Talk:Graffiti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Graffiti is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 18, 2005.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Hip hop (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Graffiti (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Graffiti, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to graffiti art, graffiti artists and all aspects of graffiti culture. Click Here for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject African diaspora (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Edit request from Che-burashka, 18 April 2011[edit]

Documentaries and films[edit]

Add the 2010 movie Exit Through the Gift Shop by street artist Banksy.— Preeding unsigned comment added by Che-burashka (talkcontribs) 08:18, 18 April 2011

Dead link[edit]

The reference number 58 is missing it´s link I found the text and author from where the citation is taken in this page http://www.hiphop-network.com/articles/graffitiarticles/perspectiveongraff.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikant (talkcontribs) 00:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The source actually shows that the Wikipedia content was copied verbatim from the copyrighted source, which is not allowed per WP:COPYPASTE. Accordingly I've removed the content and the link. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I don't know how images are picked, but there are some nice graffiti images here. I took them myself today. :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Graffiti to private property?[edit]

The lead says "public place" it's quoted from the OED which I have a copy of. But the exact same markings on private property would surely be described as graffiti too, like writing/images made on buildings, structures, vehicles or other surfaces of private residents or bussinesses. There are semi public/private place, toilet doors in night clubs can get defaced I am sure this would be described as graffiti. Also completely private areas, like if someone sprayed words on walls inside someones house, maybe whilst committing burglary, I would imagine this would still be described as graffiti no? Not even mentioning non criminal art, like a teenager decorating his bedroom by spraying words and pictures over the walls. Source/Reference? I can't quote the OED obviously but I'm sure published material such as news papers describing crimes would call this graffiti. Carlwev (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

chawank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.12.34 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

delete: "stickers and stencils are not considered graffiti"[edit]

they are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.53.34 (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

According to who? 24rhhtr7 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2013[edit]

"graffiti" Is misspelled somewhere. To find it, just search for "grafitti" Rogierownage (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 14:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed a sea of blue (too many <ref> tags)[edit]

I thought I would mention that ironically in an article marked for lacking citations, I found about eight <ref> tags in a small paragraph, and they were relatively redundant. I fixed it, the section being here. impinball (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Good edit. I have found references breaking up sentences and paragraphs unnecessarily and being needlessly repeated in many articles. Unless contentious individual facts need explicit support refs can go at the end of sentences or paragraphs they support. I appreciate your cleanup and hope you bring your editorial skills to other articles. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2014[edit]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2014[edit]

Graffiti is an art, style which are drawings on the wall. Though on the other case, Tagging is writings on the wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.68.183 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014[edit]

Add to section 9 Documentaries and films:

  • Sprayed Conflict (1994), a documentary about graffiti and youth culture in Australia, focusing on a 23-year-old graffiti writer Duel.[1]

1above (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC) 118.175.247.202 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Vimeo is not considered a reliable source. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Add to section 9 Documentaries and films:

  • Sprayed Conflict (1994), a documentary about graffiti and youth culture in Australia, focusing on a 23-year-old graffiti writer Duel.[2]

1above (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A link to the documentary on Vimeo is still not considered a reliable source. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The citation above does not use the Vimeo link as the source. The citation is from library listings for the original 1994 video published on VHS . I also suggest to add the link to the recent upload of the original documentary to Vimeo by the director/producer, who I assume is a reliable source - is this the case or not? If there is a more suitable of adding this link to the citation of the original video, please let me know, otherwise you can add the citation without the vimeo link (which seems like a shame as it is a rare documentary and not available anywhere else). I am a new editor and I have tried my best to add this useful source to this page. I've asked for advice on citing this at the Teahouse, and I have tried a few times here, so I would appreciate if you could give some input on the most satisfactory way of adding this citation, or add it in the correct way - especially since other documentaries in this list don't have any references at all. 1above (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —cyberpower ChatOnline 11:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Moller, Robert (Director) (1994). Sprayed conflict : an insight into a youth culture (Documentary). Australia: Light Foundation. 
  2. ^ Moller, Robert (Director) (1994). Sprayed conflict : an insight into a youth culture (Documentary). Australia: Light Foundation. 

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2014[edit]

125.163.84.119 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC) izoel--125.163.84.119 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)izoel$

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014[edit]

Please add a new section of "controversy" because this entry doesn't mentioned about how graffti is under a debate. And such content is good to be put before the section of government response. The content is from a reliable source: McAuliffe, Cameron, and Kurt Iveson. 2011. “Art and Crime (and Other Things Besides … ): Conceptualising Graffiti in the City: Conceptualising Graffiti in the City.” Geography Compass 5(3): 128–43.

The content is here:

1. Those who assert that graffiti is crime, pure and simple, can point to the fact that graffiti is frequently written without permission and is against the law. In making this point, they are right. But what kind of crime is graffiti, and what is at stake in its criminalisation? The framing of graffiti as crime is based upon a particular understanding of its relation to the moral and legal order of place – this is what geographer Tim Cresswell (1992) has called the ‘crucial where of graffiti’. Cresswell differentiates between the form and process of graffiti, asking whether graffiti is still graffiti if it is taken from its illegal context on the walls of the city and placed in a gallery. In seeking to justify the link between graffiti and criminality, politicians and media commentators frequently draw upon the so-called ‘broken windows’ theory of urban disorder and crime. In its most basic form, the broken windows theory states that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken; that by breaking the codes of order we invite further disorder to occur. Wilson and Kelling (1982), drawing on Glazer’s (1979) earlier article on the social effects of graffiti on the New York subway, apply the broken windows theory to graffiti, noting that the presence of graffiti represents unresolved disorder that sends the message that nobody cares, encouragingfurther erosion of community values and expectations. Here, the apparently minor crime of graffiti is cast as a transgressive invasion into the normative patterns of urban living which will have pernicious effects if it is left unchecked.

2.On the other side of the debate, those who maintain that ‘graffiti is art’ tend to focus precisely on the issues of content and style which advocates of the ‘graffiti is crime’ position want to avoid. In making their case for the aesthetic qualities of graffiti as art, some have pointed to the fact that graffiti-style works are hung in art galleries, and that the graffiti-writing scene has spawned famous artists such as Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat. Sometimes, the assertion that graffiti is ‘art’ has been translated into alternative policies, such as the provision of ‘legal walls’ on which graffiti can be written with permission. These tolerated legal sites are designed to provide opportunities for engagement with writers and to facilitate the diversion of young people ‘at risk’ of sliding into more serious crime, as well as, importantly, limiting the urban presence of graffiti to particular sites. Legal walls present opportunities for writers to emerge from the cover of darkness, and to ‘go legit" . For writers moving away from deviant careers or wishing to pursue legitimate creative careers, the legal wall becomes a site of recognition, materialising the tension between public art and property crime (Halsey and Pederick 2010).

Qishaocharles (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sam Sing! 22:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - ANZ Journal of Criminology[edit]

Please add a wikilink to the page on the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology in the citation to that journal. (Halsey, M.; Young, A. (2002). "The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal Administration". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 35 (2): 165–86. doi:10.1375/acri.35.2.165) --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — SamXS 18:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?[edit]

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(talkcontribs) 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)

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(talkcontribs) 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)

Peace symbol "offensive"?[edit]

§ Offensive graffiti has two illustrations, one of which is a (nuclear disarmament) peace symbol spray-painted onto a "ONE WAY" sign. There is no reason to consider the peace symbol a gang symbol or racist expression, or in any other way offensive. Just being spray-painted illegally onto a traffic sign does not make it a territory marker. I would like to remove this image from that section. To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. -- Thnidu (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe you could simply move the peace symbol photo up the page to the lengthy 'Political graffiti' section. Sionk (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sionk: It looks like Reify-tech has already done it :-) in their overall picture cleanup. I've thanked them. --Thnidu (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Page layout and article cleanup[edit]

I've set up a number of image galleries, to help organize the various images that were semi-haphazardly stuffed into the article. Please do not add images next to the article text, unless the image is directly illustrating a specific point made in the text. Generic example images should be placed in the appropriate gallery. Now that the structure of the article is more visible, the partial duplication and gaps in content can be seen, and corrected over time. Reify-tech (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015[edit]

70.120.234.49 (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Graffiti artist are famous for their drawings. Jean Michel basquiat is one of the most famous artists he does incredible things

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Stickee (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)