Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:27, 18 September 2010

Template:Archive box collapsible

Eyes Shut

I think you were correct to remove the compromise edit that "Eyes Wide Shut" is somewhat surreal. I myself put it in as sort of compromise with an editor who wanted to characterize it as a surrealist film. At the time it seemed justified to me since there are in fact some critics who see elements of surrealism in Kubrick's films without really characterizing him as a full-blown surrealist. However, as it stands its really very unclear without further elaboration, and the lead section would not at all be a good place to elaborate it. So on reflection I think it is best it be gone.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fluxus

Dear RepublicanJacobite,

From time to time I check in on the Fluxus page of Misplaced Pages to do a little cleaning up or to add resources. I should probably be more active in Misplaced Pages, but I've got to admit this is the only entry that captures my interest. On my latest visit I noticed a huge number of changes that you brought to the page since September 1. I'm writing to propose a revert.

Since September 1, you have removed extensive material from the entry on Fluxus. This includes removing several of the key artists -- all of whom you will find represented in the key collections at the Museum of Modern Art, the Tate, the Getty Institute, and the Hood Museum of Art. This includes removing Yoko Ono, who is probably the most famous among the living Fluxus artists, but several others have disappeared. You have also removed several of the best known and most widely published scholars, including Owen Smith, author of the definitive history on Fluxus published by San Diego State University Press, and Ina Blom, one of the key European scholars, both of whom did their doctoral theses on Fluxus at respected universities.

The Misplaced Pages editorial standards prescribe using the published peer-reviewed scholarly literature as the primary source of changes, with such other key sources as scholarly monographs from peer-reviewed university presses and academic publishing firms. While some of the artists in the lists you have cleaned up did not appear in such sources, the Fluxus artists and scholars you removed will be found in this literature, while some artists and scholars you left intact were not.

As editor of the first academic collection on Fluxus (Fluxus Reader, 1998) and as an editor of and contributor to the peer-reviewed scholarly literature (several special issues of the journal Visible Language, and special Fluxus issues of such journals as Performance Research, White Walls, and others, as well as to books from MIT Press, University Press of America, and others), I have a good knowledge of the field. While I do have my own views, any edits I have made to improve the page and its contents are based on articles and books that have gone through peer review.

I'd like to suggest returning to the version of September 1 and reviewing the literature carefully before making as may cuts as you have made. If you are curious to converse with me on these issues or any specific views, feel free to contact me through my web page at

http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html

or my email

kenfriedman@groupwise.swin.edu.au

Best regards,

Ken Friedman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfriedman0 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All of my edits were within the bounds of WP policy, i.e., removing repetition, overlinking, and removing names which linked to the wrong articles. All of this is considered good editing. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly - I see nothing wrong with RepublicanJacobite's edits. Yoko Ono and the other important Fluxus figures are still in the article; no longer in the list because repetition of their names is not necessary there. linking every time a name or word or a place turns up is unnecessary; and RJ simply removed those repetitive links; Ina Blom - needs her own article - write one perhaps and Owen Smith is the wrong fellow...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Modernist on this one, its a pet peeve of mine, half of my edits are delinking. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Friends,

First. Let me apologize for not signing the comment in proper Wiki style. I'm a bit of an amateur at this. My comment was signed within my notes, though, with my real name -- not simply a Wiki name -- and I give my web site and email address.

There are two issues I raise here. A list is not the same as an article -- even in an article that mentions artists already mentioned in the running text, a list serves another purpose, enabling readers to see everyone in a community at a glance. It is easy to overlook names in a running text or to miss them. Having served as an editor and consultant on several reference books (the old-fashioned print kind), we make these kinds of distinctions, and occasionally repeat information when it ought properly to occur in different sections. In many cases, information even occurs a third time or a fourth when such books use different kinds of content or indexing devices. So I'd still like to propose a revert to leave the lists as they were.

I'm not sure why it makes sense to remove a name -- Owen Smith -- by saying, "It's the wrong Owen Smith." Owen Smith has written or contributed to several books, major catalogue essays, special journal articles on this topic. It's not a matter of saying that he or Ina Blom deserve articles of their own: the issue here is ensuring that people who seek qualified scholarly advice on this topic have the name accessible. There is another Owen Smith who seems to write about Harry Potter, but the Owen Smith whose name appeared here is an expert on Fluxus. Sorting the different people with the name Owen Smith is a reason for disambiguation, not a reason to remove a leading scholar from the list of scholars.

If RepublicanJacobite and Modernist feel a strong sense of ownership concerning the style and formatting of this article, I'll probably just bow out. I'm happy to contribute time and thought to the Misplaced Pages project in an area where I am a subject expert in the domain, as demonstrated by 40 years of publishing on the topic in peer-reviewed journals, book chapters from university presses, and exhibition catalogs. I'm also happy to explain the reason for my views. But I don't want to get into an edit war. Much of the content and many of the notes I added carefully to this article have vanished in the changes made since September 1. You folks are experienced Misplaced Pages editors. I am not. In contrast, I am a subject expert and an editor and writer for paper-based reference books. I know my way around the topic and I have an understand of what constitutes an encyclopedia entry, at least the normal kind. If the worlds are going to collide, I simply have to respect the fact that the Misplaced Pages way of doing things is different and let it go at that.

If you are willing to permit me to revert this and restore the content, great. If not, that's life.

Kenfriedman0 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Ken Friedman

Frankly Ken, your acting childish here. Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

metropoliis

Regarding this edit and summary - was that a mistake? I certainly does not look like vandalism to me. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, mistakes happen. Another editor has already fixed it. i was just wondering if there was something there I and the other editor were missing. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Rivethead. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RJ, I'm missing the vandalism you're claiming; please be more specific and let's stop using templates for the time being. I've protected the article for now to prevent further edit warring. Please use the article's talk page to work out your dispute with the IP. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:American action drama films

Just a heads from a deletion notice abouta new category by a genre warrior with this category: Category:American action drama films. Your opinion would be appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay! nevermind you beat me to it. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

War adventure

Hello Repub! I've noted several sources discussing war adventure films in your categories for deletion nom. Perhaps you'd like to take a look? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Weill I'm here..

..If you like Kurt Weill's music then you should check out the music of Hanns Eisler. His style is similar, he brings in fusions of popular music at the time, jazz influences. And he also wrote many songs with words by Brecht, and those are good fun. Mostly funny, ironic and satirical as is Brecht's way! Take it easy, ValenShephard (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hannibal Lecter - sociopath vs psychopath

Hello, I had cleaned up a movie reference on the page for Hannibal Lecter, and when I went back to double check it, I noticed that someone unnamed had revised the sentence "However, Lecter's keeper Frederick Chilton claims that Lecter is a pure psychopath." to read "... pure sociopath." and you had reverted it. However, it sounded right to me, so I checked, and in my paperback copy of TSotL (p,11) , Chilton does indeed say to Starling "A pure sociopath, that's obviously what he is." So I am just writing to ask if there is a conflicting quote, or some other source of information. Otherwise, it should be changed back, I think. Cheers! Edgehawk (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Surrealist films

I think you're being rather hasty to remove this category from films such as Mulholland Drive (film) and Videodrome. It wasn't at all difficult to locate references: Google Books for "Mulholland Drive" surrealist did the trick. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Republican Jacobite, you're not even taking the time to read the articles you're removing these cites from. Kenilworth Terrace went and found a cite for Mulholland Dr., but it was unnecessary. The surreal elements of the film are cited multiple times in the article. So you're using your own perception of what makes a film surreal to remove these categories and characterizations? --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Recommend you discuss your mass-removal of this here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to ask for "a reliable source that says the film is Surrealist", but should have taken the time to consider whether you could find one: a few moments with Google Books showed that Mulholland Drive (film) is discussed in Hopkins, David (2004). Dada and Surrealism: a very short introduction. Very short introductions. Vol. 105. Oxford University Press. p. 95. ISBN 0192802542., a book about Surrealism, as an example. You could and should have checked. Responding with "What utter rubbish" was not helpful. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but no, I am not basing my decisions on my own perception. Please, if you would, provide me with an encyclopedic definition of "surreal." Surrealism has a definition, so if we have a category called Surrealist films, the Surrealism article should be our guide for what is and is not a Surrealist film. And did you actually say that a source is not necessary?! Of course a source is necessary, since this is an encyclopedia we are building. And I do not believe that one off hand remark about a film being "surreal," whatever the hell that means, is enough of a reason to add said film to Surrealist film category. Surely, our standards for inclusion should be better than that. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a film encyclopedia with me, so here's dictionary.com: " sur·re·al·ism /səˈriəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Show IPA –noun ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a style of art and literature developed principally in the 20th century, stressing the subconscious or nonrational significance of imagery arrived at by automatism or the exploitation of chance effects, unexpected juxtapositions, etc." If you have a film encyclopedia definition, provide it.
• Now, I wrote most of the Mulholland Dr. article. You spent an entire minute (previous removal of Cat for Surrelaist films at 13.09, Mulholland Dr. at 13.10 and 13.11 and efficently on to the next film at 13.12scanning what I can only assume was the first sentence of the article. You did not seem to take in the entire sections of Interpretations and Style where nonrational narrative, uncanny cinematic effects, and dreams, dreaming, and a whole lot more dreams are discussed and cited by film scholars and notable critics. Clearly you seem to be either in a rush or lazy, so just Ctrl+F for "surreal" and note how many times mention of the word is cited. You don't get to decide when a film meets your characteristics. The sources do.
• It's clear to me that you've never read the article. Have you even seen the film??
• Leads don't require cites when the issues are clearly stated and cited in the body of the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well-meaning suggestion

Could I suggest that you step back a little from some of the debates you're engaging in? Edit summaries such as "Clearly, you do not know what you are talking about", "What utter rubbish", "This is not a forum for your ranting", all from the last 24 hours, suggest that you ought to slow down a little. Just a thought. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Distributism

Your repeated deletions of a comment at this page were improper, not falling under any of the criteria at WP:TPO. If you disagree with the points raised, and have comments to make that would improve the article, then make them. If not, then leave it alone. Zarboublian (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)