Talk:Jorge Rodriguez-Gerada

New article additions

M.P. Landau (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)First and foremost this Wiki page proves that anyone can build a fictitious legacy, regardless of achievement or in this case lack thereof, and become a self-proclaimed notable. We are speaking of a man who attended Jersey City College. A complete unknown, and yet his Wiki page is as lengthy and in-depth as legitimately notable artists. The internet. Where you can be anyone.

M.P. Landau (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)I CAN PERSONALLY ATTEST TO THE FALLACIOUS AND OUTRIGHT LIES CONTAINED HEREIN. I grew up in North Plainfield, NJ and attended the very same schools Rodriguez refers to. I am a few years older than Rodriguez and can state without question there were numerous minority students in the North Plainfield school district, most notably Hispanics. In fact the center of North Plainfield near Somerset Street was predominantly Hispanic by the mid-1970's. So immediately, the very foundation of his so-called alienation and search for identity is patently false. He was not " one of the first Hispanic immigrants to enrol (by the way spelling error it's enroll) in his local school system". Far from it.

Additionally, I am a New York-based artist. Very active in the 1980's and 90's. The group ARTFUX was marginal at best and one of those organizations that self-proclaimed their achievements. There were many politically active and more important art groups at that time. Guerilla Girls, Missing Foundation, The Bruce High Quality Foundation, not to mention outright activist groups like ACT UP come to mind. What make these groups powerful is not just the causes they address but their anonymity. Their allegiance to the cause without desire for personal gain is what legitimizes their actions. No one speaks of Artfux except those who have a personal interest in its mention. My vague recollection is that one saw their name in self-promotion only and quite frankly I cannot remember one thing they actually did.

Artfux did NOT bring "culture jamming to New York City". First off the term 'culture jamming' is pure fabrication and a deceptive term designed to advance those individuals who claim to be part of what is a non-existent movement. I say movement because that is the term used online to describe the so-called 'history of culture-jamming'. For further enlightenment please read the TALK page of the Wiki culture jamming article. Whatever public acts ARTFUX engaged in, be it graffiti, commercial alteration or activism of any sort, we can safely say it was done a million times already by the 1980's. So no, Artfux did not introduce New York to anything original, regardless of the label you wish to slap on it.

Those who seek controversy (that certainly seems to be the case here) or who seek to be viewed as controversial, can never truly be controversial because it is disingenuous, and therefore ordinary attention-seeking.

Is the truth really so malleable that anyone can build a false history with fabricated facts and fictional history? Perhaps so. But then we would not by definition be able to call it THE TRUTH. Maybe the real culture jam is exactly that- a chronology of falsehoods and propaganda designed for career advancement. M.P. Landau (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted a large series of additions to the article[1] made from an account that appears to be editing on the sole subject of this particular artist. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but there are quite a few problems with the edits. I will mention a few of the more important ones:

• Referencing. Per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, all potentially disputable content added to the encyclopedia must be cited to a source, generally a neutral, secondary source. The correct way to do that is with an inline reference using the "<ref>{{cite xxxx|xxx|xxx}}</ref>" format. Adding a flock of external links as references does not adequately cite the facts, because to verify their accuracy a reader would have to read every single one of the sources, then hold the article in its entirety up to them. We sometimes allow things to stand with very old articles written before Wikipedia's standards grew more stringent, or brand new short articles pending the participation of more experienced editors. But doing that to an existing article becomes a dead-end, where any further improvements to the article would require undoing the uncited content in order to build better content. An longer article full of uncited content is a lot harder to improve than a shorter, cited article.
• Image copyrights. Per WP:NFCC and WP:NFC all images added to Wikipedia that are subject to copyright must be properly identified, and a rationale must be given as to why they are allowable here. As far as I can tell that has not been done with any of the new images. Note that in a photograph of a mural there are usually at least two copyrights at play, the copyright in the underlying art, and a second copyright to the photograph. Each one must be evaluated separately.
• Text copyrights. All text added here must be the original work of the editor adding it. There are occasional uses for quotations where the fact that a particular person said a particular thing is relevant. Here, at least some of the text appears to be a direct copy of material at http://www.artjammer.com and other sites.
• Galleries. Also per the above policy and guidelines, we do not allow image galleries. Numerous copyrighted images to illustrate the same point become galleries after there is more than one or two, particularly when they are not each the subject of specific cited commentary or analysis. As a stylistic matter, we do not write articles that way about artists. If there is an authoritative gallery or two, it is allowable to include an external link to galleries hosted off Wikipedia.
• Formatting and style. Per WP:MOS content is broken into paragraphs, with subheadings. Using the <br/> tag is not proper. We use formal language (no contractions generally) in an encyclopedic tone and usually stick to facts rather than commentary and analysis. For example, if a painter's works are evocative of a particular mood, we usually don't say that directly because that would be endorsing an opinion or critique of the art. Instead we would say that "critics have described the art as" or "[insert name] said of the art,...".

- Wikidemon (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon: your comments allude politely to that which I'll state clearly- this is a self-written article whose sole purpose is the aggrandizing of the subject's role. Beyond the utter falsehoods contained herein, this article is basically an advertisement disguising itself as an objective summary of who, according to the author, is a critically acclaimed artist. When he is not. There are important artists who don't have a Wiki page. Where is the quality control here? Where is the due diligence and verification? Take a look at the Wiki Richard Serra page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Serra Serra is without question one of the most noted American, indeed global artists, of our time. Wikidemon, even you comment on his talk page of the article mentioning that it is too lengthy. And yet it is far shorter than this fictional article here. If I were to take charge I would remove the entire article and place restrictions on any future articles until verification can be confirmed.M.P. Landau (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikideomn: I HAVE ALSO REMOVED THE FOLLOWING FROM THE ARTICLE DUE TO NON-VERIFIABLE SOURCES: "Through inclusion in the book No Logo, by Naomi Klein, Artfux was mentioned in legal testimony and thus helped bring about the ban of tobacco billboard advertising." . The claim, which is cited incorrectly, asserts the group's work was included in federal litigation to ban tobacco advertising. That is a far-reaching claim that would require specific citation and verification. The actual citation has nothing to do with said assertion, and is actually a book about street artists who discuss their work personally. Thus, the author (who I suspect is the artist himself) is using his own words to verify that which he claims to have done. HERE IS THE ACTUAL REMOVED CITATION: Blackshaw, Ric; Farrelly, Liz (2008). The Street Art Book, 60 Artists in their own words. Harper Collins. p. 47. ISBN 978-0-06-153732-5. M.P. Landau (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• "Yousif" Manama Bahrain.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• "Thiers to Inherit".jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)