Talk:Wool 100%

Sources added that don't satisfy editor
Very strange. I was an uninvolved editor looking into a dispute between two parties (one of whom has now been blocked). I added two sources out of several found to verify that this film can be listed as surrealism. This is also ongoing at I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. The main editor will not accept the sources. I have not said the statement need be in the lead but it is properly sourced and should be in the article. Original addition was here and the editor "TheOldJacobite" has been reverted by others for the same thing at the "I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse" article. I don't feel like adding to a revert war so I will take this to dispute resolution if it is reverted again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources are not adequate to support the claim. A Surrealist film means a film made by a person connected to the Surrealist movement.  The vague adjective "surreal" is meaningless. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  01:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Wikipedia's own article Surrealist cinema says nothing about that. It says "Surrealist cinema is characterised by juxtapositions, the rejection of dramatic psychology, and a frequent use of shocking imagery." Nothing about it "must" be done by a particular person. Nor do I see surrealism described this way at dictionary.com or Websters. Everything I read tells me your definition is a faulty and extremely narrow vision of things. You have been reverted by multiple editors on this issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)