Humanities desk
< September 14	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 15

Why do they pick those Iowa caucus dates?

Why isn't it the same week or month every year? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not held every year. And the caucus/primary calendar is the result of a lot of jostling back and forth between the states and parties. Various states which want to have more influence on the process often move their primaries earlier. Iowa is guaranteed to be the earliest delegate-selection event, and New Hampshire to be the first primary election, so they have to be earlier than any other state's primary. Then every so often, people complain that the nomination process is becoming ridiculously long and/or early, so everything is pushed back... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name of fallacy where you over-include a person's argument?

Take this Bible verse for example on 'homosexuality' --> "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, [...]." And then Christians view that as the Bible condemns homosexuality. Well guess what, the Bible didn't say "when a woman lies with another woman" only man-on-man. And the definition of homosexuality goes both genders. So the Bible only specifically condemns man-on-man homosexuality and not woman-on-woman. So when a Christian argues the Bible condemns "homosexuality" they actually inflate the definition to include woman-on-woman. What would you call this kind of fallacy, where someone takes your argument to include another argument? Not calling this a strawman argument where they change your argument (completely), but they added on your argument to include something else. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Faulty generalization may be the answer. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of making assumptions. Assumptions can be defensible or indefensible. In my opinion you can't say that the example you have given constitutes a "fallacy". A supporting argument may render the assertion not a fallacy at all. Or the supporting argument can be weak and the extension of males to include females in the referred-to prohibition can concluded to be indefensible. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the assumption that men only sin with a male if they do it lying down.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If a man lies with a man as with a woman" always confused me. Is this assuming that men and women have oral and anal sex ? That doesn't seem likely, as sex was supposed to be only for reproductive purposes in the Bible. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Talmud say yo? Though that's only Scripture if you're orthodox. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The you may have no fun, have sex only for reproductive purpose always seemed a stretch to me. After all, There is a whole book in the Bible dedicated to life pleasures, women included (just ask Solomon). Methink the correct interpretation would be "have fun with sex, all the more so when reproduction ensue". Gem fr (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The Bible actually is the opinions of many different authors, all cobbled together and claimed to be the word of God, which of course is nonsense, because God wouldn't constantly change his mind about everything, unless God is a woman. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some Jewish Rabbis have come to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible does not prohibit lesbian sex. Christians are not quite in the same position because of the New Testament verse Romans 1:26. The overall fallacy is probably Faulty generalization... AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't notice that the fallacy was already named above... AnonMoos (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on a number of non-procreative / non-penetrative sexual Biblical activities:

Genesis, method of abiogenesis unknown > expelled from Paradise
Onan, coitus interuptus > executed by God
most likely, quite a few more.
Forunatley (or not), Homo Sapiens survives while whilst God † is extinct.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

God is not dead, He's just not feeling very well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I still think the answer is some type of strawman fallacy. If the strawman fallacy is "I argued A, he changed my argument to B," my above example is "I argued A, he changed my argument to A and B, but I did not say B." 67.175.224.138 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

No, a strawman is a (false) argument to (claim to) destroy another argument. No such thing here. Gem fr (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does what you say contradict what I say? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see the argument to be destroyed, nor the strawman argument destroyed instead. Unless you make the initial claim "woman-on-woman is Bible-OK", in which case the conter-argument "look at {this verse, which actually only mention man-on-man}, it is not" would indeed be a strawman, but that is not the way you asked, is it? Gem fr (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay wow, we're not even on the same page here. I said my definition of a strawman is "I argued A, he changed my argument to B (and therefore argued against B)." Is that not what a straw man is? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

see Straw man#Structure. Your definition seems close enough to the more usual "I argued A, he argued against easily defeated B as if A=B then claimed to have destroyed A" (for instance because B is exaggerated A, so winning against B do not mean you defeated A). Now, what I don't see is how this relates to the question you asked, which was "they have a text about men, and they claim it applies to men and women alike, this is a fallacy, what is the name of it?". My answer (for what it is worth) was: this looks like inference (or, better yet, inductive reasoning), it may or may not be a fallacy depending on the matter (for instance : men are mortel, men are human beings, so human beings -- women included -- are mortal. This is valid) . I can add: a strawman would be "they quote a verse where men only are mentioned, so women are exempted"; that would be a strawman if (if! I don't know if they do!) they actually quoted not only this verse, but something more that that you fail to acknowledge (some other verse, some context that imply a broader meaning, ...)Gem fr (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was only referencing just that 1 Bible verse. I find it highly unlikely another part of the Bible condemns women-on-women homosexuality, so for my purposes I'm only arguing from just that 1 verse. Obviously, this is not so much a fallacy problem, but a communication problem. If I were writing a summary-pamphlet on the Bible, I would be precise to say "the Bible condemns male-on-male homosexuality" and not "homosexuality." And most simpletons won't raise their hand and say "Hey wait a minute, what about woman-on-woman homosexuality?" I guess if this is or isn't a fallacy, it doesn't have a name. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Sounds fair. Now, @AnonMoos quoted Romans 1:26 , and "you must not follow the practices of the land of Egypt" could be conveying the same sort of meaning as greek love (or not, I don't know). Anyway, to argue that a practice is allowed from a statement a similar practice is forbidden is argumentum a contrario, which is sometimes legit (eg: you shall not have sex with under 18 girls-> so you may if she is 18+), sometimes not (you shall not kill->so having someone else do the deed is OK) Gem fr (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gem fr, you still haven't answered my definition of a strawman in the example format I used. I said a strawman was "where I argued A, and the person changed my argument to B, and argued against B." You said a whole lot of mumble jumble. So when I said "how does what you say contradict what I said?" you still answered it in mumble jumble rather than by example. What would be your version of "I argued A, person instead argued against B?" 67.175.224.138 (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I did not, and still don't, understand what you meant by the person changed my argument to B, hence I just redirected you to our article. If your argument A really imply B, then, it is perfectly legit to argue against B as a way to argue against A. (I can provide example, but so you do, too). If B has no link to A, this is a fallacy, but not a strawman (eg: A:"Bible forbids homosexuality" B:"The moon is giant cheese"). Only if B as some link to A, but not enough (so that proving B is false do not prove A false), is the argument a strawman fallacy (eg A:"skydiving is safe enough" B:"jumping out of a plane, just like that, is safe enough") Gem fr (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In order to argue against B, they had to change your argument to B, no? Or is it 1 of the "I said A, he argued against B, and I'm scratching my head, was he replying to me, or saying something unrelated? Do I have to point out that B wasn't my argument" type of thing. Imo, straw man might as well be a category class of arguments, with so many different types of straw mans. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I'll go for "I said A, he argued against B, and I'm scratching my head..." And it makes sense to consider that strawman is actually a category, depending on the way A relates to B, however, I don't think it really matters. We distinguish things when it is actually useful to do so, to have a typology of different strawman doesn't seem o be such case. Gem fr (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may check inference. This is pretty common, including in matter of law. This may or may not be a fallacy, depending on the matter and the context, and would be decided by scholars.

As for the specifics of homosexuality as the Bible see it, it looks like scholars are divided, and some indeed concluded that god don't care about woman-on-woman, but surely not just because only men are mentioned as active in the chapter. Gem fr (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this from the point of an Aristotelian syllogism or a fairly simple Boolean / Venn diagram.

However, it seems you just want to prove your point despite evidence to the contrary. If logics does not help, you may need a rabbi specialising in lesbian readings of the Torah.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the Bible (or any law book, for what it matters) ever was a "fairly simple Boolean / Venn diagram", to be viewed as just another Aristotelian syllogism? I certainly am the sophist enough to say "Oh look, the verse says I should not approach the woman, and I did not: SHE did the approaching. So I am not guilty", but this would be pure bad faith and strawman (aka: fallacy) and I know it, and so do you, I guess. I don't know, nor care, what this ancient law actually say, anyway; I understand that some people do care, in which case, the way to resolve this, is just to ask scholars, NOT to claim to be one and to use obviously irrelevant formal logic. Gem fr (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - I guess we could make a diagram-map as to what books of the Bible Christians interpret literally and what parts interpret as non-literally. Imo the book of Revelations they interpret non-literally. Some books like Genesis depends on the denomination. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Interpreting much of the Bible literally, including Genesis, requires denying the evidence from multiple branches of science. For example, the 6 "days" in which God supposedly created the universe must be stretched out to over 14 billion years, with some days being far longer than others. Then there's the problem of the Bible contradicting itself, although I suppose you can massacre your enemies, as in the OT, then turn the other cheek, as in the NT. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah trivial stuff. But I am curious to know if any other books besides Revelations that Christians don't interpret literally? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You can't generalize about what Christians do or don't do. Literalists consider the Bible to be totally true and science to be wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Liberal Christianity: "The word liberal in liberal Christianity originally denoted a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture according to modern philosophic perspectives and modern scientific assumptions, while attempting to achieve the Enlightenment ideal of objective point of view, without preconceived notions of the authority of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma". I imagine that most mainstream Christians view the Bible through this lens to a greater or lesser extent, in Europe at least. Biblical literalism is a feature of American evangelical Protestantism. This article gives the previous pope's view, which is not literalist, and he was considered to be deeply conservative. See also Faith & Science by the current Archbishop of Canterbury: "Creationist science is a particular variety of questionable science pretending to defend theology". Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, of course I can (by the denomination). My point is all Christians do not interpret Revelations literally, but some interpret Genesis literally, some don't. I was asking where else in the Bible besides Revelations do no Christians interpret literally. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You're saying no Christians interpret Revelation literally. That's incorrect. (And it's Revelation, not Revelations.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like not Christians also interpret Revelation literally; The way Chinese Social Credit System works seems so much like something inspired by Revelation 13:15/17... Gem fr (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to side with faulty generalization as being the best descriptor here. It's definitely some type of inductive fallacy. Essentially, Person X believes A. Person Y believes that A implies B, and therefore argues that X must also believe B. This is like an inversion of appeal to motive (the fact you made that argument implies...). X→A, Y→(A and B), X, therefore B. See also the association fallacy. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, I sure hope you don't take offense to this. My opinion doesn't matter what you think. But I think you're an ass hole. (Which could be good for women's perspective.). Twice I said Christians don't interpret Revelations literally and twice you said they do, but you haven't listed an example of a denomination that does. Of course, I didn't ask you "what denomination." It was a test to see if you're a nice guy or not. You can tell a lot about someone who makes the "No you're wrong" argument, but not show why they're wrong. I called you out an ass hole, but I included the reason why I thought so. So by that, I gave the benefit of a doubt, stuff that people like you, don't. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

US prosections by FBI

Watching "Mindhunter" when the FBI wanted to search and then charge Wayne Bertram Williams they had to convince the state District Attorney to issue a warrant at each stage. Being British I might have this wrong but I thought that the FBI could make a federal prosecution without permission from the state. What can and what can't the FBI do without state permission? - Q Chris (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things that are illegal under one or more state laws but that are legal under federal law, so only state authorities can prosecute those things. What I don't know is why the FBI would be investigating them. One possibility is there was an activity that crossed state lines that was illegal in the state law of one or more of the states involved. E.g. tobacco-growing states like South Carolina have low taxes on cigarette sales, but New York has very high taxes on them, so there is a steady "industry" of people buying cigarettes in SC and selling them illicitly in NY. That breaks NY law (but maybe not federal), yet it is interstate (which could mean FBI attention). This is just a guess though. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation is a law enforcement agency. From the article: "Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted." Not sure about how they work with the attorney's in each state, perhaps it depends on the crime, or perhaps the TV writer took some liberties. RudolfRed (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The crime of kidnapping is investigated by the FBI, but prosecuted under state law. Kidnapping#United_States The FBI website at [1] describes other crimes the FBI will investigate, but some of which would also be tried at the state level. RudolfRed (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that explains it. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are also services the FBI will perform under contract for various state and local agencies; for example their crime lab may perform various forensic science tests that other agencies may not be able to perform for lack of equipment or expertise. The FBI does aid in state crime investigations in many ways, often under the invitation of local authorities, who may be investigating crimes that have both state-level and federal-level potential for prosecution, and the FBI and local agencies would collaborate and coordinate their investigations so evidence is shared among agencies. The FBI has various internal departments for coordinating such investigations, including the Office of Partner Engagement. --Jayron 32 16:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashburnham Place & John Bickersteth

Was the Rev. John Bickersteth who inherited Ashburnham Place in 1953 the same John Bickersteth who became Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1975? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly sounds likely, based on his age, and interest in religion in both cases. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the kind of answer DuncanHill was looking for. He could have figured that out for himself. We deal in sources and references here. --Viennese Waltz 10:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is Viennese Waltz too incompetent and/or lazy to prevent "no deal"? Here is a picture of the Rev. Bickersteth [2]. Here is a picture of the Rt Rev. John Bickersteth [3]. The Rev. Bickersteth married Marlis (née Kindlimann) and they had three children. Marlis died (after her husband) in 2012. The Rt Rev. John Bickersteth died in 2018. 92.8.216.35 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Play nicely please. The Ashburnham chap was John David Bickersteth (1926-1991) according to the National Archives. The bishop (article linked above) was John Monier Bickersteth (1921-2018). Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The obituary to which I linked doesn't give a date of death but it is datelined 28 February 2018. Our article John Bickersteth gives his age at death as 96. 92.8.216.35 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John David Bickersteth [4] was the grandson of Lady Margaret Ashburnham, [5], who was the daughter of Bertram Ashburnham, 4th Earl of Ashburnham. So John David inherited Ashburnham Place from Lady Catherine Ashburnham, who was his second cousin, since they shared a common great grandfather, the 4th Earl. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the article to clarify things a little. Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Surrealism of the 12th and 13th Centuries

In Mark Wagner (artist)'s blog, I read:

Some years ago, while kicking around the shelves of the school art library, I stumbled on a book titled "European Surrealism of the 12th and 13th Centuries." This struck me as odd because in art class, I'd just learned that Andre' Breton invented Surrealism in the 1920s. But here was page after page of evidence to the contrary: sculptures and manuscript illuminations indulging unmistakable flights of fancy. All this hundreds of years before Breton.

I can't find a book with such a title. Probably Wagner misremembers the title, or it is a chapter or a paper in some book. I could ask Wagner, but I can also ask you. Can you find the book?

The article about Proto-Surrealism doesn't go beyond the 15th century.
Wagner graduated in University of Wisconsin, Madison so we can probably discard the catalog of Surrealists before Surrealism which happened in 2013 and doesn't seem to go beyond the late Middle Ages.
The [facets[physical_facet~true]=yes UWisc catalog] doesn't seem to have the exact title, and looking for the subjects of Surrealism and Middle Ages doesn't work as well.
- Endless enigma : eight centuries of fantastic art mentions the 12th century but is published in 2019.
There is whimsy in Medieval marginalia. Maybe you have read about miniatures of sword-wielding rabbits.

--Error (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The art movement is of the early twentieth century. But one can say one senses a surrealistic sensibility in anything. I guess this is original research. This brings to mind a discussion as to whether Nazca Lines can be considered Land art.

I just noticed/remembered—it actually got into the article: "The Earth art of the 1960s were sometimes reminiscent the much older land works, Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Native American mounds, the Nazca Lines in Peru, Carnac stones and Native American burial grounds, and often evoked the spirituality of such archeological sites." Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not rare for people to name a thing, and at the same time claim to have found it existing a long time before, just without someone to care to name it. For instance Hieronymus Bosch has been claimed to be surrealist and is included in Category:Dutch_surrealist_artists . Somehow Giuseppe Arcimboldo is not in the category, despite being mentioned in text. Gem fr (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tate says surrealism is a "twentieth-century literary, philosophical and artistic movement that explored the workings of the mind, championing the irrational, the poetic and the revolutionary". MoMA says surrealism "was an artistic, intellectual, and literary movement led by poet André Breton from 1924 through World War II." Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is the difference between a name and a descriptor. There is a 20th century art movement called Surrealism (a formal name) which applies only to artists that worked in that tradition, people like Dali and Magritte and the like. There is also, unrelated to the formally-named art movement called "Surrealism" (capital S) a general concept of "surrealism", that is art which has the general characteristic of being "surreal" (little-s). Artists like Bosch are undoubtedly "surreal" (little-s), but as he worked outside of the context of "Surrealism" (big-S), his works are not part of that movement. --Jayron 32 12:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If by "surreal" we mean "of or relating to Surrealism", we do not find surreal works prior to the 20th century. The Garden of Earthly Delights has nothing to do with The Persistence of Memory. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not for us to say. And the matter (art) is not of the kind where a consensus among specialist (art critics) is expected. So I am not that surprised we may be somewhat inconsistent. I have no problem imagining that a art piece is surrealist (because, when you enjoy it, you think it is, because it fulfills the condition admitted for a piece to be so) while its author is not (because lived before, or even long before, the movement). Not that a problem. Gem fr (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible, Gem fr, impossible. Saying it is so won't make it so. Surrealism is said to be an outgrowth of Dadaism, which itself is unprecedented. Do you see drooping watch-pieces prior to The Persistence of Memory? Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but having melted timepieces can't be an absolute requirement, can it ? There is plenty of equally bizarre imagery in the centuries before. Even the (written) imagery in the Book of Revelation is quite bizarre. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Bizarre" isn't the hallmark of Surrealism. True, melted time-pieces are not a requirement. Long cast shadows, emptiness of human beings, remnants of architecture of a long bygone era. These are some of the hallmarks of Surrealism. Do you see them prior to the 20th century? Which painting prior to the 20th century would you call Proto-Surrealism? Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you seem able to define if a piece of art is surrealist or not. Such definition just cannot depend on the living period of the author, that you may sometimes not be able to know. Gem fr (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a painting—on or off Wikipedia—that was made prior to the 20th century that you feel bears the hallmarks of surrealism? Bus stop (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is art that meets the definition of the plain-English word surreal. See here to learn what it means. However, there is a formally defined art movement called "Surrealism" that is defined in a historical context. Not all art that a person could describe as surreal is defined by art historians and critics and the like as part of the art movement called "Surrealism". Being a part of an art movement has only partially to do with the physical qualities of the art, it ALSO has to do with the cultural, social, and historical context in which the art was created. People like Hieronymous Bosch may have painted art that was, of a kind, surreal, but they did not work within the cultural, social and historical context that would classify them as part of the Surrealist movement. --Jayron 32 12:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32—couldn't a person meaningfully speak about the Pop art sensibilities embodied in the painting called The Garden of Earthly Delights? Bus stop (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One could say that there were elements similar to those elements that were present in the Pop Art movement. One could not say that this means that Bosch was a member of the Pop Art movement, or that his work was a Pop Art painting. Those are different things. Likewise, one could say that Bosch's painting had elements that were also present in the later paintings of the Surrealist Movement. That does not mean that Bosch was a member of that movement, or that his painting was a Surrealist painting. --Jayron 32 12:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Likewise, one could say that Bosch's painting had elements that were also present in the later paintings of the Surrealist Movement." No, Bosch's painting did not contain "elements" that were also present in the later paintings of the Surrealist Movement. But if you think so, then please name those "elements". Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it contained those elements. I was noting that from an argument point of view, it would be a valid argument to use adjectives such as "surreal" to describe the Bosch painting. Even if one were to make those arguments, it would not, however, make his painting part of the Surrealist movement. His work may or may not contain such elements. I was noting only that even if they did, it would never be appropriate to describe it as part of the Surrealist movement. That was my point. If you say it didn't, that's fine too. I was not arguing that it actually did, merely that it could, and it wouldn't make any difference to the argument at hand. --Jayron 32 13:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, Bus stop, not only could one say, but people have actually said and written it, that Bosch's elements of hybridising things and organisms (stuff that doesn't combine in "reality", at least until very recently, nor is part of existing traditional mythological chimeric combinations) and Bosch's elements of play with sizes and proportions are similar to the surrealists' cadavres exquisites, see also exquisite corpse. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin—do you have a source supporting that "Bosch's elements of hybridising things and organisms [...] are similar to the surrealists'"? Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled Proto-Surrealism that has sourced paragraphs that discuss such things. This article at Medium.com, This paper here also discusses it. This article here notes the direct influence Dali drew from Bosch's work. This article here notes "Bosch anticipates many of the strategies and symbols used in 20th century Surrealism, particularly the art of Salvador Dali" and goes on to give specific elements of his work that do so. This book here discusses how Bosch's work pre-figured the Surrealists. --Jayron 32 14:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick perusal of your sources turns up this: "However, the creepy images Bosch painted are not surrealist in the modern sense." You are also saying "This article here notes the direct influence Dali drew from Bosch's work." That is irrelevant. Who cares if Dali drew influence from Bosch's work? I thought we were discussing whether or not Bosch's work bore any of the hallmarks of surrealism. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was discussing that he wasn't a Surrealist regardless of whether or not his work did contain elements in common with the later Surrealist movement. I did not, am not, and never will make any statement about whether or not his work did or did not contain those elements. I never have said that, I will continue to never say that. I will however, continue to reiterate that even if it did (allowing for both the possibilities that it does or does not) his work should not be classified as part of a 20th century art movement. --Jayron 32 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just stop asking me? I am no art critic, and even if I were, I am not supposed to do original research. As I already wrote upstairs, Hieronymus Bosch has been claimed to be surrealist and is included in Category:Dutch_surrealist_artists . Was it right to do so? I dunno, I am not competent in the field to say even 2 cents about that. I just suppose that contributors who did that, knew what they were doing. Gem fr (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Surrealism illustrates the concept of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I'm not an art critic either. There is nothing accomplished whatsoever by blurring an intellectual boundary such as that which delineates the period of 1917 to 1945 during which time it is said that Surrealism was an art movement. In fact it shows contempt for the intellectual definition of that art movement to say that we see it here, there, and everywhere. Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]