Talk:Vandalism

Discussion
In the section about Giuliani's anti-graffiti campaign, it states his claim that this would lead to reduced crime, then mentions a report that crime did decrease. The way this is put seems to be a validation of Giuliani's claim, but such would require an outside source speaking to the claim. Instead, we have a statistic cited that appears to give validity to the claim, but shows only a correlation, not causality. This section should be re-written or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.87.171 (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph headed Examples has three lines of utter garbage at the end about crabs and tangerines. how is this possible if it is locked to input ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.220.93 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC) i think we xxxxxshould have a section specifically on toilet vandalism here. people deficating in sinks and smearing faeces on mirrors etc, was a regular occurence at all four schools i have have been present at. Hope this helps
 * I disagree on the basis that the article doesn't mention the breaking of desks/scrawling on walls/throwing of food ect that occurs in schools, no need to mention every type of vandalism at schools (please sign with tildes) 124.176.21.7 05:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

- Any expert in dealing with vandalism here? The newly started wiki, wikichristian is under attack from vandals which forced the sysops to protect almost all the pages, defeating the purpose of a wiki! As a sysop at wikiChristian, I am desperately looking for good advice. Help appreciated. Thanks a million. -Prab R Tumpati, MD

Not to be a humourless wad, but the "before" and "after" pictures in this article seem unnecessarily silly. Ashibaka &#9998; 23:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Although I did get a laugh of them. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought they were amusing. But they are silly. Pikpik 22:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're not welcome to characterize Wikipedia's policy on vandalism, Cunctator --LMS
 * Why not? And was there actually anything biased or inappropriate in my text, or do you just dislike me? --The Cunctator


 * willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others.

Destruction of something that is nobody's property can also constitute vandalism.
 * More recent cases of Vandalism include the Taliban destruction of Buddhist statuary in Afghanistan.

Anyone's going to write about destruction of Communists statuary in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 ? Taw


 * More recent cases of Vandalism include the Taliban destruction of Buddhist statuary in Afghanistan.

Removed. It was act of propaganda not vandalism.


 * Was it really propaganda? or was it anti-idolatry?  I think the Taliban would say the latter.  Not agreeing or condoning, but think it's important to note the difference.  Personally, I'd call it vandalism, but then I like my churches elaborate....JHK
 * They wanted to show everyone that they are more Muslim and Quran-following that anyone else is. That seems to be the purpose of this action. --Taw

The justification for removal is fallacious. Propaganda and vandalism need not be exclusive. One can commit an act of vandalism for purposes of propaganda, which seems to have been the case here. I propose restoring the example. --AV

I agree with that. --Seb

If any one is interested this site has a statement by a Taliban ambassador on why the statues were destroyed and although arguably the action was justified, still it remains 'vandalism' in the sense listed. Perhaps then an addition saying that vandalism is not necessarily a bad thing? Anyway here's the link:

http://www.albalagh.net/current_affairs/syed_hashmi.shtml David Byron

--- In order to expand this entry to something beyond just a dictionary entry (it is a little more than that, but not much) I think someone (with more knowledge then me) should write a bit about the history of vandalism and its conflicting position in society. Tag art, street art, and lots of other stuff are commonly called vandalism, but have a whole history and meaning seperate from the prejorative description. More importantly, there is a lot of data out there on the subject from Roman times to the present, and it would mean a meatier article.

I was just thinking - shouldn't the Vandalism in Ireland bit be a different page altogether. Its not relevant to the actual entry on vandalism, but is an important entry all the same. Ludraman 17:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I do not think the article is balanced, although I am kind of reluctant to make any changes before discussion.

The article mentions Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues, and a specific case of "Irish vandalism" - but does not mention at all communist vandalism - the destruction of tens of thousands of churches and "czarist monuments" on Russia alone, not mentioning the same activity everywhere where communists came to power. Instead, a rather ritual destruction of several tasteless, obnoxious communist monuments is given as an example of vandalism. Many of the communist monuments in Russia are moved to museums, but most of them remain where they were. An especially disgusting case is the huge aluminum "Mother Motherland" in Kiev, that insults the ancient city - it is itself a kind of graffiti and vandalism - imagine a 300-feet tall aluminum Jesus Christ over Rome, and you'll get the picture.

Two specific cases of well publicised monument are worth noting: the demolition of Dzerzhinsky's monument in Moscow, and the demolition of Saddam's monument in Baghdad. Both are notorious torturers, and there should be some limits in preserving this kind of monuments, right? Say, someone erected a Hitler monument in Chicago in 1932; would the monument survive the WWII? Hardly.

In general, to avoid politics, I would suggest to remove any mentioning of historical monument demolitions done by governments or political forces.

Or else it would make sense to add the destruction of Dresden and Hiroshima as acts of vandalism. [[User:Vpatryshev|VPatryshev] - vpatryshev@yahoo.com

I've cleaned up some point of view statements in the art section "vandalism has a place in society", some nonsense statements in the crime section as seemingly just a pointless prelude to wikipedia vandalism (linked at the bottom and top of the article anyway, and one linked article on web vandalism had been removed) and added the social aspects behind vandalism and crime. Benjamin (not a user) 28 Dec 05 Brownb2 15:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (Now a user)

Given that this page is vandalised so much, would endorsing a limited amount of vandalism prevent future vandalism, I refer to the earlier revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&diff=36944839&oldid=36937461 whereby the vandal posted additional text (not removing/editing any existing text) citing his own work as example, which to my mind is both vandalism and practical. I realise this is a slippery slope but a bit of social engineering stating something to the effect in the actual article: An example of vandalism of this page "Look mum, I'm yet another loser stating I vandalised this page". This I believe circumvents POV policy since it is an example and if placed prominently may encourage other would be vandals to either edit that particular text (hopefully to something beneficial) or realise they're not the first muppet to vandalise the vandalism page. I notice that Official Vandalism is the section most targetted, so it may make sense to put it in there. Thoughts anyone? Brownb2 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC) -

I've arrived on this page through a process of understanding how I may contribute. I think there are two related issues of accurate documentation and creative input. Vandalism appears to part of the process and the most amusing graffiti example I saw in a toilet were the simple words "smash the cistern", everyone rebelled against the demand and it probably still flushes today. Markostri (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Basis for a future rewrite
Vandalism is an act of cultural violence, much like the raping of women. It always has justifications&mdash; if you ask the vandal: they may be religious, social, political, artistic. The justifications are interesting in themselves and all need subsections, but they don't affect the main entry. Much material has been suppressed here (see History) and needs to be more neutrally re-evaluated. Recently Wikipedia material may have been needlessly suppressed as "plagiarized," simply because it appears at Wiki mirror sites, I believe. Wetman 00:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Needless to say, the cautious reader will be aware that it was not I who reverted this chuckleheaded article.) For a familiar denial of the descriptive assessment that vandalism is an act of cultural violence, (as is rape, in fact), see the following note of TheGrza. People who imagine a distinction between Vandalism (capitalized) and vandalism (lowercase) aren't in the habit of reading printed history or sociology. Would someone please put a disambiguating notice at the head that this entry does not concern the actual Vandals of the 5th century? An adult discussion of political-religious vandalism might begin by mentioning the defaced monuments of Akhnaten and the wave of vandalism that swept the Roman Empire in the wake of the Theodosian decrees. That's, um, a hint.19:28, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * (email to Wetman, posted here, where it is more generally useful) Any page that deals with the topic of vandalism must take into account the other reasons beyond pointless destruction that inspire such acts. To compare them to "rapists" is ludicrious and insulting, especially to those who use it as an artform and a public forum.  I appreciate

that the article was possibly slanted to include this opinion, and I apologize. I always try to do my best to keep Wikipedia from containing any bias and I didn't truly cover the other side. To whitewash all vandalism as "rape" ,as you put it, shows the opposite bias.

Response to the rewrite
The article was in shambles, rambling back and forth with no real direction and including maybe the worst possible picture I have yet seen in a Wikipedia article. I agree that it was slanted toward the point of view that vandalism isn't wrong and I suppose that was me just trying to be objective and going too far. The article should not have been reverted to its originial form, however, without taking into account the work and research I have done on this page, but reshaped with your own attempt to bring objectivity to the process. As for the subsections, I do not believe that they constitute their own article because, sans Graffiti, they do not have enough information that is unique to their existence e.g. an article on vandalism in the form of "stenciling" would appear to be a stub with all reasonable information included. These other POV on vandalism should be recognized by those who may find your comparison to rape to be not only insulting, but biased and extreme, with no real connection to the work itself. As for the suppression of material, it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of this article. There was information that was taken verbatim from another webpage (NOT a mirror) and I deleted it and rewrote the information into the story in a non-plagiarized way. The only material in any way "suppressed" was the article I wrote being tossed to the winds for no other reason then the lack of willingness of Wikipedians to contribute pieces to articles rather than revert them to their former embarassing selves. -- 10:34, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

'''But, wait! There's more...'''

The idea that because there has been large scale and important historical vandalism is important, and the idea of vandalism being, as you described it, "Cultural Violence" is another important idea that I agree should be in the article. My only point is that the article was nothing more than incomplete and by its incompletion biased, a regrettable situation. The article should be rewritten but with NPOV, taking into account the different types of vandalism, not just your "cultural violence". --TheGrza 22:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * My point is simply that all entrries must begin with the historic and central meaning, in this case of vandalism' --then it may move on to modern extensions of the term. But to argue whether vandalism is cultural violence (as rape is) or not-- well, I haven't the inclination... But, as I said, it always has justifications&mdash; Wetman 08:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry, TheGrza
I'm sorry TheGrza - my browser was having a hard time connecting to wikipedia and I ended up doing what I didn't mean to do. Could anyone please rollback my edit? (12:22, 21 Sep 2004 62.29.254.81 (reverted changes by TheGrza)) I could put it back to TheGrza's version but I don't want to clutter the history. Thanks and please accept my apologies.

This picture probably not appropriate
Is the current picture (Graffitiforvandalismarticle.jpg) really "graffiti vandalism"? Are we positive that it's vandalism and not a work of art, drawn with permission, on the side of a building? In any case it's not a great illustration of "typical" graffiti vandalism. There were plenty of other pictures on the Melbourne site that would qualify. I'll volunteer to pick one (with the aim of showing that something was vandalized) if someone can attest that they gave permission to post other pictures from the site. Tempshill 20:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point. A new caption is more accurate, I hope. But add examples of clear vandalism. Wetman 23:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I was the one who got the picture from the folks over at Melbourne Graffiti and if you'll notice the grass at the bottom and the door on the right side of the picture, that is a warehouse. I picked that particular one because it is graffiti vandalism and it looks better then most of their other pictures.

--The[[User Talk:TheGrza| Grza ]] 04:25, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Closeinch's link(s)
What do you mean the Sayville link is "Spam" That is an interesting article. In addition, there are no other links. The page that links to vandalism is appropriate relevant. It is NOT spam. (Posted by User:Closeinch2)


 * That link, like the others you've been adding to various pages (such as Prostitution), is utterly worthless. Aside from being short, there are no references, no attempt at context or coherence, and contains some pretty strong allegations. It calls Teddy Roosevelt and Melissa Joan Hart vandals, the latter simply because (as a child) she "broke a thermometer and didn't tell the teacher". The images have all been ripped from other places, also unsourced, and the page (you) even state the images are not of the actual events. All of your links look to be complete bunk: I challenge anyone (other than yourself) to point out something useful in any of them. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a joke rag.


 * As for the link not being spam, it certainly qualifies as spam once one considers the edits under your current username, the edits under your previous username, and the edits under one of your IPs, and the edits under another one of your IPs. There's at least one other IP you've been editing under, your sole contributions being the addition of your "Sayville hisotry" links, and the insertion of questionable references: I'm also not the one reverting these (e.g., see ). Please understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, nor is it a repository of external links. If there's something of value in the links you're trying to insert, why not integrate that information into Wikipedia rather than link to it externally? -- Hadal 04:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Self reference
Does the first sentence violate wikipedia's policy of self-reference?


 * Presumably, yes... but for some reason my mod to add the selfref template was reverted. Stoive 23:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I took it out because it wasn't a template, it was a link to template deletion. When there is a template to put in, I'm all for it.--The Grza 00:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * ok... the rfd has now been removed from the selfref template, so I'll stick it back in. Stoive 01:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Poll: What version of "Vandalism" article do you prefer?
Please dont vandalise this poll. You may add as poll option your favorite version of the vandalism article and vote for it. Please do not erase votes.

Current Version

 * 1) Faethon387 14:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Initial version
An Article Version in the spirit of the Vandals; Cruel and hostile to any artistic jpegs pictures, a version willful of destruction and defacement.


 * 1) Acusilaus 11:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is an ex-Faethon account. This account is no longer public Faethon40 13:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct, because somebody has gone in and changed the password to the account. --Michael Snow 18:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any chance you guys will stop your edit war?
Perhaps you can move your poll to a sub-user page and link to it from this page in an unobtrusive page and we won't have this constant reverting? Also, Michael Snow is right, keep the link off the actual page. --The Grza 02:45, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * The so-called poll is frivolous. One of the choices is an example of vandalism, not an article about it, and another is the shoddy stub that first existed on this page. As far as I can tell, there's no serious active dispute about the content that would warrant a poll anyway. If I'm wrong about that, then the nature of the dispute needs to be discussed here on the talk page.


 * By the way, all of the accounts that are posting this "poll" are designed to be disruptive because they use "public passwords", which are against Wikipedia policy. For information on the disruption caused by the person responsible, see Requests for comment/Iasson and its talk page. --Michael Snow 07:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you dont like the poll option, you may add your favorite and vote for it. There is no policy that prohibits public accounts, but there is a policy that prohibits deletion of votes and quotes. And I am not Iasson but Faethon. Faethon40 07:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you create an account, you're responsible for the security of your password. Disclosing an account password is considered disruptive, see Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2. If the password is released or can easily be discovered, it will be changed. This is established Wikipedia practice. --Michael Snow 18:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that you are wrong. ArbCom is about to judge (based on existing policies), NOT about creating policies or legislate. Policies are created by community consensus, NOT by 8-9 persons that happens to be Arbitrators. The above decision of ArbCom is illegal. Thats why, both the arbitrators and the admins that support them should be punished. They abused the power that has been given to them, and they tried, against policy and community consensus, to legislate.  Faethon41 07:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus, the Arbitration Committee was simply formulating an expression of the principle. CheeseDreams' password was changed before the ruling was made, and by someone who is neither an arbitrator nor an admin. Nor is this the first time passwords have been changed when they become publicly known, see User:Tim Starling/Password matches. --Michael Snow 17:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Its not the same! Tim Starling's list is about "groups of usernames share the same passwords." means ONE person having multiple alternative user-names. A typical sockpuppet troll. My Faethon case is about ONE account, owned by many persons. You cannot tell for sure whether there is consensus on that or not, but let me give you a similar to my case example, taken from real life: Suppose you have left 10000 dollars in the middle of the road. Someone is going to steal them, but this does not mean that there is a consensus on stealing. The same happens in my case, I published my password, and it is very possible someone is going to revert it, but this does not mean that there is a consensus on stealing publicaly known passwords.


 * Let me remind you that in real life there is a consensus NOT to steal the 10000 dollars you have found in the middle of the road, and the one who steals those dollars should be punished, if caught. And here in wikipedia, there is a consensus NOT to turn blank or vandalise an article's page, just because you can do it, and the vandal should be punished, if caught. I believe that guest accounts having a well known password have a similar spirit. They are very usefull, primarily because they obliterate wikipedians' inflated ego, especially the whimsical-type wikipedians which think themselves as beeing professional writers and wait their work to be recognized one day. Thats why I believe there is consensus among healthy wikipedians to protect guest accounts and maybe punish any whimsical wikipedian writer who may change the guest account's password because of hate or any other pathological reason.


 * IMHPO (in my humble public opinion) if we really want to know whether there is a consensus or not for accounts owned by more than one real persons, we have to put a vote for it. In any case, it is the community (or Jimbo himself) that has to legislate (or not legislate) about public accounts case (known also as guest accounts in other communities), and NOT the ArbCom! Aedesius 08:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(see note)
 * "And here in wikipedia, there is a consensus NOT to turn blank or vandalise an article's page, just because you can do it, and the vandal should be punished, if caught. I believe that guest accounts having a well known password have a similar spirit" - this sounds rather like sophistry to me. One potential drawback of the 'public account' scheme as proposed is that such an arrangement makes it easier for vandals to get away scot-free, because they aren't uniquely identifiable. As for the stuff about "whimsical-type wikipedians which think themselves as beeing professional writers and wait their work to be recognized one day", and the statement that "healthy wikipedians" agree with you, that's a horrible position to take, not least because you are accusing me of being unhealthy. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I said that a whimsical-type wikipedian writer thinking himself as beeing a professional writer has an inflated ego, but I didnt say that he is considered as unhealthy! I characterized as unhealthy the persons who chase public accounts and revert their passwords and quotes without those accounts to commit any type of vandalism or illegal action and whithout of course beeing any kind of real danger for wikipedia (for obvious reasons). Its like puting in jail someone, just because you think he/she may commit a crime, before the crime is commited! This is unhealthy and the persons thinking like that have (IMHPO) a mental disorder, similar to Tinfoil hat persons. Unhealthy persons have also another tendency, they always tend to group eachother and form a mob, then they start to oppress and ban healthy persons, in order to form their unhealthy initialized loose majority. Aeimnestus 07:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The "logic" that Iasson uses (yes, it's you, you're really not fooling anyone) doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry, since it's completely incoherent. And as for the statement that "healthy wikipedians" agree with you, well, since no one publically (and probably no one anywhere) agrees with AT ALL, then either the group "healthy wikipedians" has a membership of one, or the so-called consensus is purely the product of your imagination. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I am also suspecting that Iasson uses sometimes my public account to advertise his stupid peculiar voting system, but I can assure you that I am not Iasson (although I may agree with him in some issues). There are plenty of forums around internet that have guest accounts. The fact that the unhealthy initialized loose majority of contemporary wikipedians bans consistently everyone who thinks that guest accounts are cool, this does not mean that there is noone who believes that. Aeimnestus 10:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * God, this is pathetic. Iasson, you are fooling no one. Nobody believes your crackpot voting theories, your transparent rationalizations for "public accounts", and most especially not your pathetic parade of badly disguised sockpuppets. No one. If this continues, people will become annoyed enough to institute disciplinary proceedings and give you the boot, and all your bluster and logic-chopping will not do you one teeny bit of good. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. --Calton | Talk 13:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I repeat, I am not Iasson, I am Faethon. I have not sockpupets but a single (guest) account with a public password. You and your unhealthy friends are the ones who have stolen my previous guest accounts, and you are now the owners of at least 50 sockpuppets. And of course you are using them to vandalize wikipedia in order to accuse me. But I am not responsible for your vandalisms! I am only responsible for my single public account, and I am commited to revert any vandalisms done through this single public account I own, and not through the rest ones. You are a pathetic clan! I just said that you are an initialized loose tyranic majority, that bans consistenlty everyone who believes that public accounts are cool, then you have the audacity to claim that there is noone who believes that! And now, predictably, you are planning to give me the boot, to prove to everybody who exactly you are. Aelianus Tacticus 08:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I repeat, I am not Iasson, I am Faethon. I have not sockpupets but a single (guest) account with a public password. Iasson, old son, it's not just that you're a liar, but such a completely incompetent one that I find most amusing. Nobody "stole" your so-called public accounts -- you gave them away -- and vandals aren't taking the "public accounts" for joyrides: they've all been towed to the Wikipedia Impound Lot and aren't going anywhere. Looks like your Project Plausible Deniability is a failure, just like your Average rule and Quadratic rule nonsense. --Calton | Talk 21:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(see note)
 * Calton, I think you misunderstand my motivation. Its NOT Plausible Deniability. I am responsible for whatever it is said through my public account. My responsibility is of the sort of the responsibility Jimbo Wales has for whatever it is said to his wikipedia site (although in a much much more smaller scale). I am not going to accept any kind of vandalism action that may happens through my single public account, and I am commited to check it regularly and revert anything illegal or against rough consensus policy. And of course, although I may deny that I said something as a person, I am not denying the responsibility I have for whatever it is said through my public account.
 * By the way, as long as I am not always online, I am searching for responsible persons to take care of my Faethon account and revert as fast as possible any vandalism that may happens when I am absent, and create as fast as possible the next Faethon account in case the Faethon password is robbed. If you know such a person willing to protect my single guest account from the vandals, please tell me, in order to nominate him as a Faethon administrator. Also I am planning to create a Faethon policy that will determine Faethon's behavior and limits. Any wikipedia editor that is not a sockpuppet is welcome to vote for it, so you are also welcome. Aelius Aristides 07:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Go away, Iasson. Fast, slow, in a huff, protesting your innocence, chopping logic in your fractured English -- however you want to do it, just go. --Calton | Talk 23:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the point about Tim Starling's list. The point is that for one of those groups of accounts, the password was discovered, therefore it was changed. Attempts to have "role accounts" or "public accounts" have consistently been rejected for at least the past two years. This, and the opinions of everyone besides Iasson/Faethon who has commented on the matter, demonstrates a community consensus that logged-in editors must accept some responsibility for maintaining the security of their accounts. Changing compromised passwords is a routine precaution, not rooted in any hate or pathology. --Michael Snow 06:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Garoon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.116.8 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * After six levels of indentation, let alone twelve, the lines get pretty short and hard to read, especially on a mobile device. So I have applied Template:Outdent, without changing any content.--Thnidu (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Effaced
Effaced is not the correct term for what happened in Afghanistan because they didn't fully destroy the statues. The picture that you have now changed twice shows two statues that continue to exist. The definition, taken from ol' dictionary.com, is this.


 * 1) To rub or wipe out; erase.
 * 2) To make indistinct as if by rubbing.
 * 3) To conduct (oneself) inconspicuously.

The statues still stand, thus not "wiped" or "rubbed" out, they are not indistinct, they were an attack specifically on religious statues to warn others that various religions would not be tolerated, making them incredibly distinct, and they were hardly inconspicuous. Therefore, defaced is the proper word to use for this picture.--The Grza 11:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to be referring to the Buddhas of Bamyan &mdash; I edited the caption of Image:Abou Simbel.jpg on the Vandalism page (see also: Abu Simbel). And I only edited it once; the change by an anon to 'defaced' was only made yesterday. If you are referring to Image:Abou Simbel.jpg, please note that the middle statue has been completely destroyed from the waist up and is the one the caption is referring to. &mdash; Davenbelle 12:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

The point stands; They were smashed up to be a warning, a vandalism tactic, to other groups. Blowing up the middle statue from the waist up does not constitute "erasing", or "conducting oneself inconspicuously" and have been defaced, not effaced.--The Grza 20:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

EDIT WAR FTW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.103.174 (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrectly?
"The term refers to the Germanic Vandals, who since the 17th century were incorrectly thought to have ruthlessly sacked the city of Rome in 455."

So the Vandals did NOT sack Rome in 455? Because their article seems to indicate otherwise, as does the main page...


 * That claim seems to have been added in a more detailed form in this edit, but the explanation has been lost in subsequent copyediting. This page backs up the claim that they didn't actually sack the city, they just took everything of value (big difference). I guess both pages need some editing, and references. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 12:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abu Simbel
Vandalism? Ritual defacement? Earthquake, wasn't it? –Hajor 29 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Grza
Hi- If you revert a legitimate edit, you need to give some sort of rationale. (You blanked my sentence on the toilet papering of yards). Maybe you are correct and the sentence doesn't belong there, but that's not the point. When you just blank stuff out, with out giving any sort of reason, it just makes your Wikipedia collaborators angry. ike9898 June 29, 2005 17:45 (UTC)

First, toilet papering houses is a public nuisance not vandalism. It isn't destruction of property, as the sentence before your addition describes vandalism, and makes no sense in the context it was added. Please read the article before you make additions so you can be sure your edits are worthwhile.--The Grza July 1, 2005 00:55 (UTC)

Etymology of the word
The intro explains modern-day vandalism came from someone saying vandalisme is the 1700s, but it doesn't explain where that usage came from. The origin of the word is actually from the tribe known as the Vandals. The man calling it vandalisme in the 1700s was making a reference to how the Vandal invaders would pillage and destroy during their conquests. This needs to be in the article. --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

too philosophical too early
In my opinion, this article gets into the philosophic notions of vandism before covering enough introductory material. I won't try to change this myself, because I've noticed some of you are treating this article like you own it. So, I will just encourage you to work on this aspect - I think it could be are real improvement. ike9898 12:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

i agree with you....vandalism sux....check out jj thoson page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.61.18 (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Silly self-ref
The self-ref at the top of the article should go in my opinion. We could mention wiki vandalism in the article at some point (perhaps we already do) but I don't think we should go further than that. We have enough test templates slapped around to make a link here entirely redundant. Lupin|talk|popups 14:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - it is pretty silly. People who find vandalism will likely click "Help" or "Contact us", and I doubt this page has ever helped. --unforgettableid | talk to me 23:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

the TRUTH about OBEY & Shepard Fairey
People, please. Shepard Fairey is NOT a graffiti artist. He is a sticker bomber & wheatpaster. He has NEVER used spray paint as the main medium of his so-called phenomenology acts. Stop adding him to the WIKIPEDIA LIST of GRAFFITI artists. It is an insult to anyone on that list who has ever risked their life or freedom in the name of GRAFFITI. "Wildstyles", anyone ? Instead of continuously overlooking the facts, one of you should research the company FUCT™ & its creator Erik Brunetti. If anyone on this website wants to uncover the "truth", it will be well worth your time. I would even say that it would be a great contribution to the world of information. For starters, you can log on to this website: []. Good luck.

-Brighton58Brighton58 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Local Vandalism
I don't know if there will ever be a place for these in the main article, but here are some article from my local newspaper about vandalism. These are examples of the impact of vandalism, including cost to taxpayers.

PrometheusX303 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sign of the Times
 * Sign vandals cost county $90,000
 * Battlefield vandals prove racial hatred still exists in Walker
 * Tombstone vandals strike
 * Reward offered for arrest of vandals
 * Vandals strike Rossville cemetery
 * Hate symbols, profanity mar battlefield monuments
 * Veteran's Day vandals strike Chickamauga Battlefield

Pornographic vandalism
I've removed the section on pornographic vandalism. It appears that none of the examples cited are clear cases of intentional vandalism, and I've never seen the term "Pornographic vandalism" used to describe this dubious 'phenomenon'. Z iggurat 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting this article to be protected from unregistered users
I am requesting a block on this article beacause I look at all the edits of this article, and people keep vandalising this article very frequently.--67.34.217.188 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti vs. Vandalism
This article blurrs the line between Graffiti and Vandalism in a lot of places. The article fails to give a good definition of what Graffiti really is.
 * try here Graffiti :) (Cloud02 20:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Saddam Hussein statue
I removed phrase " and the staged and well-known toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue by the multinational force in Iraq" as the section refers to jubilant crowds throwing off the chains of their oppressors. This was a U.S. tank pulling down a statue with a couple of Iraqis on the tank and two dozen in view of the cameras. BCorr | Брайен 20:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I approve this removal. If we kept this, we might as well add the Berlin Wall! - Kookykman| (t) e 11:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought
There's a quote saying: "Like other similar terms (Barbarian/barbary, and Philistine), the term Vandal was originally an ethnic slur referring to the Vandals, who sacked Rome in 455, but unlike the Berbers, the Vandals, like the Philistines, no longer exist as an identifiable ethnic group." in this article, and it seems to tell that the word Barbarian/barbary came from the Berbers nation? Doesn't "Barbar" means "foreign" in ancient greek or something?

Yep. See Barbarian under 'origin of the term'. Someone change it? Wilston 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to vandalize a talk page?
I mean I don't want to run fowl of vandalism things and be banned. That would be horrible. 216.67.5.44 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you blank a talk page? Maybe edit what people have said (look up User:White Cat) Kausill 03:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess, I haven't seen a vandalised article before but I have found a few Wikipedians thanking others for repairing vandalism in some articles.Atomic45 00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose we lock the vandalism discussion page and instead open a discussion page for edits to the vandalism discussion page. After a few levels of recursion, potential vandals will likely tire of the endeavor and move onto more productive activities like credit fraud. Scotteemac (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Spelling ERROR
Under the headline "Vandalism as Crime", 'wilfully' is misspelled through the whole article. It's supposed to be willfully. Other misspelled words are:


 * 1) 'behavoir' (behavior),
 * 2) 'endeavour, to be graffitied' (endeavor, to be graffitied),

(seeming as I can't edit the article I decided to let you know here.)

--NitemareDragon 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, endeavour is not misspelt. American "English" is not the be-all and end-all, you know. Asshat. (this unsigned comment was made by 194.176.105.40 on 15 March 2007)


 * Sign your posts, and don't make personal attacks. That's just courtesy.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Counting
How many times has this page been vandalized? :) — 82.208.10.16 12:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno.Atomic45 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

vandalised
there are bad words used in the sandbox


 * There often are. As the Sandbox page is used for testing, nobody really pays any attention to what is on it, and it's pretty much the only page in Wikipedia where vandalism isn't fixed, since there's no point. As a result, there may well be objectionable content of some description there from time to time. Feel free to edit the page and erase it yourself, or just don't view it – Qxz 12:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

lkoiuytrertyuiop[poiuytret — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.177.116 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent example
During the Iraq war, "the courtyard of the 10th-century caravanserai of Khan al-Raba was used by the Americans for exploding captured insurgent weapons. One blast demolished the ancient roofs and felled many of the walls. The place is now a ruin". --Ghirla-трёп- 07:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How the hell is that an example of vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Noticed a possible vandalism
The description of the vandalised bust contains the word supposedly which IMHO has a touch of ironic negativity that seems POV to me:

"A bust of Germanicus Caesar, vandalized (supposedly) by Christians."

I think it should be changed to:

"A bust of Germanicus Caesar, rummored to have been vandalized by Christians."

which seems more neutral to me

Im gonna do it when im 4 days old

ThereAreNoFreeUsernames 13:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The note with the photo of the bust says it is "rumored" to have been vandalized by Christians. I don't think unattributed rumors constitute reliable sources even by Wikipedia standards.  If a Wikipedia article reported that some crime was rumored to have been committed "by Jews," it would be promptly (and properly) reverted as inappropriate.  If that allegation of "rumored to have been" was strengthened to "supposedly," still being supported only by unattributed rumors, it would be considered even more outrageous.  Perhaps the reason for the rumor is the cross chiseled on Germanicus' forehead, but that seems an inadequate justification for the attribution.  If it were defaced with a Star of David, that surely would not justify blaming the crime on "Jews."  Neither does defacing a statute with a Cross justify blaming the crime on "Christians."  If the culprits were known, they could be named, but since they are not the caption should be simply, "A vandalized bust of Germanicus Ceasar." NCdave 11:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should add here this vandalization on Michelangelo´s statue of Madonna in Rome. I think its important --Lycantrophe 09:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NCdave. The title should simply be "A vandalized bust of Germanicus Ceasar. This, supposedly by christrians thing should be removed as for it seems inapropraiate and offencive to cristians like myself. --Royalmate1 (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The caption now reads "probably vandalized by people of Christian faith." Is there any good reason for using the clunky "people of Christian faith" rather than just "Christians?" 192.5.109.49 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Zsero (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

is it vandalism?
User David Eppstein deleted a link and wrote that big article printed in well-known scientific journal by Springer is "non-notable paper" - is it vandalism? See: Talk:Graph isomorphism--Tim32 (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not only mistaken about what vandalism constitutes, but in the wrong place. As it clearly states at the top of this talk page, this is for discussion of the content of the Wikipedia article on vandalism. The pages you should be looking at are Vandalism and Wikipedia talk:Vandalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correction, I did mistake, however it is not a wrong place, because conservatism in science is vandalism as well.--Tim32 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Conservatism, whether in science or elsewhere, is a point of view, not vandalism. Bwrs (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be included into Category:Art
Per the existence of its second section. As there are equally prominent sections on 'Vandalism as Crime' and 'Vandalism as Art', it warrants being in both Category:Crime and Category:Art. All Art vandalises Nature, and that also is why vandalism is Naturally Art.ClassGroup2 (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of Germanicus Caesar.
The text beneath it says "probably vandalized...". Wikipedia isn't in the business of original research and unsourced statements. While the cross does make the case, the fact is its coming from wikipedia and not a credible source. For all we know, someone could have photoshopped that image. So I've added the " " tag to it. Hopefully someone can find a source for it or its going in the trash. Preferably the original person who edited it in, because he/she would most likely know the webpage/museum it was taken from, IF it was taken from one. Paladin Hammer (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's as plain as the nose that isn't on the face. "Probably" is there because there are no witnesses to the deed.  That doesn't make it OR.  Lots of articles on history contain statements that are only probable, because we can never know for sure.  Same with scientific articles, especially on things like evolution, geology, etc.  As for your claim that someone could have photoshopped the image, AGF requires us to assume otherwise.  As for the origin of the photo, why don't you look at it, that information is right there; it didn't come from any web site.  -- Zsero (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Its says it was found in a "British Museum", which "British Museum"? Also, for all we know the artist could have done that to the bust! It wouldn't be the first time an artist defaced his own work and then sold it. This also is not a history article, and even then wikipedia doesn't allow us to use original research on the main article page. I'm looking for that museum (hopefully it will have a gallery online), so far I've ruled out http://www.britishmuseum.org/, couldn't find a gallery with it there. I think http://www.bl.uk/ is out too, I haven't found anything in almost two hours. It's also notable that this is in the "Vandalism as Art" section. I fail to see how this classifies. It seems more like a bunch of angry Christians defacing a statue than art (they snubbed out the nose). If they had left the nose and just added the cross, then yeah, I guess I could see it being iconoclasm. But total defacement? Seems like its failing more than two areas here. Just help me out, how hard can t be to find a source in this day and age?Paladin Hammer (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Something I've found kind of funny, currently it says it was "probably vandalized by christians", where as in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&diff=164740988&oldid=164740857, it says it was "supposedly". Seems no one is really sure if this was an original art-work or vandalism. Paladin Hammer (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say it was taken at a British Museum, it says it was taken at The British Museum. Yes, that would be http://www.britishmuseum.org.  I don't know what you think you've proven by not finding it on the web site. The uploader says he took the photo himself, so there's no reason to expect to find it there.  Surely you don't imagine the museum's entire holdings are on its web site!  As for "supposedly", I suppose we can ask the uploader exactly what he meant, but I suppose it simply means that that's what the plaque at the museum said was supposed to have happened.  Nobody can say with absolute certainty; perhaps the nose just broke off by accident, and the cross was added by someone tripping while holding a phillips-head chisel!  -- Zsero (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely ignoring me trying to find a source for the image. And ignoring that I'm not trying to take it down, I'm trying to improve it. Look, notice that the cross is carefully placed in the center of the forehead, yes? Now, form that, we've gathered that whoever put it there wanted to have a cross, obviously. The cross is well-inlaid, clearly the work of someone taking care not to ruin the entire head. However, the nose just seems to be ripped off the face. Why would the same artist who took such care to add the cross then just smear off the nose, and defacing his own art (vandalism)? All I'm trying to do is improve the thing. Your just being an ass. Paladin Hammer (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've found what I was looking for thanks to the original uploader. Here's the site: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/b/basalt_bust_of_germanicus.aspx (looking at it, I wonder how the heck I missed it? Must have mis-spelled Germanicus or something). Anyway, now I just have to figure out where to put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladin Hammer (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, you're the one who can't seem to read simple English. The image page said the uploader had taken the photo at the British Museum, and you seemed incapable of understanding that, going on about "which museum?", and looking for "a source for the image".  I'm not your research assistant, and I don't have to stand for your insults. -- Zsero (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

is it vandalism?
In which jurisdictions is it considered vandalism to destroy one’s own property in anger? Bwrs (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Standardised definition/or criteria of Vandalism ????
The reason that I raise this question is that very often, my writting on this site is mopped off by people by who accuses of me as a vandalism. If there is a standardized def/or criteria, this kind of accusation could be avoided.--222.67.216.10 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

POV
At the moment this seems like a Today Tonight article. It describes vandalism as EVIL! Kausill (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Online vandalism
IMO online vandalism should be covered either here or in its' own article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it bad when some one vandalises the the page on vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.103.174 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is a encyclopedia article, and vandalizing it because it's about vandalism is no more defensible than replacing the whole French language page with a translation of it into French because it's about French.--Thnidu (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

one more example of vandalism
Defecating in public and smearing poop all over public property —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.89.131 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pouring concrete into any commode with a tank and then clogging the drain with a tennis ball. Scotteemac (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012
I want to add an extra word between the two words includes and criminal damage the word unlawful.

Use of "commons"
If it's my opinion, I do not like how the article uses "commons." I think "community" would be better. But for all I know, the use of that word is simply cultural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

2.216.191.10 (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2013
I would like to add the picture "20101229 Gates of the nations Persepolis Iran.jpg" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis, as an example of vandalism motivated by religion. In the picture, human faces of Persepolis engravings are disfigured by Muslim forces occupying Iran in AD 670 and their followers. The same is still practiced in Iran.

Echopapa echoromeo (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * - Disfigured? No, I don't see that. There either wasn't any vandalism or it is not obvious. Arctic   Kangaroo  14:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am new here
so am not going to leap right in and do things right away. I came here because I recently visited a vandalized art site in the USA and wanted to see if this article was a place for some pictures (maybe) and perhaps write a few things and I have been sidetracked by a discussion here years ago about this article including vandalism on wikipedia. I think that this is an appropriate topic to include, particularly if we look at internet vandalism in general. It is obvious to me ("obvious" being one of the 27 words and phrases that mean "in my opinion") that such entries begin with a good reference or two and since this idea just struck me 12 minutes ago I am not very far into it, but also important is, what do the folks who have been shepherding this article for the last decade feel about this? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2014
How do I revert vandalism?

Joydebbei (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See Counter-Vandalism Unit.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Cybervandalism
Please expand my new added section "cybervandalism". Yes, there is such thing. There was some news here. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Village Dump
Where is the Wikipedia:Village dump (technical) as you said? Link? Ask the technical experts? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015
On number seven to capitalize owners as it is the first word in a sentence

73.25.11.213 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  00:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition
Could the definition be modified to use the word "intentional" instead of 'ruthless"? The use of the word "ruthless" in the definition seems to not indicate there are levels of vandalism from minor(graffitti put on a sign) to major (the "ruthless" Vandals damage Ancient Rome). The examples later in the article indicate levels of Vandalism minor to major.  Sources: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vandalism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vandalism http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vandalism Jcardazzi (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

How come the Vandals get the only barbarian reference to inappropriate artwork?
Whatever happened to visigothism, ostrogothism, gothism, hunnism, avarism, frankism, saxonism, jutism, and angleism? 69.142.223.83 (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you know that certain editors only vandalize Wikipedia but don't visigothize Wikipedia? 69.142.223.83 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Racism
There should be a mention that this term is racist towards Germanic people and should not be used in common speech. Similar to the archaic and racist "barbarian". I do not know why wikipedia uses this insensitive term so much! 119.92.93.84 (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, you make an interesting point. But I'm afraid that the word 'vandal' has become a too common word in the English (and similar words in other languages) to stop using it now. Using a different, less common, term may be confusing. Reliable dictionaries define the term, and reliable sources use it. Wikipedia is just following them. Gap9551 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's about time, now we are in the 21st century, that this racist term was eradicated. The Vandal people dispersed into the general population of Europeans after the Roman Empire conquered the Vandal nation. Every white European has potential Vandal DNA. Very simple to use the terms 'damage' or 'criminal damage' etc. When I was a child it was very very common to hear a certain word used to describe black people, no-one said it's in such regular use that we shouldn't do anything about it.

(Also issue with 'Neanderthal' as an insult) Middle More Rider (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016
All requests involve the "Cybervandalism" section of this article.

Please edit the sentence "Cybervandalism is vandalism in the internet" to "Cybervandalism is vandalism on the internet", because it is grammatically incorrect.

Additionally, I would suggest editing "For example, vandalism on Wikipedia is editing for harming an article by adding, removing or changing information to make Wikipedia seem "unreliable".", to "For example, vandalism on Wikipedia involves adding questionable content, removing content, or changing content in order to make it questionable, generally with the objective of harming Wikipedia's reputation."

Thank you.

MrSherlockHolmes123 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging defacement
The Defacement (vandalism) article says in the title and in the first sentence that defacement is a type of vandalism. Spinning out sections into their own articles is fine when there is sufficient information to justify it but that does not appear to be the case here. After a short list of uncited examples, all of the prose (with poor grammar) appears to describe art that was mistaken for vandalism. Along with the graffiti page, I am proposing a merge. Connor Behan (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge to Vandalism; I don't think that we also need to move material to graffiti as the relevant material fits well in Vandalism section. Klbrain (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017
Please change 'marijuana' to 'cannabis' in this part of the article under WP:COMMONNAME. 31.53.237.179 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017
I would like to expand the cyber vandalism section by giving more examples, and where to report it. 24.209.198.81 (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  01:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018
in the first definition, add "an" to the very beginning. Gpiepkorn (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The linked source doesn't include "an" in the definition, so I placed the word outside the quotation marks. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019
103.99.43.12 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC) vanadalism has two sides'intentional vandalism and unintentional vandalism'
 * 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 01:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019
it says it needs to be sited Trentl504 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"Spamdalism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Spamdalism. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Ongoing vandalism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ongoing vandalism. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Simple vandalism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Simple vandalism. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Wine vandalism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wine vandalism. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Exclude incidental damage/destruction from definition?
"Vandalism is the action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property." -- Breaking a window to rob a house is also deliberate damage to private property, and is a criminal act for sure, but I wouldn't call it vandalism. I think the definition needs to be reworded to exclude such "incidental damage"; part of the definition of vandalism should be that it is destruction that is committed without immediately obvious beneficial effects on the one who does it. However, I'm not sure how to word it and also I'm not allowed to edit the article as it is protected (to prevent vandalism I assume :-) So if you agree, please change this. Thanks! -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023
hola can i edit please please i will make better dgjdfgkjhdfskj Froggyy68 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You can edit this and other semi-protected pages when your account is at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Definition too broad
Vandalism is the action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.[1] 

Public and private property is deliberately destroyed and/or damaged all the time in acts that are authorized by the owner(s) of the the property - ie. a sanctioned destruction of a building (demolition) or the authorized cutting of a lock when the key is lost.

I would suggest this definition --

''Vandalism is the action involving unauthorized destruction of or damage to public or private property. '' 57.135.233.22 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Destruction of Images
— Assignment last updated by JackFisher3503 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The second image of vandalizing on a tree is in the See also, but not in the lead to conform Wikipedia's guidelines
Explained in title. Share your opinion here below. All comments are welcome! 2001:EE0:4BCA:90E0:DC97:2FF6:583C:A2A0 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No idea what you are trying to say, but the image should not be in that section so I have removed it. Meters (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)