Jump to content

Talk:Graffiti/Archive 3

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

Are you kidding me?

No mention of Philadelphia? No pictures of Philadelphia? Modern graffiti was invented in Philadelphia, not New York, and certainly not Chicago or California. No mention of Cornbread yet an entire section dedicated to Banksy?

If you don't know about Cornbread and Philadelphia then you shouldn't be speaking on the subject of graffiti.24rhhtr7 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you know of a reliable source or sources that confirms what your saying, by all means add a section to the article. Sionk (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And THAT is exactly why you should never, ever be editing an article about graffiti. Do some research. No urban person who isn't a completely clueless idiot or who doesn't respect history doesn't know that Philadelphia is where graffiti was started and that Cornbread was the original major writer. He spray painted both the Jackson 5 Plane and an elephant at the zoo when somebody wrongly claimed he died for Christ's sake! All you have to do is look on the Northeast Corridor (well not anymore since they brought in a "graffiti artist" to cover up the real graffiti) at the buildings he and many others tagged to learn this.
LOL it's even on Wikipedia and you didn't even bother to read it. Now that's funny. Here ya go, Mr. Graffiti Expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornbread_%28graffiti_artist%29
Some of you people, I swear. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, what's stopping you adding this content to the article? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Last time I checked, I didn't sign on to be editing a page about graffiti now did I? You did, and you failed miserably (all of you, not singling you out personally) because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The fact that you needed a "reliable" source to even accept it as truth is ridiculous. Any graffiti artist who doesn't know the history needs to sit down. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. Stickee (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are mistaken about the nature of Wikipedia and encyclopaedias in general. Perhaps you should sit down and read something about Wikipedia's policies and contributing? No one edits this article on the basis of "I'm a graffiti artist and I'm gonna tell you the truth because I know it." That's not how Wikipedia works at all. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
LOL oh I love when you Wikipedia types get pissy and "pull rank" on somebody. You seem to be completely forgetting the fact that you're trying to speak as an authority on something you clearly don't know anything about. Did you ever ONCE ask yourself if it's your place to do that? Nope, because you clearly have an entitlement problem. But do continue to throw a tantrum over the fact that somebody called you out on this joke of a page rather than editing it myself and risk having one of you "experts" delete it. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
(Isn't requesting a reliable source the very opposite of claiming expertise?) Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

24rhhtr7 Any asshole* can claim expertise, as you are doing, whether or not they know their ass from a hole in the ground or can find it with both hands and a mirror. You'd already been told about WP: VERIFIABILITY and WP: ORIGINAL RESEARCH, so STFU and read them. Play by the rules or stay off the f***in' field.

*to use your own kind of language

--Thnidu (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[Realigning the following comment to keep up with the outdent above.--Thnidu (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)]
Funny I don't recall swearing at anybody. Fact is, I'm not the one who claimed to be an expert. I simply called out people who are appointing themselves as such for not knowing what they're talking about. I even gave you a Wikipedia link for your "verifiable source" (which yours must be quite qestionable if they don't even mention Cornbread in the history) where it said he is considered the first modern graffiti artist. The "bubble letter" style is a Philly thing. That is widely known. Cornbread and other Philly artists were the first to make those big, expressive tags that we associate with graffiti and then it spread to New York where they then took it and started making more elaborate, mural type of graffiti called "wildstyle". It even says this in the "Graffiti in New York" Wikipedia article. It is also in "Cry of the City" and "Bomb It". For yet another source, here it is straight from the horse's mouth.... the ACTUAL authorities: http://nymag.com/guides/summer/17406/ As somebody who has seen legitimate graffiti my whole life and whose favorite part of the journey on Amtrak's NEC was the graffited underpasses when coming towards 30th St (that they have now ruined with the artistic presentation some German "graffiti artist") this nonsense really annoys me. You clearly don't know the history of graffiti or what is behind the most common, Philly-birthed type of graffiti that has been copied endlessly. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
"Funny I don't recall swearing at anybody."
"LOL oh I love when you Wikipedia types get pissy and "pull rank" on somebody."
"That is widely known."
WP:V, WP:OR. RTFM.
  • Now, turning off the vulgarity faucet: "The encyclopedia anyone can edit." You seem to really be an expert on the subject, and if you made the effort to learn how to write and edit an article, with WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, your expertise would be welcome.
  • Oh, and I used the {{outdent}} function because
with eight levels
of indentation a
post can come out
very narrow and
hard to read,
especially on a
mobile device
with a small
screen, such as
a smartphone.
  • The usual convention is to just add one to the level of indentation of the talk post or comment you're replying to. Please do that. Thank you.
--Thnidu (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There's a HUGE difference between directing an attitude towards somebody and swearing incessantly the way you did at me. You came at me like you're trying to fight me, which is ridiculous. See that's the thing... I'm NOT an expert on the subject nor would I ever claim to be. That's the difference between me and the people who volunteered to make this entry. I know for a fact that I'd have had my legs broken or worse if I had tried "writing" growing up because it's not my place but clearly very many people these days don't seem to share that same understanding of boundaries. I know the history of the hip hop movement in general because I'm from an urban background and it all organically evolved from urban culture in Philly and New York but that's as far as my place in it goes. It greatly bothers me to see urban culture that was started by people who literally had nothing just trying to tell the world that they exist being co-opted and more importantly redefined and having its history revised. It's been taken from the streets, where it belongs, to academia, and now people with no connection to it whatsoever seem to think they're the authorities. I don't like to step on toes (why I didn't edit this or any other hip-hop culture related entries) but then I see people jumping over me who have even less of a claim to any of it so I make my little comments pointing out something they should already know. These are things that are supposed to be traditions, passed down from one generation to another. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
At the end of the day, if something is "well known" it will be written down or recorded somewhere (especially these days when most people are literate and there are a plethora of news sources). By all means, if you don't feel confident yet to edit Wikipedia yourself, then point one of us in the direction of a news/book source (about the Philadelphia graffiti scene) that can be used to improve this Wikipedia article. To be honest, you sound like you have useful knowledge to contribute. Maybe start small and, if you happen to do something 'wrong', the more experienced peeps can point you in the right direction. Sionk (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with Sionk 100%. 24rhht47, you're more than welcome to be bold and edit this article yourself; you have every bit as much "authority" as any of us. I don't think anyone here has claimed expertise – we just try to record and summarise what reliable sources say, just like any other encyclopedia. It's entirely possible that your background means you have knowledge that isn't yet recorded in any reliable source that Wikipedia can cite, but it's beyond Wikipedia's scope to include that sort of knowledge. It's also possible that reliable sources have it wrong, but it's also not Wikipedia's role to correct them; we just need to wait for more authoritive sources to do that. The bottom line is that Wikipedia's information needs to be verifiable in reliable sources so that readers can check we haven't just made it up – because, as you say, we're not experts. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Please indicate where someone has claimed to be an authority on Graffiti here. Cos if they have, their contributions carry no more weight than anyone else's. Any anonymous person can claim to be an authority on the internet, on anything. That's why it counts for nothing on Wikipedia and why reliable source count for everything.
But to get back on track; if you have any of these sources that explain how graffiti, something that's existed since pre-history, and existed throughout the world through to modern times, can be claimed to have been "invented" anywhere, I'm sure it would be of interest to everyone. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Escape_Orbit, 24rhhtr7 isn't talking about graffiti in general but the particular style of hip hop culture related graffiti that developed in Philly -- if I'm reading correctly.
24rhhtr7, I was reacting to the aggressive, insulting attitude you were displaying up till my reply. I much prefer civility, as in your most recent comment and in the other participants'.
You say "These are things [that] are supposed to be traditions, passed down from one generation to another." Truly, that's how it's been for most of humanity's existence. But when the community gets too big for one person to address the whole tribe at once with their unamplified voice or to know them all at least by sight, too spread-out to walk around the village in one day, too varied to all share the same traditions - then oral tradition is no longer enough to preserve all the knowledge and make it available to all who want it. That's what encyclopedias are for.
The kind of community you seem to be speaking of was and still is small enough for oral tradition: not just a closely linked group of neighborhoods, but a particular subset of the residents of those neighborhoods. The middle-class folks avoid the places where they might get robbed or get their legs broken. The immigrants have their own subsets and areas, maybe closely mingled with the neighborhoods where hip hop was born and lives, but not conversant with that culture and its history.
In the village, everyone could know who's expert in something, who could be trusted to know about herbs or childbirthing or hunting (then) or about drugs or car repair or graffiti (now). In the city, let alone the world-wide village that is the Web, that's not possible. So Wikipedia simply cannot rely on anyone's expertise, even if documented. If Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson logged in, proved their identity, and wrote a new section in the article on black holes, saying "According to my latest research which I'm writing up now for publication in [insert name of top-rank peer-reviewed journal], blah blah blah", Wikipedia would have to reject that as original research until it was published and citable.
Wikipedia is not trying to "co-opt" or "redefine" street culture or "take it away from the people it belongs to". That's part of why reliable references are required. It's simply impossible to take anyone's word that they're an authority or that their research is trustworthy. WP leaves that to the appropriate organizations (we figure we can trust the FDA or the Church of Latter-Day Saints to describe their own structure and regulations), news agencies (reports on the Amtrak derailment), scholarly communities (peer-reviewed journals), etc. And that applies to graffiti culture as well as black holes. --Thnidu (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That was very well said, Thnidu, and yes that is basically my beef with this. I didn't exactly mean for this to be a whole long diatribe. I was frustrated at seeing yet another incorrect Wikipedia entry on urban culture in general. I prefer to be civil as well but I was responding in my comment to the general arrogance I have seen from Wikipedia entries and their editors in regards to many topics they have absolutely no clue about. For example, the Wigger entry is almost entirely reliant on the opinions of somebody who is admittedly exactly the type that word is directed at and is basically revision of what the term means and who uses it. Then you have the entry for Yo which completely disregards the southern Italian origins of that phrase and instead proclaims it is an Olde English word, a Japanese word, all types of origins other than the correct one. Then you have this entry, which I have already made my feelings on very clear. The problem with going by "reliable source" standards is in the case of urban culture it is a thing of the people and thus the actual authorities aren't likely to be having books published. Instead they maybe just gave interviews or made some documentary or in the cases of a few actually have a website. In the case of Yo the authority is an old South Philly Italian-American who writes a letter to the New York Times but of course his claim is labeled not as reliable as that of an academic from New England. To me it's the people who actually know it personally who are the authorities, and if their place in that is verified then what they say should be considered reliable. After all anybody can write a book on something, and often those books that get cited as reliable sources might not even be accurate or might have been biased or written with POV added in.
Escape Orbit- Your attitude is exactly why I wrote my comment. You know exactly what graffiti refers to and it most assuredly is not "the Middle Ages", "Ancient Greece", or anything other than modern urban graffiti that is associated with cities such as New York, LA, Berlin, Paris, Brazil, etc. You want to talk about a culture and tradition while being dismissive of its true origins and to me that is not acceptable. People have died doing it. Do you understand that? Been killed by gangs in New York and elsewhere. The original writers came from disadvantaged and even dangerous neighborhoods and you want to piss all over them and deny them their rightful place as the originators and pioneers. This is where I ask who exactly are you that you have a right to do that? I don't see anybody having made you an expert. But hey... make your snarky comments.
As for sources- The documentary "Bomb It", the documentary "Cry of the City", this article I linked earlier, http://articles.philly.com/2000-04-25/news/25592291_1_graffiti-septa-spray-painting, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/tag-cornbread-article-1.1435281, http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/no_rooftop_was_safe-38343074.html?page=1&comments=1&showAll= <--All of these sources quote people who have been verified as important figures in the early beginnings of modern graffiti. That's why I was so taken aback by this entry and people questioning whether what I said was reliable or not. There are multiple reliable sources -whether they be documentaries, articles, or books- and Cornbread was in fact inducted into the Graffiti Hall of Fame. More than that, minimalizing New York's role in graffiti culture was especially a head-scratcher given how much publicity New York has always gotten for that. Considering that urban culture as we know it comes from people who have been disadvantaged for centuries, it is in my opinion morally pertinent to get the history right and show respect to these people. That goes for all aspects of urban culture as well as urban history. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
24rhhtr7: Despite your assertion that
You know exactly what graffiti refers to and it most assuredly is not "the Middle Ages", "Ancient Greece", or anything other than modern urban graffiti that is associated with cities such as New York, LA, Berlin, Paris, Brazil, etc.
the term "graffiti" is not modern in origin and is not limited in scope to modern graffiti. I don't know where you got that from, except possibly that you associate the word primarily or only with its modern uses and {are unaware of / have not read / don't believe} all the material in the article about pre-modern graffiti.
@Adrian J. Hunter, Sionk, and Escape Orbit: (You too, 24rhhtr7, but I already pinged you at the top of this comment.) It might be appropriate to split either historical graffiti or modern graffiti off into a separate article. What say you?
To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Thnidu: The problem here is that 24rhhtr7 wishes to make a distinction and special case of "modern urban graffiti", while in the context of this all encompassing article, it's all just graffiti of one kind or another.
I don't see a modern/historical split being practical. History has not changed the fundamental nature of graffiti, just the tools used to create it. So any division there would be arbitrary. But there could be a case for splitting off a Urban graffiti article, (or something like that). But then, there is already an existing Street Art article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@24rhhtr7: it is very hard to discuss anything while you remain fixed on the idea that everyone else is editing in an attempt to belittle your favourite topic, for some unexplained reason. You need to start assuming good faith or we're not going to achieve anything. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter, Sionk, and 24rhhtr7: Eh, I'm afraid I'm forced to agree with you, Escape Orbit. 24rhhtr7, you clearly know much more about this subject than all the rest of us combined. You're obviously the best candidate to write such an article, if you're willing to abide by WP's policies and guidelines, which are fairly loose on some areas but rather strict in others, notably the one that's taken most of our attention here, WP: Original research. WP has some pretty good tutorials and outlines for writing your first article. I, for one, would be happy to offer some guidance, subject to my knowledge and time. --Thnidu (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Mao Zedong citation

The paragraph indicating Mao's 4000 character graffiti seems to be a fabrication, no proper source was given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.123.2.130 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; removed. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Graffiti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Graffiti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

i would like to request to update these files. Tpriestley123 (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Still?

Still you make baseless claims about the origins of modern graffiti and its spread? Even after I provided you with all of the sources you need in order to correct this grievous error of yours? Really? You can play dumb all you want but you know exactly what people mean when they use the word graffiti. It's unbelievably shameful to try to take that away from the people who risked their lives to create it. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Merging defacement

The defacement (vandalism) article identifies its subject as a type of vandalism and goes on to present a tiny stub worth of information. I just proposed that it be merged into vandalism but some parts should be merged here instead. Connor Behan (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Graffiti. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Graffiti. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Tag this: <ref name=joel/> as dead or replace it with the Wayback machine version: https://web.archive.org/web/20080108021355/http://www.state-of-art.org/state-of-art/ISSUE%20FOUR/urbane4.html . 76.168.109.87 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Graffiti and Style Wars on November 22, 2016

While the this page does mention the great impact that the documentary Style Wars had on hip hop culture and graffiti, it seems to only show one point of view. That is, it only shows the positive ways in which it effected the hip hop community. What it does not present is the idea that this documentary was very controversial among law enforcement, as they believed that graffiti artists were nothing but criminals. It would be beneficial to this article to discuss what laws were implemented to try to stop the graffiti artists that were shown in the movie as opposed to making it seem as if the film only portrayed the idea that everyone was "down with" making graffiti spread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EW22LzSaJA DwightKSchrute (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Bambi

Although "Bambi" the London, UK artist has a Wikipedia page dedicated to her personal graffiti contributions, her name should be mentioned under the European presence category of this article. Sage Cadence (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sage Cadence: Be WP: BOLD and do it! --Thnidu (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversy or debate

I tried to research about the debate regarding grafitti/street art vs. its typification as vandalism. Wikipedia has been useless so far. Government responses are placed but not the arguments on which they are (presumably) based. I might do some research to look into this, but so far it seems to me like a missing section in the vandalism, street art and graffiti articles.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: a search in google book for {opposition to graffiti} {graffiti is vandalism} {opponents of graffiti} and {opponent of graffiti} gives lots of results.

"Graffiti is 'vandalism' no matter how you look at it. It is defacement of property which costs the transport authorities money, the taxpayer money, and the people who write it sometimes, their lives. It is dangerous, uninvited and illegal. But it is far from mindless or senseless." pp. 2-3 Springer, N. Macdonald "The Graffiti Subculture: Youth, Masculinity and Identity in London and New York" 2001 https://books.google.com.br/books?id=QDUWDAAAQBAJ&

"The aesthetic opposition to graffiti argues that graffiti is ugly, and we should erase it. The sleek modernism of the subway is marred by the colorful inscriptions on it's corrugated exterior. The city wall is "defaced" by spray-painted tags. Here, graffiti is an aesthetic offense marring the beauty of the city. Cleaning it up is tantamount to picking up litter. The eye speaks against this. [....] Aesthetics is, however, no longer commonly given as the reason for opposing graffiti. Opponents of graffiti [...] object to graffiti not on aesthetic grounds but on semiotic ones, showing us once again that in the city the image serves as currency. They oppose not the graffiti but what the presence of graffiti signifies." Hénaff pp. 192-193

"It is in this question of value that the relation of graffiti to property and power becomes suspect. Graffiti lowers property values. Where? On abandoned buildings [...] I think not. It is not the graffiti but the abandonment that lowers property values" Hénaff pp. 196

Both previous quotes from a source which clearly does not oppose graffiti but which refers repeatedly to it's oponents, an interesting source as a "secondary source" regarding them. Hénaff, Marcel and Strong, Tracy B. "Public Space and Democracy" U of Minnesota Press, 2001 https://books.google.com.br/books?id=8UNrZPF9IOsC&

"The tension between those who believe graffiti is art and those who believe graffiti is vandalism is still felt today; there are separate legions of committed believers on both sides. Much has been written about the topic and students can read articles written from both sides of the debate [...]" pp. 110 Wallowitz, Laraine "Critical Literacy as Resistance: Teaching for Social Justice Across the Secondary Curriculum" Peter Lang, 2008 https://books.google.com.br/books?id=m1Rnm3rTuGQC&

It seems somehow that the controversy is mentioned multiple times in the current article, and yet it's not clearly delineated or explained. It's not exactly that there's an NPOV problem, maybe in the street art article that's the case, but here I came expecting an encyclopedic covering of the debate between law scholars and art scholars, very much in academia, about this and it's missing.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 17:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Seroja

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Graffiti. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Graffiti. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Graffiti. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Graffiti. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a link to be added in the external links section: "Debunking the Historical Hype: A Look into the True Origins of Wall Writing"

The article is about the origin and myths of graffiti writing from the early 60s until the early 70s. The article is on the Bombing Science website and required whitelisting. Newz12 (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Graffiti. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit request from User:Magoomba2, 30 September 2016

Please add Scratchiti (section) after 5.4 Offensive graffiti

Scratchiti

Scratchiti is a form of Graffiti that physically alters the surface by scratching a message. The NYC Transit Authority replaced many of the subway car windows to make them resistant to becoming the writing surface for Scratchiti.

Graffiti has a huge community of artists. Many of these artists practice graffiti legally while most think it is a form vandalism it typically is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faitherick15 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

36.83.77.76 (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Graffiti Murals in Northern Ireland

There are many graffiti murals signifying the difficult history of Northern Ireland which I think needs to have a piece written about. I'm pretty sure it started before 1960 Amcc3341 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If you can find reliable academic sources for such a section then by all means WP:BOLD. Mabuska (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Before Graffiti Jeans Were Made Popular...

Before Graffiti Jeans became popular, there's an untold story from a small town called Danville located in Illinois. Archie Lee Moore Jr accidentally started a new fashion fad in 1983 when he was a freshman in high school. While making the fashion statement this young man was an Athlete, Artist, and a local Disc Jockey; which was the time when he spilled some ink onto his blue jeans. "Growing up taking care of what you had wasn't much of a choice, so instead of throwing the pants away he tried getting the ink off with bleach and soap." The bleach of course faded throughout his pants and the ink spot remained. Archie still refused to throw out the trousers and drew one cartoon character from the ink. The next day he wore his outfit to school getting many heads turning from his peers. A few days later he drew more pictures and letters on the pants; not knowing what everyone else really thought. The following week Archie's cousin Cedric "Ray" Starks approached him and said, "hey cuz - can you hook me up with some of those jeans?" Soon afterwards a friend name Tod Tipton wanted the hook up. Those three young men wore their jeans with Polo shirts to the skating rink in Champaign, IL. getting much attention. Archie started taking request and completing orders for students from his school and that is when the fad began to spread throughout Champaign and Danville Illinois. Archie quotes; "everything starts from somewhere even when all the credit isn't acknowledged." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.218.24 (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

bias, POV, language

What name should we use for those who apply graffiti? I am leaning towards the non-partisan "graffitists" or "graffiti practitioner" instead of artists and vandals while retaining "taggers". There are many things written from the perspective of those who practice illegal graffiti or for those who do and I'd like to see it presented in less biased and non-adversarial phrasing. Graywalls (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Scratching (street art) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Scratching (street art). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Graffiti for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Graffiti is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Graffiti until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you aren't deleting the page. Deleting it as a grouping of pages is fine. 72.141.106.240 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2014

Graffiti is an art, style which are drawings on the wall. Though on the other case, Tagging is writings on the wall.

Tagging is a subset of graffiti. Billyshiverstick (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Update Video Games section

Notably, "GMOD" includes a mechanic that allows a user to upload a custom "spray," an image that can be applied to any flat surface. Frequently, players use the images to indicate where they've been in the game or taunt opponents. "Overwatch" adopted the "spray" concept, but provided premade images that reflected the game's various heroes and maps. Presently, 827 are available via lootbox or completion of game objectives; the majority cannot be purchased outright.

99.145.186.17 (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

69.113.213.55 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Excessive photos

I feel like there are too many photos and considerably in excess of necessity for encyclopedic values. There are so many that I feel like they're a distraction than a complement. Thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A picture tells 1,000 words. :) Just imagine how many boring words are saved by each pic you see! Kidding aside, graffiti is a visual art, so erring on the side of more over less pictures is not a disaster to me. They can be slightly weeded over the years, if they become redundant, but it is great to have them for now. imho tx Ben Billyshiverstick (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I Agree, would it be proper to remove the template concerned about the # of photos? --Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Too Many Photos Issue

I have removed some of the photographs and removed the too many photos issue, as the balance of image and text seems healthy, especially for a visual art page. I am open to discussion and can do more cleaning up if people believe it is needed? Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trevey-On-Sea:, this article was at one point featured of the day. See what it looked like around then old version in 2005. It has become completely bloated with pictures since the. Graywalls (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Graywalls:: I agree that there are more photos, however the old page links to a more substantial amount of external sites that show images of Graffiti; I would say that this is a more poor solution than the one we currently have, as by hosting the images on wikipedia the WP community can manage them, choosing a selection that well represents those found in real life. This as opposed to the more fickle tastes of those hosting and paying for websites to show the work of themselves and their friends. It might also be worth considering that a wikipedia entry need not look like a physical encyclopedia entry (that is, for this context: low on images, high on words) as we don't pay extra for engraving processes or coloured dye; So on a page like this where images are worth more than their going rate of 1000 words, why not lean in on a discount? All the Best, Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 21:40, 8 April 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) 17:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 17 April 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) 09:22, 20 May 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) 04:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The quantity of images and redundancy

Per WP:GALLERY, article space isn't a gallery and I have removed a fair number of images. Do we have a justifiable cause to have as many images as we did? Graywalls (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

I am requesting that the description for Graffiti be changed from "writing or drawings made on a wall or other surface, usually as a form of artistic expression, without permission and within public view" to "writing or drawings made on a wall or other surface, usually without permission, as a form of artistic expression, and within public view." The previous sentence structure makes it subject to the reader's interpretation of whether or not the "usually" applies to "without permission," subtly implying that (if the reader reads it as such) Graffiti is required to be without permission. However, in my newly proposed, and very similar, description, it makes it clear that it is "usually without permission" but it is a form of artistic expression and within public view. The "usually" is most important to the "without permission" rather than the "as a form of artistic expression,... and within public view" because if not it can make graffiti, an art style which evolved from urban communities, seem like a crime 100% of the time which it is not. Graffiti is an art form, not a crime. Vandalism is a crime but the two words have almost become synonymous in media which hurts the art form of Graffiti. 2601:14A:4501:5FB0:6188:3BC5:50E7:DEB (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Where's the reference source for your proposed change? Graywalls (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 Partly done: The requester said a lot of words, but the meat of their request was a style/readability issue. I brought the lead sentence in line with the dictionary source that is currently on that sentence by removing the "as a form of artistic expression" verbiage. That removal has the side effect of removing the implication brought up by the requester. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Main image

The main image of the page is the egyptian graffiti. This image is shown to users when they hover over a Graffiti link. IMHO the image associated with a graffiti should not be such an obscure and ancient one but rather a contemporary one. The other page image from the Tiber in Rome is apparently too wide to be selected as page preview image --178.15.128.194 (talk) 08:56, 8 July 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) 07:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"no access to mainstream media"

The article has a pro-vandalism stance.

graffiti artists, particularly marginalized artists with no access to mainstream media, resist this viewpoint to display their art or political views in public locations.

Who has "no access to mainstream media" anymore? Anyone with a smartphone can create a free account on, say, DeviantArt, and their art will reach a larger audience than a piece of graffiti will.

This removes all doubt that the act of generating graffiti arises from a simple desire to deface and vandalize. 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:D998:DCD8:CE93:55E6 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

thank you for raising this concern. After reviewing the edit that inserted the phrase in question, I determined that editor did not provide a reliable source to back up the validity of that statement as applicable in the general stance rather than a very specific example in Brazil. i have removed the contentious claim in question. Graywalls (talk) 22:19, 26 March 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) 19:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


Edit request from LW4U, 21 April 2021

  • Specific text to be added or removed: I wish to add additional background information and research on graffiti within the UK. I also wish to add some modern day examples of graffiti within the UK.
  • Reason for the change: To allow readers to learn more about graffiti within the UK
  • References supporting change: *undergoing research, will be cited in edits*

Thank you very much for your time, and I hope you can allow for me to add some minor edits to this page to add more information concerning graffiti in the UK

LW4U (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021

I just want to clear up some wrong words and wrong facts, as a graffiti artist myself. Thanks! Brickyy (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Merging of sections and some extra information

Request to merge the bottom section on criminal sanctions in the UK into the previous section discussing graffiti in different countries + splitting the UK into a section separate from Europe. I would also like to add some information about hierarchy of art (contrasting graffiti to yarn bombing + the treatment of graffiti artists in galleries + Banksy vs graffiti on the streets)--Albertross67 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I moved most of the UK-specific material to Graffiti in the United Kingdom. The "Europe" subsection in the "Response" section was mostly about the UK, so I moved it into its own sub-subsection. The "Europe" subsection had all of two short paragraphs about countries other than the UK. JIP | Talk 09:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RunAlongNow0, Sage Cadence.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Tilgung

da stand schon überall eine komplette bessere Weltliteratur. Und in eine bebilderte Sprache gekonnt übersetzt würde die jede auch sofort verstehen und oft auch lieben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C6:E704:6200:30A0:99AC:206E:E53E (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hieroglyphen und Schrott

Auch so eine Bildvermittlung und Kommunikation wohl damals bei den Ägyptern. Bloß halt nicht so richtig in 3D, zumindest net so gut, wie sie es damals in Wirklichkeit gekonnt haben, bis auf die untere Hälfte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C6:E704:6200:30A0:99AC:206E:E53E (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposing removing the neutrality tag

While I agree with the original research one, this page seems to do a good job at being neutral and expressing all sides. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Difference between graffiti and mural

What exactly is the difference between graffiti and mural? Both are using many techniques (scretching, painting, spraying,..), both are artistic and sometimes not, both existing since ancient times!? Thx --W like wiki good to know 02:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk to Trash

How did graffiti go from a way of communicating to something that people find offensive, ugly, and a form of crime? It honestly doesn’t make any sense to be honest. Graffiti is a way to communicate how you feel and a way of expressing yourself. Also a way of talking to others through pictures/drawing. And what could be wrong about that? 216.249.167.4 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Evaluation

From what i can see people are just tell what they feel about the graffiti? Just the one person who said vandalism or art. -216.249.167.4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Modern Design

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydrob20 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CaitlynRCooper, Roscoetherooster, Jamiee365, Ciroastarita.

— Assignment last updated by Antje Gamble (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

Change "Graffiti Art origin in the 70's by young people in New York." to "Contemporary graffiti art has its origins with young people in 1970s New York"

(It's funny that the graffiti page needs to be protected....too much vandalism xD) Treelibrary (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Merging Wildstyle

Article is almost entirely unsourced. Could be summarized in a sentence or two here. 162 etc. (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No objections; merged. 162 etc. (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Object to the total merging of the full page (and Keep at the AfD) but of course the addition here is welcome. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2023

Change the following: Tristan Manco wrote that Brazil "boasts a unique and particularly rich, graffiti scene ... [earning] it an international reputation as the place to go for artistic inspiration". Graffiti "flourishes in every conceivable space in Brazil's cities". Artistic parallels "are often drawn between the energy of São Paulo today and 1970s New York". The "sprawling metropolis", of São Paulo has "become the new shrine to graffiti"; Manco alludes to "poverty and unemployment ... [and] the epic struggles and conditions of the country's marginalised peoples" , and to "Brazil's chronic poverty", as the main engines that "have fuelled a vibrant graffiti culture" . In world terms, Brazil has "one of the most uneven distributions of income. Laws and taxes change frequently". Such factors, Manco argues, contribute to a very fluid society, riven with those economic divisions and social tensions that underpin and feed the "folkloric vandalism and an urban sport for the disenfranchised", that is South American graffiti art.[39] Prominent Brazilian writers include Os Gêmeos, Boleta, Nunca, Nina, Speto, Tikka, and T.Freak.[40] Their artistic success and involvement in commercial design ventures[41] has highlighted divisions within the Brazilian graffiti community between adherents of the cruder transgressive form of pichação and the more conventionally artistic values of the practitioners of grafite. [42]

To: Brazilian graffiti is a fascinating blend of elements from Latin America, North America, and Europe, resulting in a vibrant and unique form of art. The graffiti found in the streets of São Paulo address important political and social issues. In the words of a famous graffiti artist of São Paulo, "I always try to politicize my work...the focus of my interventions questions how traditional cultures mix, maintain, or lose themselves to globalization." Some remarkable pieces of graffiti can be found in the neighbourhoods of Pinheiros, Vila Madalena, and Bixiga.

Graffiti has procured a diverse reaction from different mayors. During the term of Jânio Quadros, he implemented strict penalties for any one caught doing graffiti or pixação. However, during the reign of Luiza Erundina, she supported the local graffiti artists financially and encouraged graffiti. Later, mayors such as Paulo Maluf and Celso Pitta, once again oppposed and painted over the graffiti. Graffiti had faced encouragement and discouragement from different mayors.

After the fall of the Brazilian dictatorship, graffiti was also a method of expressing freedom for those who created it. Graffiti later evolved into a form of art that reflected and reacted to the evolving social and political landscape. In the modern era, graffiti in continues to shape and provoke important discussions in Brazilian society. Graffiti has become a form of art for Brazilians in which they can represent the essence of a globalized world while still retaining the traditional elements of Latin America. [1] Kkromana (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Such a large change to existing, source-supported content will require consensus. Additionally, please provide reliable sources for every part of the proposal. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Section "Offensive graffiti"

The section "Offensive graffiti" seems a bit fuzzy, since "offensive" doesn't have a clear definition to begin with. Also, it's unclear how the "One World!" piece connects to the section, anyway, without context. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Section "Use"

The final paragraph of this section seems like it could use some heavy editing. The subject in the first sentence, "graffitist", isn't exactly clear; the way it's used makes it sound like the paragraph is referring to the beliefs of an individual rather than a broader ideological trend. This is also made more confusing by the way the rest of the paragraph is written. It's both very specific and subjective in a way that makes it sound more like a quote than an encyclopedia entry. The paragraph cites one source, a page on a website called The Art Story. Looking on this page, it seems like most of the text in this paragraph is just a paraphrased version of the summary section of that page. If this section is going to be kept, I think it needs to be revised to specifically refer to what it's saying as an opinion being put out by this website. With the level of detail being repeated and the lack of mentioning where the ideas are from, it comes across much more as plagiarism than as reference, and if the current level of detail is necessary, it should be included as a quote rather than as paraphrasing. Andurad (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a typo that I want to fix, Why is this article semi-protected?

Someone misspelled "Vandalism" and put "vanadlism" instead. Joe (USA) (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Graffiti in Wikipedia itself

Would it perhaps make sense to mention the form of inserting non-content-related entries into Wikipedia articles (vandalism) as a kind of modern graffiti in the chapter on "Modern Experimentation"? As Wiki(gra)ffiti, so to speak, "Wikifitti". Spezi91 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, typo: "Wikiffiti" Spezi91 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you cite sources for this? See WP:OR. 162 etc. (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello 162 etc.,
I noticed the term "Wikiffiti" was coined in 2008 by Matt Mechtley (see: Citation needed - Wikipedia) as a form of sticker art in the real world:
e.g.:
[1]https://boingboing.net/2008/01/02/wikiffiti-stickers-t.html
[citation needed] | Know Your Meme
.
But the term "Wikipedia graffiti" was used, for example here:[2]https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/have-you-seen-american-airlines-ceo-doug-parkers-wikipedia-page.html in the way of a modification of a Wikipedia article. Examples could also found in social media, like Twitter (X) with the search of "Wikipedia graffiti" or #Wikiffiti ...
Therefore, one or both of these could be considered to see if they can be usefully integrated into the article or if they are irrelevant to the reader.
Best regards, Spezi91 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the sources you've cited here are particularly reliable. See WP:SOURCES 162 etc. (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ancient graffito

Hello all! I have seen there is an article called Graffito (archeology) which discusses ancient graffiti. I think a lot of information from this page could be moved over to that one, and summarised over here - what is everyones thoughts on this? -- NotCharizard 🗨 13:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

Pizza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.127.18.77 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

Pizza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.108.207 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Avramidis, Konstantinos., and Myrto. Tsilimpounidi. Graffiti and Street Art : Reading, Writing and Representing the City. New York: Routledge, 2017. Caldeira, Teresa P. R. “Imprinting and Moving Around: New Visibilities and Configurations of Public Space in São Paulo.” Public culture 24, no. 2 (2012): 385–419. Campos, Ricardo, and Gabriela Leal. “An Emerging Art World: The de-Subculturalization and Artification Process of Graffiti and Pixação in São Paulo.” International journal of cultural studies 24, no. 6 (2021): 974–992. Gu, Jandy. “Vanguard or Vandal: Symbolic Boundaries and Subjectivities of Grafite and Pixacao in Sao Paulo, Brazil”. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2020. Iddings, Ana Christina DaSilva, Steven G. McCafferty, and Maria Lucia Teixeira da Silva. “Conscientização Through Graffiti Literacies in the Streets of a São Paulo Neighborhood: An Ecosocial Semiotic Perspective.” Reading research quarterly 46, no. 1 (2011): 5–21. Lamazares, Alexander. “Exploring São Paulo’s Visual Culture: Encounters with Art and Street Culture Along Augusta Street.” Visual resources 30, no. 4 (2014): 319–335. Larruscahim, Paula G. “Pixaçao: The Criminalization and Commodification of Subcultural Struggle in Urban Brazil”, 2018. Paula, Leonora S. “Pixação and the Production of Spatial Justice by the Urban Excluded.” Arizona journal of Hispanic cultural studies 22, no. 1 (2018): 151–163. Stavans, Ilan. “Graffiti in Latin America.” Essay. In The Routledge Companion to Gender, Sex and Latin American Culture, 1st ed., 245–51. Routledge, 2018. Zanella, Andrea Vieira. “Inventive ReXistence: Notes on Brazil Graffiti and City Tension.” Essay. In Street Art of Resistance, edited by Sarah H. Awad and Brady Wagoner, 1st ed. Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 2017: 201-222 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graffiti/Archive_3&oldid=1256334350"