last part of the 1st paragraph has been removed. In place of the deleted material, there is now an extra link to "digital art." This edit should be acceptible because, up til now, god willing, there is no tangible proof (like photos of Keith W. with important surrealists) that would justify Keith having such an important role in the surrealist movement.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 15:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bleedy, Keith Wigdor is not a webist. He never exhibited in any Webism Art Exhibits nor has he ever participated in any Webism events. You are making false statements and deliberately trying to ruin the article.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 17:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== I have edited this page ==
I've been bold and removed a good amount of material from this page that looked to me like rants and personal sniping not directly relevent. (Material can still be seen in talk page history.) Perhaps I'm wrong, but it looks to me like some folks are much more interested in sniping at each other and speculating about other editors than they are in trying to improve the article supposedly being discussed here. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 21:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Infrogmation for your sound advice and input. The article keeps being reverted by Bleedy from the original version.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 00:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Please behave ==
Dear editors: please see [[Wikipedia:Civility]], [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]], [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette]], and try to write with those guidelines in mind. Thanks, -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 21:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Due to edit/revert war, I have put a short-term block on two users (see [[Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version]], [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule]], and [[Wikipedia:Edit war]] for more info on Wikipedia policies and my reason for doing this). I have also reverted the article to a version that from a quick look at history seems to be before the latest edit war. Understand I take no position on the question of if that version is better or worse than either or both of the more recent edits. My action is based on inappropriate user behaviour, not article content. Again I ask that disagreements over article article content be discussed in talk. If there is not at least a good faith attempt to iron out differences, and if there are further edit wars, actions such as protecting the article and/or longer term blocks of certain editors may be done. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 07:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Infrogmation specific instructions will be upheld by me in good faith==
The Keith Wigdor article is being edited with information that must be accurate. The version that I just revised is exactly what the record states, as evident by Wigdor's website portfolio on ArtEnligne. I respect the freedom of expression in editing the record on Wikipedia, and to avoid being banned because of an edit war that took place in the past between me and the user Bleedy, I will abide by the good faith rules and advice as provided by the Wikipedia Administrator, Infrogmation. I do recommend that if you want to edit this article and provide information according to the record, please follow the information as you see on Wigdor's portfolio and his published manifesto as well. Wigdor is not a commercial digital artist. If you are referring to the CHURN Art Website that sells prints of Wigdor, that is not a commercial endeavor, it is an Independent/Underground Art Magazine that featured Wigdor and sells his prints. CHURN obviously gets the proceeds from any prints of Wigdor's as you can see from the site page. Wigdor is a surrealist that was featured in Churn back in 2002 and Wigdor is the organizer of Surrealism 2003. He is still active in producing surrealist artworks as evident on his portfolio. If you read his manifesto, "Surrealism in 2004", Wigdor does not mention any intention of commercialism or digital art, he just wants the public to participate in Surrealism, as they should.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 21:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Keith Wigdor is not a surrealist. ==
''Since I was blocked from editing over the past few days, and encouraged by Infrogmation to discuss the article with '''24.168.66.27''', then I will say that I have edited the first paragraph of the article to describe K. Wigdor as "commercial digital artist" instead of a surrealist for the following reasons:''
''1) Keith Wigdor is not a surrealist. He has not appeared in any important photographs with any members of any surrealist groups. Neither has he appeared in any of their publications. Therefore, since there is no tangible association between Wigdor and any of the surrealists, there should be no reason to portray Wigdor as a surrealist. This is simply the logical conclusion. Despite this logic, user '''24.168.66.27''' continues to undo my edits, continues to state that Wigdor is a surrealist. The aforementioned user also asserts that Wigdor's 2004 manifesto somehow entitles him to "surrealist" status, without responding to the idea that NOBODY WITHIN THE VARIOUS SURREALIST GROUPS RECOGNIZES HIM AS A SURREALIST. It seems more likely that '''user#24.168.66.27''' is just trying to promote Keith Wigdor, which is actually being done without Wigdor's permission. How do you respond to this, Infrogmation? How does anyone else respond?''
''2) Keith Wigdor is a commercial artist. All you have to do is visit his churn site, where he is selling his prints. My understanding of the word "commercial" is that it means that things, like commodities, prints, etc. are being sold to others. Since Keith Wigdor sells his prints to the public, then he should be described as a commercial artist. In the above entry, '''24.168.66.27''' says that the sale of prints on the churn-site are for non-profit, but that is simply his assertion.''
''Please take the time to read through my logic here, '''user# 24.168.66.27.''' '' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 21:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
: Might this dispute be related to different people having different definitions of what it means to be a surrealist? Wondering, -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 01:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Compromise neutral wording? ==
Might it be possible to have material worded in some way acceptable to both sides here? Perhaps something along the lines of "Wigdor has labeled himself as a surrealist" or "Wigdor has proclaimed himself active in surrealism" (if such wording is accurate, and preferably we could include a specific reference or quote to back it up here) "but various surrealist groups have denied he is a surrealist" (if such wording is accurate, and preferably we could include a specific reference or quote to back it up here). Thoughts? -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 01:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
''Infrogmation, thanks. The neutral wording, as you have suggested, I far prefer to what has existed up until now. An even better outcome would be to remove all references to surrealism from this article.''
'' '''The controversy regarding Wigdor and surrealism only exists on this wikipedia site'''. In the regular art world, he is only an emerging artist, at best. In the art-history world, nobody knows about him yet, if ever. In the surrealist movement, you will NOT find him included as a participant, nor on any of their websites (such as those represented as links on that highly controversial wikipedia surrealism article). Some surrealists even believe that discussion of him only serves to draw more attention to Keith Wigdor, and so they will not speak about him publicly. Therefore, Keith Wigdor is not very welcome in surrealist circles. Whoever '''user#24.168.66.27''' is, this individual is trying to promote Keith Wigdor as a surrealist, and this is where the main point of contention is.''
''It would be ridiculous to add material to the Wigdor article that would attempt to refute whether or not he is a surrealist. To do that would be making the underlying and a priori assumption that K. Wigdor is somehow very important to surrealists and to the art world.''
''An example to illustrate the point: What would be there to stop me from adding a paragraph to the wikipedia "Pope John Paul II" article with evidence that the pope also happens to be a great truckdriver and who owns a secret nightclub in Arizona which he visits regularly? We could then add a second paragraph after the first, refuting why he really isn't a truckdriver and that he really has no secret nightclub in Arizona. But what would really be the point of adding either of those paragraphs? I argue that the same situation applies to this Wigdor article.''
''It could even be argued that because Keith Wigdor is recognized only as an emerging artist (at best), then an article about him has no real place in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. I thought that encylopedias contained articles about established, famous artists, but not the uncountably numerous emerging ones. Does anyone have any ideas about this? Should this article be deleted? What is it about Keith Wigdor that makes him famous enough to be included within an ENCYCLOPEDIA? If we decide to keep this article about Keith Wigdor, then why shouldn't we all write wikipedia articles about all of the many other emerging artists out there, including ourselves? Wouldn't this be antithetical to the aims and goals of wikipedia?'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 17:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Dear Infrogmation, Bleedy, and to anyone who reads my response==
Infrogmation, Bleedy, and to anyone else who reads this response.
First, in order to avoid another edit war, again, I need to respond in accordance with
maintaining the integrity of the Keith Wigdor article. Keith Wigdor is a surrealist.
Now, please allow me to provide my argument (in good faith and sincerity) in order to
provide an in-depth analysis of this situation.
Wigdor wrote the, “Surrealism in 2004” manifesto, specifically to allow the public access to surrealism so that ANYONE can participate and contribute to surrealism. Now, to Wigdor’s artwork, it is a combination of the use of digital art, photomontage and collage and ink drawings (and oils) that engages the irrational and seeks the destruction of logic as his main objective. That is in his statement on his Portfolio at ArtEnligne, “To invade your mind and destroy logic”. Wigdor NEVER intended to be welcomed by anyone in this so-called, “surrealist movement” nor has he intended to occupy the same stratagem as the self-proclaimed, “surrealists” do such as Franklin Rosemont’s, “Chicago Group” or this current, “Paris Group” (Brandon’s friends in Portland,etc),etc.etc. In regards to what you see online concerning these current, “surrealist” groups, they are not really the true official representatives of Surrealism nor are they recognized as any official representatives of Surrealism, except only by fellow marginals who are unknown anyway.
When Bleedy denounces Wigdor as a surrealist and claims he is a commercial digital artist, does he clarify what commercial really means? Is it a crime against the principles of Surrealism to sell anything one creates? Churn Art Magazine sells nine of Wigdor’s prints, and Churn gets the money from any sales of prints to help out this independent art publication, that is the arrangement Wigdor had with their CEO, Jeff.
In regards to commercialism, sales and selling one’s own creations, what does Bleedy have to say about this?, http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org/pages/black.html
So, selling anything is a crime against the principles and beliefs of surrealism? Bleedy makes no sense. Churn sells Wigdor’s surrealist digital art, that is a fact.
Speaking about the subject of commercialism and the invalid argument proposed against my input, please allow me to further clarify my point. Let’s look at Webism, the art movement that was founded by Pygoya (who is a great artist, by the way) and has many
of the (ex) webists as surrealists. This really was a commercial endeavor to sell prints, which I do not condemn the webists for, they all have a right to sell their creations as does anyone else. However, practically all of, “surrealist” friends and collaborators are webists as indicated by the overwhelming evidence online. Zazie, Bernard Dumaine, Uly Paya, Tibor Kovacs-egri. That is a fact. Oh, by the way, surrealist Daniel C.Boyer (who is not a webist) was in Terrance Lindall’s, “Apocalypse 1999” show at the WAH back in 1999 (if I am correct, its on the WAH’s site) in case anyone needs to know. Lindall is the best thing to happen to surrealism in a long, long time.
Back to analyzing the facts regarding surrealism and what really is the surrealist movement. After Andre Breton died in 1966, Surrealism really was in a state of digression. Take a look at what the 1967 “Paris Surrealist Group” writes to Franklin and Penelope Rosemont in their May 1st 1967 letter to them: “We confess that the turn taken by this project is not fully satisfactory to us because it does not seem to lead to the possibilities for real action”. pg.472 What is Surrealism by Andre Breton, edited by Franklin Rosemont.
The signatures on that letter were Philippe Audon, Jean-Claude Barbe, Jean Benoit, Vincent Bounoure, Jean Schuster, Elisa Breton, Michel Zimbacca, etc.etc. Two years later in 1969 Jean Schuster disbanded what was left of this, “official” Paris Surrealist Group(read Revolution of the Mind, the biography by Polizotti on Breton). The current “GPMS Paris Surrealist Group” today, Marie D. Massoni and her friends, with Guy Girad, etc (I recall this Michel Zimbacca still contributing to their Editions according to their website, if I am correct) are a source of literature on surrealism to libraries in Paris and the public for the price of $15 Euros, so is that not commercialism too, Bleedy? Are they really the, “Official” source of Surrealism?
For the record, back in 1968, Franklin Rosemont and his, “Chicago Group” protested the, “Dada, Surrealism and their Heritage” exhibit as a, “fraud”etc. Prof. William Rubin, had the right idea, though. It appears that Mr. Rosemont’s, “minimal act of retaliation and correction” was just that, MINIMAL! Rubin, and many of those in academia, finally had the opportunity to see with a clear lens the confused and destabilized state that Surrealism was in. These, “official” groups at that time, even up to the present day, still have not provided coherent results regarding their surrealist explorations (really they do have a pricetag) and kept closed doors to the public while monopolizing this great movement to liberate the mind and do as one wishes. Bleedy (Eric) you still have not yet provided a clear and coherent argument as to why Wigdor or anyone cannot be a surrealist?
Take for example, Philip Lamantia’s 1943 letter to Breton, “Surrealism in 1943”? He wrote that at 15 years old, proclaiming his, “formal adherence to surrealism in its attitudes…etc”. When he wrote that letter he was accepted into the movement by Breton after he wrote it to Breton, then Breton welcomed him into the movement. However, there is no Andre Breton alive today, and Wigdor is a new voice to surrealism. Wigdor never denouced Breton and strives for the public to embrace surrealism, if they choose. Either way, nobody needs approval or sanction (authorization) to be a surrealist. Once you see the marvelous and know that the real oppressive state apparatus is born out of ignorance and closed doors, basically the unwillingness to embrace change for the benefit of all, will we never be able to fulfill the goals of surrealism which is the transformation of life itself. Read Wigdor’s manifesto and you will see.
I see that no one needs approval to be a surrealist, didn’t the surrealist artist James Sebor
write somewhere that he does not seek anyone’s approval? Am I wrong? What about this
very serious critique by SOAS Dr. Richardson (Eric, I doubt he really is a surrealist, but a very prestigeous person in academia,though a serious contributor) against Pierre’s self-proclaimed, “Surrealism and the Machine”?
Anyway, Wigdor is a surrealist, whether you like it or not, he never seeks any approval and neither should you. By the way, Infrogmation, if you are interested in Surrealism, you are always welcome as a surrealist by Wigdor and anyone he works with. This message is for all. Surrealism is for you, join it, become it, live it![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 21:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== User#24.168.66.27, are you really "Keith Wigdor"? ==
''This discussion is about Keith Wigdor, not about other surrealist groups and individuals. Once again, the main question here is whether or not Keith Wigdor is important enough to justify his inclusion in an encyclopedia. I conclude that he isn't, due to 1) the lack of evidence in various surrealist journals, forums and websites which have rejected and excluded him and 2) the fact that he is not famous as an artist, or whatever else.''
''If you wish to remove the "commercial" descriptor from the 1st paragraph, then I can go along with that. However, I must insist that the part about Wigdor being "active in surrealism" be removed. The only thing that Keith Wigdor does is make visual art that he describes as "surreal." That in itself is not considered to be "active in surrealism." Therefore, I must revert the 1st paragraph to the way that I have been reverting it all along.''
''By the way, '''user#24.168.66.27''', are you really Keith Wigdor?'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 22:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Response to Bleedy and his own statements as evidence for you to look at, Infrogmation==
Bleedy, you are not providing the good faith and diplomacy that Infrogmation advised to the both of us. We need to, "iron out our differences", as advised by Infrogmation. Now you are accusing me of being Keith Wigdor? You just asked me if I was Keith Wigdor.
For the record, take a look at your own words, (these are exact statements made by the User, Bleedy, made on this discussion page, please read the following,
“But I'm still having trouble locating photos of Wigdor with famous people. After talking it over with Keith @ lunchtime today, we both came to the conclusion that the "surrealist" parts of this article definitely need to go. Keith Wigdor and I are going to hash this out over the weekend, and by Monday, we will make some changes to the article, god willing, and will be prepared to get a wiki arbitrator involved, if necessary. --Bleedy 20:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)”
“Ok, Keith recently agreed to a removal of any references to the int'l surrealist movement in the article, so that last part of the 1st paragraph has been removed……”
Bleedy 15:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Infrogmation, I am really trying to work with this editor here but they are making demands and not providing good faith and any effort to work out a compromise. Any surrealist artist that creates surrealist art is active in surrealism, the demands being made by Bleedy is a matter of ideological differences that no encyclopedia need to be burdened with, after all he started this unnecessary dispute, which I want to end.
Infrogmation, how about one of us sending an E-mail to Keith Wigdor and allow him to respond in his DOCUMENTS Folder on the ArtEnligne website for us all to read. A simple question to Keith Wigdor, (since he is the article subject) is, Mr.Wigdor, are you a surrealist and are you active in Surrealism? If he gets to look at the article, let him decide what is the more credible article that is factual for the record. After all, the article is about Keith Wigdor and Keith Wigdor does state on the PUBLIC record that he is a surrealist, so why don't we ask him? By the way, Bleedy's response about, "surrealist" groups are the same people that have articles on Wikipedia as well as Keith Wigdor, and they are: BRANDON FREELS, THE CHICAGO SURREALIST GROUP, THE SURREALIST MOVEMENT IN THE USA, THE GPMS, etc. and if Bleedy wants Wigdor off of Wikipedia, without an article, then his friends should not get one either. Really there is no difference between Keith Wigdor and Brandon Freels, and you can find more of Wigdor's surrealist work then you can with Freels. Even the surrealist and founding member of THE WEST COAST SURREALIST GROUP, Gregg Simpson, exhibited his surrealist artworks in Keith Wigdor's SURREALISM 2003, and Gregg worked with Andre Breton's personal assistant Jose Pierre. Gregg would not have been in Wigdor's SURREALISM 2003, if Wigdor and his online event was not surrealism, and Gregg knows Keith Wigdor! Bleedy and his friends want to monopolize Surrealism and they cannot even control one person, Wigdor, let alone there own version of their, "movement" which it is not. Prof. William Rubin knew this fact back in 1968 and only Pathfinder Press is the source of Bleedy's friend, Mr. Rosemont's version of Surrealism and that book cost me $34.95 and was a big disappointment! Too much self-promotion by this Rosemont lot.
Anyway, the article is about Keith Wigdor, so why don't you ask Wigdor if he is a surrealist and active in Surrealism and let him publish his answer to the public on the ArtEnligne Website, you can see it in this Document Folder,if you want. By the way, Bleedy, I am not Keith Wigdor.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 04:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
''So now you are collaborating with Keith Wigdor, too? I didn't even know Keith had an artenligne website. The problem with these amateur artists is that it's just too easy for them to set up a sock-puppet self-validation scheme, as this appears to be turning out. What do you think, Infrogmation? If Keith Wigdor is creating messages on his artenligne site in order to validate his article here, then that would prove that he is participating in writing an article about himself. '''User#24.168.66.27''', I think you know what wikipedia's policy about self-promotional articles is. ''
''Actually, I do have contact with K. Wigdor, and the things he told me are genuine, as I reported them earlier. However, what I do know is that he is also a schizophrenic, and when I talked to him during the xmas eve party at the Jaded-Coprolite Art Gallery, he told me he had stopped taking his medication for a couple of days, at least until the festivities are over with.''
''About this Keith Wigdor article, I will vote on keeping it as long as it has no references about Wigdor being involved with the surrealist movement. '''User#24.168.66.27''' if you continue to portray K. Wigdor as a surrealist, then I will work towards this article's deletion.''
''Finally, don't you think there should be a Keith Wigdor photo with this article, '''user#24.168.66.27'''? I think the one of Wigdor standing next to Terrence Lindall at the WAH center would be a good choice of photograph to add to the article. What do you think?'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 16:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
: If you have a photo you wish to upload that's fine; see [[Wikipedia:Images]] and related articles for tips. If you wish to "work toward this artice's deletion", [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] is the place for that, though I don't know that it fits the usual criteria for that. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 22:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Attempt compromise version ==
I see the edit warring has continued... not a good sign.
I am attempting a version of the article, with hopes that it can be useful as a rough draft for an accurate compromise version. I admit I am generally ignorant of the controvercies surrounding Wigdor. If in my ignorance I misstate something, I hope others will excuse it in light of my good intentions, and susicntly explain how my words can be improved without resorting to personal attacks nor speculation about off line identies or affiliations.
From the most recent version by Bleedy, I removed "digital art" from the first sentence because it is repeated in the final paragraph; IMO article should say and link it in one place or the other, but does not need to include both. I put back in the quote from the earier version, because I at least someone wants it there and I have not read anything here on talk explaining why it ought to be taken out (perhaps I missed it; if so please give me a pointer to it). The statement of the controversy of if Wigdor is a surrealist I admit I am writing from shaky ground, and I hope it can be improved (preferably siting sources, as I mentioned earlier). Perhaps someone who thinks Wigdor is a surrealist can summarize why in two sentences or less to be put in the article, and someone who thinks he is not can summarize that position in two sentences or less to be put in the article.
Please try to keep comments short and courteous, and please sign them. Thanks. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 22:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==I can work with this compromise, Infrogmation, please read==
Infrogmation, I can work with this compromise, Infrogmation, but I am really giving in way too much after Bleedy's (Eric W.Bragg), constant reverts, but he does have the right to edit as do I.
Infrogmation, I can work out this compromise with Bleedy, and accept your edited version, as long as it goes with these very minor changes that I made, please read,
"Wigdor has said he is active in surrealism, although some people who say they are surrealists have challenged Wigdor and criticised him."
Infrogmation, as long as the record states that Wigdor says he is active in surrealism (which he is), then it is only fair to say, "people who say they are surrealists". After all, if we are going to use this encyclopedia service to judge and determine the validity of whether or not Wigdor is a surrealist, then the same goes for those who claim they are surrealist. There is much doubt to the credibility of Eric's friends as surrealists, because they are all predominately ex-Webists and really unknown writers and artists who claim they are surrealists. If Bleedy wants the Keith Wigdor article off of Wikipedia, then the same goes for the articles on Brandon Freels, and all the other friends of Eric's who claim they are surrealists. Fair is Fair and I really gave way too much here. You can see the version that I will accept on the article page. I will only agree to this version. If Bleedy wants to keep reverting, then I suggest that you ban the both of us, to avoid an edit war for the benefit of the article and bring it back to its original version. Infrogmation, if Bleedy keeps on making demands for the article to be removed, then I suggest all Surrealist related articles referring to Eric and his friends be removed as well. There is much doubt as to whether or not they are surrealist. Fair is Fair. NOW, for the benefit of compromise, I will accept the version that is on this current page. "People who say they are surrealists", etc, etc. So we can finally have closure on this for the benefit of the encyclopedia.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 00:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
''Sorry, '''24.168.66.27''' , I cannot live with your version, so I made the minor edit to the first 2 sentences of the 2nd paragraph. The reason for this edit is to keep the focus of the article on Keith Wigdor, and to keep your controversy, self-doubts and half-thoughts out of the article. We want certainty here, and we cannot achieve certainty if you fill the article with vague conjecture. Rather than make things complicated, I opt for eliminating all of the dubious statements, which I believe I did via the latest edit. What do you think, Infrogmation?''
''The part I don't understand is why any other wikipedia articles would be somehow dependent on this one, meaning that you'd delete other articles if the Wigdor article was deleted. In your last message you accused me of being involved with other articles of other surrealist people. If you check those other articles, you'll see there have been no edits by my username "Bleedy" nor by anyone from my IP address, so really, I have no stake in any articles other than this one. Check the logs, dude. I had nothing to do with any of the other people or articles that you mentioned. Also, I do not appreciate being referred to as "Eric", not only because I do not know this person, and also because I happen to be somebody else.''
''Finally, we still need to have a photo of Wigdor standing with somebody else who is famous. I have the one of him with Lindall, but do you have any others, '''user#24.168.66.27''' ? If you don't respond to this query, then I will add the one that I have to the article. I thought we were supposed to be working together on this one, user#24.168.66.27.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 20:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Most recent versions as of 22:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==
IMO some of User:Bleedy's recent comments here on the talk page seem snide or provocative. However I was pleased to see Bleedy's latest edit to the article was consise and as far as I can tell reasonably NPOV. (If I am missing something which makes it not so, please explain.)
Bleedy's text said:
: "Wigdor is highly interested in [[surrealism]], and in his ''Surrealism in 2004'' [...]"
24.168.66.27 changed that to read:
: "Wigdor has said he is active in [[surrealism]], although some people who say they are surrealists have challenged Wigdor and criticised him. In his ''Surrealism in 2004'' [...]"
Could you please explain the reason why you think this is better? Thank you. I'm pleased to see that at least the conflict seems to now be over a smaller amount of text. Cheers, -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 22:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you look at the factual record, Wigdor states on public record that he is a surrealist. He never said, "he is interested in surrealism". He organized SURREALISM 2003 and continues working in Surrealism. The best way to help solve this problem is to contact the article subject.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 00:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Offer of Good Faith Final Compromise that gives way too much to help bring this to closure==
I will go with this, "Wigdor's art is based in surrealism" and that REALLY SHORTENS the version, so we can have closure. If Bleedy refuses this offer, then I go back to the original version before the compromise offer. This guy is abusing Wigdor and it kills me that you let him get away with this, but he has rights as do I and fair is fair. So, if Bleedy refuses this offer, then no deal, I will go back to it's original version before compromise. Threats of uploading harrassing pictures is out of line as far as I am concerned. By the way, the same scrutiny here applies to all of the Surrealist friends of Eric Bragg's, who is the User Bleedy on Wikipedia.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 00:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== The Final, Final Compromise..... ==
''Ok, I can go along with your "offer" [sheesh, you should be a used-car salesman, '''user#24.168.66.27'''], but I'd prefer the wording to be changed from "based in [[surrealism]]" to "inspired by [[surrealism]]". Or if you don't like that, then "inspired by [[surrealist techniques]]" or "derived from [[surrealist techniques]]", which you could use to link to the surrrealist techniques page. There, you have 3 alternatives to weigh.''
''Also, you need to insert a comma before "as indicated in his manifesto" at the end of the paragraph. Either that, or remove the phrase, because it is redundant. You should also add a comma after the part "Wigdor wrote".''
''As for your allegations of abuse, can you explain what you mean? You still persist in referring to me as "Eric". If you are not Keith, then I cannot be Eric.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 18:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==I just made my final compromise yesterday and gave way too much away!==
If you change the final version of my compromise, then its over! Go back and re-read my above post!!![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 21:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Disputed? ==
Why did you remove the "disputed" template, 24.168.66.27? Wondering, -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 17:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Answer==
While doing some online surfing on Wigdor, I came across this on Wigdor's site, please read, scroll halfway down the page, http://artenligne.com/@/KeithWigdor
Now, I already gave away too much to this User, Bleedy and made my final compromise the other day and this person is still beyond any reason. The current version of this article is my FINAL and LAST compromise as I already said.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 20:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Sock-Puppet Game ==
''This is turning into a sock-puppet game.''
''Regardless of what Keith Wigdor puts on his website, IN RESPONSE to this wikipedia article and this talkpage, we must remember the axiom, "Actions speak louder than words." What I mean is that it's easy to make a website and write an essay that says "I am a surrealist," but it's different to actually BE a surrealist. Making surrealist-inspired art does not qualify one as a surrealist.''
''For this reason, I maintain the edit that Keith Wigdor's work is INSPIRED BY surrealism. He is, however, not a surrealist, even if he says he is, and even if his website says he is.''
''Infrogmation, from '''user#24.168.66.27''' 's link to Wigdor's artenligne site, you can see that Keith Wigdor is now directly trying to influence this article. Do the wikipedia guidelines support a person trying to influence his or her own wikipedia article?'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 18:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Right on user 24!==
its the truth that matters. Comrade Wigdor is a surrealist as it is stated on his site. Bleedy's just mad and making baseless accusations. I read here that Bleedy says that he meets and talks with Wigdor as he claims in his above posts. Who knows who this Bleedy, is?[[User:63.169.104.2|63.169.104.2]] 20:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh God! I just found a picture online of what Bleedy really looks like. Look at his face!
http://www.authorsden.com/ericwbragg
==Bleedy already broke the good faith compromise==
I already gave this man way too much. You are killing me here.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 03:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==My last and final offer to settle this once and for all==
Ok, I am really giving away too much. I have finally decided to remove the first sentence of the second paragraph, "Wigdor's art is based in surrealism". Now that is it! I will give no more away. I am being killed here and I am being way too nice to this person. This is my last and final offer, no more![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 04:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== One last "good faith" Counter-Offer ==
''Nice try, '''user#24.168.66.27 '''!!! While you removed the first part of the second paragraph, you failed to mention that you changed [[artist]] to [[surrealist]] in the first paragraph. In light of this situation, I believe that you have broken your own "good faith compromise." I wonder what Infrogmation's opinion of this would be......''
''I really think you should just leave the [[surrealist]] part out of the first paragraph, and put your energies into the [[digital artist]] direction. You, er, I mean, Keith Wigdor, would probably make a bigger splash as a "digital artist" anyway, and you, er, I mean, Keith Wigdor, would probably also make a helluva lot more money and fame.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 16:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey Bleedy! I think you have your logic cap on backwards! The money goes to all your friends in the, "surrealist" movement! Though I would give my soul for an automatic ink by the good lady![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 02:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
=="Artist" should be changed to...==
REVOLUTIONARY!!! Wigdor is the best thing to happen to surrealism!!!Viva Wigdor!!! VIVA SURREALISME!!!![[User:63.169.104.2|63.169.104.2]] 20:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Wigdor is a surrealist==
Shoot down some of those airplanes at night, especially the ones that fly too low!!![[User:63.169.104.2|63.169.104.2]] 17:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Dispute ==
I reverted an edit that removed the disputed tag, since no one has given an explantation for its removal, and from the discussion here on talk and edits to the article the dispute is clearly ongoing. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 18:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Bleedy broke the good faith already so its over==
I am bringing the article back to its original state. Since I already anticipate Bleedy will again change the article, then you can replace the dispute template if that makes you content or satisfied. Since Bleedy does not care about the facts and the public statement made by the article subject, then he should not care about my future revisions over at his friends articles as well. They too claim they are surrealists.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 02:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Protected ==
I have for the time protected the page from editing. I have seen no progress in creating an article acceptable to more than one editor, continued reverts and counter reverts, and no recent attempts by the most regular editors to discuss NPOV wording. Note that the version I protected is in no way endorsed as in any way better or worse than any previous version of the article. Should anyone interested in modifying or improving this article come along, please list and discuss any specific suggested changes and the reasons for them here on the talk page. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 07:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Bleedy's position ==
''Infrogmation, here is my perspective:''
''The main disagreement here is whether or not Keith Wigdor is a surrealist. I reason that he is not, simply because he is not part of any collective activity. Check the websites, literature, photographs, etc., and you will not see any important surrealists collaborating with Wigdor. In fact, depending on what websites you visit, you will actually see that most surrealists loathe Wigdor, referring to him as an antisurrealist.''
''However, nobody would dispute the fact that Wigdor is a digital artist who has been involved in more than a few projects. '''For the wikipedia article, Wigdor's digital art experiences should be his selling point.''' In the interests of ending the dispute, I think the article should have as much information about Wigdor's art achievements as Wigdor, er, I mean, '''user#24.168.66.27''' desires, but to remove any wording that would portray him as a surrealist. What does that mean in practical terms? It means saying that "Wigdor is an artist who is inspired by surrealism" rather than saying that "Wigdor is a surrealist."''
''Infrogmation, if the dispute were anything other than whether or not Wigdor is a surrealist, then I strongly suspect that '''user#24.168.66.27''' would not have a problem with my edits.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 14:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some revolutionary surrealist you are Eric! The allegations that you make regarding comrade Wigdor are typical unsupported assertions. Also, how can you excpect to report and illustrate your set of statements by referring to self-appointed surrealists no different than the phenomenon of this article subject. Bleedy, look at what your friends did to surrealism by their sellout in Webism and that Ohio spectacle, plus what happened to the Chicago and Portland Groups links on James Sebor's main website at the introductory page on surrealists.org? It appears that the self-appointed, "surrealists" in the GPMS with their statement denouncing Webism and their self-appointed, "surrealists(ex-Webists)" trying to dupe the public into believing this is all one united surrealist collective has evolved into one giant confusionist mess. Bleedy, what, "surrealist" group do you belong to?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 17:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Notice how, "Bleedy" does not answer?==
Because, "Bleedy" cannot answer nor provide an answer. Yet, Bleedy's self-appointed, "surrealist" friends are now being labelled as EX-WEBISTS!!!! What a legacy!!![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 17:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Please stick to the article about Wigdor, user#24.168.66.27 ==
''User#24.168.66.27 , your questions about which surrealist group I might or might not belong to, what people in paris are doing, etc. are totally irrelevant to the wikipedia article about Keith Wigdor. We still need to get the article finished. Keith Wigdor is not a surrealist, but actually a digital artist who has been inspired by surrealism.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 17:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Bleedy's allegations are invalid==
The user 24. has a valid point where the user Bleedy does not. Bleedy makes false allegations about, "surrealist groups" and "important surrealists" yet provided no conclusive proof. He has been attacking the article subject and making up lies to ruin the article. This Keith Wigdor is a surrealist, that is a fact. Bleedy makes references to, "surrealists groups" that do not even exist in any credible sense, what next?[[User:63.169.104.2|63.169.104.2]] 20:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
''Right, Keith. Whatever you say. Your efforts to undermine my contribution to the article only draw people like Infrogmation's attention away from the fact that you are trying to push your own article here. Once again: where are the pictures of Keith Wigdor with important surrealists? Where are the various magazine articles, websites, etc. that show collaborations between Wigdor and other famous surrealists? Even though Wigdor claims he's a surrealist, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT HE'S A SURREALIST? Apparently not.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 21:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We still have no definite proof of any, "important surrealist" as provided by you, Bleedy. After all, it is a fact that the article subject was born in 1965. Andre Breton died in 1966 and the Paris Surrealist Group disbanded in 1969. These, "surrealist groups" and, "important surrealists" just do not exist. Bleedy, if you know anything about surrealism, it has nothing to do with celebrity status, social importance, magazine features, etc. Surrealism involves the arts and also poetry, literature, etc. Keith Wigdor is a surrealist and surrealist artist. He stated that fact and you cannot handle the truth! Learn to cope. His work is surrealism and you hate him.[[User:63.169.104.2|63.169.104.2]] 22:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
''IS THERE ANYTHING THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT KEITH WIGDOR IS A SURREALIST, OTHER THAN A FEW COLLAGES AND A SELF-SERVING "SURREALISM IN 2004" ESSAY?'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 23:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Nope, and there will doubtless be a "SURREALISM IN 2005" essay (he does these every year) explaining how "true" surrealism is everything that surrealism is against, and how Wigdor (the new Dali) is the saviour of surrealism. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 20:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Oh, Daniel, you are being so silly! It is a fact that Keith Wigdor does NOT write a yearly essay on Surrealism. There was only one essay,
:::There was a SURREALISM IN 2003 and a SURREALISM in 2004. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::Daniel, you are wrong again as usual. Surrealism 2003 was not an essay,(really a statement) that appeared to cause such a fuss amongst your friends, as evident in the constant and unjust attacks, which is really old news and nothing new. Its amazing how one person can literally take on an entire, "movement"
:::Wigdor "[took] on an entire movement." Therefore, he was outside of the movement (surrealism), and against it. QED. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::wrong again, Daniel! Surrealism exists outside of the corrupt monopoly run by you are your small number of friends. No museums nor any art media recognize you and your friends as representatives of Breton. He died in 1966, get over it.
:::::So what you're implying is that old chestnut that surrealism (evidence be damned!) ended in 1966. If you expect me to "get over" surrealism because of this ridiculous piece of wishful thinking that your own assertions (about the "breakup" of the Paris Surrealist Group, which you say took place after this) contradict, why don't you "get over it" and forget about surrealism? --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 16:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::If your, "movement" was the real thing, you would have stopped the Breton auction, yet you did not. If your, "movement" was the real thing, you would have followed through with your stupid, "Craven Destiny" baby rant and at least showed up to protest, yet you did not. If your, "movement" was the real thing, you would have responded to the statement made by Marie and Friends in Paris and made a public statement on behalf of Zazie and Willem, yet you did not. If your, "movement" was the real thing, you would not have to rely on one awful website, to dupe the public,
:::::What is the URL of this "awful website"? How (''precisely'') does it "dupe the public"? Even if an "official site" were created (and you haven't established why you don't see as "official" any of the surrealist websites that exist, or why there would need to be such an "official" site), why do you see everything as dependent on the World Wide Web to the extent that you totally discount activities off the Web? --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 16:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::yet you do not create any, "official site" for surrealism. If your, "movement" was the real thing, you would be the real thing, yet you are not.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 15:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::and see how truly disorganized, weak, superficial and meaningless, their, "results" really are. As for your labelling of Wigdor as, "the new Dali", that can be kind of flattering to some degree, since Dali's accomplishments in surrealism (remember he was ONE individual)surpass the entire surrealist collective, from Breton to even you and your friends. Even when Dali was, "ex-communicated" he was still a surrealist as far as the public was concerned and THEY are the FINAL JUDGE! VIVA SURREALISME!!! VIVA DALI!!! oh, and VIVA WIGDOR!!!!!![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 00:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Keith Wigdor is only an artist, not a surrealist ==
'' Hey '''User#24.168.66.27''', it's apparent that you're getting over-excited again.''
''Please remember Keith, er, I mean '''User#24.168.66.27''', that this article is supposed to be about Keith Wigdor and his digital art, and not about the surrealist movement. The kind of debate you are introducing here belongs on the [[surrealism]] page, not on this [[Keith Wigdor]] page. Any talk here of other surrealists and what they are or are not doing should be conducted on the surrealism talkpage.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 16:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Keith Wigdor is a living contemporary surrealist!==
The best that surrealism has to offer!!! VIVA WIGDOR!!![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 20:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== No longer disputed ==
I removed the template because it is obviuous that this dispute is over to avoid the constant edit wars that plague this article, which is unnecessary and very un-Wiki.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 17:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: So there is no longer any dispute over this article? That is astonishing news. I hope you're right. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 19:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I hope so too, Infrogmation. Its been days, you know.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 06:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:After all this time, and now Eric W.Bragg:(Bleedy) has decided to come back and save the day![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 06:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::207.105.216.130 is attacking the article subject. Please do not write any more attacks. Wigdor is a surrealist. He is not an opportunist fake. Please do not be so nasty.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 19:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nuthin' but the truth, Ruth --[[User:207.105.216.130|207.105.216.130]] 19:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::For all we know, this, "Ruth" could be in love with Keith Wigdor![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 21:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
''It may be going too far to say that Wigdor has been "accused by some surrealists as being phony", so I deleted that part. However, I do agree with the assessment that K. Wigdor is an imitator, and not an inventor (and to be surrealist, one must be an inventor). A look at his art (follow the links in the article) shows his stuff to be very imitative, very derivative of the works of other surrealists. I have presented other similar arguments previously, and any curious parties are welcome to check the prior entries on this discussion page as to why I think Wigdor should be mentioned as someone "inspired by surrealism" rather than as "surrealist." That is why I edited the page as such.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 19:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Bleedy writes, "and to be surrealist, one must be an inventor". Bleedy you are wrong again! To be a surrealist, you have to engage a campaign to destroy logic. Wigdor has done just that and he has invaded your mind to destroy logic. You are obsessed with Wigdor. That is nothing to be ashamed of, he has that power, you know.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 21:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Hans, and I'm new here. I just wanted to add that Wigdor also makes Charcoal Sleep Art.
Hans --[[User:Cukestroke|Cukestroke]] 23:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==New user Cukestroke writes...==
"Wigdor also makes Charcoal Sleep Art".
I ask of this new user to specifically show us where this, "Charcoal Sleep Art" is and what is it?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 00:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We are turning again.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 02:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cukestroke wrote in the article, "Wigdor even makes charcoal art when he is sleeping". That is vandalism of the article.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 17:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Who are these, "surrealists" that challenge Wigdor?==
Who are these people? What are their names? Where can we find any evidence online by these, "surrealists" that specifically say, "Wigdor is phony" or what, "surrealist publication" states, "accused by some surrealists as being phony"? Where online or in any publication can we find the words, "Wigdor is phony" or, "Wigdor is not a surrealist because of...." or, "accused by some surrealists as being phony"? Who are these people? Are they surrealists? Where can we find written and published documentation that states accusations that, "accused by some surrealists as being phony"? Again, what surrealist website or surrealist publication states in writing that, "accused by some surrealists as being phony"?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 21:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
At least provide a well-crafted argument.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 00:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Notice how Bleedy does not answer? Then he goes and reverts the article.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 02:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Score!==
Hey Eric, (I'm sorry) I mean, "Bleedy". Here on this talk page for the Keith Wigdor article, didn't you make a statement that, "Wigdor is a webist, not a surrealist"? I couldn't help but notice how many of your, "surrealist" friends that you have collaborated with, have left such an enduring legacy in the arts, as well as hooking up with a tax consultant, no less.
Hey Bleedy, you are making comrade Wigdor and all the comrades so jealous!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Here folks, take a look at this, I have to admit, with all due respect to all these artists, they are very good. They do deserve all the $$$urreal rewards that they strive for, as well as fame and recognition too! Oh, I forgot, here is the URL, I really am in awe of these artists, they all are very good, http://www.artingrid.de/mq.htm
[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 03:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Some words of wisdom from the user, Bleedy. These are his exact words, please read carefully, I am not making any of this up, he wrote this and that is a fact! Bleedy writes:
"With that said, I think the article should be reshaped in order to stress Wigdor's webist and digital-art accomplishments".
Then, take another look at the above link.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 03:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again, notice how, Bleedy (Eric W.Bragg) does not answer.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 17:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bleedy writes in is revert, "Wigdor is a surrealist-derivative". Still no response here on the talk page.
Let me offer some more of the good faith in here to try and help Bleedy understand.
Bleedy, when you are trying to propose that Wigdor is not a surrealist, do the following:
1. What is your main conclusion that Wigdor is not a surrealist?
2. Are there any subconclusions, (look for indicators or statements that are published from documents or websites that support your conclusion indicators)?
3. What are the premises that you are offering in your argument that Wigdor is not a surrealist?
4.Have you put conditional statements into standard form to help those not familiar with surrealism but familiar with proper debate and argument to help you with your statements that you made on this page???
5. Is your language uniform, are your statements provided in a clear and cohesive manner to at least build some kind of foundation for your argument???
6. Have you removed excess verbiage?
7. Have you been fair and charitable?
(I have, I removed more wording than you did, from the article and you still come back in here to fight)
8. Have you chosen an interpretation that makes your argument really hard to refute???
Really, Bleedy, to be fair to you, like I always have, you started this, and you still cannot provide answers to the argument that you initiated. Please TRY and answer anything from above.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 19:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::In the meantime, Bleedy, go back and re-read your statements from your 20:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) post.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 19:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Still no answer from Bleedy. Is this good faith?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 19:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==For your review. This is from Bleedy's...==
This is from a URL website that Bleedy's parallel college poems are found, http://www.surrealcoconut.com/surrealist_games/parallel_collage-poem4.htm
Now, you will see, Bernard Dumaine, Willem den Broeder, Zazie, and James Sebor who collaborate with Eric on this page. Now are three of these, "surrealists" any of the same people from this URL, http://www.artingrid.de/mq.htm ???
Mind you, that, Zazie, along with a new, "surrealist" recruit are ALL over this page as WEBISM organizers, along with Zazie's Webism Art Logo in the background. What I am proposing to you all is, that Bleedy (who is Eric W.Bragg) has stated in writing on this page that, "Wigdor is a webist, not a surrealist". Remember, folks, there appears to have been a MAJOR blunder in this so-called, "surrealist" movement when the GPMS denounced Webism in a public statement and now these people that are some of the same signatories of Craven Destiny, no less, are WEBISTS!!!! Bleedy has been trying to assure us all that Wigdor is a webist because he created digital art. Let the record show that WIGDOR has nothing to do with Webism and he is a surrealist!!! Maybe, Eric, I mean, Bleedy, can get some evidence from the websits, or ex-webists to back him up, since he is unable himself to provide anything to back up his case.
Notice, STILL no answer![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 19:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
user 63.202.82.172 reverts back to Bleedy's version and still no answer. Tomorrow after the 24hr's is up on my last revert, I will put back surrealist.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 00:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Notice how Bleedy does not answer?==
Bleedy feels SO strongly about Wigdor not being a surrealist, that HE still has NOT answered any of the above questions in good faith. For weeks, I have been trying to work with this user to prevent harmful edit wars and he still does not provide anything that can make it impossible to refute his argument.
:Bleedy, what is a surrealist? What does it take to be a surrealist? Why are you so insistent on Wigdor NOT being a surrealist? What is the controversy over ONE word, which thus, reduces wording of the article (which I have done in good faith in order to work with you) and you still refuse to work with me. DAYS passed, and then you decided to come back in here and present your case, which I welcome!
Well, present your case!!!! I want to see what you have to present. WHO are the, "surrealists" that denounce Wigdor and WHY? Again, are these people surrealists and are they any different than Wigdor? Also, are any of the people that contest Wigdor being a surrealist, webists or ex-webists? You stated in writing that Wigdor is a webist, you did not present any evidence of Wigdor's involvement in Webism.
Bleedy, I understand that you feel so strong about Wigdor NOT being a surrealist? Can you tell the people (or inform) the people that are new to this discussion, why is it so important that Wigdor NOT be labeled a surrealist? Are you a surrealist?
Bleedy, you do feel very strongly about Wigdor NOT being a surrealist. I can see that you MUST be passionate about Surrealism. Have you ever edited the Surrealism article here on Wikipedia? There is MORE of a controversy over there than here. IF you do feel so strong about surrealism (we do not know until you tell us) and that could justify Wigdor not being a surrealist, why have you not edited the surrealism article?
What is a well-known surrealist?
Who is Rosemont? Does Wigdor have to be seen in a picture with this Rosemont in order to be a surrealist?
What is this surrealist movement that you refered to in your past posts?
You alleged that you had meetings in the past with Wigdor, that you talked things over with Wigdor. Is this really true? Are there pictures of you and Wigdor together?
Who are these surrealists that are important?
Does Breton's message assert that in order to be a surrealist, you have to be an important surrealist?
Are there any pictures of this Rosemont with Breton?
Why do you care so much about Wigdor NOT being a surrealist, since you waited DAYS to come back and revert?
Why don't you answer my questions here?
Are you angry at Wigdor and why? or are you not angry at him and why?
Do you want justice?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 01:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Bleedy statement from Dec.29, 2004==
"Actually, I do have contact with K. Wigdor, and the things he told me are genuine, as I reported them earlier. However, what I do know is that he is also a schizophrenic, and when I talked to him during the xmas eve party at the Jaded-Coprolite Art Gallery, he told me he had stopped taking his medication for a couple of days, at least until the festivities are over with."
:Please try to let us all know why you feel so strongly about Wigdor NOT being a surrealist? Also, any pictures from that xmas eve party, Bleedy?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 01:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Bleedy's last addition to this talk page was on Feb.3 and he still has not answered to ANY of the above posts that I made. He started this when he came back in here and I WELCOME his input!
In the meantime, here is another Bleedy statement:
"I have no stake in any articles other than this one. Check the logs, dude. I had nothing to do with any of the other people or articles that you mentioned."
and from Feb.3:
"''It may be going too far to say that Wigdor has been "accused by some surrealists as being phony", so I deleted that part. However, I do agree with the assessment that K. Wigdor is an imitator, and not an inventor (and to be surrealist, one must be an inventor)."
::Bleedy, how do you know that, "to be a surrealist, one must be an inventor"? How do you know? All you have done is revert this article. What surrealists have you spoken to that can back up your argument?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 01:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Still waiting to hear back from Bleedy. His last post was on Feb.3==
...and still no answer from the person who started the dispute. It appears that Bleedy does not know any surrealists, even those from the articles here on Wikipedia. He doesn't even care about surrealism or surrealists from what I am seeing. How can he support his argument if he does not know any(self-labeled) surrealists (even those with articles here on Wikipedia, from what I see)?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 18:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:: and yet, still no answer from the person who feels so strong about surrealism and surrealists. Waiting to hear back from you, Bleedy.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 18:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
''Keith, I have already explained, many many times, why I have edited this article in the way that I have. Please re-read my previous entries and explanations.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 23:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Eric W.Bragg, you have not, "explained" many, many times why you are obsessing over ONE WORD! Please tell us all, why this obsession over one word?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 00:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Ladies and Gentlemen, please read the above statement by Bleedy (Eric W.Bragg) and why he does not provide any good faith and fairness to this article. This is a perfect example of what he considers as, "charitable" to his argument. I will now go back and put back in surrealist.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 00:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
re:"what I do know..."...this inferred from an offhand remark regarding medication?...Are you a clinical psychiatrist?...Did you apply some blood litmus test on amounts of dopamines present in neurotransmitters?...Or is this simply further visceral calumniation,because rationally you cannot defend the supposition you began with?...the body of work accomplished by this artist definitely falls well within the umbrella of all semantic associations of the word "surrealist"
==Statement Analysis of Bleedy's statements==
Bleedy (Eric), this is what you wrote in the past:
"The reason for this is that surrealist activity is defined by collaboration with other surrealists, and apparently there are no surrealists who wish to collaborate with him."
::Bleedy, how do you know that? Please ILLUSTRATE your premises. You wrote, "surrealist activity is defined by collaboration with other surrealists". Didn't the administrator ask you if you have any stake in any of the other surrealism articles?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 01:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your conclusion is, "no surrealists who wish to collaborate with him".
I ask, prove it. Name the, "surrealists" that do not wish to collaborate with Keith Wigdor. How do you know that, "surrealists do not wish to collaborate with him". That is not true. Prove it![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 01:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bleedy wrote,
"Also, to reinforce this idea, there are no photographs of Keith with other surrealists, such as Rosemont, which would demonstrate his importance within the surrealist movement".
Bleedy(Eric), how do you know that would demonstrate his importance within the surrealist movement? I thought you CLEARLY STATED on this talk page that (and I quote you exactly), "I have no stake in any articles other than this one. Check the logs, dude. I had nothing to do with any of the other people or articles that you mentioned."
You were speaking to Infrogmation there. Bleedy, remember this fact: YOU came back in here AFTER DAYS and started a dispute all over again. I WELCOME YOU BACK and I ask you to PROVE YOUR CASE over one simple word. How hard is that to do?[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 01:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Bleedy's explanations and MAIN POINT of Contention==
Bleedy wrote today the following, "Please re-read my previous entries and explanations."
Ok, so here are some of his explantions and MAIN POINT of Contention, below[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 01:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC):
"Some surrealists even believe that discussion of him only serves to draw more attention to Keith Wigdor, and so they will not speak about him publicly. Therefore, Keith Wigdor is not very welcome in surrealist circles. Whoever '''user#24.168.66.27''' is, this individual is trying to promote Keith Wigdor as a surrealist, and this is where the main point of contention is.''
Again, Ladies and Gentelmen (Infrogmation, I assume you are reading all this too), Bleedy explicitly states his MAIN POINT of Contention: "...Therefore, Keith Wigdor is not very welcome in surrealist circles".
Bleedy, your conclusion is asserted on the basis of your premises, which is also asserted. You are EXPRESSING a Non-Argument. Please look VERY CAREFULLY at the statements Bleedy writes. This is clearly an Unsound Argument.[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 01:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
''I have already explained myself, Keith.'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 02:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Eric! Not good enough! This is a dispute that was started by YOU! It is a fact, that you are really obsessed with the ONE WORD, in this article: surrealist. I have done everything to work WITH you and YOU still refuse to Co-operate in good faith for the benefit of closure. I will KEEP putting in surrealist, just as you and your alias names and, "friends" keep taking it out. Most likely, Infrogmation is going to protect the article, hey, whatever happens. By the way, FOR THE RECORD: WIGDOR was just interviewed by the Zine Website from Italy, called LATCHKEY and the interviewer has labeled Wigdor a Surrealist, and this is from a NEUTRAL person who runs an online zine and website that has nothing to do with Wigdor, except exhibit his SURREALIST ART, along with a nice feature. Oh, Wigdor might be appearing up in New York City in a future symposium AS A SURREALIST, just to let you know. The SURREALIST Publication DREAMPEOPLE regularly features Wigdor too, AS A SURREALIST, plus the article subject himself, calles himself a surrealist, so that is all the public needs to know. You have an obsession with ONE WORD, and you STILL provide NO evidence or ARGUMENT, which I welcome. Or are we going to be shown more Wiggy the Poop-Pooh pictures online to defame Wigdor, which is what you are good at, right Mr.Bragg (www.surrealcoconut.com) the website that has a gallery page online to harrass Wigdor, www.surrealcoconut.com/doorwig1.html
What does the google search say, Eric???[[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 06:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==In the meantime, Infrogmation==
I have done ALL I can to work with this user, Bleedy, and I offered EVERY Chance that I can to DISCUSS and have a proper debate over the ONE WORD that this user is OBSESSED over. What is the problem? Its only ONE WORD! I have reduced wording in the paragraph and I have offered good faith. He started this dispute and all he can do is say that he already explained himself. Statement Analysis has busted this user on so many invalid statements and unsupported assertions, let alone, NO EVIDENCE, which I keep asking for. A PERFECT window of opportunity was given this user last time to end this and bring this to closure and he is OBSESSING over ONE WORD, which tells you that he does not have ANY INTENTION to provide Fair and Charitable GOOD FAITH and I kept asking him to provide his Evidence: Statements from other surrealists, Defining what the hell his argument is really about, which was about attacking the article subject first, which he was banned for, and then he cannot even ANSWER in Good Faith except leave my questions with BLANK ANSWERS! If he felt SO STRONG about WIGDOR NOT being a Surrealist, WHY DOES HE NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE!!!!????? I really would like for him to do so, I WELCOME HIS CASE![[User:24.168.66.27|24.168.66.27]] 06:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
''I have presented my case many times, but you always have ignored every question I have ever asked, Keith. BTW, who the hell is "eric"?'' --[[User:Bleedy|Bleedy]] 12:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)All content in the above text box is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license Version 4 and was originally sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1496800.
  This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|