Talk:Mail art

message: Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates have reverted the Wikipedia Mail Art page to the version as of 7 June 2012 to remove the additions and erasures made by George Kasey posting as Heartcalm22.
We have both practised Mail Art for over 30 years and have never seen George Kasey's work in any mail art show or project.
Although the Mail Art Wikipedia page mentions Ray Johnson and inspirational Fluxus artists, the article steers clear of mentioning any mailartists since the rise of the movement for fear of appearing biased. We decided not to include any list of famous or notable mailartists, not only for reasons of impartiality but also so as not to suggest that there might be central characters or 'stars' in mail art. The naming of George Kasey is therefore totally incongruous to the spirit of the page, even if he were a well-known figure within the movement.
George Kasey removed the entire Bibliography section featuring works that have been meticulously chosen and added to over the last two years. He also removed almost all of the External Links that have again been carefully chosen for their relevance to the subject. Furthermore, he added self-promotional References that link to his own web sites. 
Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates
Keithbates51 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions and deletions by George Kasey (Heartcalm22), 30 & 31 July 2012 

message: Hello,
The images I have uploaded to Wiki to accompany the new MAIL ART entry are pieces of Mail Art which have been given freely and intended for exhibition in myriad locations including display online. It is the nature of Mail Art. Works are sent as a gift, and implicit in that is the permission (indeed, the expectation) for the receiver to exhibit the work 'in the flesh' and/or display it on websites and blogs. All of the pieces I have uploaded are from the archives of myself (a mailartist for 30 years) or Mail Art historian, Vittore Baroni, all of the works have been gifted with the intention to have them shown.
I am nevertheless contacting again the artists whose works I have uploaded, asking them to submit their permissions directly to you. I understand you have received several of these already.
Where this becomes a problem is when artists have died and have no heirs to contact. This is the case with Norman Solomon who died in 2000. His piece – a xerox mail art piece on the reverse of a personal letter to myself (quite visible on the scan), was his gift to me in 1996 for a mail art show and I hope you will accept permission for use from myself, the person to whom the gift was made. There is no-one else to authorize Wiki use.
Keith Bates Keithbates51 (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission for Illustrations 

message: Might state old maybe-joke saying that the first mail-art was when Cleopatra had herself delivered in a rolled-up carpet.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:31 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The Cleopatra thing is a light-hearted intro, but Mail Art began in the 1960s, what relevance has all the 19th century references? The article should really begin with Ray Johnson, or possibly Futurist experiments with mailing art. Keithbates51 (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleopatra 

message: First paragraphs are inaccurate as they are confused between first-day covers with cachets and postal stationary.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:28, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraphs 

message: It would seem to me that Wired magazine's "Return to Sender" section would be an expression of mail art.  Someone might want to work that in, or maybe it goes better somewhere else.   —User:Mulad (talk) 02:41, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
: Uhh.. no, I'm not sure what you're talking about here, "Return to Sender" is common terminology in the postal industry unrelated to Mail Art, for all I know, the section in Wired has probably less to do with Mail Art and more to do with answering fanmail, possibly?--Mofomojo 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wired Return to Sender 

message: There are a sudden abundance of mentions of CMA and comparisons with ATCs, but nowhere does it was what CMA actually stands for - any ideas? MA are obviously Mail Art, but the C could stand for just about anything - collective? collectable? card?
Oops, and that was written by me, sheridan 15:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've been participating in Mail Art for 30 years and I've never heard the term CMA before reading this unrepresentative, inaccurate and far too narrow article.
Keith Bates, 3 August 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.103.177 (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMA acronym 

message: The sixth paragraph states: "As an art form the early genre produced low- and high-minded works ranging from the comic and satirical through commercial and industrial advertising to the promotion of social causes such as free trade, world peace and brotherhood, and the abolition of slavery."  "Free" trade doesn't seem typically stated as part of the same agenda as world peace and brotherhood, etc.  Might this mean "fair trade"?   68.35.112.165 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FREE trade? 

message: I just cut the list of artists in half, removing the red links.  Sorry if this steps on your toes, but it was seriously getting out of control.  In my opinion -- if you want on the page, get an article and make it stick.  The list of links deserves a serious pruning as well, I'll support anyone willing to dive in.  See WP:EL.  All the best -- send stickers! ∴ here…♠ 22:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning links and artists 

message: As one of the mailartists in Los Angeles in the early 1980s, I find it strange that the actual process of mailart (sending postcards and other objects through the US Postal Service as performance art) gets two sentences, while the rise of personal computers, the internet and using a printer to produce envelopes gets four or five paragraphs.
Also, the computer tangent comes prior to the two relevant sentences.  The overall impression of the article is that mailart is primarily a phenomenon of the digital age, when this is emphatically not the case.  The entire history of the movement from the 50s through the 80s is essentially ignored.  I am not qualified to write the history myself as I have not been active in twenty-five years, but do feel that the omission is important and should be noted.  Perhaps some of the old-school mailartists could contribute their expertise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.177.163.235 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs serious reworking overall, for the reasons you point out and more. Freshacconci 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd tangent 

message: Should mail-interviews be merged into mail art ? --DavidCary (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge proposes that Mail-interviews be merged into this article Mail art.  It absolutely should!  Both Envelope collective and Mail-interviews appear to be directly related to Mail art.  Mail-interviews appears to be a specific work, or collection of works, within the field.  If it is unrelated, why would that article begin: ...the body of which are now recognized as an influential contribution in the field of mail art.  Mail-interviews does not appear to warrent its own article without further development.  Unless expanded, the options are deletion or merging, likely into Mail art.  ∴ here…♠ 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comments Ruud, please do jump in and help improve the article!  ∴ here…♠ 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: Would a round-robin collaboration involving armour designs be chain-mail art? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Punning

message: The specific references to 'hairmail' and 'astroturf' have no place in a general account of the media and techniques used by mailartists. These materials/actions were certainly not common or well-known amongst networkers. 
The External Links section includes only carefully chosen sites that will add to the understanding of the subject, it's been a useful additional resource for two years, please don't delete it.
Keithbates51 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to serve as a directory of external links, and such links must comply with out guidelines. Please don't restore these links. - MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of References to 'Hairmail' and Astroturf + important External Links 

message: Can anyone help to remove an inappropriate sentence about marketing Hairmail and Astroturf postcards? It's at Line 50 of the article, was apparently added by Nagle in October 2012. Neither Vittore Baroni nor myself, the original authors of the article, (nor any other mailartists we've mentioned this too) know of these postcards, and the 'Range of Activities' section doesn't detail specific artworks, it's a general overview of the most common art forms used in Mail art. The sentence states that these postcards were 'marketed', but this would transgress one of Mail Art's oldest tenets, that 'Money and Mail-art don't mix' (Lon Spiegelman c.1980). Also, the associated Reference (9) is unavailable and cannot be verified without a paid Washington Post subscription. I've tried removing this incongruous sentence, but having already crossed a few Wiki moderators regarding their removal of all the External Links, my alterations just get undone. Can anyone help delete this inaccurate sentence?
Keithbates51 (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking for citations, here's one of interest. "ARTISTS’ STAMPS’  by E. F. Higgins III,  PRINT COLLECTORS NEWSLETTER, NOV.-DEC. 1979". This traces mail art back to 1957, mentions Andy Warhol's "Bomb Hanoi" stamp, and lists many people active in the field in the 1960s. Wikipedia covers some of that under Artistamp, which refers to that field as a branch of mail art. --John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to 'Hairmail' and Astroturf 

message: The article requires editing to address and remove personal points of view that lack neutrality and introduce a bias to the article about the subject. This bias includes areas where the article speaks about popularity, exclusivity, and proliferation that are not supported by reliable and independent sources. The article additionally uses terminology the community refers to as peacock terms. These are words that often equate to original research and generally lack attribution, in order to promote the subject. In essence, like a peacock, the words tend to "puff up" or inflate the viewpoint or image of the subject, while failing to provide verifiable and neutral information. Rather than claiming importance or popularity of the subject, it is vital to use facts, supported by reliable and independent sources which demonstrate that importance. Article also uses weasel words, which merely serve to disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. I have placed inline maintenance tags to identify puffery, lack of neutrality, weasel words, original research, editorializing, and citations needed. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style pertaining to words to avoid in articles, along with various examples for further guidance. The seemingly overwhelming number of inline tags are provided in order to present a thorough reflection of the level of work that is necessary to bring this article into compliance with the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Please feel free to contact me if you need help or have questions. I am more than willing to take a more direct approach and help in any way. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 18:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could've just added the top section? The article is terribly unsightly with every single inline tag added after every sentence. A total rewrite would be best, rather than struggling to fix the problems inherent in every uncited sentence. 8ty3hree (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to this article hoping for a neutral, encyclopedic overview of mail art that I could share with some colleagues, but I was disappointed at what I found.  I would like to help improve the article by providing authoritative citations and addressing the issues outlined by User:Cindamuse.  I can't say that it will happen quickly, but I am willing to start chipping away at it.  Obviously people care about this article and have strong feelings about what it should or shouldn't be, which makes me a little hesitant, honestly, to jump into the fray.  I am not a member of the mail art community, but I am active in the GLAMwiki project, so my primary interest is in how library, museum, and archival resources can be used to improve the content and citations of Wikipedia articles.  My plan is not to undertake a total rewrite, but to work slowly and save often, in case people have a problem with any of my edits.  I will also consult  If anyone has feedback or suggestions on my work, please feel free to contact me here or on my user talk page. Sarasays (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and POV 

message: A new editor added an uncited list of "well-known mail artists".  We need a citation to a reliable source for these people. We have cites for a few of them, but each must demonstrate notability to be listed in the article.--John Nagle (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. That's more about artist's stamps, which are covered in the article Artistamp.  Take a look at that article.  Many of those names are already over there, with proper citations. New names of stamp designers belong over there. You have to find a citation to a WP:RS reliable source for each person you add. Wikipedia is rather strict about adding names to articles, because many people try self-promotion.  --John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Well-known Mail Artists" ... 

message: Greetings:
1. For there seeming to be active authors and editors, I see quite a few unanswered requests for citations, undeleted examples of apparent original research, and the unedited use of weasel words. Is this article so unimportant that these issues remain ignored?
2. I am a person who likes to see more of a description in images of artworks, such as date created, size, media, substrate, and location (if known). If readers knew how small some mail art is, I bet that they would be even more impressed by it. I am especially interested in the details of the eraser print of Duchamp.
3. On an artist's site, one who seems to be quite skilled, they used the acronym "LMAO" to refer to their own mail art and further stated that they didn't mean "laughing my --- off" and linked the acronym to this WP article. I do not find it in there, though. What does "LMAO" mean in reference to mail art? L[something] Mail Art O[something]?
4. Has the decline of the use of the postal services in the US and their abandonment of International Reply Coupons effected the grass roots level of this type of art?
Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unaddressed problems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mail art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150526171811/http://www.bpost.be/site/fr/particuliers/timbres-poste/philat%C3%A9lie/timbres/2003/emission-sp%C3%A9ciale-09-du-19-mai to http://www.bpost.be/site/fr/particuliers/timbres-poste/philat%C3%A9lie/timbres/2003/emission-sp%C3%A9ciale-09-du-19-mai
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A new section regarding Polish artist Antoni Halor has been added by . Assuming good faith, it has been removed as challenged content due to the fact that 1) there is no reliable sourcing to back such claims (except what looks like a Polish magazine issue that is impossible to reference) - 2) the language is unnecessary puffery toward the subject - and 3) this article is primarily about the Mail Art movement in America (exclusively to New York). The claim (which is substantial) insinuates that this artist "created" and "superbly developed" mail art without the knowledge of Johnson. The artist also is not notable presently at WP regarding Mail Art. Until then, this content is being challenge and much reach consensus before being added back in. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The good faith was assumed from my perspective regarding your edit; not my rv. If you have reliable sources that back the claims you have stated that would warrant Halor's inclusion in this particular article (more than a magazine that cannot be accessed) please provide them here. If you think Halor deserves inclusion, he should be merged within a certain section (i.e. Dutch mail artist Ruud Janssen - 1990s and the impact of the Internet era) that mentions his specific contributions, movement (area / location / time period), and similar artists to warrant such a section / movement. At this time, I do not feel that the artist merits an entire section all his own without more reliable sources for notable coverage. However, supply sources, and I'll be happy to reinstate the inclusion. Also, translate the Polish WP article lines that mention the subject's contribution to Mail Art and bring them here. It will help a great deal in forming a consensus. The subject does seem to need to be a part of this article; but where and how is the question. I'd like to help. Before, it was undue weight. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In attempting to find reliable sources online, a simple Google search combining Antoni Halor with Mail Art and even the term "Kopertografika" brings nothing up on english or Polish sites. It does not render any hits / matches on the Polish WP site. Are there any other sources to cite? The image that you uploaded  claims - "Own work" under source, and the date for creation is June 1, 2017 (which is the same as the File History upload) - could you explain? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 2011 various institutions have been establishing numberous collections of Antoni Halor around Katowice (film museum in Katowice, etnographic park in Chorzow and especially city museums and libraries in Katowice and Siemianowice) because of his 80th birthday anniversary. I personally have the rights to the photos of some envelopes of this artist. One of them was added to let anyone easily verify the artwork age by the post stamp year (1964). I prepare Antoni Halor's bio at Polish Wikipedia that can be translated to other languages, including the most interesting works of the author. You can check them on Polish Wikipedia and do yourself simple google translation for now, checking more sources. I can add yet another good source where Antoni Halor's mail art ("kopertografika") is mentioned - it's printed book Oneiron. Of course you are welcome to make the entry more objective, less puffery, especially when the heritage of the artist is not available online yet. What do you think about it? By the way, "Dookoła Świata" was really nice magazine, as good as "National Geographic" Jakub70 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Jakub70 This is all much more detailed information then first provided with your initial edited content. Thank you. My goal is to help you re-add the artist in a way that cannot be challenged or contested; and the best way to do that is to present the content with cited reliable sources. That the sources seem to all be in Polish written form at present are not unreliable, but certainly less accessible than an online source. If you could "quote" what these sources say when adding the material, that would help greatly. Use a template for inline referencing that include both the quote for the line and the language: cite book |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |date= |title= |trans-title= |url= |dead-url= |format= |language= |location= |publisher= |isbn= |archive-url= |archive-date= |via= |subscription= |quote=. Second, re: image - the Summary description should have the date the image was "created" not uploaded; and "own work" sounds as though you yourself created (you are the artist) - rather than your possessing the artwork. When you say you "own the rights" - have you actually copywritten another artist's work?! I've never heard of this before. Just the same, both the magazine and book seem a good place to start if you "reference-by-quote" (without copyvio), and please translate any applicable content from Halor's Polish WP page and bring it here. As I said, I could not find any references to "Mail Art" (kopertografika" there. But let's start with the magazine and book. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antoni Halor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mail art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130903031741/http://www.oberlin.edu/library/art/mailart/bios/fricker.html to http://www.oberlin.edu/library/art/mailart/bios/fricker.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824172343/http://doodapost.com/about_stamps.html to http://doodapost.com/about_stamps.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mail art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403130316/http://www.oberlin.edu/library/art/mailart/ to http://www.oberlin.edu/library/art/mailart/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Kartpostallar artık neredeyse hiç kullanılmıyor fakat eskiden en önemli iletişim unsurlarından biriydi. Kartpostallara gereken önem yeterince verilmiyor mu? Sena Akyol (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comments on English Wikipedia must be in English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kartpostalların değerinin ve öneminin yitirilmesi