Talk:The Gas Heart

Overhawl of article

I have just restored the version of the article that I published yesterday, having completely overhauled it. It was poorly written and contained errors and inaccuracies that the sources cited did not support. I also added significant new information with sources that should not be removed without good reason. Sources should never be removed without good reason, since they alone justify the presence of any information. Addressing issues in the order they appear in the article:

• Genre: The Gas Heart is certainly not a musical. While Dada was a movement, we now recognise it as a genre. This is a standard critical shift in the field. The play's "genre" refers to its type, and its most significant "type" is that it is a Dadaist play. If it weren't for that connection, the play would have long since disappeared into the dustbin of history.
• Title of the re-staging show: the source gives this as Evening of the Bearded Heart - Wikipedia policy is quite clear.
• The information given in the section now called "Dramatic form" was very poorly written and made unsupported claims. I have gone back to the original sources and edited to make it (a) comprehensible and (b) accurate. It was Tzara himself who called it a hoax, etc. The tone of the previous version distorts what he said about it. The way Graver's scanty comments in his book were used previously was also misleading and unsupported. The source for the highly-dubious claim of it belonging to Theatre of the Absurd was a review that used the word in passing without any kind of theoretical or historical analysis--i.e., it doesn't support the claim made here.
• The information on The Mute Canary in the footnote is entirely appropriate for such obscure and little-read texts as these.
• Lines such as these: "The entire exchange of lines concentrates on using and misusing metaphors, proverbs and idioms, all of which refer to the body parts in question, but not to the characters, and make the protagonists look obsessed" are virtually meaningless and were removed. Unless whatever information is being gestured towards here can be re-phrased into something meaningful, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This goes for much that appeared in this section.
• Wikipedia policy on redlinks is also clear. Unless you are writing articles on these obscure figures right now, they shouldn't be linked. A simple search for the name on completing a new article will identify the one or two other articles that would then need to be linked.
• I have removed the fringe NYC productions; they are not notable and the sources provided do not demonstrate notability. Even a cursory search of the NYTimes listings reveals other productions. If it's a notable production of a play, then it'll be discussed somewhere. A review for that production doesn't do that (unless it says something like "This is one of the most significant productions of The Gas Heart we've seen for a long time" etc. None of the reviews do that.
• The MLA author-date citation system is a standard format and was implemented because I found it impossible to keep track of the previous citations when editing. See Hamlet for an example.
• I trimmed the categories--it simply doesn't belong in Surrealism or music, etc. categories.

DionysosProteus (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Regarding red links, I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy you're reading. Our Manual of Style is clear: "If a red link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to eventually be a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article, then the link should be kept as an invitation for an editor to begin the appropriate article with this title. Such links do not have an expiration date, beyond which they must be 'fixed'." Clear enough? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dionysos:

If you compare your version to the one you reverted from, you'll notice that my last version had incorporated most of your changes - if I wasn't clear in my previous message, I view most of those edits as constructive. Since I took the trouble to read (and proofread) your version, you could have applied some wikiquette and at least confronted the three versions to verify me. You did not, and applied a blind revert. Furthermore, in view of this, your accusation that I had "removed sources" is bogus and inflammatory.

• "We"? Dada is not a genre, pure and simple: dadaists worked in several genres, they were not themselves the purveyors of a new genre. This is the case with Romanticism, Classicism, Surrealism and any -ism you can name. It is also what has been consistently applied in just about any other infobox. For some reason, the infoboxes here don't record the literary movement (and I agree with you that, in this case, it is more important than the genre), but selective editing against the common sense standards in this and only this article is neither constructive not justifiable. The rest of your argument is entirely subjective. And the play, as a parody and a farce, is still part of musical theater - it has original music and includes ballets. This is basic info, and I don't see how it could be considered slanted or inaccurate.
• Yes, but the original title should be at least mentioned - because it won't be mentioned elsewhere, because this is the best place to mention it, and because several English-language sources refer to it solely under the French title. Let me note, again: you have took the liberty of modifying the two titles within an English-language quote (from Richter), which is against wikipedia rules. Sure, you could have paraphrased that part, but you didn't even take that complication into consideration.
• 1) Two sources refer to the "hoax" quote, but do not attribute it to Tzara. In my updated version, I cited them together with the source you introduced - in that way, I preserved the definition as belonging not just to Tzara, but to his commentators. In that version, it was also made clear (but maybe not clear enough) that Tzara referred to it in the same way. So I don't see where the problem is. 2) I don't object to most of your edits there, and have even kept your structure. When I added the reference to absurdist plays, it was not my intention to make Tzara look like an absurdist (even though many other critics and Ionesco himself have made that connection - comments which are, obviously, not relevant here). What I wanted to do was to introduce as many views on the play as were available, for the reader to have an overview of what has been said about the play.
• As far as I can tell, its only purpose is to burden the text with a citation from a text that is otherwise only cited once. The relative obscurity of one play should not allow us to make judgment calls, and this type of note is a slippery slope: what prevents editors from doing the same aout their preferred version of, say, the Odyssey or Animal Farm? That is why I object to it.
• Actually, several sources indicate that the play's text is structured along those lines - for instance, that it reuses proverbs, and that the constant references to such aspects does contribute to making the characters look obsessed about their own functions. Maybe it's poorly phrased, but you did not even bring this up on the talk page before removing it altogether.
• Per Biruitorul's message above: you are grossly misinterpreting wikipedia rules when it comes to redlinks. Furthermore, you are doing it based solely on your ability to interpret what's obscure and what's not. Not only is there no such requirement, there isn't even a deadline for filling the redlinks.
• Pfff, fine. The idea was to gather as much info on most (all?) productions of the play, which I feel are innately relevant. But whatever. Maybe they can be re-added once this article interest more people than me and you.
• So? Not only is the system you used merely one of the several possible ones (and I do recall it being considered bad wikiquette to change one that was already used, in cases where the latter wasn't flawed), and not only is it most common for sources cited a single time to be included under notes, but your version lists the same reference in two or even three separate places, for no apparent reason. That is superfluous and confusing, and I merely trimmed the citations down to the simplest common denominator.
• I can explain all of those categories, if need be. I can also agree that some could be viewed as superfluous, but as long as they don't appear on several levels, I don't see any particular reason to have them removed. Either way, I'm willing to keep to your version in this case too, if only because they're not essential to the text.

There are other problems in your version - such as the removal of half of the lead paragraph (this edit, as well as your since-reverted addition of a "citation needed" tag at the top of Tristan Tzara, shows that you have not read WP:LEAD - I suggest you do), adding (I'm repeating myself) a "citation needed" tag for a basic fact and within a citation etc. I must also say I am much irritated by your message on my talk page, where you claim I was in breach of WP:OWN, after you had blindly reverted a version where most of your edits had been kept. Dahn (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have undone that edit once more, and once more find myself having to point out just how poorly-written it was. To address your points in the order given:

i reverted wholesale because even the most cursory read confirmed that the quality of the writing had been lowered significantly. I took some time cleaning it up before.

if you don't want to be accused of removing sourced information, don't remove it. Check the edit history if you need it confirmed. It's there in black and white.

"we" assumed "we in the academic community." it's standard in the academic community to describe the genre of modernist drama in this way. if you read the notes above you will realise that that is a historical process.

if you want to describe the play in those terms, you need an appropriate source that says that it's a musical, etc.

the title of the evening is given in the source. evidence from sources arbitrates any disagreement. hence the change.

the original phrasing and your revised edit both made unsupported claims when compared to the sources. again, evidence and transparency. your logic about Tzara's description and subsequent ones is topsy-turvy. they describe it because he did.

Ionesco says nothing about theatre of the absurd. it's a (IMHO highly dubious) term invented by a critic. the source, again, didn't support the claim you made with it. if you want to make the claim, you need a source to support it.

the logic to your objection to the biblio details for the mute canary escapes me. if you have several other translations, by all means add them. take a look at a substantial article on a play in translation and you'll find exactly what you appear to be suggesting is inappropriate: a list of translations. having made the reference to this obscure play that has no article, it is entirely appropriate to offer the reader a means of following up the reference. the translation is simply the one i happen to have in a source i can confirm.

however the play is structured, the edit was incomprehensible. whatever you were trying to communicate was lost. if you want to add it in and provide the sources, by all means do, but it needs to make sense. no prior discussion is required to remove nonsensical passages. your description above doesn't make much sense either--i see that you are trying to assert a relationship between the formal use of proverbs in the dialogue and something about the characters, but what exactly that is and how it works remains obscure. if you can express it clearly and provide a source then that's fine. if not, it doesn't belong.

the policy on red links is not as i remembered it. it appears that recent research on their function has altered the policy.

i changed the reference system because i couldn't make sense of the one used. as explained above.

what about the guideline on leads? do you mean "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads"? the tzara article lead cited no sources and needs a tag. if you've removed it without providing them, i'll be returning it, in line with wikipedia guidelines.

the material in the lead about the split in dada appears in the production history.

the "fact" tag appears in a note, not a citation. you appear to be a little confused about the difference. if you say something in an article, whether in the lead, a section, or a footnote, you need to provide evidence.

if the edits had been kept i wouldn't have reverted. examine the edit history in detail.

If you look at this link, you can compare your original version and the one you claim incorporated my improvements. If you examine it closely, you will see that this is patently not accurate. The version you are promoting contains obvious contradictions - compare what Tzara says about its innovations with the first claims in the dramatic form section. The entire first section of dramatic form was not supported by the sources. i read them and described what they actually do say in my version. take, for example, your attempt to incorporate my correction of your original description of it as a hoax: in your "improved" version, it says that Tzara backed the definition of his play as a hoax. But he didn't, did he? That is a completely misleading way to describe the reality of the situation. He didn't "back" anything. It was his description. You claim that others say this too. Well, of course they do, because they've read Tzara! How could Tzara "back" critics writing decades after him?!? And that is just one tiny example. The entire section was full of it. I'm sorry if it hurts your ego, but it's poor writing style--there's no other way of describing it. It introduces inaccuracies and misleads. If you then examine the difference between your "revised version" that apparently incorporates my improvements and my actual version here, you will see the extent to which it does not include them. Tzara "appeared to have aimed at overturning"... did he? says who? Gravner doesn't compare the play with the mute canary. Sorry, but he doesn't. Continue examining the differences and you will see how much you have missed. Tzara doesn't "offer insight into his satirical intent" etc. Again, sorry, but he doesn't. All of that section was so poorly written when reviewed in light of what its sources actually say that I retained only what I could confirm and grouped them more rationally. information that is sourced has been removed in your edit. if you have difficulty with your contributions being improved, you ought not to be contributing to wikipedia. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the improved version, for all of the reasons detailed above. You need to address the concerns here before restoring incorrect, misleading, and contradictory information to the article. The version you have restored violates many of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia--misrepresenting sources being the most obvious. Unless you can demonstrate that the problems identified in great detail above have been addressed, the improved version ought to stay. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dionysos, first of all, not one of the "problems" you cite bases itself on an interpretation of a wikipedia rule or guideline, just on your personal theories and claim to expertise (which I do not doubt, but simply find irrelevant). Based on these theories, you have decided to remove entire portions of text, change the referencing system, reduce citations from one source, cut down the lede to way below the MOS standard, and whimsically replace terminology with your own ideas about how Dada is a theatrical genre and about how the cited opinion that it announces Absurd Theater is "dubious". This is not the wikipedia way.

Now, while I can understand some of your objections about the stagings of the play, and hove offered to accept the removal of some (by no means all), and while I have even incorporated some of your suggestions into the version, I do not find your version either improved or reasonable. Since you are the one removing text, and since this is exclusively your rationale, I must insist that you either request formal third opinion or find yourself another article to torture. Dahn (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dahn, you need to address all of the problems with the version you are attempting to impose in detail on here. If you restore the old, low-quality version, I'll leave it to arbitration to sort out. I've indicated precisely where the problems are, and they involve substanital deviations from established Wikipedia policy. The misquoting and misrepresentation of the cited sources is the most obvious. The unsourced claims are another. The contradictory descriptions are another. There is nothing in the least arbitary nor whimiscal about the edits in my substantial improvement of this article. I did what Wikipedia policy dictates. I consulted the sources and kept only what they supported. This is not a forum for your original research. The sources given identify it as a Dadaist play. None identify it as a "musical". The sources do not support the claims about the play that you make. That you removed sources is there, quite plainly, in the edit history. If you want to claim it for "Theatre of the Absurd" you need a reliable, third-party source that makes that case. And so on. The points are all there given in some detail above and are all in line with policy. If you want to insert the claims about this play that you make, then you need to back them up with evidence. I'm happy to have more people look in detail at the changes because I know that if they consult the sources they will find what I describe there. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is simply deceptive, and your claims to be following policies are just as reliable as your earlier theory that redlinks are "bad". Where is the evidence for such serious accusations as "misquoting and misrepresenting sources"? Where are the "unsourced claims"? I see plenty of original research on your part, and I also see how you even claim that your opinion should be standard (appeals to authority and so on). I also see you claiming that there are "no sources" tracing the play to Absurd Theater, even if there are, in my version, two such sources - I also see you claiming that the sources I used were not good enough (by whose standards? yours, of course!). You also pretend not to read or understand my comment about the one translation provided for The Mute Canary whimsically as a "reference": it is its exceptionalism, its pointlessness and its WP:COAT-like nature that I object to. The notion about the play being a musical refers to its basic (if parodic) nature it is musical theater, even if it may not be an American musical. And this accusation of original research from the guy who claims Dada is a "genre", and invokes himself as an authority on that. What is there to add here? That you deleted in one stroke not just refs to Broadway etc. productions, but also the texts about a historical staging in Hungary (relevancy stated in the source used - incidentally, you deleted the info, but not the mention of the source!) and a ballet adaption? That you keep stating your difficulties with following a referencing system that is widely in use, and send me to your own articles as an example of what I suppose you claim to be the proper way?

At long last: who died and made censor? And do go and seek arbitration, as I keep telling you to do. Dahn (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dahn, it's given in very great detail above. I took the time to go read the sources. They do not say and do not support what appears in the version you keep trying to revert to. That it is a "musical" is an unsourced claim. There are many others. Many plays have music and dancing in them... doesn't make them musicals. You need to read the policy on what counts as a reliable source with regard to the Theatre of the Absurd claim you're making. You indeed give two. I have checked both. Your citation gives Graver p.168. Nothing on p.168 of Graver supports that claim You also give the NYTimes review - without, I might point out, providing the link that allows other readers to confirm that claims you use it to support - namely that "The play is occasionally seen as an early representative of Absurd Theater" (nevermind the incorrect terminology). The link is here. Here's what this reviewer, writing about a dance company's production of the play, wrote:

“ The 92 on 42 festival got off to a vibrant start on Wednesday night at the Duke with the New York debut of the Vertigo Dance Company of Israel. Based in Jerusalem and founded about a decade ago by two Israeli modern dancers, Noa Wertheim and Adi Sha'al, Vertigo made a brave choice in opening with a production of Tristan Tzara's 1923 absurdist play "Gas Heart." ”

That is the only reference to the word "absurdist". It is a passing reference. It doesn't support the claim you're making. This is a dance critic who describes the play as "absurdist" once, with no further justification, explanation, or discussion. It is not an analysis of the relationship between the play and the grouping from decades later called Theatre of the Absurd. It doesn't identify it as an early precursor. As policy clearly states: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research" Invoking WP:COAT is patently absurd in respect to a passing reference to the play. And it is you who is quite patently attempting to deceive. It indicated, quite clearly in the talk above, that the red links policy had changed since i had last consulted it. When i joined, they were discouraged. They are now encouraged. The policy violations that i have identified in your version are clear and plain when anyone takes the time to consult the sources cited. You're not familiar with the way in which early c20th have come to be regarded as genres? go read a book on the history of modernism. Consult the sources given in the article. It is listed, quite clearly and tangibly, as a "Dadaist" play. And in what way is Hamlet my article? Have you consulted the edit history? My ability to follow logical discourse and to recognise badly-written prose makes me censor. That's how wikipedia works. Now address the concerns and stop reverting to such a low-standard of article. You do not own this page. I don't have the time to do it now, but if you insist on down-grading the article in this manner than i will indeed refer it to others to take a look. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And I can only invite you, yet again, to ask others to take a look. Make sure you let them know what you object to in the current version, where I incorporated some of your more stringent suggestions (I had already done so with others in past versions), which I at least hope will make you stop blindly reverting.

I still do not see how the sources "do not back" what is in the text, and I frankly even lost track of what exactly is your stance on that. What I see is that you keep making various claims on the basis of sources. I see you stating that critics have called Tzara's play a hoax because he did - which is a likely conjecture, but not stated outright by any source, and is therefore OR. I see you claiming that two sources which discuss the play as a sample of Absurd Theater (yes, in passing, so what?) are illegitimate, and I see you invoking the RS policy - which is the equivalent of saying that quoting a source is good only for those parts where you (or I) agree with it. I see you claiming that modern stagings etc are not worth mentioning in the text (I removed them, and did so simply because I'm tired of such bickering), but then I see you indicating to readers what primary source they should be using as reference for something completely unrelated to this article, and completely random, like you're writing some lecture with recommended bibliography on Dada in general. I see you again invoking ambiguity in stating that Dada is a genre because authors refer to the subject of this article as a "Dada play" - like "Dada" has somehow become the equivalent of "Comedy" or "Tragedy" or "Parody" or what have you (again, entirely your original research). I see you arguing endlessly that you find the citation system confusing, even as it is already used in countless GAs and FAs. You are right about Hamlet not being your article, and I apologize to you for that hasty remark, but I frankly don't even see what major difference there is between that format and this one - but I do think it is common courtesy for one to adapt his citation system to what's already used in one article, instead of pushing his/her own preferences (particularly when these result, as I pointed out, in inconsistencies and errors). And let me note that, with the comments about how this is an issue of one's "ability to follow logic" etc., you're moving into uncharted territory civility-wise. Now please. Dahn (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm about to sign-off, but before I go: where, precisely, on p.168 does Graver support the "absurd" claim. Please quote it for us. Just to show that you're not misrepresenting sources. If you'd be so kind. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Concerning the details you added to your post. I concede the point: the Graver reference was a mistake, I probably misread the online transcript I was reading, and did not revisit it once I was done with that part of the article. It probably had to do with my misreading of the play's description by Graver, probably at a time when I was really tired, or I mixed it up with a statement in another source. In that context, the other reference for it being absurdist (which I had based on the use of the word absurdist, and which I saw as adding contextual importance only in addition to the other source), is also now superfluous. Ionesco's reference to Tzara's role as precursor, which I mentioned on this talk page, was quoted from memory (I'm going to have to revisit the source, once I remember where I found this) - in any case, it was, if I recall correctly, stated not about The Gas Heart, but about The Handkerchief of Clouds. Mea culpa. Dahn (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I did not "hide" the NYT online refs for some ulterior purpose, but simply because I was back then under the impression that NYT copyrights its content in such a way as to make this complicated. I did the same in other articles I was writing at the same time as this, where I was using NYT refs. And since I figured out that people can easily just find the article in two clicks as instead of one (as you yourself did), I really saw no need for exploring further the implications of that. Plus, since links often rot, and these articles keep the same paper copies, and since the two clicks (searching after title) are always the same, it really seemed cumbersome to me. Dahn (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dahn, as I've indicated in substaintial detail in the posts above, the problem identified with the claim that the play is "Theatre of the Absurd" (the correct term) is only one example of many substaintial problems with the version that I improved, which was riddled with them. I identified these by going back to the sources that had been cited and checking them. You need to address these problems. And there is nothing uncivil about pointing out how poorly written that version was. I gave in the posts above examples of precisely this problem. And I'm sure you know as well as I that it is inappropriate of you to defend claims made "from memory" as you have been doing. My substantial edit was based on a direct consultation of sources because on enountering this article I could tell how much of it was unsubstanitated, incoherent, or misrepresentative. You shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia if you are unable to accept that your contributions will be improved by others. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And I kindly ask you to let me know what problems you see that remain unaddressed at the moment.

The lack of civility in your comments was in that you presented the issue as being about one's inability to understand logic - I cannot read it as anything but inflammatory.

I have never sourced anything in this article with claims made "from memory", merely stated something on this talk page. Your persistent suggestions that I should reconsider my contributing to wikipedia, which you have been making for months now, get in the way of civilized conversation.

That aside, I am sure that anybody seriously interested in evaluating this from the outside will note: that the practical issues raised in your posts, as a defense of your version, alternate with a collection of arbitrary preferences and personal theories; that I have been more than open to those suggestions I could identify as improvements (and even, for the sake of not prolonging a useless conflicts, some of those edits of yours that I found questionable); that I have adapted several of those suggestions into the text, in a succession of stages, and have nothing against all comments that show themselves to be sound. Dahn (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 20th-21st Century Art, Performance and Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 March 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Axsl198 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ceiap (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)