Talk:Salvador Dalí/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

February 2017

Where is Dalí's cause of death? User talk:M briglia05 February 15, 2017 8:31 AM (EST)

At Salvador Dalí#Final years and death.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Salvador Dalí. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Salvador Dalí. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Salvador Dalí. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Salvador Dalí. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Spanish nationality or Catalan ethnicity

Dear Coldcreation, After I edited the article removing "Spanish" from Salvador Dali, you reverted it and claimed "Spanish is a Nationality, Catalan isn't". The adjective "Spanish" was unnecessary in the first place as the sentence already said he was from "Figueras, Catalonia, Spain". Repeating his nationality twice in the same sentence is clumsy English and also suggests unnecessary political bias. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and politically neutral: that is why I removed "Spanish" from the sentence and did not replace it with Catalan. I hope you will reconsider your latest edit in light of my more detailed explanation. 16.21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The article currently reads "...was a prominent Spanish surrealist artist born in Figueres (Girona), Catalonia, Spain." This is perfectly encyclopedic. There is no suggestion of partiality or political bias in mentioning the artists birth place and nationality, since they are too separate things. Thanks for your concern. Coldcreation (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles very often describe notable figures with ethnicity rather than nationality. Since Spanish is an ethnicity as well as a nationality it is misleading to describe Salvador Dali as "Spanish" more times than is necessary. Removing the adjective "Spanish" is a good compromise on this point. You claim that "There is no suggestion of partiality or political bias in mentioning the artist's nationality" but the fact that you have completely disregarded Catalan as being a nationality is very indicative of political bias. If you click on the Catalan language article of Salvador Dali, you will see that his nationality is listed as Catalan. Aside from whether you recognise Catalan as a "nationality", Catalan is most certainly an ethnicity and Salvador Dali was most certainly of Catalan ethnicity, not Spanish. Wikipedia articles more-than-often describe notable figures by ethnicity, **not** nationality so by referring to Dali as "Spanish" you are brushing his Catalan ethnicity under the carpet. I'm not suggesting that you change "Nationality" in the boxed section on the right, as Catalonia was officially part of the Kingdom of Spain during his lifetime. However, to pay heed to his ethnicity, the adjective should at the very least either be changed to Catalan or omitted. 14.01 19th October, 2017 (UTC) DewyBukiaPeters (talk)
Another point- (I didn't realise this before) you claimed that "Spanish is a Nationality, Catalan isn't". Your claim is incorrect [1]. In the present tense, Catalan is a nationality. However, I understand this could be disputed for the case of Salvador Dali as for much of his lifetime, Catalan was not a nationality (under the rule of Franco). Therefore, I have specified his ethnicity and not changed his nationality on the Wikipedia page. Furthermore, I suggest you provide references before making statements such as "Catalan isn't a nationality, Spanish is". 14.35 19th October, 2017 (UTC) DewyBukiaPeters (talk)
Now, the article reads "[Dalí]...was a prominent Spanish surrealist artist of Catalan ethnicity born in Figueres (Girona), Catalonia, Spain." This appears well balanced as far as nationality and ethnicity. (Although I would remove Girona). Coldcreation (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'd also remove "(Girona)".Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "First article of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. 'Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community...'". Gencat.cat. Archived from the original on 28 May 2008. Retrieved 13 September 2013.
Can this page be semi-protected? It is now the target of unregistered vandals who deny that Catalan is even an ethnicity. --DewyBukiaPeters (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Salvador Dalí. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Violent behaviour

There are multiple sources including Dali's own biography that cite Dali's violent behaviour over his lifetime, it seems important to add this to the article:

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like he behaved impeccably. I didn't find anything about your claim in the NY Times link. Would you like to be more specific: page number, paragraph, quote, an example, etc.? Coldcreation (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Coldcreation: please see the other links, e.g taken from his autobiography (the Google Books link)
"While crossing the hall I caught sight of my little three-year-old sister crawling unobtrusively through a doorway. I stopped, hesitated a second, then gave her a terrible kick in the head as though it had been a ball, and continued running, carried away with a ‘delirious joy’ induced by this savage act."
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: According to Orwell (the link above), it is difficult to tell which stories are true and which are imaginary. I'll look at the book too shortly. In all, something about this might be worthy of mention, leaving open the possible fictitious nature of what is written. Some other editors might have some input on this too. Coldcreation (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Coldcreation:, thanks very much for looking into it. John Cummings (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Issues

Hello all

I think there are a number of quality issues with this article.

1) It is too long and repetitive and contains too much trivia. Separate sections for Career and Personal Life would give the article a better structure and help avoid the repetitions. 2) When I checked some of the citations I found that they did not support the statements. It would be great if a trained art historian could go through the article and check the information. 3) There needs to be more focus on Dali's work and less trivia about his personal life. 4) Much of the article appears to be written by a non-native English speaker. I have tried to clarify some of the English expression but in some cases the intended meaning isn't clear and needs to be checked against the original Spanish sources. (See, for example, the section "Exhumation".)

I am not an expert on Dali and don't feel qualified to attempt a major rewrite. I came to this article to find out more about Dali and his work and was disappointed by the quality of the article compared with the one on Picasso. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemilius Adolphin (talk • contribs) 05:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin: Could you give some specific examples of 1. excessive trivia, 2. citations that do not corroborate the text, 3. areas of repetition, 4. sentences written by non-natives? Also, the personal life of Dalí, perhaps more than any other artist, was inextricably linked to his work as an artist. For that reason, his career and personal life have been fused in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Coldcreation 1) I consider most of the personal information under the Politics and Personality section to be trivia of the kind more suited to a fan site than an encyclopedia. I understand that Dali was famous for being Dali as much as for being a painter but that point has already been made in the biography section, The information could be condensed, for example: "Dali cultivated an eccentric persona and distinctive appearance incorporating a long cape, walking stick and flamboyant waxed mustache. He made a number of public appearances in bizarre costumes or with exotic animals such as an anteater or his pet ocelot Babou." The appropriate sources could then be given. 2) Reference 47 has nothing to do with Dali and needs to be replaced with other sources. Reference 27 in Politics and Personality has already been flagged (in 2009!) as irrelevant to the statement it is meant to support. I haven't checked all the others but this indicates that someone needs to. 3) Much of the material in the biography section is repeated elsewhere: for example, the alleged sexual relationship with Garcia Lorca. The quote "I myself am Surrealism" is given twice. We are told several times that he had a flamboyant mustache and dressed ostentatiously. We are told that he was expelled from the Surrealist Movement in 1934 but a couple of paragraphs later we are told he was expelled in 1938. There are many other examples. 4) An example is the Exhumation section as I have previously noted. It might be best to cut this section to the essential facts: "Dali's body was exhumed in July 2017 in order to obtain DNA samples in relation to a paternity claim. Following analysis of the DNA, the claim was conclusively rejected." I don't think there is any need for Wikipedia to give any more publicity to a claim that has been disproved. I understand your point about Dali's personal life being inextricably linked to his art but the same can be said for many other artists such as Picasso or, in literature, Oscar Wilde. Despite this, the Wikipedia articles for these two figures provide a much better balance between the work of the artist and their personal life. I think these would serve as useful models for the Dali page.

I would also delete most of the Sexuality section. It is full of weasel words ("Dali is rumoured to have had an affair..."; "he was said to be a virgin..."). The sources for this are also often unreliable. (Eg ref 159 is not a reputable website known for its fact checking and does not give a source for its assertion. Source 160 does not support the statement it references. Source 161, British GQ is not a scholarly journal. Source 162, Listverse, is not a reputable source.) I realise that much of Dali's work is full of sexual imagery but most of this section is pure sensationalism, is not adequately related back to his work and needs to be backed up with reputable sources if used at all.

I also suggest that the Politics and Personality section be renamed Politics and Religion. A separate section on Personal Life could pull together some of the information that is repeated in various sections.

I would be happy to do some of the rewrites I have suggested if you agree with them, but a lot of the fact checking will need to be done by someone with more knowledge of Dali. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin: Good points! Ewulp has already made a few changes. Feel free to do some of the rewrites and removals of repetitive material. If need be, I will find the references/sources and make additional changes. Coldcreation (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to Aemilius Adolphin for taking a close look here. At more than 4000 page views per day this is too important an article to be allowed to fall into disrepair. Ewulp (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Dali's first visit to US November 1934

Hello all

I have deleted this section and replaced it with a summary of the version given in Gibson's biography. The previous version contained numerous factual errors and was partially unsourced. The Lindbergh baby anecdote relied on a a story told by Bunuel in My Last Breath and Gibson shows that it is almost certainly incorrect. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

World War II

Hello all

I have created a sub-section entitled Post War in United States (1946-48). This is because the current headings "World War II" and "Later years in Spain" leave a gap from 1946 to July 1948 when the war had ended but Dali had not yet returned to Spain. Dali produced a notable exhibition and book in this period which neither belong to his WWII period or his Spanish period. Happy to discuss. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Bedroom fire August 1984

Hello all

I have replaced the information on the fire with a summary of the version given in Gibson's biography. The replaced version is based on contemporary newspaper articles. Gibson's version is based on the findings of two judicial inquiries into the fire and can be considered definitive.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Dali's only novel Hidden Faces

Hello all

I have cut most of this because I don't think a general article on Salvador Dali is the place to provide a detailed description of the plot (including spoilers) of his novel which is a very minor part of his work. Perhaps someone would be interested in writing a separate article on the novel and providing a link to it. thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Politics and religion

Hello all

The section "Politics and Personality"is getting too long and disorganised so I have created a new subsection called "Politics and Religion" I have replaced most of the current information under politics and religion with more concise, factual information with a more reliable source: Gibson's 1997 biography. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality

Hello all

I have created a subsection named Sexuality. Dali wrote and spoke frequently about his sexuality and this was one of the major themes of his work so I think it deserves a subsection of its own. It will also help organise the material in Politics and Personality more logically. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello all

I think we need to expand the introduction of this article in accordance with the Wiki guidelines so that it provides a better summary of the article. I think the Summary in the French version of the article is better and I have drafted an introduction along those lines. I would welcome your feedback before I make any changes. Thanks.

Draft Introduction

Salvador Domingo Felipe Jacinto Dalí i Domènech, Marquis of Dalí de Púbol (/ˈdɑːli, dɑːˈliː/, Catalan: [səlβəˈðo ðəˈli], Spanish: [salβaˈðoɾ ðaˈli]; 11 May 1904 – 23 January 1989) was a Spanish surrealist artist renowned for his technical skill, precise draftsmanship and the striking and bizarre images in his work.

Born in Figueres, Catalonia, Dalí received his formal education in fine arts at Madrid. Influenced by Impressionism and the Renaissance masters from a young age, he became increasingly attracted by Cubism and avant-garde movements. He moved closer to Surrealism in the late 1920s and formally joined the Surrealist movement in 1929, soon becoming one of its leading exponents. His best-known work, The Persistence of Memory, was completed in August 1931, and is one of the most recognisable Surrealist paintings. Dalí lived in France throughout the Spanish Civil War before leaving for the United States in 1940 where he achieved considerable commercial success. He returned to Catalonia in 1948 where he announced his return to the Catholic faith and developed his "nuclear-mysticism" style, based on his interest in classicism, mysticism and recent scientific developments.

Dalí's artistic repertoire included painting, graphic arts, film, sculpture, design and photography, at times in collaboration with other artists. He also wrote literary works, essays and criticism. Major themes in his work include dreams, sexuality, the subconscious, religion, science, and his closest person relationships. To the dismay of those who held his work in high regard, and to the irritation of his critics, his eccentric and ostentatious public behaviour sometimes drew more attention than his artwork. His public support for the Francoist regime, his commercial activities and the quality and authenticity of some of his late works have also excited considerable controversy. His life and work were an important influence on pop art, other Surrealists, and contemporary artists such as Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst. There are two major museums devoted to his work: The Salvador Dalí Museum in Florida and the Dalí Theatre-Museum in Figures, Spain.

@Coldcreation:

Would you be able to have a look at this? Thanks--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. But I would wikilink Koons and Hirst. Coldcreation (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I am a surrealist quote

Hello all,

I have corrected the translation of Dali's famous quote: "The difference between the surrealists and me is that I am a surrealist." The previous version was: To this, Dalí retorted, "The difference between the surrealists and me is, I myself am surrealism" (la différence entre les surréalistes et moi, c'est que moi je suis surréaliste).[75][76] Dali said this or something similar many times during his life. It would be nice to find the first time it appeared in writing but that would be a difficult task. The two sources for the quote given in the article were written many years after it was first said. At this stage I think we should just ensure that the French quote is accurately translated. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Coldcreation (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Symbolism

Hello all

I think the current section on Symbolism is inadequate as it omits some of Dali's major recurring symbolic images. I have created two new subsections: Food and Animals and have added additional information to these categories. Of course many other categories could be created and eventually we might need to create a separate article on Dalinian Symbolism. Appreciate any thoughts you might have on this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Dalí permanent and temporary exhibitions

Hello all

I have deleted a number of listed permanent and temporary exhibitions. Most of these have been closed for 10-15 years. Some are commercial enterprises selling Dali jewellery and small objects. I think we should only list larger galleries and museums with major collections of Dali's work. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Selected works

Hello all

I intend to do an edit of the current list of selected works. The current list is too long and not in accordance with wikipedia policy, particularly as there is a separate article on Dalí's works. I propose to only include works for which there is a link to a separate wikipedia article or image, or and those mentioned in the text of the article. The present list also has numerous errors including wrong titles and wrong dates. I have corrected these using the the information in Descharnes authoritative work and the catalogue raisonné on the Gala-Salvador-Dali Foundation website. Happy to discuss but please assume good faith. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Landscape Near Figueras (1910-14)
  • Vilabertran (1910-14)
  • Cabaret Scene (1922)
  • Night Walking Dreams (1922)
  • The Basket of Bread (1926)
  • Composition with Three Figures (Neo-Cubist Academy) (1927)
  • Honey is Sweeter than Blood (1927)
  • Un Chien Andalou (An Andalusian Dog) (1929) (film in collaboration with Luis Buñuel,)
  • The Lugubrious Game (1929)
  • The Great Masturbator (1929)
  • The First Days of Spring (1929)
  • L'Age d'Or (The Golden Age) (1930) film in collaboration with Luis Buñuel
  • Board of Demented Associations (1930-31) (Surrealist object)
  • Premature Ossification of a Railway Station (1931)
  • The Persistence of Memory (1931)
  • Retrospective Bust of a Woman (1933) (mixed media sculpture collage)
  • The Ghost of Vermeer of Delft Which Can Be Used As a Table (c.1934)
  • Lobster Telephone (1936)
  • Venus de Milo with Drawers (1936)
  • Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War) (1936)
  • Metamorphosis of Narcissus (1937)
  • Swans Reflecting Elephants (1937)
  • The Burning Giraffe (1937)
  • Mae West Lips Sofa (1937)
  • Apparition of Face and Fruit Dish on a Beach (1938)
  • Shirley Temple, The Youngest, Most Sacred Monster of the Cinema in Her Time (1939)
  • Slave Market with the Disappearing Bust of Voltaire (1940)
  • The Face of War (also known as The Visage of the War) (1940)
  • Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of the New Man (1943)
  • Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee Around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening (c.1944)
  • Basket of Bread – Rather Death than Shame (1945)
  • The Temptation of St. Anthony (1946)
  • The Elephants (1948) (Also known as Project for "As You Like It")
  • Leda Atomica (1947-1949)
  • The Madonna of Port Lligat (1949)
  • Christ of Saint John of the Cross (also known as The Christ) (1951)
  • Galatea of the Spheres (1952) (Also known as Gala Placidia)
  • The Disintegration of the Persistence of Memory (1952-54)
  • Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus) (c.1954) (Also known as Hypercubic Christ)
  • Young Virgin Auto-Sodomized by the Horns of Her Own Chastity (1954)
  • The Sacrament of the Last Supper (1955)
  • Still Life Moving Fast (c.1956) (also known as Fast-Moving Still Life)
  • The Discovery of America by Christopher Columbus (1958)
  • Perpignan Railway Station (c.1965)
  • Tuna Fishing (1966-67)
  • The Hallucinogenic Toreador (1970)
  • The Swallow's Tail (c.1983)

Standardized English spelling

Hello all

The article currently doesn't conform to the wikipedia style guide because it mixes British and American English, sometimes even withing the same paragraph. While there is a case for using American English as the standard, I suggest we use Oxford English as it has wider international acceptance. I note that Oxford English is used for the article on Picasso so using the same version of English for this one would help standardization.

@Coldcreation: Would be interested in your view on this. Cheers --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would use US English. The artist's connection to the States outweighs that to the UK. The Picasso is not the standard. If there is any standard at Wikipedia it is American English. Coldcreation (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Coldcreation: Good points. I'll progressively convert to US English. Is there someplace we can attach a notice for people to use US English as the standard? Thanks --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

On further investigation of the WP style manual it appears that there is a strong case for standardising British English for this article. It appears that the article was originally written in British English and is mostly in that variety. (For example, "theatre" rather than "theater", "moustache" rather than "mustache", "autumn" rather than "fall" predominates. All the dates are in British standard (eg "Born: 11 May 1904", not May 11, 1904"). U.S. English is mainly used in quotes, titles of works (many of which were painted, written or first shown in the U.S.) and in some proper nouns. Moreover, the Gala-Salvador Dali foundation uses British English on its English website (e.g. The Dali Theatre-Museum.) I would therefore suggest standardising on British English except where proper nouns, names of works or direct quotes originally use U.S. English. This would be consistent with the current style manual.Happy to discuss.

@Ewulp: Hi Ewulp. Do you have a view on this? Thanks. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If it was originally written in British English and is now a mix, I'd go with British English. Ewulp (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, unless we come to a consensus otherwise here, WP:ENGVAR is very clear. I wouldn't support that - the case for "strong national ties" to the US seems pretty weak to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments. The article had Featured Article status on 5 September 2006 and, with a few minor exceptions, was consistently written in U.S. English at the time. It looks like the British English dating conventions and spelling were introduced after this. I therefore propose to progressively rewrite the article in U.S. English in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. My apologies for the confusion which was all my fault.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I would not support American English. Per WP:RETAIN we should retain British English. Elizium23 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Featured articles in 2006 were very different! You say it was then "with a few minor exceptions, was consistently written in U.S. English". What words are you looking at? Remarkably for an artist bio it seems colour/color free, has about equal numbers of theatre/theaters and so on. One thing that's clear is that it was largely not written by native speakers of either variety. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Aemilius Adolphin, you do not have consensus for American English. Why are you going ahead with Americanization against consensus? Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Hello Elizium. The article is in a mix of US and British English. There is no consensu because Coldcreation prefers US English. According to the wikipedia Manual Of Style: "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." The article was first written in U.S. English in 2002. When the article achieved Feature Article status on 5 September 2006 it was written in U.S. English. Therefore this is the variety which should be used. This is also aper the comments by EWULP and Johnbod. I irst thought the article was originally in British English. But a look through the early revisions showed I was incorrect in this, for which I apologise. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Sorry, I didn't see your comment. The featured article has US. dating and uses Endeavor (not endevour) "draftsmaship", not draughtsmanship" etc. The original stu was in US English. The featured article uses "theatre" mostly as a proper noun. ie Dali Theatre-Museum is is proper name in English according to its website. Please be assured I have no vested interest in this discussion, I use Australian English in every day lfe. I just wanted to improve the article by using a consistent form of English. If I am misunderstanding the Manual of Style I apologise. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I counted 2 "theatre"s in running prose vs one "theater". Are you using a mobile at sea? Terrible typos. Frankly you've said so many different things .... Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) The first non-stub edit of this article I can find that indicates any particular English variety is this one from January 20, 2003, which introduces favorable. Per WP:RETAIN we should therefore retain US English here unless "consistent usage has been established" since then for British English, which has not been the case. The feature article version of September 2006 adds draftsman, watercolor, and theater (also theatre, but both spellings are common in US English). A randomly chosen edit from the last decade (January 1, 2014) shows behavior, endeavor, organize. colorful, traveled, and center; OTOH aesthete. Any drift toward British English would seem to be fairly recent. Ewulp (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ewulp: Thanks for that. The use of British dating rather than US dating seems to be fairly well established in the article now though. Would it be within the Style Manual to use international dating but U.S. spelling (except where it is a proper noun or a direct quote in another variety of English)? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

US date format was pretty consistent until this IP edit in 2015 switched it. An improper change, but it has been stable for 5 years which argues in favor of keeping it (per MOS:DATERETAIN) unless there's a consensus for change. Ewulp (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ewulp: Hello Ewulp. Would you mind inserting the relevant US English notice template on the talk page? It might also be a good idea to have an invisible message in the lead-in to the article stating that US English should be used unless a proper noun or direct quote is in another variety of English. (There is already such a message advising editors to use British dating system.) I would do this myself but some editors might think it provocative if it is done by me. If we don't have such a notice then the problem of other varieties of English creeping back in is likely to recur. Thanks. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter who makes the change as long as the issue has been discussed & there's consensus. I'd hold off for another week in case anybody hasn't been heard, then go ahead. Ewulp (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Like several above, I see no strong ties to the US to warrant US English, a mixed history, and would generally suggest UK English as a default given it is the variety used in Europe, i.e. France and Spain. Also, re. the date format: the date format used in the country with the closest ties (here, Spain - date first) should be used, regardless the version of English. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The rules of the game (WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN) do not support any default to the variety of English used in a non-English-speaking country; WP:TIES comes into effect only in case of strong ties to an English-speaking country. Incidentally, the US spelling in this article has been more consistent than I thought. The January 1, 2014 edit I examined earlier uses aesthete; I considered this a British spelling but according to Webster's it is also the preferred US spelling. Both moustache and mustache are correct US spellings. So unless I've missed something, the use of US spellings in that edit is 100%. Likewise this edit of January 1, 2016, and presumably many others, but much too much time spent on this already. Ewulp (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello all

Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this discussion. In accordance with the MoS, I have added the American English template to the beginning of the article, and the American English banner to this page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Dalí Theatre-Museum

Hello all

I have corrected the official English-language name of the Dalí Theatre-Museum which had been incorrectly called the Dalí Theatre and Museum throughout this article. Thanks --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference to Wolf Vostell

Hello all

I have removed a reference to Wolf Vostell and added it to the article for this artist.The reference is: "In 1978 Dalí met the German artist Wolf Vostell, with whom he would later create a joint project with a sculpture from each other in their museums." This is not important enough to be added to Dali's biography. Dali met thousands of artists and it would make the article too long and unfocused if every such meeting was mentioned. I think we should only include meetings which resulted in a significant influence on Dali or collaboration on a significant work. In this case it only seems that the artists met and swapped a sculpture each. (I note that I couldn't find any reference to this in the citation given.)

Happy to discuss. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello all

I have once again removed a reference to Wolf Vostell and added it to the article for this artist. The collaboration is not important enough to be included in the Dali article.

Happy to discussAemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Money Heist

Hello all

I have rewritten some recently added material on the television series Money Heist in order to avoid the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting a commercial enterprise. There is no need to mention the streaming service that has the rights to the series. The articles cited as sources are also of dubious authority, being mainly entertainment websites repeating promotional material from the streaming provider. (See the promotional video and press releases for the series: https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/81098822 All that needs to be said for this article is that there is a television show called Money Heist in which characters wear Dali masks and that the Gala-Dali foundation objected to this. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the above assessment. Dali masks have now been worn by demonstrators all over the world for a variety of causes related to social change. The use of these masks increased as a result of the exposure of the Money Heist series on Netflix. The series did not have international reach when it was available only on Spanish television. Hence, many commentators have associated the global use of the mask to the wide audience made possible by Netflix. Mentioning Netflix in this context is not "promotion" of the streaming service, it's merely explanatory as to the reason for the widespread use of the mask. There's no need to deprecate the reliability of some of these sources as being "mainly entertainment websites". What is more natural than entertainment media covering entertainment? But the point is that "entertainment" is influencing social protest. Just as Dali, especially in his early days, used his art to protest catholicism, etc. Hence, the relevance to an encyclopedia article about Dali. If people around the world started wearing Wagner masks at their demonstrations, would that not be worthy of comment in the Richard Wagner article, especially in a section called "Legacy"?--Jburlinson (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
There's no need to mention Netflix. There are several streaming services with international reach, it doesn't matter which one happened to pick up this series. Wikipedia should not be used to promote commercial enterprises and WP is not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. WP:NOT A good rule of thumb is that if you can get across the essential information without providing publicity to a particular commercial enterprise then you should do so. This article is about Salvador Dalï. All that needs to be said is that there is a television show called Money Heist in which characters wear Dali masks and that the Gala-Dali foundation objected to this. The reason I questioned your sources is that I read them and found that they often said the same thing in the same words. I then checked the publicity material for the show and saw that most of the sites are only repeating the publicity material. That's how the streaming industry works: they have product to promote so they send publicity to entertainment sites who write puff pieces to promote the shows for them. None of the sources you printed included critical reviews of the show or its use of the Dali image (except the one which I kept as a source). As for the contention that the Dali mask has now become a symbol of rebellion which has swept the world, the only sources you have for this are the entertainment websites. Where and when exactly were these protests in the Middle East? if Dali has become such a symbol then this should have been widely reported by major media sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP: source. Perhaps it's true that some young people have worn Dali masks to protests. Protesters often wear masks to hide their identity and Dali masks might have become temporarily fashionable in some countries because of this show. Perhaps young people watching the show don't know about Dali's support of Franco and the Falange. But that's a long way short of demonstrating that he has become a symbol of political rebellion and that's an enduring part of his legacy. As I said on your talk page, I'm happy to work with you to get some agreed wording, but you'll need better sources that go beyond publicity material for a TV show. We don't want the Legacy section to become a trivia magnet. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I have added some more reliable sources and a statement from the show's creator as to why Dalí masks were chosen. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I can live with the latest version. Thanks for taking the time.--Jburlinson (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of bias in article

Hello all

Wilafa has made some changes to the article which he/she thinks corrects alleged bias. I have removed some of these changes because they are mainly lengthy quotes on tangential points and I don't see what bias they are correcting. The biography section is probably too long already and I don't see how a long quote from Bunuel giving his side of a spat with Dali 80 years ago improves it. I think the article already gives sufficient weight to the issue given that this is a short biography of Dali. The article already has a problem in balancing biographical information and critical discussion of Dali's work and I don't think adding a very provocative quote by Robert Hughes about one work which is already mentioned in the biography section helps the balance. I would be happy to hear the views of other editors and try to get a consensus on this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


The problem I am having is, I would like to contribute some insightful and meaningful text to this article, with perfectly valid and applicable references, and you are deleting 90% of everything I contribute, and rewording what little is left into your words.

One issue (of many), is this article is full of carefully edited little "facts" and fragmented quotes without any explanations or attempt to place them in meaningful context. Often with misleading implications amounting to lies by omission. It is the same dogma Dali's detractors have been repeating for decades (which may have a place here, but in perspective). With some deeper reading and critical thought, it becomes apparent that much of this dogma simply is not true. Much of this article has the integrity of tabloid journalism.

"Dalí later claimed to have also played a significant role in the filming of the project, but this is not substantiated by contemporary accounts." What does mean? What "role" is in question? Who's account? Not Buñuel's, he writes of Dali's participation in detail (104-105 p.). Dali is in the film. The reader is simply given the insinuation that Dali is a liar or plagiarist without even identifying what is in question, then... end of subject.

"Gala.......who at that time was married to Surrealist poet Paul Éluard." That's it! No context or explanation offered? Nothing about the nature of Gala and Éluard's past or relationship. So the implication is that Dali and Gala were a couple of cheaters, end of subject. That is pretty disingenuous.

"As a result, Buñuel broke off relations with Dalí." It is obvious from the text you deleted that several years later in New York, Buñuel had no trouble at all getting in touch with Dalí at the drop of a hat to meet for drinks. And later Buñuel sums him up as a "indisputable genius".

"This led many Surrealists to break off relations with Dalí." Obviously hyperbole, and patently not true. There are innumerable published letters, accounts, and photographs of Dali's relationships with Duchamp, Ernst, Magritte, Man Ray, Matta, and many others in the 1940s,50s and 60s. Here is a photograph of Dali and Gala talking to Ernst and Tanning in 1961, at the opening of Ernst's a Retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art. One of dozens I cloud come up with. Dali & Ernst

"Pablo Picasso refused to mention Dalí's name or acknowledge his existence for the rest of his life." I have poured through the indexes and text of 9 volumes on Dali, 8 volumes on Picasso, 11 volumes on surrealism, and many more volumes on modern art and other surrealist artist, and I cannot verify or corroborate this vapid rhetoric anywhere. Attention grabbing, tabloid rumors that have been reiterated for 70 years. I did read that Gala corresponded (on behave of the Dali's as a couple) with Picasso right up until his death, letters that Picasso saved till his death. Dali on rumors about relationship with Picasso

"In the May issue of the Surrealist magazine Minotaure, André Breton announced Dalí's expulsion from the Surrealist group, claiming that Dalí had espoused race war and that the over-refinement of his paranoiac-critical method was a repudiation of Surrealist automatism." Please provide page numbers where this appears in Minotaure. I don't see this.

This is among the most frequently repeated "facts" that Dali's detractors repeat without any context or explanation. Breton (great as he was), was a highly contentious individual and he expelled almost everyone in the group at one time or another (and reconciled almost as often). The background is extensive and complicated but it has little to do with Dali's art or character. In a nutshell: André Breton spent several months in 1938-39 lecturing at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where he met Leon Trotsky and they collaborated on the manifesto Pour un art révolutionnaire indépendant. Upon returning to Paris, Breton and Éluard clashed over Trotskyism vs. Stalinism. Breton expelled Éluard. Those who expressed support or sympathy for Éluard were expelled (e.g. Dali, Georges Hugnet). Some accounts say Max Ernst was expelled. Ernst wrote "Outraged by a demand which he found totally monstrous - that he should undertake to sabotage the poetry of Paul Éluard in every possible way - Max Ernst abandoned the Surrealist group. Éluard's sin had been to refuse to follow Breton's example by going over to Trotskyism." [Quinn (1977). Max Ernst. New York Graphic Society/ Little, Brown, and Company. page 206] And this speaks to Breton's mindset when he wrote Avida Dollars etc. etc. etc. Duchamp also distanced himself from Breton in sympathy for Éluard.

"Dalí announced the death of the Surrealist movement" Correct! A year after the cataclysmic Breton (Trotskyism) - Éluard (Stalinism) break up, Dalí announced the death of the Surrealist movement. But why bother to make any effort whatsoever to explain here what he was talking about, when you can just pull a statement out of context for shock value?

"Breton and other Surrealists issued a tract to coincide with the exhibition denouncing Dalí as "the ex-apologist of Hitler... and friend of Franco"." Who were these "other Surrealist"? Name them. Certainly not Marcel Duchamp who organized the exhibition. The implication is people like Arp, Bellmer, Buñuel, Ernst, Magritte, Tanguy, Man Ray, Giacometti, Matta, and the like. However many of these people stepped up to write of Dali's "indisputable genius", "peerless writer" (Buñuel) and his "integrity" and "sincerity" (Man Ray) but you deleted that. By 1960 Breton had alienated most of these people. The surrealist in the 1960s were a largely different group of younger people.

"A passage in the autobiography in which Dalí claimed that Buñuel was solely responsible for the anti-clericalism in the film L'Age d'Or" Unequivocally False! I have the book here in front of me. It's not in there.

"Dalí's decision to live in Spain under Franco and his public support for the regime prompted outrage from many anti-Francoist artists and intellectuals." May Ray addressed this subject in the quote you deleted.

The content selected here is often of no substance and questionable purpose. One example among dozens I could point out is the paragraph about the 1939 New York World's Fair, and the Dream of Venus. This is a well documented event and much has been written about it? There are a million thing one could say. But what we learn on Wikipedia is that it was located in the "Amusements Area" with naked ladies in it (tee-hee-hee). Factual, like much of the text here, but it strikes me as a a cheap shot and a pretty shallow account.

The rubbish goes on and on and on and on......virtually every paragraph. To characterize my edit as Bunuel giving his side of "a spat" is both trivializing the subject and missing the point completely. There is nothing here about his nearly 40 year friendship with Marcel Duchamp. There is no mention of Dali's consistent and generous help to his peers (e.g. introductions of Magritte to Edward James and Matta to Breton).

Another view that has been selectively ignored are numerous published accounts by people who knew him well and interacted with him away from cameras and audiences saying he was actually a very modest and easy-going man, from his youth into his old age. "Dalí was never an exhibitionist, that was for the public. Dalí was the humblest man I’ve ever known in my life. Only interested in what he could learn, what he could absorb." Timothy Phillips

Art historians (or specialist in any field) who already know all of the context and background on a subject don't turn to Wikipedia for information. People who are not familiar with a subject and are looking learn about it do. And I don't think they are getting objective or quality information on this subject here. --WiLaFa (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wilafa: Thanks for your detailed response. I think we might be able to get some agreed changes which will improve the article. Do you mind if I respond on your talk page? I will be busy the next couple of days but will respond then. We can then put some specific changes up for general discussion here. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


I did not intend to invest too much time on this article. I have probably put in more than I should have already in looking all this stuff up. My intention was to add just enough information that would collectively, illiterate to the reader who is thinking and connecting the dots, that so much of the "standard spiel" from Dali's many critics, on inspection is often inconsistent with facts, or appears so different in context. I did notice the page size is already at 112,254 bytes. I believe Wikipedia has a recommended 100,000 size limit somewhere, so there is some justification about not adding much more to it. On the other hand, this page gets 4000 views a day, over 125,000 a month, indicating a very high level in interest. I have stated my thoughts on the subject here. I'm not inclined to spend any more time on it.--WiLaFa (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm no Dalí expert but the bit about anti-clericalism in L'Age d'Or seems pretty accurate. In The Secret Life of Salvador Dalí (2007, p. 252) Dalí writes: "I said to Bunuel, 'For this film I want a lot of archbishops, bones and monstrances. I want especially archbishops with their embroidered tiaras bathing amid the rocky cataclysms of Cape Creus.' Bunuel … deflected all this toward an elementary anti-clericalism. I had always to stop him and say, 'No, no! No comedy … Let’s have a few blasphematory scenes, if you will, but it must be done with the utmost fanaticism to achieve the grandeur of a true and authentic sacrilege!'" That sounds like a disavowal of the film's anticlericalism (as distinct from the exalted blasphemy Dalí envisioned). In The Unspeakable Confessions of Salvador Dali (1977, p. 108) he puts it more simply: "Bunuel had betrayed me by selecting to express himself images that reduced the Himalaya of my ideas to little folded paper-dolls. L'Age d'or had become an anticlerical, irreligious picture." Ewulp (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


Wikipedia: "A passage in the autobiography in which Dalí claimed that Buñuel was solely responsible for the anti-clericalism in the film L'Age d'Or may have indirectly led to Buñuel losing his position at MoMA in 1943."

  • Dali did not claim Buñuel was solely responsible for anti-clericalism in the film in his in autobiography (an objective and quantifiable fact).
  • " losing his position" is vague and likely misleading. Buñuel resigned, against the advice of the director who urged him not to give in.
  • The statement (which is false), is just one of dozens of "one-liners" in this article that make Dali look bad, without any discussion, explanation, or alternative view, then it's on to the next statement. It is the tone of this entire article and it reflects the views and tone of its highly bias, main reference Gibson (1997) The Shameful Life of Salvador Dalí, excessively referenced well over 110 times. It is not a neutral or objective critique appropriate for Wikipedia.

The complete sentence quoted from Dali's is: "No, no! No comedy. I like all this business of the archbishops; in fact, I like enormously. Let’s have a few blasphematory scenes, if you will, but it must be done with the utmost fanaticism to achieve the grandeur of a true and authentic sacrilege!'" Dali is rejecting Buñuel's idea for comical archbishops and clerics in the film in favor of authentic sacrilege. That hardly sounds like a disavowal of responsibility to me. It sounds to me like Dali is both serious about it and taking credit for it. Is the distinction between comical anticlericalism versus true and authentic sacrilege a key point here? I'm I missing something?

Buñuel wrote in his autobiography: "In his book The Secret Life of Salvador Dali, I was described as an atheist, an accusation that at the time was worse than being called a Communist." [Buñuel (1982) My Last Sigh. page 183] Another point I made was, the way it is written: "indirectly led to Buñuel losing his position at MoMA in 1943". The word "losing" is vague with an implication that would lead many readers to assume MoMA wanted to fire Buñuel which is not true. Buñuel wrote: "Although the director of the museum, Alfred Barr, advised me not to give in, I decided to resign" [page183]

The Unspeakable Confessions of Salvador Dali was originally published in 1973 and would not have much bearing on events in 1942- 43. I don't claim to be a Dalí expert either, but I have been interested in painting, art history, and surrealism for over 50 years, and I see selective, out of context, distorted, and misleading information on Dali often, and the Wikipedia reflects so much of it. --WiLaFa (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Could be. I wasn't commenting on the MoMA matter, only on whether there is "a passage in the autobiography in which Dalí claimed that Buñuel was solely responsible for the anti-clericalism in the film L'Age d'Or". Dalí repeatedly emphasized a distinction between Buñuel's "elementary anticlericalism" ("I had always to stop him and say, 'No, no!") and the "true and authentic sacrilege" that excited him. On pp. 276-277: "Buñuel was going ahead all by himself with the production of L'Age d'Or—thus the film would be executed without my collaboration". On pp. 282-283: "Buñuel had just finished L'Age d'Or. I was terribly disappointed, for it was but a caricature of my ideas. The 'Catholic' side of it had become crudely anticlerical, and without the biological poetry that I had desired ... I accepted the responsibility for the sacrilegious scandal, though I had had no such ambition. I should have been willing to cause a scandal a hundred times greater, but for 'important reasons'—subversive rather through excess of Catholic fanaticism than through naive anticlericalism." Every time Dalí mentions anticlericalism in connection with the film it is with disapproval, and the anticlericalism is pinned on Buñuel. Who knows what Dalí had in mind when he dreamed of excessive "Catholic fanaticism" glowing with the "biological poetry" of "authentic sacrilege", but by his account it was something very different from what the audience saw in the finished film, "executed without my collaboration". Ewulp (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I will change the sentence in the article to: "..."indirectly led to Buñuel leaving his position at MoMA in 1943". Bunuel resigned under severe pressure from the State Department. He knew he was doomed but being a gentleman he didn't want to put Barr in a difficult position. The article is not biased on this point. Dalí did indeed state that Bunuel was solely responsible for the anti-clericalism in the film. Bunuel thought this was a betrayal of friendship and never forgave him for it. However, the article takes a neutral POV, stating that the incident might have indirectly lead to Bunuel leaving MoMA. There are pages and pages in Bunuel's autobiography which show Dali in a bad light but they do not appear in the article.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dali maligned by Breton

Too much is made from Breton's kicking Dali out of his Surrealist clique. Breton acted as dictator in his cult of personality and kicked out so many of his acolytes that of the original 'members' only one or two were left by WWII. Breton tried to steer Surrealism into the communist fold during the thirties, at the precise time when Stalin was killing millions inside the Soviet Union. Breton tried to tar Dali with the brush of fascism, which forever is quoted, but the truth was that Dali was apolitical and tried to make fun of them in his art. Breton himself was forced to renounce communism when he realized that communism was another totalitarianism. Original Plaid (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You might like to read this. [1] Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
And what does this have to do with the Wikipedia article? Can your claims be cited? If so, please add it to the main article. Otherwise, what is the value of you posting this here? --Giacomo1968 (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Here is the citation: "Revolution of the mind : the life of André Breton", Mark Polizzotti, pub. 1995, pp.396 especially, and other pages regarding Dali. Regarding Dali, who at one time was in Breton's Surrealist group. I try to forget your disrespect. Original Plaid (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

The article is missing Dali's collaboration with Air India in the 1960s, under which he created around 500 ashtrays which were part of the airline's first class offering for several years until they were gifted to various patron and famous personalities across the world, including the King of Spain at the time.

The ashtrays were a double image of swans and elephants, and often show up in auctions today and are a prized collection.

Another noteworthy point of the deal was the remuneration which Dali asked for his commissioned work, he requested a baby elephant which was flown over and delivered to Dali in Cadaques. There was a 3 day public holiday in Spain to celebrate the occasion and a lot of fair frenzy around the elephant. The elephant afterwards went on to live his years at a zoo in Spain.


Links for reference: https://www.firstpost.com/india/a-tale-of-salvador-dali-500-ashtrays-for-air-india-and-a-baby-elephant-10040111.html https://www.air-india-first-flight-covers.com/salvador-dali-ashtray-air-india https://www.cntraveller.in/story/why-air-india-gifted-salvador-dali-an-elephant/ 86.3.200.248 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The article already has sufficient coverage of Dali's commercial activities. The source also doesn't look reliable. Did Spain really get a 3 day holiday because Air India gave Dali an elephant? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salvador_Dalí/Archive_3&oldid=1194081445"