Talk:Graffiti

Edit request from Che-burashka, 18 April 2011

Documentaries and films

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

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.

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207153801/http://graficareal.net:80/index.php/interviews/graffiti-to-graphic-design-kings-of-evolution-part-1-123klan-interview/ to http://graficareal.net/index.php/interviews/graffiti-to-graphic-design-kings-of-evolution-part-1-123klan-interview/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)