Talk:Graffiti

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

Graffiti is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Contents

1 EMERGENCY 2 EMERGENCY 3 Graffito 4 Vandals 5 Missing a lot of info 6 Artistic vs. Tactical graffiti 7 Deleted info? 8 Images 9 Graffiti as political v's Political graffiti 10 Clean up? 11 updated photos 12 More pictures 13 rv - User Alterego submitted for arbitration due to repeated ad hominem attacks. 14 Computer-generated graffiti 15 Graphein 16 Length 17 Previous FAC nomination discussion 18 Another image for the article... 19 literal computerized graffiti 20 From "Tree Graffiti" article 20.1 Tree layers 21 Why is this a Featured Article? 22 Would it be wrong to vandalize the graffiti page? 23 Bad opening.... 24 Front page traffic 25 terrorism v's pollitical graffiti 26 Radical and political graffiti 27 Loads to think 28 Linkarrahea

EMERGENCY

Continuing 'Graffiti' problem with this page. Would it be considered ironic that some keeps 'tagging' this page with profanity and rude comments?

Update, great! This is a featured article and the thing is laced with profanity and rude comments to the extent that I cannot determine where the last good page was posted.

EMERGENCY

Someone has heavily vandalized this page, filling it with a lot of profanity, sexual references, and various racial slurs. I tried to fix it myself, but I couldn't find where it had been attacked.

Graffito

An anonymous contributor wrote while redirecting Graffito to Graffiti: Because of the "singular" convention, why is "graffiti" not here?)

Answer: because the English word "graffiti" is a mass noun, not a plural. --Brion

---

Vandals

The Vandals are famous for their graffiti (giving us the word vandalism).

As far as I know, the Vandals were famous (rightly?) for destroying, raping and plundering. I didn't know about their graffiti. I'd remove the above phrase. -- Error 02:11, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

removed it. High on a tree 02:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Missing a lot of info

To better cover the topic "graffiti", needs more info on graffiti as a nuisance in addition to graffiti as art & lifestyle. I agree about merging a lot of this into graffiti art and adding more about how much money and effort (including volunteer hours) are spent trying to reduce or remove graffiti.

Elf 21:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Artistic vs. Tactical graffiti

This is truly a fat topic. I'ld like to throw in my $0.02 worth by suggesting a couple of major divisions, perhaps treated in related articles:

artistic graffiti: from the sublime to the ridiculous - A treatment of graffiti in terms of self-expression and its elevation to a legitimate art form.

This article (currently graffiti art) can present graffiti artists that have gained right of passage in Fine art circles and/or those who have made a noble effort.

tactical graffiti: an in depth study of the motives, intensities and circumstances of graffiti artists with a mission.

This new article might contain somewhat classified areas of political and racial strife in the context of:

• A. Low tact (gangs, race, gender, orientation and other potentially nasty stuff)
• B. High tact (anti-propoganda, civil disobedience, calls to action, etc - graffiti with a bit more purpose and constraint)
• C. Moderate tact? Other aspects of tactical graffiti or that used simply to provoke thought (this may have strong ties with graffiti art).

Creating such major divisions might help the reader to pursue his or her interest more readily. Eh? Quinobi 15:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

the addition (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Graffiti&diff=2806758&oldid=2806733) of over 30 german books to the Literature list can safely be considered spam, i suppose (they are copied from de:Graffiti and anonymous user User:195.93.64.14 didn't even bother to translate the bibiliographical data). High on a tree 02:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Deleted info?

All of this was removed from the article. Seems a bit trigger-happy on the delete key. Comments? —radiojon 05:32, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

These developments of graffiti art which took place in art galleries, colleges as well as "on the street" or "underground", contributed to the resurfacing in the 1990's of a far more overtly politicized form in the subvertising, culture jamming or 'tactical media' movements. These movements or styles tend to classify the artists by their relationship to their social and economic contexts, since graffiti art is still illegal in many forms, in most countries. Contemporary practitioners are therefore varied and often conflicting in their practices. There are those individuals such as Alexander Brener who have used the medium to politicise other art forms, and have taken the prison sentences forced onto them, as a means of further protest. Anonymous groups and individuals, however, are very varied also, with anonymous anti-capitalist art groups like the Space Hijackers who, in 2004, did an action about the capitalistic elments of Banksy and his use of political imagery. There are also those artists who are funded by a combination of government funding as well as commercial or private means, like irational.org who recently coined the term Advert Expressionism, replacing the word Abstract for Advert, in Clement Greenberg's essay on Abstract Expressionism. Graffiti is sometimes seen as part of a subculture that rebels against extant societal authorities, or against authority as such. However these considerations are often divergent and relating to a wide range of practices. For some, graffiti is not only an art but also a lifestyle. For others it is a matter of political practice and forms just one tool in an array of methodologies and technologies or so-called anti-technologies of resistance. see also writing, visual art, protest

Images

This image was replaced in an edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Graffiti&diff=6966337&oldid=6944974) entitled "correct spelling". Perhaps it should be put back into the article, but I'm not sure where. Tim Ivorson 10:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That does look a little strange. I hadn't noticed that that lead image was so new when I added an image yesterday. I've sent a note for User:Hbomb to add source info add copyright tags for the image, but it could be appropriate to revert. It seems a little odd that so few of the graffiti examples here show text or tags. -- Solipsist 10:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Graffiti as political v's Political graffiti

Added a section on graffiti that is done to promote political ideas, and some pictures. Have inc' stickers and posters as graffiti is this okay?--JK the unwise 14:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see a large overlap in stickering and graffiti in the places I've lived. Postering is more borderline, between guerrilla advertising and guerilla art. See also guerrilla communication. (My "seeing" this is of course highly subjective.) --Elijah 23:58, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Clean up?

This article may not be perfect but the clean up tag is a bit unfair (or so it seems to me) so I,ve removed it--JK the unwise 19:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Not perfect, but the last few days have seen some substantial improvement. Are there specific additions or edits that someone's wanting to see at this point? GTBacchus 20:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

updated photos

When I saw the article I realized I had a couple photos that would go well with it so I released them under the GFDL and stuck them on here. If the top one is too flamboyant feel free to revert it, but I think it is suitable. The bottom replacement I made seems better in all respects. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 22:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, i'm a bit curious about this image. Don't we have a policy to be non-self-referrential?

Perhaps replacing it with a computer generated graffiti rendition of the world "Graffiti" would be more appropriate! Here is the policy: Wikipedia:Avoid self-references --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 22:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then be bold and create it. As for the panoramic image, its simply too damn big. FAC thread already complains about images overlapping the TOC on low res screens. Which is why its got the small image of the wall in florida to begin with. However it is a nice photo and has been moved to lower in the article. Alkivar 01:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"lower resolutions" are essentially 800x600 and the distortion will occur when you place it inline with the TOC, which the current revisions primary image does. You complained that it is just "too damn big," however, I saw that you were knowledgeable enough to resize the image. Are you aware that the image currently being used has an area of 80,150 pixels, and mine currently has an area of 39,000 pixels? Your rationale is hogwash! Regarding the self-referrential image, I do not have the graphics package used to create it, obviously. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 01:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nor do I. Alkivar 02:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to add that even before you resized it to be smaller the area was still only 77,000 (as the one below) --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 01:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow, quite hypocritical! You replace the other image which is quite obviously superior due to it's non americanness and don't bother to realize that your same rationale applies to the other image as well!!!! (eg gainesville florida vice roma!) --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 01:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility, read it. Please do not continue to make Ad Hominem attacks. The size varation is due to its Width by Length measurement ... yours is nearly TWICE AS WIDE!!!! Width is the issue not length. I will be MORE THAN HAPPY to use your image once its cropped into an acceptable size.Alkivar 02:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, linking to an article on civility does not make you civil. You are yelling at me! I don't appreciate that. I'd also like to point out that you reverted other edits of mine with that revert and you had no reason for doing that. You have clearly lost your cool. I must now ask you to see the article on the Grand Canyon. Wide photos are simply a dislike you have. Like I said, several sysops and admins loved the way the photo looked in the article when I showed in IRC. Now, because someone else has also edited, I must go through and pick them out one by one to fix the mess you have created. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 03:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More pictures

• Excellent - a much better lead image. -- Solipsist 08:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

rv - User Alterego submitted for arbitration due to repeated ad hominem attacks.

Where is this? I don't see it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 05:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the fact that you just passed the three reverts per day rule. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 05:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

look again. I was in the process of editing page when you went looking. Alkivar 05:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alkivar, I look forward to seeing you now engage the dispute resolution properly. I find that since you have accorded that it is a superior image, and that there are examples of even wider primary images in very good articles on Wikipedia, there is no reason it shouldn't go up. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 18:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alkivar, I am awaiting your reply. Although the arbitration was rightfully shot down, this issue is not over. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 00:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have your picture... you are now officially charged with dealing with all FAC complaints regarding it. I wash my hands of the entire problem. And your point that other articles have wide images is immaterial as NONE of the pages at Wikipedia:Featured articles do. Remember the point to this is to pass FAC. Your image pushes strongly against that possibility. Alkivar 05:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey man, I shun responsibility just as well as the next man, but you can't deny the fact that we are all charged with dealing with FAC complaints. I've had pictures and articles both shot down in the past. It's just a reason to spend a bit of my idle time over the next couple of months cleaning an article up. Some articles get shot down 5-6 times before going up. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 05:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Computer-generated graffiti

I'd never heard of computer-generated graffiti till I read this article. I don't mean to belittle it, merely to warn that what I'm about to say may be severely underinformed. (I've also missed any relevant, earlier discussion.) Anyway, I read in one caption:

Computer generated graffiti No Guts, No Fame, its noticeable "anti-police" theme shows its artist's frustration with the percieved illegal threat of graffiti, and also its artist's belief that the possible penalty is worth the fame.

I've read and reread that with increasing confusion. Of course percieved is misspelt, but however spelled, what does the "perceived illegal threat of graffiti" mean in this context? ("Perceived penitential threat to graffitists", perhaps?)

Sorry your right, my summary is a bit lame. I'll clean it up. Its in the section of legality for a reason — because graffiti is by many perceived to be ONLY vandalism not BOTH art and vandalism. The perceived threat is that graffiti will lead to disorder and moral decay (one of the primary statements in most anti-graffiti "propeganda". Alkivar 06:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, isn't the (possible) fame worth the (possible) penalty rather than the reverse?

I dont follow? Its undeniable that in the mind of the writer that graffiti will lead to fame, but it is also certainly undeniable that they expect to be prosecuted. As many more are prosecuted than become famous I would therefore postulate that "likely penalty is worth the possible fame" which is how I probably should have worded it. Alkivar 06:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Er, sorry, but I really think that you mean "the possible fame is worth the likely penalty" -- Hoary 09:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Which artist is being commented on: the artist shown in the computer-generated graffiti, or the artist who created the computer-generated graffiti, or both?

The artist shown is a self portrait of the creator of the image, therefore its a comment on both. Alkivar 06:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the image needs such a laborious explanation, should it be there at all? Can't a photo of genuine graffiti be used for the purpose, rather than (to phrase it unkindly but I think not wrongly) imitation graffiti? -- Hoary 05:51, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I dont consider this a laborious explanation, I just think I poorly worded it. As for your question of can't a photo of genuine graffiti be used, I say we have enough genuine graf included as it stands now. This was included to show that there is more than just physical graffiti. This is not really "imitation" graffiti, as its creator does both. In this instance he simply chose to use a computer rather than a spraycan. I'd also like to state i regularly hear users complain about brief captions that are not complete sentances. This is as concise a summary of the image as I could create. Alkivar 06:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And sorry if answering you point by point like this makes your original statement slightly unclear. Alkivar 06:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, fine. I don't have anything in particular that I want to add, other than my comment above on "fame—penalty" versus "penalty—fame". -- Hoary 09:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

It appears to make even less sense at the moment: Computer generated graffiti No Guts, No Fame, its noticeable "anti-police" theme shows both its subject's and its creator's frustration with the perceived illegal threat of graffiti, and the belief that the likely penalty is worth the price.

One would assume that the price is the penalty. So the likely penalty is worth the likely penalty? I'm missing something here. "The price" is usually (always?) a bad thing. - Vague | Rant 06:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Fixed I hope. if not ... be bold. Alkivar 06:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to go ahead and change it when I saw that there had been some discussion over it. I figured I should ask about it here, first, before changing it and possible upsetting someone. - Vague | Rant 07:42, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Graphein

Some curious trivia: the Greek word 'graphein' originally meant 'to scratch', then it meant 'to scrawl' and eventually it meant 'to write'. 'Character' is also originally a Greek word and the original meaning was 'to scratch', then it meant 'to scratch on a letter, figure, or symbol', then it meant 'letter or symbol'. (D.M.)

Length

I'm on a Mac, running OSX and IE 5.1 or something, and I can no longer edit the page because it's right at 32 kilobytes. My browser freaks right out. Time for some ruthless trimming? Are the images making the file big? We like the images, but I was about to do some serious organizational stuff, that needs to be done. Someone knows more about this type of problem than I do? GTBacchus 09:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It won't be the images as such. I'm not so familiar with IE 5 on OSX, but problems with 32K limits are usually about the number of characters in the editing text box (there is not much excuse for this sort of problem these days). So images will add something, but only to 200 characters or so for their [[image:....]] image tag. It looks like it is a known issue (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Browser_issues_with_MediaWiki) with the MediaWiki developers.

Of course, you can edit individual sections, but that doesn't help much with the structural reorganisation you are describing below. The better solution is probably to try the Mozilla Firefox browser which is gaining a lot of attention. Its not perfect, but I'm pleased I switched - the tabbed pages are a major benefit. -- Solipsist 15:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not the images. Unfortunately, I'm visiting family, and this isn't my computer to install new browsers, etc. Firefox does kick IE's butt, but you try and explain that to my mother. Meanwhile, I welcome any suggestions on the restructuring proposed below, and invite anyone with a better browser to have at it. As noted on the FAC page, the current organization (a result more of sedimentation than of anyone's volition) leaves something to be desired. GTBacchus 17:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Previous FAC nomination discussion

Self-nom. I've spent quite a bit of time rearranging content and editing this. Might be considered a bit heavy on the images, however as Graffiti is a visual art I think this is appropriate. I'm hoping this is ready for FAC status, I think it is. Share your opinions folks. Alkivar 02:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has come a long way, and I think it should be featured soon. I'm still looking a little bit sideways at the ==20th Century== section... it hasn't really got a flow... gangs, then WWII, then DC, then London, then Scandanavia... it's all good information, but randomly assembled. However, the bulk of the article is quite good, and it's very thorough by now. I think the plentiful graphics are appropriate. GTBacchus 07:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've reordered the 20th Century subsection, is this better? Alkivar 10:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is, although the computer I'm using now suppresses half of the first paragraph in that section, for some reason. When I click "edit" I can see it's all still there... GTBacchus 03:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you try purging your cache? I've had this problem with pages on Wiki before. Alkivar 03:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm back on a normal machine now. Never did figure out what was wrong with that old Mac. GTBacchus 21:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object, needs copyediting. Fredrik | talk 11:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is there something in particular your noticing? Alkivar 12:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I copyedited one section which really seemed to need it. The rest of the article looks better, though, at a glance. I must still object due to the much too short lead section. Fredrik | talk 12:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Cruddy lead section. Picture and TOC overlap to create formatting hell at 800x600. Could do with a bit of a copyedit (i.e. one not very long paragraph uses "in some cases" three times). What is there is quite reasonable, with a bit of an edit. However, there's really a lot missing about the bad side of graffiti - sure, sometimes it is art - but a lot of it is just vandalism, and there's very little of that there. There's also little coverage of the societal implications (I'm thinking of Giuliani's crackdown on graffiti in the early stages of his war on crime, as NYC mayor). Ambi 11:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It most certainly does mention the negative side, theres an entire section on its legality/illegality. It mentions UK campaigns to wipe out graf completely. All throught the article it mentions illegal graffiti. I dont think we can stress the point too much more without beating people over the head. On your other points, I was unaware of the formatting hell, I dont browse at 800x600 (and havent since 1998). I'll see what I can do about that. Alkivar 12:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have since reduced the lead in image size, it appears on MY computer at least to stop the overlap. Is this good enough for you? I have also added a paragraph regarding Giuliani's crackdown of the mid 1990s. Alkivar 18:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have also beefed up the lead in a bit, is this better? Any suggestions on how I can improve it more to change your objection? Alkivar 06:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: Wow, this article has come a long way since I last saw it. I remember tagging it for cleanup (or at least wanting to do so). It still needs minor fixes: it's wordy in some places and might be tightened, and I guess that train bombing could be part of the legal section, without its own heading. But it's pretty close to featured status. I'll see if I can do some copyediting later.

• Comment: I've asked Zephyr (http://www.zephyrgraffiti.com) to come look it over and make a few changes. He certainly knows the history having been involved with the Graffiti culture of NYC since the 1970s. Hopefully this will tighten up the article and remove some of the worthless chaff. Alkivar 19:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: The article contains these links but they don't go anywhere- sepulchers, Beware of Dog, Anti-Graffiti Task Force, Keep Britain Tidy, wicked style, wild style, TAKI 183, Chrome Angelz, Brim, Cost (graffiti artist), Revs, Stak, HNT, André, Os Gemeos, Herbert, Flying Fortress (graffiti artist), Gomes, Graffitilovesyou, anti-consumerist, tactical media, Urban Pasifika--JK the unwise 11:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Last I checked red links were not reason to deny a FAC tho. Yes I realize you have not objected. I believe these will be filled soon enough. Alkivar 13:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lastest featured article (Restoration comedy) has loads of red links thus I retract my statment as irelivent--JK the unwise 13:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object: We have a policy to avoid self references, yet this image is in the article:

--[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 22:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me, your going to object to the entire content based on 1 image? First it is not really a self reference since it does not refer to "the website" nor to anything except as a caption for the word "Wikipedia" which is contained therein. Granted this is semantics but in this case this is pretty tame. I think this easily falls under "...the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia." except that we're not discussing it merely referring. Second I should point out that Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is not a set-in-stone policy, it is merely a suggestion like the one here: Wikipedia:Make_articles_useful_for_readers which I am following. Alkivar 00:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that you have, in general, been very mean to those responding on this page. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 04:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image has been removed. Does this end your objection? User:Alkivar/sig 00:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object: A good article, but not featured article quality yet, imo. The structure seems a bit disorganized to me (the table of contents lists many major sections but not so many subsections - surely there's a way of dividing the subject up into 4 or 5 main sections and then breaking those down further?). Perhaps it isn't so important, but I think there should be a section on graffiti in video games (such as Sega's Jet Set Radio) - tagging "simulators". I'm also not comfortable with "computer generated graffiti" being used for "graffiti drawn using a computer". At least in music and most art, computer generated suggests that the computer is actually creating the aesthetics -- acting as creator, with some direction from the use -- not merely being used as a low-level tool. -- Oarih 11:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've done something on the section/sub-section front. Better now? GTBacchus 21:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support - self reference policy dispute needs to be sorted out. Other than I think the article is great.--ZayZayEM 01:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image has been removed. Does this end your objection? User:Alkivar/sig 00:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Things have been sorted and I think its about ready.

• Support - I've just made some edits to the computer-generated section which address Oarih's concerns above. I think we're good to go. GTBacchus 19:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another image for the article...

Whenever I go out railfanning, I always tend to photograph the more elaborate tags on railroad equipment. I've seen some that take up the entire side of a car, but can't seem to find photos of tags that big in my collection right now. Here's an image I shot of graffiti on a couple boxcars traveling through Wisconsin...

Further on this that I didn't mention earlier... There is a bit of a controversy in the hobby of model railroading on whether or not to depict graffiti on our models. Personally, I model reality, so I will include some in my model building; but other modelers have declared a complete aversion and disgust toward graffiti and refuse to model it in any form. Reference: American Graffiti --- The Final Frontier (http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14337&page=1) (Trains.com) slambo 20:42, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

literal computerized graffiti

here are two examples:

http://www.hektor.ch/

http://www.appliedautonomy.com/gw.html

- Omegatron 19:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

From "Tree Graffiti" article

When I tryied to follow this link: A tree graffiti in a park in Zurich, Switzerland, photographed on Street Parade 2002 (http://image30.webshots.com/31/2/31/50/236223150FIRLAN_ph.jpg) I got this message

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /31/2/31/50/236223150FIRLAN_ph.jpg on this server.
Apache/2.0.50 Server at image30.webshots.com Port 80

--JK the unwise 16:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tree layers

From reading their articles, I am unable to ascertain if the layer that must not be ring-cut is phloem, xylem or vascular cambium. Someone who remembers their biology, please change this and the relevant article. --Error 01:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is this a Featured Article?

The elevation of this unresearched, weasel-word infested dreck to Featured Article status is ironic: it gives me the same feeling I get when some self-important dolt decides to leave his unworthy spray-painted mark on my neighborhood. Blair P. Houghton 03:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats funny it was approved after 2 times thru the FAC process, passing the last time with 0 objections. Perhaps if you actually spent some time making specific criticisms, or paid attention to the FAC process you could have made some input then. User:Alkivar/sig 03:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I prefer to spend my time improving the Wikipedia by editing it directly. If I participate in political activities related to it, it's incidental and diversionary. I've also not wasted a lot of time on my signature. O woe. Blair P. Houghton 21:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The writing could use a lot of work. --Alterego 04:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs some reference to the Graffiti series by Nigel Rees, collections of humerous graffiti. - Jinx

Which weasel words are used in the article? How could the writing be improved? Any specific suggestions? Hyacinth 16:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would it be wrong to vandalize the graffiti page?

Yes--JK the unwise 10:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just put an X through the tags of those we've killed for vandalizing our turf. Blair P. Houghton 21:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bad opening....

From the article:

"The difference between tagging and graffiti is to be discussed and is arguable, but some say it's a clear one: tagging is gang-motivated and/or meant as vandalism (illegal) or to be too vulgar/controversial for public, with graffiti being the more artistic meant kind, politically meant or not."

Believe it or not that is one sentence. I can't discern a focus of that but it really turned me off of the article.19:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)~

Front page traffic

There are occaisional debates over whether items featured on the front page should be temporarily protected or not. With Graffiti being the front page featured article yesterday, it or course attracted a flood of edits and a fair bit of vandalism. Overall, has the article improved or deteriorated as a result? -- Solipsist 12:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Overall, I'd say deteriorated. I'd like to make a revert back to before its mainpage listing (but a 2-3 day revert is not really fair). User:Alkivar/sig 13:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

terrorism v's pollitical graffiti

"The use of Nazi images against Jews, some of whom may have lost friends or family members in the holocaust, is considered by many not to be political graffiti at all, but rather a form of terrorism." hmm... people might say this (I've never read/heard anyone say it) but it seems a bit strange to me, why does it being terrorism stop it being pollitical graffiti? If it is to stay can we have ref' to some one saying it please. --JK the unwise 21:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) (P.S. People who do Nazi graffiti are scum)

How is it terrorism? I don't think that word should be applied to any objectionable activity. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probably the only thing that all the Definitions of terrorism have in common is that they all define terrorism as an act of physical violence against an actual human being. Defacing a tombstone, no matter how offensively, does NOT count. GTBacchus 03:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A flaming cross on someones lawn is "terrorism" so would be a swastika's sprayed in a jewish synagogue. felony "terrorizing" charges stem from "fear for immediate harm to ones life or safety". I didnt add that particular wording, but thats not to say that I necessarily disagree with it. User:Alkivar/sig 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A flaming cross on someone's lawn is a fire right next to their house. Of course they would "fear for immediate harm to life or safety". I don't see that applying to vandalism in a cemetery, which is not anyone's front yard. It would make someone who sees it feel very bad, yes, but I don't see it as a threat of "immediate harm".

BTW, what's your source on the flaming cross case? Terrorism doesn't mention it; nor does Definitions of terrorism. GTBacchus 04:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism can be widely defined so say to include acts of vandalism that terrorise. However most of the stuff on terrorism and on Definitions of terrorism defines terrorism as being only violence against people. Except this "United States Code of Federal Regulations: the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."(From Defs of terrorism). This includes property damage if intended to intimidate. Nazi graffiti does intimidate and is no doubt intended to do so. Also seems likly to induce fear of personal safty since swastikas are associated with one of the most violent acts against people in history. Thus I agree it can be thought of as terrorism (widly defined) however how does this stop it being polltical graffiti, things can belong to more then one catagory.--JK the unwise 10:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've restored a version of the sentence, based on this discussion. GTBacchus 18:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just think there's a huge difference between offending someone with painted symbols and indiscriminately murdering people. You can't reverse the damage done by a car bomb with a brick (I smash away any swastika I see, or if its in marker i turn it into a flower :P I recommend it, its a very satisfying experience) --Tothebarricades.tk 20:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Radical and political graffiti

This statement: the considerations of the practitioners are often divergent and can relate to a wide range of attitudes is practically identical to this one: Graffiti means different things to different people. I've taken out the latter three times now, please don't add it back in.

Loads to think

I would ask any Graff people to look at the top pic of the artist on the link i will provide and tell me if you see a connection with graffiti art? http://www.modjourn.brown.edu/mjp/Bios/Bomberg.htm

Although he chose to use bright colors and a blockish modern style, that doesnt seem graffiti related to me. People like Jackson Pollock have much more in common with graf in my opinion. User:Alkivar/sig 04:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can see the connection with West Coast U.S. wall art. Nick Boulevard 01:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Linkarrahea

I suppose there's a certain irony in that the graffiti page would spawn dozens upon dozens of weblinks and red links to obscure graffiti daubers and their fans. I'm inclined to cut&paste any remaining red links to talk, and pare down the external links soon -- thoughts? jdb ❋ (talk) 21:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not touch the Famous artists section, these are probably the only graffiti artists worthy of their own pages on WP notability wise. As for the external links, yeah we're turning into a link directory, so that can probably be pruned down. I'll go through and prune it a bit this week.  ALKIVAR™Missing image
Radioactive.png


22:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I daresay that you're going to have to do more than bluster to convince me of their notability. jdb ❋ (talk) 00:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are universally declared "hall of famers" by the award winning documentary Style Wars the definative movie on Graffiti. Pick up any book on graffiti, look for a hall of fame, you'll find them there. Nuff said.  ALKIVAR™Missing image
Radioactive.png


01:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. jdb ❋ (talk) 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)